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.7 #170-300 IS L came
M Vers wrote:
Even if the new Tamron matches the L in terms of IQ the L still offers superior build (namely weather sealing) and I'd think* it would focus quicker/more accurately as well. In any case I still don't understand all the hating on this lens--it's certainly not for everyone.
That woud be absurd, who the hell pays that much just for weather sealing, haha you can buy 3-4 spare tamrons for safety instead!
IMO unless the IQ is better too, this lens is dead. (personally I expect the IQ will be better)
Even if the new Tamron matches the L in terms of IQ the L still offers superior build (namely weather sealing) and I'd think* it would focus quicker/more accurately as well. In any case I still don't understand all the hating on this lens--it's certainly not for everyone.
That woud be absurd, who the hell pays that much just for weather sealing, haha you can buy 3-4 spare tamrons for safety instead!
IMO unless the IQ is better too, this lens is dead. (personally I expect the IQ will be better)
Nov 17, 2010 at 07:56 PM
p.7 #270-300 IS L came
M Vers wrote:
This is undoubtedly very important for some. But I have to agree that the price seems to high.
I had a suspicion that this lens was going to replace the 100-400L. For a couple of years now, rumor has been circulating that a Mk2 was coming out. This never proved true. However, this looks like it just may happen -
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/10/ef-100-400-version-2-coming-cr2/
If the 70-300L is $1,600, I hate to see what the new 100-400 Mk2 is going to sell for.I can't argue as to the cost of the lens, which is high--then again it is new and those who feel the absolute need for it will have to pay the price if they want it now. I think the cost of the lens has a lot to do with the introduction of higher density sensors, which essentially extend the lens' effective reach (which is why you see the 70-300L priced so close to the 100-400)--Just wait until we see other long lenses, especially those over 300mm. We'll see how long it remains where it is in terms of...Show more →
yeah but come on, the 70-300L is the SAME price as the 70-200 2.8 IS MkII!!! the 70-200 uses so much more and so much more fancy glass and considering the IQ it produces it's not like they used a cheap out design and manufacturing tolerances on the 70-200 either
Aaron D wrote
M Vers wrote
the L still offers superior build (namely weather sealing) and I'd think* it would focus quicker/more accurately as well.I had a suspicion that this lens was going to replace the 100-400L. For a couple of years now, rumor has been circulating that a Mk2 was coming out. This never proved true. However, this looks like it just may happen -
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/10/ef-100-400-version-2-coming-cr2/
If the 70-300L is $1,600, I hate to see what the new 100-400 Mk2 is going to sell for.
yeah but come on, the 70-300L is the SAME price as the 70-200 2.8 IS MkII!!! the 70-200 uses so much more and so much more fancy glass and considering the IQ it produces it's not like they used a cheap out design and manufacturing tolerances on the 70-200 either
Nov 17, 2010 at 07:58 PM
p.7 #370-300 IS L came
skibum5 wrote:
This is undoubtedly very important for some. But I have to agree that the price seems to high.
I had a suspicion that this lens was going to replace the 100-400L. For a couple of years now, rumor has been circulating that a Mk2 was coming out. This never proved true. However, this looks like it just may happen -
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/10/ef-100-400-version-2-coming-cr2/
If the 70-300L is $1,600, I hate to see what the new 100-400 Mk2 is going to sell for.I can't argue as to the cost of the lens, which is high--then again it is new and those who feel the absolute need for it will have to pay the price if they want it now. I think the cost of the lens has a lot to do with the introduction of higher density sensors, which essentially extend the lens' effective reach (which is why you see the 70-300L priced so close to the 100-400)--Just wait until we see other long lenses, especially those over 300mm. We'll see how long it remains where it is in terms of cost...it could very well drop considerably.yeah but come on, the 70-300L is the SAME price as the 70-200 2.8 IS MkII!!! the 70-200 uses so much more and so much more fancy glass and considering the IQ it produces it's not like they used a cheap out design and manufacturing tolerances on the 70-200 either
Where can you get the 70-200II for $1500?!
M Vers wrote
Aaron D wrote
M Vers wrote
the L still offers superior build (namely weather sealing) and I'd think* it would focus quicker/more accurately as well.I had a suspicion that this lens was going to replace the 100-400L. For a couple of years now, rumor has been circulating that a Mk2 was coming out. This never proved true. However, this looks like it just may happen -
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/10/ef-100-400-version-2-coming-cr2/
If the 70-300L is $1,600, I hate to see what the new 100-400 Mk2 is going to sell for.
Where can you get the 70-200II for $1500?!
Nov 17, 2010 at 08:04 PM
p.7 #470-300 IS L came
skibum5 wrote:
That woud be absurd, who the hell pays that much just for weather sealing, haha you can buy 3-4 spare tamrons for safety instead!
