A New Full Frame Zoom Coming in 2016 [CR2]

[Mikehit]

This is a very interesting lens for me. I am a crop shooter. I have been relatively happy with my longest focal length being 135. That being said It would be nice to have a longer lens around for when it is needed. Here are my thoughts on the current options:
55-250STM - Good: Price and Optics Bad: Lousy build quality, EF-S lens, Shortest option
75-300USM - Good: Longer zoom range, EF lens, price Bad: Lousy optics
75-300L - Good: Longer zoom range, EF lens Bad: Price, Weight
100-400 - Good: Better still zoom range, EF lens, Optics Bad: Price, Weight
Sigma/Tamron 150-600 - Good: Amazing zoom range, EF lens, Acceptable optics Bad: Weight, Size

In my mind the 55-250,75-300USM,75-300L,100-400 all have enough cons that have kept be from pulling the trigger. I do keep eyeing the 150-600 options but they are huge and heavy but 150-600mm how cool is that. While I agree the 150-600 is a very different lens from a 75-300 they both fit my desire to have coverage for the longer focal lengths. A 75-300 priced right might just be the sweet spot for me.

I presume you mean the 70-300 in all your comments above? The 75-300 is the budget end and is a real dog especially at the long end with sub-par IS (and the 75-300L does not exist ).
I would not call the 70-300 USM 'lousy' - in fact for the price it is very good value for money and up to 200mm performs very well. I think the 18-55 and 70-300 USM is a very good two-lens starter pack.

It would be interesting to see how they improve it - a tad better on optics and better continuous AF - there is plenty of space between the current version and the 'L' version so they could improve it a fair bit without impinging on the market of the 'L'.

 

[j-nord]

75-300L - Good: Longer zoom range, EF lens Bad: Price, Weight

Assuming you mean the 70-300L, it's interesting that you think this lens is too heavy but you are considering the 150-600s which are nearly 2x the weight with the Sigma Sport being closer to 3x...

 

[Maximilian]

Hi CapturingLight!

Your post is confusing me a little bit because you seem to be mixing something up here.

Here are my thoughts on the current options:

• EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III
• EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
• EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
• EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
• EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM

These are the lenses available plus the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM you mentioned as well.
I highlighted the differences in names and design.

AFAIK the 75-300 options are somwhere about "wouldn't care 'bout them anyway".
The 70-300 IS USM is the one I believe we're talking about a replacement here and as I said before the third party options here are the better choice - maybe except the AF. So a new version would be very welcome.
The DO is known as soft and overpriced but very compact.
And the L version is surely expensive but offers something in a different league.
And weight... if weight is an issue I suppose you cannot expect a tele zoom with high image and mechanical quality combined with low weight.

So...

A 75-300 priced right might just be the sweet spot for me.

... this now depends on which option you're refering now

 

[CapturingLight]

This is a very interesting lens for me. I am a crop shooter. I have been relatively happy with my longest focal length being 135. That being said It would be nice to have a longer lens around for when it is needed. Here are my thoughts on the current options:
55-250STM - Good: Price and Optics Bad: Lousy build quality, EF-S lens, Shortest option
75-300USM - Good: Longer zoom range, EF lens, price Bad: Lousy optics
75-300L - Good: Longer zoom range, EF lens Bad: Price, Weight
100-400 - Good: Better still zoom range, EF lens, Optics Bad: Price, Weight
Sigma/Tamron 150-600 - Good: Amazing zoom range, EF lens, Acceptable optics Bad: Weight, Size

In my mind the 55-250,75-300USM,75-300L,100-400 all have enough cons that have kept be from pulling the trigger. I do keep eyeing the 150-600 options but they are huge and heavy but 150-600mm how cool is that. While I agree the 150-600 is a very different lens from a 75-300 they both fit my desire to have coverage for the longer focal lengths. A 75-300 priced right might just be the sweet spot for me.

I presume you mean the 70-300 in all your comments above? The 75-300 is the budget end and is a real dog especially at the long end with sub-par IS (and the 75-300L does not exist ).
I would not call the 70-300 USM 'lousy' - in fact for the price it is very good value for money and up to 200mm performs very well. I think the 18-55 and 70-300 USM is a very good two-lens starter pack.

It would be interesting to see how they improve it - a tad better on optics and better continuous AF - there is plenty of space between the current version and the 'L' version so they could improve it a fair bit without impinging on the market of the 'L'.

