# The price you paid for your 70-300L ??



## CarlTN (Nov 13, 2013)

Hello, I'm considering buying one of these 70-300L. Would like to know the new price (in US dollars) that you paid for yours, and when, where...if you would care to share. Also you could share the price you've seen in the past, if you recall, whether you own one of these or not. Apologize if this has already been covered in another thread. I searched and the first 10 didn't seem to discuss price specifically in the topic.

I could be mistaken but I think I saw $1199 over the summer from one of the big retailers like Adorama...not sure about Amazon. That "BigValue" dealer on Ebay might have had it for a similar price. I guess what makes the difference, is if there is a Canon rebate on it at the time or not, but seems like sometimes there is a "sale price" that's suddenly the same as the rebate price, even though it's not an "official rebate". Then perhaps there are those times when the price drops even below that.

I am coming to realize this lens could replace two of my others, more or less, and might do as good or better of a job as either of them...so I'm pretty sure I want one.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 13, 2013)

I got mine for USD1.000, second hand, mint condition. It´s a really nice lens, with much better performance than many seem to think.


----------



## boogaloo (Nov 13, 2013)

I'm increasingly thinking that this might be my next lens choice too, though I have got a bit daft and jittery about whether the 'slew' of new lenses next year might include a rework of this (though having followed the debate around that it looks unlikely and - yes, I know - no lens is real until it's real).

I have also just bought a Kenko 1.4x teleconverter that I really hope would work with this lens (I believe the Canon ones won't).

I tend to buy most of my stuff from DigitalRev, which sho1ws the 70-300 at being 869 with their current offer (that's 1393USD).


----------



## kirkcha (Nov 13, 2013)

I bought mine for $1,399 (after $200 rebate) in July from B&H. If I recall it was a little cheaper in the beginning of the year but was buying other stuff at the time. I waited as long as I could but figured it wasn't going to get any cheaper in the summer and needed it for vacation. Price went up 2 weeks later.

I had also bought a refurb from Canon (I think $1,150 at the time) but had an issue with the AFMA and decided to return and buy new. Love this lens, no regrets about price here. Great for travel.


----------



## skullyspice (Nov 13, 2013)

I got mine from B&H in the summer and it was a little bit cheaper than it is now, I would have to look up my receipt for the actual. It is an amazing lens at any price tho. super sharp and beautiful bokeh. I hate to take it off my camera. I shot this hummingbird handheld a couple weeks ago, jpeg with very little post if any.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 13, 2013)

boogaloo said:


> I'm increasingly thinking that this might be my next lens choice too, though I have got a bit daft and jittery about whether the 'slew' of new lenses next year might include a rework of this (though having followed the debate around that it looks unlikely and - yes, I know - no lens is real until it's real).



I believe we will not see an update of the 70-300 f/4-5.6L for many, many years. What you see now is going to be as good as it gets for a long time, simply because it is fantastic.

BUT, what you might see is a midrange, similar IQ, but much lower build quality version of this lens in a replacement of the dated 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM; the current non-L 70-300 IS USM has worse image quality & autofocus than the $349 55-250 STM and has been on many super sales recently together with the old 55-250 non-STM. This leads me to believe we will see a new version of the 70-300 non-L probably in 2014, and my guess is that it will be around $1k street.

If that does come to fruition, then the decision would likely be would you rather have the higher build quality, weathersealing, size, weight, and price of the L - or the lower build quality, size, weight and price of the updated non-L.


----------



## Vivid Color (Nov 13, 2013)

I bought mine brand new from Adorama for $1099 on 12/28/2012. The sale period lasted, I'm pretty sure, for less than one day and maybe only for a few hours. I just happen to check the CR site late at night and saw the notice for the sale. I wasted no time in ordering the lens. It's a fantastic lens. I've seen this price or a few dollars lower ($1089?) occasionally on a Canon refurb sale, but not on all of their sales. I've never seen anything lower than this price. If you need the lens now, even $1199 is a good price. If you can wait, then check this site and canonpricewatch.com for sale notices.


----------



## Click (Nov 13, 2013)

skullyspice said:


> I got mine from B&H in the summer and it was a little bit cheaper than it is now, I would have to look up my receipt for the actual. It is an amazing lens at any price tho. super sharp and beautiful bokeh. I hate to take it off my camera. I shot this hummingbird handheld a couple weeks ago, jpeg with very little post if any.




Great shot skullyspice. 8) Very sharp.


