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.4 #170-300 IS L came
Snopchenko wrote:
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!
The new 70-300 must be better than the 70-200/2.8 IS with a 1.4x TC or it is rather pointless.
EBH
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!The new 70-300 must be better than the 70-200/2.8 IS with a 1.4x TC or it is rather pointless.
EBH
Nov 14, 2010 at 06:58 PM
p.4 #270-300 IS L came
Snopchenko 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.
my point was that people crying that THIS is not constant f/4 are crying about the wrong thing, if THIS lens were f/4 it would no longer be a nice little compact 70-300, if you want a constant f/4, that is fine but that would need to be another lens in addition to this one
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!
yes, but price is price it's not a total package demonlishment if THE only thing it does better is price,i have to test it more but I'm still not sure the tamron IQ is even better overall than the old 70-300 IS.
skibum5 wrote
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.
my point was that people crying that THIS is not constant f/4 are crying about the wrong thing, if THIS lens were f/4 it would no longer be a nice little compact 70-300, if you want a constant f/4, that is fine but that would need to be another lens in addition to this one
Earlier quote
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. 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!yes, but price is price it's not a total package demonlishment if THE only thing it does better is price,i have to test it more but I'm still not sure the tamron IQ is even better overall than the old 70-300 IS.
Nov 14, 2010 at 07:27 PM
p.4 #370-300 IS L came
abqnmusa wrote:
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)
yes, $1850 with collar is insane, even for an L, it doesn't even use expensive fluorite elemensts (of which the 70-200 2.8 MkII uses many, and larger elements at that and yet it can be had for just about the same price!)
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
the old 100-300L was pretty contrasty at 300mm, constant f/5.6 I think though and slow AF and no IS
I do have the 24 1.4 II, 135 2, 70-200 f/4 IS and 300 2.8 IS but I still say $1850 for this lens is nuts! I bet they make a new level of obscene net profit per copy on it for any L unless they using some expensive new exacting and super high QC build process of something.
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)
yes, $1850 with collar is insane, even for an L, it doesn't even use expensive fluorite elemensts (of which the 70-200 2.8 MkII uses many, and larger elements at that and yet it can be had for just about the same price!)
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
the old 100-300L was pretty contrasty at 300mm, constant f/5.6 I think though and slow AF and no IS
I do have the 24 1.4 II, 135 2, 70-200 f/4 IS and 300 2.8 IS but I still say $1850 for this lens is nuts! I bet they make a new level of obscene net profit per copy on it for any L unless they using some expensive new exacting and super high QC build process of something.
Nov 14, 2010 at 07:31 PM
p.4 #470-300 IS L came
EB-1 wrote:
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!The new 70-300 must be better than the 70-200/2.8 IS with a 1.4x TC or it is rather pointless.
EBH
the point would be the size/weight but that would really make the price absurd though
Snopchenko wrote
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!EBH
the point would be the size/weight but that would really make the price absurd though
Nov 14, 2010 at 07:33 PM
p.4 #570-300 IS L came
skibum5 wrote:
yes, $1850 with collar is insane, even for an L, it doesn't even use expensive fluorite elemensts (of which the 70-200 2.8 MkII uses many, and larger elements at that and yet it can be had for just about the same price!)
It uses 1 flourite element and its central and not that large in comparison to other elements.
http://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/cameraaccessories/70-200f28LISII-diagram.jpg
But anyhow the 70-300L is too large, slow and expensvie for me I'm going another route. I was initial quite keen.
yes, $1850 with collar is insane, even for an L, it doesn't even use expensive fluorite elemensts (of which the 70-200 2.8 MkII uses many, and larger elements at that and yet it can be had for just about the same price!)
It uses 1 flourite element and its central and not that large in comparison to other elements.
http://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/cameraaccessories/70-200f28LISII-diagram.jpg
But anyhow the 70-300L is too large, slow and expensvie for me I'm going another route. I was initial quite keen.
Nov 14, 2010 at 07:39 PM
p.4 #670-300 IS L came
With all this commotion about the new 70-300L, I pulled out my 70-300 "classic" today and took some shots with it on my 1Ds2. I have to say, I'm still pretty happy with mine, and for its intended purpose, it does a great job. It's still the best lens in my bag for a light, long, and inconspicuous zoom.
http://deanwcains.smugmug.com/photos/1091339143_feBtN-L.jpg
100% crop:
http://deanwcains.smugmug.com/photos/1091336931_wvWVC-XL.jpg
Edited on Nov 15, 2010 at 01:53 AM · View previous versions
http://deanwcains.smugmug.com/photos/1091339143_feBtN-L.jpg
100% crop:
http://deanwcains.smugmug.com/photos/1091336931_wvWVC-XL.jpg
Edited on Nov 15, 2010 at 01:53 AM · View previous versions
Nov 14, 2010 at 07:45 PM
p.4 #770-300 IS L came
RobDickinson wrote:
It uses 1 flourite element and its central and not that large in comparison to other elements.
