A New Full Frame Zoom Coming in 2016 [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Neuroanatomist wrote “I have been discussing the 75-300mm lens”. Yes indeed, but the start of this topic reads “The only lens that we can think of would be a replacement for the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS.”. However, neuroanatomist introduced the 75-300 in the first reply to this topic, for reasons known only to himself. And after that, this irrelevant 75-300 kept coming back and cloud this 70-300 non-L topic.
Neuroanatomist wrote “… the 70-300mm lens is of high interest to you”. Indeed, I have an interest in an improved version of the 70-300 non-L. That is exactly why I shared my experiences in this thread that, I repeat, is about a possibly new EF 70-300 non-L. I got these experiences because I was looking for a tele-zoom with a bit faster AF and a bit better image quality than my present 55-250 STM. The latter served me well until I started photographing birds and planes again last summer. I talked to 4 people with an EF 70-300 non-L that I met, because that seems a logical update after the 55-250 STM. The EF 70-300 non-L is (much) more expensive, so one expects a better lens. What I heard, I already explained in my reply on page 5. To say it briefly: the EF 70-300 non-L is inadequate for even moderately moving subjects due to slow AF and image quality is poor, especially beyond 200 mm and even on a cropped camera. (That is as clear as anything, despite someone replying “… and up to 200mm performs very well.” …… seriously: the image quality of the 70-300 non-L very good????? ….).
At first I explained these people what I also read here on the forum: I logically explained how to select a lens and what Canon has to offer and what ‘metrics’ to watch. But all replies had in common that these people, trusting a big brand like Canon, bought a lens that Canon markets as higher on the ladder than e.g. the 75-300 and the 55-250 STM.
My conclusion after this became that Canon is not only frustrating these type of buyers (the ones that trust the brand and do not or cannot go through internet forums), but that this also has a price for Canon itself. Because 2 from these 3 said they would not buy anything from Canon again. Is that sad or not?
No doubt, all marketing boys and girls and all survey boys and girls from Canon have some picture about their ‘customer’. But I doubt that these 3 independent experiences I had are known to them. And these are not alone, as shown by many factual replies to this thread also. To avoid misunderstandings: I still talk only about the EF 70-300 non-L here. I am not talking about Canon in general, let that be well understood. My observations were brought in for the purpose of the discussion in this thread about a new 70-300 non-L and the need for it to have fast AF and better IQ.
That said, nauroanatomists remark to me “It seems that you are suggesting a statement like, "Anyone with an APS-C Canon camera being tricked into buying the trashy 75-300 III today rather than 55-250 is being shafted," is a 'valid argument' (and then you go on to refute it, stating, "anybody can see its role in Canon’s line-up,”"). completely misrepresents what I argued. Don’t put words into my mouth. I never even addressed Canon’s judgement about the 75-300, because again: this topic is about a new EF 70-300 non-L possibly coming.
Neuroanatomist wrote “Even moreso when such comments come from posters with a long history on these boards of predicting doom for Canon if they don't follow the path suggested by that particular poster – which is a patently ridiculous contention. ” I would not know about that, and want to stay out of that sort of discussion. I myself believe that Canon is a fine brand that I have used with great pleasure for many, many years (although wrong with respect to continuing the present 70-300 non-L). But by shooting that messenger with his cynicism, neuroanatomist also implicitly discredits his arguments. And that was the reason for my response toward the cynicism of neuroanatomist. It would be better so separate the message (‘the arguments’) from ‘the messenger’ and also from any tension that has been building up. That keeps the discussion much more on-topic and thus clearer.
Neuroanatomist wrote “… the 70-300mm lens is of high interest to you”. Indeed, I have an interest in an improved version of the 70-300 non-L. That is exactly why I shared my experiences in this thread that, I repeat, is about a possibly new EF 70-300 non-L. I got these experiences because I was looking for a tele-zoom with a bit faster AF and a bit better image quality than my present 55-250 STM. The latter served me well until I started photographing birds and planes again last summer. I talked to 4 people with an EF 70-300 non-L that I met, because that seems a logical update after the 55-250 STM. The EF 70-300 non-L is (much) more expensive, so one expects a better lens. What I heard, I already explained in my reply on page 5. To say it briefly: the EF 70-300 non-L is inadequate for even moderately moving subjects due to slow AF and image quality is poor, especially beyond 200 mm and even on a cropped camera. (That is as clear as anything, despite someone replying “… and up to 200mm performs very well.” …… seriously: the image quality of the 70-300 non-L very good????? ….).
At first I explained these people what I also read here on the forum: I logically explained how to select a lens and what Canon has to offer and what ‘metrics’ to watch. But all replies had in common that these people, trusting a big brand like Canon, bought a lens that Canon markets as higher on the ladder than e.g. the 75-300 and the 55-250 STM.
My conclusion after this became that Canon is not only frustrating these type of buyers (the ones that trust the brand and do not or cannot go through internet forums), but that this also has a price for Canon itself. Because 2 from these 3 said they would not buy anything from Canon again. Is that sad or not?
