(as I said in a different forum)
Does anyone see the irony? They announced these lenses along with the 60D. So, here's a plastic low-ish end body. And here are 6, no make them 8, lenses that most folks who will buy said body will never be able to afford.
Eh? [*-)]
Tony
It's really 6 Lenses with 2 Extenders.
Where's the new Flagship Full Frame Body; 1Ds MKIV ? What's it going to cost, $8000?
I think they will make a big splash with more announcements before Photokina.
Rich
I am pretty excited about the 70-300 mm f4.0-5.6 IS. I've been seriously considering buying the 70-200 mm f/4 IS. If the IQ is similar,the extra 100 mm for a few hundred dollars may be a bargin. And I was also looking at both extenders. Can't wait for the reviews and actual price points on all of these. If nothing else, maybe the prices of the 70-200 f4 IS/extenders (mrk II) will come down.
I am disappointed that there weren't any new consumer/prosumer primes released. I had read rumors that the35 mm f/2 or the 50 f1.4would be updated, potentially with IS. I would have considered both of those.
As for the300/400/500/600 primes just released....the list of things I would buy if I ever won the lottery just expanded. Too bad, I don't even play the lottery. [:P]
Wow - that's quite a few lenses! But I'm really not at all wow-ed by these additions to the lineup. []
The 8-15mm fisheye zoom? The fisheye look has it's place, sure - but that place isn't worth a $1400 spot in my camera bag.
The new 300mm and 400mm primes are nice, sure. But the original versions were steeply priced, these even more so.
The new 70-300mm f/4-5.6L is potentially the most interesting of the lineup, but franklyI'm pretty thoroughly<span class="bbc_u"]unimpressed by this new lens. It's only 24% shorter and 24% lighter than the 100-400mm L, and gives up 100mm on the long end - and I think most people buy the 100-400mm for the long end. Yes, it has better IS than the 100-400mm. But not a faster aperture, and unfortunately it's still variable aperture - a 70-300mm or even 100-300mm with a constant f/4 would have been better. I changed out my 300mm f/4L IS for the 100-400mm because I wanted the extra 100mm. The 100-400mm is relatively large/heavy, so I got the 70-300mm DO for times when carrying the 100-400mm isn't practical. I've got $2K just waiting to be spent on a new lens, but I see absolutely no need for this 70-300 L - if I'm going to give up 100mm on the long end for portability and convenience, a 24% savings in size/weight isn't worth it when I can save nearly 50% in size/weight with the 70-300 DO.
<div>
Originally Posted by Kayaker72
Keep in mind that you're getting 100mm but your losing a stop of light, going from f/4 to f/5.6. An f/5.6 apertureat the long end means if you add one of those new extenders (or an old one) to this new 70-300mm L, you will lose autofocus capability unless you have a 1-series body (and even a 1-series body will not AF with this new 70-300mm L + 2x Extender, since that will be f/11 at the long end).
The new extenders, hmmmm... The possible bright spot for me in these announcements is an optically improved 2x III Extender - I'll wait until Bryan gets one in his hands and tests it with the 70-200mm II. The 100-400mm is optically superior to the 70-200 II + 2x II Extender, but if the 70-200mm II + 2x III is optically equal to the 100-400mm that would give a weather-sealed 140-400mm f/5.6 with 4-stop IS (well worth losing 2/3 of a stop at the short end).
</div>
I'm not sure on that one -DO lenses are niche lenses, intended for those for whom size/weight are a premium worth sacrifices (in terms of money or IQ). This new 70-300mm L is 43% longer and 46% heavier than the 70-300mm DO - so the 'need' for the smaller/lighter DO lens is still there.
About 8 months ago, Canon filed patents on a 300mm f/2.8 and a 400mm f/4 with a pair of DO elements in each lens. Patents are not necessarily indications that such lenses will be produced, but it's clear that Canon is still doing R&D for DO lenses.
<div>
That's a great point - the 70-200mm II @ 100-200mm has significantly better IQ than the 100-400mm @ 100-200mm. If the new 70-300mm L has a similar margin of improvement throughout the overlap with the 100-400mm, that would make it more attractive. The new 70-300mm is an interesting lens, especially compared to the 70-300mm non-DO - but personally, not that attractive to me.
