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.3 #170-300 IS L came
It's looking like the Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD is going to be tough to beat, especially for the price. I tried one of the new Tamron lens at the local camera shop, and was thoroughly impressed. The Vibration Compensation is a little jumpy, but it still seems to work well. The IQ was pretty good too. And for 1/4 of the price of the 70-300L... 
-Mike
-Mike
Nov 13, 2010 at 04:54 PM
p.3 #270-300 IS L came
skibum5 wrote:
So the lens is freaking $1849!
At that price the lens is not likely to sell well at all.
So the lens is freaking $1849!
At that price the lens is not likely to sell well at all.
Nov 13, 2010 at 04:55 PM
p.3 #370-300 IS L came
$250 is really just too much for the tripod mount ring, and then one still needs an A-S plate. 
I'm sure that Kirk or RRS could make a tripod mount with an integrated A-S foot for less than $300.
EBH
I'm sure that Kirk or RRS could make a tripod mount with an integrated A-S foot for less than $300.EBH
Nov 13, 2010 at 05:01 PM
p.3 #470-300 IS L came
Alek Komarnits wrote:
HEY ... maybe Roger is going to toss the 70-300 in the Lens Lotto! ;-) (pretty nifty idea for someone wanting to try something different)
As soon as we have enough copies, the 70-300 L will be right in the mix. I'm having a blast with that - "You will shoot with this lens and you will like it!!!" It doesn't get any better than that.
I'm still hoping its going to be what Chris B. is shooting for: A smaller lens that would be a 100-400 replacement except for the long end. And as someone mentioned earlier it is better than the consumer zoom. Just not as betterer as I expected for the price.
I would add that while the tripod collar price is absolutely ridiculous, I don't think many people would use it often: the lens is smaller and lighter than a 100-400 or 70-200 f2.8 and the weight is up close to the camera.
HEY ... maybe Roger is going to toss the 70-300 in the Lens Lotto! ;-) (pretty nifty idea for someone wanting to try something different)
As soon as we have enough copies, the 70-300 L will be right in the mix. I'm having a blast with that - "You will shoot with this lens and you will like it!!!" It doesn't get any better than that.
I'm still hoping its going to be what Chris B. is shooting for: A smaller lens that would be a 100-400 replacement except for the long end. And as someone mentioned earlier it is better than the consumer zoom. Just not as betterer as I expected for the price.
I would add that while the tripod collar price is absolutely ridiculous, I don't think many people would use it often: the lens is smaller and lighter than a 100-400 or 70-200 f2.8 and the weight is up close to the camera.
Nov 13, 2010 at 06:49 PM
p.3 #570-300 IS L came
RCicala wrote:
I would add that while the tripod collar price is absolutely ridiculous, I don't think many people would use it often: the lens is smaller and lighter than a 100-400 or 70-200 f2.8 and the weight is up close to the camera.
The weight it not the only issue. I was hoping the lens would be good for landscapes, where the tripod collar is a necessity.
EBH
I would add that while the tripod collar price is absolutely ridiculous, I don't think many people would use it often: the lens is smaller and lighter than a 100-400 or 70-200 f2.8 and the weight is up close to the camera.
The weight it not the only issue. I was hoping the lens would be good for landscapes, where the tripod collar is a necessity.
EBH
Nov 13, 2010 at 07:19 PM
p.3 #670-300 IS L came
EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L 2420.00. I rather pay 1599.00 for a 70-300.
Nov 13, 2010 at 08:22 PM
p.3 #770-300 IS L came
SteveS wrote:
EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L 2420.00. I rather pay 1599.00 for a 70-300.
My 28-300L was less than $1,599.00 used, and happens to work & look like new. Sold my 100-400 I like it so much. While there aren't a lot of 28-300L users out there, I hope someone reputable does a comparison between the 70-300 & the 28-300.
I really hope these prices come down a few hundred bucks after the initial early adoptors get their fill. Otherwise, the only people smiling will be people working at Sigma...
EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L 2420.00. I rather pay 1599.00 for a 70-300.
My 28-300L was less than $1,599.00 used, and happens to work & look like new. Sold my 100-400 I like it so much. While there aren't a lot of 28-300L users out there, I hope someone reputable does a comparison between the 70-300 & the 28-300.
I really hope these prices come down a few hundred bucks after the initial early adoptors get their fill. Otherwise, the only people smiling will be people working at Sigma...
Nov 13, 2010 at 08:43 PM
p.3 #870-300 IS L came
I would rather spend $550 for the old 70-300 and spray paint it white. I don't think this will be a big seller for Canon. Don't really care for their new policy of updating current lenses and greatly increasing the price in the process. Hopefully this will be a sharp lens-I wonder why they didn't make it a constant f4. At least this would have somewhat justified the price jump.
Nov 13, 2010 at 08:43 PM
p.3 #970-300 IS L came
A 70-300/4 would be close to four lbs, larger than a 70-200/2.8, and rather costly. I'd love one, but have given up after hoping for 20 years.
EBH
EBH
Nov 13, 2010 at 08:53 PM
p.3 #1070-300 IS L came
RCicala wrote:
I would add that while the tripod collar price is absolutely ridiculous, I don't think many people would use it often: the lens is smaller and lighter than a 100-400 or 70-200 f2.8 and the weight is up close to the camera.
It's not too heavy and unbalanced when out to 300mm mounted using the body?
It is very stumpy, so perhaps....
I do use the 70-200 f/4 IS without a collar, but that is as far as I've ever felt comfortable going without one and I believe this lens is longer when at 300mm and it's some deal heavier. Plus the collar allows for instant portrait/landscape flip.
I would add that while the tripod collar price is absolutely ridiculous, I don't think many people would use it often: the lens is smaller and lighter than a 100-400 or 70-200 f2.8 and the weight is up close to the camera.
It's not too heavy and unbalanced when out to 300mm mounted using the body?
It is very stumpy, so perhaps....
I do use the 70-200 f/4 IS without a collar, but that is as far as I've ever felt comfortable going without one and I believe this lens is longer when at 300mm and it's some deal heavier. Plus the collar allows for instant portrait/landscape flip.
Nov 13, 2010 at 10:31 PM
p.3 #1170-300 IS L came
Economics isn't my strong point, but I am wondering if this lens is so extravagantly priced because Canon don't intend to produce that many? Are Canon attempting to make the new L lenses more prestigious by making fewer, and charging more for them?
Nov 14, 2010 at 02:05 AM
p.3 #1270-300 IS L came
EB-1 wrote:
: I'm sure that Kirk or RRS could make a tripod mount with an integrated A-S foot for less than $300.
EBH
Do RRS make anything for less than $300 ?
: I'm sure that Kirk or RRS could make a tripod mount with an integrated A-S foot for less than $300.
EBH
Do RRS make anything for less than $300 ?
Nov 14, 2010 at 02:08 AM
p.3 #1370-300 IS L came
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
EBHDo RRS make anything for less than $300 ?
they have a 3/8" to 1/4" thread adapter for less than $300.... i think
EB-1 wrote
: I'm sure that Kirk or RRS could make a tripod mount with an integrated A-S foot for less than $300.EBH
they have a 3/8" to 1/4" thread adapter for less than $300.... i think
Nov 14, 2010 at 02:11 AM
Guest
Offline
Guest
Details
p.3 #1470-300 IS L came
EB-1 wrote:
A 70-300/4 would be close to four lbs, larger than a 70-200/2.8, and rather costly. I'd love one, but have given up after hoping for 20 years.
EBH
Sigma has a decent 100-300/4 zoom and it's not much larger than a 70-200/2.8
Well, from the way things look right now, the new Tamron has completely demolished this "L" as a total package.
A 70-300/4 would be close to four lbs, larger than a 70-200/2.8, and rather costly. I'd love one, but have given up after hoping for 20 years.
EBH
Sigma has a decent 100-300/4 zoom and it's not much larger than a 70-200/2.8
Well, from the way things look right now, the new Tamron has completely demolished this "L" as a total package.
Nov 14, 2010 at 05:51 AM
p.3 #1570-300 IS L came
Snopchenko wrote:
Sigma has a decent 100-300/4 zoom and it's not much larger than a 70-200/2.8
Well, from the way things look right now, the new Tamron has completely demolished this "L" as a total package.
About the sigma 100-300 f/4, yeah but the 70-200 2.8 itself is already to alrge to be a compact tele-zoom, so it's not that a question off to bad THIS was not constant f/4 but too bad that they didn't ALSO make another lens that was constant f/4 sort of thing.
I don't see how the tamron demolishes the L as a total package? What one thing does it actually do better
On price though, it's obviously on the bargain side of pricing rather the extreme gouging side.
Sigma has a decent 100-300/4 zoom and it's not much larger than a 70-200/2.8
Well, from the way things look right now, the new Tamron has completely demolished this "L" as a total package.
About the sigma 100-300 f/4, yeah but the 70-200 2.8 itself is already to alrge to be a compact tele-zoom, so it's not that a question off to bad THIS was not constant f/4 but too bad that they didn't ALSO make another lens that was constant f/4 sort of thing.
I don't see how the tamron demolishes the L as a total package? What one thing does it actually do better
On price though, it's obviously on the bargain side of pricing rather the extreme gouging side.Nov 14, 2010 at 12:37 PM
p.3 #1670-300 IS L came
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
EBHDo RRS make anything for less than $300 ?
I was thinking about something like this.
EBH
EB-1 wrote
: I'm sure that Kirk or RRS could make a tripod mount with an integrated A-S foot for less than $300.EBH
I was thinking about something like this.
EBH
Nov 14, 2010 at 01:09 PM
p.3 #1770-300 IS L came
I would very much like to see the Tamron and Canon reviewed. Early indications appear to show that the Tamron hits above its price point.
For the price difference the Canon had better be alot better.
For the price difference the Canon had better be alot better.
Nov 14, 2010 at 01:56 PM
Guest
Offline
Guest
Details
p.3 #1870-300 IS L came
skibum5 wrote:
Well, from the way things look right now, the new Tamron has completely demolished this "L" as a total package.About the sigma 100-300 f/4, yeah but the 70-200 2.8 itself is already to alrge to be a compact tele-zoom, so it's not that a question off to bad THIS was not constant f/4 but too bad that they didn't ALSO make another lens that was constant f/4 sort of thing.
So how can you expect a compact 300/4? Even the prime is the size of a 70-200. A compact xx-300/4[.5]-5.6 is possible but this L is not the case.
I don't see how the tamron demolishes the L as a total package? What one thing does it actually do better On price though, it's obviously on the bargain side of pricing rather the extreme gouging side.
Price of course. For $400, you can forgive a few minor flaws (so far the reviews haven't indicated any glaring ones). For $1700, this quasi-L lens would damn sure better be perfect. One can buy a 70-200/2.8 IS with a TC for that!
Snopchenko wrote
Sigma has a decent 100-300/4 zoom and it's not much larger than a 70-200/2.8Well, from the way things look right now, the new Tamron has completely demolished this "L" as a total package.
So how can you expect a compact 300/4? Even the prime is the size of a 70-200. A compact xx-300/4[.5]-5.6 is possible but this L is not the case.
I don't see how the tamron demolishes the L as a total package? What one thing does it actually do better
On price though, it's obviously on the bargain side of pricing rather the extreme gouging side.Price of course.
For $400, you can forgive a few minor flaws (so far the reviews haven't indicated any glaring ones). For $1700, this quasi-L lens would damn sure better be perfect. One can buy a 70-200/2.8 IS with a TC for that!Nov 14, 2010 at 02:33 PM
p.3 #1970-300 IS L came
L lenses are like all luxury items
you must pay 2-3 times more for a 10-20 % improvement over consumer lenses
same is true for other luxury items
audiophile quality stereo equipment (for the 10-20% improvement over consumer)
luxury cars (luxoboats)
That said, I think L lenses are worth the price penalty:
I have 24 1.4 II, 200 2.8 II, 300 F4 IS, 400 5.6 and all are fantastic
I have yet to see a 70-300 zoom that impress at 300mm
maybe the 70-300 L will be the zoom that can impress at 300mm
you must pay 2-3 times more for a 10-20 % improvement over consumer lenses
same is true for other luxury items
audiophile quality stereo equipment (for the 10-20% improvement over consumer)
luxury cars (luxoboats)
That said, I think L lenses are worth the price penalty:
I have 24 1.4 II, 200 2.8 II, 300 F4 IS, 400 5.6 and all are fantastic
I have yet to see a 70-300 zoom that impress at 300mm
maybe the 70-300 L will be the zoom that can impress at 300mm
Nov 14, 2010 at 02:40 PM
p.3 #2070-300 IS L came
I will pass on this lens as I do not see its advantages for the price. Without the tripod collar at this price point is just not logical.
Nov 14, 2010 at 04:47 PM