The Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM II Still Scheduled to Arrive This Year [CR3]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Maximilian said:+1ahsanford said:
Do you know if those are still in production ??? or only still on (Canon) stock and nobody wants them :
I've seen a few photographers with an EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III (IIRC w/ USM) attached to crop cameras, who bought it because its cheaper / longer than the EF-S 55-250mm lenses.
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
1. Around here, the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III is cheaper than the EF-S 55-250
[Its 15% cheaper than the EF-S 55-250mm IS II on my favorite shop.]
2. Some people choose the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM for the focal length advantage, AFAIK people who aren't savvy enough to compare IQ on the Internet.
3. Canon sells those lenses because there's money in it.
Which reminds me - a local shop sold a GigaPan + rebel camera + EF 75-300mm III. The buyer wanted the cheapest combo to take high res panoramas of villages in Judea and Samaria at different points in time, so he could show how much they've grown. He doesn't need IS, and IQ requirements are as humble as 'make out urban features, such as houses and streets'.
Upvote
0
Optically I might be interested in lens. I already have a 70-200/2.8 II with TCs and a 100-400, but bloody hell with my aviation photography and vantage points I just happen to be in a spot where 100mm min is occasionally just too long, but using the 70-200 is much shorter than 400 max; and using a TC to extend it puts the minimum back to 100mm anyway! (Ideally I'd love a 70-300/4). And even if it's not as good as their "L" (I wouldn't expect it to be since it's about product line up) the decent sharpness of new lenses in general is probably good enough for me.
But it did just occur to me that being non-L I doubt it will have the Mode 2 panning IS which is really handy for the slow shutter speed part of aviation photography.
But it did just occur to me that being non-L I doubt it will have the Mode 2 panning IS which is really handy for the slow shutter speed part of aviation photography.
Upvote
0
FECHariot said:
There is the prime trio of 24, 28 & 35 IS, all excellent lenses both optically and in their construction. They also go very well on crop. I was disappointed when I tried the new 50 STM on FF: at f/2.8 it was nowhere near where I thought it would be mid frame, never mind edge. Also the 40 Pancake is very good on FF, but the lack of any feel in the manual focus and no distance window can be an issue occasionally. The 50/1.4 is a pretty good lens, especially stopped down a little, but the package is well overdue for modernising.
The 70-300 non L was a strange lens IMO: really quite brilliant at 70 - 100, and really quite crap beyond that. Surprisingly so for the price.
Upvote
0
Sporgon said:
Yeah, the 24/28/35 primes fit the perfect middle/'premium-but-not-best' for a lens:
- Great build quality compared to the sloppy plastic crap of old (still a lot of plastic but very solid, think small version of the 100L minus the weathersealing)
- IS
- FTM mechanical focusing (none of that focus by wire crap)
- Proper ring USM for reliable / quick / consistent AF
- Internal focusing (no telescoping bits when you turn a focus ring -- bad for dirt/dust/moisture ingress, also no focus motor is loaded when you turn off the camera and jam it in your bag like with many cheaper externally focusing lenses)
- Not big, not heavy, not conspicuous. A very nice compromise in speed/size for street work, especially the 35mm f/2 IS USM.
I -- if you just climbed out from under a rock and missed the last 4 years -- want to see those 24/28/35 improvements across the entire non-L prime line of glass. Take my money.
The 50m f/1.8 STM -- as nice of a value as it is -- is still in the budget bucket for very good reasons. Other than slightly better build quality than the eggshell house of cards the 50 f/1.8 II was, that lens gets none of the good stuff above, and as Sporgon mentioned, it's good but not remotely great optically.
- A
Attachments
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
Agree there will be a 50mm non-L that is better than the 50 f/1.8 STM and will replace the 50 f/1.4 USM, but there could be more to it than that.
Canon may not offer a 50 f/1.4 IS USM in non-L as it may steal some business from the 50 f/1.2L. So this forum is littered (as I'm sure you know) with all sorts of 'future state of 50' threads. So you might get any of the following near future states:
50 1.8 STM / 50 1.4 USM II / 50 1.2L (or subsequent update) --> this makes the most sense to protect L sales
50 1.8 STM / 50 1.8 IS USM / 50 1.2L (or subsequent update) --> slightly nerf the IS USM lens' max aperture to keep it small and light, and also to keep the 1.2L attractive.
50 1.8 STM / 50 1.8 IS STM / 50 1.2L (or subsequent update) --> I will row a boat to Japan and punch the idiot who takes my mid-level USM away. Madness.
50 1.8 STM / (either the first or second option above for the non-L) / 50 1.2L AND a new L expressly built to go pound for pound with the Otus 55mm, Sigma 50 Art, etc. This would probably be f/1.4 and weigh six tons. I could see it being sold alongside the the f/1.2L as a completely different animal for different photographers.
...but I think I'm glaringly OT at this point. Apologies.
- A
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
My guess is that Canon are waiting until they have developed a good 50/1.4 IS, not wanting to go down the slower f/1.8 route. After all, on FF 50 mil has been out of fashion for some time, only coming back with the likes of the Sigma and Otus. So I think we will see it, in the 24,28,35 IS form, but we won't get it until Canon have got it right.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
Yes I see where you are going with this. Primes are kind of special in this as there are only the 200,300, and 400L primes that have different levels in price separating them from one market to another. Zooms have more L options in different market segments. And for me personally, I don't mind spending more on zooms that are going to be more used and more versitile for my needs. So as a person in the 7D/6D market, I want the better build in a zoom because I am more likely to use a zoom in weather where I need better sealing than I would a prime.
The problem I have is how Canon will release a non L 70-300 that doesn't totally kill 70-300L sales. Heck, the 55-250 STM IQ is right up there with the 70-300L now. I guess they just make a lens with good IQ but really cheap build like the 55-250 STM.
Upvote
0
FECHariot said:
The 35 f/2 IS lens outperformed the 35L I when it came out, but I"m not convinced it stole sales from it.
For 70-300 lenses, of course, it's a different animal as it will not be slower than the L lens. So it depends on the features the new non-L gets. If it has internal focusing, peppy USM, and improved build quality, the only thing it would lack compared to the L is weathersealing. It could sell very well.
- A
Upvote
0
FECHariot said:
Canon could have tricks up its sleeve:
- Nerf the new non-L 70-300 with nano USM that is slower than full blown ring-type USM or only give it a very basic IS on/off setup compared to the L offering different IS modes.
- Offer a new 70-300L that crushes the non-L with better IQ, better IS (and possibly 1.4x extender compatibility?), like what Canon just did with the 35L II vs. the 35 f/2 IS USM -- it's a little too soon to do this, however, as the 70-300L is only 6 years old.
- Canon could also price the non-L a little high, say $699, to protect L sales.
- A
Upvote
0
In this thread I have read several replies that want to communicate that it it is unwise for Canon to make this new 70-300 non-L lens .... well, useable.
In an ealier thread "A New Full Frame Zoom Coming in 2016 [CR2]" I wrote about my experiences with owners of the 'old' 70-300 non-L lens because I was then looking for a Canon lens with a bit more reach than my present 55-250 STM but in particular a bit faster AF than that lens. I wrote:
" .... I have spoken several people in the last year with the Canon 70-300 non-L, and both its AF-speed and IQ is not to modern standards at all. Probably Canon's innovations with STM are partly to blame for that. And innitial reviews of the nano-USM seem to be even a step better for de AF-speed. Of course, IQ is a per-lens matter, based on how Canon choses to market the lens.
But there is another aspect of the present 70-300 non-L I would like to bring up. Two of the people I spoke bought the 70-300 non-L as part of a package with a body or another Canon-lens. Both were thinking that with Canon they could not be mistaken, even although it is not that cheap (and almost twice the price of the 55-250 STM). And Canon's own words speak about good IQ and fast AF. For them it was a great disappointment that the Canon 70-300 non-L could not focus on playing children (not eratically running around, just slowly moving as any kid does), pets, etc.. These 'normal' customers are disappointed greatly: not in this lens, but in Canon as a brand!
So perhaps Canon manages to earn a lot on sales of an old design that (new) customers keep buying because it routinely gets packaged with other Canon products (e.g. around the holidays), but apparently the management of Canon does not realise that Canon is eating from it's own good name here. After this experience, both of these customers (owners of a Canon DSLR-body) will not automatically chose a Canon-lens next time, they told me!
The third was a guy I met at an airshow. It was my first time at an airshow after many years, so I started talking to him when I saw his camera. With his Canon 6D (a full frame body) and 70-300 non-L, he thought that he had bought a nice combination for shooting planes. That was not the case in reality, he told me. Despite what Canon says on its website and what he believed to be true. He felt a fool.
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.
Therefore I can only hope for Canon's sake that this rumors (also) is about a new EF 70-300 IS (nano-)USM with a decent IQ over the whole range but in particular at the long end. Because after all, that is where most tele-zooms are most often used: at or around the long end. And where they are judged in reality."
I think this also explains where the sales of this to-be-expected 70-300 non-L will be high. Note that the folks that semi-pro shoot airshows or BIF, or other niche-parts of action photography, will NOT buy this new 70-300 non-L. These types of photography require a very high keep-percentage and therefore are reserved for highly capable camera bodies like the 7D Mk II, 5D and 1D, together with L-series lenses. But it will be bought by those who want a useable 70-300 lens to photograph kids and animals and anything moving in the real world they live in.
And yes, that would probably mean they can also shoot an airplane if they happen to go to an airshow once a year. But it would be very unwise of Canon to deny them that - as a 'punishment' for not buying FF-body and/or an L-quality lens. Because then, the DSLR could very well be not interesting any more for many.
The first time I heared "my phone takes better pictures there than my expensive DSLR" I did not take it seriously. But I heared it very often. Perhaps this has also reached Canon, because from this forum I understand they have an elaborate system of market research.
I dare writing this so directly because since I wrote the passage that I quoted above, I heave taken every opportunity to ask every person I see with a Canon DSLR and a zoomlens (friends, collegues, strangers I see on holiday, in the zoo, in the parc, etc.) 4 things:
(1) what lenses they have (in particular if I see a zoom lens like 70-200, 70-300L, 70-300 non-L, 55-250, 100-400), (2) why they bought it, (3) if they think it is good for what they bought it for and (4) their personal conclusions fot the future.
I did this to 'test' the positive descriptions that were written in several threads about both the old 70-300 non-L and the old 75-300 - often with a lot of conviction.
This has shown me that: it would be very unwise of Canon to give the new 70-300 non-L a slow AF or bad IQ out of some fear boys and girls in Sales have written down. because with slow AF or less IQ than the 55-250 STM, the new 70-300 non-L will be unuseable for what many people want it for and that will lead to more of the frustration about the brand 'Canon' that I regularly heared (although not always agreed with because of a lack of knowledge by the persons that I spoke). Canon will lose many DSLR-users that would otherwise keep buying this and other lenses and (replacement-)camera bodies.
Perhaps Canon has seen this structural scepsis that I have whitnessed and therefore intends to market a lens with a good IQ (which indeed means a big improvement over the old 70-300 non-L) and very fast nano-USM. Despite what some replies in this thread seem to suggest, in my experiende this will boost confidence in Canon and thus the profit of Canon, both in the near as in the bit distant future. Even to the market leader that will a be good setting to cash on.
In an ealier thread "A New Full Frame Zoom Coming in 2016 [CR2]" I wrote about my experiences with owners of the 'old' 70-300 non-L lens because I was then looking for a Canon lens with a bit more reach than my present 55-250 STM but in particular a bit faster AF than that lens. I wrote:
" .... I have spoken several people in the last year with the Canon 70-300 non-L, and both its AF-speed and IQ is not to modern standards at all. Probably Canon's innovations with STM are partly to blame for that. And innitial reviews of the nano-USM seem to be even a step better for de AF-speed. Of course, IQ is a per-lens matter, based on how Canon choses to market the lens.
But there is another aspect of the present 70-300 non-L I would like to bring up. Two of the people I spoke bought the 70-300 non-L as part of a package with a body or another Canon-lens. Both were thinking that with Canon they could not be mistaken, even although it is not that cheap (and almost twice the price of the 55-250 STM). And Canon's own words speak about good IQ and fast AF. For them it was a great disappointment that the Canon 70-300 non-L could not focus on playing children (not eratically running around, just slowly moving as any kid does), pets, etc.. These 'normal' customers are disappointed greatly: not in this lens, but in Canon as a brand!
So perhaps Canon manages to earn a lot on sales of an old design that (new) customers keep buying because it routinely gets packaged with other Canon products (e.g. around the holidays), but apparently the management of Canon does not realise that Canon is eating from it's own good name here. After this experience, both of these customers (owners of a Canon DSLR-body) will not automatically chose a Canon-lens next time, they told me!
The third was a guy I met at an airshow. It was my first time at an airshow after many years, so I started talking to him when I saw his camera. With his Canon 6D (a full frame body) and 70-300 non-L, he thought that he had bought a nice combination for shooting planes. That was not the case in reality, he told me. Despite what Canon says on its website and what he believed to be true. He felt a fool.
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.
Therefore I can only hope for Canon's sake that this rumors (also) is about a new EF 70-300 IS (nano-)USM with a decent IQ over the whole range but in particular at the long end. Because after all, that is where most tele-zooms are most often used: at or around the long end. And where they are judged in reality."
I think this also explains where the sales of this to-be-expected 70-300 non-L will be high. Note that the folks that semi-pro shoot airshows or BIF, or other niche-parts of action photography, will NOT buy this new 70-300 non-L. These types of photography require a very high keep-percentage and therefore are reserved for highly capable camera bodies like the 7D Mk II, 5D and 1D, together with L-series lenses. But it will be bought by those who want a useable 70-300 lens to photograph kids and animals and anything moving in the real world they live in.
And yes, that would probably mean they can also shoot an airplane if they happen to go to an airshow once a year. But it would be very unwise of Canon to deny them that - as a 'punishment' for not buying FF-body and/or an L-quality lens. Because then, the DSLR could very well be not interesting any more for many.
