The price you paid for your 70-300L ??

Sort by date Sort by votes
#22
Ruined said:
CarlTN said:
Ruined said:
Still hoping next year brings a non-weather sealed, lighter, slimmer, and cheaper plastic version of this lens. Its not just the money, but rather nice to have something smaller and lighter as an alternative that still has excellent optics - like the 55-250 STM for instance.

With the deep discounts they are giving on the EF 70-300 F/4-5.6 non-L, this may just be the plan.
Click to expand...

I very highly doubt that would ever happen. That would at least partially cannibalize the L, if Canon claimed it had the same optics but somehow just in a cheaper plastic unsealed body. Where did you hear of this plan? It sounds very bogus to me. Also unprecedented...the 55-250 would likely already be the lens you are describing...and it is not a watered down version of an L lens. I'm not aware of Canon ever taking an L lens and releasing a cheaper build version.

I've rented the latest version of the 70-300 non-L, and it was a very fine lens for the money. You should try one. It worked great on my crop camera at that time, but I have no idea how it would work on my 6D (likely not too well towards the borders). If you are using crop cameras only, though, maybe you should check it out?
Click to expand...

I owned a 70-300 non-L, the new 55-250 STM totally destroys it in all ways except not having a metal mount. Better image quality across entire focal length, better autofocus, etc. The 55-250 STM is actually about on par with the 70-300L already.

The problem with the 55-250 STM is it doesnt work on a FF camera. The 70-300 non-L does, as does the 70-300 DO IS, but both of those have inferior optics compared to the new 70-300L. IMO, Canon would do well to have a lens that weights less than 1kg and is more compact, while still retaining the image quality. It definitely is possible as most of the weight and bulk of the 70-300L appears to be due to weather sealing and immaculate build.
Click to expand...

What's the weather sealing made out of, mercury? The sealing does not add to the weight more than a few grams. The rest of the build, however, obviously does add to it.
 
Upvote 0
#23
I bought my brand new Canon 70-300mm L in December 2010 from a bricks and mortar store (with a fantastic returns policy) here in Australia, for AUD$1600. It had been $1700 the previous week, and I jumped on the $100 special. Plus I received a quality 67mm CPL filter for about $50 off the RRP, so in effect I was getting my lens for less than $1600 – and that was just about a month after it was really hitting the shelves (a month or two after it's international release).

Sure, I could have waited more than a year – and probably obtained the lens for a bit less than that, but I’m glad I didn’t. I have taken so many photos with this lens since Dec 2010, I’m very happy. Plus, I have seen the lens (in the same store that I bought it in) for $1800 for a lot of time – even during 2013. Probably a result of demand and supply and international currency rates, etc. The IQ of the 70-300mm L is definitely a cut above any other 70-300mm / 55-250mm lens (and I’ve used all of them).

Read real user reviews, and the vast majority of people who purchased this lens are very impressed with the IQ & handling this lens. It retains superb IQ throughout the focal range, wide open – which the non0L 70-300mm can’t do, neither can the Tamron 70-300mm USD (which was the lens I was also considering). The 55-250mm (including the latest STM version) are good for the money, but they don’t compare at the tele-end (eg not as sharp, less contrast, inferior bokeh, higher CA). You do get what you pay for. Sure there are some poor ‘dud’ samples / copies out there (eg the one that SLRgear reviewed) – but nearly all of them are good (I’m very glad mine is a superb sample).

All the best.

Paul
 
Upvote 0
#24
Upvote 0
#25
pj1974 said:
I bought my brand new Canon 70-300mm L in December 2010 from a bricks and mortar store (with a fantastic returns policy) here in Australia, for AUD$1600. It had been $1700 the previous week, and I jumped on the $100 special. Plus I received a quality 67mm CPL filter for about $50 off the RRP, so in effect I was getting my lens for less than $1600 – and that was just about a month after it was really hitting the shelves (a month or two after it's international release).

Sure, I could have waited more than a year – and probably obtained the lens for a bit less than that, but I’m glad I didn’t. I have taken so many photos with this lens since Dec 2010, I’m very happy. Plus, I have seen the lens (in the same store that I bought it in) for $1800 for a lot of time – even during 2013. Probably a result of demand and supply and international currency rates, etc. The IQ of the 70-300mm L is definitely a cut above any other 70-300mm / 55-250mm lens (and I’ve used all of them).

