http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2010-08/26/EOS60D-113_L.jpg<br itxtvisited="1" />
For those of us hoping it didn't extend. But as some pointed out, reading the specs said it had to.
Printable View
http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2010-08/26/EOS60D-113_L.jpg<br itxtvisited="1" />
For those of us hoping it didn't extend. But as some pointed out, reading the specs said it had to.
Thanks for the visual confirmation, Tom! Looking at the image in the original Canon information, I guessed (hoped?) that the white inner ring just around the black innermost ring meant the extending portion of the barrel was white. Not that looks matter that much, but a black extension would have looked a little silly, IMO. More importantly, since the extending portion looks to be metal like the outer barrel, that speaks highly for the durability of the lens (also explains some of the weight).
Doing a little digging turned up another couple of images of a pre-production lens, one showing the extended zoom, another confirming the existence of a zoom lock. I wonder if it locks only in the retracted position like the black 70-300mm lenses, or if it can lock at any point in the zoom range...
http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/996405181_noa4V-M.jpg
http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/996405103_wE4Ge-M.jpg
<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif';"]What's up with the focus ring being closer to the body and the zoom ring being closer to the front optic? Generally "L" lenses are configured in reverse fashion. It's not the biggest deal in the world but I do appreciate continuity in ergonomics when shooting lens to lens...<o:p></o:p>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Elberson
Yeah - it takes a little getting used to. I have that same issue when I change back and forth between my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and my EF 24-105mm f/4<span style="color: red;"]L IS.
Perhaps it was a marketing decision - in Canon's 'Lens Positioning Article' they state, "While it’s a great match for full-frame cameras, like the EOS 5D Mark II, this lens really comes into its own when used with an APS-C size sensor camera, like the EOS 60D or 7D, or a Rebel series digital SLR." So, the market they're targeting with this lens seems to be people who will probably be used to lenses where the zoom ring is toward the end of the lens. Then again, perhapsthe design was constrained bythe floating element rear-focusing system, requiring the MF ring to be physically close to those elements.
<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif';"]Any idea of where the f-stop changes based on focal length? If it retains an f/4 anywhere close to 200mm it's really going to give the EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L ISa run for its money based on the MTF charts. Its deficiency being10.3 oz of additional heft and extending zoom but what you gain is a 50% increase in focal length and of course it's also 1.71'' shorter when retracted.<o:p></o:p>
I suppose there's no way to know for sure until some reviews come in. Based on the aperture change points for the current 70-300mm DO and non-DO, and the 100-400mm in terms of percent of zoom where the aperture shifts, I'd guess the new 70-200mm will be at f/4.5 before 100mm, at f/5 well before 200mm, and drop to f/5.6 a little after 200mm.
LOL, going to have to get use to a white lens with no tripod ringmount, maybe they should have left itin black.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Hi John,
I've also noticed that the 70-300 mm L requires a 67 mm filter whereas the 70-300 mm DO requires a 58 mm filter. Do you think this could impact the aperture ranges ofthe70-300L?
Granted, anything better than what you've outlined is probably a little optimistic.
Brant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayaker72
I doubt it. The main difference between the new 70-300mm L and the 70-300mm DO is that the new lens starts at f/4 (like the old non-DO), whereas the DO lens starts one-third stop narrower at f/4.5 - that sort of shifts the transitions (since the DO has only 2/3-stop variation, while the other two vary over a full stop).
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmo_2006
The canon web site list the tripod ring as an accessory. I bet it comes with one, a hood and carrying case as well. In case it doesn't come with it, you could always take your tripod ring off your white glass and practice so that you are ready for it.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Lets be optimistic. Since Canon hasn't posted the estimated retail price on their web site, maybe this lens will come in reasonably priced. Maybe less than $1500?? Probably not.
The only pricing I have seen so far is in the original announcment which gave an approximate retail price of $1500. If the ring is included I wonder if I can get a $140-$180 discount if I take it without the tripod ring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Phenomenal ...flexiblity: It adds the ability of your camera to turn sideways, upside down or other angles when attached to a tripod, as compared to just attaching your camera to the tripod and only shooting in a level position. I am not sure this qualifies as Phenomenal....but ok its a good thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
I interpreted that as meaning with a 1.6 crop factor the effective focal length is more appealing to those using APS-C bodies. Time will tell. If IQ is as good as MTF suggests I'll get one to use on my 40D and 5D for comparison.
Tom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Wertman
Please report back and I will be waiting to hear the reviews before I get one.
Back to the topic thread: That's one weird looking lens, but so far I'm still very positive(Perhaps it looks better with lenshood[:P]) and looking forward on the first tests and real-life experiences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
Size and Weight are truly interesting. But whatdid the Canon-Users waiting for? The owners of the 70-200mm f/2.8L waited for a 70-300mm f/2.8L. What did they get? The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. And the owners of the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM? I'm not sure, if they really wanted a 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM-lens...
Nice to have would be a 70-300mm f/2.8L IS USM. That would be really new, a big jump in technology and - instead of both the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM - very interesting Size and Weight.
