# Canon Announces 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 26, 2010)

```
<div id="attachment_4838" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 585px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/70300.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-4838" title="70300" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/70300.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="183" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS</p></div>
<p><strong>London, 26th August 2010 </strong>Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Canon today announces the latest addition to its renowned L-series of professional lenses, the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM, designed to answer growing demand for a high performance zoom lens which offers outstanding mobility and versatility. The EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM offers a 4.3x telephoto zoom range of 70-300mm, with a variable aperture of f/4-5.6.</p>
<p>The compact (143mm) design also features the build quality that photographers have come to expect from CanonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s acclaimed L-series lenses. With its impressive focal range and travel-friendly size, the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM is ideally suited to professionals and advanced amateur photographers wishing to capture portraits, nature and action shots in superb detail.</p>
<p><strong>Canon signature image quality</strong></p>
<p>Thanks to two ultra-low dispersion (UD) elements and a floating lens group, the</p>
<p>EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM captures stunning high-contrast, high-resolution images with low levels of chromatic aberration throughout the zoom range. The lens makes use of CanonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Super Spectra coatings, reducing ghosting and flare to ensure the highest possible image quality and minimising the requirement for extensive post processing.</p>
<p>CanonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s advanced optical Image Stabilizer (IS) provides photographers with a four-stop IS advantage, enabling the capture of sharp images even when shooting at maximum zoom or in low light conditions, by allowing the use of slower shutter speeds than would usually be possible with handheld shooting.</p>
<p>An eight-blade circular aperture also offers excellent bokeh ideal for portraiture, producing a more pleasant background and creatively isolating the subject.</p>
<p>Autofocus (AF) is fast and quiet thanks to a ring-type USM AF motor, combined with the independent lens CPU and advanced AF algorithms to enable accurate, reliable focusing in all conditions. As with all Canon L series lenses, full time manual focus override is possible, allowing photographers to manually focus, even when the AF motor is engaged. With a minimum focusing distance of 1.2m (3.9ft) throughout the zoom range, photographers can achieve sharp results, even when close to the action.</p>
<p>L-series Ã¢â‚¬â€œ robust performance in all conditions</p>
<p>Honouring the L-series heritage, the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM offers exceptional build quality, ideal for daily use by professionals and advanced amateurs. The lens includes environmental protection, allowing photographers to shoot in harsh conditions – even in the extremes of the desert or rainforest. CanonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s new Fluorine Coating also makes cleaning the lens easier, preventing smears or streaking.</p>
<p><strong>Professional accessories</strong></p>
<p>As part of the L-series range, the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM is supplied with a lens hood ET-73B and lens case LP1424 as standard. In addition, an optional, dedicated tripod mount C (WII) can be directly attached to the lens. This allows it to be stabilised easily and the camera switched quickly from vertical to horizontal and back, without having to reposition the camera body on the tripod, perfect for fast-paced action with a variety of subjects.</p>
<p class="facebook"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/08/canon-announces-70-300-f4-5-6l-is/" target="_blank" title="Share on Facebook">Share on Facebook</a></p>
```


----------



## JLN (Aug 26, 2010)

this lens doesn't make economical sense to me.

the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS (non L) is already a popular staple for people who want a comparatively inexpensive telephoto zoom solution before jumping into the 70-200's.

If this was say, a 70-300 f4 IS, or 100-300 f4 IS then it'd make a little more sense.


----------



## Cyrax (Aug 26, 2010)

Pricing specs:

"The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM lens is expected to be available toward the end of October for an approximate retail price of $1,500."

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e024801e8289


----------



## chrisaix (Aug 26, 2010)

JLN said:


> this lens doesn't make economical sense to me.
> 
> the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS (non L) is already a popular staple for people who want a comparatively inexpensive telephoto zoom solution before jumping into the 70-200's.
> 
> If this was say, a 70-300 f4 IS, or 100-300 f4 IS then it'd make a little more sense.




couldn't agree more.


----------



## /dev/null (Aug 26, 2010)

Will this replace the 70-300 DO? Same zoom range, same apertures, same price range (more or less)...


----------



## chrisaix (Aug 26, 2010)

indeed, canon can slash the 500 and i will dig this.


----------



## Sebastian (Aug 26, 2010)

JLN said:


> this lens doesn't make economical sense to me.



I agree. I also think that there are rather few reasons to prefer the new 70-300 over the old 100-400. Better IS and weather-sealing are the only ones I can think of...
Could this mean that Canon will cancel the 100-400? I'm already seeing a price-jump on second-hand 100-400. 


Regards,

Sebastian


----------



## mrnwp (Aug 26, 2010)

dilbert said:


> Cyrax said:
> 
> 
> > Pricing specs:
> ...



I concur! I don't see a need for this lens. I will just keep my 70-200 f/2.8 with a 1.4 tele. I was personally looking for a 100-400 mark II. By the way $1500 for the lens, come on Canon.


----------



## ronderick (Aug 26, 2010)

Sebastian said:


> JLN said:
> 
> 
> > this lens doesn't make economical sense to me.
> ...



I'd tend to think of this as pushing the people who would have bought the original 70-300 lens into paying more money for a "L" lens (though I'm not sure if that many people will be convinced. What remains to be seen is whether they're going to cancel the current 70-300 or 70-300 DO line.

However, I could imagine people buying this lens for the size/distance advantage - provided u don't already own the 100-400 or 70-200 f4.

Oh well, I guess we still have to wait longer for the 100-400 replacement...


----------



## martijn (Aug 26, 2010)

This lens is not for me, unfortunately. I'm disappointed.
f/5.6 at the long end is a deal-breaker for me.
I was hoping to replace my 100-400 with something more modern, ring-type internal zoom or prime, weather sealed.

Earlier, when rumors about a new 100-300/f4 were still on, I was extremely interested in such a lens.
My subject is wildlife, including small birds, so I'd really need an extender at 300mm most of the time...
Not being a professional, I can't afford the Big Whites or a 1D series camera, so f/4 is critical since it allows the use of an 1.4x extender while still retaining AF. A 420/5.6 with modern IS and weather sealing would have been ideal, I probably would have bought the 100-300/4 and 1.4x Extender III together even if the combo would have been $2500-3000.

But, 5.6 at 300mm...no thanks! 

For those who want to go beyond 300mm on a budget this still only leaves the venerable 300/4, 400/5.6 or 100-400/4.5-5.6 lenses-nice lenses, but all very old designs...each with their own drawbacks...

100-400/4.5-5.6: push-pull zoom: durability and sealing challenged; older, less effective IS
300/4: older, less effective IS
400/5.6: extremely long MFD, no IS
None of these are weather sealed.

Best bet now on a budget for 300mm+ modern glass is probably the 70-200L IS 2.8 II with the new 2x extender but that stretches the definition of 'budget' by quite a bit, but I might have to go for that combo now. 
Or, just maybe a good second-hand 300/2.8 IS as and when the professionals start replacing theirs with the new one...prices might come down a bit then.

Of course, the new Big Whites are quite exciting, but strictly for professionals or lottery winners only...and I know many will be happy with that new 70-300L as well, but...

Come on already Canon, we really need something new and at least 'reasonably priced' in the 400/5.6 range!!!


----------



## Waleed Essam (Aug 26, 2010)

I don't know what they are thinking! Seriously! this is stupid! The only way to make this lens successful is to price it lower than the incredible 70-200 F/4L IS!! Price it higher and it's *******, no one will buy it.


----------



## funkboy (Aug 26, 2010)

Somehow I think the slow-selling 70-300 DO is not long for this world...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2010)

funkboy said:


> Somehow I think the slow-selling 70-300 DO is not long for this world...



I disagree. The 70-300mm DO is a niche lens - intended for those for whom size/weight are a premium worth paying extra (or now, a little less). This new 70-300mm L is 43% longer and 46% heavier than the 70-300mm DO - so the 'need' for the smaller/lighter DO lens is still there.

