A New Full Frame Zoom Coming in 2016 [CR2]

[scrup]

A good indicator is if the lens is in stock on the Canon refurbished site.
The only way to be refurbished is if someone is buying them.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/lenses-flashes/refurbished-lenses

Canon should have data on returns and the reasons behind it. If IQ, build, or performance is an issue, it may be time for a refresh of that lens especially if it sells.

 

[AvTvM]

Personally I'd love to get a new EF 85/1.8 STM IS or even better 100/2.0 IS STM -

So you'd give your money to Canon for an EF lens, thereby encouraging them to continue supporting their antiquated mirrorslapper platform which is clearly passé instead of riding the wave of the future last year and switching entirely to dedicated mirrorless?

How very anachronistic and hypocritical of you... :

Yes, I would buy a (compact!) EF lens, if Canon will not bring my EF-M 80/2.4 IS STM portrait lens ... and besides I still have my 5D3 mirrorslapper and use it. Although only about 25% of my captures. 75% are taken sans mmirror.

 

[bdunbar79]

But by mid-2016 Canon customers rightfully expect better Canon lenses than ancient 50/1.4, 85/1.8 or any of the lame and ho-hum 70/75-300 zoom variations [speaking of Non-L].

And yet...Canon customers keep right on buying those lenses. But as usual, you think you know better than Canon about what consumers will buy, even though time and again the actual facts prove you wrong.

Can you show unit sales to prove the claim "customers keep buying these lenses"? Yes, some do, mostly for lack of better alternatives and/or fear of potential AF-/compatibility issues with 3rd party lenses and/or higher price of (optically superior) 3rd party lenses.

I don't know,. but would be really surprised, if those old clunkers mentioned were still selling in large quantities by now.

Can you show any facts and statistics to support your claims you just mentioned there?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I do not like polemics ... but let's be honest.

The typical buyer of low-quality lens like 75-300mm, buying your first DSLR Rebel, and want more range than 18-55mm. It turns out that this audience does not read canonrumors, and do not know why it is worth paying more for the great 55-250 STM.

The frustration of having to use F11 for sharp images at 300mm and ISO up to the clouds to allow shutter speeds 1/500 when holding the hand will be disappointing. I know many novice buyers who feel duped by Canon lenses offer low sharpness capacity, at a time when Rebel camera has 24 megapixel, and computer monitors has very high resolution.

It is less severe with the 70-300 USM, but still disappointing when placed in a T6i, and used in 300mm.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Hopefuly, it will get a faster AF USM motor and a non-rotating front filter ring

 

[Jack Douglas]

When I bought my 300 2.8 II (I was switching to Canon) I did a careful comparison to my Nikon 70-300 (similar to the Canon non-L I believe) and although the big white was better in all respects, I was disappointed initially in the difference not being "huge".

I guess I thought a lenses costing 10 times as much would be 10 times better. Perhaps it's more accurate to say it's 30% better although that's very subjective. There are numerous subtle ways the big lens is better but I still have respect for the little guy. That's the lens I bought and gave to my daughter for her 40D and I think it has served her quite well. An update will no doubt be a decent lens. No reason to trash talk a lens like this.

Jack

 

[AvTvM]

i think the "trash" label applies to EF 75-300 III.
the 70-300 IS is more like "ho-hum" - disappointing beyond 200mm ... at least by today's standards and compared to Nikon or Tamron 70-300 lenses.

nikon has no higher end 70-300 L. canon does. probably the main reason why canon has not come up with an upgraded 70-300 IS II yet ... if they make it too good and or to priceworthy, L sales may suffer a bit. marketing/ product differentiation has aleaysctaken precedrnce at Canon over customer's wishes.

 

[haggie]

To start with, I want to be perfectly clear that I only speak about the EF 70-300 non-L here, because that was mentioned in the initial posting of this thread.
So NOT the 75-300 that neuroanatomist mentioned in his reply to that rumor.

AvTvM ‘s reaction above, writing about the present 70-300 non-L, exactly describes what may well be the reason behind the observations I described in my earlier response (page 5 of this thread). But I want to go into these obserations a bit further.

The thing is that the decision makers at Canon may be focused purely on their sales numbers (no doubt high enough, partly due to bundling with other products and cash back actions at strategic times of the year) and profit margins (no doubt very high for a 10-years old lens like the 70-300 non-L). They may, however, not be aware of the effect of these lenses on the “experience” of customers, when these lenses are not what was envisioned by the customer.

On the other hand one has to recognise that sales numbers and profit are what drive a company, so ignoring that and only reasoning from the perspective of a client that wishes "more for less" is strange. But I think that is not what drives the honest responses of most posters on the forum.
And for myself: my point was, to put it more clearly, that there is a big inconsistency between what buyers are made to believe by Canon itself and what they will actually get when buying the present 70-300 non-L.