http://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/cameraaccessories/70-200f28LISII-diagram.jpg
But anyhow the 70-300L is too large, slow and expensvie for me I'm going another route. I was initial quite keen.
ok one fluorite but an astonishing 5 UD's so that is about 7.5 elements worth of UD-effective glass vs 2 for the 70-300L and none of the 70-300L elements are as big as the ones up near the front of the 70-200 2.8 MkII.
skibum5 wrote
yes, $1850 with collar is insane, even for an L, it doesn't even use expensive fluorite elemensts (of which the 70-200 2.8 MkII uses many, and larger elements at that and yet it can be had for just about the same price!)http://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/cameraaccessories/70-200f28LISII-diagram.jpg
But anyhow the 70-300L is too large, slow and expensvie for me I'm going another route. I was initial quite keen.
ok one fluorite but an astonishing 5 UD's so that is about 7.5 elements worth of UD-effective glass vs 2 for the 70-300L and none of the 70-300L elements are as big as the ones up near the front of the 70-200 2.8 MkII.
Nov 14, 2010 at 07:45 PM
p.4 #970-300 IS L came
Nice, old review, but certainly valid IMO. My 70-300 "classic" is one of a just a few lenses I've never considered selling. Had mine since it was released 5 years ago, which makes it my longest-owned EOS lens.
Nov 14, 2010 at 08:01 PM
p.4 #1070-300 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.
The 100-400L is only about 335mm at mfd and I believe the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II is only 165mm at mfd. It's the nature of telephoto zooms that focus close.
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.
The 100-400L is only about 335mm at mfd and I believe the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II is only 165mm at mfd. It's the nature of telephoto zooms that focus close.
Nov 14, 2010 at 08:44 PM
p.4 #1170-300 IS L came
As a 100-300L owner, I can't say this lens attracts me in the least. Sharp and contrasty, one of those lenses you never want to sell, unless you can have a IS equivalent for under $500. Sounds like Tamron is the only one speaking to those buyers. Hope the marketplace speaks and the Tammy trounces the Canon. This kind of price is extreme for an non-flourite slower lens.
Nov 14, 2010 at 10:43 PM
p.4 #1270-300 IS L came
Hi Roger,
Can you please tell us why you decide to go with this lens rather than the much cheaper Tamron VC USD or the 70-200/4 IS + 1.4X TC combo?
TIA.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Can you please tell us why you decide to go with this lens rather than the much cheaper Tamron VC USD or the 70-200/4 IS + 1.4X TC combo?
TIA.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Nov 15, 2010 at 02:56 AM
p.4 #1370-300 IS L came
Yakim Peled wrote:
Hi Roger,
Can you please tell us why you decide to go with this lens rather than the much cheaper Tamron VC USD or the 70-200/4 IS + 1.4X TC combo?
TIA.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Look at Roger's www it may give you a clue
http://www.lensrentals.com/
Hi Roger,
Can you please tell us why you decide to go with this lens rather than the much cheaper Tamron VC USD or the 70-200/4 IS + 1.4X TC combo?
TIA.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Look at Roger's www it may give you a clue
http://www.lensrentals.com/
Nov 15, 2010 at 03:40 AM
p.4 #1470-300 IS L came
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
Can you please tell us why you decide to go with this lens rather than the much cheaper Tamron VC USD or the 70-200/4 IS + 1.4X TC combo?
TIA.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.Look at Roger's www it may give you a clue
http://www.lensrentals.com/
10X. I never knew it was his site.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Yakim Peled wrote
Hi Roger,Can you please tell us why you decide to go with this lens rather than the much cheaper Tamron VC USD or the 70-200/4 IS + 1.4X TC combo?
TIA.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
http://www.lensrentals.com/
10X. I never knew it was his site.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Nov 15, 2010 at 03:46 AM
p.4 #1570-300 IS L came
I'd say the only people who will purchase this lens, are those that will review it initially, and borrowlens.com!
I can't see anyone honestly putting money down on this lens. Just my opinion of course.
I can't see anyone honestly putting money down on this lens. Just my opinion of course.
Nov 15, 2010 at 03:52 AM
p.4 #1670-300 IS L came
Yakim Peled wrote:
Hi Roger,
Can you please tell us why you decide to go with this lens rather than the much cheaper Tamron VC USD or the 70-200/4 IS + 1.4X TC combo?
TIA.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
I'd go with the 70-200 f4 IS myself, but like they said, its business. Although I think after most folks read my opinion on the site the 70-300 Ls may mostly be decorating the shelf.