Read real user reviews, and the vast majority of people who purchased this lens are very impressed with the IQ & handling this lens. It retains superb IQ throughout the focal range, wide open – which the non0L 70-300mm can’t do, neither can the Tamron 70-300mm USD (which was the lens I was also considering). The 55-250mm (including the latest STM version) are good for the money, but they don’t compare at the tele-end (eg not as sharp, less contrast, inferior bokeh, higher CA). You do get what you pay for. Sure there are some poor ‘dud’ samples / copies out there (eg the one that SLRgear reviewed) – but nearly all of them are good (I’m very glad mine is a superb sample).

All the best.

Paul
Click to expand...

Paul, thanks very much for setting us all straight! I knew there was a reason I wanted this lens...
 
Upvote 0
#29
boogaloo said:
I'm increasingly thinking that this might be my next lens choice too, though I have got a bit daft and jittery about whether the 'slew' of new lenses next year might include a rework of this (though having followed the debate around that it looks unlikely and - yes, I know - no lens is real until it's real).

I have also just bought a Kenko 1.4x teleconverter that I really hope would work with this lens (I believe the Canon ones won't).

I tend to buy most of my stuff from DigitalRev, which sho1ws the 70-300 at being 869 with their current offer (that's 1393USD).
Click to expand...

You are correct that the Canon tc's wont work with this lens. At least not throughout the zoom range, and not safely. There is another thread or 2 about this, and based on recomendations from other CR members, I bought the Kenko teleplus pro 300. It works really well on my 70-300L, and takes good images without much loss of sharpness or quality. I cant remember how much I paid for the 70-300L, but have gotten a few of my lenses from B&H when there were rebates available. Before that, I used the 70-300is non L on my crop 50d, and thought the images were better than some state, though not as good as the L version (on my 5dll).
 
Upvote 0
#30
CarlTN said:
Ruined said:
CarlTN said:
Ruined said:
Still hoping next year brings a non-weather sealed, lighter, slimmer, and cheaper plastic version of this lens. Its not just the money, but rather nice to have something smaller and lighter as an alternative that still has excellent optics - like the 55-250 STM for instance.

With the deep discounts they are giving on the EF 70-300 F/4-5.6 non-L, this may just be the plan.
Click to expand...

I very highly doubt that would ever happen. That would at least partially cannibalize the L, if Canon claimed it had the same optics but somehow just in a cheaper plastic unsealed body. Where did you hear of this plan? It sounds very bogus to me. Also unprecedented...the 55-250 would likely already be the lens you are describing...and it is not a watered down version of an L lens. I'm not aware of Canon ever taking an L lens and releasing a cheaper build version.

I've rented the latest version of the 70-300 non-L, and it was a very fine lens for the money. You should try one. It worked great on my crop camera at that time, but I have no idea how it would work on my 6D (likely not too well towards the borders). If you are using crop cameras only, though, maybe you should check it out?
Click to expand...

I owned a 70-300 non-L, the new 55-250 STM totally destroys it in all ways except not having a metal mount. Better image quality across entire focal length, better autofocus, etc. The 55-250 STM is actually about on par with the 70-300L already.

The problem with the 55-250 STM is it doesnt work on a FF camera. The 70-300 non-L does, as does the 70-300 DO IS, but both of those have inferior optics compared to the new 70-300L. IMO, Canon would do well to have a lens that weights less than 1kg and is more compact, while still retaining the image quality. It definitely is possible as most of the weight and bulk of the 70-300L appears to be due to weather sealing and immaculate build.
Click to expand...

What's the weather sealing made out of, mercury? The sealing does not add to the weight more than a few grams. The rest of the build, however, obviously does add to it.
Click to expand...

Actually looking at the design of the lens I believe the diameter and bulk surrounding the telescoping part of the lens is there partially due to the weather sealing, as I imagine weather sealing a telescoping element of this length is not easy.
 
Upvote 0
#31
Ruined said:
CarlTN said:
Ruined said:
CarlTN said:
Ruined said:
Still hoping next year brings a non-weather sealed, lighter, slimmer, and cheaper plastic version of this lens. Its not just the money, but rather nice to have something smaller and lighter as an alternative that still has excellent optics - like the 55-250 STM for instance.

With the deep discounts they are giving on the EF 70-300 F/4-5.6 non-L, this may just be the plan.
Click to expand...

I very highly doubt that would ever happen. That would at least partially cannibalize the L, if Canon claimed it had the same optics but somehow just in a cheaper plastic unsealed body. Where did you hear of this plan? It sounds very bogus to me. Also unprecedented...the 55-250 would likely already be the lens you are describing...and it is not a watered down version of an L lens. I'm not aware of Canon ever taking an L lens and releasing a cheaper build version.