Yes sorry 70-300USM and 70-300L. As for it being good to 200mm I can already get to 135 I would really like it to be good all the way to 300.

 

[CapturingLight]

75-300L - Good: Longer zoom range, EF lens Bad: Price, Weight

Assuming you mean the 70-300L, it's interesting that you think this lens is too heavy but you are considering the 150-600s which are nearly 2x the weight with the Sigma Sport being closer to 3x...

Sorry 70-300L. As far as weight yes I know it seems contradictory. I guess my best way of explaining my thinking is I am not willing to add the weight to get to 300mm but the lure of 600mm has me trying to justify the size/weight. I would not get the Sigma sport due to the cost weight concerns.

 

[CapturingLight]

Hi CapturingLight!

Your post is confusing me a little bit because you seem to be mixing something up here.

Here are my thoughts on the current options:

• EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III
• EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
• EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
• EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
• EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM

These are the lenses available plus the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM you mentioned as well.
I highlighted the differences in names and design.

AFAIK the 75-300 options are somwhere about "wouldn't care 'bout them anyway".
The 70-300 IS USM is the one I believe we're talking about a replacement here and as I said before the third party options here are the better choice - maybe except the AF. So a new version would be very welcome.
The DO is known as soft and overpriced but very compact.
And the L version is surely expensive but offers something in a different league.
And weight... if weight is an issue I suppose you cannot expect a tele zoom with high image and mechanical quality combined with low weight.

So...

A 75-300 priced right might just be the sweet spot for me.

... this now depends on which option you're refering now

Thanks for the excellent summary, and sorry for the lack of precision/accuracy on my part. It is very out of character for me. I agree the 75-300mm options are not worth looking at. The 70-300 IS USM replacement is the one I find interesting. I get the trade off on weight, I guess the 70-300L goes too far in the robust heavy/big direction for my liking.

 

[j-nord]

Coming out with lenses like a 135/1.8 IS would give Canon huge credits.

Completely tangent to this thread... I recently picked up the 135L and fell in love even though I only use it for portraits of my puppy (and some landscape and flower shots). If it were to get refreshed I'd definitely want to see IS and the 72mm filter size is silly, take it to 77mm with 1.8! (I assume they can fit 1.8 and IS in 77mm)

 

[Maximilian]

Thanks for the excellent summary, and sorry for the lack of precision/accuracy on my part...

You're welcome and no problem. This forum is for all of us to get it sorted up

 

[RickWagoner]

This is a very interesting lens for me. I am a crop shooter. I have been relatively happy with my longest focal length being 135. That being said It would be nice to have a longer lens around for when it is needed. Here are my thoughts on the current options:
55-250STM - Good: Price and Optics Bad: Lousy build quality, EF-S lens, Shortest option
75-300USM - Good: Longer zoom range, EF lens, price Bad: Lousy optics
75-300L - Good: Longer zoom range, EF lens Bad: Price, Weight
100-400 - Good: Better still zoom range, EF lens, Optics Bad: Price, Weight
Sigma/Tamron 150-600 - Good: Amazing zoom range, EF lens, Acceptable optics Bad: Weight, Size

In my mind the 55-250,75-300USM,75-300L,100-400 all have enough cons that have kept be from pulling the trigger. I do keep eyeing the 150-600 options but they are huge and heavy but 150-600mm how cool is that. While I agree the 150-600 is a very different lens from a 75-300 they both fit my desire to have coverage for the longer focal lengths. A 75-300 priced right might just be the sweet spot for me.

If you can't pull the trigger on the 55-250 stm for $100-150 price then i feel bad for you. It is beyond one of the greatest efs lens for the price. Also don't say it has lousy build quality, no way close to the truth. It is a light low cost lens, what build quality is lousy to you? it has the same plastics found in much higher priced lenses and you don't need a metal mount because it is that light in weight. The optics on it for the price surpass all the 70-300 besides the L, put a lens hood on it to prevent ghosting and you simply can not complain.

Only lens worthy of an upgrade over the 55-250 stm is a used 70-300 L. Optics and price alone set the L into an area not many Canon lenses ever go to.

 

[Maximilian]

...
and make a EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS II USM (maybe nano, probably not)/STM, a EF-S 55-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS STM/USM (nano) and EF-M 55-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS STM/USM (nano)

This makes some sense to create a small/lightweight telephoto zoom offering for everybody using the latest and greatest DO techniques. The existing DO telephoto zoom has ho-hum IQ and IS, and is oh by the way expensive. Solve all three? You have a winner.

