It may have not been on the Canon site earlier this week, but it was showing as a current lens offering end available on most US retailer's site. I was told by a retailer yesterday that a blogger who had gone to the Canon site and found the lens missing posted information that the new L is apparently a replacement for the consumer lens without verifying his assumption. This is not the first time a lens has been missing from the Canon site and the rumor of it being discontinued has erroneously been reported.
Snopchenko wrote:
They may be better, but are they 50% better?
(With a Clinton accent if you wish) "It depends what you mean by 50% better!"
If someone were to measure the MTF at 100 lp/mm in the center of the old 300 2.8 IS and the MkII and find that it went from 30% to 45%, would that be 50% better? (the math could be written that way). IF it went from 10 to 15% would we notice, even though that would also be "50%" better? I dunno, but I suspect that, given the MTFs at 30 lp/mm in the Canon charts (and the same with the 2xIII (hinting at 60 lp/mm MTFs), we will soon be discussing the "3D effect" in massive crops from the new teles as if they were Zeisses
Seriously, many times, with wildlife and distant things, one ends up cropping and the new sensors can stand quite a bit of that, based on pixel density. However, we have been hearing comments like "We're going to need better glass to take advantage of them" Perhaps that's what these are all about (cf. Schneider's Digitar $$$$$erie$$$$ lenses in the MF world for the same reason).
It may have not been on the Canon site earlier this week, but it was showing as a current lens offering end available on most US retailer's site. I was told by a retailer yesterday that a blogger who had gone to the Canon site and found the lens missing posted information that the new L is apparently a replacement for the consumer lens without verifying his assumption. This is not the first time a lens has been missing from the Canon site and the rumor of it being discontinued has erroneously been reported.
I believe Canon will fulfill its production obligation for the 70-300 IS and exhaust all stocks before officially discontinuing it in favor to the 70-300L IS.
skibum5 wrote:
the new 300 MTF don't look all that different, bare, to likely make too much difference, so in this case probably mostly comes down to the IS and when a 2x TC is on it (new one much better IQ? much better AF? -with 2x TC)
I owned the vers.1 300 f/2.8L IS and thought about buying another copy but the price had gone up so much since I sold mine I couldn't justify it for my limited use.
However with the introduction of the vers.II used prices of the vers. 1 may get reasonable. I would be quite satisfied with the vers.1 performance. I haven't been disatisfied with the vers.1 500 & 600 performance either. However the vers. II of the 400 coming in at the weight of the 500 is very interesting.
dolina wrote:
I believe Canon will fulfill its production obligation for the 70-300 IS and exhaust all stocks before officially discontinuing it in favor to the 70-300L IS.
Interesting belief: Perhaps you are right and perhaps not. The availability of the 70-200 IS in F2.8 and F4 flavors did not lead to the discontinuation of the Non IS L versions of those lenses-both of which are still available new and displayed on Canon's website. The current non-L version of the 70-300 IS (3 stop IS) was an update and replacement for an earlier version of the same lens (2 stop IS and which was discontinued), which was an update of earlier 75-300 non IS lenses, both of which are still available "new" (and listed on Canons site. Contrary to the perception that we often have on the internet forums, there are still a lot of people buying consumer level zooms.
Many people are acting like this is the first time Canon has offered an expensive 70-300mm variable aperture zoom: It is not. Can you say Diffractive Optics! If Canon were to discontinue a lens in the 70-300 zoom range, the DO would be a more logical choice, particularly since it is priced in the $1200-1300 range and they have been silent on the DO front since this lens and the 400 hit the market. The 70-300 DO was/is positioned exactly the same way the new lens is being positioned- as a high quality, lighter weight zoom and was touted as having L- image quality. Image quality of the DO lens was sometimes the subject of considerable debate.
It would make more sense to have a mid-price option and one higher price option than to offer two expensive lenses at the same focal length, $150-200 apart in price.
Jim Victory wrote:
I owned the vers.1 300 f/2.8L IS and thought about buying another copy but the price had gone up so much since I sold mine I couldn't justify it for my limited use.
However with the introduction of the vers.II used prices of the vers. 1 may get reasonable. I would be quite satisfied with the vers.1 performance. I haven't been disatisfied with the vers.1 500 & 600 performance either so I would rather look at the 800 than replace them with a vers. II.
Jim
The superteles don't sell in high volumes, so until existing stock runs out--and who knows when that will be, seeing as how the EF 70-200/2.8L IS Mark I is still in stock @ Adorama, months after the Mark II was released--the prices on used lenses may not move much at all. Another possibility is that the used price might actually increase, because once new Mark I lenses disappear, the only choices become (1) buying a used/new Mark II at or near the MSRP; or (2) buying a used Mark I for less. And for the EF 300/2.8L IS I/II, the price differential ($4500 vs $7000) is so big that I bet people would be willing to pay up for a used Mark I because it's still a heck of a lot cheaper than $7K.
