Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS--completely overpriced?

[996GT2]

The old Canon 70-300 IS was a pretty good lens optically, but it lacked internal focusing, ring USM, and the build quality was lackluster.

Ok, so Canon improved those things with the release of this L version. Better optics, better build, and ring USM. But in the end, it's still an extending 70-300mm design with a slow aperture range.

And what does Canon want to charge for this new L lens? According to their website, MSRP is $1500

Meanwhile, the Nikon 70-300VR has internal focusing, a ring-type ultrasonic motor, good build, good optics, and weather sealing. And it sells for....$500.

On the third-party side, there is Tamron's new 70-300 VC USD, which packs a ring-type ultrasonic motor and image stabilization for $450.

What is Canon thinking? First the 60D, which is arguably a downgrade from the 50D, and now this lens? Seems like a rehash of the 70-300 DO that almost no one purchased. Canon used to have an advantage in lens pricing compared to Nikon, but that is looking to be less and less true with every new lens Canon releases.

 

[ElFenix]

i don't see anything in the nikon's spec sheet that says weather sealing. a user on flickr says the sealing isn't up to pro level:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...+70-300+weather+seal&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

i was expecting $1000. though that may not be realistic considering the plummeting dollar.

where on canon's site are you getting that pricing, because it isn't on the main lens page or even the sub page for that lens
http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup

ah there it is
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about...KeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e024801e8289


i wonder if they're worried about protecting 70-200/4 IS pricing?

 

[jpeyton]

Is it going to move units at $1500?

Probably not nearly as many units as Nikon is moving at $500.

That's part of the reason why the 70-300VR is so popular; bang for the buck and not much competition in the price bracket. The 70-300L will have to compete with the 70-200/4L IS and 70-200/2.8L IS Mk1.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

The 70-200 f/4L IS with 1.4x TC gives you effectively the same thing as this 70-300 f/4-5.6, probably with better IQ, and probably with f/4 through more of the focal length range, for roughly the same price. IMO this should be priced in the $800-$1000 range to have a chance in the market.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Meh.... well the new MTF charts for the 70-300 L look better than the old one. The old one is no slouch I'll give you that. They should've kept it though. At $600, that is a good price point. I don't mind the introduction of the new lens. What I mind is slashing the old one out of the lineup. That's just wrong.

 

[996GT2]

The 70-200 f/4L IS with 1.4x TC gives you effectively the same thing as this 70-300 f/4-5.6, probably with better IQ, and probably with f/4 through more of the focal length range, for roughly the same price. IMO this should be priced in the $800-$1000 range to have a chance in the market.

A 70-200 L IS with a 1.4x TC will be constant f/5.6 throughout the zoom range. However, since the IQ of the 70-200 IS is already so good, and the 1.4x III TC is supposedly amazing, I don't see how much better this 70-300L can be.

Another drawback: the 70-300 L doesn't take Canon TCs. Although I guess it wouldn't AF on anything except a 1-series body if it did due to the slow aperture.

 

[ElFenix]

The 70-200 f/4L IS with 1.4x TC gives you effectively the same thing as this 70-300 f/4-5.6, probably with better IQ, and probably with f/4 through more of the focal length range, for roughly the same price. IMO this should be priced in the $800-$1000 range to have a chance in the market.

i had this thought this morning in the shower. from 70-200 it'll be superior and you likely aren't giving up much from 200 on. the old 70-300 is at f/5 at 200 so you gain 2/3 of a stop there but lose 1/3 a stop past 200. the f4+TC is killing the old 70-300 280 v 300.

i guess given the price i'd either do the TC thing or go all the way to the 100-400, which is still a great lens (though the IS is old and it's not weather sealed).

 

[slashbinslashbash]

A 70-200 L IS with a 1.4x TC will be constant f/5.6 throughout the zoom range. However, since the IQ of the 70-200 IS is already so good, and the 1.4x III TC is supposedly amazing, I don't see how much better this 70-300L can be.

A 70-200 f/4L IS will be a constant f/4 from 70-200 without the TC mounted, is what I was getting at.

I guess maybe they've discontinued the non-L 70-300 IS because the 55-250 IS is so cheap and good for crop bodies? I mean, if I only had crop bodies, I think I would take the 55-250 over the 70-300 IS.

 

[Anubis]

(the extender reduces the effective aperture by one f-stop)

 

[Doggiedog]

That's how much it's going for? I'm a bit disappointed. I thought they said more affordable. It's more expensive than my 24-105 f/4.0L. I'd rather spend a little more and get the 70-200 f/2.8L.

 

[iGas]

That's how much it's going for? I'm a bit disappointed. I thought they said more affordable. It's more expensive than my 24-105 f/4.0L. I'd rather spend a little more and get the 70-200 f/2.8L.

I concur with the 70~200mm L choice.

 

[Silenus]

Anyone considering the 70-200 f/4 L + 1.4 TC should not expect it to be "better" than the new 70-300 L. Realistically you should it expect it to at best, match the quality of the 70-300.....and possibly be slightly worse. The 70-300, at the price they are asking, will almost certainly be excellent optically.

The 70-200+1.4 will be longer in length...but actually lighter. What you really gain is NOT image quality but flexibility. You get a 70-200 f/4 and a 100-280 f/5.6 lens together.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Anyone considering the 70-200 f/4 L + 1.4 TC should not expect it to be "better" than the new 70-300 L. Realistically you should it expect it to at best, match the quality of the 70-300.....and possibly be slightly worse. The 70-300, at the price they are asking, will almost certainly be excellent optically.

The 70-200+1.4 will be longer in length...but actually lighter. What you really gain is NOT image quality but flexibility. You get a 70-200 f/4 and a 100-280 f/5.6 lens together.

That remains to be seen. The 70-200 f/4L IS is simply a superb optical performer, easily the best of Canon's 70-200's until the f/2.8 IS II came out. It loses very little when used with the Canon 1.4x TC. 70-200 is a 2.8x design, 75-300 is a 4x design. There are always downsides when going to a longer zoom range.

Also, I think it's a step backwards for Canon to introduce an L zoom with a variable maximum aperture. What a PITA that is. You are right though, they are charging out the nose for it, so it had better be a good performer. I guess we'll see.

 

[Silenus]

That remains to be seen. The 70-200 f/4L IS is simply a superb optical performer, easily the best of Canon's 70-200's until the f/2.8 IS II came out. It loses very little when used with the Canon 1.4x TC. 70-200 is a 2.8x design, 75-300 is a 4x design. There are always downsides when going to a longer zoom range.

Also, I think it's a step backwards for Canon to introduce an L zoom with a variable maximum aperture. What a PITA that is. You are right though, they are charging out the nose for it, so it had better be a good performer. I guess we'll see.

Granted...we will have to see. And you are quite right that longer zoom range always means some kind of compromise. It would surprising if it wasn't very good though. As for the variable aperture...that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it's quality. It's simply a design choice in order to make the zoom smaller overall. It not like it's a first either...100-400 L is variable, as is the BIG bucks 28-300 L. Put another way...I think they decided to make variable aperture 70-300 because they already HAVE constant f/4 and f/2.8 zooms. Thus there are options for everyone to pick the lens best suited for them.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Granted...we will have to see. And you are quite right that longer zoom range always means some kind of compromise. It would surprising if it wasn't very good though. As for the variable aperture...that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it's quality. It's simply a design choice in order to make the zoom smaller overall. It not like it's a first either...100-400 L is variable, as is the BIG bucks 28-300 L. Put another way...I think they decided to make variable aperture 70-300 because they already HAVE constant f/4 and f/2.8 zooms. Thus there are options for everyone to pick the lens best suited for them.

That's true... but variable aperture is just such a PITA! However, it is unfortunately unavoidable with superzooms like the 28-300. Only with relatively small zoom ratios can they make the aperture constant. But they did manage it with the >4x 24-105L, which is quite difficult since it's a wide-to-tele zoom. You've got to wonder why they couldn't do it with the 75-300. Or eliminate some of the zoom range, and make it a 100-300 with constant f/4.

Really, I wish they had made a 200-400 f/4 or f/5.6 (constant max aperture, I don't care if it's slower than f/4, as long as it's constant) instead of this 75-300, to replace the 100-400.

 

[ElFenix]

That's true... but variable aperture is just such a PITA! However, it is unfortunately unavoidable with superzooms like the 28-300. Only with relatively small zoom ratios can they make the aperture constant. But they did manage it with the >4x 24-105L, which is quite difficult since it's a wide-to-tele zoom. You've got to wonder why they couldn't do it with the 75-300. Or eliminate some of the zoom range, and make it a 100-300 with constant f/4.

Really, I wish they had made a 200-400 f/4 or f/5.6 (constant max aperture, I don't care if it's slower than f/4, as long as it's constant) instead of this 75-300, to replace the 100-400.

tokina and sigma make 100-300 f/4 lenses. the range hasn't really taken off. too slow and too long on the short to be a whole range portrait lens, and too short on the long side to be a super tele for sports or wildlife. it gets better on a crop camera, of course (7D could put more pixels on target with a 300 mm lens than anything else, that includes 4/3 cameras).