----------



## skullyspice (Nov 13, 2013)

Click said:


> skullyspice said:
> 
> 
> > I got mine from B&H in the summer and it was a little bit cheaper than it is now, I would have to look up my receipt for the actual. It is an amazing lens at any price tho. super sharp and beautiful bokeh. I hate to take it off my camera. I shot this hummingbird handheld a couple weeks ago, jpeg with very little post if any.
> ...



Thanks Click!


----------



## Casey (Nov 13, 2013)

I bought a refurbished one from Canon on sale at 20%off for $1,030.00. They were out of stock but I kept checking until they had one available and grabbed it. I love the lens.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 21, 2013)

skullyspice said:


> I got mine from B&H in the summer and it was a little bit cheaper than it is now, I would have to look up my receipt for the actual. It is an amazing lens at any price tho. super sharp and beautiful bokeh. I hate to take it off my camera. I shot this hummingbird handheld a couple weeks ago, jpeg with very little post if any.



Impressive! Yes, after watching a video shot with the lens, I decided the bokeh was pretty spectacular on it.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 21, 2013)

Vivid Color said:


> I bought mine brand new from Adorama for $1099 on 12/28/2012. The sale period lasted, I'm pretty sure, for less than one day and maybe only for a few hours. I just happen to check the CR site late at night and saw the notice for the sale. I wasted no time in ordering the lens. It's a fantastic lens. I've seen this price or a few dollars lower ($1089?) occasionally on a Canon refurb sale, but not on all of their sales. I've never seen anything lower than this price. If you need the lens now, even $1199 is a good price. If you can wait, then check this site and canonpricewatch.com for sale notices.



Thanks very much...brand new for $1099 seems too good to be true, but I will happily take your word for it. Did that include a "giftcard" rebate that was only usable at places you don't ever want to buy stuff from?


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 21, 2013)

skullyspice said:


> Click said:
> 
> 
> > skullyspice said:
> ...



In the voice of Kiff from an episode of "Futurama" where he's trying to talk to Amy...."um...uh...um...is......is that your girlfriend in the picture??? Whasss....whoossss...ahhh...SMISMARRRR!!" :-D


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 21, 2013)

Vivid Color said:


> I bought mine brand new from Adorama for $1099 on 12/28/2012. The sale period lasted, I'm pretty sure, for less than one day and maybe only for a few hours. I just happen to check the CR site late at night and saw the notice for the sale. I wasted no time in ordering the lens. It's a fantastic lens. I've seen this price or a few dollars lower ($1089?) occasionally on a Canon refurb sale, but not on all of their sales. I've never seen anything lower than this price. If you need the lens now, even $1199 is a good price. If you can wait, then check this site and canonpricewatch.com for sale notices.



Yes, I remember that one and it was a short-lived sale. I was surprised that it went as low as it did. I'd bought a used copy for about the same price the previous year, and I thought I had gotten a good deal for a like-new lens until I saw that deal.

Its focal length range and size/weight are its advantages. Its images are also better/different than what I see on the LCD, so much so that I no longer delete files while reviewing images in the field but do it all on the computer. Never had to do that with my other lenses, including the 70-200 II. It also has a tougher time focusing on low contrast targets even in bright sun (i.e. wet seals/sea lions) than the 70-200 II. A reason for that might be that it can't take advantage of the more accurate AF f/2.8 baselines. It is my only non-specialty lens that is slower than f/2.8. For sports and portraits, I'll grab the 70-200 II every time, but for travel (including zoos), the 70-300L is hard to beat.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 22, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> Vivid Color said:
> 
> 
> > I bought mine brand new from Adorama for $1099 on 12/28/2012. The sale period lasted, I'm pretty sure, for less than one day and maybe only for a few hours. I just happen to check the CR site late at night and saw the notice for the sale. I wasted no time in ordering the lens. It's a fantastic lens. I've seen this price or a few dollars lower ($1089?) occasionally on a Canon refurb sale, but not on all of their sales. I've never seen anything lower than this price. If you need the lens now, even $1199 is a good price. If you can wait, then check this site and canonpricewatch.com for sale notices.
> ...



It's not really fair to compare those two lenses, they're at different sizes/weights, price points, and are meant to do different things. A 4x plus zoom range, compact size, value price...along with the image quality (of the 70-300L), are what is hard to beat...frankly impossible to beat, by anything else in my opinion. If the AF turns out to be slower than my 70-200 f/4, I will be surprised. If it's as fast as it on my 6D, then that is plenty fast enough for me...lightning fast really. Time will tell.