Today Canon describes the 70-300 non-L as follows on their website: “The EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM telephoto zoom lens has been developed to meet the high-performance standards that today's photographers demand.”. This is a 10-years old lens, and customers are made to believe it is a modern technology – even “today’s standards”. Most customers have seen technology change almost per-year and this text by Canon gives expectations.

That means that a new or gullible customer, trusting a famous brand like Canon, can get frustrated with Canon after spending around $1,000 on a camera plus tele-zoom that can hardly meet normal AF situations in and around the house and have an image quality that is not good between 200 and 300 mm.

Initially when hearing people with this lens complain about it, I explained that Canon had faster and sharper lenses. I have been using Canon (D)SLR’s for over 30 years and felt I had to explain them. But listening carefully to what they went through, there is no excuse for selling lenses that are carefully marketed as “modern” and using the “Canon” brand, and then have disappointing experiences. Keep in mind that Every word on a site as Canon's is carefully chosen, and even reviewed by many before it is placed.

This effect of selling a lens that will not meet the expectations on people explains why on page 5 I wrote “So anybody saying that the 70-300 non-L is fine may be right when talking about a specific subject, e.g. landscape photography (no AF-speed required) - and then in the range between 70 and 200 mm (where IQ is reasonable) - and then also on a cropped camera (where the low border IQ is no issue). But not mentioning that does not do justice to other real-world experiences, in my honest opinion.”.

And not only the people I spoke have that negative experience and emotion about Canon as a result of the present 70-300 non-L. kphoto99 wrote it a bit more black and white: “Many people who start with a first DSLR will end up with crappy lenses and will not continue using the DSLR. In my opinion Canon should not sell any crappy lenses, they are destroying their brand.”. But Canon’s choices achieve exactly that: negative emotion with the customer who spent a lot of money and did not get what was perceived. Mind you, this effect on the customer is the result of Canon itself and not due to the fault of the customer.
And my further point is: that is not without consequences for this customer's future buyings!

Therefore, and I repeat, I really hope that the rumor that started this thread is true about a new EF 70-300 non-L coming pretty soon, assuming it comes with faster AF (e.g. nano-USM) and with noticeably better Image Quality, particularly at the 200-300 mm range (where lenses like these are most often used). Then, even a higher price than topday’s 70-300 non-L is justified, compared to it place between the EF-S 55-250 STM and the EF 70-300 L.

I hope this for myself 8) , many other customers (as is clear from several responses on the board) and also for the good name that Canon has to hold high. And doing so, I am sure, will by no means mean less profit for those only concerned about the business side of Canon.

 

[Mikehit]

I can understand your comments, Haggie but IMO any impression created from advertising can only be taken in relation to the experience and knowledge of the purchaser. I am one who was bowled over by the 70-300 when I bought it in 2007 and going back to those images now it was not as good as my emotions told me at the time. But (and this is the point) it was capable of some very good stuff but I was not aware at the time of what its limitations were until I went to the 70-200 f4L and the 100-400L. Many of us are looking at the 70-300 after experiencing better lenses so we are not the target in marketing terms.

In my experience someone who has a real interest in photography but cannot afford L lenses do read review sites and get pissed that their lens can't match it. But what do they expect at the price?

The question is not 'how good is it in absolute terms' but 'how good is it in relation to lenses from competitors' and I think it still gives a good account of itself.

 

[Luds34]

i think the "trash" label applies to EF 75-300 III.
the 70-300 IS is more like "ho-hum" - disappointing beyond 200mm ... at least by today's standards and compared to Nikon or Tamron 70-300 lenses.

Either way, let's not put either of those lenses in the same boat as the 85mm f/1.8. Especially the 75-300, that is just plain insulting to the very solid 85mm.

 

[AvTvM]

Either way, let's not put either of those lenses in the same boat as the 85mm f/1.8. Especially the 75-300, that is just plain insulting to the very solid 85mm.

well ... compared to "TODAY'S STANDARDS" = 50 MP sensors ... and in light of Sigma 50, 85 Art and the new Tamron 85/1.8 VC lenses like Canon EF 50/1.4 and EF 85/1.8 are rather "trashy" in comparison. Yes, they are about "half price" too ... but.

Of course the EF 75-300 III is in a trash-class of its own ... I'd call it *abysmal*.

 

[Mikehit]

75-300 I agree
70-300 I disagree.

But then if you make a 75-300 zoom lens for £142 (0r £95 without IS) what exactly are you expecting?