</div>
It usually is, yes. And 300mm indoors, especially on a crop body - not too useful. But for nature shooting, 300mm isn't usually long enough - my 100-400mm is often zoomed out to the long end, and even then I often want more reach. When I bring the 70-300 DO, I'm already compromising on focal length and IQ for size/weight convenience, so even if this new lens isn't a compromise on IQ it's still a compromise on focal length and I'm not gaining nearly as much convenience.
I'm not sure on that one -DO lenses are niche lenses, intended for those for whom size/weight are a premium worth sacrifices (in terms of money or IQ). This new 70-300mm L is 43% longer and 46% heavier than the 70-300mm DO - so the 'need' for the smaller/lighter DO lens is still there.
Once extended to 300mm its about the same length. Looks like the new one does not need to extend.
About 8 months ago, Canon filed patents on a 300mm f/2.8 and a 400mm f/4 with a pair of DO elements in each lens. Patents are not necessarily indications that such lenses will be produced, but it's clear that Canon is still doing R&D for DO lenses.
My point is that what was announced does not include DO. How much longer are we willing to wait for better DO. At this rate it will be 6-8 years sinceinitial release.
<div>
The new 70-300mm is an interesting lens, especially compared to the 70-300mm non-DO - but personally, not that attractive to me.
If I just bought a 70-300 DO I might agree.
</div>
It usually is, yes. And 300mm indoors, especially on a crop body - not too useful. But for nature shooting, 300mm isn't usually long enough - my 100-400mm is often zoomed out to the long end, and even then I often want more reach. When I bring the 70-300 DO, I'm already compromising on focal length and IQ for size/weight convenience, so even if this new lens isn't a compromise on IQ it's still a compromise on focal length and I'm not gaining nearly as much convenience.
If you mean wildlife than we really need 500-600 minimum because nothing is really long enough. I don't think this lens isintended to compete at that level.
Tom
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
Certainly it's not intended to compete with 500mm and 600mm supertele primes. But, given that 400mm is the longest Canon lens obtainable for less than $4K, and given the new 70-300mm L's price, I'd say it is intended for a market with a high degree of overlap with the 100-400mm.
Good point. But then, I paid little enough for it that I can sell it with no loss and probably a profit. That, plus the fact that I've got around $2K in cash just waiting for the right lens to come along, means if I wanted to buy this new lens that really wouldn't stop me.
Sure, the DO lens extends ~2.25" for a fully-extneded length of ~6.25". But as I stated previously, it's not the extended length that matters to me - it's the length of the lens in the bag when not in use - just 4" for the DO - that matters.
<div>
</div>
Yes, looking at the MTF charts, this new 70-300mm L is very sharp, and seems to compare favorably to the 70-200mm II.
It's not that extenders don't work at certain apertures - it's that autofocus doesn't work at certain apertures. The AF system in most Canon dSLR bodies requires a maximum lens aperture of f/5.6 for AF to work (except the 1-series, which can AF with an f/8 aperture). If you use a 1.4x extender with an f/5.6 lens, the maximum aperture becomes f/8 and AF doesn't work. The camera will 'know' that the aperture drops below f/5.6 at the long end and will thus not autofocus with an extender in place (unless certain pins on the extender are 'taped over' to trick the camera).
<div></div>
Tom, Jan - where are you getting the information that this lens doesn't extend with zooming? Physically, it's 143mm in length - only 0.2mm different than the 70-300mm non-L/non-DO lens, which extends over 2" with zooming. The new 70-300mm is over an inch shorter than the non-extending 70-200mm f/4 lenses, and yet it has a 100mm longer focal length? I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but I just don't buy that this new lens doesn't extend with zooming. It's internal focusing, yes. But I think it has to extend with zooming.
It'll be interesting to seehow much better the new 70-300mm Lwill be over the 70-300 DO in terms of IQ. Since Canon slaps the L lable on the new 70-300, it should be better than the DO. But would it be better enough to justify the size, weight and price increase over the DO is another question.
Yawn....
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote