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

[DavidEccleston]

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

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.

[Kayaker72]

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.

[neuroanatomist]

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!

[Yves]

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.

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.

[DavidEccleston]

Glad to see Bryan's finding it to be a nice lens, though it doesn't make choosing any easier for me.

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).

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.

[neuroanatomist]

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 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.

[DavidEccleston]

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

True, the IS would work IF they hold still, and they're more likely to hold still with a 300mm than a 200mm lens. The 200mm f/2.8 wouldn't just be for getting a high shutter speed, but also for isolation, which the which the longer 300mm lens wouldn't be as good at. If I did opt for the 200mm, I could also turn it into a 280 f/4 with an extender, enhancing it's usefulness, but without IS that's going to need decent light that I won't find in the forest.


But, the new 70-300 is f/5.0 @ 200mm, so 2.333 stops better for still subjects, but also 1.666 stops worse for isolation. The 300mm f/4 isn't significantly faster than the zoom, and with worse IS, it seems like the wrong choice. It's worse than the zoom for static scenes, though likely a bit sharper, and only a touch better for action or isolation. Not enough of a difference to earn my dollars. Granted, it could also be paired with an extender, giving me a 420mm option, which could be nice.


My only hope is that photokina unveils some awesome new lens that makes my upgrade path clear.

If you're not averse to used lenses...

The used market is tough. Most EBay sellers, only want to deal with the US. In Ottawa, the people on the used boards tend to ask nearly full price, based on the price at Henry's, which tends to be one of the more expensive retailers. I can often find something new cheaper than used. The bargains are rare here, from what I've seen. Half my lenses, and my body are Adorama's Canon refurbs, so I'm not adverse to 'not-new' if I can get a decent savings.

[neuroanatomist]

The 200mm f/2.8 wouldn't just be for getting a high shutter speed, but also for isolation, which the which the longer 300mm lens wouldn't be as good at...But, the new 70-300 is f/5.0 @ 200mm, so 2.333 stops better for still subjects, but also 1.666 stops worse for isolation.

I'm assuming you mean for identical framing, e.g. 200mm f/2.8 at 10 m from the subject, or 300mm f/5.6 at 15 m from the subject. If you maintain the same distance to the subject, the isolation will actually be better at 300mm than 200mm despite the narrower aperture, since subject distance has a larger impact on DoF than aperture in these ranges. So, if you can get close enough to use the 200mm, and you have the 70-300mm zoom, you'll get better isolation with the zoom at 300mm f/5.6 than with the prime at 200mm f/2.8.


For example at 10 m distance to subject, 200mm f/2.8 will have a DoF of 26 cm. At the same distance, the new zoom at 300mm f/5.6 would have a 23 cm DoF - so, the extra 100mm of the zoom lens more than makes up for the loss of two full stops of aperture in terms of DoF.


Depending on what you're shooting and how close you are to it, you may actually need to stop down if you want to get the entire subject in focus - I run into this 'problem' with my 100-400mm, where at 400mm for a small, close bird I often need to stop down to f/7.1 or f/8 to get the whole bird in focus.


Here's hoping there are more lenses announced for Photokina - personally,I might be tempted by a 50mm f/1.4 II, butI'm really hoping for a 35mm f/1.4L II...


--John

[ddt0725]

Glad to see Bryan's finding it to be a nice lens, though it doesn't make choosing any easier for me.

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