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.

[neuroanatomist]

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[img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]) and looking forward on the first tests and real-life experiences.

Bryan has just published a hands-on preview of the new 70-300mm L 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.

[Kayaker72]

Bryan has just published a hands-on preview of the new 70-300mm L lens...

Nice write up and thanks for quickly getting us as much information as possible.

[Tom Wertman]

Nice write up and thanks for quickly getting us as much information as possible.

Ditto


Tom

[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