On the other hand, the new 70-300mm L is only 24% shorter and 24% lighter than the 100-400mm L, and gives up 100mm on the long end - and I think most people buy the 100-400mm for the long end. Yes, it has better IS than the 100-400mm. But not really a faster aperture, and it's still a lousy variable aperture. 

But, I will agree that this space is getting crowded - 70-300 IS, 70-300 DO and now a 70-300 L. But, there are 4 70-200mm zooms, so why not 3 70-300mm zooms?

Overall, I'm pretty thoroughly unimpressed by this new lens. I changed out my 300mm f/4L IS for the 100-400mm because I wanted the extra 100mm. The 100-400mm is relatively large/heavy, so I got the 70-300mm DO for times when carrying the 100-400mm isn't practical. I've got $2K just waiting to be spent on a new lens, but I see absolutely no need for this 70-300 L - if I'm going to give up 100mm on the long end for carrying convenience, a 24% savings in size/weight isn't worth it when I can save nearly 50% in size/weight with the 70-300 DO.


----------



## ELK (Aug 26, 2010)

If 70-200 F/4 L IS with Extender EF 1.4x III will still be cheaper than 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS then the pricing of this tele is not very justified.


----------



## JW (Aug 26, 2010)

It's great to improve on the non-L EF 70-300 IS, but doubling the price and then some? They added obvious build quality and I'm sure it's sharper... and it's WHITE... but not making it a constant f/4 or some other great improvement will make this one a hard sell I think, unless the non-L disappears. I had the non-L and the IQ of the non-L never made me very happy... but there are lots of consumers out there who aren't nearly as demanding who are quite satisfied with the non-L 70-300 at it's consumer price point.

I'll keep my tried-and-true 100-400L, thank you very much. I'm very happy with it. Shooting FF, I need the extra 100mm at the long end.


----------



## kubelik (Aug 26, 2010)

as much as I was dubious about Canon putting out a 100-300 f/4, in comparison to this it would have made far more sense. the overlapping zoom range with the 70-200s, the variable aperture (what!) ... I guess they felt if they made it 70-300 f/4 it would cannibalize the 70-200 f/4-5.6 but as it stands it's just going to cannabalize itself.

bought a sigma 100-300 f/4 this past week but I'm still sorry to see that Canon isn't putting out either a 100-300 f/4 or a 100-400 replacement.

the good news is this means a 100-400 range replacement could still be coming (some years later) as there is no way that this is a replacement for the dust pump


----------



## Flake (Aug 26, 2010)

As many have said on this forum, & on others this lens does not make a lot of sense, too slow, too big & heavy, and far too expensive (Â£1600 in the UK). I cannot guess what the mindset behind this latest set of releases was, because Canon users have been crying out for better Wide angle performance, a replacement 24 - 70mm f/2.8 L with IS maybe a better 24 - 120mm f/4 IS L.

We've been presented with improvements to lenses which probably didn't need them, lenses which fit a small niche market, and others which don't fit what users want and are expensive.

Hopefully later in the year we will see some of the things we can feel comfortable parting with money for!


----------



## unfocused (Aug 26, 2010)

I'm usually not one to second-guess Canon's market research. They understand their market a lot better than I do. But I am scratching my head over this one. 

I just don't see where this fits in.


Seems like a lot to pay for f5.6 at the long end. Like others have pointed out a constant aperture f4 would have been more tempting.

It's priced significantly higher than the 300mm f4 prime. If you need a sharp lens at the long end, that becomes more appealing. Especially because you can use a tele-converter on the f4 to extend the range. 

This lens is priced $100 under the new Sigma "Bigma" So, for an extra $100 you get 500mm and you give up 1/2 f stop. (Of course, the Bigma is no "walking around" lens, but it's a better option in the Super-Telephoto range.)

Nikon decided to release a new crop-sensor 55-300 at about 1/4 the price.

All very confusing to me. 

I am wondering if this is it for new lenses. Nothing in the lens category that is aimed at the enthusiast or semi-pro. No new EF-S lenses, yet they've released a new crop-sensor camera (60D), the T2i is less than a year old and they may release a 2000D soon.

As I said, this is leaving me scratching my head.


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 26, 2010)

Any word on MTF ratings compared to the 70-200's? I used to own the 70-300 but sold it quickly because it was ok but just not sharp, especially in 300 range... I hope this is greatly improved... Also $1500?!? the 70-200 F4 IS is one of the sharpest lenses on the market (or at least canon's line up) and $300 cheaper... I could get a teleconverter for less $$ and perhaps get greater results...?


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 26, 2010)

awinphoto said:


> Any word on MTF ratings compared to the 70-200's? I used to own the 70-300 but sold it quickly because it was ok but just not sharp, especially in 300 range... I hope this is greatly improved... Also $1500?!? the 70-200 F4 IS is one of the sharpest lenses on the market (or at least canon's line up) and $300 cheaper... I could get a teleconverter for less $$ and perhaps get greater results...?



looking at the raw MTF's .. from 70-300 it's almost as good if not as good as the 70-200/4 L IS is from 70-200. I very much doubt that a 1.4 TC plus 70-200/4 is going to give you as good of results considering the 1.4 tc usually injects a pretty steep corner performance penalty.

at 300mm it compares quite well to the 300mm F/4 L prime.

and it kicks the consumer 70-300 to the curb as far as performance - MTF wise, fully weatherwise, full USM, updated IS, no rotating front element, etc,etc.

and it weighs in at nearly the same as the 70-200/4 + TC.

not sure what's not to love about this .. it's affordable (btw, if a semi pro can't afford a 1.5K USD lens .. there's a problem with the definition of 'semi pro') .. and MTF and physical wise, looks like a great lens.

the old 70-300 was a great bang for the buck - you put up with it's compromises because it was cheap.

anyone expecting a constant aperture lens .. I'm curious if they wouldn't have minded the double or triple price, greater weight and size that lens would have entailed as well.


----------



## Flake (Aug 26, 2010)

not sure what's not to love about this .. it's affordable (btw, if a semi pro can't afford a 1.5K USD lens .. there's a problem with the definition of 'semi pro') .. and MTF and physical wise, looks like a great lens.

The price here is not the issue, it's what accountants call opportunity cost, if you buy this then you don't buy something else. So what's not to love? If this was the only lens at this price point and focal length that might be reasonable, but there's the 70 - 200mm f/4 IS L a legendary performer and a stop faster; it's not far off the cost of an f/2.8 and that's no contest! Then there's the 100 - 400mm f/4.5 - 5.6 which gives another 100mm reach and again excellent performance.

I have a collection of L lenses and all of them are 77mm so I have filters & other things which fit that size, they won't fit a 67mm lens which again makes it less attractive, and there's the 70 - 300mm DO lens about this price, not a great seller, it's a crowded market place and I'm not sure that this lens has got what it's going to take to make it a great seller.


----------



## kubelik (Aug 26, 2010)

flake, I think you answered your own question. the thing that is not to love about the lens is precisely its price.

1.5K is not much for a semi-pro to drop on a lens.

but, when you can get the 100-400L for that much ... or the 300 f/4 for less ... or the 70-200 f/4 L IS for less ... or the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS for just $400 more ... what is there to love about it?

if it came in at $1200 that would be one thing, but taking it into the $1500 range put it up against some fierce competition from its older brothers.

that's what's not to love.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 26, 2010)

kubelik said:


> flake, I think you answered your own question. the thing that is not to love about the lens is precisely its price.
> 
> 1.5K is not much for a semi-pro to drop on a lens.
> 
> ...



great .. so let's see .. 100-400 and 300/4 not weather sealed and old IS implementations. do you honestly think an updated 100-400 L would be 1200? given canon's usual price jumps .. think double . .or more if they make it a faster lens.

70-200/4 which this lens has as good of performance MTF wise by for it's entire range .. 

