Who's getting (70-300mm L )

Not me

- just got 70-200 II
- too slow
- not constant aperture

wonder how much will it cost?

It looks interesting, but I doubt it will be £1000 better than the 70-300 IS when it comes to image quality. I'll keep an eye out for the reviews though.

Not me. I'd get the non L version before getting the L

At the moment I have a Tokina 50-135 and 80-400. Might sell the 80-400 for a good 70-300, but depending on the price, that could also be the new Tamron 70-300. Definitely want a longer lens with IS though, so may also still go for a 300 F4 IS (with 1.4x)

Just wondering why people keep referring to the new lens as 'light' when it weighs more than the Brick and 85L, weigs more than a 70-200 f/4 IS + 1.4x TC, is less than a centimetre shorter than the old 70-300 (and 3cm longer than the DO) and is only 300g lighter than the supposedly 'heavy' 100-400...

Nah.. if it's 100-400L IS II without the pull-push design, then I would consider. I would just get a 1.4X TC on my 70-200 IS II. that makes a lot more sense financially.

No plans to buy this lens. Seems way overpriced for a slow lens when there are faster options. A 70-200 IS with a 1.4X is much more versatile.

I'd definitely consider it. All depends on the price. Will this be an $800 lens? I hope so!!!

segasaturn wrote in post #10809941
I'd definitely consider it. All depends on the price. Will this be an $800 lens? I hope so!!!

I'm betting the "street" price will be more like $1200+.

If the image quality at 300mm is on the same level as the 70-200 f/4 IS then it might end up on my list. But if the new Tamron is almost as good (and doesn't have AF issues) then I might end up getting that instead since the Canon is just too expensive.

I always wanted the 70-200 f/4 IS + 1.4x TC but found it too cumbersome in practice when I tried it. I don't care if the lens is part-of-a-stop slower at 200mm as long as I can have the whole 70-300 range at once (without the need for a TC) and the image quality is top-notch wide open, so I don't need to stop down any further.

Can't wait for the first reviews of this lens (and the Tamron of course).

Does anyone know if it extends in length when zoomed? I assume it must because it's so short.
I won't bother with it but was just wondering.

Not me, no need for this range, too slow, no constant aperture...

If it's well reviewed, I'll definetly consider it.

Jericobot wrote in post #10809682
Not me. I'd get the non L version before getting the L

Ditto, if I need something that small, that lightweight, if I can live with the slower aperture and limited FL ,. then at the same time I don't want a white lens shouting at the neighborhood, nor do I want to spend nearly that amount of cash on it.

IMHO the lens is a "compromise" lens,. this not a "No Compromise" lens.
Obviously compromise is a matter of degree, but this optic crosses so many compromising lines that other lenses in it's price range simply don't come near. (we can get a 135mm f/2L for halt the price!)

For a lens that asks for that amount of compromise, I feel I should not be asked to spend "no compromise" prices.

When I am ready to buy and use a lens that is not "No Compromise" that's what I will get, and at the expected prices. If Canon are out of the market all together in this category (Having removed the current 70-300mm IS from the market) I would instead buy a Sigma for $200.00