|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
New EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS?
I've received an email saying Canon will be replacing the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS with a new version.
The current version was launched in 2005 and has been a good seller for Canon.
I have heard stories from various retailers about the lens being backordered for a while now.
I'm going to say the likelihood of this being replaced is low, unless I hear from better sources.
100-400?
These are still easy to get from Canon, I do not see a replacement.
cr
Dear Canon
I really, really want an EF-S 30mm f/1.8. Please. I am sure it won’t be too expensive. Thank you.
= = = = = =
I feel a little frustrated that Canon upgrades existing lenses or releases new lenses that are similar to existing ones, but never seems to think about making new lenses for which there would be a big market.
Don’t know about ef-s but Canon has recently obtained a patent for a new 28/1.8 full-frame lens:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7738182.pdf
And check this out – according to the patent, this new lens has one DO element (DO=diffractive optics) .
Come on 100-400… you can do it…. Last a little longer….
Mine is in need of a replacement. It would sure be nice to have an upgrade too.
So funny to see post by people who know nothing!
What IS coming IS:
100-400/4 IS DO to replace current100-300/4-5.6 IS and oler 100-400.
well excuuuuuuse me!
100-400 is such a nice focal length that it’s no surprise people want a new one. Some reviews point to it being unimpressive optically.
After the release of the 70-200mm II, telephoto zooms are going to have to be darn good to escape criticisms online. It could well be that the 70-300’s zoom range is big enough and quality affected enough that Canon felt that it didn’t warrant the “L.” Maybe this would still be true. It’d be interesting to see it tried though.
NO DO please, f/4 will make it expensive enough as it is.
One would expect that using the technology of the new 70-200mm II Canon could produce a 140-400 f/5.6 with the same IQ as the 70-200 II.
Unfortunately, that would carry the same price tag of $2500 which is almost double the street price of the present 100-400…
It would be nice if the 70-300 was upgraded to ring USM, and maybe non-rotating front section too. But then you get the common problem of new lenses not being so cheap…
True. You just have to pretend the new lenses don’t exist until they come down in price.
Me, I have the current 70-300mm. Even with its faulty motor and front end, I still love it. But I would appreciate an awesome upgrade like that!
I doubt it — haven’t seen a new non-L full-frame lens from Canon in quite a while.
On my side, I’d love an EF-S 55-200/2.8 IS — only my 7D, the 17-55/2.8 IS is just about perfect; this would make a perfect combination.
I have the current 70-300, which has very good IQ (at least till 200-230mm), but the motor isn’t great and it goes down to f/5.6, which is a pain. An EF-S 55-200/2.8 IS would probably be of similar size, and at around the $1000 mark, it’d really sell well with 7D owners.
Some fast EF-S primes would be good too.
Is there any lens still in production by Canon that was not rumored to be replaced on this blog ? That is, except those actually replaced.
I still do not understand how can you keep making judgements about what lens will be replaced based on current availability, it does not make any sense.
Ignoring what’s happening around you just to make up a post on a website makes you look foolish, to say the least.
I think that ring-type USM itself ensures nonrotating front element :)
As far as I can remember, there have been no rumors about a replacement of the plastic fantastic EF 50mm f/1.8 II.
Neither of the 85mm f/1.8, or any other non-L prime with the exception of the 50mm f/1.4. Most of these are ancient, and could use an update, but unfortunately Canon shows no signs of actually doing anything about that.
Where’s my new 50 f1.4 ?
Good point, I didn’t think of that…
Canon tends to sell all current copies of an old lens first, before announcing the upgraded version.
However, with current price increases (24L II is slowly coming down, 70-200L II is still sky-high), i’m not exactly sure whether we _need_ new lenses, or if they’re just there so you can say you have the latest and greatest.
It’s got a Sigma-tag, and it’s right there in the shop :D
newer lenses are required to deliver higher resolution images on sensors with ever smaller pixels.
I would but it has a fatal flaw (for me): residual aberrations. This means that it will have focus problems most noticeable when using f-stops between 2.8 – 5.6.
50/1.8 II is called tge Nifty Fifty NOT Plastic Fantastic!
What are you a bch of Ameteures?!