70-200 for 400 more? where? considering the 70-200 2.8 II is MSRP 2500 here versus this one at 1500

Not including the TC .. which of course is free, and doesn't weigh a half a pound like canon's 1.4 TC does - and of course doesn't lose any resolving power at all by adding the TC into the equation at all .. right?

if you looked at the MTF's .. performance wise, this lens is as good as any baring the 70-200 2.8 II L

so you have the compromise on aperture for optical quality .. at 1500 that's a compromise.

or would you have rather spent 3,000 to 5,000 on a constant aperture one not including the additional weight of the lens as well?

because you certaintly wouldn't have gotten that for 1.5k ..


----------



## jWeu (Aug 26, 2010)

I have an 70-300 IS nonL and will stay with this. I hoped for an 70-280 f/4 L IS (77mm): 

70-280 f/4 + ex1.4 III = 100-400 f/5.6 (77mm).

Now I would like to use 70-200 2.8 with an extender 1.4 or 2.

The new lens make economically sense since the non-L 70-300 is no longer available. Should I sell my used zoom for more money I bought it?

I'm still waiting for some MTF of the new combination 70-200 2.8 + ex1.4 III.

P.S.:
I have no idea, why lenses are not build with focal length like ampetures: 50 71 100 141 200 283 400 566 800 1131 ?
The multiplier is always a square root of 2.


----------



## kubelik (Aug 26, 2010)

rrc, good points all around (btw when I mentioned 70-200 f/2.8 I was talking about the first version, not the II, so that price point isn't incorrect)

I'm pretty sure that these were the same reasons that Canon had when they decided to develop and produce this lens. it definitely has a place in the market and its own niche; my point is that that telephoto range is getting highly competitive even within canon's own ranks, and it is fulfilling a pretty small niche at this point. an updated 100-400 would have been useful for a much larger segment of the market


----------



## traveller (Aug 26, 2010)

neuroanatomist said:


> funkboy said:
> 
> 
> > Somehow I think the slow-selling 70-300 DO is not long for this world...
> ...



Agreed. Too heavy for a travel lens; too expensive for a budget alternative; too short as an alternative to the 100-400L. 

All in all, a pretty disappointing set of lenses, unless you have niche interests.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 26, 2010)

kubelik said:


> rrc, good points all around (btw when I mentioned 70-200 f/2.8 I was talking about the first version, not the II, so that price point isn't incorrect)
> 
> I'm pretty sure that these were the same reasons that Canon had when they decided to develop and produce this lens. it definitely has a place in the market and its own niche; my point is that that telephoto range is getting highly competitive even within canon's own ranks, and it is fulfilling a pretty small niche at this point. an updated 100-400 would have been useful for a much larger segment of the market



agreed. I'm liking the "portability" of this as well . it's very compact .. easy to pack into a travel kit.

it's a 400g more than the older 70-300 for sure .. however, it's far far more rugged, same length, simply larger diameter.

if the MTF's hold up to real life .. which they usually do .. then this will be a very very nice lens as a low volume (camera kit wise) lens to carry around - excellent optical quality small form factor. to be honest, the MTF's have me very very surprised .. it then makes it a judgement call .. do i need the 70-200/4 or the 70-300/4-5.6 .. and not sacrificing optical quality going either way.

agreed that the 100-400L needs an update as well, that sucker (literally) kills cameras.. however it starts to get close to that weight where you start to make the call .. do I really need to bring it along sitting at around 1400g versus 1000g and a full 2 inches shorter in your kit to pack.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Aug 26, 2010)

I'd rather get a 70-200 2.8 II with 1.4x III over this.


----------



## /dev/null (Aug 26, 2010)

Canon 14-24 said:


> I'd rather get a 70-200 2.8 II with 1.4x III over this.


....at twice the price.


----------



## rang (Aug 26, 2010)

This is stupid. 
You have 4 models of L glass at 70-200 with IS
You have an aging L glass variable f/ ratio 100-400 with IS
You have nothing beyond 400 in a zoom tele non prime with IS
You then jump big time to a fixed prime tele beyond 400...the 500, 600and 800 and if you can find or need ...the 1200

Should've made a variable f/ ratio tele L with newer IS at 200-500. 500 seems like the minimum for BIF shooting IMHO.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Aug 26, 2010)

Naaah, makes little sense range-wise and no sense price-wise. 70-200/4 IS has Fluorite and 2 UD elements, this one only has 2 UD elements. Can anyone give a link to the MTF chart? TIA. I really doubt it would equal the IQ of the already legendary 70-200/4 IS without a CaF2 element and a greater FL range to boot (the bigger the zoom range, the lesser the IQ and the greater the distortion). Maybe if this was priced around $1000 this would be a slamdunk, at least for those that still do not own any of the 4 70-200 zooms. I hope the actual street price would go down fast from its MSRP.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 26, 2010)

I've been thinking a lot about this one today. I'm really trying to want this lens. But, at least for now it's just not happening. 

I think the problem is that at this price point and features there are just too many other options. I keep circling around and ending back where I started this morning. If it were a constant f4, I'd be thinking "I Want" (Yes, I know it would have been more expensive). 

But, now I keep coming up with other lenses in lower or similar price ranges and thinking 'I could buy that for less' or 'If I spent a little more I could get that' or 'maybe I ought to take another look at the old 100-400 zoom' or 'I think I'll wait and see what the third-party manufacturers come up with' (Come on , Tokina when *are* you going to release that 80-400 stabilized lens?)

I'll probably rent this lens at some point just to try it out. 

The nice thing about this forum is we all get to express our opinions (even though everyone else is usually wrong  ) Then, ultimately, we'll see what the market actually determines. I'm kind of hoping it doesn't do so well and Canon slashes the price. But, I doubt we'll see that.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Aug 26, 2010)

/dev/null said:


> Canon 14-24 said:
> 
> 
> > I'd rather get a 70-200 2.8 II with 1.4x III over this.
> ...



I'd get a used one off my local CL for $2-2.1k, so not nearly twice the price, however without the 1.4x extender the $500 difference on the lenses alone I just cannot justify.


----------



## Isurus (Aug 27, 2010)

ELK said:


> If 70-200 F/4 L IS with Extender EF 1.4x III will still be cheaper than 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS then the pricing of this tele is not very justified.



This. I can't for the life of me make any sense of this lens. And $1500? How exactly is this an "affordable" lens? Strange.


----------



## sswx2187 (Aug 27, 2010)

I'm new to this whole thing and I was just about to feel like I made the wrong decisions with my lens choices.. but after seeing all this.. I have a 10-22, 50, 70-300 IS.. I paid slightly over 500 for the 70-300.. despite that fact that I'd have to agree its obviously slow and it does lack image quality.. it has at least 1 ud element.. for a third of the cost of having 2? Come on Canon....


----------



## muteteh (Aug 27, 2010)

My impression is that Canon is making a clear cut between APS-C and FF:

APS-C with EF-S lenses covering ultra wide EF-S 10-22mm to tele EF-S 55-250mm for those who want affordable cameras.

FF with L lenses for those can pay the price.

In between there are about 10 cheap EF primes [*]. I think Canon makes those because sales already covered the initial expenses (design, manufacturing facilities, etc), and now every lens sold contributes directly to the bottom line, and some of those are good lenses selling well. My bet is on Canon killing those in the next few years, e.g. starting with new 20mm f/1.4 L & 28mm f/1.4L to discontinue the three non-L primes on those focal lengthes.


[*] EF 20mm f/2.8, EF 24mm f/2.8, EF 28mm f/1.8 & f/2.8, EF 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8 + f/1.4 + f/2.5 macro, 85mm f/1.8, and 135mm f/2.8 with softfocus.


----------



## nicke (Aug 27, 2010)

Found a great page with info about the new lens, http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=3512.

Cheers,
Nicke


----------



## ELK (Aug 27, 2010)

nicke said:


> Found a great page with info about the new lens, http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=3512.
> 
> Cheers,
> Nicke



Nice article. Canon pioneered here and pushed the limits of affordable lens - now it starts from $1500. And this sentence is simply brilliant:
"The beauty of this lens is that it does nearly everything better than less-expensive alternatives. "
People of Earth should be grateful that Canon managed to create something expensive, BUT better than the cheap ones. Seem like other companies have quite different approach - their expensive lenses are considerably worse than their cheap alternatives.


----------



## ELK (Aug 27, 2010)

muteteh said:


> My impression is that Canon is making a clear cut between APS-C and FF:
> 
> APS-C with EF-S lenses covering ultra wide EF-S 10-22mm to tele EF-S 55-250mm for those who want affordable cameras.
> 
> ...



Looks like. CR guy mentioned already some time ago that Canon possibly will produce only L-grade FF lenses.


----------



## kubelik (Aug 27, 2010)

ELK, I know the rumor you are talking about. at the time I think everyone sort of gave a nervous laugh and shrugged it off. what muteteh and I are thinking now is that rumor was actual solid info ... it's an interesting way for canon to develop its market segmentation, and actually I don't know that I mind it so much.

I do hope they replace some of the cheaper wide angle primes with "budget" L glass, stuff that sits below the $1000 mark. shouldn't be hard, the 135 f/2 L and 200 f/2.8 L both are around that price point, and I wouldn't mind paying $700-800 or so for, say, a 28 f/2 L or a 24 f/2.8 L if the image quality is there.


----------



## ELK (Aug 27, 2010)

kubelik said:


> ELK, I know the rumor you are talking about. at the time I think everyone sort of gave a nervous laugh and shrugged it off. what muteteh and I are thinking now is that rumor was actual solid info ... it's an interesting way for canon to develop its market segmentation, and actually I don't know that I mind it so much.
> 
> I do hope they replace some of the cheaper wide angle primes with "budget" L glass, stuff that sits below the $1000 mark. shouldn't be hard, the 135 f/2 L and 200 f/2.8 L both are around that price point, and I wouldn't mind paying $700-800 or so for, say, a 28 f/2 L or a 24 f/2.8 L if the image quality is there.



Quite agree. Only they say 135 f/2 L is superb quality lens (I never had chance to shoot with it) so it's worth only to introduce IS version of it by keeping this one too. Seems Canon is more interested to keep it's dominance in wildlife and sports - hence all the big lens announcement, rather than wide and mid-range area where Nikon excels at the moment. Since most of us are not pro wildlife and sports shooters, we're desperately waiting for Canon to finally turn its face to us.


----------



## muteteh (Aug 27, 2010)

ELK said:


> Quite agree. Only they say 135 f/2 L is superb quality lens (I never had chance to shoot with it) so it's worth only to introduce IS version of it by keeping this one too. Seems Canon is more interested to keep it's dominance in wildlife and sports - hence all the big lens announcement, rather than wide and mid-range area where Nikon excels at the moment. Since most of us are not pro wildlife and sports shooters, we're desperately waiting for Canon to finally turn its face to us.



The extenders' price was raised 60% (damn), and the EF 70-300mm price was raised 200% (triple and third damn), so I very much hope Canon wouldn't upgrade the EF 135mm f/2 before I have a chance to buy one.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 27, 2010)

> so I very much hope Canon wouldn't upgrade the EF 135mm f/2 before I have a chance to buy one.



I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but just curious: why choose the 135mm f/2 over the 100 mm f/2.8 Macro IS for the same price? I did buy the 100 f/2.8 Macro and am very pleased with it. (Although I honestly haven't used the Macro capabilities that much). Is the one-stop gain in speed and extra 35mm in focal length worth more than the macro and IS? I guess it's an individual choice, but I'm just curious.

Alternatively, I have been coveting the 200 f2.8. I used to own an FD version (shows how old I am) and loved it. It was great for isolating the subject and was fast enough that I could even shoot some sports indoors with it, yet it's relatively affordable. (Especially since Canon is now apparently defining anything below $2,000 as affordable) 

Finally, I certainly agree on the sticker shock of the new tele-extenders. I'm surprised more people haven't commented on that. From the Canon website it looks like they are dropping the old versions. I'm wondering just what will make these new ones so much better.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Aug 27, 2010)

unfocused said:


> > so I very much hope Canon wouldn't upgrade the EF 135mm f/2 before I have a chance to buy one.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but just curious: why choose the 135mm f/2 over the 100 mm f/2.8 Macro IS for the same price? I did buy the 100 f/2.8 Macro and am very pleased with it. (Although I honestly haven't used the Macro capabilities that much). Is the one-stop gain in speed and extra 35mm in focal length worth more than the macro and IS? I guess it's an individual choice, but I'm just curious.



It probably depends on your preference of shooting and what you shoot. For myself I have used the 100 2.8 macro and 135mm 2.0 and I'd prefer the 135mm 2.0 on full frame for better subject isolation and more of that slightly smoother bokeh, not to mention the AF is the fastest I've personally ever used! In regards of the IS 100mm model I read reviews that it really is irrelevant for macro use with IS and at most would give you maybe 1 stop improvement. 

To also note I have seem quite a bit of craigslist ads in my area selling their 100mm 2.8 is macro for the 135mm 2.0.


----------



## kubelik (Aug 27, 2010)

unfocused, I have the 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS and while for the moment I use it for both macro and portrait photography, if I were more serious about outdoor portrait shooting I would definitely pick up the 135. the extra 35 mm would be nice, as well as the possibility of going down to f/2 (although at 135mm that's really really shallow).

the main reason? the AF. the L Macro autofocuses pretty well at non-macro distances ... for a macro lens. but it really doesn't stand up to a true L telephoto, and is going to spend a lot more time overshooting and then having to rack back into focus


----------



## muteteh (Aug 27, 2010)

unfocused said:


> I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but just curious: why choose the 135mm f/2 over the 100 mm f/2.8 Macro IS for the same price? I did buy the 100 f/2.8 Macro and am very pleased with it. (Although I honestly haven't used the Macro capabilities that much). Is the one-stop gain in speed and extra 35mm in focal length worth more than the macro and IS? I guess it's an individual choice, but I'm just curious.



I have an 85mm f/1.8 for portraits, and am thinking about using the 135mm f/2 for the same purpose. Which is also why I don't consider the 100mm Macro. Price of the 135mm f/2 is my main concern as it is, and the reviews I've read are not kind to the 135mm f/2.8 softfocus lens.


----------



## ELK (Aug 27, 2010)

muteteh said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but just curious: why choose the 135mm f/2 over the 100 mm f/2.8 Macro IS for the same price? I did buy the 100 f/2.8 Macro and am very pleased with it. (Although I honestly haven't used the Macro capabilities that much). Is the one-stop gain in speed and extra 35mm in focal length worth more than the macro and IS? I guess it's an individual choice, but I'm just curious.
> ...



Grap 135m L f/2 as long as you can. Otherwise Canon will introduce its II version for $1800. Another selling point for this lens is that it makes 216mm f/2 on 1.6 sensor. 200mm f/2 IS costs $5300, if we subtract $1000 for IS, then we save more than $3000!


----------



## kennykodak (Aug 27, 2010)

(ist post so be gentle)
as to the 70-300L
paint it white and put a red stripe around it and someone will buy it.
but... 8.5 pounds? put that on a Mark IV and one arm is going to be longer than the other.


----------



## spamloverman (Aug 28, 2010)

I couldn't find the info, but does the front element extend, like the non-L version, when zooming? Going by the diagram, I think it does, but it's hard to tell and I'd be surprised if it did.