If You have a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, do You want to buy a lens for 200-300mm with an aperture of f/5-5.6? And if You have a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, do You want to buy a lens for 70-100mm, additional a little bit better max apertures from 100-230mm? Do You want a lens with67mm-Filter-Size?
I think, the new 70-300mm f/2.8L IS USM lens is only something for people, who wants to get their first L-Family-Lens. Or for L-Lens-Users, who don't want to carry heavy lenses anymore. Or for Canon Freaks, who have to have the newest Canon-Equipment. Anyway, it's not abigstep forward in lens technology...
A 70-300 2.8 would be large and heavy.
And very very expensive!
Look at the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and add: IS, 70-120mm extra range and better optics to the equation [;)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yves
Such a lens, if made, would be significantly larger and heavier than either the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L - probably at least twice the weight. With the same aperture, a zoom lens is always bigger a prime of the focal length at the long end of the zoom. So, the lens you think would be interesting, a70-300mm f/2.8L, would be larger and heavier than the 300mm f/2.8L prime - and even Canon's forthcoming newer, lighter version of that lens is 10" long and weighs over 5 pounds. Interesting, yes, but perhaps not in a good way...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yves
My answer is yes. In both cases, the reason to buy the 70-300mm lens is not primarily the extra 100mm on the long end (traded for aperture), or the extra 30mm on the wide end (traded for 100mm on the long end). Rather, it's the reduction in size and weight. I can tell you from experience - I have both the70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and the100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS - and sometimes carrying one of those lenses just is not practical. That's why I got the70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS lens, to carry when bringing one of the larger lenses won't work, but I don't want to give up a telezoom. If you want portable, you need to give something up. In the case of the DO, I am trading IQ focal length or aperture for portability. The option to trade only one - focal length vs. the 100-400mm or aperture vs. the 70-200mm II - and not sacrifice IQ, is what makes the new 70-300mm appealing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yves
I think you had a typo when you called the 70-300mm f2.8 and meant the new lens. I agree with this statement. It seems that is what the marketing is geared toward on this new lens. Iowned at one timethe non L version 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS, if you have either the 70-200mm 2.8L or the 100-400L you are not going to have much use for this new lens unless you are just tired of dragging the bigger lens around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
I definitely agree. Reading the Canon DLC 'Lens Positioning Article' aka marketing statement, Canon seems to be aiming this lens at 1.6x FOVCF body owners looking to 'step into...a long range zoom'. It's going to be priced similar to the 100-400mm (slightly less), and be much smaller and a bit lighter. It's also 100mm longer than the less expensive 70-200mm f/4L IS lens - and just like 'Joe Consumer' thinks 'more megapixels is better', more millimeters must be better, too. That same 'Joe Consumer' Rebel ownerwill look at the 70-200mm f/4L IS and this new 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS, and decide that the extra 100mm is worth an extra $300 -quite possibly unaware of the effect of a variable aperture that will be 2/3 of a stop slower at 200mm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
I think this is another target customer category, but not a large one or one Canon is betting on (I'm part of it, though ;). Even though the telezoom area is a crowded space, for many applications 200mm simply is not long enough, which left the current 70-300mm non-L and DO, and the 100-400mm. The first two are conveniently-sized, but one has mediocre build quality and the other second takes a hit on IQ (contrast in particular) due to the DO optics, while the 100-400mm is big. This lens may solve all three problems - smallish size, optically excellent, and L-level build quality (including the weather sealing that the 100-400mm lacks).
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
As a Rebel owner, looking at something longer than my current 24-105mm L, I'mdefinitelykeeping my eye on this lens. I'mdefinitelypart of their target market. I want image quality, reach, and I like my IS. Weight will be a concern too, as will be price. Below are my thoughts. If you think I'm missing some part of the equation, please, let me know.
I've thought of the 70-200mm f/4L IS and non-IS, and the 100-400mm L. I'm not sure 200mm will be long enough, asI was previously used to a super zoom P&Sequivalentto 36-432mm, and wanted more reach even then. f/4 isn't always going to be fast enough either, which rules out all these lenses as a single lens solution. I can't justify the price of 70-200mm f/2.8L without IS and limited reach, and can't afford the new 70-200mm f/2.8L with IS, and again, it's still got limited reach, IMO. I'm not sure about the 100-400mm because of weight, divided opinions on push-pull zoom, and that we're all expecting a sharper image from the new 70-300mm L, and the weaker IS unit. The 100-400mm is also a variable aperture lens, so that somewhat cancels out vs. the new 70-300mm L lens.
For me, it's looking like I need to consider a dual lens approach, with either the new 70-300mm L lens or the 100-400mm L AND a 200mm f/2.8L prime. Either way it's more reach than the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, as well as cheaper. I get f/2.8 if I need it, though not as versatile, being only at one focal length, but in a nice light package. The combined weight of the 70-300mm L (37oz) and the 200mm L (27oz), is a bit more than the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (52.6oz), but I'm not forced to carry both, and each will be a lighter option on-camera.
The new 70-300mm L lets me trade 100mm of the 100-400mm for less weight, better IS, likely better IQ... I'm not sure if it's a fair trade. I guess it will also depend on whether or not I hate push-pull zooming, having not tried it yet, I can't say.
