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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
RCicala wrote:
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.
skibum5 wrote:
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.
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.
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!
