Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM

I think if this lens matches the quality of 70-200 f4L IS, I'm buying one right away.
I used to have the 70-200 f4L IS, it's great, but it's a bit long (physically) and I was
putting my 1.4x II on it all the time.
The new 70-300L might be perfect as a vacation lens (if good optically).
Unless Zeiss shows something longer soon...

sth_ wrote in post #10796370
Of course, but 100 people repeating the same statement over and over again does get a bit boring after a while.

Anyway, let's end this OT discussion now.

Then quit reading it, lol. The fact that 99 people before me have made the same statement is totally irrelevant. If you're getting bored reading it then you are free to move on to another thread or topic. Do you really except to keep seeing fresh views in a thread you have read 20+ pages into already?

thenextguy wrote in post #10796126
It is amazing how many people would take time out of their day just to say they wouldn't buy something.

+1

phreeky wrote in post #10796130
Good luck going from 70mm to 300mm while remaining weather sealed in the process.

exactly.

Camera Nerd wrote in post #10796410
uhmm i guess if people keep on saying that a 70-200 2.8 and 1.4 tc for the same price is more versatile than the 70-300 well i guess that should be an indicator to canon that this has to be the stupidest repackaged lens ever.

I wonder how many of those people actually HAVE 70-200s and use them with TCs regularly... Yes TCs work, and they work well on the super teles and even the new 70-200 2.8 IS II. But there IS a AF hit and there IS a IQ hit. The 70-300 will be sharper (according to the charts) than the 70-200 with a TC. It will be smaller and it will be less expensive and it will AF faster.

So the real question is, which end of the range will you use MORE. This lens is faster at 70 and up to somewhere before 200... This new lens is better at 201~300. So from let's say 100~200 a 70-200 wins? If that's your range, that's your lens. If you NEED a TC all the time, the 70-300 is the lens for you. Case closed. People always say the same thing about the 100-400 and using other lenses with TCs instead, but guess what, the 100-400 is an amazing lens and NOT needing TCs is awful nice.

YMMV
we'll see ~50 more posts about TCs before noon tomorrow and I'd bet 45 of them are from people w/o the 70-200 or a TC.
$.02

Destractions wrote in post #10796544
Do you really except to keep seeing fresh views in a thread you have read 20+ pages into already?

it's page 7 BTW, if you're not on n00b settings.

snowboarder wrote in post #10796489
I think if this lens matches the quality of 70-200 f4L IS, I'm buying one right away.
I used to have the 70-200 f4L IS, it's great, but it's a bit long (physically) and I was
putting my 1.4x II on it all the time.
The new 70-300L might be perfect as a vacation lens (if good optically).
Unless Zeiss shows something longer soon...

Yeah, I'm really kind of surprised so many think using a 1.4x is a viable solution. I've never used one, but it seems like it would be a gigantic pain the ass to keep swapping that thing on and off. Others who have used a 1.4x have said the same thing, so I know I'm not crazy.

Does anyone know at what focal range the f-stops kick in on this one? 70-200 with f/4 and 200-300 with f/5.6 wouldn't be to shabby. Like having a 70-200 4 IS with a bonus 100mm on top.

Still sometimes i wonder what the guys at Canons marketing department are smoking. This one certainly dropped like a bomb out of the blue. Considering this release batch seem to be aimed at pro's i'm very surprised that we didn't get any updates on the 17-40, 24-75 and the 100-400 lenses. Or a direct competitor to Nikons wide angle marvel 14-24/2,8 instead of a weird fish zoom.

I'm very puzzled who this lens is really aimed for? For sports its either too slow or too short. For event/wedding shooters to slow. For wildlife too short. Though i can see this as a very good travel lens for working pro's and street shooters but why on earth release it in WHITE then????

Well 300/5.6 is what 53mm which is f4 at 214mm so thats the best your likely to see, hopefully its f4 at 200.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10796562
it's page 7 BTW, if you're not on n00b settings.

Page 7 if you're not a noob? Okay how about 300 posts later, is that better?

Bollan wrote in post #10796598
Does anyone know at what focal range the f-stops kick in on this one? 70-200 with f/4 and 200-300 with f/5.6 wouldn't be to shabby. Like having a 70-200 4 IS with a bonus 100mm on top.

I was wondering about this earlier, but I don't think it's been released yet.

If it's f/4 all the way to 200, then this is an awesome lens, but I'm not sure it will do that.

The old 70-300 goes like this:
70mm - f/4
85mm - f/4.5
135mm - f/5
200mm+ - f/5.6

I don't know if the new lens will follow that same pattern. Hopefully not.

thenextguy wrote in post #10796593
Yeah, I'm really kind of surprised so many think using a 1.4x is a viable solution. I've never used one, but it seems like it would be a gigantic pain the ass to keep swapping that thing on and off. Others who have used a 1.4x have said the same thing, so I know I'm not crazy.

exactly.

RobDickinson wrote in post #10796615
Well 300/5.6 is what 53mm which is f4 at 214mm so thats the best your likely to see, hopefully its f4 at 200.

that sounds very nice....

Destractions wrote in post #10796621
Page 7 if you're not a noob? Okay how about 300 posts later, is that better?

not really since we're well past 300 posts now.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10796557
I wonder how many of those people actually HAVE 70-200s and use them with TCs regularly...

Well you can throw me on that list, I use mine all the time and with a 2X TC to boot. AF and IQ are great and I don't even have the F/2.8.

I have a 70-200f2.8 and a 2.0tc (both sigma) i dont use the TC often and I'm not happy with the IQ.

Would get a 1.4 but will see what happens.

Bollan wrote in post #10796598
Does anyone know at what focal range the f-stops kick in on this one? 70-200 with f/4 and 200-300 with f/5.6 wouldn't be to shabby. Like having a 70-200 4 IS with a bonus 100mm on top.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no way the 70-300L will still be F4 by 200mm.

RobDickinson wrote in post #10796615
Well 300/5.6 is what 53mm which is f4 at 214mm so thats the best your likely to see, hopefully its f4 at 200.

This math works for the 70-300IS as well, but as shown below the 70-300IS is nowhere near F4 at 200mm.

(Yes, I know the 70-300IS has a 58mm filter thread and the 70-300L a 67mm one. That might improve things a bit, but I cannot imagine even F4 at 135mm.)

thenextguy wrote in post #10796624
The old 70-300 goes like this:
70mm - f/4
85mm - f/4.5
135mm - f/5
200mm+ - f/5.6

I don't know if the new lens will follow that same pattern. Hopefully not.

Let's look at some other variable lenses out there:

15-85/3.5-5.6 (filter thread 72mm!):
F4 even before 17mm, F4.5 just past 24mm, F5.0 just past 35mm, F5.6 before 60mm.

100-400/4.5-5.6 (filter thread 77mm):
F5.0 by about 125mm, F5.6 just past 250mm.

neonlazer wrote in post #10791840
If it does not extend, I will eat my mouse..

In summary, if the 70-300L can still do F4 at 200mm, I will eat my mouse.

I for one, am very excited for this new lens and will be getting one! Here's why:

1. Currently own a 70-200 f4L IS w/ 1.4x II extender. First off, I really do not like using the extender, it is a pain to take on and off. And just getting back from Yellowstone, I will tell you I would never do that again.
2. VERY noticeable difference in viewfinder brightness with the 1.4x on! This is the main reason for the switch, f4 is much brighter! I really noticed this when I got my 7D, as it has that big wonderful viewfinder. I can only imagine what a FF would be like.
3. IQ with the extender on is not as good as the 70-200 without. Now maybe the new v3 will be better, but I think these extenders are really designed for the very fast telephotos. Look at canon's website, they post MTF charts with the new extenders now and the big lenses.
4. AF is slower with extender on. AF without the extender on my 7D is amazing, but there is a difference there.
5. I like the focal range. Sure I would like a little more on the long end. But, I have compared the 100-400 against my current setup, and sharpness is much better with the 70-200 f4 IS and the 1.4 extender. (maybe the copy of the 100-400 I am testing with is soft, but it seems on par with what I have seen here) So, I can imagine this new lens will be very sharp at 300, allowing for good cropping.
6. The size/weight is awesome, I travel a lot which has kept me away from the 100-400.

Anybody want a 70-200 f4L IS w/ 1.4x II extender?

the real problem is that we are spoilt for choice.
55-250 / 70-200s / 75-300s / 70-300s / 100-300 / 100-400
...that we start to compare.
Wide choice is why we use Canon.
I'll probably get this 70-300L. if i need low light capabilities or portraiture I'll use canon primes.