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/telephoto/canon-70-300mm-f4-5.6l-is
I'm still hopeful, though, that maybe when I get to look at some more copies they'll be better. It could be.
Roger
Hi Roger,
Can you please tell us why you decide to go with this lens rather than the much cheaper Tamron VC USD or the 70-200/4 IS + 1.4X TC combo?
TIA.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
I'd go with the 70-200 f4 IS myself, but like they said, its business. Although I think after most folks read my opinion on the site the 70-300 Ls may mostly be decorating the shelf.
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/telephoto/canon-70-300mm-f4-5.6l-is
I'm still hopeful, though, that maybe when I get to look at some more copies they'll be better. It could be.
Roger
Nov 15, 2010 at 10:50 AM
p.4 #1770-300 IS L came
Here is a quick video/thoughts from Fro:
http://froknowsphoto.com/canon-ef-70-300mm/
Not scientific, but I share exactly the same sentiment.
http://froknowsphoto.com/canon-ef-70-300mm/
Not scientific, but I share exactly the same sentiment.
Nov 15, 2010 at 01:38 PM
p.4 #1870-300 IS L came
RCicala wrote:
Can you please tell us why you decide to go with this lens rather than the much cheaper Tamron VC USD or the 70-200/4 IS + 1.4X TC combo?
TIA.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.I'd go with the 70-200 f4 IS myself, but like they said, its business. Although I think after most folks read my opinion on the site the 70-300 Ls may mostly be decorating the shelf.
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/telephoto/canon-70-300mm-f4-5.6l-is
I'm still hopeful, though, that maybe when I get to look at some more copies they'll be better. It could be.
Roger
10X for the info. Indeed it's the same as my initial thoughts.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Yakim Peled wrote
Hi Roger,Can you please tell us why you decide to go with this lens rather than the much cheaper Tamron VC USD or the 70-200/4 IS + 1.4X TC combo?
TIA.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/telephoto/canon-70-300mm-f4-5.6l-is
I'm still hopeful, though, that maybe when I get to look at some more copies they'll be better. It could be.
Roger
10X for the info. Indeed it's the same as my initial thoughts.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Nov 16, 2010 at 01:15 AM
Guest
Offline
Guest
Details
p.4 #1970-300 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.my point was that people crying that THIS is not constant f/4 are crying about the wrong thing, if THIS lens were f/4 it would no longer be a nice little compact 70-300, if you want a constant f/4, that is fine but that would need to be another lens in addition to this one
I would love to see the 300/4 IS updated with more recent version of IS. Then again, the current version is apparently pretty fine as is and doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
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!yes, but price is price it's not a total package demonlishment if THE only thing it does better is price,i have to test it more but I'm still not sure the tamron IQ is even better overall than the old 70-300 IS.
I seriously hope it's not the only thing. So far in most respects they seem pretty close. My point is, if I had been a pro, I wouldn't have looked at the 70-300 L for my work because it doesn't fit for sports or theatre, and dishing out $1700 for a "general purpose" zoom isn't very practical (unless there's a tree with Dead Presidents for leaves in your back yard). I wouldn't get this 70-300 L as a lightweight and inconspicuous second telezoom lens for travelling because it's neither lightweight nor inconspicuous - at least not substantially more so than the 70-200/2.8. Tamron is lighter, smaller, it's black and the IQ is probably like 95% of the L (someone bring on the direct comparison!).
So I fail to see the whole purpose of this lens. It's stuck in the middle between several target niches, not particularly fitting any one of them.
Snopchenko wrote
skibum5 wrote
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.
I would love to see the 300/4 IS updated with more recent version of IS. Then again, the current version is apparently pretty fine as is and doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
Earlier quote
Earlier quote
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. 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 seriously hope it's not the only thing. So far in most respects they seem pretty close. My point is, if I had been a pro, I wouldn't have looked at the 70-300 L for my work because it doesn't fit for sports or theatre, and dishing out $1700 for a "general purpose" zoom isn't very practical (unless there's a tree with Dead Presidents for leaves in your back yard). I wouldn't get this 70-300 L as a lightweight and inconspicuous second telezoom lens for travelling because it's neither lightweight nor inconspicuous - at least not substantially more so than the 70-200/2.8. Tamron is lighter, smaller, it's black and the IQ is probably like 95% of the L (someone bring on the direct comparison!).
So I fail to see the whole purpose of this lens. It's stuck in the middle between several target niches, not particularly fitting any one of them.
Nov 16, 2010 at 02:03 AM
p.4 #2070-300 IS L came
Got my hands on one today for a bit. Very impressed actually. If someone can house a couple of raws let me know...
Nov 16, 2010 at 02:17 AM