# A New Full Frame Zoom Coming in 2016 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 18, 2016)

```
We’re told that Canon will announce a new full frame zoom lens following the announcement and shipping of the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM which <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-iii-coming-in-june-cr3/">we wrote about last week</a>. We expect this lens to be shipping some time in July.</p>
<p>We weren’t told the exact focal length of the lens, but that it would be a replacement for a current non L/DO telephoto zoom. The only lens that we can think of would be a replacement for the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS. We were <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/more-canon-super-telephoto-zoom-talk-cr1/">first told about a replacement for this lens last year</a>, and have been waiting to hear more about it.</p>
<p>This is likely going to be an August announcement, in time for Photokina and the EOS 5D Mark IV.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 18, 2016)

EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IV. Perfect pairing with a 5DIV.


----------



## RGF (May 18, 2016)

I would be nice if Canon provided a near-L quality 28-300 lens. Without the weight nor the price tag.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 18, 2016)

IMHO, Canon has done the 70-300mm range to death, and the non-L version would not be upgraded before the L version.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 18, 2016)

EF 70-300mm STM costing US$600.
A perfect match for the 24-105mm STM.


----------



## pierlux (May 18, 2016)

The 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS is a nice lens. It was my first Canon lens, I purchased it to replace the Sigma 55-250 which complemented the kit lens of my 300D. I still have it, along with the L version.



Antono Refa said:


> IMHO, Canon has done the 70-300mm range to death, and the non-L version would not be upgraded before the L version.



The 70-300L is a recent release, it won't be upgraded anytime soon.


----------



## unfocused (May 18, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> EF 70-300mm STM costing US$600.
> A perfect match for the 24-105mm STM.



Not sure about price, but otherwise exactly what I was thinking.


----------



## Pixel (May 18, 2016)

unfocused said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > EF 70-300mm STM costing US$600.
> ...



A six year old lens is hardly a "recent release," I'd love to see an update.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 18, 2016)

Pixel said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...


For the "L" LENS market, a 6 year old model is still new.
Lens has a refresh cycle much longer than the camera bodies.


----------



## j-nord (May 18, 2016)

pierlux said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > IMHO, Canon has done the 70-300mm range to death, and the non-L version would not be upgraded before the L version.
> ...


It also doesn't need an upgrade. Its about as good as it can get for the price range, similar quality and sharpness as the 100-400ii.


----------



## hkenneth (May 18, 2016)

I just purchased a Tamron 70-300mm last month... If this lens is indeed 70-300mm with better IQ I'm gonna be pissed (although I feel it is very likely true).


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 18, 2016)

j-nord said:


> pierlux said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



What it needs is a newer, more expensive tripod ring that is still a separate purchase.


----------



## hacra (May 18, 2016)

Maybe a 150-600mm to compete with sigma and tamron. i don't think there is a similar lens on the canon non L range.

Very unlikely but it would be nice to see how it would compare.


----------



## Ed V (May 18, 2016)

When I made the switch from Canon to Leica about 4-5 years ago, I made the switch from zooms to primes. I returned to Canon about 3 months ago but I am still sticking with primes. So this lens would not be of any interest to me. 

Ed


----------



## mrzero (May 18, 2016)

I agree that the 70-300 is a ripe target here. If Canon really wants to make it a worthwhile upgrade, it will get the new Nano USM motor, a nonrotating front filter ring, and accept the new PZ-E1 power zoom adapter.

Just means I need to unload my 70-300 ASAP...


----------



## mrzero (May 18, 2016)

RGF said:


> I would be nice if Canon provided a near-L quality 28-300 lens. Without the weight nor the price tag.



I agree with this, unfortunately it doesn't match up with the report of a current non-L/DO lens as the target. Canon is leaving a gaping hole in the lineup for full-frame lenses right now. They need a superzoom all-in-one with IS for travel, walk-around, etc.


----------



## j-nord (May 18, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > pierlux said:
> ...


I agree, I still find this decision confusing. I guess canon figures most people who buy it aren't going to miss it but those who do want it will pay out the a$$ for it.


----------



## Haydn1971 (May 18, 2016)

The 70-300 non L is pretty cheap, a replacement in the style of the 24-105 STM would be pretty logical, but then bit of a wild card here, could we also see a cheap STM FF ultra-wide lens first ?


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 18, 2016)

Canon launched three lenses at Photokina in 2014 the EF-S 24mm 2.8 STM, the EF 24-105mm f3.5-5.6 IS STM and the EF 400mm f4 DO IS II (along with the 7D MKII) so conceivably they could show a similar number in September. With the almost certain appearance of the 5D MKIV I would not be surprised to see at least one L lens (EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM II please Canon).


----------



## Don Haines (May 18, 2016)

dilbert said:


> hkenneth said:
> 
> 
> > I just purchased a Tamron 70-300mm last month... If this lens is indeed 70-300mm with better IQ I'm gonna be pissed (although I feel it is very likely true).
> ...



The Tamron 70-300 DI LD F4-5.6 sells around here for $230......
The Tamron 70-300 DI VC F4-5.6 sells around here for $500......
The Canon 75-300 F4-5.6 AF sells around here for $280......
The Canon 70-300 F4-5.6 IS sells around here for $500...... normally $650....

I could see Canon updating either lens..... and since they already cost more than the Tamron, and it is a safe bet that an updated lens will cost more than it's predecessor, so my bet is that the new Canon lens will be an update of the IS version, and that it will sell for about 1.5 times the cost of the equivalent Tamron, so that means somewhere around $750 here in Canada.... and no, it will almost certainly NOT be optically superior to the Tamron, probably both will be somewhat comparable.....

Some will buy Canon, Some will buy Tamron, and some will order a pizza.....


----------



## pierlux (May 19, 2016)

dilbert said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



??? ? He's talking about the optional tripod ring of the 70-300 L, what do the 70-300 non-L and 5Ds/sr have to do with a tripod collar?


----------



## TeT (May 19, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IV. Perfect pairing with a 5DIV.



Funny, but NOT Funny...


----------



## Don Haines (May 19, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


If they buy the Tamron, with the money they save they can certainly afford anchovies  and with modern materials and coatings, all these lenses are getting pretty darn good!

The first Tamron I bought was the 90mm Macro lens with the adapt-all mount. I thought that was the greatest idea.... just change the mount and you could migrate over to Canon.... or Nikon.... or Olympus... It now has an EF adapt-all plate and works on my 7D2....

I wonder if they could re-introduce the concept with an adaptor base that would allow the data comms from various manufacturers to work.... That would be cool.... Take your Tamron Lens off of your Canon, swap the adaptor, put it on your Sony.... or Nikon... or 4/3rds....


----------



## douglaurent (May 19, 2016)

There are now 8 (!) very useful types of zooms that are only built by third party manufacturers, and Canon needs answers soon - starting with standard stabilized f2.8 zooms:

15-30/2.8 IS (Tamron equivalent)
24-70/2.8 IS (Tamron)
150-600 (Sigma / Tamron)

24-240 (Sony equivalent)
28-300 (small size)

11-20/1.8 (Tokina)
18-35/1.8 (Sigma)
50-100/1.8 (Sigma)

Only the 8-15, 11-24 and 100-400 are irreplaceable Canon zoom choices.

The situation with primes also might not look good for Canon if they don't start to come up with stabilized lenses. As good as the 35/1.4 is for example, stabilized f1.8 lenses like coming from Tamron are a better choice now in most scenarios. Coming out with lenses like a 135/1.8 IS would give Canon huge credits. But I fear they will release this lens in the year 2036, 14 years after they release a normal optically improved 135/2 II in the year 2022.

Canon needs to come up with LOTS of refreshed, up to date lenses. They don't even recommend a lot of basic old lenses themselves for the 5Ds.


----------



## j-nord (May 19, 2016)

dilbert said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


Talking about the L, not sure what you are on about.


----------



## j-nord (May 19, 2016)

dilbert said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > pierlux said:
> ...


Good for them, glad to see sony is finally making competitive glass. Canon isn't competing with Sony, Sony is competing with Canon. Sony has to try to sell more for less to gain market share. $3k for a sony 70-200 f2.8 certainly isnt going to compete with the canon 70-200 f2.8 IS ii so they have to use a more consumer oriented lens (possibly with near zero profit) to attract new customers.


----------



## Maximilian (May 19, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> ... The only lens that we can think of would be a replacement for the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS. ...


Seems reasonable. This Lens is optically behinde the Tamron since about almost ten years an much more expensive (420 vs. 300 EUR). I was really wondering how Canon could keep holding on this one so long. 
I hope they do the release very soon and then give us some primes as there are also some parts beeing ready for replacement for a long time


----------



## hkenneth (May 19, 2016)

dilbert said:


> hkenneth said:
> 
> 
> > I just purchased a Tamron 70-300mm last month... If this lens is indeed 70-300mm with better IQ I'm gonna be pissed (although I feel it is very likely true).
> ...



The price of the Tamron and the current Canon non-L is almost the same. I purchased the Tamron mainly because the Canon 70-300mm non-L is so incompetent and the price of the L is out of my budget + a little bit heavy for my daily hiking purpose.


----------



## symmar22 (May 19, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> There are now 8 (!) very useful types of zooms that are only built by third party manufacturers, and Canon needs answers soon - starting with standard stabilized f2.8 zooms:
> 
> 15-30/2.8 IS (Tamron equivalent)
> 24-70/2.8 IS (Tamron)
> ...



Agreed, and we are not talking about the prehistoric primes queuing up for complete redesign :

20 f2.8 USM - 1992
28 f1.8 USM - 1995
50 f2.5 CM - 1987
50 f1.4 USM - 1993
85 f1.8 USM - 1992
100 f2 USM - 1991

45 f2.8 TS-E - 1991
90 f2.8 TS-E - 1991


----------



## wsmith96 (May 19, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> EF 70-300mm STM costing US$600.
> A perfect match for the 24-105mm STM.



+1


----------



## wsmith96 (May 19, 2016)

mrzero said:


> I agree that the 70-300 is a ripe target here. If Canon really wants to make it a worthwhile upgrade, it will get the new Nano USM motor, a nonrotating front filter ring, and accept the new PZ-E1 power zoom adapter.
> 
> Just means I need to unload my 70-300 ASAP...



Good luck unloading it. I've tried to sell mine for over a year and no one wants one in my area.


----------



## AvTvM (May 19, 2016)

"Canon will eventually launch new lenses" [CR2] ... ridiculous!


----------



## Ozarker (May 19, 2016)

hkenneth said:


> I just purchased a Tamron 70-300mm last month... If this lens is indeed 70-300mm with better IQ I'm gonna be pissed (although I feel it is very likely true).



Pissed? Why? ???


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 19, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> There are now 8 (!) very useful types of zooms that are only built by third party manufacturers, and Canon needs answers soon



Why do you suppose there are 3rd party lenses for which Canon has no equivalent? Perhaps returning to the basics will help...







OEM has the upper hand, 3rd parties need to offer something else – different features or lower cost. To paraphrase j-nord, Canon isn't competing with 3rd party lens makers, those makers are competing with Canon. 




douglaurent said:


> Canon needs to come up with LOTS of refreshed, up to date lenses.



...or...they're *******? :


----------



## douglaurent (May 19, 2016)

It can be annoying if manufacturers do update products every 12 months. But in the fast times we are in, Canon doing necessary updates of lenses only every 7-30 years is ridiculous. 

A 24-70/2.8 IS for example is not an exotic lens where it won't matter if it is released 5 years later or not at all, especially when Tamron did show how it works.

By the way Canon does have the financial problem not making money they easily could have made. The users have no problem and all the alternatives, and spend their money elsewhere.

Smartphone cameras will become even better, and Sony will implement all the last DSLR advantages in their mirrorless A9 lineup. Already in 2017 most people will ask themselves why they should buy any Canon DSLR anymore. So the lens business should be even more important to Canon, as they at least could sell a lot of updated lenses to the many existing Canon DSLR owners. I have no clue why Canon keeps the slow release pace of the last millennium.


----------



## Ladislav (May 19, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> It can be annoying if manufacturers do update products every 12 months. But in the fast times we are in, Canon doing necessary updates of lenses only every 7-30 years is ridiculous.



Isn't it about manufacturing capacity? Considering history of Canon releases it shows a release pattern. They can only release certain amount of lenses which they actually get to the market. As already pointed before - Canon doesn't need to offer every single lens 3rd party manufacturers offer - it is probably even not achievable.

I would also love to see 24-70/2.8 L IS but so far I can only dream about it ... 50/2 L IS Macro would be another dream.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 19, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> Already in 2017 most people will ask themselves why they should buy any Canon DSLR anymore.



Oh, really? Most people? As I said, YAPODFC. : : :


----------



## ecka (May 19, 2016)

EF 100-300mm F4 IS USM, please :


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 19, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > There are now 8 (!) very useful types of zooms that are only built by third party manufacturers, and Canon needs answers soon
> ...


I would add to this in fixed primes Canon cover everything from 14mm to 800mm, in zooms everything from 8mm to 400mm + 1.4 extender and in macros 50 to 180mm. Yes the list of recommended lenses for the 5DS / 5DSr are limited but you can still use ANY FF lens with these cameras including all the discontinued EF lenses.


----------



## CapturingLight (May 19, 2016)

This is a very interesting lens for me. I am a crop shooter. I have been relatively happy with my longest focal length being 135. That being said It would be nice to have a longer lens around for when it is needed. Here are my thoughts on the current options:
55-250STM - Good: Price and Optics Bad: Lousy build quality, EF-S lens, Shortest option
75-300USM - Good: Longer zoom range, EF lens, price Bad: Lousy optics
75-300L - Good: Longer zoom range, EF lens Bad: Price, Weight
100-400 - Good: Better still zoom range, EF lens, Optics Bad: Price, Weight
Sigma/Tamron 150-600 - Good: Amazing zoom range, EF lens, Acceptable optics Bad: Weight, Size

In my mind the 55-250,75-300USM,75-300L,100-400 all have enough cons that have kept be from pulling the trigger. I do keep eyeing the 150-600 options but they are huge and heavy but 150-600mm how cool is that. While I agree the 150-600 is a very different lens from a 75-300 they both fit my desire to have coverage for the longer focal lengths. A 75-300 priced right might just be the sweet spot for me.


----------



## Mikehit (May 19, 2016)

CapturingLight said:


> This is a very interesting lens for me. I am a crop shooter. I have been relatively happy with my longest focal length being 135. That being said It would be nice to have a longer lens around for when it is needed. Here are my thoughts on the current options:
> 55-250STM - Good: Price and Optics Bad: Lousy build quality, EF-S lens, Shortest option
> 75-300USM - Good: Longer zoom range, EF lens, price Bad: Lousy optics
> 75-300L - Good: Longer zoom range, EF lens Bad: Price, Weight
> ...



I presume you mean the 70-300 in all your comments above? The 75-300 is the budget end and is a real dog especially at the long end with sub-par IS (and the 75-300L does not exist ). 
I would not call the 70-300 USM 'lousy' - in fact for the price it is very good value for money and up to 200mm performs very well. I think the 18-55 and 70-300 USM is a very good two-lens starter pack. 

It would be interesting to see how they improve it - a tad better on optics and better continuous AF - there is plenty of space between the current version and the 'L' version so they could improve it a fair bit without impinging on the market of the 'L'.


----------



## j-nord (May 19, 2016)

CapturingLight said:


> 75-300L - Good: Longer zoom range, EF lens Bad: Price, *Weight*


Assuming you mean the 70-300L, it's interesting that you think this lens is too heavy but you are considering the 150-600s which are nearly 2x the weight with the Sigma Sport being closer to 3x...


----------



## Maximilian (May 19, 2016)

Hi CapturingLight!

Your post is confusing me a little bit because you seem to be mixing something up here.



CapturingLight said:


> Here are my thoughts on the current options:



EF *75*-300mm f/4-5.6 *III*
EF *75*-300mm f/4-5.6 *III USM*
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 *IS USM* 
EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 *DO *IS USM
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6*L* IS USM
These are the lenses available plus the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM you mentioned as well. 
I *highlighted* the differences in names and design.

AFAIK the *75*-300 options are somwhere about "wouldn't care 'bout them anyway".
The 70-300 *IS USM* is the one I believe we're talking about a replacement here and as I said before the third party options here are the better choice - maybe except the AF. So a new version would be very welcome.
The *DO* is known as soft and overpriced but very compact. 
And the *L* version is surely expensive but offers something in a different league. 
And weight... if weight is an issue I suppose you cannot expect a tele zoom with high image and mechanical quality combined with low weight. 

So...


> A 75-300 priced right might just be the sweet spot for me.


... this now depends on which option you're refering now


----------



## CapturingLight (May 19, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> CapturingLight said:
> 
> 
> > This is a very interesting lens for me. I am a crop shooter. I have been relatively happy with my longest focal length being 135. That being said It would be nice to have a longer lens around for when it is needed. Here are my thoughts on the current options:
> ...



Yes sorry 70-300USM and 70-300L. As for it being good to 200mm I can already get to 135 I would really like it to be good all the way to 300.


----------



## CapturingLight (May 19, 2016)

j-nord said:


> CapturingLight said:
> 
> 
> > 75-300L - Good: Longer zoom range, EF lens Bad: Price, *Weight*
> ...



Sorry 70-300L. As far as weight yes I know it seems contradictory. I guess my best way of explaining my thinking is I am not willing to add the weight to get to 300mm but the lure of 600mm has me trying to justify the size/weight. I would not get the Sigma sport due to the cost weight concerns.


----------



## CapturingLight (May 19, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> Hi CapturingLight!
> 
> Your post is confusing me a little bit because you seem to be mixing something up here.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the excellent summary, and sorry for the lack of precision/accuracy on my part. It is very out of character for me. I agree the 75-300mm options are not worth looking at. The 70-300 *IS USM* replacement is the one I find interesting. I get the trade off on weight, I guess the 70-300L goes too far in the robust heavy/big direction for my liking.


----------



## j-nord (May 19, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> Coming out with lenses like a 135/1.8 IS would give Canon huge credits.



Completely tangent to this thread... I recently picked up the 135L and fell in love even though I only use it for portraits of my puppy (and some landscape and flower shots). If it were to get refreshed I'd definitely want to see IS and the 72mm filter size is silly, take it to 77mm with 1.8! (I assume they can fit 1.8 and IS in 77mm)


----------



## Maximilian (May 19, 2016)

CapturingLight said:


> Thanks for the excellent summary, and sorry for the lack of precision/accuracy on my part...


You're welcome and no problem. This forum is for all of us to get it sorted up


----------



## RickWagoner (May 19, 2016)

CapturingLight said:


> This is a very interesting lens for me. I am a crop shooter. I have been relatively happy with my longest focal length being 135. That being said It would be nice to have a longer lens around for when it is needed. Here are my thoughts on the current options:
> 55-250STM - Good: Price and Optics Bad: Lousy build quality, EF-S lens, Shortest option
> 75-300USM - Good: Longer zoom range, EF lens, price Bad: Lousy optics
> 75-300L - Good: Longer zoom range, EF lens Bad: Price, Weight
> ...



If you can't pull the trigger on the 55-250 stm for $100-150 price then i feel bad for you. It is beyond one of the greatest efs lens for the price. Also don't say it has lousy build quality, no way close to the truth. It is a light low cost lens, what build quality is lousy to you? it has the same plastics found in much higher priced lenses and you don't need a metal mount because it is that light in weight. The optics on it for the price surpass all the 70-300 besides the L, put a lens hood on it to prevent ghosting and you simply can not complain.

Only lens worthy of an upgrade over the 55-250 stm is a used 70-300 L. Optics and price alone set the L into an area not many Canon lenses ever go to.


----------



## Maximilian (May 19, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> ...
> and make a EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS II USM (maybe nano, probably not)/STM, a EF-S 55-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS STM/USM (nano) and EF-M 55-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS STM/USM (nano)
> 
> This makes some sense to create a small/lightweight telephoto zoom offering for everybody using the latest and greatest DO techniques. The existing DO telephoto zoom has ho-hum IQ and IS, and is oh by the way expensive. Solve all three? You have a winner.


As long as Canon can make it in the price range in the middle between the current 70-300 IS USM an DO you might be right. 
If they can only make it for the price of the DO or above I don't see a big market. 
Then Canon will prefer the standard version.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 19, 2016)

dilbert said:


> hkenneth said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


Describe "incompetent"? Mechanically the EF70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM is OK, not to L standards but better than budget EF-S zooms and at around £ 345 / Euro 430 not expensive. Yes its not up to L glass optically but the lens was rated highly for its price by Photozone.de years ago. The L version lens is around £ 875.00 / 1100 euros so 2.5 times more expensive. 
Ive used this lens at many airshows and got really good sharp shots and Im sure Im not alone.


----------



## Don Haines (May 19, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


Yes, I forgot about that......


----------



## slclick (May 19, 2016)

There have been how many variants of this beast? I'll stick with my L


----------



## CapturingLight (May 19, 2016)

RickWagoner said:


> CapturingLight said:
> 
> 
> > This is a very interesting lens for me. I am a crop shooter. I have been relatively happy with my longest focal length being 135. That being said It would be nice to have a longer lens around for when it is needed. Here are my thoughts on the current options:
> ...



I don't want to appear to be giving the 55-250STM too hard of a time it made my list where many did not(as others have pointed out). It may end up in my bag. I may have been to harsh to say lousy build quality but I hope we can agree it is designed on the light/cheep end of the build range. At its price point it may be an impulse buy for some but I would prefer to contemplate what I consider a desirable lens rather than compulsively buy one that is cheep and good enough. I could be swayed into spending a bit more and having a lens that was equal or better optically, metal mount, faster focus (perhaps nano USM), EF, and slightly longer(300mm). A bit heaver would be fine. 
FYI like most here my GAS is diverse. My attention is currently more focused on acquiring a good deal on the 80D than getting a longer lens.


----------



## Woody (May 20, 2016)

I am surprised by this bit of news.


----------



## RickWagoner (May 20, 2016)

CapturingLight said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > CapturingLight said:
> ...




I suggest you try it at the least, it maybe a lens you keep in your bag esp when the range is not that important to you. Don't be scared by stm focus speeds, it is plently fast enough to track a bird in flight. If you plan on going full frame soon then the Tamron is a better match there, but on a crop even the stm 250 will beat it. The 70-300 used is just amazing, esp if you can find one at $800. the micro detail from this lens to me is on par with the Sigma 50 ART, if it was not for aperture i would take this lens over any 70-200 anyday...and that says a lot! CPW has a grey market 80d now for $849, and it is common to find a USA sold model at $900 lately. I would not wait too long to pull on one of these deals as i see the pricing going up close to MAP as the 80D makes its way into the chain stores and sales begin to uptick, and they will eventually. Rite now the 70D is still moving good because it is in lots more locations esp to average people like Best buys.


----------



## hkenneth (May 20, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > hkenneth said:
> ...



Mechanically EF 70-300mm is not okay by today's standards. Rotate front element which means no polarizer, micro USM instead of ring USM which means no FTM. Optically, it is weaker than Tanrom which sells at the same price if not cheaper.


----------



## CapturingLight (May 20, 2016)

RickWagoner said:


> CapturingLight said:
> 
> 
> > RickWagoner said:
> ...


Thanks for your thoughts. I may take a closer look at the 55-250 next time I am in a camera shop. As for the 80D unfortunately, I have yet to find one of those deals that I can take advantage of living in Canada, none of them seem willing to ship out of the US. The one referenced on this site the other day for example seems to suggest they will ship to Canada on the e-bay page but when I called I was told they will not. The best price in Canada (Body only) seems to be $1679 + TAX = $1897 ouch. I may have to wait until closer to Christmas when we might see some local sales pop up.


----------



## dufflover (May 22, 2016)

I've struggled between having to choose a 70-200 (+ possible TCs) and a 100-400 as something to have in my bag for impromptu plane spotting. Rather annoyingly, the idea lens is somewhere in the middle because sometimes the 100-400 would not be wide enough for a larger aircraft, or the 70-200 not long enough, and a Sigma 50-500 (I don't have one) would not be able to shoot through fences to the same quality plus being less portable. Sticking a 1.4x TC on the 70-200 then makes it minimum ~100mm anyway (same as the 100-400). Cutting the chase, if there was a sharp cheapish telephoto I could leave it there on-hand and use it if the circumstances fit. I was actually tempted to get the 55-250mm for this reason (55mm noticeably more useful than 70 or 100) but as good as the reputation is, I think I would notice the times the f/5.6 hurts or just those times I wish it was a tad sharper (ofcourse that would ignore it's budget price!)


----------



## wsmith96 (May 23, 2016)

If they were to update the optics a bit, give it a 4 stop stabilizer, and make the front element non-rotating - this would make a great budget compliment to the 24-105 STM. Makes me wonder if we'll see a budget UWA soon as well - 16-35mm equivalent of the EF-S 10-18.


----------



## haggie (May 23, 2016)

I am glad to see that a new 70-300 non-L may be coming, assuming that it will have nano-USM (which apparently stands for even faster AF than STM) and better IQ than the bad IQ of the present 70-300 non-L.

To be honest, I am quite surprised to read replies now and then that seem to indicate that the present EF 70-300 non-L is not all that bad. I have spoken several people in the last year with the Canon 70-300 non-L, and both its AF-speed and IQ is not to modern standards at all. Probably Canon's innovations with STM are partly to blame for that. And innitial reviews of the nano-USM seem to be even a step better for de AF-speed. Of course, IQ is a per-lens matter, based on how Canon choses to market the lens.

But there is another aspect of the present 70-300 non-L I would like to bring up. Two of the people I spoke bought the 70-300 non-L as part of a package with a body or another Canon-lens. Both were thinking that with Canon they could not be mistaken, even although it is not that cheap (and almost twice the price of the 55-250 STM). And Canon's own words speak about good IQ and fast AF. For them it was a great disappointment that the Canon 70-300 non-L could not focus on playing children (not eratically running around, just slowly moving as any kid does), pets, etc.. These 'normal' customers are disappointed greatly: not in this lens, but in Canon as a brand! 
So perhaps Canon manages to earn a lot on sales of an old design that (new) customers keep buying because it routinely gets packaged with other Canon products (e.g. around the holidays), but apparently the management of Canon does not realise that Canon is eating from it's own good name here. After this experience, both of these customers (owners of a Canon DSLR-body) will not automatically chose a Canon-lens next time, they told me!
The third was a guy I met at an airshow. It was my first time at an airshow after many years, so I started talking to him when I saw his camera. With his Canon 6D (a full frame body) and 70-300 non-L, he thought that he had bought a nice combination for shooting planes. That was not the case in reality, he told me. Despite what Canon says on its website and what he believed to be true. He felt a fool.

So anybody saying that the 70-300 non-L is fine may be right when talking about a specific subject, e.g. landscape photography (no AF-speed required) - and then in the range between 70 and 200 mm (where IQ is reasonable) - and then also on a cropped camera (where the low border IQ is no issue). But not mentioning that does not do justice to other real-world experiences, in my honest opinion.

Therefore I can only hope for Canon's sake that this rumors (also) is about a new EF 70-300 IS (nano-)USM with a decent IQ over the whole range but *in particular at the long end*. Because after all, that is where most tele-zooms are most often used: at or around the long end. And where they are judged in reality.

And on a personal note: I hope that such a lens becomes available this year, or it will be too late for me and I will have chosen a non-Canon lens. That would be for the first time in 3 decades of shooting with Canon.


----------



## slclick (May 23, 2016)

RGF said:


> I would be nice if Canon provided a near-L quality 28-300 lens. Without the weight nor the price tag.



Let the "More for Less" chanting begun (Oh sorry, it's been happening on the Forum for years)


----------



## Tangent (May 23, 2016)

Relatively cheap 24-105 IS + relatively cheap 70-300 IS = relatively cheap FF Rebel coming?

There was a rumor a while back that the 6DmkII would move upscale. Room for an entry level beneath it?


----------



## kphoto99 (May 23, 2016)

haggie said:


> I am glad to see that a new 70-300 non-L may be coming, assuming that it will have nano-USM (which apparently stands for even faster AF than STM) and better IQ than the bad IQ of the present 70-300 non-L.
> 
> To be honest, I am quite surprised to read replies now and then that seem to indicate that the present EF 70-300 non-L is not all that bad. I have spoken several people in the last year with the Canon 70-300 non-L, and both its AF-speed and IQ is not to modern standards at all. Probably Canon's innovations with STM are partly to blame for that. And innitial reviews of the nano-USM seem to be even a step better for de AF-speed. Of course, IQ is a per-lens matter, based on how Canon choses to market the lens.
> 
> ...



This is exactly how I felt after buying my first Canon DSLR, T2i with 18-55 something and 55-250. I was so disappointed with the pictures I figured I had no clue what I was doing. I persevered, learned and got better lenses and better cameras. Now I'm happy with the results most of the time.
To anybody who claims Canon makes great lenses, that is true, but they also make crappy lenses. Many people who start with a first DSLR will end up with crappy lenses and will not continue using the DSLR. 
In my opinion Canon should not sell any crappy lenses, they are destroying their brand. No lens should be worst then the 18-135STM, that should be the bottom of the quality standard.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 23, 2016)

As soon as I heard this announcement I felt it would be the next application of Nano-USM. The 18-135mm has crazy good AF, but the image quality is unimpressive. If they pair excellent IQ with the Nano-USM in this lens it could be seriously impressive.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 23, 2016)

kphoto99 said:


> haggie said:
> 
> 
> > ...Therefore I can only hope for Canon's sake that this rumors (also) is about a new EF 70-300 IS (nano-)USM with a decent IQ over the whole range but *in particular at the long end*. Because after all, that is where most tele-zooms are most often used: at or around the long end. And where they are judged in reality...
> ...


I live wondering:

How is it that in 2016, Canon continues to manufacture some trash, as their 75-300mm?


----------



## wsmith96 (May 23, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I live wondering:
> 
> How is it that in 2016, Canon continues to manufacture some trash, as their 75-300mm?



Ouch!!!! Hadn't seen this on TDP.


----------



## Don Haines (May 23, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> kphoto99 said:
> 
> 
> > haggie said:
> ...


EXACTLY!

It's not just the big whites that need periodic updates.....


----------



## 9VIII (May 24, 2016)

Judging by the IQ on the EF-S 55-250 IS STM they probably can make a really nice long plastic zoom on Full Frame if they really want to.
The best part is if they come anywhere close to the IQ of the EF-S zoom then this could make a great upgrade over that lens on crop.


----------



## j-nord (May 24, 2016)

I honestly had no idea people were this enthusiastic about low end zooms. No issue with it, I just didnt know there was a market for them.


----------



## 9VIII (May 24, 2016)

j-nord said:


> I honestly had no idea people were this enthusiastic about low end zooms. No issue with it, I just didnt know there was a market for them.



There probably wasn't until they made them good. The EF-S 55-250 IS STM is very sharp and can be had for very little money.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 24, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> kphoto99 said:
> 
> 
> > haggie said:
> ...



Very simple: there's money in making those lenses, but none in upgrading them.


----------



## wsmith96 (May 24, 2016)

9VIII said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > I honestly had no idea people were this enthusiastic about low end zooms. No issue with it, I just didnt know there was a market for them.
> ...



I've been impressed with mine. I bought two when they were $129 refurb'd for my kids and they do very well.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I live wondering:
> 
> How is it that in 2016, Canon continues to manufacture some trash, as their 75-300mm?



It goes to *300mm*. It costs $180-200 new. It costs $70 refurbished, today on Canon's webstore. That's right...*$70*. It sits on shelves in Target and Walmart. Do you honestly think that the majority of dSLR buyers – those buying a Rebel/xxxD and for whom a $400-600 camera+lens kit is a _major_ purchase – are prepared to spend that much or more on another lens? 

$180 to zoom to 300mm. How do you live _*not*_ understanding why Canon continues to manufacture these lenses?

As for the lens being 'trash', there are plenty of examples of quite lovely images with this lens on Flickr (e.g. this one or this one), so if you've tried the lens and are unable to take a decent picture, I'd suggest the problem isn't the lens.


----------



## Luds34 (May 24, 2016)

j-nord said:


> I honestly had no idea people were this enthusiastic about low end zooms. No issue with it, I just didnt know there was a market for them.



On this forum you mean. I too am a bit surprised the coverage this is getting considering we have a lot of enthusiasts and pros and we can be a bit snobby with our gear. 

I'm not sure I see a ton of value in this lens at the price it goes for. The 70-200 f/4L seems like such a better lens for just a little bit more money. And the latest 55-250 STM lenses in both EF-S and EF-M seem like better budget options. So this lens gets kind of stuck in "no man's land". Either go true budget with the STM, or spring for the entry level 70-200.


----------



## AvTvM (May 24, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> It goes to *300mm*. It costs $180-200 new. It costs $70 refurbished, today on Canon's webstore. That's right...*$70*. It sits on shelves in Target and Walmart. Do you honestly think that the majority of dSLR buyers – those buying a Rebel/xxxD and for whom a $400-600 camera+lens kit is a _major_ purchase – are prepared to spend that much or more on another lens?
> 
> $180 to zoom to 300mm. How do you live _*not*_ understanding why Canon continues to manufacture these lenses?



No valid excuse.  

This zoom, like some other older Canon EF lenses was an OK-ish low-end consumer tele-zoom many years ago. But by mid-2016 Canon customers rightfully expect better Canon lenses than ancient 50/1.4, 85/1.8 or any of the lame and ho-hum 70/75-300 zoom variations [speaking of Non-L]. If Tamron and other thirdparty lens makers can offer fully competitive "consumer grade" lenses at reasonable prices, so should Canon.

Canon has demonstrated they can do it with some new or greatly improved "upgraded" versions of lenses that are optically very decent consumer lenses by today's standards and affordable at the same time. e.g. EF 40/2.8, EF 50/1.8 STM, EF-S 55-250 or all of the EF-M lenses. 

But some upgrades really are overdue. 

Personally I'd love to get a new EF 85/1.8 STM IS or even better 100/2.0 IS STM - even if it came with plastic mount and no manual focus ring. Instead I'd rather take the blue goo.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> But by mid-2016 Canon customers rightfully expect better Canon lenses than ancient 50/1.4, 85/1.8 or any of the lame and ho-hum 70/75-300 zoom variations [speaking of Non-L].



And yet...Canon customers keep right on buying those lenses. But as usual, you think you know better than Canon about what consumers will buy, even though time and again the actual facts prove you wrong.


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 24, 2016)

Neuro, your problem is you're just too logical. We are spoiled silly with the level of lenses we have for the price (other than super-teles which are super-hard to afford). A comment if you will on me dumping my 300 2.8 II for the 500 II - asking price about $6500 US. Probably 70% of my shots have been 300 X2.

Jack


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Personally I'd love to get a new EF 85/1.8 STM IS or even better 100/2.0 IS STM -



So you'd give your money to Canon for an EF lens, thereby encouraging them to continue supporting their antiquated mirrorslapper platform which is clearly passé instead of riding the wave of the future last year and switching entirely to dedicated mirrorless?

How very anachronistic and hypocritical of you... :


----------



## AvTvM (May 24, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > But by mid-2016 Canon customers rightfully expect better Canon lenses than ancient 50/1.4, 85/1.8 or any of the lame and ho-hum 70/75-300 zoom variations [speaking of Non-L].
> ...



Can you show unit sales to prove the claim "customers keep buying these lenses"? Yes, some do, mostly for lack of better alternatives and/or fear of potential AF-/compatibility issues with 3rd party lenses and/or higher price of (optically superior) 3rd party lenses. 

I don't know,. but would be really surprised, if those old clunkers mentioned were still selling in large quantities by now.


----------



## scrup (May 24, 2016)

A good indicator is if the lens is in stock on the Canon refurbished site.
The only way to be refurbished is if someone is buying them.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/lenses-flashes/refurbished-lenses

Canon should have data on returns and the reasons behind it. If IQ, build, or performance is an issue, it may be time for a refresh of that lens especially if it sells.


----------



## AvTvM (May 24, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I'd love to get a new EF 85/1.8 STM IS or even better 100/2.0 IS STM -
> ...



Yes, I would buy a (compact!) EF lens, if Canon will not bring my EF-M 80/2.4 IS STM portrait lens ... and besides I still have my 5D3 mirrorslapper and use it. Although only about 25% of my captures. 75% are taken sans mmirror.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 24, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Can you show any facts and statistics to support your claims you just mentioned there?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 24, 2016)

I do not like polemics ... but let's be honest.

The typical buyer of low-quality lens like 75-300mm, buying your first DSLR Rebel, and want more range than 18-55mm. It turns out that this audience does not read canonrumors, and do not know why it is worth paying more for the great 55-250 STM.

The frustration of having to use F11 for sharp images at 300mm and ISO up to the clouds to allow shutter speeds 1/500 when holding the hand will be disappointing. I know many novice buyers who feel duped by Canon lenses offer low sharpness capacity, at a time when Rebel camera has 24 megapixel, and computer monitors has very high resolution.

It is less severe with the 70-300 USM, but still disappointing when placed in a T6i, and used in 300mm.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (May 25, 2016)

Hopefuly, it will get a faster AF USM motor and a non-rotating front filter ring


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 25, 2016)

When I bought my 300 2.8 II (I was switching to Canon) I did a careful comparison to my Nikon 70-300 (similar to the Canon non-L I believe) and although the big white was better in all respects, I was disappointed initially in the difference not being "huge". 

I guess I thought a lenses costing 10 times as much would be 10 times better. Perhaps it's more accurate to say it's 30% better although that's very subjective. There are numerous subtle ways the big lens is better but I still have respect for the little guy. That's the lens I bought and gave to my daughter for her 40D and I think it has served her quite well. An update will no doubt be a decent lens. No reason to trash talk a lens like this.

Jack


----------



## AvTvM (May 25, 2016)

i think the "trash" label applies to EF 75-300 III. 
the 70-300 IS is more like "ho-hum" - disappointing beyond 200mm ... at least by today's standards and compared to Nikon or Tamron 70-300 lenses. 

nikon has no higher end 70-300 L. canon does. probably the main reason why canon has not come up with an upgraded 70-300 IS II yet ... if they make it too good and or to priceworthy, L sales may suffer a bit. marketing/ product differentiation has aleaysctaken precedrnce at Canon over customer's wishes.


----------



## haggie (May 25, 2016)

To start with, I want to be perfectly clear that I only speak about the EF 70-300 non-L here, because that was mentioned in the initial posting of this thread. 
So NOT the 75-300 that neuroanatomist mentioned in his reply to that rumor. 

AvTvM ‘s reaction above, writing about the present 70-300 non-L, exactly describes what may well be the reason behind the observations I described in my earlier response (page 5 of this thread). But I want to go into these obserations a bit further.

The thing is that the decision makers at Canon may be focused purely on their sales numbers (no doubt high enough, partly due to bundling with other products and cash back actions at strategic times of the year) and profit margins (no doubt very high for a 10-years old lens like the 70-300 non-L). They may, however, not be aware of the effect of these lenses on the “experience” of customers, when these lenses are not what was envisioned by the customer. 

On the other hand one has to recognise that sales numbers and profit are what drive a company, so ignoring that and only reasoning from the perspective of a client that wishes "more for less" is strange. But I think that is not what drives the honest responses of most posters on the forum. 
And for myself: my point was, to put it more clearly, that there is a big inconsistency between what buyers are made to believe by Canon itself and what they will actually get when buying the present 70-300 non-L. 

Today Canon describes the 70-300 non-L as follows on their website: “_The EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM telephoto zoom lens has been developed to meet the high-performance standards that today's photographers demand_.”. This is a 10-years old lens, and customers are made to believe it is a modern technology – even “today’s standards”. Most customers have seen technology change almost per-year and this text by Canon gives expectations.

That means that a new or gullible customer, trusting a famous brand like Canon, can get frustrated with Canon after spending around $1,000 on a camera plus tele-zoom that can hardly meet normal AF situations in and around the house and have an image quality that is not good between 200 and 300 mm. 

Initially when hearing people with this lens complain about it, I explained that Canon had faster and sharper lenses. I have been using Canon (D)SLR’s for over 30 years and felt I had to explain them. But listening carefully to what they went through, there is no excuse for selling lenses that are carefully marketed as “_modern_” and using the “Canon” brand, and then have disappointing experiences. Keep in mind that Every word on a site as Canon's is carefully chosen, and even reviewed by many before it is placed.

This effect of selling a lens that will not meet the expectations on people explains why on page 5 I wrote “_So anybody saying that the 70-300 non-L is fine may be right when talking about a specific subject, e.g. landscape photography (no AF-speed required) - and then in the range between 70 and 200 mm (where IQ is reasonable) - and then also on a cropped camera (where the low border IQ is no issue). But not mentioning that does not do justice to other real-world experiences, in my honest opinion_.”.

And not only the people I spoke have that negative experience and emotion about Canon as a result of the present 70-300 non-L. kphoto99 wrote it a bit more black and white: “_Many people who start with a first DSLR will end up with crappy lenses and will not continue using the DSLR. In my opinion Canon should not sell any crappy lenses, they are destroying their brand_.”. But Canon’s choices achieve exactly that: negative emotion with the customer who spent a lot of money and did not get what was perceived. Mind you, this effect on the customer is the result of Canon itself and not due to the fault of the customer. 
And my further point is: that is not without consequences for this customer's future buyings!

Therefore, and I repeat, I really hope that the rumor that started this thread is true about a new EF 70-300 non-L coming pretty soon, assuming it comes with faster AF (e.g. nano-USM) and with noticeably better Image Quality, particularly at the 200-300 mm range (where lenses like these are most often used). Then, even a higher price than topday’s 70-300 non-L is justified, compared to it place between the EF-S 55-250 STM and the EF 70-300 L.

I hope this for myself 8) , many other customers (as is clear from several responses on the board) and also for the good name that Canon has to hold high. And doing so, I am sure, will by no means mean less profit for those only concerned about the business side of Canon.


----------



## Mikehit (May 25, 2016)

I can understand your comments, Haggie but IMO any impression created from advertising can only be taken in relation to the experience and knowledge of the purchaser. I am one who was bowled over by the 70-300 when I bought it in 2007 and going back to those images now it was not as good as my emotions told me at the time. But (and this is the point) it was capable of some _very_ good stuff but I was not aware at the time of what its limitations were until I went to the 70-200 f4L and the 100-400L. Many of us are looking at the 70-300 after experiencing better lenses so we are not the target in marketing terms.

