8 new Canon lenses!

Another disappointing Canon announcement for me.

60D won't get my cash to replace 40D. It is too small, no CF, same old AF, plastic body, lower fps, and noisy 18mp sensor. I can't see that in my bag personally. It must be 7D then if I ever come to get another APS-C body.

1.4x 2x III - perhaps the only interesting thing - if they are really much sharper than my current one 1.4x

big white - all good, just can't afford any

70-300 f/5.6 IS - had it been f/4 const like a comparable sigma lens I would be interested. 70-200mm f/4L + 1.4x in my eyes is a more versatile combo. I'd rather get 2.8 version of that.

8-15mm - not my cup of tea. It is a very specialist lens.

I was looking for improved and extended range 24-70mm L IS and a new 50mm f/1.4.
That is all I wanted. Perhaps in photokina or January?
 
I wish there was a new 100-400. Everytime I think about buying it I stop when I remember how old it is...
 
The 8-15mm looks interesting and I'd like to have an occasional play, but could never justify £1.5K for a lens that would sit in the bag most of the time.

I can't see the appeal of the 70-300mm myself.

A 500/4 IS II will hopefully mean a few used MkI models on the market as people upgrade.

I was hoping for a new 180mm L IS macro or 200mm L IS macro
 
WEX has got the 8-15mm up at £1499.
 
I think a lot of people are missing the point of the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM. It's aimed at people who are more concearned with reach than having a fast telephoto. There are plenty of people (myself included) who simply can't afford or justify f/2.8 telephoto lenses. Hence the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM, it's got plenty of reach and a decent enough aperture for outdoor usage. Yes the RRP is a little mad but that will drop once the "ZOMG I MUST HAVE" buyers have all got one.

The EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM fits a hole in the old lens line up for a 70-300 lens that was optically excellent and has IS. Really the only thing you had before was the DO one which didn't have IS and the 70-300s and 75-300s weren't very clever optically (I owned one, and have used several). So really the only thing that's a bit whacko is the price tag...which is hardly suprising considering it's a brand new L lens...of course it's going to cost a bomb! :LOL:

Edit: and like others have said, if it were a constant aperture at f/4 they'd have to cease production of the 70-200 f/4 L USM and the f/4 L IS USM. Plus it gives Canon the option of a few years income with the new 70-300 & 70-200s...then in few years they can release a EF 70-300 f/4 L IS USM II and stop making the 70-200s maybe? ;)
 
Last edited:
Will H said:
For whom the 100-400L remains the ideal solution surely :shrug:
Click to expand...

True, but the 100-400L will now be aimed at those want long reach, while the new 70-300 aims at those who'll make use of a slightly wider perspective by sacrificing a bit on the long end. There's not much between this new 70-300L and the 100-400L but I also know a couple of people who refuse to buy the 100-400L because of it's shotgun style dust attracting abilities! I bet they'd be interested in this lens...
 
Denyerec said:
A 70-300/4 would have a front filter size of ~ 82mm, then you'd all be complaining it was too big and heavy to carry around... :)

I feel sorry for camera manufacturers sometimes!
Click to expand...

Very true. In an ideal world I'd like an EF 17-600mm f/2 L IS USM...I wonder if there's one in the making? :thinking:
 
mumrar said:
With my own now dormant 70-300 IS in mind, I can only think they've done things to improve the optics, cos mine really didn't impress above 200mm to be honest, but it's a heck of a price jump. If sigma can make a 100-300 f/4, why shouldn't Canon make a 70-300 f/4 and try to steal a march, it may justify the price but I cannot see it ever being worth that much, even the expected price.

On the plus side I may be able to get a decent price on the EF II extenders now.
Click to expand...

The 100-300 is merely a 70-200 with a 1.4x converter built into the lens design.

Canon have really come out fighting with this slew of new stuff. Doesn't matter whether they're the lenses I would have designed - there's obviously a market for these.

Still, it means that if anyone was unsure of how good the old 70-300 is, they should get one now and marvel at how they got an l lens for a fraction of the cost!
 
menthel said:
I jut don't understand the market position or point of this new 70-300. Without a fixed aperture it makes no sense. And the price looks to be crazy!
Click to expand...

I'm with you on that one

i have the 28-300 and that goes from f3.5 to 5.6

it's not great and a bit soft, but not sure why i'd buy a lens with a smaller widest aperture and a significantly smaller throw

a 2.8 70-300 would make sense, or even upgrading the 28-300, but this one? :thinking:
 
Nothing that floats my boat really.