Meh, it's gotta be a mistake. People in the other thread was talking about how the 70-300 non-L is back in that page. Besides... I refuse to believe that the 50CM is more important to Canon than the 100 macro.
15Bit wrote:
I agree - Canon obviously have a plan, and they know their sales much better than we do. It is their decision whether we like it or not. I just think its a little disappointing, thats all. In the case of the latest 70-300mm replacement it looks like a greedy profit grabbing exercise too. There is nothing customer-driven about that decision - if the new 70-300mm L really is 3x better than the EF it would sell on its merits and they could maintain both products on the books.
I know sometimes what these companies do doesn't really make sense but you have to keep in mind that they're thinking long term, not just a year or two into the future.
For example. When Bluray was still going head to head with HD-DVD, Sony made a gamble and put bluray player into their Playstation 3. Gamers were complaining about how expensive the PS3 was and the XBOX360 fanboys were having a field day mocking the PS3. In the end though, PS3 really helped put Bluray in homes and since BR won, it now helps put more PS3 in homes.
I know it's rather irrelevant but that's just to show you that while Canon's decision may seem disappointing at the moment, you might understand the reason behind it later.
As I said above, the 70-300 non-L is NOT being discontinued, it's back in Canon USA lens lineup page.
They stated about the 70-300 L "aimed at being an affordable 'L'-grade telephoto lens." Affordable compared to what...that thing is rumored to be around $1,500.00
n0b0 wrote:
Meh, it's gotta be a mistake. People in the other thread was talking about how the 70-300 non-L is back in that page. Besides... I refuse to believe that the 50CM is more important to Canon than the 100 macro.
I certainly wouldn't doubt if both the 100 macro and the 70-300 were replaced, leaving L and EF-S variants in their place. We'll see soon.
beanpkk wrote:
It seems to me that Canon has once again shot themselves in the foot, and given thousands of DSLR shooters yet another good reason to switch to Nikon. The one big advantage Canon had (go to any national park that features wildlife and you'll see what I mean) was their long lens pricing vis-a-vis Nikon's. Now, Canon no longer has that advantage, (quite the opposite, actually). I am not a Nikon fanboy -- I own and use a 5D, 20D, and lots of Canon lenses and accessories. I also own and use a D300S and some Nikon long glass -- and I prefer Canon. But I've borrowed some of the newest Nikon long glass and it is amazing. And now it's cheaper!...Show more →
Well, no one here has yet had a chance to try any of these lenses. They might just be that impressive, as difficult as it is to believe. Being a 400 2.8 IS owner, I do wonder how much better it could be optically. The 600 IS though, could stand to be a bit sharper. Also, don't worry about Nikon. The new lenses give them one more reason to increase their prices to match.
Canon's pricing strategy is giving them more problems than it is worth. I know they will eventually lower prices by 20-25% from MSRP but right now they are price shocking people to the point that no one would consider buying them at all.
I am happy they appeared and I know prices will drop btw.
Canon's pricing strategy is giving them more problems than it is worth. I know they will eventually lower prices by 20-25% from MSRP but right now they are price shocking people to the point that no one would consider buying them at all.
I am happy they appeared and I know prices will drop btw.
The high markups on these lenses could just be one way of having their cake and eating it too. It does two things: (1) it balances short term supply-and-demand for them, since otherwise it would be unlikely they could produce enough copies for all the early adopters if they were priced closer to existing Mark I levels, and maximizes the profit they can get early on; and (2) it ensures they can finish selling off existing stocks of the Mark I copies.
If you look at the related FM poll, it seems that a good 10-15% of respondents would still buy one at the proposed price levels. That's still a significant number--in any market, there are always going to be buyers who will purchase a good at nearly any price. And it can be argued that for something like a supertelephoto lens (esp. the EF 400/2.8L IS II), it could be classified as a Veblen good--the higher it costs, the MORE some people will want to buy it, for the perceived exclusivity and cachet that ownership of such an item brings.
Wickerprints, I agree with you on a theoretical basis. And the perceived exclusivity is just that - perceived. Such a lens would have been more of a competitive advantage 10-20 years ago when they were relatively rare. With the recent relatively low super tele prices, and decent high end consumer DSLRs with excellent high ISO performance, it's made the cost of entry into photographic fields previously requiring such specialized equipment much lower. The playing field therefore has been leveled to a certain degree. A new 400 2.8 IS II will not result in a significant optical performance increase over others working with the IS Mark I or the non-IS Mark II, and there are a lot of those lenses out there.