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=3512


----------



## kubelik (Aug 28, 2010)

kenny, I'm not sure where you got the 8.5 lbs figure ... canon's press release states that it is 1050 grams, which comes out to about 2.3 lbs. that's not bad and pretty much right in the norm for a L-class lens covering this focal distance


----------



## MOT (Aug 28, 2010)

Well, this is disappointing for me. I was holding off on buying the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 hoping Canon would release an equivilent zoom at f/2.8. I really need the f/2.8 for poorly lit, outdoor night sports events (rodeos). The 70-200 works great on a APS-C sensor, but I prefer to shoot with my FF, and having the ability to zoom to 300mm at f/2.8 would have been perfect.


----------



## kennykodak (Aug 28, 2010)

MOT said:


> Well, this is disappointing for me. I was holding off on buying the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 hoping Canon would release an equivilent zoom at f/2.8. I really need the f/2.8 for poorly lit, outdoor night sports events (rodeos). The 70-200 works great on a APS-C sensor, but I prefer to shoot with my FF, and having the ability to zoom to 300mm at f/2.8 would have been perfect.



i got it off of B&H's site, they must have listed it wrong. having worked with digital Hasselblads with their older zoom lens, i didn't think much about it. sorry.


----------



## muteteh (Aug 28, 2010)

dilbert said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Finally, I certainly agree on the sticker shock of the new tele-extenders. I'm surprised more people haven't commented on that. From the Canon website it looks like they are dropping the old versions. I'm wondering just what will make these new ones so much better.
> ...



There are a few points to consider here:

1) The upgrades are not very popular with the participants of this site.

2) We're used to Canon raising prices by 25%-30%, not 60% or 200%. This is worsened by the above + the apparent lack of any big time improvement, such as an extra stop.

As example, when the new TS-E lenses came out, people immediately saw that it gives them another degree of freedom (= tilt and shift in two axis at the same time, rather than one), and when the new EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM, people were waiting for the 2 stop improvement in IS and improvement in optical performance.

In contrast, people here didn't vote for new & improved tele-extenders, they voted for an upgraded EF 24-70mm with IS. The expected result is people being unhappy about the perfectly good tele-extender prices taking a sharp price rise.

3) The economy is not blooming nowadays. E.g. there are plenty of people like me, who didn't get a raise for three years (prices kept going up, though), or like my cousin & his wife, who were unemployed for a while and have stuff to deal with now that they do have a job. Raise prices in a time like this, and you should expect people to sound, you know, grumpy.

4) The price rised rather steeply, e.g. the new 70-300 costs *three* times as much as the old one. I mean, God knows why, but those '1 for the price of 3' deals never sent customers on a stampade, especially when the economy is down.


----------



## /dev/null (Aug 28, 2010)

spamloverman said:


> I couldn't find the info, but does the front element extend, like the non-L version, when zooming? Going by the diagram, I think it does, but it's hard to tell and I'd be surprised if it did.
> 
> http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=3512



Look at the figure on the web site you link: At 300mm, the front element moves forward quite a bit, so yes, the lens extends as you zoom, like the non-L 70-300s and unlike the 70-200 f/2.8. At least focusing seems to be internal, so the front element does not rotate as you focus.

This is not a lens for me.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Aug 29, 2010)

Funny about the Black Cat sample image for this lens. Heck, any cheap Canon prime can do that ;D. It's not bad, but not exactly astonishing. :


----------



## weaponOfchoice (Sep 7, 2010)

/dev/null said:


> spamloverman said:
> 
> 
> > I couldn't find the info, but does the front element extend, like the non-L version, when zooming? Going by the diagram, I think it does, but it's hard to tell and I'd be surprised if it did.
> ...



yup the lens extends out. found these pictures of the pre-prod model today: 

http://www.ronmartblog.com/2010/09/sneak-peek-canon-ef-70-300-f4-56l-is.html

just outta curiosity why isn't this lens for you /dev/null? i'm actually interested in buying a tele-zoom lens (as i don't have one) and thought this would be a good one. thoughts/suggestions?


----------



## Aputure (Sep 9, 2010)

I'm very interested in this new lens, except for the weight and the price! Oh well..

I think it may be time to grab the non-L 70-300mm IS now: http://www.aputure.com/blog/2010/09/09/new-canon-l-lenses/


----------



## unfocused (Sep 9, 2010)

I confused about the information that the 70-300 IS is not listed on the Canon page anymore. It's on the CanonUSA website: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_is_usm


----------



## J (Sep 10, 2010)

unfocused said:


> I confused about the information that the 70-300 IS is not listed on the Canon page anymore.



It was a Canon USA website error; the non-L version disappeared from the lineup for a few days. That happens sometimes when new lens pages are posted.


----------



## rbr (Sep 11, 2010)

I don't see what all the negative responses to this lens are all about. If the quality is there its price doesn't seem out of line with all of Canon's other recent introductions. Yeah it's maybe on the expensive side, but if the quality is there, especially wide open on the long end, it doesn't seem outlandish. It seems like it would be an excellent and versatile little lens for hiking and travel. It's compact and rugged, covers a wide range, focuses close, and has the improved IS. It seems like a useful professional tool, which is hopefully what it was designed to be. There are plenty of less expensive alternatives out there.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Sep 11, 2010)

I think the key "problem" with the lens is that it doesn't cater enough to sports / press users who would like a larger maximum aperture, regardless of ISO performance. This certainly is the issue for me. A larger maximum aperture would definitely come with weight and more expense, of course. The MTF curves are very promising, and the new IS rounds it out.

Everything about the features of this lens and the press information Canon put out suggests this is targeted for advanced amateurs, not professionals who I hope will be getting a lens targeted for them in the future (with at least f/4 at the 300mm end).

A Canon equivalent of the Nikon 200-400 would be nice too...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 15, 2010)

Edwin Herdman said:


> Everything about the features of this lens and the press information Canon put out suggests this is targeted for advanced amateurs, not professionals who I hope will be getting a lens targeted for them in the future (with at least f/4 at the 300mm end).



I suppose Canon thinks the 'real' professionals will be using the new supertele primes, like the 300mm f/2.8L IS II. 

But in a way, Canon has already given us a ~100-300mm f/4 lens with great IQ. The newish 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II takes a 1.4x teleconverter very well, giving an 89-280mm f/4 lens that's sharper at 280mm f/4 than the Mk I version of the lens at 200mm f/2.8 (see a comparison HERE).


----------



## kubelik (Sep 15, 2010)

neuro, thanks for the link -- I'm surprised the difference is that huge. another alternative I'd like to highlight is sigma's 100-300mm f/4. 

it doesn't have IS, and it has probably the worst lens hood I've ever worked with, but other than those two issues, it's a great lens (even disregarding the sweet price) for anyone interested in shooting in the 300mm range


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 15, 2010)

kubelik said:


> neuro, thanks for the link -- I'm surprised the difference is that huge.



Yeah, I was, too. That's one reason I got the new 70-200 II, in fact. I have and really like the 100-400mm L, but it's not weather-sealed, whereas the 70-200 II + 1.4x gives me 100-300mm that I can take out in the rain. It's a constant f/4, which is great - but it's big and a bit unbalanced. Now, here comes this new 70-300mm L, which loses a stop at the long end compared to the 70-200 II + 1.4x, but is a lot smaller and still has weather sealing. If it manages to beat out the 70-200 II + 1.4x for sharpness, it becomes a much more interesting lens (and one for which I might consider changing out my 70-300mm DO).


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Sep 16, 2010)

On the sharpness front, you might get an idea how the extender 1.4x would affect the 70-200mm IS II by looking at the differences to the new 300mm or 400mm. Here's the 300mm. The 70-300mm's MTF lines are close to the 70-200mm's, but I'm not expecting a big drop off in performance with the extender. For me, the question is more whether the loss of the wide end and the aperture, and the cost and weight, are worth the slightly wider maximum aperture.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Sep 16, 2010)

Another bad thing with this lens, as revealed by TDP, is that it's already at f/5.0 way before 200mm, at 155mm in fact.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx



> The 70-300 L appears to be very sharp wide open including good sharpness into the full frame corners at focal lengths up to and including 135mm. I expect to see nearly as good of performance right up to 300mm, but because of poor test conditions, I'm not yet ready to state this with any certainty.
> 
> I think we are going to see a little CA (Chromatic Aberration) in 70mm full frame corners, but little or nearly-none over the rest of the focal length range.
> 
> Distortion appears to be about average for a 70-300mm lens. Expect some 70mm barrel distortion transitioning to pincusion by just over 100mm. Pincusion distortion becomes moderate by 200mm and remains so through 300mm.