I've rented the latest version of the 70-300 non-L, and it was a very fine lens for the money. You should try one. It worked great on my crop camera at that time, but I have no idea how it would work on my 6D (likely not too well towards the borders). If you are using crop cameras only, though, maybe you should check it out?
Click to expand...

I owned a 70-300 non-L, the new 55-250 STM totally destroys it in all ways except not having a metal mount. Better image quality across entire focal length, better autofocus, etc. The 55-250 STM is actually about on par with the 70-300L already.

The problem with the 55-250 STM is it doesnt work on a FF camera. The 70-300 non-L does, as does the 70-300 DO IS, but both of those have inferior optics compared to the new 70-300L. IMO, Canon would do well to have a lens that weights less than 1kg and is more compact, while still retaining the image quality. It definitely is possible as most of the weight and bulk of the 70-300L appears to be due to weather sealing and immaculate build.
Click to expand...

What's the weather sealing made out of, mercury? The sealing does not add to the weight more than a few grams. The rest of the build, however, obviously does add to it.
Click to expand...

Actually looking at the design of the lens I believe the diameter and bulk surrounding the telescoping part of the lens is there partially due to the weather sealing, as I imagine weather sealing a telescoping element of this length is not easy.
Click to expand...

I never thought of the added bulk of the diameter of this lens, was due to having weather sealing for the telescoping element. I suppose some of it could be due to this. However, it seems like the 24-105, which also has a weather sealed telescoping element, would also need to somehow be huge and heavy, and it is not. Also, its front filter size is much larger than the 70-300L, at 77mm. I really think the added bulk of the 70-300L has more to do with the desired rigidity of the lens, the size of its elements, their grouping...and the design/layout of the IS elements. Frankly at 2.3 pounds it's just not a heavy lens, especially when you consider its length when telescoped, that the elements are high quality, and that there is IS.
 
Upvote 0
#34
I paid c. $1000 for mine, a used copy from lensrentals, in the equivalent of the sale that begins in a couple of hours at lensauthority. Superb lens, for all the reasons given by others; I don't think I've used my 70-200 f4 L IS since (not because it isn't as good optically, but because the extra 100mm matters to me). As with all other lenses there may be some dud copies out there (the first one I bought, new, wasn't any better than my 70-300 non-L, so I didn't keep it). Given how well lensrentals maintains its stock, and the excellence of their customer service, buying used from them seems relatively risk-free.
 
Upvote 0
#35
sdsr said:
I paid c. $1000 for mine, a used copy from lensrentals, in the equivalent of the sale that begins in a couple of hours at lensauthority. Superb lens, for all the reasons given by others; I don't think I've used my 70-200 f4 L IS since (not because it isn't as good optically, but because the extra 100mm matters to me). As with all other lenses there may be some dud copies out there (the first one I bought, new, wasn't any better than my 70-300 non-L, so I didn't keep it). Given how well lensrentals maintains its stock, and the excellence of their customer service, buying used from them seems relatively risk-free.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but it seems like their prices are higher than everyone else's for used gear. Not to mention the fact that their used gear, is shipped probably 15 to 20 times (or more) to that many different people, before they decide to put it for sale on their used site (it's usually a 2 year period before they offer them for sale). That's a lot of handling hours on a product. I would never buy a used item that had been through that many hands and shipped that many times. I've rented a lot of times from them, and have seen the nicks and wear the lenses get. The 24-105 lens I rented from them in 2012, was very worn, the telescoping part was quite loose...compared to the essentially new "used" one I bought off Ebay recently (it's very tight). I definitely do not plan to buy used from them, but there's always a possibility. I love them as a rental place, and they're fantastic with customer service...They have a used Zeiss 18mm lens for $900 right now, but I've seen them for that price on Ebay as well, and even a bit lower. Those particular ones probably weren't in any better condition, but I've not really been shopping seriously for one, since I've decided I really must have the 70-300 next (so I can sell two of my other lenses that it would replace).
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Cover Cap for removed tripod collar mount on 24-105 Z / 70-200 Z ?
Replies
2
Views
252
danfaz
danfaz
D
Canon, where are thou RF lenses...
Replies
2
Views
517
HeavyPiper
H
A
So when are we gonna get a price reduction on the R5M2 in Europe?
Replies
10
Views
2K
Swissbob
S
neuroanatomist
F00 conundrum
Replies
9
Views
680
neuroanatomist
neuroanatomist
ruzun
Sigma 60-600 Equivalent
Replies
0
Views
318
ruzun
ruzun
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu