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...
$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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
skibum5 wrote:
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!
I'm sure that Kirk or RRS could make a tripod mount with an integrated A-S foot for less than $300.
On price though, it's obviously on the bargain side of pricing rather the extreme gouging side.