The first time I heared "my phone takes better pictures there than my expensive DSLR" I did not take it seriously. But I heared it very often. Perhaps this has also reached Canon, because from this forum I understand they have an elaborate system of market research.
I dare writing this so directly because since I wrote the passage that I quoted above, I heave taken every opportunity to ask every person I see with a Canon DSLR and a zoomlens (friends, collegues, strangers I see on holiday, in the zoo, in the parc, etc.) 4 things:
(1) what lenses they have (in particular if I see a zoom lens like 70-200, 70-300L, 70-300 non-L, 55-250, 100-400), (2) why they bought it, (3) if they think it is good for what they bought it for and (4) their personal conclusions fot the future.
I did this to 'test' the positive descriptions that were written in several threads about both the old 70-300 non-L and the old 75-300 - often with a lot of conviction.
This has shown me that: it would be very unwise of Canon to give the new 70-300 non-L a slow AF or bad IQ out of some fear boys and girls in Sales have written down. because with slow AF or less IQ than the 55-250 STM, the new 70-300 non-L will be unuseable for what many people want it for and that will lead to more of the frustration about the brand 'Canon' that I regularly heared (although not always agreed with because of a lack of knowledge by the persons that I spoke). Canon will lose many DSLR-users that would otherwise keep buying this and other lenses and (replacement-)camera bodies.
Perhaps Canon has seen this structural scepsis that I have whitnessed and therefore intends to market a lens with a good IQ (which indeed means a big improvement over the old 70-300 non-L) and very fast nano-USM. Despite what some replies in this thread seem to suggest, in my experiende this will boost confidence in Canon and thus the profit of Canon, both in the near as in the bit distant future. Even to the market leader that will a be good setting to cash on.
Upvote
0
Far from pointless as far as I'm concerned (6D shooter). Size matters, and "build quality of the L Lenses" often translates to doubling the size and weight. If canon can improve the optical quality to L levels, but go on a major diet by sacrificing some durability and weatherproofing, I'll be all over it. Throw in the price difference and make it one of the standard offerings and it's a no brainer, thrash the lens until it dies then just pick up another one at your nearest retailer. Most of my photography is either travel or wilderness. The weight difference between the 70-300 L and non-L is equivalent to a day's food, or snow vs summer sleeping bag - being there vs not being there. Quite a number of similarly inclined friends have already left Canon for other platforms (e.g. Sony FF or Olympus MFT) purely on size & weight issues, I only hold out because I like the FF look and don't like EVFs. Give me better IQ in consumer weight glass and Canon keeps me as a customer a bit longer.
FECHariot said:
Upvote
0
haggie said:
I agree with the general tone of your comments but I think you have missed a very important point.
The AF on the non-L need only be a fraction below the performance of the L to make the L a worthwhile upgrade for serious amateurs who shoot things like airshows. That way Canon can still keep both market sectors very happy.
As for build, I have seen similar comments from pros about the 50mm - some say the image quality of the 1.8 plastic fantastic is so close to the f1.4 that they buy the f1.8 and treat it as disposable; others look on the f1.4 as far more durable and worth the money in build quality alone. As long as Canon get the balance just right they can improve the non-L substantially and still sell both models quite successfully.
And all they need do is add superior weather proofing on the L version and the market is secure.
The internet is packed with people who believe that if a photo is on the internet they are entitled to use it, and this attitude is permeating customers of goods as well. More and more of them seem to think that they should be able to buy L-quality gear for consumer gear prices and moan like heck when they don't get it.
I have yet to be convince that any manufacturer gives better value for money than anyone else when you look at a camera+lens system.
.
Upvote
0
Mikehit wrote "I have yet to be convince that any manufacturer gives better value for money than anyone else when you look at a camera+lens system.".
I fully agree there, being a user of Canon equipment since the A-1 and T-90.
If I gave a different impression, that is my mistake.
On the other hand, as dsut4392, even very long standing relationships can come to an end due to frustration and disappointment - or due to comparison with something (/someone?) else that seems better .....
I fully agree there, being a user of Canon equipment since the A-1 and T-90.
If I gave a different impression, that is my mistake.
On the other hand, as dsut4392, even very long standing relationships can come to an end due to frustration and disappointment - or due to comparison with something (/someone?) else that seems better .....
Upvote
0
drmikeinpdx
Celebrating 20 years of model photography!
This lens really needs an optical upgrade. I sold mine a couple of years ago due to poor sharpness. Also, the image stabilization didn't seem to help as much as I thought it should.
I replaced it with a 75-200 F/4 L that seems to work fairly well.
I replaced it with a 75-200 F/4 L that seems to work fairly well.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
