skibum5 wrote:
i wouldntbe shocked if it is faster but i really doubt the difference be as large as tamron 28-75 (one of the slowest lenses of all time when it comes to AF) vs the 24-70 speed
The Tamron doesn't have it's version of Canon's USM on the 28-75mm lens. It does on the 70-300mm lens (a Tamron first).
Is Canon planning on keeping the low-priced 70-300 IS "consumer" lens around? How about the 70-300 DO. I really don't think that the DO sells very well. I had one for a year or two, and was never really impressed with it's image quality.
This would be a great lens in Canon's lineup, but for the $1600 price tag. At $1100-1200, maybe. Though I'd rather that they replace the 100-400 since for me, that's a more useful focal length range.
M Vers wrote:
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.
Weather sealing in lenses are not that useful if the camera is not weather sealed. Most people are not going to spend $1,000 more for a lens just for the weather sealing.
Tom_W wrote:
Is Canon planning on keeping the low-priced 70-300 IS "consumer" lens around? How about the 70-300 DO. I really don't think that the DO sells very well. I had one for a year or two, and was never really impressed with it's image quality.
This would be a great lens in Canon's lineup, but for the $1600 price tag. At $1100-1200, maybe. Though I'd rather that they replace the 100-400 since for me, that's a more useful focal length range.
I think Canon will keep the consumer 70-300 lens around as they need something to compete against Tamron, espcially having something to the crowd that buys Canon only products.
I think this lens is a replacement for the DO lens since they are relatively close in price for the same range and aperature (though the DO starts at 4.5). The DO technology never really took off and Canon had years to introduce more DO lenses and never did.
ChrisDM wrote:
The winner. While the 70-300L may beat it in relatively irrelavent corner pixel peeping contests, the Tamron 70-300 is at least "L zoom good" (I own a lot of L zooms and I would call the Tamron "L zoom good" in terms of IQ). Couple that with the fact that it is much lighter (remember this is a landscape/travel lens for many if not most of us), and MUCH more affordable, it is the winner. So big picture, all factors considered (i.e. weight and cost), the Tamron is the winner, in my book.
I looked at two copies and neither could touch my 70-200 f/4 IS from 70-200 and merely tied it at 280mm. That said it is a very solid deal at $400!
Re Collar
Any UK owners:
As Roger says the collar from the 28-300 fits I know Fixation has a Collar from a 28-300 listed 2nd hand for £30 (+vat)
May well be worth it.
ChrisDM wrote:
A general rule of thumb, to place the least stress on your mount, is to mount the lens to the tripod directly if it weighs more than the camera. The 70-300L weighs more than the prosumer/consumer bodies so in those cases it would be wise to use a collar. But the 70-300L weighs a little less than a 1 series body (just by a few ounces), so in that case I wouldn't use one. However as the lens displaces more of the weight away from the tripod head, a good head and a solid connection would be required to overcome "ball creep" (cheap ballheads that settle/sink even after you set them). ...Show more →
If I may interject, what governs the stress on the camera body is the product of lens weight and the distance from the face of the body to the centre of gravity of the lens.
M = W x CG (as a structural engineer, "M" is what we call the bending moment - it's often referred to as torque). The bending moment is what stresses the camera body.
From the equation, it's apparent that if a lens is very light, then the length isn't as important.
I'm sitting here holding a 5DII with a TSE24 lens on it. While it's not a particularly long lens (so the CG may not be too far from the lens mount) - it is a very heavy lens, and holding the camera with this lens can be very tiresome because the torque on my wrists is quite high. When I put the 100 f/2.8 macro on this body, the torque is considerably less - even though the 100 macro is quite a bit longer.
So lens length is only part of the equation.
It's apparent that the new 70-300 is quite a bit shorter than any variant of the 70-200 lenses.
After reading many comments on several forums about the lack of a tripod collar (and I admit that this bothered me too), I started to realize that the lens designers fully understand this topic, and do in fact design bodies to be able to withstand the torque/stress from a long and heavy lens.
This does not preclude the possibility that omitting the collar was a marketing decision (many good engineering decisions are over ridden by the marketers). However, if the engineers said that a collar was essential for the 70-300, it's not likely that Canon would take a chance on damage, and would supply a collar - as the longer lenses have).
One final comment - the Nikon mount is considerably smaller in diameter, and when I first saw one, I wondered about it's strength (larger diameter = stronger for all other variables held constant).
Glenn NK wrote:
If I may interject, what governs the stress on the camera body is the product of lens weight and the distance from the face of the body to the centre of gravity of the lens.
M = W x CG (as a structural engineer, "M" is what we call the bending moment - it's often referred to as torque). The bending moment is what stresses the camera body.
From the equation, it's apparent that if a lens is very light, then the length isn't as important.
I'm sitting here holding a 5DII with a TSE24 lens on it. While it's not a particularly long lens (so the CG may not be too far from the lens mount) - it is a very heavy lens, and holding the camera with this lens can be very tiresome because the torque on my wrists is quite high. When I put the 100 f/2.8 macro on this body, the torque is considerably less - even though the 100 macro is quite a bit longer.
So lens length is only part of the equation.
It's apparent that the new 70-300 is quite a bit shorter than any variant of the 70-200 lenses.
After reading many comments on several forums about the lack of a tripod collar (and I admit that this bothered me too), I started to realize that the lens designers fully understand this topic, and do in fact design bodies to be able to withstand the torque/stress from a long and heavy lens.
This does not preclude the possibility that omitting the collar was a marketing decision (many good engineering decisions are over ridden by the marketers). However, if the engineers said that a collar was essential for the 70-300, it's not likely that Canon would take a chance on damage, and would supply a collar - as the longer lenses have).
One final comment - the Nikon mount is considerably smaller in diameter, and when I first saw one, I wondered about it's strength (larger diameter = stronger for all other variables held constant).
1. extended to 300mm it's longer than the 70-200 f/4 IS (and weighs more too)
2. the worry isn't that the lens mount will get torn off or anything, since they can handle quite a lot, but how it works worse on a tripod when the mass isn't centered quite as nicely (maybe it won't be too troublesome anyway, but i'm sure a cheap head would already perform worse and even a fairly good one might sag a trace after final lock down, something that 300mm FOV might amplify too)