No doubt, all marketing boys and girls and all survey boys and girls from Canon have some picture about their ‘customer’. But I doubt that these 3 independent experiences I had are known to them. And these are not alone, as shown by many factual replies to this thread also. To avoid misunderstandings: I still talk only about the EF 70-300 non-L here. I am not talking about Canon in general, let that be well understood. My observations were brought in for the purpose of the discussion in this thread about a new 70-300 non-L and the need for it to have fast AF and better IQ.
That said, nauroanatomists remark to me “It seems that you are suggesting a statement like, "Anyone with an APS-C Canon camera being tricked into buying the trashy 75-300 III today rather than 55-250 is being shafted," is a 'valid argument' (and then you go on to refute it, stating, "anybody can see its role in Canon’s line-up,”"). completely misrepresents what I argued. Don’t put words into my mouth. I never even addressed Canon’s judgement about the 75-300, because again: this topic is about a new EF 70-300 non-L possibly coming.
Neuroanatomist wrote “Even moreso when such comments come from posters with a long history on these boards of predicting doom for Canon if they don't follow the path suggested by that particular poster – which is a patently ridiculous contention. ” I would not know about that, and want to stay out of that sort of discussion. I myself believe that Canon is a fine brand that I have used with great pleasure for many, many years (although wrong with respect to continuing the present 70-300 non-L). But by shooting that messenger with his cynicism, neuroanatomist also implicitly discredits his arguments. And that was the reason for my response toward the cynicism of neuroanatomist. It would be better so separate the message (‘the arguments’) from ‘the messenger’ and also from any tension that has been building up. That keeps the discussion much more on-topic and thus clearer.
Upvote
0
well, in all modesty, i have also had a couple of very nice email conversations on a number of topics with chuck westphal myself. and i do consider myself to be a very regular and modest canon customer. i certainly have no special ties to canon.
re. neuro: from the very amount of postings and their timing, it seems inconceivable to me that a single person with a (demanding, highly qualified?) day job, with a family, who is frequently travelling, takes photography serious as a hobby, including some (time-consuming) birding ... can handle this type of forum presence and activity. quantity alone is just not possible. add the quality of content that many neuro posts do have (not all of them though) ... and count 1+1 together.
forum admin has no chance to see whether 1 or more persons weite under 1 nick and i am not even sure, whether forum rules really would ban it. personally i have no major issue with it. i a more irled by the demagogic discission style and the incessant canon defense league attitude and behaviour.
re. neuro: from the very amount of postings and their timing, it seems inconceivable to me that a single person with a (demanding, highly qualified?) day job, with a family, who is frequently travelling, takes photography serious as a hobby, including some (time-consuming) birding ... can handle this type of forum presence and activity. quantity alone is just not possible. add the quality of content that many neuro posts do have (not all of them though) ... and count 1+1 together.
forum admin has no chance to see whether 1 or more persons weite under 1 nick and i am not even sure, whether forum rules really would ban it. personally i have no major issue with it. i a more irled by the demagogic discission style and the incessant canon defense league attitude and behaviour.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
AvTvM said:
I absolutely agree - the Canon EF 75-300 II doesn't meet any market need. The MkII versions of the lens were discontinued in 1999 when the MkIII versions were launched.
AvTvM said:
Sad that you can't handle simple facts. You state that the 75-300 lenses don't meet any market need. How then is the 75-300 III USM the #37 best-selling lens on amazon.com, and the #113 best-selling lens on amazon.de? On Amazon.com, the 100L Macro is #57, the 85/1.8 is #141, the 85/1.2L II is #176. The EF-S 60mm macro is #202. More people buy the 75-300 than any of those 'common' lenses, and a whole host of other lenses.
Oh, and the #37 above refers to the new MkIII USM lens. The refurbished MkIII non-USM lens is actually #18...and it costs less than $100. The EF-S 55-250 IS STM shows up at #17...but the EF-S 55-250 IS II is #9. We know that the STM lens saw a significant bump in IQ over the IS II...but the latter sells better. Because it's cheaper.
Apparently you percive simple statements of fact as 'defense'. Rather, you're the one who sounds more and more defensive as your outrageous statements are clearly contradicted by simple fact. People are buying the lens. It costs less than other lenses in it's focal range, and cost is a major market need. Manifestly, the lens meets a market need. Period. Deal with it, if you can.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
haggie said:
Yes, let's revisit that.
neuroanatomist said:EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IV. Perfect pairing with a 5DIV.
A cheap zoom lens with low IQ. Announced alongside a new high-end full frame camera. Here, perhaps it will help if I use a bigger emoticon.
Does that make it more clear that the reference to the 75-300 lens was a joke?
In fact, the 75-300 was brought up several times by several other posters in a serious way. I became involved in that discussion mainly in response to a secondary response to a post of yours...
haggie said:
The topic is about a rumor of a replacement FF non-L non-DO zoom. While the 70-300 IS non-L may be the only lens that CRguy can think of, you should acknoweldge the possiblity that other people may be able to think of additional lenses... Actually, it's a short list:
24-105 IS STM
70-300 IS non-L
75-300 III
75-300 III USM
The first lens is quite new, so that can be omitted. The 75-300 lenses went from MkI to MkIII in 4-year intervals, and the 'current' 75-300 is much older than the 70-300 IS non-L.
