Just noticed this... but see no historic posts about it! Canon EF 70-300mm L!!!

captures.in.time

captures.in.time

Messages
1,764
Edit My Images
Yes
What do people think of it.... It seems to have hit the market with no warning and I normally keep my ear to the ground... I've been wanting canon to do this sorta lens in an L version for a long time... Any good????

http://www.jessops.com/online.store...ops.com/online.store/products/78115/Show.html

This just puts all my last few posts about the 70-200mm and getting a crop body out the door!!!

What are peoples thoughts on this lens... anyone used it yet???

Im more excited than i've ever been about a piece of camera gear for years!!!!

M
 
Just out of interest what other lenses where announced?

It's on the WE web site too and says in stock for delivery tommorrow... Im sorely tempted but the wife would KILL me!
 
It's way overpriced IMO and is a slow lens.

Why not get the 100-400L for a lot less? It's still a slow lens, but it also has IS and cost a lot less, IQ is very good too. Plus, you have another 100mm at the long end.
 
Last edited:
because it's too heavy for what I want... its 1050g the 100-400 is 1380g... that's a bigger diff than it sounds... also not sure I need the 300-400 range...

M
 
Well I kinda thought about that a while ago but seen poor reviews of that and the DO lens... I had the old 75-300mm IS and I hates the softness of the lens... my last few lenses have been L series... and I just cant get over the IQ diference between them... not that im saying L is everything I know it's not... but at the same time... I want to buy a lens once and be happy with it... not buy once and always wander if only i'd bought that beter lens... Im looking at the purchase as a serious long term investment... so the cost of the new lens does not bother me if the quality is going to be there!
 
If you want lighter, get a 70-200 F4L IS and a 1.4X TC - the combo is lighter than the 70-300, and faster at 200mm, gets you 280 F5.6 as well.

I'm rather disappointed by this lens on paper - nothing there at all that makes me want to buy it. I was hoping for a 100-300 F4L IS...
 
Has anyone seen any performance reviews yet though??? The 5.6 does not make a huge issue for me... and the 70-200 plus tc seems a bit cumbersome for me... will sit quite long on the camera... the 70-300 apeals too as if I get a crop sensor camera boddy i'll have some serious reach for a spot of wildlife ... I know not the quickest... but prob fine for what i'd do
 
I guess I just want to like this lens... but maybe the f4 would have been better
 
I guess i've been neglecting myphotography in the last year as just moved into a new house!
 
Knock £500 off the price and it might be worth considering.
 
trencheel303 said:
just get the regular 70-300?
Click to expand...

I agree - nothing much wrong with the 'old' 70-300, and far better than the 75-300 that you seem to be using as a comparison...

I use both the 70-300 (when having to travel light) and the 100-400; the 70-300 never ceases to amaze me as to it's IQ etc. Maybe I'm just lucky with the copy I have..

John
 
Maybe I'm being an l glass snob... Iv every intention of waiting till march next year to make a decision... I'm off to NYC in April... So I'll be interested to see how tests on this lens pan out... I'm hoping it will be fab... But maybe some of u are right about the existing model.
 
If it was F2.8 then I could see the price tag being justified, but @F5.6?? that's a joke.
Canon are placing far to much emphasis on IS, whilst great even 4 stops of IS is not the equal of fast glass in most scenario's.
I would rather throw the money at a 70-200 L IS and a 1.4TC
 
markelliot said:
because it's too heavy for what I want... its 1050g the 100-400 is 1380g... that's a bigger diff than it sounds... also not sure I need the 300-400 range...

M
Click to expand...

I have the same issues with the 100-400. I need a high quality 70-300 lens that I can lug around a zoo for five or six hours. The 100-400 is too big and too heavy.

As to the eye-wateringly high price, this is the launch price guys. Canon always ludicrously over price items when they are announced - look at the 60D and the 70-200 F2.8 L mark two. The latter was £2200 when announced but was around £1700-1800 when I last looked.

I will be following the reviews on this lens with great interest. Next march, when the street price has fallen to something a little more reasonable, I'll almost certainly buy one.
 
Last edited:
Update on the price: Warehouse Express are advertising it at £1349. The other major pushers still seem stuck around £1600 though.
 
In my opinion the varying max aperture is a joke. This should have been a constant f/4 throughout the focal length range, or what's the point? There's already a couple of 70-300/5.6 lenses in the lineup and a heap of 70-200s that'll get very close with the addition of an extender. A lens no faster than the 100-400, and shorter too. What on earth for? For those who shoot with manual exposure it pretty much turns it into an f/5.6 lens throughout the range. Hopeless.
 
Last edited:
W/E price just gone down to £1345! So tempted but the wife would actually kill me!!!
 
but IS always seems to add a lot of weight and bulk to L series lenses... I think if anything its more compact than the 70-200mm IS and certainly with the 1.4tc attached they are 1050g vs 980g... so no real weight dif for me... but a def compact diference which apeals to me... the 70 300 is only 143mm long... the 70-200 with tc is 200mm long
 
Was also very excited when I first heard about this lens and definitely a lens I expect to buy in the new year to replace my standard 70-300. I also have a 100-400 but hate the push/pull zoom mechanism.
 
tdodd said:
In my opinion the varying max aperture is a joke. This should have been a constant f/4 throughout the focal length range, or what's the point? There's already a couple of 70-300/5.6 lenses in the lineup and a heap of 70-200s that'll get very close with the addition of an extender. A lens no faster than the 100-400, and shorter too. What on earth for? For those who shoot with manual exposure it pretty much turns it into an f/5.6 lens throughout the range. Hopeless.
Click to expand...

I have the "standard" 70-300 IS which is pretty good for the money. The 100-400 is fairly old in design and the IS system is pretty old hat compared to the more recent lenses. If this is sharper than the current model I can see the point of it, but not at the price they're asking....

LFH now have it available to hire if anybody wants to "try before you buy".

Steve
 
Canon's own MTF charts promised pretty stellar IQ.. And while I'm not sure that it'll be THAT good, some of the test shots posted on the 'net don't look bad at all. Here are some:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=36843764

Wide open (if f/5.6 can be considered that), it looks pretty good at 300mm. Certainly a lot better than anything I ever got from my old 70-300 IS at any FL past 200mm. And at f/8 it's already on par with my 70-200/4L IS (or what I would expect from it).

Yes, everyone WISHES it was f/4 all the way. But look at the size of the 300/4 and try to make that into a consistently performing zoom... And I know it would be great if it was f/4 between 70-200 but it's not - it's f/5 at 200mm so 2/3 slower than the 70-200/4Ls.

Do I want it? Yes. I have the 70-200/2.8L IS II but I want something smaller and with more reach for my travel togging. This new 70-300 looks like it could be the one to have.
 
I'm looking at getting a telephoto zoom for those times I want to take less lens with me and do less swapping around. On the prime side I've got a 50 and a 135mm plus a 1.4tc, so it should I think be a fairly easy decision for me to go for the 70-200 instead of the new 70-300.

However. I want my zoom lens to be my easy, flexible no fuss set-up, in contrast to my primes. Frequently taking my 1.4tc on and off is really inconvenient and doesn't feel good for keeping my gear in good nick either. So even already owning the tc, I can see why this could be appealing. If I want great bokeh, speed and don't mind a bit of swapping, I've got my 50 and 135 primes plus 1.4tc.

I'd get this now (if it wasn't a stupid price) but I'll wait and see what the price does in the new year probably. I agree with all the comments I've read around that it is an odd release from canon, but the fact remains, I can't see a better alternative for me which gives me much more range than I've got now (without the need for bird watching 400/500mm).

I don't want something too big, I don't need huge length (and I'm on a crop 7d anyway). I do however want a good range and something to compliment my 17-55.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top