IMO unless the IQ is better too, this lens is dead. (personally I expect the IQ will be better)
Absurd to you and others maybe, but not so much for those who depend on those features. If you were going backpacking would you honestly want to bring a few Tamrons? And no, its not just for weather sealing--as I said AF should* be better as well, especially if the Tamron does not take advantage of x type points.
Edited on Nov 17, 2010 at 08:08 PM · View previous versions
M Vers wrote
Even if the new Tamron matches the L in terms of IQ the L still offers superior build (namely weather sealing) and I'd think* it would focus quicker/more accurately as well. In any case I still don't understand all the hating on this lens--it's certainly not for everyone.IMO unless the IQ is better too, this lens is dead. (personally I expect the IQ will be better)
Absurd to you and others maybe, but not so much for those who depend on those features. If you were going backpacking would you honestly want to bring a few Tamrons? And no, its not just for weather sealing--as I said AF should* be better as well, especially if the Tamron does not take advantage of x type points.
Edited on Nov 17, 2010 at 08:08 PM · View previous versions
Nov 17, 2010 at 08:06 PM
p.7 #570-300 IS L came
I think* most people are disappointed that Canon came out with yet another 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 lens (how many versions of these do they really need) while ignoring the aging 100-400mm lens or some others.
I want a 200-400mm zoom. Only not like Nikon's at 7 pounds. If it could be lighter and a stop or two faster than the 100-400mm that would be my killer must-have lens.
I want a 200-400mm zoom. Only not like Nikon's at 7 pounds. If it could be lighter and a stop or two faster than the 100-400mm that would be my killer must-have lens.
Nov 17, 2010 at 08:07 PM
p.7 #670-300 IS L came
Canongarcon wrote:
Is build quality worth an extra $1,000+? Tamron usually makes pretty good lenses.
I think* most people are disappointed that Canon came out with yet another 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 lens (how many versions of these do they really need) while ignoring the aging 100-400mm lens or some others.
I'm sure the other 7*-300's days are numbered. As for it being 'worth it', that depends entirely on the individual--to some it is.
M Vers wrote
Even if the new Tamron matches the L in terms of IQ the L still offers superior build (namely weather sealing) and I'd think* it would focus quicker/more accurately as well. In any case I still don't understand all the hating on this lens--it's certainly not for everyone.I think* most people are disappointed that Canon came out with yet another 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 lens (how many versions of these do they really need) while ignoring the aging 100-400mm lens or some others.
I'm sure the other 7*-300's days are numbered. As for it being 'worth it', that depends entirely on the individual--to some it is.
Nov 17, 2010 at 08:09 PM
p.7 #770-300 IS L came
alrac wrote:
I want a 200-400mm zoom. Only not like Nikon's at 7 pounds. If it could be lighter and a stop or two faster than the 100-400mm that would be my killer must-have lens.
You dont seem to understand how this works. 400mmf5.6 needs to be 72mm , add a stop it needs to be 100mm, f2.8 needs to be 143mm.
That size means weight, unless canon make it out of titanium and DO lenses...
I want a 200-400mm zoom. Only not like Nikon's at 7 pounds. If it could be lighter and a stop or two faster than the 100-400mm that would be my killer must-have lens.
You dont seem to understand how this works. 400mmf5.6 needs to be 72mm , add a stop it needs to be 100mm, f2.8 needs to be 143mm.
That size means weight, unless canon make it out of titanium and DO lenses...
Nov 17, 2010 at 08:13 PM
p.7 #870-300 IS L came
RobDickinson wrote:
You dont seem to understand how this works. 400mmf5.6 needs to be 72mm , add a stop it needs to be 100mm, f2.8 needs to be 143mm.
That size means weight, unless canon make it out of titanium and DO lenses...
Well if it were to be spec'd as an f/4 lens it can be lighter than Nikon's version--a lot lighter in fact. Look at the new 300/2.8 II and 400/2.8II as examples. Of course, a stop 'or two' faster will not help in this regard (or in terms of cost)
alrac wrote
I want a 200-400mm zoom. Only not like Nikon's at 7 pounds. If it could be lighter and a stop or two faster than the 100-400mm that would be my killer must-have lens.That size means weight, unless canon make it out of titanium and DO lenses...
Well if it were to be spec'd as an f/4 lens it can be lighter than Nikon's version--a lot lighter in fact. Look at the new 300/2.8 II and 400/2.8II as examples. Of course, a stop 'or two' faster will not help in this regard (or in terms of cost)
Nov 17, 2010 at 08:16 PM
p.7 #970-300 IS L came
geniousc wrote:
You should buy 100% Tamron then .
the other gene
Nah. I went to the dark(er) side and have the new Nikon 28-300VR. Which is no 70-200 but, probably much like the Tamron, is sufficient for my needs.
If I were shooting for money, then I agree that it's usually worth it to spend the extra for even marginal improvements in IQ, when that is sometimes all it takes to make the difference in a sale or published photo etc...