As long as Canon can make it in the price range in the middle between the current 70-300 IS USM an DO you might be right.
If they can only make it for the price of the DO or above I don't see a big market.
Then Canon will prefer the standard version.

 

[jeffa4444]

I just purchased a Tamron 70-300mm last month... If this lens is indeed 70-300mm with better IQ I'm gonna be pissed (although I feel it is very likely true).

Why? The Tamron lens is cheaper than what is being speculated here.

The price of the Tamron and the current Canon non-L is almost the same. I purchased the Tamron mainly because the Canon 70-300mm non-L is so incompetent and the price of the L is out of my budget + a little bit heavy for my daily hiking purpose.

I did the same...

Describe "incompetent"? Mechanically the EF70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM is OK, not to L standards but better than budget EF-S zooms and at around £ 345 / Euro 430 not expensive. Yes its not up to L glass optically but the lens was rated highly for its price by Photozone.de years ago. The L version lens is around £ 875.00 / 1100 euros so 2.5 times more expensive.
Ive used this lens at many airshows and got really good sharp shots and Im sure Im not alone.

 

[Don Haines]

...
I wonder if they could re-introduce the concept with an adaptor base that would allow the data comms from various manufacturers to work.... That would be cool.... Take your Tamron Lens off of your Canon, swap the adaptor, put it on your Sony.... or Nikon... or 4/3rds....

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/change-your-mount

Yes, I forgot about that......

 

[slclick]

There have been how many variants of this beast? I'll stick with my L

 

[CapturingLight]

This is a very interesting lens for me. I am a crop shooter. I have been relatively happy with my longest focal length being 135. That being said It would be nice to have a longer lens around for when it is needed. Here are my thoughts on the current options:
55-250STM - Good: Price and Optics Bad: Lousy build quality, EF-S lens, Shortest option
75-300USM - Good: Longer zoom range, EF lens, price Bad: Lousy optics
75-300L - Good: Longer zoom range, EF lens Bad: Price, Weight
100-400 - Good: Better still zoom range, EF lens, Optics Bad: Price, Weight
Sigma/Tamron 150-600 - Good: Amazing zoom range, EF lens, Acceptable optics Bad: Weight, Size

In my mind the 55-250,75-300USM,75-300L,100-400 all have enough cons that have kept be from pulling the trigger. I do keep eyeing the 150-600 options but they are huge and heavy but 150-600mm how cool is that. While I agree the 150-600 is a very different lens from a 75-300 they both fit my desire to have coverage for the longer focal lengths. A 75-300 priced right might just be the sweet spot for me.

If you can't pull the trigger on the 55-250 stm for $100-150 price then i feel bad for you. It is beyond one of the greatest efs lens for the price. Also don't say it has lousy build quality, no way close to the truth. It is a light low cost lens, what build quality is lousy to you? it has the same plastics found in much higher priced lenses and you don't need a metal mount because it is that light in weight. The optics on it for the price surpass all the 70-300 besides the L, put a lens hood on it to prevent ghosting and you simply can not complain.

Only lens worthy of an upgrade over the 55-250 stm is a used 70-300 L. Optics and price alone set the L into an area not many Canon lenses ever go to.

I don't want to appear to be giving the 55-250STM too hard of a time it made my list where many did not(as others have pointed out). It may end up in my bag. I may have been to harsh to say lousy build quality but I hope we can agree it is designed on the light/cheep end of the build range. At its price point it may be an impulse buy for some but I would prefer to contemplate what I consider a desirable lens rather than compulsively buy one that is cheep and good enough. I could be swayed into spending a bit more and having a lens that was equal or better optically, metal mount, faster focus (perhaps nano USM), EF, and slightly longer(300mm). A bit heaver would be fine.
FYI like most here my GAS is diverse. My attention is currently more focused on acquiring a good deal on the 80D than getting a longer lens.

 

[Woody]

I am surprised by this bit of news.