 

[Silenus]

That's true... but variable aperture is just such a PITA! However, it is unfortunately unavoidable with superzooms like the 28-300. Only with relatively small zoom ratios can they make the aperture constant. But they did manage it with the >4x 24-105L, which is quite difficult since it's a wide-to-tele zoom. You've got to wonder why they couldn't do it with the 75-300. Or eliminate some of the zoom range, and make it a 100-300 with constant f/4.

Really, I wish they had made a 200-400 f/4 or f/5.6 (constant max aperture, I don't care if it's slower than f/4, as long as it's constant) instead of this 75-300, to replace the 100-400.

Well it's only a PITA if you consider it so! Some people don't! By the way, did I mention I'm actually a Nikon shooter?! :0 While I'm familiar with the Canon stuff, my real experience is with Nikon. The enemy I know! *cough* Nikon has a 200-400 f/4 VR *cough* What they haven't had for a long time though is some constant f/4 zooms on the shorter end. That is one area that has long been real nice for a Canon shooter. Nikon is only recently looking like they are changing that. Just recently released a 16-35 f/4 VR and now a brand new 24-120 f/4 VR! Is just starting to ship now so many are still waiting to see how well it performs.

Me personally I have a casual "walk around" zoom which is the Nikon 16-85 VR (DX, crop body lens). I don't mind the variable aperature except for when I use flash, and when I really need to shoot manually and thus have to kind of limit myself to f/5.6 in order to stay "constant" though the zoom range. But it's is a wonderful focal length range when you want a light one lens solution. However, I do have other options: I have the excellent-for-the-moeny Nikon 35mm f/1.8 which I use often instead of the zoom, and a Tamon 90 macro. Last but not least...and my favorite, is the 70-200 f/2.8 VR1. I love that thing. When I'm shooting long with that, especially in lower light....you better believe I appreciate the constant f/2.8!!

PS- They (canon and nikon) definitely CAN make 75-300, or 100-300 f/4's. They's been done before by others. It'll just be big and somewhat heavy, and fairly expensive. They just have to choose to do it....as evidenced by Nikon's 200-400 f/4 which has been very popular though it is quite expensive!

 

[slashbinslashbash]

tokina and sigma make 100-300 f/4 lenses. the range hasn't really taken off. too slow and too long on the short to be a whole range portrait lens, and too short on the long side to be a super tele for sports or wildlife. it gets better on a crop camera, of course (7D could put more pixels on target with a 300 mm lens than anything else, that includes 4/3 cameras).

Yeah, everything tele is better on a crop.

I guess I just don't see how much that 75-100mm range gains you on the short end when you could have constant f/4 from 100-300 instead of f/4-f/5.6 from 75-300. I think that people are just too used to the cheapy 75-300's that have always been around. They complemented the kit 35-80, 28-80, 28-90 etc. kit lenses that came with the film SLR's. It was a good, cheap 2-lens solution from 28 to 300mm, for pretty much all the major SLR brands. Now there are the 55-2xx's (e.g. Canon's 55-250 IS is really good) for the mass-market croppers to complement the 18-55 kit lenses, and the full-frame guys all have 70-200's anyway, so I guess I'm left wondering why there's still a big market for 75-300 type lenses when they could move upmarket a *bit*, gain a fixed maximum aperture and maybe some IQ as well by chopping off those 25mm on the short end.

Well it's only a PITA if you consider it so! Some people don't! By the way, did I mention I'm actually a Nikon shooter?! :0 While I'm familiar with the Canon stuff, my real experience is with Nikon. The enemy I know! *cough* Nikon has a 200-400 f/4 VR *cough* What they haven't had for a long time though is some constant f/4 zooms on the shorter end. That is one area that has long been real nice for a Canon shooter. Nikon is only recently looking like they are changing that. Just recently released a 16-35 f/4 VR and now a brand new 24-120 f/4 VR! Is just starting to ship now so many are still waiting to see how well it performs.

Me personally I have a casual "walk around" zoom which is the Nikon 16-85 VR (DX, crop body lens). I don't mind the variable aperature except for when I use flash, and when I really need to shoot manually and thus have to kind of limit myself to f/5.6 in order to stay "constant" though the zoom range. But it's is a wonderful focal length range when you want a light one lens solution. However, I do have other options: I have the excellent-for-the-moeny Nikon 35mm f/1.8 which I use often instead of the zoom, and a Tamon 90 macro. Last but not least...and my favorite, is the 70-200 f/2.8 VR1. I love that thing. When I'm shooting long with that, especially in lower light....you better believe I appreciate the constant f/2.8!!