My long term lens list is 17-40, 24-70, 70-200 f2.8 and if I need extra reach I can look at the 1.4x III.#

The 60D is a surprise, they have gone in a new direction and are looking to push people to the 7D which is considerably more expensive.

Is this their full line up regards new releases? So no 5DMKiii?




.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just seen the pre-order price of the 70-300 L are Warehouse Express - £1599!!!!!!!! :puke: :eek:
 
The thing with lens costs are everyone is looking at the RRP of prices - early adopters pay a premium...FACT.

The advertised price of the 400mm f/2.8 II is £11,500. That's a lot of money considering you can pick up a current MkI brand new for £6.3k. However, when the 400 2.8 IS came out back in 2003 (a whopping 7 years ago) the RRP was £9,809.99 - when you think about how much the economy around the world has grown since then (and shrunk) and the rate of inflation, say 3.4%, that's not a big rise in costs.

I was shocked to see the RRP of the 1.4x TC III to be £549.99 but then checked the cost of the current MkII model which has a RRP of £449.

It's the same with the 60D debate - the prices we're seeing are the new prices. They are the maximum price we will see these lenses selling at (maybe the new VAT rate will affect them slightly). The RRP on the 7D body is £1,800 whereas the RRP on the 60D is £1,099 so obviously prices will come down when the products are out and the early adopters have had their share.

Looking at the RRP of the 100-400 of somewhere in the region of £1,900 then suddenly the 70-300 (which is completely different to the current 70-300) doesn't look to bad when you take in to account the final selling cost in a few months.

Just my tuppence.


DB
 
Denyerec said:
A 70-300/4 would have a front filter size of ~ 82mm, then you'd all be complaining it was too big and heavy to carry around... :)

I feel sorry for camera manufacturers sometimes!
Click to expand...

Me too. Fantastic range of new stuff from Canon, and one thread all about dissing the 60D (which has got some wonderful in-camera Raw processing options and a superb articulated screen). Then this thread which seem mostly about how the 70-300L is not worth having and overpriced :shrug:

I'm pretty sure Canon know exactly what they're doing and I reckon this will beocme Canon's biggest selling L lens. The MTF graphs on the Canon USA site are very impressive. It's true L standard, which the current non-L 70-300 is nothing like at the long end. Plus the weather-sealed L build quality, 4-stops IS etc. I think it will hit the venerable 100-400L hard, and steal sales from the regular EF lens as well.

On the other hand, I have the 70-200L 4 IS and don't feel an overwhelming urge change. The new lens is certainly very good, and the price will surely fall in line soon, but it's 30% heavier than my 70-200 (1050g vs 760g) and I'm also pretty sure that the compact length will grow several inches when zoomed to 300. (Not certain about that, can't confirm it.)

The new 300 and 400 2.8 are also just amazingly good. I've never seen anything as impressive as the MTFs Canon USA are putting out for those two lenses with the new Extenders :eek: :D
 
Canon USA website has DROPPED the "old" 70-300 IS.. :eek: Only the DO remains, and the craptastic 75-300mm ones :bang:

They do have MTF charts for the new 70-300 IS L though:

wide_tele.jpg
mtf_tele.jpg


Compare that to the old one:

Canon_ef_70-300mm_f4-5.6DOIS_mtfchart.JPG


Or the 70-200/4L IS:

mtf_wide.gif
mtf_tele.gif


I'm no pro at reading these but it looks like the new 70-300 is promising a lot more on paper at the tele end than the old one, but not up to the 70-200/4L IS class (although that's measured at 200mm of course). At the same time the wide (70mm) looks almost worse??

Here's the real KILLER though?? 300mm II + 2x III :love:

mtf_ext2.jpg
 
gingerweasel said:
The 60D is a surprise, they have gone in a new direction and are looking to push people to the 7D which is considerably more expensive.
Click to expand...

Thats not the way I see it at all, it's smaller and lighter than my 30D yet retains the jog wheel on the back. It's exactly what I've been looking for in that respect I don't need the better AF system on the 7D and the change to SD from compact flash is inevitable as it free's up a massive amount of space internally.
 
Bendihossan said:
I think a lot of people are missing the point of the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM.
Click to expand...

