# what's up with the 70-300 range?



## geekpower (Dec 17, 2016)

depending how you count them, canon has about half a dozen different lenses in the 70-300 zoom range, but all being variable f/5.6, is there room for another?

i'd be really interested to see something longer than 70-200, faster than f/5.6, with modern L worthy IQ, but smaller and cheaper than the big white 200-400 x1.4. 

would something like a 100-300 f/4 be possible for under $3k?


----------



## traveller (Dec 17, 2016)

Just buy the 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II (currently $1899 @ B&H), add the Extender EF 1.4X III ($429) and voila!


----------



## lw (Dec 17, 2016)

In the UK, they are virtually giving away the cheapest model

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III Lens
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00005K47Y/

£70. take off VAT and convert currency, and that's about $70


----------



## PavelR (Dec 17, 2016)

I switched from APS+H to FF and I needed to extend the reach of the 70-200. I did not find any first party option, thus I chose Sigma 120-300 Sport version - I do not regret the decision - excellent IQ, fast AF, keeper rate on par with 70-200 and 200/2. There is only one problem: monopod needed ;-),if I plan to wait to the shot with camera pointed to the same direction longer time...


----------



## geekpower (Dec 17, 2016)

traveller said:


> Just buy the 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II (currently $1899 @ B&H), add the Extender EF 1.4X III ($429) and voila!



good point


----------



## slclick (Dec 17, 2016)

I enjoyed the 70-300L while I had it, it's main benefit was teaching me I'd do better with a 400 variant.


----------



## chauncey (Dec 17, 2016)

Sure enough, cut those corners...if "good enough" fits your style.


----------



## rs (Dec 17, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> Also note there are five 70-200mm lenses in production



I can only count four, all L. What am I missing?


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 18, 2016)

rs said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Also note there are five 70-200mm lenses in production
> ...



AFAIK, both mk1 & mk2 of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM are in production & sell.

Same as both mk1 & mk2 of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM are in production & sell, which is why the original poster counted six 70-300mm lenses, rather than five.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 18, 2016)

Canon selling a lens as bad as *EF 75-300 III* in 2016 is a disgrace. 
Don't think they are still producing 70-300 IS which was far from good at 300 as well. 
70-300 IS II - instead of useless LCD I would have liked those wasted yens invested in IQ or lower price. 
70-300 L IS ... still OK

Don't think we need more than 2 of those lenses ... a non L and an L, of course both with IS. 

Anybody wanting faster, longer or constant aperture ... lots of choice ... 300/2.8, 300/4, 100-400 II, 200-400 or any of the other Canon tele lenses.


----------



## Kwwund (Dec 18, 2016)

Love the 70-300 IS USM. I get great images when I use it. The lens quality exceeds my skill as a photographer. 

I'd probably love the other lenses AvTvM recommends, too, but they come at an $800-$7000 premium, so I'm glad to have the current option.


----------



## rs (Dec 20, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



I still count four. Four are listed on the Canon USA website, four on the Canon UK website, and according to wikipedia, four.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 20, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



If you are counting 70-200 as being in the 70-300 range, what about the 100-400? Or the 55-250?


----------



## slclick (Dec 21, 2016)

There are only four 70-200 lenses and someone is saying there are five. Sad.


----------



## PCM-madison (Dec 21, 2016)

There might be room in the Canon range for another lens in the 70-300mm range below the $11K benchmark of the 200-400mmL zoom mentioned in your post. I have never seen/used the 200-400mmL lens, but I have experience with some high quality Canon telephoto lenses below that high benchmark. My experience:

70-200mm F2.8 v2 (paid $1400 used) + 1.4X extender
This combo gives excellent results for both FF (6D) and APS-C (7D mii). I have used this combination, but not often. It is bulky and heavy for travel, and not my best option for local photo ops. 

70-300mm DO IS (paid $500 used) 
This gives excellent results for FF when shooting in RAW, but not as good for APS-C. It is a very small and compact lens that I like for travel.

70-300mm L IS (paid $950 used)
This gives excellent results for FF and APS-C and is a good option for travel when telephoto opportunities are expected to be frequent but size and weight are still a concern. 

300mm F2.8 IS v2 (paid $4100 used)
This is the best lens I have used for FF or APS-C. It is relatively large and heavy so I use it locally or for travel when special photo opportunities are expected.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 21, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > rs said:
> ...



I'm not.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 21, 2016)

rs said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > rs said:
> ...



Both the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM & it's mk2 are listed as current in eflens.com, and both are sold on Amazon, which has two copies of the mk1 in stock.


----------



## bvukich (Dec 21, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Canon selling a lens as bad as *EF 75-300 III* in 2016 is a disgrace.



The only reason they still make it, is because it's actually a big seller, despite being a hunk of garbage. Nearly every "starter kit" type rebel bundle has the 75-300 in it. It's the zombie lens that won't die, despite there being MUCH better options for a starting crop shooter.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 21, 2016)

bvukich said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Canon selling a lens as bad as *EF 75-300 III* in 2016 is a disgrace.
> ...