Consider also that prior to the STM versions, Canon previously updated both the 18-55 IS and the 55-250 IS lenses to MkII versions that were optically identical, with changes mainly intended to reduce production costs. So in reality, I think the discussions are quite relevant and while I initially mentioned a 75-300 IV as a joke (which paired with a 5DIV, it is), I could actually see the possibility that the 'bottom of the range' telezoom would get an update with modern styling and a lower production cost, while retaining the low cost that makes it appealing to many consumers.
So I think I should retract my earlier refrence as a joke, becuase it's actually quite possible that Canon will at some point update the 75-300 to a MkIV version.
But I doubt they'd announce it at Photokina, so in that context, it does make sense to discuss the 70-300 IS non-L. But hey, it's the internet...the fact that this thread has focused mainly on telezoom lenses with no references (or maybe I just missed them) to cars, cats, etc. is pretty amazing!
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
I have to agree with you on this, in my experience the cheaper 75-300mm is sharper further increasing what someone needs to pay you to own one
Upvote
0
This discussion talked about other models besides the rumor 70-300 IS USM II, because there are quality problems with:
EF 75-300 III
EF 75-300 USM III
EF 70-300 IS USM
EF 70-300 IS DO
The APS-C camera users are best served with the 55-250 IS ii, and the 55-250 STM.
If Canon sees a big market for a cheap trash 75-300, then it's simple:
Canon should make a super cheap 75-300mm non Image Stabilizer (US$200), based on the quality of the 55-250 IS ii.
Canon should make a cheap 75-300mm Image Stabilizer (US$300), based on the quality of the 55-250 IS ii.
Canon should make a 70-300 IS (US$600), based on the quality of the 55-250 STM.
Canon could make a new 70-300 DO (what price?), if sales justify it.
So everyone would be happy, and we will not have more novice users feeling cheated by unfulfilled marketing promises.
EF 75-300 III
EF 75-300 USM III
EF 70-300 IS USM
EF 70-300 IS DO
The APS-C camera users are best served with the 55-250 IS ii, and the 55-250 STM.
If Canon sees a big market for a cheap trash 75-300, then it's simple:
Canon should make a super cheap 75-300mm non Image Stabilizer (US$200), based on the quality of the 55-250 IS ii.
Canon should make a cheap 75-300mm Image Stabilizer (US$300), based on the quality of the 55-250 IS ii.
Canon should make a 70-300 IS (US$600), based on the quality of the 55-250 STM.
Canon could make a new 70-300 DO (what price?), if sales justify it.
So everyone would be happy, and we will not have more novice users feeling cheated by unfulfilled marketing promises.
Upvote
0
With image quality similar to 55-250, people would just pissed off with the plastic bayonet.Mikehit said:
Upvote
0
There will always be weeping and gnashing of teeth.neuroanatomist said:ajfotofilmagem said:
Agreed. No matter what.
But in some cases, the lamentations have every reason to be.
Upvote
0
3 lenses would be all that's needed :
* EF-S 55-250 IS STM - best option for every budget-conscious Canon APS-C DSLR owner
* 70-300 IS USM II - with improved IQ, improved AF, non-rotating lens element, USD/€ 500 - for budget-conscious FF users (primarily 6D)
* 70-300 L - as is, for less budget conscious, higher IQ oriented FF users (typically 5D and up)
75-300 ... purge that embarassment from the face of earth.
70-300 DO ... not needed.
* EF-S 55-250 IS STM - best option for every budget-conscious Canon APS-C DSLR owner
* 70-300 IS USM II - with improved IQ, improved AF, non-rotating lens element, USD/€ 500 - for budget-conscious FF users (primarily 6D)
* 70-300 L - as is, for less budget conscious, higher IQ oriented FF users (typically 5D and up)
75-300 ... purge that embarassment from the face of earth.
70-300 DO ... not needed.
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:ajfotofilmagem said:Neuro would say:
You obviously know better than Canon ... :
Yes, I do. Canon is a fairly stupid company. Seriously.
That's how they maintain their position of #1 in sales for a decade.....
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:
You seem to have missed the obvious......
Neuro is not one person, Neuro is a whole team of people, working in shifts, day and night, responding to multiple threads simultaneously......
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
AvTvM said:
AvTvM said:
Yes, the people who want a telezoom and can't afford to spend $300 on a lens can just go f*uck themselves, right?
Cost doesn't matter to consumers, there's no "market need" for that. You're so much smarter than Canon who has sold >100 million lenses and so much smarter than all those consumers choosing either the discontinued 55-250 IS II (#10) or the 75-300mm III (#16) over the lens you suggest as the 'best option for every budget-conscious Canon APS-C DSLR owner' (#18).
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. :
Attachments
Upvote
0
Similar threads