Spot on. Like I mentioned in another thread I wish I had a Canon camera so I could own this lens. What a great idea. A 70-300 optically reliable L lens the size of a non L 70-300? Man, this would be great for a lot of my work. My 150 f/2 is small, but shiznat, the front element is huge and I never even use f/2 :LOL:.

Its strange how the majority bash these releases yet nobody (well, I wouldn't expect) works for Canons marketing and development teams. Its not like they have to go around pleasing the TP massive in order to drive sales is it.
 
Last edited:
King_Boru said:
Its strange how the majority bash these releases yet nobody...works for Canons marketing and development teams.
Click to expand...
:bonk: So we automatically have to agree with them? Sadly this is the way the world has gone, where R&D develop something and marketing tell us all we need it. I know what I want/need but in the terms of cameras it wouldn't be commercially viable.
 
vaizki said:
<snip>

They do have MTF charts for the new 70-300 IS L though:

<snip>
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting those :)

It takes hundreds of MTF traces to get a complete picture of lens performance (and that's only about sharpness, no other lens characteristics) and there's a lot missing from what Canon publishes (Nikon and Sigma do the same). In particular, what is it like at higher resolution levels, and at mid-range focal lengths?

But, having stared at those kinds of graph for half of my life, you can read between the lines and predict quite a lot. It was the same with the 70-200L 2.8 IS II, with graphs that showed potential but, as it transpired, didn't quite reveal how fantastically good that lens ultimately turned out to be, and how well it worked with extenders which the older versions couldn't really live with. That was a lens which everybody said was not needed, and now Canon can't keep up production fast enough.

I think there may be a theme running through Canon's new long lens launches (though probably not with the new 70-300L as it happens, not at f/5.6) and it's interesting that they've replaced both the 300 and 400 2.8 lenses, both already exceptionally high performers, and have put them out with MTF graphs including extenders. With which they are both incredibly good!

Take the new 300L 2.8, and with extenders you have a kind of 300-600mm f/2.8-5.6 zoom that, in relative terms, is affordable, light, very versatile and very sharp :love:
 
OneTen Richard,

I'll keep you in mind ! Cannot wait till they are available.
If the 300 and 500 are that good, there will be two lenses up for sale soon.
Mind you they will have to be too better the ones I have now.

C
 
OneTen said:
:bonk: Sadly this is the way the world has gone, where R&D develop something and marketing tell us all we need it.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure that I follow you.

Where are Canon telling us we all need it?

As I see it Canon offer a very wide range of lenses to suit all budgets.
 
Ceejay said:
OneTen Richard,

I'll keep you in mind ! Cannot wait till they are available.
If the 300 and 500 are that good, there will be two lenses up for sale soon.
Mind you they will have to be too better the ones I have now.

C
Click to expand...

I think that unless you fancy the extenders option, the current lenses are pretty damn good, and cheaper. But for pros looking to ease their load of maybe a 300/2.8 and a 600/4, if you can maybe cover that with just one lens and an extender, you're laughing* all the way to the bank.

*until the new 500 and 600s appear :LOL:
 
HoppyUK said:
It takes hundreds of MTF traces to get a complete picture of lens performance (and that's only about sharpness, no other lens characteristics) and there's a lot missing from what Canon publishes (Nikon and Sigma do the same). In particular, what is it like at higher resolution levels, and at mid-range focal lengths?
Click to expand...

Yup, the 10 and 30 LP/mm used in the MTF charts are probably not optimal for the current APS-C sensors with close to 20Mpx... Too many pixels in my view, I've never cropped a single image to 100% with my 7D, while with the 1D I do it all the time (well HAVE TO hehe).

Also Canon publishes MTF graphs which are not measured but calculated in their R&D when putting together the optical design. Not sure about Nikon and Sigma. I still can't believe how sweet that 300/2.8L IS II chart is with the 2x extender.. so we'll have to wait for the reviews. Shouldn't be long now, as the cat is out of the bag.
 
Probably the biggest mistake Canon has made is calling it the 60D, because everyone then assumes it falls into the same line as the 10D, 20D, 20Da, 30D, 40D and 50D. However, using their existing line up, where else would you put it?

Anything xxxxD would suggest it's Canon's bubble and squeak, made up of left over stuff they've got on the shelf

Anything xxxD would suggest its a replacement for the 550D, when it sits above that

Anything xD would imply something greater than it is.