Its the price that many new shooters look at. Our Best Buy store does not even stock "L" lenses, so new buyers who want a telephoto pick up the cheap one, and are often happy with it. They probably do not use it much at all. Only a tiny percentage of entry level camera buyers will want to pay $500 or more for a lens.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 21, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



only really naive, uninformed n00bs who don't deserve any better buy the EF 75-300 in 2016. Anybody who asks someone like us here tells them to get th EF-S 55-250 with their rebel if they want a Tele-zoom. Also very affordable but with IS and decent IQ. 

Again, it is a disgrace that Canon still sells such an inferior product. If Yongnuo would clone it, it were better. It I consider it almost fraudulous to bundle 75-300 III with Rebels in "double zoom kit" rather than EF-S 55-250.


----------



## arbitrage (Dec 22, 2016)

Canon has a magical tree that produces 75-300 lenses daily so they just keep giving them away to unsuspecting Rebel buyers


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 22, 2016)

bvukich said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Canon selling a lens as bad as *EF 75-300 III* in 2016 is a disgrace.
> ...



Where I live, Canon bodies are sometimes sold with Tamron 18-250, or alternatively with Tamron 70-300, as a kit.

Had to check on Amazon to see the 75-300mm lens actually bundles with a rebel body.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 22, 2016)

arbitrage said:


> Canon has a magical tree that produces 75-300 lenses daily so they just keep giving them away to unsuspecting Rebel buyers



unsuspecting buyers ... yes!
giving away ... unfortunately no. for the typical target group, it is often truly *hard-earned money*. 

canon 75-300 II, III was ok back in the 1990ies as entry level tele zoom for entry level film dslrs. nothing better available at that price point back then ... but in 2016 ... It is a piece of junk on high density image sensors and should really not be sold any longer. it is a disgrace to the canon EF heritage and brand. better alternatives are available. 

most to blame are ruthless retailers for bundling canon rebel cameras with cr*p lenses, when decent lenses are available at similar or not much higher prices. it really comes down to taking advantage of unsuspecting buyers, not giving them fair value for their money.

and yes, buyers themselves should also do a little research to avoid such traps.


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 22, 2016)

lw said:


> In the UK, they are virtually giving away the cheapest model
> 
> Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III Lens



Given the choice between using the 75-300 f/4-5.6 III against using the kit lens, putting the camera on 2 second timer, and just throwing the camera generally in the direction of what I want to photograph I would have to have a long think before deciding which would give the better picture.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 22, 2016)

jolyonralph said:


> lw said:
> 
> 
> > In the UK, they are virtually giving away the cheapest model
> ...



? :

What camera? What "kit lens"? 

If "camera" means Canon DSLR with APS-C sensor (xxxxD, xxxD, xxD, 7D / II)
and if "kit lens" means current version EF-S 18-55 STM IS: excellent IQ (for a kit lens) plus IS
No overlap in focal length range with 75-300 - direct comparison not possible. 

If "kit lens" means "tele-zoom" then look at current version EF-S 55-250 IS STM : very good IQ and IS 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-IS-STM-Lens.aspx

way better in every respect compared to EF 75-300 III 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-75-300mm-f-4-5.6-III-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


> If you care about great image quality and sharp photos, the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM Lens is not for you. And Photoshop cannot enhance details that are not there.
> 
> I'll leave you with the word directly from Canon Marketing:
> Compact and lightweight 4x telephoto zoom lens ideal for shooting sports, portraits, and wildlife. The newly developed Micro USM makes autofocusing quicker and quieter. The improved zoom mechanism also makes zooming smoother. The front part of the zoom ring now sports a silver ring for a luxury touch.
> ...



*In other words: 75-300 III is a real piece of junk. Avoid at all cost. * 
In late 2016 a disgrace to Canon EF heritage and brand.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 22, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> giving away ... unfortunately no. for the typical target group, it is often truly *hard-earned money*.
> 
> when decent lenses are available at similar or not much higher prices. it really comes down to taking advantage of unsuspecting buyers, not giving them fair value for their money.



You are contradicting yourself. 
It may be 'not much higher' to you, but the difference in price maybe significant to someone who is looking after their 'hard earned money'. The fact they still sell well suggests that the average punter is not as demanding as you and I are.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 22, 2016)

Nobody except Canon has real data if/which of their products are "selling well" ... or not. 

Non-bundled retail price for EF 75-300 III is pretty much the same as EF-S 55-250 IS II and 75-300 III USM is same price as EF-S 55-250 IS STM. 

At both price points, punters would get a LOT more VALUE with EF-S 55-250 for their hard-earned money. 

Overview of EU street prices for all Canon tele-zoom lenses: http://bit.ly/2hcXVRn


----------

