Definately something of a "jack of all trades" kind of lens. One has to consider the weight. Maybe my 3 Kg hope is a bit of a dream, but if the lens is hand-holdable, it is a winner. I can walk around all day with the 300/2.8 and a couple of teleconverters. I don't need a tripod with it for sports situations like, say, mid-Ohio racing.
If that's possible with this lens, I'm comfortable with giving up a stop of light to gain the flexibility of the zoom, and especially a zoom with a switchable teleconverter.
There is so much discussion regarding this lens, anyone who walks into this forum may be misled into thinking it's one of Canon's recent affordable lens releases. Yet, nothing can be further from the truth. I am willing to bet only a small fraction of folks here can afford this lens.
The same logic probably carries over to all that talk about high end cameras, especially how some people are disdainful towards Rebel cameras (small, cheaply built, fits poorly in the hand etc etc) and cameras with articulate screens. Yet, these despised cameras are the ones that are responsible for Canon's market shares and probably most of their profits too.
thw2 wrote:
There is so much discussion regarding this lens, anyone who walks into this forum may be misled into thinking it's one of Canon's recent affordable lens releases. Yet, nothing can be further from the truth. I am willing to bet only a small fraction of folks here can afford this lens.
The same logic probably carries over to all that talk about high end cameras, especially how some people are disdainful towards Rebel cameras (small, cheaply built, fits poorly in the hand etc etc) and cameras with articulate screens. Yet, these despised cameras are the ones that are responsible for Canon's market shares and probably most of their profits too....Show more →
Yes, let's all limit our discussions to kit lenses only.
Canongarcon wrote:
I guess you didn't get the memo of the recent price increases for Canon lenses. The price of this lens probably will go up in the next two years. If it drops, it won't be by much.
Nikon historically has been known to sell their products higher than Canon. Using that as a benchmark I pegged the price as more than $7,000. If you want a ceiling I would peg it at $12,000.
Now, as this type of lens does not sell as many as say 70-200mm IS II (that incidentally got rebated soon after it was released) I was thinking they will knock it down to $6,000+ in 535 days time.
Now, why $7,000? Because the MSRP of the 2010 EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM that will ship by March/April is $7,000 and it was more than the price of Nikkor counterpart.
I am guessing that the price increases of the currently sold lenses were considered when pegging the MSRP of all currently announced products.
Insightful Robert. Thank you for sharing. May I have permission to hot link this image on other forums? If that is not possible, may I have permission to host it myself and reference your website?
About that image, most non-photographers would say that of the four lenses shown, the 50mm would be the one that looks most out of place...but personally, I'm wondering what that damn Nikon thinks it's doing by daring to stand in the company of such fine glass.
This is one very insightful comparison. Another is: I have 3 camera bodies (inclu 2 5Ds), 4 L zooms and 4 non-L primes. Buying this lens would nearly double my equipment investment. All for 1 stop better light performance than my 100-400.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure its a wonderful lens and will way out perform the 100-400 in IQ. For the tripod based nature or sports photographer it will provide an incredibly flexible zoom range. But it will have to earn a lot of money to justify itself.
burningheart wrote:
Given the size of the lens should be similar to the Nikon 200-400, here is a comparison of
500L f4.5
50mm macro
Nikon 200-400
800L F5.6
alundeb wrote:
I believe it is not a servo type of focusing, but when you twist it, you activate a slow transition that continues until you release it (There is a spring load?)
Just for the power video focusing though right not the regular manual focusing?
M Vers wrote:
So like what, 80-90% of Canon DSLR owners? I'd say it has plenty O' merit.
If you shoot wildlife though even 300mm on a 7D is still leaving you frightfully short much of the time so I'm no so sure abotu that. Especially when you consider how high the shutter speeds need to be and how low you need to set the ISO to get all you can out of the sensor, two things that can be nearly impossible to do under many wildlife shooting circumstances.
skibum5 wrote:
If you shoot wildlife though even 300mm on a 7D is still leaving you frightfully short much of the time so I'm no so sure abotu that. Especially when you consider how high the shutter speeds need to be and how low you need to set the ISO to get all you can out of the sensor, two things that can be nearly impossible to do under many wildlife shooting circumstances.
You are missing the point. The 70-300L in combination with high density sensors can make up for having a longer, heavier, less compact lens in a lot of (not all) situations--especially for those looking for a lens/body combo with enough reach and versatility to take backpacking, on zoo trips, to a child's football game etc etc. I'm not saying having longer glass isn't important (for serious wildlife photographers it very much is), but for a lot of people the trade offs may not be worth it. This is why I believe the 70-300L will be successful.
burningheart wrote:
Given the size of the lens should be similar to the Nikon 200-400, here is a comparison of
500L f4.5
50mm macro
Nikon 200-400
800L F5.6
M Vers wrote:
You are missing the point. The 70-300L in combination with high density sensors can make up for having a longer, heavier, less compact lens in a lot of (not all) situations--especially for those looking for a lens/body combo with enough reach and versatility to take backpacking, on zoo trips, to a child's football game etc etc. I'm not saying having longer glass isn't important (for serious wildlife photographers it very much is), but for a lot of people the trade offs may not be worth it. This is why I believe the 70-300L will be successful.
oh, i believe it has it's place and it is solely as a light travel, walk about dont want to lug a super-tele or whatnot about and I think that goes for any body
when you need reach you need reaaaaccccchhhhh and I dont think the 7D makes it so someone getting this would decide they don't need more (assuming they can afford more which is a different matter)
i just don't see the 70-300 even plus a 7D having anything to do with the 100-400 or 200-400 or super-teles at all
the purpose is as much reach as you can get without becoming 70-200 2.8/100-400 or larger sized
Just think when you get YOUR COPY (I know you are saying you won't but we all know different) the BIF and DIF pictures you'll be posting for the rest of us.
I even bet that right now you have one of the prototypes that you are doing the BIF/DIF tests for Canon but can't admit it with the non disclosure contract you signed.
Yet, nothing can be further from the truth. I am willing to bet only a small fraction of folks here can afford this lens.