In my experience someone who has a real interest in photography but cannot afford L lenses do read review sites and get pissed that their lens can't match it. But what do they expect at the price?

The question is not 'how good is it in absolute terms' but 'how good is it in relation to lenses from competitors' and I think it still gives a good account of itself.


----------



## Luds34 (May 25, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> i think the "trash" label applies to EF 75-300 III.
> the 70-300 IS is more like "ho-hum" - disappointing beyond 200mm ... at least by today's standards and compared to Nikon or Tamron 70-300 lenses.



Either way, let's not put either of those lenses in the same boat as the 85mm f/1.8. Especially the 75-300, that is just plain insulting to the very solid 85mm.


----------



## AvTvM (May 25, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> Either way, let's not put either of those lenses in the same boat as the 85mm f/1.8. Especially the 75-300, that is just plain insulting to the very solid 85mm.



well ... compared to "TODAY'S STANDARDS" = 50 MP sensors ... and in light of Sigma 50, 85 Art and the new Tamron 85/1.8 VC lenses like Canon EF 50/1.4 and EF 85/1.8 are rather "trashy" in comparison. Yes, they are about "half price" too ... but. 

Of course the EF 75-300 III is in a trash-class of its own ... I'd call it *abysmal*.


----------



## Mikehit (May 25, 2016)

75-300 I agree
70-300 I disagree.

But then if you make a 75-300 zoom lens for £142 (0r £95 without IS) what exactly are you expecting?

As for it being trash - if you don't make it, then the 70-300 USM (at 3x the price) becomes the entry lens and you lose all possibility to create those (to the newbie) enticing 2-lens deals that they can afford and with it goes the chance of getting anyone newbies into the Canon fold. Canon have created a lens to a price to do a specific job. Anyone who has been in a manufacturing industry knows the importance of that and to call Canon dumb for doing it is ridiculous. 

You wouldn't buy it? I doubt Canon cares - the very fact you are on this site means you are not in that market.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 25, 2016)

Imagine you are a beginner in the DSLR world, who does not read Canonrumors ... :

You go to the store and see a Rebel T6i that attracts you by the 24 megapixel, and buy it expecting much better quality than a point and shoot camera. 

After using the very decent 18-55mm STM for a few days, you decide that you need more range, and purchase the Canon 75-300. After a few days is frustrated to find that it is impossible to achieve a high quality image in 300mm their children playing in the park in the sunshine to 17h. 

You go back in the store and see that paying more, may have the Canon 70-300 IS USM and purchase it. After a few days notice that continues to unsharp images in 300mm, and the slow focus did you lose many shots of their children playing in the park. :'(

So once again you return to the store and the salesman shows you the 70-300L, and you are pissed off with the Canon to make you spend money for nothing. 

On a fine day, you find that there are sites like Canonrumors, Thedigitalpicture, and learn that should have bought the great Canon 55-250 STM from the beginning. :-X


----------



## Mikehit (May 25, 2016)

A nice story.
But it makes the mistaken assumption that untold thousand of people out there even care about ultimate image quality. It has been shown time and again that they don't. It is that market that the 75-300 is designed for. 

For the photo of their kids playing in the park it will beat their phone and if that is the case the camera is a worthwhile purchase. Anyone who is that bothered about image quality will read reviews and make the leap straight to the 70-300 and it will do them well for 2-3 years. Possibly the rest of their lives. If it doesn't do the job they need they will find the sites like this that give them this information they need. And if they don't understand the concept of cost-benefit ratio they are probably not that bothered in the first place.


----------



## AvTvM (May 25, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> A nice story.
> But it makes the mistaken assumption that untold thousand of people out there even care about ultimate image quality. It has been shown time and again that they don't. It is that market that the 75-300 is designed for.
> 
> For the photo of their kids playing in the park it will beat their phone and if that is the case the camera is a worthwhile purchase. Anyone who is that bothered about image quality will read reviews and make the leap straight to the 70-300 and it will do them well for 2-3 years. Possibly the rest of their lives. If it doesn't do the job they need they will find the sites like this that give them this information they need. And if they don't understand the concept of cost-benefit ratio they are probably not that bothered in the first place.



no. Most of those customers use Digital Rebels with APS-C sensor. 99% of them will never buy an FF mirrorslpapper ("too expensive, too big). They should not be shafted with a very poor 75-300 FF lens (often in a "dual zoom kit"). they do dserve to be sold a an optically much better and also very affordable EF-S 55-250. 

If Canon wants to offer an entry level FF tele zoom - really only for 6D purchasers - then it should be of decent quality. An overhauled and upgraded 70-300 IS Mk. II with better IQ especially on the long end, 4-stop IS, better (Nano-USM) AF drive and non-rotating front element - at an affordable price would be an adequate offer for the "leader in imaging". 

75-300 should be discontinued asap, it really is a disgrace for Canon and really not needed by anybody.


----------



## haggie (May 25, 2016)

In reply to my view on canon’s present EF 70-300 non-L, Mikehit wrote “_But what do they expect at the price_?”. Well, I can tell you from 3 different people I spoke recently what they expected from the EF 70-300 non-L. Two of them have a cropped camera and were prepared to pay more for a higher quality lens. So they bought the EF 70-300 non-L instead of the (much) cheaper EF-S 55-250 STM and 75-300. I described how these experience led to frustration with regards to the brand ‘Canon’. And the third one with the 6D also could have known better if he had read the information with a bit more suspicion - instead of spending a lot of money based on trust in Canon. (For more details about this: read my post on page 5 of this thread).

You should know that at first I did not agree with their criticism and also I in effect explained that to them how to choose a lens – by the way, almost exactly like Mikehit worded it in his reply. But what these people really said in reply to that, was that they bought a lens with full faith in Canon as a big brand and the descriptions they read. 

Looking on Canon’s website later I could understand their decision. Based on trust in Canon it is not that strange to choose the more expensive option if you do not want the lowest quality available…... 

It are these 3 real world ‘experiences’ that maks Mikehit’s remark “_But what do they expect at the price_?” incorrect. Because it was the higher price of the EF 70-300 non-L that has led to their frustration, as opposed to Mikehit’s implicit suggestion that the EF 70-300’s price is low and that this low price should make clear to customers that quality of the EF 70-300 non-L is worse. It's price is high: higher than the 75-300 and higher than the 55-250 STM!

I feel Mikehit is right with his remark “_The question is not 'how good is it in absolute terms' but 'how good is it in relation to lenses from competitors_'”. But with the arguments I just mentioned, I can only arrive at the conclusion that the EF 70-300 non-L does not offer what Canon suggests ... as opposed to what Mikehit writes in his last line that "_it still gives a good account of itself_".

And that brings me back to my opinion about the subject of this thread: there is a place for a new EF 70-300 non-L with better IQ (a must) and faster AF (a must), thus being a good alternative for the EF-S 55-250 STM (the 75-300 I will not even mention due to what has been already said about that lens) - but still ‘below’ Canon’s EF 70-300 L.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Imagine you are a beginner in the DSLR world, who does not read Canonrumors ... :
> 
> You go to the store and see a Rebel T6i that attracts you by the 24 megapixel, and buy it expecting much better quality than a point and shoot camera.
> 
> After using the very decent 18-55mm STM for a few days, you decide that you need more range, and purchase the Canon 75-300. After a few days is frustrated to find that it is impossible to achieve a high quality image in 300mm their children playing in the park in the sunshine to 17h.



Children aren't ISO12223 charts. I suspect that in almost all cases, the person you describe would be quite happy with the images – their smartphone or P&S wouldn't let them capture a closeup of the smile on their kid's face going down the slide, from their vantage across the playground. At least, they'd be happy until you came along to tell them their pictures were 'not high quality' because they bought a 'trash' lens.


----------



## AvTvM (May 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Children aren't ISO12223 charts. I suspect that in almost all cases, the person you describe would be quite happy with the images – their smartphone or P&S wouldn't let them capture a closeup of the smile on their kid's face going down the slide, from their vantage across the playground. At least, they'd be happy until you came along to tell them their pictures were 'not high quality' because they bought a 'trash' lens.



Neuro again: purchasers of the 75-300 will almost all be APS-C users. Despite the low price, the lens is a really bad deal, given availability of the EF-S 55-250 IS STM - which is also quite affordable to the target group. This group also does not need the FF-capable 70-300 IS, nor the the 70-300 L. 

Whereas "higher-end FF users" will likely take the 70-300 L, if they are not rather going for one of 70-200 2.8 II or 4 L IS. 

Which really only leaves budget conscious entry level FF users [6D] as possible target group for an EF-70-300 IS Mk. II. 

And no need whatsoever for the 75-300. 

PS: but yes, of course Canon knows it *much better*.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> A nice story.
> But it makes the mistaken assumption that untold thousand of people out there even care about ultimate image quality. It has been shown time and again that they don't. It is that market that the 75-300 is designed for.
> 
> For the photo of their kids playing in the park it will beat their phone and if that is the case the camera is a worthwhile purchase. Anyone who is that bothered about image quality will read reviews and make the leap straight to the 70-300 and it will do them well for 2-3 years. Possibly the rest of their lives. If it doesn't do the job they need they will find the sites like this that give them this information they need. And if they don't understand the concept of cost-benefit ratio they are probably not that bothered in the first place.



Exactly. 




AvTvM said:


> 75-300 should be discontinued asap, it really is a disgrace for Canon and really not needed by anybody.



Are you going to give every Rebel buyer who wants a telephoto zoom the extra $100-120 they need to pay for the 55-250 STM over the 75-300 lenses, to keep them from being 'shafted with a very poor 75-300 FF'. Or do you think $100 is a trivial amount of money for most people?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 25, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Children aren't ISO12223 charts. I suspect that in almost all cases, the person you describe would be quite happy with the images – their smartphone or P&S wouldn't let them capture a closeup of the smile on their kid's face going down the slide, from their vantage across the playground. At least, they'd be happy until you came along to tell them their pictures were 'not high quality' because they bought a 'trash' lens.
> ...


I totally agree.

Canon has a much better option for the "ignorant wretch" who buys 75-300 or 70-300 non L. I know several people who uselessly spend their money on these lenses, to find that they would have done better with the 55-250 STM.

I will not say "Canon is *******," but is dirtying his credibility to continue making low quality lenses, which only made sense with camera 6 megapixel and shooting static objects.


----------



## AvTvM (May 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Are you going to give every Rebel buyer who wants a telephoto zoom the extra $100-120 they need to pay for the 55-250 STM over the 75-300 lenses, to keep them from being 'shafted with a very poor 75-300 FF'. Or do you think $100 is a trivial amount of money for most people?



well in this case it is 100 € extremely well spent, if that really is the price differential where you live. 

Where I live Amazon germany has currently (one of the) lowest prices for both lenses:
EF-S 55-250 - € 169 with free delivery
https://www.amazon.de/Canon-Tele-Zoomobjektiv-EF-S-55-250mm-Filtergewinde/dp/B00EP71ETU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1464205199&sr=8-1&keywords=ef-s+55-250+stm

EF 75-300 III - € 179 with free delivery 
https://www.amazon.de/Canon-75-300-4-5-6-Objektiv-Filtergewinde/dp/B00004THCZ/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1464205021&sr=8-2&keywords=ef+75-300

And yes, I would save the € 10 Euro towards a thirdparty lens hood. 

PS: 55-250 IS STM is listed as "Nr 1" bestseller at amazon.de ... since you always love to quote those amazon sals statistics. 75-300 has ... no sales rank. 

So I repeat: anyone with an APS-C Canon camera being tricked into buying the trashy 75-300 III today rather than 55-250 is being shafted.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> well in this case it is 100 € extremely well spent, if that really is the price differential where you live.


----------



## AvTvM (May 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > well in this case it is 100 € extremely well spent, if that really is the price differential where you live.



1. Even USD 299 is excellent value for the 55-250 IS STM. 
2. USD 179 for the trashy 75-300 III is a rip-off. 
'nuff said.


----------



## Mikehit (May 26, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Cameras are now commoditised and it is all down to cash with the buyer knowing that whatever they buy will do them well. So 100bucks is 100bucks and that can heavily influence the decision of a first-time buyer and once they are into the products of a competitor you will rarely pull them back. But the criticisms of the lens mentioned to you by others are critcisms from people who are interested in improving image quality: the fact is they are in the minority as I commented earlier. 

Don't get me wrong, I fully understand what you say about the 50-250 being a very good lens in itself and I fully appreciate your criticisms of the 70-300. I even agree with your comments that it makes sense (to me and you) that the customer should pay a little more to get better quality. But Canon clearly disagree with you as to whether it has a place (and a role) in its equipment line-up, and if it didn't sell they would not be on the third iteration of the lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 26, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> But Canon clearly disagree with you as to whether it has a place (and a role) in its equipment line-up, and if it didn't sell they would not be on the third iteration of the lens.



All well and good, but AvTvM seems to firmly believe that he knows better than Canon how to make and sell cameras and lenses. Apparently he also knows better than consumers worldwide how they should spend their money. :


----------



## pierlux (May 26, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Relax  , and thank God you don't need a Lens Hood ET-155WII: it's $ 700 at B&H, $ 880 (   0 !!!!!) + $ 96 for the lens cap at the Canon store.  Better take care of your hood if you have a big big white...


----------



## haggie (May 26, 2016)

I am quite new to his forum and I see that neuroanatomist has many ….. many posts. 
So I do not wish to give the impression I do not respect his experience on ‘Canon matters’.

But in several replies in this thread by neuroanatomist, I read a cynical attitude towards anybody that brings in arguments that lead to conclusions that he does not agree with.

So far in this thread, several people have brought in arguments that it may not be Canon’s best interest to continue to sell the present 70-300 non-L lens for much longer. It simply is not good enough to meet modern wishes – wishes that have become higher over the recent years partly thanks to Canon’s own innovation like speedier AF (e.g. STM and recently nano-USM) and better image quality (e.g. 55-250 STM compared to 70-300 non-L ).

The point several people are making, is that given these development in consumers , the customers are not helped with Canon pushing forward with the old EF 70-300 non-L. 

But in addition it is also argued that Canon is not helping itself doing so. Because it can be argued that it is not in Canon’s best interest to orchestrate the disappointment in its own customers. 
In short: Canon may be ‘getting away’ with continuing to sell the 10-years old 70-300 non-L for over € 400. But once Canon cashed this no doubt high profit, many of the customers will lean that spending less money on the cheaper 55-250 STM would have gotten them faster AF and better image quality. Not to speak of those that have a FF body and are confronted with the terrible image quality of the present EF 70-300 non-L. 

As a result of Canon's own marketing, particularly starting customers wanting to spend a bit more money, walk into the trap of buying the old EF 70-300 non-L instead of the faster and better 55-250 STM.
And this is the cause of resentment with some customers towards Canon as a whole, as I have personally witnessed in the 3 different cases I described in an earlier reply on page 5.

AvTvM, kphoto99 and me are among those who bring in these arguments against continuing the EF 70-300 non-L, although with different words and from different perspective. And the honest opinions and valid arguments that are brought up by them are not to be ridiculed with cynical remarks like “… _AvTvM seems to firmly believe that he knows better than Canon how to make and sell cameras and lenses. Apparently he also knows better than consumers worldwide how they should spend their money_”. 

And don’t give me the “_good images are possible with this lens_”, because not only the metrics but also practical experiences of the EF 70-300 non-L tell you that it is only suitable for almost stationary subjects and should not be used above 200 mm, especially on a FF body.

And also the _“if you want something better, buy an L-lens_” is missing the point completely. 

P.S.
And as far as the *75*-300 is concerned, that is a toy lens of which anybody can see its role in Canon’s line-up. 
Because Canon on it’s own web page for the EF-70-300 non-L writes “_Compared to the original Canon EF 75-300mm IS zoom lens, this telephoto lens has faster autofocus, and overall the lens is lighter and has a smaller diameter than the original_.”, only very first beginners with a tight budget will buy that 75-300. 
Good for them, because it may help them ‘grow’ into photography. And good for Canon, because doing so they keep some money away from the competition. 

But the *75*-300 was not the start of this thread. The rumor for a new and better and faster 70-300 non-L was ! 
And several poster argued that a replacement for the EF 70-300 non-L is long over due.


----------



## Labdoc (May 26, 2016)

I will probably buy the new 70-300 non l when it comes out. I own the old version, bought it six years ago for a crop frame camera and although the IQ isn't the best, it suited my purpose. I can afford the L version, and have the 100-400 II but I what I need is a decent, lighter weight smaller tele to take to my kid's football game, walk around town or some similar event. If I want to get out the tripod, get serious and contend with a big heavy lens, the 100-400 is good for that. Take out the big guns at a school event and you are the crazy camera dad, the kids cringe with embarrassment and the extra effort it takes to do it, interferes with enjoying the game IMO. 

Will be moving up to full frame soon and wouldn't use the lens for that format for obvious reasons but if the new version gets rid of some of the issues will definitely be interested. Already have a friend with a rebel who wants to buy the old lens.


----------



## Don Haines (May 26, 2016)

The lowest price lens in the Canon lineup was the nifty fifty..... and it saw an update. Upgrades and updates are not the exclusive property of "L" lenses.... Materials and manufacturing accuracy have come a long way in the last 10 years and a "budget" lens of modern design rivals quality lenses of 20 years ago.....

There is absolutely no reason why the 75-300 could not get an upgrade. The quality is poor and a newer version could be a better lens, yet still say in the same price range. Yes, by modern standards, it is an embarrassingly poor lens..... all this really says is that the update is long overdue.

Is it a good seller? Yes! Do most people realize the poor quality? Probably not! Does any of this matter to us enthusiasts? NO! ........ so why so much noise?

The 70-300 non-L?
Most of the above applies, except at the price level you would expect a better lens. The lens IQ is poor, AF is slow, an upgrade is needed. Period!


----------



## Mikehit (May 26, 2016)

haggie said:


> AvTvM, kphoto99 and me are among those who bring in these arguments against continuing the EF 70-300 non-L, although with different words and from different perspective. And the honest opinions and valid arguments that are brought up by them are not to be ridiculed with cynical remarks like “… _AvTvM seems to firmly believe that he knows better than Canon how to make and sell cameras and lenses. Apparently he also knows better than consumers worldwide how they should spend their money_”.



But that is key to it all. 
Canon see value in continuing to sell it. They see value of this lens in its line-up. They do an immense amount of market research, they visit and revisit their production values and their research/manufacturing priorities - anyone who has worked with a Japanese company know how much background goes into getting their products how they want them. The 70-300 USM would not still be in production if it was the embarassment that some are making out.
This is not to deny that an update would benefit the consumer. Nor does it deny there is space to expand while leaving the L version to its own space. But if you look at how the 75-300 has had 3 iterations while the 70-300 is still in its original form, that speaks volumes as to how they view the 70-300. 

So yes, in saying that the 70-300 USM should have already have been scrapped because it is an embarassment to the Canon name does suggest they believe they know the camera market strategy better than Canon. 
And to talk about conning the customer also does a disservice to the customer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 26, 2016)

haggie said:


> I am quite new to his forum and I see that neuroanatomist has many ….. many posts.
> So I do not wish to give the impression I do not respect his experience on ‘Canon matters’.
> 
> But in several replies in this thread by neuroanatomist, I read a cynical attitude towards anybody that brings in arguments that lead to conclusions that he does not agree with.
> ...



With respect, I think you are conflating replies. I have not, in this thread prior to this post, even _mentioned_ the 70-300mm IS non-L lens. So, please do not suggest (as your post goes on to state) that I am somehow arguing against an update to that lens. 

I have been discussing the 7*5*-300mm lens – a 'cheap' lens that meets the needs of many people. I definitely respond with cynicism and derision to comments from posters that amount to, 'this lens is trash and Canon shouldn't make it' when it clearly serves a need in the consumer market, a need which you acknowledge. Even moreso when such comments come from posters with a long history on these boards of predicting doom for Canon if they don't follow the path suggested by that particular poster – which is a patently ridiculous contention. It seems that you are suggesting a statement like, "_Anyone with an APS-C Canon camera being tricked into buying the trashy 75-300 III today rather than 55-250 is being shafted_," is a 'valid argument' (and then you go on to refute it, stating, "anybody can see its role in Canon’s line-up,"). 

I know from your prior posting here that the *70*-300mm lens is of high interest to you, but you are also clearly aware of the fact that the *75*-300mm is a quite different lens and value proposition. In this case, it appears you are seeing my previous statements about the latter optic through the lens (pun intended) of your own interest in the former optic.


----------



## j-nord (May 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> haggie said:
> 
> 
> > I am quite new to his forum and I see that neuroanatomist has many ….. many posts.
> ...


Haggie, Neuro was talking about the 75-300 not 70-300


----------



## AvTvM (May 26, 2016)

No, Canon EF 75-300 II does NOT "meet any market need"
Probably it is only still sold today, because Canon made a production run of a gazillion copies, half of which are still sitting in some obscure japanese warehouse. That lens - EF 75-300 II - is atrocious, a veritable disaster, an embarassment and a disgrace in 2016. Anybody being tricked into byuing it - rather than EF-S 55-250 STM IS - is being ripped off and cheated. Plain truth. 

Funny, how Neuro - Grandmaster of the Canon Defense league - tries to dance around this truth and defend f*cking Canon and their f*cking customer cheating habits. By now I honestly believe, the multiple people posting under that Neuro nick (it clearly is more than 1 person!) are all paid by Canon. Any other explanation is less likely.


----------



## Mikehit (May 26, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> No, Canon EF 75-300 II does NOT "meet any market need"
> Probably it is only still sold today, because Canon made a production run of a gazillion copies, half of which are still sitting in some obscure japanese warehouse. That lens - EF 75-300 II - is atrocious, a veritable disaster, an embarassment and a disgrace in 2016. Anybody being tricked into byuing it - rather than EF-S 55-250 STM IS - is being ripped off and cheated. Plain truth.
> 
> Funny, how Neuro - Grandmaster of the Canon Defense league - tries to dance around this truth and defend f*cking Canon and their f*cking customer cheating habits. By now I honestly believe, the multiple people posting under that Neuro nick (it clearly is more than 1 person!) are all paid by Canon. Any other explanation is less likely.



I somehow feel we are one step away from the camera forum equivalent of Godwin's law.


----------



## scyrene (May 27, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > Either way, let's not put either of those lenses in the same boat as the 85mm f/1.8. Especially the 75-300, that is just plain insulting to the very solid 85mm.
> ...



1. Only a vanishingly small percentage of photographers are using 50MP sensors. 2. If you're spending £2.5k on a 5Ds(R), you can't really expect a <£250 lens to be the best for it. 3. The EF 50 1.4 is <£250, the Sigma 50 1.4 is nearly £600, the Tamron 45 1.8 is £500.

(Obviously most lenses tend to be upgraded eventually, and it's good when they are, but that's beside the point).


----------



## scyrene (May 27, 2016)

haggie said:


> To start with, I want to be perfectly clear that I only speak about the EF 70-300 non-L here, because that was mentioned in the initial posting of this thread.
> So NOT the 75-300 that neuroanatomist mentioned in his reply to that rumor.
> 
> AvTvM ‘s reaction above, writing about the present 70-300 non-L, exactly describes what may well be the reason behind the observations I described in my earlier response (page 5 of this thread). But I want to go into these obserations a bit further.
> ...



Meh. I started with the crappiest DSLR and lens combo available at the time, the 300D (an old secondhand copy) and original 18-55mm EF-S. And I was overjoyed. It was so much better than the camera phone I'd been using before (or cheap P&S cameras). My second lens was a Tamron 70-300 with no IS. Now, when I look at the images those lenses produced, I wince. But I loved it and it encouraged me to progress, because _it was better than what I'd had before_.

The idea that starting at the bottom customers need the best quality in order to keep them upgrading seems utterly wrongheaded to me. If you're satisfied with what your kit can do, why would you spend more on new gear?


----------



## scyrene (May 27, 2016)

pierlux said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Fortunately the big white hoods are essentially indestructible. Carbon fibre, I believe.


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 27, 2016)

scyrene said:


> haggie said:
> 
> 
> > To start with, I want to be perfectly clear that I only speak about the EF 70-300 non-L here, because that was mentioned in the initial posting of this thread.
> ...



Couldn't agree more. For one bird season my Nikon 70-300 provided me with great satisfaction!

And, Neuro's function is primarily to provide me with a regular chuckle and he generally does, so that meets "my needs". I won't claim my sense of humour isn't a little twisted though!  Still, I do sometimes have a wee bit of sympathy for some of the recipients. 

Jack


----------



## Don Haines (May 27, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> No, Canon EF 75-300 II does NOT "meet any market need"



While I will be the first person to jump up beside you and berate the quality of the 75-300, I do see them getting sold. The last time I went into the local camera store, they were having a Canon sale and while I was waiting my turn at the counter I saw a gentleman, and then two ladies, buy a rebel with the 18-55 kit lens and with the camera also get the 75-300 lens. 

The clerk explained some of the other lens choices, but in the end the cheapest lens wins. A great many people find the idea of paying the "big bucks" for a 70-200F4 insane..... and the F2.8? ? ? ? FORGET IT!

I disagree with you about the market for such a lens. There is obviously a market because they sell a lot of them.... but that said, it is a truly crappy lens and is in desperate need of an update..... and yes, Canon should be ashamed that they make it.


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 27, 2016)

How about I settle it once and for all. There is a market! Checking out on this thread now. 

Jack


----------



## J.R. (May 27, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> No, Canon EF 75-300 II does NOT "meet any market need"



And you know this ... how?


----------



## haggie (May 27, 2016)

Neuroanatomist wrote “_I have been discussing the 75-300mm lens_”. Yes indeed, but the start of this topic reads “_The only lens that we can think of would be a replacement for the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS_.”. However, neuroanatomist introduced the 75-300 in the first reply to this topic, for reasons known only to himself. And after that, this irrelevant 75-300 kept coming back and cloud this 70-300 non-L topic.

Neuroanatomist wrote “… _the 70-300mm lens is of high interest to you_”. Indeed, I have an interest in an improved version of the 70-300 non-L. That is exactly why I shared my experiences in this thread that, I repeat, is about a possibly new EF 70-300 non-L. I got these experiences because I was looking for a tele-zoom with a bit faster AF and a bit better image quality than my present 55-250 STM. The latter served me well until I started photographing birds and planes again last summer. I talked to 4 people with an EF 70-300 non-L that I met, because that seems a logical update after the 55-250 STM. The EF 70-300 non-L is (much) more expensive, so one expects a better lens. What I heard, I already explained in my reply on page 5. To say it briefly: the EF 70-300 non-L is inadequate for even moderately moving subjects due to slow AF and image quality is poor, especially beyond 200 mm and even on a cropped camera. (That is as clear as anything, despite someone replying “… _and up to 200mm performs very well_.” …… seriously: the image quality of the 70-300 non-L very good????? ….). 

At first I explained these people what I also read here on the forum: I logically explained how to select a lens and what Canon has to offer and what ‘metrics’ to watch. But all replies had in common that these people, trusting a big brand like Canon, bought a lens that Canon markets as higher on the ladder than e.g. the 75-300 and the 55-250 STM.

My conclusion after this became that Canon is not only frustrating these type of buyers (the ones that trust the brand and do not or cannot go through internet forums), but that this also has a price for Canon itself. Because 2 from these 3 said they would not buy anything from Canon again. Is that sad or not?

No doubt, all marketing boys and girls and all survey boys and girls from Canon have some picture about their ‘customer’. But I doubt that these 3 independent experiences I had are known to them. And these are not alone, as shown by many factual replies to this thread also. To avoid misunderstandings: I still talk only about the EF 70-300 non-L here. I am not talking about Canon in general, let that be well understood. My observations were brought in for the purpose of the discussion in this thread about a new 70-300 non-L and the need for it to have fast AF and better IQ. 

That said, nauroanatomists remark to me “_It seems that you are suggesting a statement like, "Anyone with an APS-C Canon camera being tricked into buying the trashy 75-300 III today rather than 55-250 is being shafted," is a 'valid argument' (and then you go on to refute it, stating, "anybody can see its role in Canon’s line-up,”_"). completely misrepresents what I argued. Don’t put words into my mouth. I never even addressed Canon’s judgement about the 75-300, because again: this topic is about a new EF 70-300 non-L possibly coming.

Neuroanatomist wrote “_Even moreso when such comments come from posters with a long history on these boards of predicting doom for Canon if they don't follow the path suggested by that particular poster – which is a patently ridiculous contention_. ” I would not know about that, and want to stay out of that sort of discussion. I myself believe that Canon is a fine brand that I have used with great pleasure for many, many years (although wrong with respect to continuing the present 70-300 non-L). But by shooting that messenger with his cynicism, neuroanatomist also implicitly discredits his arguments. And that was the reason for my response toward the cynicism of neuroanatomist. It would be better so separate the message (‘the arguments’) from ‘the messenger’ and also from any tension that has been building up. That keeps the discussion much more on-topic and thus clearer.


----------



## AvTvM (May 27, 2016)

well, in all modesty, i have also had a couple of very nice email conversations on a number of topics with chuck westphal myself. and i do consider myself to be a very regular and modest canon customer. i certainly have no special ties to canon.

re. neuro: from the very amount of postings and their timing, it seems inconceivable to me that a single person with a (demanding, highly qualified?) day job, with a family, who is frequently travelling, takes photography serious as a hobby, including some (time-consuming) birding ... can handle this type of forum presence and activity. quantity alone is just not possible. add the quality of content that many neuro posts do have (not all of them though) ... and count 1+1 together.

forum admin has no chance to see whether 1 or more persons weite under 1 nick and i am not even sure, whether forum rules really would ban it. personally i have no major issue with it. i a more irled by the demagogic discission style and the incessant canon defense league attitude and behaviour.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> No, Canon EF 75-300 II does NOT "meet any market need"



I absolutely agree - the Canon EF 75-300 *II* doesn't meet any market need. The MkII versions of the lens were discontinued in 1999 when the MkIII versions were launched. 



AvTvM said:


> Funny, how Neuro - Grandmaster of the Canon Defense league - tries to dance around this truth and defend f*cking Canon and their f*cking customer cheating habits.



Sad that you can't handle simple facts. You state that the 75-300 lenses don't meet any market need. How then is the 75-300 III USM the *#37* best-selling lens on amazon.com, and the #113 best-selling lens on amazon.de? On Amazon.com, the 100L Macro is #57, the 85/1.8 is #141, the 85/1.2L II is #176. The EF-S 60mm macro is #202. More people buy the 75-300 than any of those 'common' lenses, and a whole host of other lenses. 

Oh, and the #37 above refers to the new MkIII USM lens. The refurbished MkIII non-USM lens is actually #18...and it costs less than $100. The EF-S 55-250 IS STM shows up at #17...but the EF-S 55-250 IS II is #9. We know that the STM lens saw a significant bump in IQ over the IS II...but the latter sells better. *Because it's cheaper.* 

Apparently you percive simple statements of fact as 'defense'. Rather, you're the one who sounds more and more defensive as your outrageous statements are clearly contradicted by simple fact. People are buying the lens. It costs less than other lenses in it's focal range, and cost is a major market need. Manifestly, the lens meets a market need. Period. Deal with it, if you can.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> By now I honestly believe, the multiple people posting under that Neuro nick (it clearly is more than 1 person!) are all paid by Canon. Any other explanation is less likely.





dilbert said:


> As he has mentioned conversing with Chuck in the past, that's somewhat unlikely but that a claim about such a conversation was had points to him having much a much closer relationship with Canon than the average consumer. Just how close is open to speculation however needless to say, the continued diatribe that is so very clearly pro-Canon makes it unworthy of being consumed - it bemay as well have a Canon sales person writing comments on CR!



Lolz at the conspiracy theories. 

Chuck Westfall's email address isn't a secret, and he actually responds to email becuase, well, it's his job. 

Sheesh, you guys are pathetic. :


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2016)

haggie said:


> However, neuroanatomist introduced the 75-300 in the first reply to this topic, for reasons known only to himself. And after that, this irrelevant 75-300 kept coming back and cloud this 70-300 non-L topic.



Yes, let's revisit that.



neuroanatomist said:


> EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IV. Perfect pairing with a 5DIV.



A cheap zoom lens with low IQ. Announced alongside a new high-end full frame camera. Here, perhaps it will help if I use a bigger emoticon.







Does that make it more clear that the reference to the 75-300 lens was a *joke*? 

In fact, the 75-300 was brought up several times by several other posters in a serious way. I became involved in that discussion mainly in response to a secondary response to a post of yours...




haggie said:


> Yes indeed, but the start of this topic reads “The only lens that we can think of would be a replacement for the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS.”.



The topic is about a rumor of a replacement FF non-L non-DO zoom. While the 70-300 IS non-L may be the only lens that CRguy can think of, you should acknoweldge the possiblity that other people may be able to think of additional lenses... Actually, it's a short list:

24-105 IS STM
70-300 IS non-L
75-300 III
75-300 III USM

The first lens is quite new, so that can be omitted. The 75-300 lenses went from MkI to MkIII in 4-year intervals, and the 'current' 75-300 is much older than the 70-300 IS non-L. 

Consider also that prior to the STM versions, Canon previously updated both the 18-55 IS and the 55-250 IS lenses to MkII versions that were optically identical, with changes mainly intended to reduce production costs. So in reality, I think the discussions are quite relevant and while I initially mentioned a 75-300 IV as a joke (which paired with a 5DIV, it is), I could actually see the possibility that the 'bottom of the range' telezoom would get an update with modern styling and a lower production cost, while retaining the low cost that makes it appealing to many consumers.

So I think I should retract my earlier refrence as a joke, becuase it's actually quite possible that Canon will at some point update the 75-300 to a MkIV version. 

But I doubt they'd announce it at Photokina, so in that context, it does make sense to discuss the 70-300 IS non-L. But hey, it's the internet...the fact that this thread has focused mainly on telezoom lenses with no references (or maybe I just missed them) to cars, cats, etc. is pretty amazing!


----------



## K-amps (May 27, 2016)

dilbert said:


> The 70-300 IS USM is of very limited benefit on the newer, higher resolution, full frame DSLRs.
> 
> I wouldn't own it if someone paid me to have it.



I have to agree with you on this, in my experience the cheaper 75-300mm is sharper further increasing what someone needs to pay you to own one


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 27, 2016)

This discussion talked about other models besides the rumor 70-300 IS USM II, because there are quality problems with:

EF 75-300 III
EF 75-300 USM III
EF 70-300 IS USM
EF 70-300 IS DO

The APS-C camera users are best served with the 55-250 IS ii, and the 55-250 STM.
If Canon sees a big market for a cheap trash 75-300, then it's simple:

Canon should make a super cheap 75-300mm non Image Stabilizer (US$200), based on the quality of the 55-250 IS ii.
Canon should make a cheap 75-300mm Image Stabilizer (US$300), based on the quality of the 55-250 IS ii.
Canon should make a 70-300 IS (US$600), based on the quality of the 55-250 STM.
Canon could make a new 70-300 DO (what price?), if sales justify it.

So everyone would be happy, and we will not have more novice users feeling cheated by unfulfilled marketing promises.


----------



## Mikehit (May 27, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> This discussion talked about other models besides the rumor 70-300 IS USM II, because there are quality problems with:
> 
> EF 75-300 III
> EF 75-300 USM III
> ...



Will that work? Surely they will be extremely pissed that the lenses are not the quality of the 70-200 f4L IS. Which should only cost about $54.37 more


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 27, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > This discussion talked about other models besides the rumor 70-300 IS USM II, because there are quality problems with:
> ...


With image quality similar to 55-250, people would just pissed off with the plastic bayonet.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> people would just pissed off



Agreed. No matter what.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > people would just pissed off
> ...


There will always be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
But in some cases, the lamentations have every reason to be.


----------



## AvTvM (May 27, 2016)

3 lenses would be all that's needed : 
* EF-S 55-250 IS STM - best option for every budget-conscious Canon APS-C DSLR owner 
* 70-300 IS USM II - with improved IQ, improved AF, non-rotating lens element, USD/€ 500 - for budget-conscious FF users (primarily 6D)
* 70-300 L - as is, for less budget conscious, higher IQ oriented FF users (typically 5D and up)

75-300 ... purge that embarassment from the face of earth.
70-300 DO ... not needed.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 27, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> 3 lenses would be all that's needed :
> * EF-S 55-250 IS STM - best option for every budget-conscious Canon APS-C DSLR owner
> * 70-300 IS USM II - with improved IQ, improved AF, non-rotating lens element, USD/€ 500 - for budget-conscious FF users (primarily 6D)
> * 70-300 L - as is, for less budget conscious, higher IQ oriented FF users (typically 5D and up)
> ...


Neuro would say:
You obviously know better than Canon ... :


----------



## AvTvM (May 27, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Neuro would say:
> You obviously know better than Canon ... :



Yes, I do. Canon is a fairly stupid company. Seriously.


----------



## Don Haines (May 27, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro would say:
> ...



That's how they maintain their position of #1 in sales for a decade.....


----------



## Don Haines (May 27, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> re. neuro: from the very amount of postings and their timing, it seems inconceivable to me that a single person with a (demanding, highly qualified?) day job, with a family, who is frequently travelling, takes photography serious as a hobby, including some (time-consuming) birding ... can handle this type of forum presence and activity. quantity alone is just not possible. add the quality of content that many neuro posts do have (not all of them though) ... and count 1+1 together.



You seem to have missed the obvious......

Neuro is not one person, Neuro is a whole team of people, working in shifts, day and night, responding to multiple threads simultaneously......


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> ...f*cking Canon and their f*cking customer cheating habits.





AvTvM said:


> 3 lenses would be all that's needed :
> * EF-S 55-250 IS STM - best option for every budget-conscious Canon APS-C DSLR owner
> * 70-300 IS USM II - with improved IQ, improved AF, non-rotating lens element, USD/€ 500 - for budget-conscious FF users (primarily 6D)
> * 70-300 L - as is, for less budget conscious, higher IQ oriented FF users (typically 5D and up)



Yes, the people who want a telezoom and can't afford to spend $300 on a lens can just go f*uck themselves, right? 

Cost doesn't matter to consumers, there's no "market need" for that. You're so much smarter than Canon who has sold >100 million lenses and so much smarter than all those consumers choosing either the discontinued 55-250 IS II (#10) or the 75-300mm III (#16) over the lens you suggest as the 'best option for every budget-conscious Canon APS-C DSLR owner' (#18). 

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. :


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > re. neuro: from the very amount of postings and their timing, it seems inconceivable to me that a single person with a (demanding, highly qualified?) day job, with a family, who is frequently travelling, takes photography serious as a hobby, including some (time-consuming) birding ... can handle this type of forum presence and activity. quantity alone is just not possible. add the quality of content that many neuro posts do have (not all of them though) ... and count 1+1 together.
> ...








;D


----------



## slclick (May 27, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro would say:
> ...



Dumbest thing ever said award.


----------



## scyrene (May 27, 2016)

slclick said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



And it's a hotly contested category!

(Incidentally, if we're including L lenses, doesn't the 28-300 count as a superzoom?)


----------



## AvTvM (May 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > ;D
> ...


----------



## pierlux (May 28, 2016)

I've already said this in another thread, but I'll repeat it: it's amazing, astounding, incredible how much a thread on CR becomes entertaining as soon as it derails from the original topic. Let's do it more often! ;D



AvTvM said:


> ...I honestly believe, the multiple people posting under that Neuro nick (it clearly is more than 1 person!) are all paid by Canon. Any other explanation is less likely.



I'm confused, I thought the opposite, some time ago the internet said a single person was behind multiple identities, now you assert the opposite... ??? ???



Don Haines said:


> ...
> Don Haines, fluffy cat, canoeist, and frozen Canuck are really different people.......
> 
> And I am sure that Neuro, Mt. Spokane, Dilbert, jrista, and Click are really the same person  and they can type really fast!!!!



I don't know what to think, you've undermined my certainty. I so much admired that person that not only managed to get paid by Canon, but also by Nikon and Sony at the same time! Now you've destroyed my role model. :'(

pentaxrumors.com, here I come!


----------



## Woody (May 31, 2016)

It's shocking that I'll say this: it looks like I'll be the first in line for the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM replacement. ;D

I just want something cheap and lightweight. Don't use telephoto frequently, so this lens fits my needs perfectly.


----------



## Woody (May 31, 2016)

dilbert said:


> It is too early yet to decide if Canon has been smart or stupid.
> 
> Who would have said in the 1990s that Kodak was stupid?



When the digital photography age dawned in 2000 especially with the arrival of D1, EOS-D30 and EOS-1D, the rule of analog film was over. To transit to digital age, traditional film manufacturers needed to get their feet wet in electronics, and Kodak was not willing to do so. Their demise is not unexpected.

Presently, I cannot think of devices that can produce the same image quality as large scale sensors. If, however, digital software manipulation in cell phones is able to produce the same effect (high ISO, bokeh and speed), then, yes, I agree the age of Canikon is over. 

MILCs may be the next evolutionary (not revolutionary) step for digital photography, but they are really not that small & lightweight. Besides, Canikon already have some experience with MILCs, so it's not hard for them to plunge headlog into the MILC market.


----------



## 9VIII (May 31, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



If someone invents a technology that cuts out 99% of the cost and effort of photography, and a company entirely reliant on the photography industry rejects said technology, it's pretty easy to predict the outcome.


----------



## 9VIII (May 31, 2016)

Woody said:


> Presently, I cannot think of devices that can produce the same image quality as large scale sensors. If, however, digital software manipulation in cell phones is able to produce the same effect (high ISO, bokeh and speed), then, yes, I agree the age of Canikon is over.



It's only a matter of time before Apple starts using clustered sensors, the first dual sensor prototypes are already in the rumor mill. Cellphone IQ is going to keep going up.
The 1DX has nothing to worry about but Rebels are going to become more and more questionable as time goes by.
I still suspect that the eventual release of a Full Frame Rebel isn't out of the question.

I'm actually still kind of shocked that Canon doesn't have an Android phone. It's an open platform and they're excellent hardware manufacturers, it would probably take them all of a week to come up with something that takes phone calls and has a great camera. Not to mention the option of getting stock Android is a luxury right now, the less they mess with it the better.
At the very least they need to sell something as an accessory. The DxO One is probably on the right track, their implementation is just horrible, that thing does not look vacation friendly at all.

Canon just needs to make a hard case for the iPhone with a big juicy battery and nice camera built in. Maybe give it some expansion memory and an extra port.
Heck, if anyone would make an iPhone case with a big battery and expandable memory it would sell like hotcakes.
That or something super tiny but still better quality than the camera on your phone, if you can give people a camera that's even more convenient than digging your phone out of your pocket, that would sell.
People will pay for a better camera, but it needs to complement their existing device.


----------