Looking at the pictures of this lens...it looks odd enough itneeds a nickname....for some reason I look at it and think "Chunky Monkey"....or how about "Stumpy"....... [:P]
More seriously on the design of the 70-300L lens, does everyone think the design is a bit of ananomoly, a consumer zoom design pumped up to the "L" level,or a sign of things to come in the "L" series?It seems to me that Canon has several base designs that they tweak for each specific lens. So, is this a new base design?How hard would it be to use a similar configuration for a new 100-400L? Or 200-500L? This is just idle and likely pointless speculation. But I do wonder.
You've hit the nail on the head that there isn't a one lens solution. It's always a compromise between versatility, portability, aperture, and cost. Many people are hoping for a 200-400mm f/4 zoom from Canon, to match Nikon's offering. It sounds like a sweet lens - reach, versatility, a non-extending design, and relatively fast. But many people clamoring for that lens from Canon don't realize the Nikon version is 15" long, weighs 7.5 pounds, and costs $7K.
It's often true that the more reach you have, the better - the limits are what you're willing to carry, whether you need to handhold, how much light you need, and your budget. You're right in that there's not a significant aperture difference between the 100-400mm and the new 70-300mm L. So, it becomes a question of whether the size, weather sealing, and better IS of the new lens, along with perhaps a bit more sharpness, are worth giving up 100mm on the long end.
The combination of a slower zoom and a faster prime for specific uses is usually a good one. One more question to ask yourself, if you decide to get either the 100-400mm or the 70-300mm L - what would you use the 200mm f/2.8L for? Because depending on the answer, you may also want to consider the 135mm f/2L (or even the 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2, if your 24-105mm is long enough but just too slow).
Finally, David - you know a lot more than what Canon probably views as a'Joe Consumer' Rebel owner. I suspect marketing research shows that the typical consumer-level dSLR customer is buying their camera at Best Buy or a big box/warehouse store, and their 'research' consists of asking the salesperson for help. Having said that, I don't see this lens showing up on the shelves at Best Buy. I was in there yesterday, looking for a small Lowepro case for my PowerShot S95, and I was somewhat surprised to see a Lowepro lens case hanging there. It says something about the typical Best Buy dSLR consumer that the sign hanging over the lens case read, "Large Lens Case" and it was a Lowepro LC-1 - I used to keep my 85mm f/1.8 in one of those, and that was the smallest lens I had!
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
I agree, people who doesn't hope for a 70-300mm f/2.8L will hope for a 200-400mm f/4 from Canon. Weight reduction is an issue, and if Yoe see the new Canon EF 400mm 1:2,8L IS II USM with 28 percent less weight, Canon knows that. The question is, does it make sense to "copy" the Nikkor zoom lens?
I agree too, a 70-300mm f/2.8L would be heavy, large sized an expensive. But owners of a 70-200mm f/2.8L AND a 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 knows, what heavy (90 oz), large (16.5'' in line) and expensive ($4K) is...
For Rebel owner, who wants to buy their first L-family-lens, the new 70-300mm L will be a point of view, of course. Together with a 24-105mm L they would get a fast combination for most situations. Fast, but not very fast.
But how many rebel owner want to spend a lot of money for L-lenses? I won't believe that there is a market for this lens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
Bryan has just published a hands-on preview of the new 70-300mm L lens...
Glad to see Bryan's finding it to be a nice lens, though it doesn't make choosing any easier for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
I've already got the 50mm f/1.8, and the 85mm f/1.8. I don't think 135mm would be much different. The 200mm f/2.8 seems like an ideal next fast(ish) length as it's got a significant change in reach over the 85mm, and, I think, is the longest the primes get before the price jumps up considerably. I'd likely use it for critters in the woods. My daughter playing sports may be another use in a few years. I can't afford (or carry!) a very long and very fast lens, so the 200mm seems like a decent option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidEccleston
I had (and sold) the 200mm f/2.8L II. Definitely more reach than the 85mm [:P] but still not enough for critters in the woods, IMO. The other problem there is that 200mm is quite long for handholding in anything other than very good light - even with f/2.8. I found my ISOs to be getting higher than I wanted to allow the shutter speeds needed to counteract camera shake with the 200mm f/2.8. The 300mm f/4L IS is effectively one stop faster (one less stop of aperture, 2-stop IS) - woodland critters often hold still, so high shutter speeds aren't always needed. Likewise, the new 70-300mm L lens will be effectively 3 stopsbetterthan the 200mm f/2.8 for still subjects, with it's 4-stop IS, and only 0.5" longer (when the zoom is retracted). If you're not averse to used lenses, the 300mm f/4L IS often sells in the $900 range, not much more than a new 200mm f/2.8L II.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Nice write up and thanks for quickly getting us as much information as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayaker72
Ditto
Tom
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidEccleston
Agreed! It's getting harder for me to decide whether to sell my newly purchased 70-200mm f/4 IS & less than a year old 100-400mm & extenderand get this lens! As soon as I think I have my decision made, I learn a few things about the new one that makes me once again undecided. This is a tough decision! I had seller's remorse for quite awhile after selling my 300mm!
Denise