Canon Announces 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS

Status
Not open for further replies.
kubelik said:
ELK, I know the rumor you are talking about. at the time I think everyone sort of gave a nervous laugh and shrugged it off. what muteteh and I are thinking now is that rumor was actual solid info ... it's an interesting way for canon to develop its market segmentation, and actually I don't know that I mind it so much.

I do hope they replace some of the cheaper wide angle primes with "budget" L glass, stuff that sits below the $1000 mark. shouldn't be hard, the 135 f/2 L and 200 f/2.8 L both are around that price point, and I wouldn't mind paying $700-800 or so for, say, a 28 f/2 L or a 24 f/2.8 L if the image quality is there.

Quite agree. Only they say 135 f/2 L is superb quality lens (I never had chance to shoot with it) so it's worth only to introduce IS version of it by keeping this one too. Seems Canon is more interested to keep it's dominance in wildlife and sports - hence all the big lens announcement, rather than wide and mid-range area where Nikon excels at the moment. Since most of us are not pro wildlife and sports shooters, we're desperately waiting for Canon to finally turn its face to us.
 
Upvote 0
M

muteteh

Guest
ELK said:
Quite agree. Only they say 135 f/2 L is superb quality lens (I never had chance to shoot with it) so it's worth only to introduce IS version of it by keeping this one too. Seems Canon is more interested to keep it's dominance in wildlife and sports - hence all the big lens announcement, rather than wide and mid-range area where Nikon excels at the moment. Since most of us are not pro wildlife and sports shooters, we're desperately waiting for Canon to finally turn its face to us.

The extenders' price was raised 60% (damn), and the EF 70-300mm price was raised 200% (triple and third damn), so I very much hope Canon wouldn't upgrade the EF 135mm f/2 before I have a chance to buy one.
 
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
so I very much hope Canon wouldn't upgrade the EF 135mm f/2 before I have a chance to buy one.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but just curious: why choose the 135mm f/2 over the 100 mm f/2.8 Macro IS for the same price? I did buy the 100 f/2.8 Macro and am very pleased with it. (Although I honestly haven't used the Macro capabilities that much). Is the one-stop gain in speed and extra 35mm in focal length worth more than the macro and IS? I guess it's an individual choice, but I'm just curious.

Alternatively, I have been coveting the 200 f2.8. I used to own an FD version (shows how old I am) and loved it. It was great for isolating the subject and was fast enough that I could even shoot some sports indoors with it, yet it's relatively affordable. (Especially since Canon is now apparently defining anything below $2,000 as affordable)

Finally, I certainly agree on the sticker shock of the new tele-extenders. I'm surprised more people haven't commented on that. From the Canon website it looks like they are dropping the old versions. I'm wondering just what will make these new ones so much better.
 
Upvote 0
C

Canon 14-24

Guest
unfocused said:
so I very much hope Canon wouldn't upgrade the EF 135mm f/2 before I have a chance to buy one.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but just curious: why choose the 135mm f/2 over the 100 mm f/2.8 Macro IS for the same price? I did buy the 100 f/2.8 Macro and am very pleased with it. (Although I honestly haven't used the Macro capabilities that much). Is the one-stop gain in speed and extra 35mm in focal length worth more than the macro and IS? I guess it's an individual choice, but I'm just curious.

It probably depends on your preference of shooting and what you shoot. For myself I have used the 100 2.8 macro and 135mm 2.0 and I'd prefer the 135mm 2.0 on full frame for better subject isolation and more of that slightly smoother bokeh, not to mention the AF is the fastest I've personally ever used! In regards of the IS 100mm model I read reviews that it really is irrelevant for macro use with IS and at most would give you maybe 1 stop improvement.

To also note I have seem quite a bit of craigslist ads in my area selling their 100mm 2.8 is macro for the 135mm 2.0.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 11, 2010
827
4
unfocused, I have the 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS and while for the moment I use it for both macro and portrait photography, if I were more serious about outdoor portrait shooting I would definitely pick up the 135. the extra 35 mm would be nice, as well as the possibility of going down to f/2 (although at 135mm that's really really shallow).

the main reason? the AF. the L Macro autofocuses pretty well at non-macro distances ... for a macro lens. but it really doesn't stand up to a true L telephoto, and is going to spend a lot more time overshooting and then having to rack back into focus
 
Upvote 0
M

muteteh

Guest
unfocused said:
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but just curious: why choose the 135mm f/2 over the 100 mm f/2.8 Macro IS for the same price? I did buy the 100 f/2.8 Macro and am very pleased with it. (Although I honestly haven't used the Macro capabilities that much). Is the one-stop gain in speed and extra 35mm in focal length worth more than the macro and IS? I guess it's an individual choice, but I'm just curious.

I have an 85mm f/1.8 for portraits, and am thinking about using the 135mm f/2 for the same purpose. Which is also why I don't consider the 100mm Macro. Price of the 135mm f/2 is my main concern as it is, and the reviews I've read are not kind to the 135mm f/2.8 softfocus lens.
 
Upvote 0
muteteh said:
unfocused said:
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but just curious: why choose the 135mm f/2 over the 100 mm f/2.8 Macro IS for the same price? I did buy the 100 f/2.8 Macro and am very pleased with it. (Although I honestly haven't used the Macro capabilities that much). Is the one-stop gain in speed and extra 35mm in focal length worth more than the macro and IS? I guess it's an individual choice, but I'm just curious.

