Who's getting (70-300mm L )

Who is buying the 70-300 L and why? I am. its a very useful range, and if it's sharp wide open, why not? i dont have a tele zoom right now, and 200 never seems long enough when you need it. i already have an awesome 400mm prime. this will fit in perfectly. Sign me up Canon!

Not me. I just got a Canon 70-200 2.8L and now I am getting a Canon 1.4 extender. So, I don't need to get the 70-300L. Besides, I also got a Canon 400mm f/5.6. So, I think I am pretty well cover, range wise. However, this lens could be a good option for those who wants to travel with a relatively light lens and that offers mid-range capabilities.

Not me. It's too slow.

SiaoP wrote in post #10806709
Not me. It's too slow.

yes... way too slow.

I currently have the 70-200 f/4 and while the extra 100mm would be very nice to have I don't care for the variable aperture. At evening sporting events I already find f/4 too slow so the thought of spending more money on a slower lens doesn't do it for me. Ideally I would buy a 70-200 f/2.8 but that's out of the budget so for now if I decide I want the extra reach I will just get one of the new 1.4x Extenders and have constant f/5.6. That is obviously way slower than I want but $350 is easier to deal with than $1500.

I already have a 70-200f4L IS and a Siggy 120-400 OS, so I doubt the new 70-300L will find its way into my bag anytime soon. If I were starting over, the 70-300L would make a dandy lens for the outdoor photog. Now, if the new lens were a constant f4, it would be on preorder right now...

My son has a 70-300IS. I've always thought that if Canon would fix the rotating front lens (with ring USM), get the IQ at 300mm sharp and boost the build quality a bit they would have a great lens. It looks like they did all that and more (weathersealing, 4 stop IS, and white paint ) with the 70-300L IS.

It could be good to have one in the bag. I think I will wait until the reviews come out and the bugs are worked out.

Not I. I've got the 400mm f5.6 and the 70-200 F4 IS. I'm thinking of the 300mm F4, that speed with 2 stop IS would fit better for me.

It's on my short list, for sure.
Although I'm pleased to have the 70-300 IS, the IQ is definitely not up to par with my sub telephoto range.
The only reason I've hesitated on the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, is that I need more reach.

If the optics get closer to the 70-200 f/2.8's, and with the 4 stop IS, better AF, the 70-300 IS L would be a cracking lens to have.
I'm waiting to see some 'real world' shots taken with it.

Until they update the 100-400. Then I'll have a tough decision to make...

.

Too slow ...

Nah...
The 4-5.6 aperture is completely usable (same as the 100-400). And with a 4 stop IS, outdoor shooting at low ISO's with a decent shutter speed, will be a breeze.

If they came out with a constant f/4, I think it would have been a whole lot better, and imagine if they made it an f/2.8. It would be a monster lens.

.

I thought about getting it but I think I am also going with one of the next 1.4 or 2x extenders for my 70-200 2.8.

It would be interesting to see where the aperture drops off. It could be a near replacement for the 70-200 F4 IS if that f4 makes it close to 200.

Constant aperture lenses are all that find their way into my bag save for the 100-400mm.

I would have been more interested if it were a F4 lens even if it were a brick and a half to hold.

They should make a 100-400mm F/4 and ill buy that for sure :O