So what do they call it? I suggest Gerald.
 
vaizki said:
Yup, the 10 and 30 LP/mm used in the MTF charts are probably not optimal for the current APS-C sensors with close to 20Mpx... Too many pixels in my view, I've never cropped a single image to 100% with my 7D, while with the 1D I do it all the time (well HAVE TO hehe).

Also Canon publishes MTF graphs which are not measured but calculated in their R&D when putting together the optical design. Not sure about Nikon and Sigma. I still can't believe how sweet that 300/2.8L IS II chart is with the 2x extender.. so we'll have to wait for the reviews. Shouldn't be long now, as the cat is out of the bag.
Click to expand...

Pixel density on a 7D is equal to well over 100 cycles per mm :eek:

I don't have a problem with all the manufacturers producing computer generated MTFs. A properly constructed lens should be able to meet that, or very close to it surely, especially one made to L grade, and the computer cannot make the lens appear better than its 100% design spec.

malla1962 said:
Same here, f4 would be nice.
Click to expand...

It would be huge, weigh a lot more, cost a lot more, and would not perform as well.
 
Last edited:
Impspeed said:
The thing with lens costs are everyone is looking at the RRP of prices - early adopters pay a premium...FACT.

The advertised price of the 400mm f/2.8 II is £11,500. That's a lot of money considering you can pick up a current MkI brand new for £6.3k. However, when the 400 2.8 IS came out back in 2003 (a whopping 7 years ago) the RRP was £9,809.99 - when you think about how much the economy around the world has grown since then (and shrunk) and the rate of inflation, say 3.4%, that's not a big rise in costs.

I was shocked to see the RRP of the 1.4x TC III to be £549.99 but then checked the cost of the current MkII model which has a RRP of £449.

It's the same with the 60D debate - the prices we're seeing are the new prices. They are the maximum price we will see these lenses selling at (maybe the new VAT rate will affect them slightly). The RRP on the 7D body is £1,800 whereas the RRP on the 60D is £1,099 so obviously prices will come down when the products are out and the early adopters have had their share.

Looking at the RRP of the 100-400 of somewhere in the region of £1,900 then suddenly the 70-300 (which is completely different to the current 70-300) doesn't look to bad when you take in to account the final selling cost in a few months.

Just my tuppence.


DB
Click to expand...

Finally someone is actually comparing the new prices with the old ones... All of these lenses will be much more affordable in 6 months when the initial hype is gone and the prices go down..

Now, regarding 70-300.. I would say it is a nice addition. Within this range, only lenses without any drawbacks are the 70-200Ls and they cost a lot (other than 70-200F4 non-IS).

55-250 is cheap but very bad build quality

old 70-300 has a better built but not a proper USM and IQ suffers beyond 200mm..

so if the price of the new 70-300mm falls somewhere between IS and non-IS 70-200mm F4, then it would be great buy (depending on the IQ of course).
 
andrewc said:
Anything xxxD would suggest its a replacement for the 550D, when it sits above that
Click to expand...

IMO, it's far more a replacement/successor to the 550D than the 50D.
 
A 400mm f/2.8 II for £11,500? I read that it is 3 pounds lighter but WOW! Nikon lenses were more expensive....not anymore.

Actually, if the performance is off the charts, I wonder if Canon has something up it's sleeve in it's next cycle of bodies and senors to finally catch up to Nikon in the sports and ISO areas. Hmmmmm......
 
Last edited:
Didn't see the 70-300 coming - but how dinky and cute is that !

Not cheap really for the spec but for the 'must have white L brigade' it's probably a tempting travel lens.

Price will no doubt drop quite a lot and settle at a lower rrp once they've creamed the gear junkies.

60D - think I'd go for the 7D based on price.
 
texfoto said:
A 400mm f/2.8 II for £11,500? I read that it is 3 pounds lighter but WOW! Nikon lenses were more expensive....not anymore.

Actually, if the performance is off the charts, I wonder if Canon has something up it's sleeve in it's next cycle of bodies and senors to finally catch up to Nikon in the sports and ISO areas. Hmmmmm......
Click to expand...

Well.....that's a pretty biased view of things.

Firstly you are looking at one lens and suggesting that now all canon lenses are more expensive than nikon equivalents.

Also, as everyone has been saying, £11,500 is the RRP and final retail is likely to be much lower. For example, the mk1 400 f/2.8 rrp's at £9.8k but is available for 6.5k, so this version will likely be maybe 1-1.5k more expensive in maybe a years time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top