bv photography Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 I just checked Amazon.com @ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/- /B0001G6U3Y/qid=1082566124/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/103-9036020-9934255? v=glance&s=photo and the price of above lens is set at US$ 1,299.95 with availabilty as: "This item will be released on May 1, 2004. You may order it now and we will ship it to you when it arrives.". Here in Canada, few Toronto dealers are also accepting pre-orders at Can$1,790-1,890, but no words on availability dates yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbq Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 That puts it just about half-way in price between the 70-200/2.8 non-IS and the 100-400 IS, and out of the price range of most mortals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 That may be an optimistic shipping data. Canon reps have said they probably don't expect to see them before June. <p> The shipping on the 28-300L has been similarly delayed. <p> I actually spoke with Canon last week but they couldn't give me any firm date on availability. <p> The advantage of a pre-order is that when they finally get around to shipping them, you'll be ahead of the line, but it is frustrating to see shipping dates keep slipping. <p> I do have a <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/28-300-70-300.html#do">brief writeup on the lens on my website</a> for those who don't have the technical specs. <p> It's an interesting lens and an alternative to the 100-400IS for those who don't want a large white lens (the DO is black and much smaller, in fact it's smaller than current 75-300 consumer lenses. It's about the size of the current 28-135IS). The price is very similar to the 100-400L IS ($1300). Performance remains to be seen but Canon claim "<em>substantially superior image quality and chromatic aberration correction compared to previous conventional 75-300mm designs"</em>. I do have a request in with Canon for a lens to review here on photo.net, but somewhow I doubt that will happen anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doreen_miller Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Does anyone expect this lens to be any less expensive at B&H or is $1300 pretty much the going price? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maureen_m Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 <i>"substantially superior image quality and chromatic aberration correction compared to previous conventional 75-300mm designs"</i><p>For $1300, it darned well better be superior to a $400 lens! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 It's going to be $1300 wherever you buy it for quite a while. Just like the prive on a 10D is $1499 and the price on a 300D is $899. You might get $50 off somewhere, but prices stay high on high demand/high end items, especially ones they don't sell many of. I guess if people will pay $1300 for a 100-400IS, then they'll probably pay $1300 for a smaller, lighter 70-300DO IS if it lives up to Canon's claims. That's something we're just going to have to wait to find out. I intend to keep on requesting a review loaner from Canon, but like I said it's quite unlikely that one will be available (to photo.net) anytime before they actually start shipping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markci Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 <i>That puts it just about half-way in price between the 70-200/2.8 non-IS and the 100-400 IS</i> <p> Actually that puts it just about exactly at the price of the 100-400, which is 1339.95 after rebate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markci Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 ...at least at B&H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 . . . and it is pretty clear which lens I would rather have. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron c sunshine coast,qld,a Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Interesting choice between those two.I would go for the shorter one *IF* it is very sharp.I find 300mm is enough with digital <BR>This is all theory of course as i can't afford either yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 I dunno...f/4.5-5.6 is a little too slow for my taste. Had it been f/3.5 fixed I'd consider it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now