This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 201070-300 IS L came
p.2 #170-300 IS L came
Please post a photo of the 70-300L zoomed to 300mm so that we can see the weird extending barrel!
Nov 12, 2010 at 07:00 PM
p.2 #270-300 IS L came
There is an image from a DPR poster at:
http://www.pbase.com/mjlamoon/image/130073172
http://www.pbase.com/mjlamoon/image/130073172
Nov 12, 2010 at 07:14 PM
p.2 #370-300 IS L came
RCicala wrote:
One thing I noted right away: its a rear focus design, so when focusing at near distance its not 300mm any more, maybe 220.
Very disappointing to hear. For the 70-300L to live up to its price tag, it had to be perfect on all counts. The combination of severe focus breathing and missing tripod collar makes me think that this lens can't possibly justify the ridiculous price --- even if the optics and AF where phenomenal.
I will say, though, that your samples demonstrate that the 70-300L @ 300mm looks way, way better than the consumer grade 70-300 IS. Not just in terms of sharpness, but also with regards to chromatic aberration. CA appears almost nonexistent on the 70-300L.
One thing I noted right away: its a rear focus design, so when focusing at near distance its not 300mm any more, maybe 220.
Very disappointing to hear. For the 70-300L to live up to its price tag, it had to be perfect on all counts. The combination of severe focus breathing and missing tripod collar makes me think that this lens can't possibly justify the ridiculous price --- even if the optics and AF where phenomenal.
I will say, though, that your samples demonstrate that the 70-300L @ 300mm looks way, way better than the consumer grade 70-300 IS. Not just in terms of sharpness, but also with regards to chromatic aberration. CA appears almost nonexistent on the 70-300L.
Nov 12, 2010 at 08:54 PM
p.2 #470-300 IS L came
I think this lens shouldve been priced 1099-1199 not 1599 might as well save up a few hundred more (500) clams and get a 70-200 f2.8L II...oh I want one so bad...
Nov 12, 2010 at 10:56 PM
p.2 #570-300 IS L came
I think the lens should have been priced 550, 100 above the Nikon version. Same sharpness anyway... 100 for build and white paint.
Nov 13, 2010 at 02:26 AM
p.2 #670-300 IS L came
1599...No tripod collar included.
sounds like the perfect lens to hang on the $1100 60D.
sounds like the perfect lens to hang on the $1100 60D.
Nov 13, 2010 at 02:34 AM
p.2 #770-300 IS L came
dudemanppl wrote:
I read the thread title and immediately thought, "Whos stupid enough to buy a 70-300 IS L?" But its Roger, with like 200 70-200s.
HEY ... maybe Roger is going to toss the 70-300 in the Lens Lotto! ;-) (pretty nifty idea for someone wanting to try something different)
Thanks for posting your first impressions Roger - be a bummer for Canon if other copies show similar performance compared to the consumer lens. BTW, I have not shot either 70-300, but have always been impressed with the 55-250 on my 40/50/7D - what other lens delivers such good results for the cost of the focal length?!? ;-)
I read the thread title and immediately thought, "Whos stupid enough to buy a 70-300 IS L?" But its Roger, with like 200 70-200s.
HEY ... maybe Roger is going to toss the 70-300 in the Lens Lotto! ;-) (pretty nifty idea for someone wanting to try something different)
Thanks for posting your first impressions Roger - be a bummer for Canon if other copies show similar performance compared to the consumer lens. BTW, I have not shot either 70-300, but have always been impressed with the 55-250 on my 40/50/7D - what other lens delivers such good results for the cost of the focal length?!? ;-)
Nov 13, 2010 at 07:58 AM
p.2 #870-300 IS L came
only 220mm at mfd, who did they get to design it ? The guy that designed the Nikon 70-200 VR2 probably 
so maybe every one that dissed the 70-300 non L for having that rotating front element did it a disservice . OK its a pain if you use a CPL (which I never did) but at least it seems you get the focal length you paid for.
so maybe every one that dissed the 70-300 non L for having that rotating front element did it a disservice . OK its a pain if you use a CPL (which I never did) but at least it seems you get the focal length you paid for.
Nov 13, 2010 at 08:24 AM
p.2 #970-300 IS L came
Thank you for posting your results. It is always great to get someone to give us an impression so that we can choose to further research or not.
Nov 13, 2010 at 09:22 AM
p.2 #1070-300 IS L came
Although I'm not sure I want to incur the wrath of forum members (although better here than dpreview ), I also took delivery of my new 70-300L IS last night.