As for it being trash - if you don't make it, then the 70-300 USM (at 3x the price) becomes the entry lens and you lose all possibility to create those (to the newbie) enticing 2-lens deals that they can afford and with it goes the chance of getting anyone newbies into the Canon fold. Canon have created a lens to a price to do a specific job. Anyone who has been in a manufacturing industry knows the importance of that and to call Canon dumb for doing it is ridiculous.

You wouldn't buy it? I doubt Canon cares - the very fact you are on this site means you are not in that market.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Imagine you are a beginner in the DSLR world, who does not read Canonrumors ... :

You go to the store and see a Rebel T6i that attracts you by the 24 megapixel, and buy it expecting much better quality than a point and shoot camera.

After using the very decent 18-55mm STM for a few days, you decide that you need more range, and purchase the Canon 75-300. After a few days is frustrated to find that it is impossible to achieve a high quality image in 300mm their children playing in the park in the sunshine to 17h.

You go back in the store and see that paying more, may have the Canon 70-300 IS USM and purchase it. After a few days notice that continues to unsharp images in 300mm, and the slow focus did you lose many shots of their children playing in the park. :'(

So once again you return to the store and the salesman shows you the 70-300L, and you are pissed off with the Canon to make you spend money for nothing.

On a fine day, you find that there are sites like Canonrumors, Thedigitalpicture, and learn that should have bought the great Canon 55-250 STM from the beginning. :-X

 

[Mikehit]

A nice story.
But it makes the mistaken assumption that untold thousand of people out there even care about ultimate image quality. It has been shown time and again that they don't. It is that market that the 75-300 is designed for.

For the photo of their kids playing in the park it will beat their phone and if that is the case the camera is a worthwhile purchase. Anyone who is that bothered about image quality will read reviews and make the leap straight to the 70-300 and it will do them well for 2-3 years. Possibly the rest of their lives. If it doesn't do the job they need they will find the sites like this that give them this information they need. And if they don't understand the concept of cost-benefit ratio they are probably not that bothered in the first place.

 

[AvTvM]

A nice story.
But it makes the mistaken assumption that untold thousand of people out there even care about ultimate image quality. It has been shown time and again that they don't. It is that market that the 75-300 is designed for.

For the photo of their kids playing in the park it will beat their phone and if that is the case the camera is a worthwhile purchase. Anyone who is that bothered about image quality will read reviews and make the leap straight to the 70-300 and it will do them well for 2-3 years. Possibly the rest of their lives. If it doesn't do the job they need they will find the sites like this that give them this information they need. And if they don't understand the concept of cost-benefit ratio they are probably not that bothered in the first place.

no. Most of those customers use Digital Rebels with APS-C sensor. 99% of them will never buy an FF mirrorslpapper ("too expensive, too big). They should not be shafted with a very poor 75-300 FF lens (often in a "dual zoom kit"). they do dserve to be sold a an optically much better and also very affordable EF-S 55-250.

If Canon wants to offer an entry level FF tele zoom - really only for 6D purchasers - then it should be of decent quality. An overhauled and upgraded 70-300 IS Mk. II with better IQ especially on the long end, 4-stop IS, better (Nano-USM) AF drive and non-rotating front element - at an affordable price would be an adequate offer for the "leader in imaging".

75-300 should be discontinued asap, it really is a disgrace for Canon and really not needed by anybody.

 

[haggie]

In reply to my view on canon’s present EF 70-300 non-L, Mikehit wrote “But what do they expect at the price?”. Well, I can tell you from 3 different people I spoke recently what they expected from the EF 70-300 non-L. Two of them have a cropped camera and were prepared to pay more for a higher quality lens. So they bought the EF 70-300 non-L instead of the (much) cheaper EF-S 55-250 STM and 75-300. I described how these experience led to frustration with regards to the brand ‘Canon’. And the third one with the 6D also could have known better if he had read the information with a bit more suspicion - instead of spending a lot of money based on trust in Canon. (For more details about this: read my post on page 5 of this thread).

You should know that at first I did not agree with their criticism and also I in effect explained that to them how to choose a lens – by the way, almost exactly like Mikehit worded it in his reply. But what these people really said in reply to that, was that they bought a lens with full faith in Canon as a big brand and the descriptions they read.

Looking on Canon’s website later I could understand their decision. Based on trust in Canon it is not that strange to choose the more expensive option if you do not want the lowest quality available…...

It are these 3 real world ‘experiences’ that maks Mikehit’s remark “But what do they expect at the price?” incorrect. Because it was the higher price of the EF 70-300 non-L that has led to their frustration, as opposed to Mikehit’s implicit suggestion that the EF 70-300’s price is low and that this low price should make clear to customers that quality of the EF 70-300 non-L is worse. It's price is high: higher than the 75-300 and higher than the 55-250 STM!

