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.
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...
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?!? ;-)
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.
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!
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
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...
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.
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)
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).
skibum5 wrote:
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).
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 .
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!!!!
.
!