My first impressions are that it's going to a winner, at least for me. It's fairly compact and a little "fat" and not very heavy... it balances nicely on my 40D & 7D, both with grips. The finish of the lens seems "less white" than current lenses; the focus and zoom mechanisms are silky smooth, and the focus is very fast. There is no focus limiter on this lens and the MFD is 1.2m which is a very nice feature. I went out shooting with it this morning and will try post some samples later today.
The big question: is it worth $1599? I'm not sure yet. I wanted a mid-range telephoto for air shows and general photography and the 100-400 was becoming too ponderous for me, especially since I shoot with a 400 DO on my other body. But I do however have to take Canon to task for charging $200 for the tripod ring.... the lens is pricey enough and the ring should have been included!
), I also took delivery of my new 70-300L IS last night. My first impressions are that it's going to a winner, at least for me. It's fairly compact and a little "fat" and not very heavy... it balances nicely on my 40D & 7D, both with grips. The finish of the lens seems "less white" than current lenses; the focus and zoom mechanisms are silky smooth, and the focus is very fast. There is no focus limiter on this lens and the MFD is 1.2m which is a very nice feature. I went out shooting with it this morning and will try post some samples later today.
The big question: is it worth $1599? I'm not sure yet. I wanted a mid-range telephoto for air shows and general photography and the 100-400 was becoming too ponderous for me, especially since I shoot with a 400 DO on my other body. But I do however have to take Canon to task for charging $200 for the tripod ring.... the lens is pricey enough and the ring should have been included!
Nov 13, 2010 at 09:48 AM
p.2 #1170-300 IS L came
Chris I hope its all you want. I can see alot of pluses to the lens. its just that at the moment it would seem that Canon have priced this way above what it should be.
But as with all these things if it performs for you it tends to make you forget the price
But as with all these things if it performs for you it tends to make you forget the price
Nov 13, 2010 at 10:55 AM
p.2 #1270-300 IS L came
Chris B. wrote:
The finish of the lens seems "less white" than current lenses;
Interesting........I have somehow come to believe that the new finishing coat is going to be whiter than the old one.
Enjoy your new lens.
The finish of the lens seems "less white" than current lenses;
Interesting........I have somehow come to believe that the new finishing coat is going to be whiter than the old one.
Enjoy your new lens.
Nov 13, 2010 at 11:18 AM
p.2 #1370-300 IS L came
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
... its just that at the moment it would seem that Canon have priced this way above what it should be.
But as with all these things if it performs for you it tends to make you forget the price
Ian -
What certainly helped me was that I was able to sell my 2 yr old 100-400 for $1275 (2 days before the rebates were posted on the new one...). So my out-of-pocket costs were much less painful than if I had bear the full cost of it. But I am hoping that it performs like it should...
Chris
... its just that at the moment it would seem that Canon have priced this way above what it should be.
But as with all these things if it performs for you it tends to make you forget the price
Ian -
What certainly helped me was that I was able to sell my 2 yr old 100-400 for $1275 (2 days before the rebates were posted on the new one...). So my out-of-pocket costs were much less painful than if I had bear the full cost of it. But I am hoping that it performs like it should...
Chris
Nov 13, 2010 at 11:59 AM
p.2 #1470-300 IS L came
PetKal wrote:
Interesting........I have somehow come to believe that the new finishing coat is going to be whiter than the old one.
Enjoy your new lens. The only "white" lens I currently have to compare it to is my 400 DO, and the new lens is quite a bit "grayer"...
Chris B. wrote
The finish of the lens seems "less white" than current lenses;Enjoy your new lens. The only "white" lens I currently have to compare it to is my 400 DO, and the new lens is quite a bit "grayer"...
Nov 13, 2010 at 12:01 PM
p.2 #1570-300 IS L came
abam wrote:
1599...No tripod collar included.
sounds like the perfect lens to hang on the $1100 60D.
The Leica-ization of Canon continues. From now on all new (or Mk.2 or Mk. 3) lenses will be L's, and their prices will all be raised to silly levels. It started with the new 100L macro, then the new 70-200 II's, the new TC III's, and now the 70-300L.
1599...No tripod collar included.
sounds like the perfect lens to hang on the $1100 60D.
The Leica-ization of Canon continues. From now on all new (or Mk.2 or Mk. 3) lenses will be L's, and their prices will all be raised to silly levels. It started with the new 100L macro, then the new 70-200 II's, the new TC III's, and now the 70-300L.
