# 70-300 f/2.8 IS



## Mitch.Conner (Apr 20, 2015)

Out of pure curiosity, what are the chances Canon might replace the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II with a 70-300 f/2.8 IS in a few years when the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is due for a refresh?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 20, 2015)

The chances of them replacing the 70-200/2.8 with a 70-300/2.8 are nil.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Apr 20, 2015)

Because of the 300L prime I assume?


----------



## polarhannes (Apr 20, 2015)

Search the net for the 300 2.8 prime and see how big the front element is.
A 70-300 2.8 would require the same front element size and would be even heavier than the 300 prime, as zooms require more elements due to their more complex design. 

I'd also say that the chances to see a 70-300 2.8 are really bad.


----------



## Policar (Apr 20, 2015)

Canon already has their 70-300mm and it's not f2.8

You could just pick up the Sigma? 120-300mm f2.8... not sure if AF is any good. I love my 70-200mm f2.8 II IS even if it's not the "perfect" lens most brand it as being.

I'm not a good enough photographer to require a 70-300mm f2.8 zoom, but I imagine if you are how frustrating the lack of reach is!


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 20, 2015)

Mitch.Conner said:


> Out of pure curiosity, what are the chances Canon might replace the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II with a 70-300 f/2.8 IS in a few years when the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is due for a refresh?



Replace a $2000 lens with something that would cost more than the 300 f/2.8 IS II at over $6000?


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Apr 20, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > Out of pure curiosity, what are the chances Canon might replace the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II with a 70-300 f/2.8 IS in a few years when the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is due for a refresh?
> ...



So you think most wouldn't buy it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 20, 2015)

Mitch.Conner said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Mitch.Conner said:
> ...



I'm sure that all those people who replace their Rebel T2i with a 1D C would be quite willing to also replace their 70-200/2.8 with a 70-300/2.8. All 17 of them.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 20, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> The chances of them replacing the 70-200/2.8 with a 70-300/2.8 are nil.



+1, not only because it would be expensive but heavy, but the 70-300L (4-5.6) and the 70-200L f2.8 have completely different use cases (even though some people might try to juggle with extenders on the 70-200L or get away with shooting portraits with the less expensive 70-300L).


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Apr 21, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



Not sure I follow. Are you saying only enthusiasts with money to burn would buy it? There would be no interest from pros?


----------



## Bennymiata (Apr 21, 2015)

Only the pros that have a strong sherpa on the payroll would carry it.

Personally, I'd love a 1-1000mm F1.0, but my chances of ever finding one would be about zero.

The problem is purely physical.
The longer the focal length and the wider the lens opening, the larger the front (as well as all the others) element has to be, and the longer the zoom range, the physically longer the lens has to be.

Have you checked out the Sigma 120-300 F2.8?
It's really big and heavy, and as such, doesn't sell in big quantities.


----------



## charlesa (Apr 21, 2015)

Not going to happen I am afraid. Purely a matter of physics.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 21, 2015)

charlesa said:


> Not going to happen I am afraid. Purely a matter of physics.



Not sure about the physics, Sigma have been making a 120-300 f2.8 for a long while.
I think the 200-400 f4 LIS is a simular price point and weight guide that a 100-300 f2.8 would probably be.
It would be bigger, heavier and more expensive than a prime 300 f2.8. 
It can be done, but I doubt that Canon see a market for it. Most pros who use a 300 f2.8 supplement it with a 70-200 f2.8 and a camera in a three or four camera line up. 300mm f2.8 / 70-200 f2.8 / 24-70 f2.8 and or a 16-35 f2.8. Most paparazzi use this combo or variation of it. It's versatile and offers redundancy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 21, 2015)

Mitch.Conner said:


> Not sure I follow. Are you saying only enthusiasts with money to burn would buy it? There would be no interest from pros?



I'm sure they'd sell some if they made a 70-300/2.8, but think about your original question:



Mitch.Conner said:


> ...what are the chances Canon might *replace* the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II with a 70-300 f/2.8 IS



You're asking if Canon might drop a very popular $2000 telezoom from their lineup and replace it with a lens that's likely >50% heavier, >25% bigger, and at >$6K at least 3x the cost. As I said the chances are nil. 

If you want to know if there a market for a 70-300/2.8, independent from the 70-200/2.8, that's a different question, and one you didn't ask.


----------



## takesome1 (Apr 21, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure I follow. Are you saying only enthusiasts with money to burn would buy it? There would be no interest from pros?
> ...



I thought Neuro had answered a trick question with the correct answer.

The question was as logical as this one. The 35mm F/1.4 L is due for an upgrade. What are the chances it will be upgraded to a 50mm F/1.4L?


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 21, 2015)

Bennymiata said:


> Personally, I'd love a 1-1000mm F1.0, but my chances of ever finding one would be about zero.



Actually I remember reading about an Arab prince who mounted something bigger than that on his yacht, just without the wide angle.
It was even made by Zeiss.
I'm sure if you want one too you could just phone them up and throw a few million dollars at them.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Apr 22, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure I follow. Are you saying only enthusiasts with money to burn would buy it? There would be no interest from pros?
> ...



My mistake. You're right. I forgot my own original question.


----------