In short, the 70-200 f/4L IS + 300 f/4L IS would be a better choice, assuming money is enough for that but not enough for the 2.8 versions.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2010)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> In short, the 70-200 f/4L IS + 300 f/4L IS would be a better choice, assuming money is enough for that but not enough for the 2.8 versions.



Except then you'd be carrying two lenses instead of one lens that's smaller than either of them. The big advantage of this new lens is reach and IQ in a very portable package. For more reach with the same slowness, bring a 100-400. For less reach and more speed, bring a 70-200/2.8. If I'm going out shooting from pre-dawn through the morning or afternoon through twilight, I bring both the 100-400 and the 70-200 II. But if I'm going out in the middle of the day and bringing my toddler along, neither of the big white zooms is coming. Currently, I've got the 70-300 DO for such outings. The new 70-300 L adds a bit of length and weight, and seems to have much better IQ - that's not a bad trade.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2010)

Edwin Herdman said:


> The 70-300mm's MTF lines are close to the 70-200mm's, but I'm not expecting a big drop off in performance with the extender.



If you mean you're not expecting a big performance drop when pairing the new 70-300 L with a Canon extender, I disagree. With that combination you'd take the ultimate performance hit - a completely unusable lens. The 70-300 L is *not* compatible with Canon extenders. 

I can tell you from personal experience that the 70-200 II performs quite well with the 1.4x II, though.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Sep 17, 2010)

Bah, I'd read about that elsewhere and forgotten. Guess the rear focus elements would hit the extender's optics.

Agreed totally on the balance of the new lens versus the multi-lens solution. What's more, it's simply a newer lens and the other factors (new IS system, weather and dust sealing, better ergonomics) make me feel it's a reasonable investment compared to older designs.



Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> Another bad thing with this lens, as revealed by TDP, is that it's already at f/5.0 way before 200mm, at 155mm in fact.


Thanks for the link and information - I wasn't expecting Bryan C. to update from the placeholder page so quickly! Guess my faith he's an insider was well placed. Anyway, I was afraid that the maximum aperture would become rather low quite quickly, though that is rather more extreme than I expected. I'm not sure it will matter to me though - for 300mm, for instance, the sole affordable choice (for me) besides other zooms is the aging f/5.6 L single-focal length design, which I was considering previous to the 70-200mm (as mentioned before). If I need a faster 200mm lens, there are some good single focal length options available such as the 200mm telephoto, or the 180mm macro. I do think that continuing improvements on ISO and the tradeoffs in the AF performance of lower-tier DSLRs means that this will probably be a better match for those cheaper systems, at the expense of a more artistic look from faster lenses and more noise in low-light pictures.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 17, 2010)

Edwin Herdman said:


> I do think that continuing improvements on ISO and the tradeoffs in the AF performance of lower-tier DSLRs means that this will probably be a better match for those cheaper systems, at the expense of a more artistic look from faster lenses and more noise in low-light pictures.



Absolutely - and that's exactly where Canon has stated they are positioning this lens. I have to assume there are quite a few xxD, 7D, and even some Rebel owners who want to step up from the base level (55-250/75-300) or mid-level (70-300 non-L) to a better quality telezoom, but then look at the 70-200L's and figure they're not long enough, and look at the 100-400 and think, "I can't lug that beast around!" 

It's still definitely a compromise lens, but with some very reasonable compromises.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 17, 2010)

neuroanatomist said:


> Absolutely - and that's exactly where Canon has stated they are positioning this lens. I have to assume there are quite a few xxD, 7D, and even some Rebel owners who want to step up from the base level (55-250/75-300) or mid-level (70-300 non-L) to a better quality telezoom, but then look at the 70-200L's and figure they're not long enough, and look at the 100-400 and think, "I can't lug that beast around!"
> 
> It's still definitely a compromise lens, but with some very reasonable compromises.



Yep. If you are only going to buy and own 1 telephoto "L" lens you are going to have to make compromises in which lens you buy. I see this lens taking a lot of that market.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Sep 23, 2010)

Bump with yet another challenger. From today's DP Review:

Sigma announces stabilised 120-300mm F2.8 telezoom[/quote]
Holy cow, f/2.8. I know I said I wanted a 2.8. Biases against Sigma aside, we'll see how expensive it is, and then I'll see if it makes sense. Even though it's Sigma, I'm expecting it to be expensive, even though you are "losing" 50mm at the wide end (but gaining stops at the far end is more than welcome). Quality questions, sure. Maximum magnification isn't so hot. I have yet to see how much that extra 50mm at the wide end would realistically help.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 23, 2010)

Sigma's non-stabilized 120-300 f2.8 lens sells for $3,000 street. That should give a rough idea of what the stabilized version is going to sell for.


----------



## Freeze_XJ (Sep 23, 2010)

However, its size and price (and the 2 stops extra) put it in a whole different market. I can see myself put a 70-300L in my backpack (like i do now with the non-L version) as an allround tele, but lugging that 300 2.8 around would probably break my back(pack).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 23, 2010)

Edwin Herdman said:


> Bump with yet another challenger....Sigma announces stabilised 120-300mm F2.8 telezoom



I don't know that I'd call it a challenger to the new 70-300mm L. As Canon stated, "Users looking to a camera like the EOS 60D or 7D often put a priority on reasonable weight and good handling, and this applies to their lenses as well as their cameras. Until now, Canonâ€™s long zoom lens options have meant either putting up with lots of weight..."

The current non-OS Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 is as long as an extended Canon 100-400mm and it's twice the weight. Even if Sigma can add OS without adding to the size/weight, the Sigma lens is still big and heavy. That's not really the market Canon is going after with their new lens.

If the reportedly slow AF in the non-OS version is is carried through into the new OS version, I think the Canon 300mm f/2.8 would be a better choice, and likely there won't be too much price difference (relatively) between the new Sigma OS zoom and the MkI version of the Canon prime.


----------



## kubelik (Sep 23, 2010)

there's almost no relationship between the new canon 70-300 L and sigma's 120-300 f/2.8. just in terms of handling alone, that's like comparing sneakers and hiking boots. one is a lightweight, do-all lens, the other is a beast meant to shoulder a specific burden. very different people will be looking at these two lenses for very different reasons


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Sep 24, 2010)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don't know that I'd call it a challenger to the new 70-300mm L.


Yes, I realize that. In this post I'm not focusing (as usual) on Canon's market positioning, I'm focusing on what will be best for me. Apologies for not making that clear.

From my perspective, the 70-300mm has a nice focal length range and features, but the maximum aperture is narrow.
The 100-400mm I'm less interested in on the basis of its being an older, heavier, and more expensive design all around, without the benefit of a zoom ring (well, it's a benefit in most situations, plus the dust advantage). I didn't realize until writing this post that the apparent 1/2 or 1/3 stop benefit of the 70-300mm is negated by 155mm, and the 100-400mm surpasses it by 228mm, where it holds on at f/5 until 239mm, where the 300mm has has given way to f/5.6. Not a shattering victory and in actuality a rather small range where the 100-400mm is faster, but the 70-300mm isn't an unambiguous improvement.

Size and weight for the 70-300mm doesn't really sell it to me over the 100-400 - minimum focus is considerably better, however.