I have an 85mm f/1.8 for portraits, and am thinking about using the 135mm f/2 for the same purpose. Which is also why I don't consider the 100mm Macro. Price of the 135mm f/2 is my main concern as it is, and the reviews I've read are not kind to the 135mm f/2.8 softfocus lens.

Grap 135m L f/2 as long as you can. Otherwise Canon will introduce its II version for $1800. Another selling point for this lens is that it makes 216mm f/2 on 1.6 sensor. 200mm f/2 IS costs $5300, if we subtract $1000 for IS, then we save more than $3000!
 
Upvote 0
Well, this is disappointing for me. I was holding off on buying the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 hoping Canon would release an equivilent zoom at f/2.8. I really need the f/2.8 for poorly lit, outdoor night sports events (rodeos). The 70-200 works great on a APS-C sensor, but I prefer to shoot with my FF, and having the ability to zoom to 300mm at f/2.8 would have been perfect.
 
Upvote 0

kennykodak

M.Photog.MEI.Cr.
Aug 27, 2010
107
0
Cincinnati
MOT said:
Well, this is disappointing for me. I was holding off on buying the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 hoping Canon would release an equivilent zoom at f/2.8. I really need the f/2.8 for poorly lit, outdoor night sports events (rodeos). The 70-200 works great on a APS-C sensor, but I prefer to shoot with my FF, and having the ability to zoom to 300mm at f/2.8 would have been perfect.

i got it off of B&H's site, they must have listed it wrong. having worked with digital Hasselblads with their older zoom lens, i didn't think much about it. sorry.
 
Upvote 0
M

muteteh

Guest
dilbert said:
unfocused said:
Finally, I certainly agree on the sticker shock of the new tele-extenders. I'm surprised more people haven't commented on that. From the Canon website it looks like they are dropping the old versions. I'm wondering just what will make these new ones so much better.

I think we're seeing a number of things in the new price:
1) new technology and associated R&D costs to cover
2) change in exchange rates of the Japanese Yen
3) over time, prices of goods does go up, as too do wages

I think we've all been spoilt for too long with anything related to technology always seemingly getting cheaper or at worst, staying the same price.

There are a few points to consider here:

1) The upgrades are not very popular with the participants of this site.

2) We're used to Canon raising prices by 25%-30%, not 60% or 200%. This is worsened by the above + the apparent lack of any big time improvement, such as an extra stop.

As example, when the new TS-E lenses came out, people immediately saw that it gives them another degree of freedom (= tilt and shift in two axis at the same time, rather than one), and when the new EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM, people were waiting for the 2 stop improvement in IS and improvement in optical performance.

In contrast, people here didn't vote for new & improved tele-extenders, they voted for an upgraded EF 24-70mm with IS. The expected result is people being unhappy about the perfectly good tele-extender prices taking a sharp price rise.

3) The economy is not blooming nowadays. E.g. there are plenty of people like me, who didn't get a raise for three years (prices kept going up, though), or like my cousin & his wife, who were unemployed for a while and have stuff to deal with now that they do have a job. Raise prices in a time like this, and you should expect people to sound, you know, grumpy.

4) The price rised rather steeply, e.g. the new 70-300 costs *three* times as much as the old one. I mean, God knows why, but those '1 for the price of 3' deals never sent customers on a stampade, especially when the economy is down.
 
Upvote 0
D

/dev/null

Guest
spamloverman said:
I couldn't find the info, but does the front element extend, like the non-L version, when zooming? Going by the diagram, I think it does, but it's hard to tell and I'd be surprised if it did.

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=3512

Look at the figure on the web site you link: At 300mm, the front element moves forward quite a bit, so yes, the lens extends as you zoom, like the non-L 70-300s and unlike the 70-200 f/2.8. At least focusing seems to be internal, so the front element does not rotate as you focus.

This is not a lens for me.
 
Upvote 0
W

weaponOfchoice

Guest
/dev/null said:
spamloverman said:
I couldn't find the info, but does the front element extend, like the non-L version, when zooming? Going by the diagram, I think it does, but it's hard to tell and I'd be surprised if it did.

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=3512

Look at the figure on the web site you link: At 300mm, the front element moves forward quite a bit, so yes, the lens extends as you zoom, like the non-L 70-300s and unlike the 70-200 f/2.8. At least focusing seems to be internal, so the front element does not rotate as you focus.

This is not a lens for me.

yup the lens extends out. found these pictures of the pre-prod model today:

http://www.ronmartblog.com/2010/09/sneak-peek-canon-ef-70-300-f4-56l-is.html

just outta curiosity why isn't this lens for you /dev/null? i'm actually interested in buying a tele-zoom lens (as i don't have one) and thought this would be a good one. thoughts/suggestions?
 
Upvote 0

rbr

Sep 11, 2010
129
64
I don't see what all the negative responses to this lens are all about. If the quality is there its price doesn't seem out of line with all of Canon's other recent introductions. Yeah it's maybe on the expensive side, but if the quality is there, especially wide open on the long end, it doesn't seem outlandish. It seems like it would be an excellent and versatile little lens for hiking and travel. It's compact and rugged, covers a wide range, focuses close, and has the improved IS. It seems like a useful professional tool, which is hopefully what it was designed to be. There are plenty of less expensive alternatives out there.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.