Nov 13, 2010 at 12:23 PM
p.2 #1670-300 IS L came
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
only 220mm at mfd, who did they get to design it ? The guy that designed the Nikon 70-200 VR2 probably
so maybe every one that dissed the 70-300 non L for having that rotating front element did it a disservice . OK its a pain if you use a CPL (which I never did) but at least it seems you get the focal length you paid for.
do keep in mind though the L has a closer MFD than most, so in the end it ends up with the same max mag ratio (of course following- also keep in mind despite the much slower MFD it does NOT have any better mag ratio)
only 220mm at mfd, who did they get to design it ? The guy that designed the Nikon 70-200 VR2 probably
so maybe every one that dissed the 70-300 non L for having that rotating front element did it a disservice . OK its a pain if you use a CPL (which I never did) but at least it seems you get the focal length you paid for.
do keep in mind though the L has a closer MFD than most, so in the end it ends up with the same max mag ratio (of course following- also keep in mind despite the much slower MFD it does NOT have any better mag ratio)
Nov 13, 2010 at 03:36 PM
p.2 #1770-300 IS L came
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
Chris I hope its all you want. I can see alot of pluses to the lens. its just that at the moment it would seem that Canon have priced this way above what it should be.
But as with all these things if it performs for you it tends to make you forget the price
I still think it's an utter disgrace to not have included the tripod ring at $1599 (which was already somewhat insane even had the ring been included) and now the lens becomes a phenominally absurd $1799 since it's canon and they of course mark the little tripod ring up to absurd $200 dollars (when if they ahd included it it would probably have cost them but $30 in parts or something).
Chris I hope its all you want. I can see alot of pluses to the lens. its just that at the moment it would seem that Canon have priced this way above what it should be.
But as with all these things if it performs for you it tends to make you forget the price
I still think it's an utter disgrace to not have included the tripod ring at $1599 (which was already somewhat insane even had the ring been included) and now the lens becomes a phenominally absurd $1799 since it's canon and they of course mark the little tripod ring up to absurd $200 dollars (when if they ahd included it it would probably have cost them but $30 in parts or something).
Nov 13, 2010 at 03:38 PM
p.2 #1870-300 IS L came
skibum5 wrote:
But as with all these things if it performs for you it tends to make you forget the priceI still think it's an utter disgrace to not have included the tripod ring at $1599 (which was already somewhat insane even had the ring been included) and now the lens becomes a phenominally absurd $1799 since it's canon and they of course mark the little tripod ring up to absurd $200 dollars (when if they ahd included it it would probably have cost them but $30 in parts or something).
Ian.Dobinson wrote
Chris I hope its all you want. I can see alot of pluses to the lens. its just that at the moment it would seem that Canon have priced this way above what it should be.But as with all these things if it performs for you it tends to make you forget the price
Nov 13, 2010 at 03:40 PM
p.2 #1970-300 IS L came
PetKal wrote:
Interesting........I have somehow come to believe that the new finishing coat is going to be whiter than the old one.
Enjoy your new lens.
Indeed Canon had a big press release bragging about how they made the lenses whiter and brighter signalling a new ERA of wonder or something. I guess by whiter and brighter they actually meant duller and grayer and without a tripod collar and at $100 more than initially suggest priced and you are damn lucky we are even tossing in the hood at this point
.
Chris B. wrote
The finish of the lens seems "less white" than current lenses;Enjoy your new lens.
Indeed Canon had a big press release bragging about how they made the lenses whiter and brighter signalling a new ERA of wonder or something. I guess by whiter and brighter they actually meant duller and grayer and without a tripod collar and at $100 more than initially suggest priced and you are damn lucky we are even tossing in the hood at this point
.Nov 13, 2010 at 03:40 PM
p.2 #2070-300 IS L came
good god man!
http://www.adorama.com/CATMRD4429.html
they don't even give a little help with the collar pricing after not including it, same as the 300 2.8 IS collar! $250!
So the lens is freaking $1849!
!
Same price as the 70-200 2.8 MkII!!! And it uses much less exotic glass and smaller elements, the 70-200 uses like four fluorite elements or something! How can they justify the price?? I could sell my 70-200 f/4 IS and still be out almost a $1000 if I got the new L!!!!
haha crazy
http://www.adorama.com/CATMRD4429.html
they don't even give a little help with the collar pricing after not including it, same as the 300 2.8 IS collar! $250!
So the lens is freaking $1849!
!Same price as the 70-200 2.8 MkII!!! And it uses much less exotic glass and smaller elements, the 70-200 uses like four fluorite elements or something! How can they justify the price?? I could sell my 70-200 f/4 IS and still be out almost a $1000 if I got the new L!!!!
haha crazy
Nov 13, 2010 at 04:26 PM