The MFD charts (comparing the 70-300mm and the 100-400mm product pages) are somewhat ambiguous to me because I'm left attempting to compare different focal lengths:

The 70-300 does seem to start better at the center for many focal lengths (especially wide) and keeps that improvement to 20mm diagonally (where one of the f/8 30LP/mm lines drops off, though the other stays high). The 100-400 MTF lines, sharpening up by 400mm compared to 100, suggest to me that it gets sharper (relative to its wide performance) as you increase the focal length, whereas the 70-300 seems to be the reverse, being sharper at 70mm than 300. Unfortunately this doesn't help a direct comparison - the MTF lines for the 100-400mm sag at about 5-10mm across the frame, at 400mm, but that's apples and oranges to the 70-300 @ 300mm (though it bodes well for the 70-300 that its lines don't sag, but stay high farther across).

I'm starting to think that overall the 100-400mm may have no great handicap at comparable focal lengths, if not an edge...really the only thing that stands out is the rather ugly 80% contrast for 30 LP/mm lines (the thicker / coarser lines) on the 100-400mm at 100mm, but it stays at 80% further across the frame whereas the 70-300mm drops rather quickly past the corners of an APS-C frame (unfortunately, comparing 70 and 100mm, so apples and oranges again). How the newer coatings etc. of the new lens enhance the performance indicated by the MTF charts, not to mention performance on the targeted APS-C frame, may make up the difference remains to be seen.

In any case, the new 120-300mm looks like a potential deal buster to me - if it is more appropriate for full frame is no problem for me, since that leaves full-frame camera options wide in the future. Overall contrast and sharpness, features, and especially AF reliability all remain points I'm worried about, however.

Thankfully I can put off a decision on these zooms for some time.


----------



## ronderick (Sep 24, 2010)

mmm... I wonder if anyone mentioned this before, but another reason why the 70-300L won't fill the niche of the 100-400L is that it does not support the use of extenders.

At least the 70-300L is not listed as one of the supported lenses under the EF 1.4x III extender description on Canon Japan's website...


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Sep 24, 2010)

Yeap, it's been pretty well determined that the 70-300mm won't work with extenders. This confuses folks because the new 70-200mm IS II does.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2010)

Good points, Ed. There are trade-offs between the two lenses, certainly. IQ-wise, my guess is that in general the new lens will be a little bit sharper on average, but the 100-400 is plenty sharp. As you state, the aperture differences are not major, and frankly both are slow... So in my mind, the main differences come down to portability and weather-resistance vs. the extra 100mm. 

Minimum focus distance (MFD) is considerably closer (6') with the 70-300 L, but maximum magnification (MM) is not too different. It seems that the new 70-300 takes focus breathing to the extreme - the MFD for the new lens is the same as the MFD for several of the 70-200mm zooms, and the MM at 300mm is the same as as those other zooms at 200mm. So, if the numbers are correct (and apparently Chuck Westfall has confirmed them), the new 70-300 L at the MFD has an _effective_ focal length of only 200mm. 

Sigma lenses are a mixed bag - AF issues do seem to be common with them, and focus is usually slower than their Canon equivalent. 



Edwin Herdman said:


> Yeap, it's been pretty well determined that the 70-300mm won't work with extenders. This confuses folks because the new 70-200mm IS II does.



Part of the lens design, keeping it compact - the rear element of the 70-300mm is right at the back, so there's no room for the protruding element of the extenders. 3rd party extenders (e.g. Kenko) would work.

Good thing you're not in a hurry, and good luck with your decision!


----------



## richy (Sep 24, 2010)

Martijn, sigma make a decent 300 2.8 and 120-300 2.8, used they are bargains and offer really great quality for the price.

As for the 70-300L I am witholding judgement until I see results. With iso 1600 and 3200 being saleable settings these days I'm not worried about 5.6 so much (although not being able to use teles is a valid point). Im looking at this as a lense for when i dont want to carry the 300 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 about and be swapping lenses rather than as a direct replacement for any particular lens. I wouldnt be suprised if canon used this to delay or ditch a 100-400 upgrade. Other brands have managed to make good versions but canons was so/so. If its sharp at 300 @ 5.6 then it will probably sell. I was waiting on a 100-400 ii but this on a 7d is good enough if its sharp  I dont think canon are as crazy as it may seem. Now a 70-300 2.8 IS thats razor sharp would be worth some pennies !


----------



## Flake (Sep 24, 2010)

I have the Sigma 120 - 300 f/2.8 and it's as sharp as a tack, also have the 70 - 200mm f/2.8 IS L MkII and although it's a little sharper it's not massively so. The 120 - 300mm is the cheapest way to get to 600mm (with a 2xTC) and still retain auto focus.

Another lens I'm fortunate enough to own is the 28 - 300mm IS L and it's this lens I would recommend ahead of the 70 - 300mm IS L. It's just as fast at the long end, latest generation IS and you gain the 28 - 70mm. Image quality is well up to the mark, maybe it's not up with the other two, but why does anyone need to compete in the good, better, best race, when the good is good enough?

Buying this superzoom, although expensive could make most other lenses redundant, and the fact you don't need to change lenses means less sensor cleaning. min focus distance of .7meters and mag of 1:3.3 means a screw on close up filter makes macro possible. It's also possible to use a TC if you are careful & don't allow the rear element to meet the TC !

All you need (almost) in one lens, and certainly one which shouldn't be overlooked (as superzooms often are).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2010)

Flake said:


> Another lens I'm fortunate enough to own is the 28 - 300mm IS L and it's this lens I would recommend ahead of the 70 - 300mm IS L. It's just as fast at the long end, latest generation IS and you gain the 28 - 70mm. Image quality is well up to the mark, maybe it's not up with the other two, but why does anyone need to compete in the good, better, best race, when the good is good enough?



Actually, it's one generation back in IS - the 28-300 has 3-stop IS, vs. the 4-stop IS of the newest lenses.

That aside, it's one big, heavy beast, and for crop body users, there no wide angle (45mm is 'normal'). I think I'd rather carry the 17-55mm + new 70-300mm and cover a broader range with a smaller and lighter package with a lot less weight for about the same price, or 24-105+70-300 if weather sealing is important. 

But you're absolutely right that people often forget about this lens! It annoys me when people state the 100-400mm lacks weather sealing _because_ of the push-pull zoom design, when Canon's other current push-pull zoom, the 28-300mm, is weather sealed.


----------



## StepBack (Sep 27, 2010)

Take a 500 dollar lens and throw in AL-2 and IS and it is suddenly 1299-1799!


----------



## kubelik (Sep 27, 2010)

StepBack said:


> Take a 500 dollar lens and throw in AL-2 and IS and it is suddenly 1299-1799!



whoa, let's not oversimplify things. the glass in this by far exceeds the glass you're getting in the $500 consumer 70-300 zooms. take a look at the MTF charts. or even take a look at real world images taken by a canon 70-300 non-L and compare it to something shot on a 70-200 L series lens. that's the expected difference in image quality.

weathersealing is a big deal too and definitely worth a significant premium on a lens. when I first saw this, I was scratching my head over the price, but after thinking about it and seeing what others have to say about it, I think this is actually a really well-priced variable aperture L-series zoom.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 27, 2010)

StepBack said:


> Take a 500 dollar lens and throw in AL-2 and IS and it is suddenly 1299-1799!


Second the "Whoa".....or perhaps you need to take a further step back ;D

This is "potentially" a very good if not great lens. I say potentially as it isn't even released yet. It may not appeal to everyone/you. Personally, I can see it as a great general purpose telephoto zoom. The MTF charts are excellent and the only preliminary review that I've read (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) is very favorable. Also, the final street price is not known, only "approximately" $1,500 (USD)....but lenses typically cost less than Canon's recommended price. So let's wait a month or so to see how good production models are and how much they actually cost.


----------



## Flake (Sep 27, 2010)

Almost every review of Canon products on 'The Digital Picture' is positive, to the point that it can hardly considered impartial, plus there are no real test figures. The old 70 - 200mm IS L f/2.8 wasn't the best of lenses in it's class which is one of the reasons it was replaced, but have a read of the glowing review it gets on TDP.