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 22, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Vivid Color said:
> ...



Yes, it is fair to compare those two lenses because there have been many threads of 70-300L vs. 70-200L, and most people can't afford to own both. I've never used a 70-200L f/4, so I don't know how it compares with the 70-300L. I own both the 70-200 II and the 70-300L; I use them both. I was assuming that the 70-300L would be your only lens in this focal length range based on your original post, so I was giving some pros and cons versus another lens that is commonly considered. Evaluate others' experience and opinions as you wish -- it's your money and your decision.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 25, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



I disagree, but thank you very much for the advice. To restate, time will tell. I'm definitely not going to pay $1399...so it might be a while before I buy one. Also don't much fell the need to rent one. I have a feeling it will perform how I need it to. I don't ever plan on buying a 70-200 f/2.8, especially not for over $2k. Might buy a Tamron, but don't feel the need for an f/2.8 zoom. I prefer fast primes within that range, when I need a fast aperture. A 120-300 f/2.8 would be worth owning though, I think. Again though, I don't really need one at this time.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 26, 2013)

Still hoping next year brings a non-weather sealed, lighter, slimmer, and cheaper plastic version of this lens. Its not just the money, but rather nice to have something smaller and lighter as an alternative that still has excellent optics - like the 55-250 STM for instance.

With the deep discounts they are giving on the EF 70-300 F/4-5.6 non-L, this may just be the plan.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 26, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Still hoping next year brings a non-weather sealed, lighter, slimmer, and cheaper plastic version of this lens. Its not just the money, but rather nice to have something smaller and lighter as an alternative that still has excellent optics - like the 55-250 STM for instance.
> 
> With the deep discounts they are giving on the EF 70-300 F/4-5.6 non-L, this may just be the plan.



I very highly doubt that would ever happen. That would at least partially cannibalize the L, if Canon claimed it had the same optics but somehow just in a cheaper plastic unsealed body. Where did you hear of this plan? It sounds very bogus to me. Also unprecedented...the 55-250 would likely already be the lens you are describing...and it is not a watered down version of an L lens. I'm not aware of Canon ever taking an L lens and releasing a cheaper build version.

I've rented the latest version of the 70-300 non-L, and it was a very fine lens for the money. You should try one. It worked great on my crop camera at that time, but I have no idea how it would work on my 6D (likely not too well towards the borders). If you are using crop cameras only, though, maybe you should check it out?


----------



## Ruined (Nov 26, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Still hoping next year brings a non-weather sealed, lighter, slimmer, and cheaper plastic version of this lens. Its not just the money, but rather nice to have something smaller and lighter as an alternative that still has excellent optics - like the 55-250 STM for instance.
> ...



I owned a 70-300 non-L, the new 55-250 STM totally destroys it in all ways except not having a metal mount. Better image quality across entire focal length, better autofocus, etc. The 55-250 STM is actually about on par with the 70-300L already.

The problem with the 55-250 STM is it doesnt work on a FF camera. The 70-300 non-L does, as does the 70-300 DO IS, but both of those have inferior optics compared to the new 70-300L. IMO, Canon would do well to have a lens that weights less than 1kg and is more compact, while still retaining the image quality. It definitely is possible as most of the weight and bulk of the 70-300L appears to be due to weather sealing and immaculate build.


----------



## jthomson (Nov 26, 2013)

http://www.photoprice.ca/product/03306/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f4-5.6L-IS-USM-price.html

Scroll down to the bottom of the link and you will find the price of the lens in US dollars ofver the past couple of years. You will also see that the lens is frequently on rebate.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 26, 2013)

Ruined said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



What's the weather sealing made out of, mercury? The sealing does not add to the weight more than a few grams. The rest of the build, however, obviously does add to it.


----------



## pj1974 (Nov 26, 2013)

I bought my brand new Canon 70-300mm L in December 2010 from a bricks and mortar store (with a fantastic returns policy) here in Australia, for AUD$1600. It had been $1700 the previous week, and I jumped on the $100 special. Plus I received a quality 67mm CPL filter for about $50 off the RRP, so in effect I was getting my lens for less than $1600 – and that was just about a month after it was really hitting the shelves (a month or two after it's international release).

Sure, I could have waited more than a year – and probably obtained the lens for a bit less than that, but I’m glad I didn’t. I have taken so many photos with this lens since Dec 2010, I’m very happy. Plus, I have seen the lens (in the same store that I bought it in) for $1800 for a lot of time – even during 2013. Probably a result of demand and supply and international currency rates, etc. The IQ of the 70-300mm L is definitely a cut above any other 70-300mm / 55-250mm lens (and I’ve used all of them). 

Read real user reviews, and the vast majority of people who purchased this lens are very impressed with the IQ & handling this lens. It retains superb IQ throughout the focal range, wide open – which the non0L 70-300mm can’t do, neither can the Tamron 70-300mm USD (which was the lens I was also considering). The 55-250mm (including the latest STM version) are good for the money, but they don’t compare at the tele-end (eg not as sharp, less contrast, inferior bokeh, higher CA). You do get what you pay for. Sure there are some poor ‘dud’ samples / copies out there (eg the one that SLRgear reviewed) – but nearly all of them are good (I’m very glad mine is a superb sample).

All the best.

Paul


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 26, 2013)

jthomson said:


> http://www.photoprice.ca/product/03306/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f4-5.6L-IS-USM-price.html
> 
> Scroll down to the bottom of the link and you will find the price of the lens in US dollars ofver the past couple of years. You will also see that the lens is frequently on rebate.



Thank you. I believe those prices are in Canadian dollars, though. I've discovered a site called camelcamelcamel, heard of it? Greentoe is another one that I just learned of today via this forum.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 26, 2013)

pj1974 said:


> I bought my brand new Canon 70-300mm L in December 2010 from a bricks and mortar store (with a fantastic returns policy) here in Australia, for AUD$1600. It had been $1700 the previous week, and I jumped on the $100 special. Plus I received a quality 67mm CPL filter for about $50 off the RRP, so in effect I was getting my lens for less than $1600 – and that was just about a month after it was really hitting the shelves (a month or two after it's international release).
> 
> Sure, I could have waited more than a year – and probably obtained the lens for a bit less than that, but I’m glad I didn’t. I have taken so many photos with this lens since Dec 2010, I’m very happy. Plus, I have seen the lens (in the same store that I bought it in) for $1800 for a lot of time – even during 2013. Probably a result of demand and supply and international currency rates, etc. The IQ of the 70-300mm L is definitely a cut above any other 70-300mm / 55-250mm lens (and I’ve used all of them).
> 
> ...



Paul, thanks very much for setting us all straight! I knew there was a reason I wanted this lens...


----------



## HeavenHell (Nov 27, 2013)

I paid $1,259 for mine.


----------



## mwh1964 (Nov 27, 2013)

Missed the 1099 and finally got it for 1199 from BH. Fantastic lens. Very good for travel. You will nor regret.


----------



## Richard8971 (Nov 27, 2013)

I got mine from Adorama for 1300.00. I LOVE this lens!

D


----------



## ME (Nov 27, 2013)

boogaloo said:


> I'm increasingly thinking that this might be my next lens choice too, though I have got a bit daft and jittery about whether the 'slew' of new lenses next year might include a rework of this (though having followed the debate around that it looks unlikely and - yes, I know - no lens is real until it's real).
> 
> I have also just bought a Kenko 1.4x teleconverter that I really hope would work with this lens (I believe the Canon ones won't).
> 
> I tend to buy most of my stuff from DigitalRev, which sho1ws the 70-300 at being 869 with their current offer (that's 1393USD).



You are correct that the Canon tc's wont work with this lens. At least not throughout the zoom range, and not safely. There is another thread or 2 about this, and based on recomendations from other CR members, I bought the Kenko teleplus pro 300. It works really well on my 70-300L, and takes good images without much loss of sharpness or quality. I cant remember how much I paid for the 70-300L, but have gotten a few of my lenses from B&H when there were rebates available. Before that, I used the 70-300is non L on my crop 50d, and thought the images were better than some state, though not as good as the L version (on my 5dll).


----------



## Ruined (Nov 27, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



Actually looking at the design of the lens I believe the diameter and bulk surrounding the telescoping part of the lens is there partially due to the weather sealing, as I imagine weather sealing a telescoping element of this length is not easy.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 27, 2013)

Ruined said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



I never thought of the added bulk of the diameter of this lens, was due to having weather sealing for the telescoping element. I suppose some of it could be due to this. However, it seems like the 24-105, which also has a weather sealed telescoping element, would also need to somehow be huge and heavy, and it is not. Also, its front filter size is much larger than the 70-300L, at 77mm. I really think the added bulk of the 70-300L has more to do with the desired rigidity of the lens, the size of its elements, their grouping...and the design/layout of the IS elements. Frankly at 2.3 pounds it's just not a heavy lens, especially when you consider its length when telescoped, that the elements are high quality, and that there is IS.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 27, 2013)

HeavenHell said:


> I paid $1,259 for mine.



Thank you, I believe that is near the target price I set.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 27, 2013)

mwh1964 said:


> Missed the 1099 and finally got it for 1199 from BH. Fantastic lens. Very good for travel. You will nor regret.



May I ask when? Thank you very much for replying to this thread .


----------



## sdsr (Nov 27, 2013)

I paid c. $1000 for mine, a used copy from lensrentals, in the equivalent of the sale that begins in a couple of hours at lensauthority. Superb lens, for all the reasons given by others; I don't think I've used my 70-200 f4 L IS since (not because it isn't as good optically, but because the extra 100mm matters to me). As with all other lenses there may be some dud copies out there (the first one I bought, new, wasn't any better than my 70-300 non-L, so I didn't keep it). Given how well lensrentals maintains its stock, and the excellence of their customer service, buying used from them seems relatively risk-free.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 28, 2013)

sdsr said:


> I paid c. $1000 for mine, a used copy from lensrentals, in the equivalent of the sale that begins in a couple of hours at lensauthority. Superb lens, for all the reasons given by others; I don't think I've used my 70-200 f4 L IS since (not because it isn't as good optically, but because the extra 100mm matters to me). As with all other lenses there may be some dud copies out there (the first one I bought, new, wasn't any better than my 70-300 non-L, so I didn't keep it). Given how well lensrentals maintains its stock, and the excellence of their customer service, buying used from them seems relatively risk-free.



Perhaps, but it seems like their prices are higher than everyone else's for used gear. Not to mention the fact that their used gear, is shipped probably 15 to 20 times (or more) to that many different people, before they decide to put it for sale on their used site (it's usually a 2 year period before they offer them for sale). That's a lot of handling hours on a product. I would never buy a used item that had been through that many hands and shipped that many times. I've rented a lot of times from them, and have seen the nicks and wear the lenses get. The 24-105 lens I rented from them in 2012, was very worn, the telescoping part was quite loose...compared to the essentially new "used" one I bought off Ebay recently (it's very tight). I definitely do not plan to buy used from them, but there's always a possibility. I love them as a rental place, and they're fantastic with customer service...They have a used Zeiss 18mm lens for $900 right now, but I've seen them for that price on Ebay as well, and even a bit lower. Those particular ones probably weren't in any better condition, but I've not really been shopping seriously for one, since I've decided I really must have the 70-300 next (so I can sell two of my other lenses that it would replace).


----------



## Ruined (Nov 29, 2013)

Kinda bummed this one didn't go on sale for BF...


----------



## candyman (Nov 29, 2013)

I paid 1179 euro (that is around 1605 US dollar). And that was discount! Now it is around 1350 euro. 
If it would be about prices I prefer to live in the US. Live would be 25 to 50% cheaper.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 4, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Kinda bummed this one didn't go on sale for BF...



Me also, but maybe it will happen before or after Christmas. Either that, or there might be some refurbs...


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 4, 2013)

candyman said:


> I paid 1179 euro (that is around 1605 US dollar). And that was discount! Now it is around 1350 euro.
> If it would be about prices I prefer to live in the US. Live would be 25 to 50% cheaper.



What country are you in?


----------



## candyman (Dec 4, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > I paid 1179 euro (that is around 1605 US dollar). And that was discount! Now it is around 1350 euro.
> ...



The Netherlands


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 4, 2013)

candyman said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > candyman said:
> ...



Ahh. Well at least you have plenty of beautiful women over there!


----------



## candyman (Dec 4, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...


You think so? Unfortunatley not enough in high-tech. So I don't have the pleasure during my 9 hour working day. While I travel about 3 hours a day by car, I am looking more at cars that pass me or I pass them to get a glimp of those beautiful women ;D


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 4, 2013)

candyman said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > candyman said:
> ...



Haha, sounds like fun! I love cars too; at least they can't reject you, unless of course you don't have a key to open the door and fire up the engine! Well, the ladies I've seen were pictures on the web, and they didn't have any clothes on. I assume they're mostly around Amsterdam. I bet you could make decent money taking their pictures (because somebody sure does take their pictures)! I mentioned them because I've never seen one of these pictures of a lady from your country, that was not a perfect 10!! At least my idea of a perfect 10...They also seem like they would be nice people. The women in my country are mean all too often! Maybe it's all my fault? haha...no doubt I'm partly to blame.


----------

