Would Canon make a tele/super tele ef-s lens?

[Loswr]

The only important dimension is the weight - 300g is hardly a back breaker or even enough to slow you down.

For me, as for lol, the ~1.75" difference in length is quite significant. From a convenience standpoint, when I had the DO lens, a great walkaround 2-lens kit was the 24-104mm and 70-300mm DO, carried in a Lowepro Toploader Pro 65 AW with a Lens Case 1W attached to the size. Either lens worked in both cases, perfect fits. The extra length of the L lens means if I get that, I'd need a Toploader Pro 70 AW for it, and a bigger lens case, and both would be oversized for the 24-105mm. I don't care about the weight difference, but the larger retracted size is a negative.

Still, IQ trumps that, and if I get the 70-300 L at some point, I'll get the 70 AW. It's bigger than the 65 AW, but smaller than the 75 AW I'm using for my one of my current walkaround kits - gripped 5DII, 24-105mm, and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.

 

[briansquibb]

According to LOL's sig - he already ready has the 70-300L. Personally I have a stack of bags that cope with every need - I make sure I have an appropriate bag when I buy the lens. When you are talking of a $1500 lens then a cheap bag shouldn't be a big deal

I really dont see how, if you have the right sized bag, that 1-3/4 inches makes a significant difference in the normal run of affairs. If it does then we are talking of exceptional circumstances.

 

[Gothmoth]

i hardly ever sold a 70-300 DO and the appearance of the 70-300 L IS killed the DO lens completely.

 

[lol]

Yes, I have the 70-300L, as well as the 100-400L too. I'm not afraid of a bigger size when the need is there. What I was saying, is there are times where I value the smaller size. The DO is that much smaller, and if they were ever to make a hypothetical EF-S ??-300mm lens with a small minimum size, I'd be all over that in addition to the 70-300L. A bigger bag isn't the optimal answer. Yes, I now use a bigger bag to accommodate the 70-300L, but it isn't "just right" like it was with the DO.

On the DO, I'm amazed they sold new at all, but obviously they must have otherwise there wouldn't be used stock around now. The current used prices I think are about the right ball park value for the lens overall. My other minor gripe with the DO is the small zoom ring which is close to the body making it a little fiddly to use at times. A physical refresh with a fatter ring like the 15-85 would be nice.

 

[briansquibb]

Yes, I have the 70-300L, as well as the 100-400L too. I'm not afraid of a bigger size when the need is there. What I was saying, is there are times where I value the smaller size. The DO is that much smaller, and if they were ever to make a hypothetical EF-S ??-300mm lens with a small minimum size, I'd be all over that in addition to the 70-300L. A bigger bag isn't the optimal answer. Yes, I now use a bigger bag to accommodate the 70-300L, but it isn't "just right" like it was with the DO.

On the DO, I'm amazed they sold new at all, but obviously they must have otherwise there wouldn't be used stock around now. The current used prices I think are about the right ball park value for the lens overall. My other minor gripe with the DO is the small zoom ring which is close to the body making it a little fiddly to use at times. A physical refresh with a fatter ring like the 15-85 would be nice.

I am all sure that we want is a 30-300, f/4 that weighs 300g and is 75mm long and fits a ff as well and up to L standard. I am sure that if that was possible Canon would have developed it by now. I think the closest you are going to get to the magic 100mm length is the 55-250 - I use this on my 7D when doing street photos as it is totally innocuous

 

[Jettatore]

70-300 DO in the right hands is a good, usable lens, here's proof http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=420534 I don't see great artwork in the above thread, but I see technically use-able shots in about 1/2 of the small handful of pictures posted.

On top of other considerations people have already mentioned you also get a 70-300 range to take in situations where a Canon sized DSLR would not be alarming but carrying around a big white L tele-zoom would stick out. The EF-S and off-brand options might very well be even better, I'm considering them all. But I've decided if I'm going for the size of the 70-300L, that I might as well start considering going even a little bigger and just getting a 70-200 f/2.8 IS LII with extender(s). It's another length and size different (before the extender) that's similar between the jump from the DO to the 70-300L. I want a really un-assuming, light-weight tele-photo or all in one walk-around zoom with usable quality that doesn't stick out like a sore thumb in certain situations and doesn't look like I'm trying too hard when I don't want any unnecessary attention.

 

[briansquibb]

The 70-200 f/2.8 is significantly heavier and longer than the 70-300L. Especially when you add the extender.

 

[Jettatore]

Yes, precisely, and before adding extender, near the same amount longer and heavier as the DO is to the 70-300L. So if I don't care about extra size and weight, as is being annoyed so clearly here, then why not make another equivalent jump to the 70-200 IS II or throw in an extender as well.

70-300 DO = 720g @ 99.9 mm
70-300 L = 1050g @ 143 mm
70-200 2.8 IS II = 1490g @ 199mm

1.4x Extender = 225g @ 27.2mm
2.0x Extender = 325g @ 52.7mm

 

[briansquibb]

Yes, precisely, and before adding extender, near the same amount longer and heavier as the DO is to the 70-300L. So if I don't care about extra size and weight, as is being annoyed so clearly here, then why not make another equivalent jump to the 70-200 IS II or throw in an extender as well.

70-300 DO = 720g @ 99.9 mm
70-300 L = 1050g @ 143 mm
70-200 2.8 IS II = 1490g @ 199mm

1.4x Extender = 225g @ 27.2mm
2.0x Extender = 325g @ 52.7mm

You chose to ignore my comment about the 55-250 which is about as inoccuous as you get, then suggest the 70-200 + extender. Your original requirement was just the length now you add the bit about not standing out in the crowd. Perhaps you are just jerking my chain :-[

 

[Jettatore]

I did not. Re-read. Anyways, all done here, gl.

"The EF-S and off-brand options might very well be even better, I'm considering them all." -quoted from reply #25

 

[Loswr]

But I've decided if I'm going for the size of the 70-300L, that I might as well start considering going even a little bigger and just getting a 70-200 f/2.8 IS LII with extender(s).

The 70-300 L will give you better IQ at 300mm than the 70-200 II + 1.4x TC, but you'll be at f/4 vs. f/5.6. Personally, I think if you frequently need a particular focal length, you should get a lens that reaches that focal length natively. TCs are best reserved for occasional, necessary use.