PS- They (canon and nikon) definitely CAN make 75-300, or 100-300 f/4's. They's been done before by others. It'll just be big and somewhat heavy, and fairly expensive. They just have to choose to do it....as evidenced by Nikon's 200-400 f/4 which has been very popular though it is quite expensive!

I know about the new Nikon f/4 zooms, they are quite exciting and might have once enticed me to go Nikon instead of Canon. I really liked that Canon had parallel ranges of "L" zooms in both f/2.8 and f/4 options. Maybe the Nikon 24-120 can push Canon to extend the range of the 24-105L a little more. I love my 24-105L, but I could always use the extra range!

I shoot in manual exposure mode 99% of the time. I just like to do it, it's what makes photography enjoyable for me. In-camera metering is my guide, not my master. I'd rather make my own decisions and my own mistakes than look at a photo and know that it was overexposed because the meter was reading a black shirt instead of a light face. I use the histogram and chimp a lot. I also like to know exactly, all the time, what my exposure settings will be. I set the ISO, the aperture, the shutter speed. If it's too dark, I get a dark exposure, but at least it isn't blurry because the camera decided that it needed 1/15th second. Anyway, you can see why I prefer my zooms to have constant max aperture. It would just piss me off non-stop to have a variable max aperture zoom.

I also know about the Nikon 200-400. I keep wondering why Canon doesn't copy it. That and the 14-24, mmmmm delicious. Nikon's optical engineers are just so smart! Some of those designs are almost miraculous.

My lenses are in my sig. The 24-105 is most used, the 50/1.4 probably 2nd, the 70-200 stays on the 20D, and the 100Macro gets used a lot around the house. The 17-40 is probably my least-used, but there's no substitute for an ultrawide when you need one (I wouldn't mind trading it for, say, a 17mm f/2.8 prime of similar size, weight, and price).

 

[Silenus]

......I know about the new Nikon f/4 zooms, they are quite exciting and might have once enticed me to go Nikon instead of Canon. I really liked that Canon had parallel ranges of "L" zooms in both f/2.8 and f/4 options. Maybe the Nikon 24-120 can push Canon to extend the range of the 24-105L a little more. I love my 24-105L, but I could always use the extra range!

I shoot in manual exposure mode 99% of the time. I just like to do it, it's what makes photography enjoyable for me. In-camera metering is my guide, not my master. I'd rather make my own decisions and my own mistakes than look at a photo and know that it was overexposed because the meter was reading a black shirt instead of a light face. I use the histogram and chimp a lot. I also like to know exactly, all the time, what my exposure settings will be. I set the ISO, the aperture, the shutter speed. If it's too dark, I get a dark exposure, but at least it isn't blurry because the camera decided that it needed 1/15th second. Anyway, you can see why I prefer my zooms to have constant max aperture. It would just piss me off non-stop to have a variable max aperture zoom.

I also know about the Nikon 200-400. I keep wondering why Canon doesn't copy it. That and the 14-24, mmmmm delicious. Nikon's optical engineers are just so smart! Some of those designs are almost miraculous.

My lenses are in my sig. The 24-105 is most used, the 50/1.4 probably 2nd, the 70-200 stays on the 20D, and the 100Macro gets used a lot around the house. The 17-40 is probably my least-used, but there's no substitute for an ultrawide when you need one (I wouldn't mind trading it for, say, a 17mm f/2.8 prime of similar size, weight, and price).

Yes indeed. The 200-400 and the 14-24 are easily the most lusted after from Canon shooters. So much so there is actually a market for adapters so people could put the Nikon 14-24 and other lenses on their Canon bodies! The Canon f/4 zooms were lusted after by Nikon shooters...along with some primes. Nikon is FINALLY updating all that stuff, including the primes which many have waited a LONG time for. The 24/1.4 and 85/1.4 just came out, and rumor has it the 35mm is next. <-- I want that. I would replace my 35/1.8 with that.

Actually the other BIG thing that was a bummer as a Nikon shooter was that the long telephotos primes are/were SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper from Canon. That was a big draw, especially for wildlife shooters. Of course...looks like that all might be changing....see the MSRP on all the new Canon telephoto lenses announced?! Yikes! Things may actually flip flop for a while with the Nikon telephotos being cheaper.

You have some nice glass sir. Something I don't have is an ultrawide. I haven't felt a need for it yet. Harder to do on a crop body though. At least you have the 5D for when you want to go REALLY wide with the 17-40!

PS- it's not too late to come to the dark side!