I think I'll reserve my judgement until Photozone gets their hands on it and test it properly & impartially.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 27, 2010)

Flake said:


> Almost every review of Canon products on 'The Digital Picture' is positive, to the point that it can hardly considered impartial, plus there are no real test figures. The old 70 - 200mm IS L f/2.8 wasn't the best of lenses in it's class which is one of the reasons it was replaced, but have a read of the glowing review it gets on TDP.
> 
> I think I'll reserve my judgement until Photozone gets their hands on it and test it properly & impartially.


I like the work that they do at photozone and SLRgear. I like "Roger's Take" at lensrentals and bobatkins too. I think each website adds to the collective wisdom on the web regarding canon lenses. I definitely include TDP in that group. As for test figures, the ISO 12233 comparisons on TDP are among my favorite ways to directly compare lenses. Specifically about the 70-200 mm IS L f/2.8, "Roger's Take" liked it so much that he didn't think it needed to be replaced, SLRgear said that by "by any measure the 70-200 f2.8 L IS is an excellent lens" and even photozone only criticized it's performance at 200 mm in comparison to the f/4 IS. Most reviews of the MK I I've read were very favorable. It's just the MK II is better.

TDP provides a nice oratory regarding each lens from a users perspective. You read the whole review and you get a good sense of the lens. Pros and cons. Is it spelled out as clearly at 3.5 stars vs 5 stars. No. That isn't their style. And you don't have to like their style, I do.


----------



## Supabongwong (Sep 28, 2010)

Though it is L glass, i think that people are way too focused on the image quality of their photo...rather than the actual quality of the image if you know what im sayin. 

The old 70-300 was a 650 dollar lens with the same 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS so i honestly cant see them raising the price over at least double. You can get an f4/L IS for about the same price, though you dont gain the 100mm you gain the stop..

Why Canon, does an L label need to be worth so much. YOU DIDNT EVEN ADD STABILIZATION



kubelik said:


> StepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Take a 500 dollar lens and throw in AL-2 and IS and it is suddenly 1299-1799!
> ...


----------



## kubelik (Sep 28, 2010)

supa, it's not like canon's ending the consumer-level 70-300's. I think the point is pretty clear -- if you think those are good enough for your uses, buy them. plenty of people have, and plenty of people will continue to do so. if somebody wants to shell out $1500 for a weathersealed, high IQ 70-300, then they have something to spend their dough on. everybody goes home happy. that's what you do in business, find a market, and then deliver a product that captures that market.

I think most people buying L glass are focusing on both image quality, and quality images. I find it hard to imagine anyone spending that much money on a hobby, and then not taking it seriously. I'll speak for myself as an L-glass owner, but I think the same goes for lots of others out there: sure, I don't think I create images that deserve to be called "great photography". but that doesn't mean I'm not trying. truly great photography doesn't come easy (and shouldn't come easy, otherwise, whats so great about it?). but it doesn't mean we can't all aspire to great photography.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2010)

kubelik said:


> supa, it's not like canon's ending the consumer-level 70-300's.



Not so sure on this one. It seems that the 100mm non-L Macro was discontinued after the release of the L version (it is still listed on the Canon USA site, presumably because Canon USA has stock remaining, but many other country-specific websites have it moved to the discontinued section). Maybe there's some truth to the rumor that Canon is trending towards offering only L lenses and EF-S lenses - it makes sense given that the cost of FF bodies often correlates with the wherewithal to afford L lenses.



kubelik said:


> I think most people buying L glass are focusing on both image quality, and quality images.



Agreed.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 28, 2010)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maybe there's some truth to the rumor that Canon is trending towards offering only L lenses and EF-S lenses - it makes sense given that the cost of FF bodies often correlates with the wherewithal to afford L lenses.


Canon currently lists only 1 EF "non-L/non-EFS" general purpose zoom lens. But then Canon only lists 1 EFS telephoto zoom and 5 EF telephoto zooms. If you look at the last few years canon has typically released 0 EF "non-L" lenses, ~1 EFS lens, but 3-4 EF "L" lenses per year over the past 5 years. Just looking at that, it seems that canon is trending toward EFS lenses a little and EF "L" lenses more significantly.

I say this not wanting to sound jaded, as it is sound business, but it is also possible Canon isn't even really trending toward EF-L, EF-S, or EF lenses, but simply making sure they have a lens at every price point for every type of lens. They've done so with camera bodies, why not lenses? For example, for the 70-300 tele-zoom, they now have a lens at $200/$600/$1,200/$1,500. If this is correct, they will keep the EF 28-135 (or something equivalent) around to have an "inexpensive" EF option for a "general purpose" zoom lens.

Just a thought.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2010)

docsmith said:


> If you look at the last few years canon has typically released 0 EF "non-L" lenses, ~1 EFS lens, but 3-4 EF "L" lenses per year over the past 5 years. Just looking at that, it seems that canon is trending toward EFS lenses a little and EF "L" lenses more significantly.



It looks like the most recently released EF non-L prime is the 28/1.8, in 1995. That roughly coincides with the time that zoom lens quality started getting sufficiently good that zooms were seen as useable lenses that could produce good quality.

The most recently released EF non-L zoom appears to be the 70-300/4-5.6 IS, in 2005. That is the only EF non-L zoom released since the EF-S mount was introduced, and of course the real benefits of EF-S come on the wide end anyway. 

I'm not sure they need a _new_ inexpensive general purpose zoom lens with an EF mount. In the past, everything was full frame (i.e. film), so with 35mm Rebels available, there needed to be consumer options for lenses, too. Since there are no 'cheap' consumer-level FF dSLRs, the need for inexpensive EF lenses is not that strong, having been supplanted by the EF-S line.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 28, 2010)

I probably shouldn't be trying to sum up canon's entire marketing philosophy in a post. But I am thinking that instead of gravitating toward EF-S lenses, they are gravitating toward EF-S lenses when a "market" for that lens is created by either a price advantage over an EF lens, or when the 1.6x crop factor comes into play (like needing general purpose zooms that start at 15 mm or 17 mm). For example, the EFS 55-250 IS sells for about $225 while the EF 70-300 IS sells for ~$600. Price advantage thus we get an EFS lens. EF 70-300 non-IS sells for ~$200, no true price advantage, so no EFS lens.

I bring this up as I've seen people express concern that if a new non-L prime was ever released that it would be EFS. My guess is that it would be EF as they could sell that to both FF and crop sensor users. I see Canon no longer producing a non-L EF prime only if they determine there is little market for one. But some 5D owners use the 35 f2, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, etc. So I don't think those replacements, if they ever come, will be EFS.

So, in short, I only see EF-S lenses being released when a market is created either due to a technical characteristic of the crop sensors or a price advantage. So this may be a limited trend toward EF-S, not a complete trend. Not that Canon is consulting me or anything.


----------



## Flake (Sep 28, 2010)

It looks like the most recently released EF non-L prime is the 28/1.8, in 1995. ?

The 100mm f/2.8 Macro was released in 2000 MP-e 65mm released 1999 Don't know if you count Macro as prime especially the 65mm but the 100mm shouldn't be left out, but still 5 years without an EF zoom and 10 without a prime does seem like a long long time.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Sep 28, 2010)

Flake said:


> Almost every review of Canon products on 'The Digital Picture' is positive, to the point that it can hardly considered impartial, plus there are no real test figures.


If you read between the lines, you'll see that he only uses certain words when they seem warranted. A soft lens isn't called sharp. Look at the review of the 50mm f/1.2L - his final opinion seems in line with what I've read elsewhere.

Sure, his methodology does concern me a bit. Using old lenses on older cameras and not updating will make them appear better compared with new lenses on new cameras (then gain, that's a victory for common sense and budgets). I also feel a lot of the samples aren't especially useful, but then again the images are shown at a more realistic resolution than pixel peepers like.


----------

