M Vers wrote:
I'm thinking its pretty safe to say the EF line of lenses may be at a dead end. Last year the 100/2.8 macro was replaced with an L version, this year the 15 FE was replaced with an L and, I'm assuming, the 70-300 IS will be replaced by an L.
There's some truth to this, even though the EF 100/2.8 macro was not discontinued when the 100/2.8L macro IS was introduced.
Just look at the evidence: almost NONE of the EF non-L lenses have been updated in recent years. The only lenses that have been touched are the L and EF-S designs. They'll probably continue making the non-L lenses for a while, but the L glass is where all their profit comes from...especially considering their pricing on the new stuff
omarlyn wrote:
Canon just announced a few days ago their development of a 120mp AP-H sensor. Even if that was just a 'showcase' piece it clearly shows the ultimate direction where everything is headed. Where once I thought that 50mp might be the ultimate advancement in FF sensors (due to lens limitations) it seems that Canon is going to push the bounds of optical designs to allow 100 or even 200mp FF sensors.
The loss of affordable FF lenses is something I lament a great deal as the market for professional photography changes, it becomes harder in many fields to make a (or as much of a) profit. The non-professional photographer will have to dig VERY deep to pursue the 'art of photography'. Here's another possibility that I lament coming true...the 35/2 may be a 'dog' in the corners and have a slow archaic AF system but is VERY sharp in the center & VERY affordable. Use it carefully within it's limitations and it is great on full frame without breaking the bank. Eventually, it'll get updated at three times the price or eliminated all together leaving the 35/1.4 as the only (expensive) choice. Of course, even the 35/1.4 will have to be updated to handle the new 'super sensors'
wickerprints wrote:
An interesting thing though: The EF 70-300/4-5.6L IS competes directly with the 70-300/4.5-5.6 DO IS, but I didn't hear anything about them discontinuing the latter....
M Vers wrote:
And it competes with the 70-300 IS non-DO. Keep in mind the 100 macro was discontinued some months after the L was released.
The 100 macro was discontinued? I haven't heard of this.
Does the 70-300 look like it has an extending front lens barrel? In other words does a black tube extend out of that white lens body when you zoom out to 300mm? If so, that's going to look pretty lame.
Sheldon N wrote:
Does the 70-300 look like it has an extending front lens barrel? In other words does a black tube extend out of that white lens body when you zoom out to 300mm? If so, that's going to look pretty lame.
If it does extend, it would probably be white, like the 100-400.
wickerprints wrote:
The one good thing about this announcement is that it ends all the speculation that's been building up over the EF lineup the past several months. We know there won't be more coming out until next year.
An interesting thing though: The EF 70-300/4-5.6L IS competes directly with the 70-300/4.5-5.6 DO IS, but I didn't hear anything about them discontinuing the latter....
i wonder if there are other lenses reserved to be announced in next month's photokina.
i just bought a tokina 10-17 fisheye, my only complaint with it is that it's not a 180deg diagonal fisheye on 1.6 crop.
i should be kicking myself for not waiting for canon's own zoom fisheye ... but i'm not about to spend that much money on a fisheye. at best, i'd spend 1k on it.
wickerprints wrote:
The EF 400/2.8L IS II, according to specs, has an MFD of 106.32", which is 5.25" closer than the Mark I.
The EF 300/2.8L IS II has an MFD of 78.75", which is 12.67" closer than the Mark I. That will have a significant impact on MM.
*SIGH* I so want one....but not at $7K.
The new 400 now weighs as much as the current 500. I can handhold the 500 for long periods with no issue so this new 400 would be good for hand holding, especially with that 4 stop IS.
I suspect the new 500 will have a similar weight reduction, that will be very welcome, but the suspected $9k price will not
Why did they even make a 70-300/4-5.6L IS? That confuses the hell out of me and I never would have expected such a move. And for $1500? You'd be better off with the 100-400, or a 70-200, or both.
Yes, but this new lens is an L and on par with the 28-300 and 100-400, which I did not even consider purchasing because I can't stand the push-pull zooming. I'm more interested in this new 70-300L.
wickerprints wrote:
Why did they even make a 70-300/4-5.6L IS? That confuses the hell out of me and I never would have expected such a move. And for $1500? You'd be better off with the 100-400, or a 70-200, or both.
The only thing I can think of is that they are phasing out the EF line--they are looking to bank higher profits. Makes me wonder if we'll see an EF-S counterpart (i.e. EF-S 45-180/4-5.6 IS, 50-200/4-5.6 IS). Complete speculation, of course
Really? They are going to charge a $4K premium for a new version(400mm II)? I highly doubt that. How does this Rob guy have prices? Pure speculation? I would think maybe a grand at most (on the high end).
That 8-15L is going to be popular, especially for video capabilities. I wouldn't mind using one on my 1Ds. I also agree with wickerprints. $1500 (even though this is not priced yet, and these could be suggested MSRPs..) is kind of steep. You could get a 70-200 and a 300IS for the same price.
thedigitalbean wrote:
The new 400 now weighs as much as the current 500. I can handhold the 500 for long periods with no issue so this new 400 would be good for hand holding, especially with that 4 stop IS.
I suspect the new 500 will have a similar weight reduction, that will be very welcome, but the suspected $9k price will not
300 Mark II / Mark I (street): $7000 / $4500 = 55% increase
400 Mark II / Mark I : $11000 / $7190 = 53% increase
Estimated 500 Mark II introductory price: $6140 * 1.50 = $9210 min, * 1.60 = $9824 max.
50% increases on current street prices is just...unacceptable. It makes Nikon look like a bargain.
I was wondering the same thing about the 70-300 myself. It's likely a revamped and improved version of the existing 70-300 USM IS (which appears to be discontinued now). When they improved it, they decided to make it an "L" lens by putting it in a white barrel. My guess is that it's still going to have an extending front barrel (black color is my prediction) and that it will look somewhat odd in use.
By putting it in a white barrel and calling it an L lens, Canon has made it much more desirable than it otherwise would have been, and is able to charge probably $750 more for the L label alone.
