Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmo_2006
On the Canon site there is a tripod mount - C listed as an option. On the Adorama site it is listed as included with pre-orders. Needs verification before ordering IMO. I ordered the tripod mount - D for the 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro lens and it was expensive. The quality is excellent although the China knock-offs were much less expensive. But quality? Didn't take the risk. No price given on mount -C that I can find if needed to be ordered alone.
Guess we'll have to wait. My guess is that Adorama is wrong, and it's an optional accessory (and will likely be nearly $200, and not available at first, if the Tripod Ring D for the 100mm L Macro is any indicator).
In their Digital Learning Center writeup, Canon states, "An optional Tripod Mount C (WII) is available, and its operation likewise is both solid and smooth..."
On the other hand, on Canon USA's EF Lens Lineup page for the lens, Canon states, "Gleaming white, with a removable tripod collar, dust and water resistant construction, and a newly developed Fluorine coatingthat keeps soiling, smears and fingerprints to a minimum, its phenomenal performance and flexibility is assured." The Tripod Mount Ring C is listed on the Supplies and Accessories for the lens, but so are the pouch and hood, and those are included.
Given the length of the lens, and the fact that it's closer in weight to the 70-200mm f/4's with the optional ring than to the 70-200mm f/2.8's with the included ring, and also given the fact that if Canon can find a way to make more money, they will...I'll be surprised (very pleasantly, though) if they include it with the lens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
That was one of the things that raised a red flag for me in the article. Marketing usualy paints a picture that is carefully worded to point the consumer in the right direction without down playing the product. The comment didn't give warm fuzzy feelings because this comment could have easly said the lens is best for cameras at the price point of the 60D or 7D. The article seemed to down play the lens.
I thought that this lens might be marketed to those who bought the non L version of the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS and are looking to make the move up to L glass.
I find the size of this lens interesting, smaller and lighterthan the 100-400L and the 70-200L f/2.8 it would be alot more protable. But in the end with me it has to have the IQ and until we see some reveiws we are just speculating.
...should have mentioned in my comment, that most if not all Canon *white* lenses include the tripod mount.
[;)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
Agreed. I picked up the 70-300mm DO for times when the bulk of the 100-400mm and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II were not practical.
The MTF charts are quite encouraging - based on them, this new lens is nearly as sharp as the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II (which AFAIK is has the best IQ of any Canon zoom lens).
<div>
<div>Not all. The EF 70-200mm f/4L and EF 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses are white and do not include tripod mounts. Prior to the announcement of this lens, those two were the shortest white lenses - the new 70-300mm L is even shorter, so although it's 10 oz. heavier, the center of gravity is closer to the camera body.</div>Quote:
Originally Posted by elmo_2006
</div>
Hi Everyone,
I was anxious to find this out: Here are the focal lengths and their max aperture openings (based on a preproduction lens):
70-103mm = f/4.0
74-154mm = f/4.5
155-228mm = f/5.0
229-300mm = f/5.6
You can compare these values to the other lenses here:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?LensComp=0&Lens=738
This is a quote from Cannon's overview "Gleaming white, with a removable tripod collar," so it looks like they won't gig us for another $75 bucks or so to get a collar. The carrying case appears to be one of the pouch's the black Llens use, not the cool zip pouch the 100-400 comes with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
The 100-400L that I had, had a sweet spot around 300-320mm. At 400mm the image wasgood but the images around the 300-320 seemed to always be better. At 100mm the 100-400L was always lacking in my opinion, and the 70-300mm appears that it will beat it easily at that distance. I would be interested in seeing the 100-400L compared to the 70-300 at comparable lengths.
If it is light enough, and compact enough it might have a place with me to just carry around in case an oppritunity presents itself. If it is not easily protable I will always go prime.
Thanks for the corrections, totally forgot about those lenses, damn flu!
Nevermind me then
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
Yep - I quoted that in my post on the first page of this thread. But I also quotedtheDigital Learning Center writeup, where Canon states, "AnoptionalTripod Mount C (WII) is available, and its operation likewise is both solid and smooth..."
Those two statements seem to contradict each other.
The full quote you excerpted from the overview is ""Gleaming white,<span>witha removable tripod collar, dust and water resistant construction, and a newly developed Fluorine coatingthat keeps soiling, smears and fingerprints to a minimum, its phenomenal performance and flexibility is assured." Maybe the optional removable tripod collar contributes to the 'phenomenal...flexibility'?
I think the jury is still out on the tripod collar. Personally, I'm pessimistic. Also, if it's not included and they only 'gig us for another $75 bucks' thatwould be a tremendous bargain - the currently available Canon-branded tripod mounts range from $140-$180.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Carnathan
Thanks for the details, Bryan. Tracks pretty well with my expectations; about 20mm 'better' than the non-L version for the first 2 increments, similar for the drop to f/5.6.
--John
"Removable" doesn't preclude the fact that you have to buy it. I will be very surprised if it comes with the collar. They chargeextortionrates for the things as an add-on.