I feel Mikehit is right with his remark “The question is not 'how good is it in absolute terms' but 'how good is it in relation to lenses from competitors'”. But with the arguments I just mentioned, I can only arrive at the conclusion that the EF 70-300 non-L does not offer what Canon suggests ... as opposed to what Mikehit writes in his last line that "it still gives a good account of itself".

And that brings me back to my opinion about the subject of this thread: there is a place for a new EF 70-300 non-L with better IQ (a must) and faster AF (a must), thus being a good alternative for the EF-S 55-250 STM (the 75-300 I will not even mention due to what has been already said about that lens) - but still ‘below’ Canon’s EF 70-300 L.

 

[Loswr]

Imagine you are a beginner in the DSLR world, who does not read Canonrumors ... :

You go to the store and see a Rebel T6i that attracts you by the 24 megapixel, and buy it expecting much better quality than a point and shoot camera.

After using the very decent 18-55mm STM for a few days, you decide that you need more range, and purchase the Canon 75-300. After a few days is frustrated to find that it is impossible to achieve a high quality image in 300mm their children playing in the park in the sunshine to 17h.

Children aren't ISO12223 charts. I suspect that in almost all cases, the person you describe would be quite happy with the images – their smartphone or P&S wouldn't let them capture a closeup of the smile on their kid's face going down the slide, from their vantage across the playground. At least, they'd be happy until you came along to tell them their pictures were 'not high quality' because they bought a 'trash' lens.

 

[AvTvM]

Children aren't ISO12223 charts. I suspect that in almost all cases, the person you describe would be quite happy with the images – their smartphone or P&S wouldn't let them capture a closeup of the smile on their kid's face going down the slide, from their vantage across the playground. At least, they'd be happy until you came along to tell them their pictures were 'not high quality' because they bought a 'trash' lens.

Neuro again: purchasers of the 75-300 will almost all be APS-C users. Despite the low price, the lens is a really bad deal, given availability of the EF-S 55-250 IS STM - which is also quite affordable to the target group. This group also does not need the FF-capable 70-300 IS, nor the the 70-300 L.

Whereas "higher-end FF users" will likely take the 70-300 L, if they are not rather going for one of 70-200 2.8 II or 4 L IS.

Which really only leaves budget conscious entry level FF users [6D] as possible target group for an EF-70-300 IS Mk. II.

And no need whatsoever for the 75-300.

PS: but yes, of course Canon knows it *much better*.

 

[Loswr]

A nice story.
But it makes the mistaken assumption that untold thousand of people out there even care about ultimate image quality. It has been shown time and again that they don't. It is that market that the 75-300 is designed for.

For the photo of their kids playing in the park it will beat their phone and if that is the case the camera is a worthwhile purchase. Anyone who is that bothered about image quality will read reviews and make the leap straight to the 70-300 and it will do them well for 2-3 years. Possibly the rest of their lives. If it doesn't do the job they need they will find the sites like this that give them this information they need. And if they don't understand the concept of cost-benefit ratio they are probably not that bothered in the first place.

Exactly.

75-300 should be discontinued asap, it really is a disgrace for Canon and really not needed by anybody.

Are you going to give every Rebel buyer who wants a telephoto zoom the extra $100-120 they need to pay for the 55-250 STM over the 75-300 lenses, to keep them from being 'shafted with a very poor 75-300 FF'. Or do you think $100 is a trivial amount of money for most people?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Children aren't ISO12223 charts. I suspect that in almost all cases, the person you describe would be quite happy with the images – their smartphone or P&S wouldn't let them capture a closeup of the smile on their kid's face going down the slide, from their vantage across the playground. At least, they'd be happy until you came along to tell them their pictures were 'not high quality' because they bought a 'trash' lens.

Neuro again: purchasers of the 75-300 will almost all be APS-C users. Despite the low price, the lens is a really bad deal, given availability of the EF-S 55-250 IS STM - which is also quite affordable to the target group. This group also does not need the FF-capable 70-300 IS, nor the the 70-300 L.

Whereas "higher-end FF users" will likely take the 70-300 L, if they are not rather going for one of 70-200 2.8 II or 4 L IS.

Which really only leaves budget conscious entry level FF users [6D] as possible target group for an EF-70-300 IS Mk. II.

And no need whatsoever for the 75-300.

PS: but yes, of course Canon knows it *much better*.

I totally agree.

Canon has a much better option for the "ignorant wretch" who buys 75-300 or 70-300 non L. I know several people who uselessly spend their money on these lenses, to find that they would have done better with the 55-250 STM.

I will not say "Canon is doomed," but is dirtying his credibility to continue making low quality lenses, which only made sense with camera 6 megapixel and shooting static objects.