 

[RickWagoner]

This is a very interesting lens for me. I am a crop shooter. I have been relatively happy with my longest focal length being 135. That being said It would be nice to have a longer lens around for when it is needed. Here are my thoughts on the current options:
55-250STM - Good: Price and Optics Bad: Lousy build quality, EF-S lens, Shortest option
75-300USM - Good: Longer zoom range, EF lens, price Bad: Lousy optics
75-300L - Good: Longer zoom range, EF lens Bad: Price, Weight
100-400 - Good: Better still zoom range, EF lens, Optics Bad: Price, Weight
Sigma/Tamron 150-600 - Good: Amazing zoom range, EF lens, Acceptable optics Bad: Weight, Size

In my mind the 55-250,75-300USM,75-300L,100-400 all have enough cons that have kept be from pulling the trigger. I do keep eyeing the 150-600 options but they are huge and heavy but 150-600mm how cool is that. While I agree the 150-600 is a very different lens from a 75-300 they both fit my desire to have coverage for the longer focal lengths. A 75-300 priced right might just be the sweet spot for me.

If you can't pull the trigger on the 55-250 stm for $100-150 price then i feel bad for you. It is beyond one of the greatest efs lens for the price. Also don't say it has lousy build quality, no way close to the truth. It is a light low cost lens, what build quality is lousy to you? it has the same plastics found in much higher priced lenses and you don't need a metal mount because it is that light in weight. The optics on it for the price surpass all the 70-300 besides the L, put a lens hood on it to prevent ghosting and you simply can not complain.

Only lens worthy of an upgrade over the 55-250 stm is a used 70-300 L. Optics and price alone set the L into an area not many Canon lenses ever go to.

I don't want to appear to be giving the 55-250STM too hard of a time it made my list where many did not(as others have pointed out). It may end up in my bag. I may have been to harsh to say lousy build quality but I hope we can agree it is designed on the light/cheep end of the build range. At its price point it may be an impulse buy for some but I would prefer to contemplate what I consider a desirable lens rather than compulsively buy one that is cheep and good enough. I could be swayed into spending a bit more and having a lens that was equal or better optically, metal mount, faster focus (perhaps nano USM), EF, and slightly longer(300mm). A bit heaver would be fine.
FYI like most here my GAS is diverse. My attention is currently more focused on acquiring a good deal on the 80D than getting a longer lens.

I suggest you try it at the least, it maybe a lens you keep in your bag esp when the range is not that important to you. Don't be scared by stm focus speeds, it is plently fast enough to track a bird in flight. If you plan on going full frame soon then the Tamron is a better match there, but on a crop even the stm 250 will beat it. The 70-300 used is just amazing, esp if you can find one at $800. the micro detail from this lens to me is on par with the Sigma 50 ART, if it was not for aperture i would take this lens over any 70-200 anyday...and that says a lot! CPW has a grey market 80d now for $849, and it is common to find a USA sold model at $900 lately. I would not wait too long to pull on one of these deals as i see the pricing going up close to MAP as the 80D makes its way into the chain stores and sales begin to uptick, and they will eventually. Rite now the 70D is still moving good because it is in lots more locations esp to average people like Best buys.

 

[hkenneth]

I just purchased a Tamron 70-300mm last month... If this lens is indeed 70-300mm with better IQ I'm gonna be pissed (although I feel it is very likely true).

Why? The Tamron lens is cheaper than what is being speculated here.

The price of the Tamron and the current Canon non-L is almost the same. I purchased the Tamron mainly because the Canon 70-300mm non-L is so incompetent and the price of the L is out of my budget + a little bit heavy for my daily hiking purpose.

I did the same...

Describe "incompetent"? Mechanically the EF70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM is OK, not to L standards but better than budget EF-S zooms and at around £ 345 / Euro 430 not expensive. Yes its not up to L glass optically but the lens was rated highly for its price by Photozone.de years ago. The L version lens is around £ 875.00 / 1100 euros so 2.5 times more expensive.
Ive used this lens at many airshows and got really good sharp shots and Im sure Im not alone.

Mechanically EF 70-300mm is not okay by today's standards. Rotate front element which means no polarizer, micro USM instead of ring USM which means no FTM. Optically, it is weaker than Tanrom which sells at the same price if not cheaper.

 

[CapturingLight]

This is a very interesting lens for me. I am a crop shooter. I have been relatively happy with my longest focal length being 135. That being said It would be nice to have a longer lens around for when it is needed. Here are my thoughts on the current options:
55-250STM - Good: Price and Optics Bad: Lousy build quality, EF-S lens, Shortest option
75-300USM - Good: Longer zoom range, EF lens, price Bad: Lousy optics
75-300L - Good: Longer zoom range, EF lens Bad: Price, Weight
100-400 - Good: Better still zoom range, EF lens, Optics Bad: Price, Weight
Sigma/Tamron 150-600 - Good: Amazing zoom range, EF lens, Acceptable optics Bad: Weight, Size

In my mind the 55-250,75-300USM,75-300L,100-400 all have enough cons that have kept be from pulling the trigger. I do keep eyeing the 150-600 options but they are huge and heavy but 150-600mm how cool is that. While I agree the 150-600 is a very different lens from a 75-300 they both fit my desire to have coverage for the longer focal lengths. A 75-300 priced right might just be the sweet spot for me.

If you can't pull the trigger on the 55-250 stm for $100-150 price then i feel bad for you. It is beyond one of the greatest efs lens for the price. Also don't say it has lousy build quality, no way close to the truth. It is a light low cost lens, what build quality is lousy to you? it has the same plastics found in much higher priced lenses and you don't need a metal mount because it is that light in weight. The optics on it for the price surpass all the 70-300 besides the L, put a lens hood on it to prevent ghosting and you simply can not complain.

Only lens worthy of an upgrade over the 55-250 stm is a used 70-300 L. Optics and price alone set the L into an area not many Canon lenses ever go to.

I don't want to appear to be giving the 55-250STM too hard of a time it made my list where many did not(as others have pointed out). It may end up in my bag. I may have been to harsh to say lousy build quality but I hope we can agree it is designed on the light/cheep end of the build range. At its price point it may be an impulse buy for some but I would prefer to contemplate what I consider a desirable lens rather than compulsively buy one that is cheep and good enough. I could be swayed into spending a bit more and having a lens that was equal or better optically, metal mount, faster focus (perhaps nano USM), EF, and slightly longer(300mm). A bit heaver would be fine.
FYI like most here my GAS is diverse. My attention is currently more focused on acquiring a good deal on the 80D than getting a longer lens.

I suggest you try it at the least, it maybe a lens you keep in your bag esp when the range is not that important to you. Don't be scared by stm focus speeds, it is plently fast enough to track a bird in flight. If you plan on going full frame soon then the Tamron is a better match there, but on a crop even the stm 250 will beat it. The 70-300 used is just amazing, esp if you can find one at $800. the micro detail from this lens to me is on par with the Sigma 50 ART, if it was not for aperture i would take this lens over any 70-200 anyday...and that says a lot! CPW has a grey market 80d now for $849, and it is common to find a USA sold model at $900 lately. I would not wait too long to pull on one of these deals as i see the pricing going up close to MAP as the 80D makes its way into the chain stores and sales begin to uptick, and they will eventually. Rite now the 70D is still moving good because it is in lots more locations esp to average people like Best buys.

Thanks for your thoughts. I may take a closer look at the 55-250 next time I am in a camera shop. As for the 80D unfortunately, I have yet to find one of those deals that I can take advantage of living in Canada, none of them seem willing to ship out of the US. The one referenced on this site the other day for example seems to suggest they will ship to Canada on the e-bay page but when I called I was told they will not. The best price in Canada (Body only) seems to be $1679 + TAX = $1897 ouch. I may have to wait until closer to Christmas when we might see some local sales pop up.

 

[dufflover]

I've struggled between having to choose a 70-200 (+ possible TCs) and a 100-400 as something to have in my bag for impromptu plane spotting. Rather annoyingly, the idea lens is somewhere in the middle because sometimes the 100-400 would not be wide enough for a larger aircraft, or the 70-200 not long enough, and a Sigma 50-500 (I don't have one) would not be able to shoot through fences to the same quality plus being less portable. Sticking a 1.4x TC on the 70-200 then makes it minimum ~100mm anyway (same as the 100-400). Cutting the chase, if there was a sharp cheapish telephoto I could leave it there on-hand and use it if the circumstances fit. I was actually tempted to get the 55-250mm for this reason (55mm noticeably more useful than 70 or 100) but as good as the reputation is, I think I would notice the times the f/5.6 hurts or just those times I wish it was a tad sharper (ofcourse that would ignore it's budget price!)

 

[wsmith96]

If they were to update the optics a bit, give it a 4 stop stabilizer, and make the front element non-rotating - this would make a great budget compliment to the 24-105 STM. Makes me wonder if we'll see a budget UWA soon as well - 16-35mm equivalent of the EF-S 10-18.