...should have mentioned in my comment, that most if not all Canon *white* lenses include the tripod mount.
[]
...should have mentioned in my comment, that most if not all Canon *white* lenses include the tripod mount.
[
Canon 450D Gripped, Canon 24-105 f/4L, Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II, Sigma 10-20 EX f/4-5.6, Canon S95
“There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.” -Ansel Adams
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>
</div>
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.
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
Canon 450D Gripped, Canon 24-105 f/4L, Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II, Sigma 10-20 EX f/4-5.6, Canon S95
“There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.” -Ansel Adams
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote