I don't know what the big deal is with non-L EF lenses. I've been randomly clicking on PROFILE here and only a few people own these lenses with the exception of the 50s and the 100 macro. Most beginners would just buy the EF-S lenses or 3rd party.
michael49 wrote:
Oh, come one. Updating the 135L would make about as much sense as updating the nearly optically perfect super-teles - oops! That's what they did, didn't they?
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here and I'm gonna give you the benefit of a doubt that you're not just being snide.
mttran wrote:
Wow, 70-300 can be one best travel lens
I agree. Instead of taking the 70-200 f4L IS + 1.4x II (III),
which i sold a while ago, the new 70-300L IS is much shorter
and if matches the IQ, I'm getting one right away.
i bet an updated 35mm f/2 and 24mm f/4 might have been in some more kits
and certainly an updated 50mm 1.4
and the 70-300 IS non-L is only a $1000 less so you have to think the new one will end up in far fewer kits
n0b0 wrote:
I don't know what the big deal is with non-L EF lenses. I've been randomly clicking on PROFILE here and only a few people own these lenses with the exception of the 50s and the 100 macro. Most beginners would just buy the EF-S lenses or 3rd party.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here and I'm gonna give you the benefit of a doubt that you're not just being snide.
snowboarder wrote:
I agree. Instead of taking the 70-200 f4L IS + 1.4x II (III),
which i sold a while ago, the new 70-300L IS is much shorter
and if matches the IQ, I'm getting one right away.
I have a bad feeling it won't be able to match the 70-200 f/4 IS bare IQ and will be f/5 by 200mm, but should it be very close on IQ and manage at least f/4.5 at 200mm I just may make a swap. Since popping the TC on and off can be a pain (when I don't have the 300 2.8 around, which is not often when on vacation, or even local hiking for that matter).
rscheffler wrote:
There is a difference between inner/internal FOCUSING and ZOOMING. It would be amazing if it had internal zoom at that size, but I don't expect it. Close inspection of photos that show the front of the lens indicate there is a gap that would allow for barrel extension.
I wish we knew the extended dimensions and had more than the one photo of the new 70-300... all in time I suppose.
Did anyone notice that the new lenses are all PURE WHITE in color instead of that putty-cream color? Personally, I think the new pure white lenses with black grips absolutely look badass.
Secondly, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the new 70-300 to be internal zooming. Look at the specs:
70-200 f4: 3.0 (width) x 6.8 in (length)
70-300: 3.5 (width) x 5.6 in (unextended length)
If it had internal focusing, it would be 7.5+ inches long.
With that in mind, how could the 70-300 be weathersealed if it's not internal zooming? It would have to have a rubber o-ring between the barrel and the extending portion of the lens. After so many extensions, the o-ring will most certainly wear out; and thus, water will enter between the extending portion of the lens.
And STILL no upgrade to the 400 5.6/L? Maybe I shouldn't lament. I probably wouldn't be able to afford it anyway. Canon prices are depressing for a hobbyist
Nowhere Man wrote:
are you suggesting perhaps they have a new color formula going for their big lenses? are the 800 and 200 more white looking too?
I can't find it now, but there's an actual quote on the press release somewhere that states that they indeed did change the color for the white lenses, starting with all new whites in the second half of 2010. I don't think older designs will get new colors, but the new lenses will all be a more pure white vs. the putty color of old.
What I could find was in the 300 f/2.8 II and 400 f/2.8 II press release:
"In addition, both models feature a new high quality exterior texture, while a new shade of white casing indicates the new advanced design and higher precision that each lens offers."
amaube63 wrote:
And STILL no upgrade to the 400 5.6/L? Maybe I shouldn't lament. I probably wouldn't be able to afford it anyway. Canon prices are depressing for a hobbyist
A 400mmf4.6L IS would be too expensive for me too.
Instead of finding reasons to buy newly launched stuff...Keep shooting with your current gear and wait for the right time to buy the new toy in future!
I do not mean stop discussing technological advancement in the gear and other technical details...
Jman13 wrote:
I can't find it now, but there's an actual quote on the press release somewhere that states that they indeed did change the color for the white lenses, starting with all new whites in the second half of 2010. I don't think older designs will get new colors, but the new lenses will all be a more pure white vs. the putty color of old.
What I could find was in the 300 f/2.8 II and 400 f/2.8 II press release:
"In addition, both models feature a new high quality exterior texture, while a new shade of white casing indicates the new advanced design and higher precision that each lens offers."...Show more →
there was some ridiculous and actually kind of unfortunate sounding quote
n0b0 wrote:
I don't know what the big deal is with non-L EF lenses. I've been randomly clicking on PROFILE here and only a few people own these lenses with the exception of the 50s and the 100 macro. Most beginners would just buy the EF-S lenses or 3rd party.
The big deal is that when you first start out you buy an APS format camera. Many folk then go on to buy EF non L lenses (35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 70-300mm) in the knowledge that should they wish to change to FF later the lenses will work there too. Ok, a lot of us also buy L lenses too (17-40mm, 70-200mm), but these tend to be the affordable ones. With canon phasing out EF, those first 4 become redundant, and its clear that new L's are going to cost a massive amount more than their predecessors, which makes them unobtainable for a lot of hobbyists: The direction is obviously that APS camera owners should buy EF-S lenses, with the L stuff priced like platinum to maintain some sort of exclusivity. The problem with this is that those of us wanting to upgrade our APS to FF will either have to swallow the enormous L prices from the outset (which no new hobbyist is going to do) or pay a fortune for new lenses when we do upgrade, which of course makes the upgrade impossible for many people who can currently do so.
I don't think this is such a good deal from the Pro perspective either. It may impose some exclusivity which separates Pros from the "great unwashed", but it will possibly pull the bottom out of the residual market too - who do you think buys used 5D's, 1D's and L lenses? I think depreciation on these lenses and cameras will be higher than previously.
Nobo, your profile lists you with a Rebel XSi plus an expensive collection of lenses. It looks like a textbook example of someone who started out photography from the cheap end and then decided they liked it and wanted to do more. Would you have bought a 100-400 L if it cost twice as much? Likewise the TS-E and MP-E? Under this new direction you are directly affected, whether you like it or not. Canon don't seem to want people like you buying lenses like these.
I just don't see the value in this. My 70-200/f4/IS is a bit cheaper & I am guessing better IQ, even with a Kenko TC. Its nice, but for the same focal length/fstop, the non-L at $500 seems like the value-$