I had 2 Canon L lenses and they were both great, totally reliable and I NEVER questioned the IQ I got from them.
Just like the difference if any, or how small, between the new Sigma 85 and the Nikon 85G or Canon 85L- for some it's worth it and even necessary. I bought the Sigma
Gene (too)
You should buy 100% Tamron then
. the other gene
Nah. I went to the dark(er) side and have the new Nikon 28-300VR. Which is no 70-200 but, probably much like the Tamron, is sufficient for my needs.
If I were shooting for money, then I agree that it's usually worth it to spend the extra for even marginal improvements in IQ, when that is sometimes all it takes to make the difference in a sale or published photo etc...
I had 2 Canon L lenses and they were both great, totally reliable and I NEVER questioned the IQ I got from them.
Just like the difference if any, or how small, between the new Sigma 85 and the Nikon 85G or Canon 85L- for some it's worth it and even necessary. I bought the Sigma
Gene (too)
Nov 17, 2010 at 08:24 PM
p.7 #1370-300 IS L came
Left Top Corner 100%:
http://public.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pMF7CdSMUBG6pTf6nyYOr_6Qx964LmQ-qiE_ogZBEKSHUXwbRg3KoYuEZW4EEHlm6q84us29PHLE_4RELz2Uavg/lt.jpg
Edited on Nov 17, 2010 at 09:30 PM · View previous versions
http://public.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pMF7CdSMUBG6pTf6nyYOr_6Qx964LmQ-qiE_ogZBEKSHUXwbRg3KoYuEZW4EEHlm6q84us29PHLE_4RELz2Uavg/lt.jpg
Edited on Nov 17, 2010 at 09:30 PM · View previous versions
Nov 17, 2010 at 09:20 PM
p.7 #1470-300 IS L came
Left Bottom Corner 100%:
http://public.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pLr1_WWyckZ3V_dIuDR3Jf2JhPZCg8IKuAtjvhJ9CD8bB1Jr7dsRWl_Y31Ue7LnwNcsoMkymxRCdomJAny5PP9Q/lb.jpg
Edited on Nov 17, 2010 at 09:39 PM · View previous versions
http://public.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pLr1_WWyckZ3V_dIuDR3Jf2JhPZCg8IKuAtjvhJ9CD8bB1Jr7dsRWl_Y31Ue7LnwNcsoMkymxRCdomJAny5PP9Q/lb.jpg
Edited on Nov 17, 2010 at 09:39 PM · View previous versions
Nov 17, 2010 at 09:20 PM
p.7 #1770-300 IS L came
Yeah, I still like that lens a lot just a small glitch for now 
.
geniousc wrote:
Sorry to hear that, you're covered with the 6 year warranty though. IME I have had few if any 3rd party lenses that didn't include some agravating annoyance. Some had major problems like a Sigma 50 that I sent back 3 times and finally ended up returning.
Hope you can get it taken care of.
gene
.geniousc wrote:
Sorry to hear that, you're covered with the 6 year warranty though. IME I have had few if any 3rd party lenses that didn't include some agravating annoyance. Some had major problems like a Sigma 50 that I sent back 3 times and finally ended up returning.
Hope you can get it taken care of.
gene
Nov 17, 2010 at 09:32 PM
p.7 #1870-300 IS L came
I'm an L addict, I have most of them, and I don't own any 3rd party lenses, other than the new Tamron. In most cases 3rd parties can't compete but in this case the Tamron is the winner in my book. First and foremost excellent image quality... But also very important to me, for this lens, is the weight. As this will be my landscape/travel telephoto, I will regularly be packing this lens up mountains, sometimes many miles, often on foot, etc... So to carry a lens that is heavy must be heavy for a reason. I have my 70-200 Mark II when I need fast. But heavy AND slow? No go... A center crop from my wonderful, lightweight and reasonably priced Tamron 70-300VC wide open at 300mm:
http://imagineimagery.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v14/p352619979.jpg
http://imagineimagery.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v14/p352619979.jpg
Nov 17, 2010 at 09:38 PM
p.7 #1970-300 IS L came
Does the new L have MUCH faster AF than the consumer lens thoug?
This is of major importance to many photographers, including me.
The AF speed is the main thing that keeps pruists from using
the Tamron 28-75 2.8 over the Canon 24-70 2.8L which is nearly $1000 more.
This is of major importance to many photographers, including me.
The AF speed is the main thing that keeps pruists from using
the Tamron 28-75 2.8 over the Canon 24-70 2.8L which is nearly $1000 more.
Nov 17, 2010 at 09:54 PM
p.7 #2070-300 IS L came
myy001 wrote:
JPG from the camera 5d2 + 730L:
Is that at 300mm?
EBH
JPG from the camera 5d2 + 730L:
Is that at 300mm?
EBH
Nov 17, 2010 at 10:15 PM