New 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS extended length pic

[HDNitehawk]

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.

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.

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'?

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.

[Tom Wertman]

"While it&rsquo;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."

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

[HDNitehawk]

"While it&rsquo;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."

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

Please report back and I will be waiting to hear the reviews before I get one.

[Sheiky]

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.

[Yves]

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.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

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...

[Ehcalum]

A 70-300 2.8 would be large and heavy.

[Sheiky]

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 []

[neuroanatomist]

Nice to have would be a 70-300mm f/2.8L IS USM....That would be really ... big jump in...Size and Weight.

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...

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?

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.

[HDNitehawk]

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...

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.

[neuroanatomist]

It seems that is what the marketing is geared toward on this new lens.

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.

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.

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).