They make that lens for you guys to experience sharp and bright. It will not have another update they discontinued that years ago. The current 1.4 USM is your next step until you wake up and buy perfection at 1.2L!
I think that an EF-S 55-200 f/2.8 would be at least as big as the current 70-200 f/2.8. Apparently there isn’t much size benefit to EF-S at focal lengths above 50mm. I would rather have a 55-150 f/2.8 which would be smaller and lighter than the 70-200 f/2.8 just because it’s a shorter maximum focal length.
For a reasonably lightweight setup with good flexibility, I think that the 17-55 or 15-85 matched with an improved 70-300 would be the best bet.
yeah EF35mmUSM back from 1990. at some point a new II would be nice canon!
The 50 1.2 is far from perfect, and that price for a standard lens is not justifiable even for most pros. It doesn’t even qualify as a small lens for traveling light. But it’s perfect for snobs I suppose.
A decent 50 1.4 is apparently not that challenging to make and Canon’s will be updated eventually.
28mm times 1.6 = 44mm. and a 30mm = 48mm. Either would be good on an APS-C camera.
I’ve used a 400mm DO and was impressed with the IQ.
Tool
DO saves a lot of expensive low dispersion glass and makes the lens much more compact.
The end product does not have to be much more expensive than a non-DO equivalent.
f/4 will make it very expensive, that is for sure.
Why isn’t there such a benefit ?
All things being equal (e.g. focal length & aperture), shouldn’t the size of the lens’ front element be linearily proprotional to the sensor’s diagonal ?
I do not claim to be an expert in lens design, but from what I have read, there is a competing relationship between the focal length and the aperture in determining the size of the front lens element. At short focal lengths (less than ~50mm), the focal length determines the front element size. At longer focal lengths, the aperture determines the element size. Therefore, an EF-S 70-200 f/2.8, for example, would be about the same size as an EF 70-200 f/2.8 since they are both f/2.8 aperture at focal lengths greater than 50mm. The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8, however, is smaller than an EF 17-55 f/2.8 because the focal length is the primary determinant of front element size at those short focal lengths.
I would love a really sharp 400 f4L IS with that sweet sliding lens hood like on the 300 f4. Something that’s just wicked sharp with great bokeh and color.
The size of the front element is directly related to the aperture in tele lenses, so an EF-S 55-200/2.8 would not be any smaller than the current 70-200, hence why it probably will never exist: 200/2.8= 71.5mm, which is pretty big.
This is why Oly telephotos are at least as big as, if not bigger than Canon’s (300/2.8, 90-250/2.8, 150/2, etc.) despite having a much smaller format.
So a 200mm f/2.8 lens would have a front element of 71.5mm, whether it should cover an APS-C sensor, a full frame sensor, or a large format film ?
That sounds counter-intuitive to me.
Has anyone been to www. Dxo. Com lens review. Dxo says 85 f1.8 is the beat of all canons lenses
The sensor is actually not much relevant if we are talking only focal length and aperture and not particular desing of the lens. Aperture diameter is determined by the fraction of focal lenght and aperture value. 200/2.8=71,5mm aperture opening, regardless of the sensor size. Whether the lens is designed to be usable on APS-C only, FF or MF, that’s another issue of lens desing…
so if canon typically releases 2-3 lenses per announcement and one of them is highly likely to be the 24-70 2.8 IS and the ef-s one is the 60mm 2.8 IS, am I pushing my luck for a possible third L lenses to be released? 14-24?
Dear Canon I really want an EF-S 15-70 f/4 IS USM.
EF 70-300 will add ring USM updated IS and a new optical formula possibly fluorite element. Aperture will remain the same although would be nice if it where a constant f/4.
the difference though is that the oly lenses are really double – so they are actually much SMALLER. They are never going on a full frame while canons long lenses are designed for FF.
The 250 2.8 that you mention is a 500 2.8 in real world – Imagine the size of the white lens canon would make to reproduce that….
Constant f/4 would be nice but is not going to happen as it would rival the 70-200 f/4 L IS.
But even with the same optics as the current 70-300 but with ring-USM and a non-rotating front-element, this lens would still be a winner.