New Canon lenses

[dogbert]

<p>Canon have announced a new 70-300 mm f4-5.6 L IS USM zoom, which looks interesting.<br>

They have also announced an 8-15 mm f4 fisheye L zoom that goes from circular to rectangular to replace the old 15 mm f2.8 fisheye and bunch of updated mark II super telephotos.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10082617canon70mm300mm.asp#press">http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10082617canon70mm300mm.asp#press</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10082616canon8mm15mm.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10082616canon8mm15mm.asp</a></p>

[colin carron]

<p>Great stuff! the 70-300L looks exactly what I wanted to upgrade from the non-L Canon 70-300 4-5.6 IS. It is small too (143mm long - same as the non-L) though seems to be pretty heavy. Just need to see the tests to confirm it is better image quality than the non-L and see what the price is. Then be patient and wait for the initial 'must have' price to drop.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>At $1500 the 70-300L is pretty close to the $1600 that the 100-400L sells for these days. Might have to wait a while for the price to drop to something more reasonable. At $1000 it would be very tempting, but unfortunately it's not likely it will ever sell for anything near that.</p>

<p>The non-L version is so popular because it optically pretty decent and sells for not much over $500.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>Yes the price of the 70-300 f4-5.6 L IS USM is very dissappointing.<br>

I wonder who this lens is aimed at? To me it seems like it is aimed at the well heeled, amatuer travel photography market, but I think the price, weight, L build and white paint are overkill. <br>

Tamron have announced a 70-300 f4-5.6 VC USM lens, which has some exotic glass and on paper at least looks the goods. The Tamron will be less than $600 I think.</p>

 

[massimo_foti]

<p>I was planning to replace my 70-300 later this year, with something at least a bit faster, with USM and better IQ. So far I was considering a 70-200L f/4 IS plus a 1.4 extender. Now I am not sure anymore... The new L model is compact, but heavy, pretty expensive and barely faster than what I have now.</p>

[joshloeser]

<p>The 70-300L price is ludicrous. The Nikon 70-300 VR is an excellent lens, and is about $500 used (not all that much more new). The difference between the two can easily fund a T2i or D90, depending on your preference. </p>

<p>Is the Nikon version built like an L lens? Of course not, but no one I know of is using their lenses as baseball bats on the side. It's also not built out of recycled paper either. It's as solid as it needs to be.</p>

<p>$1,500? Crazy. </p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>I can understand that Canon feel it is time to refresh the Big White Lenses, and introduce the new Extenders alongside them (I hope the Extenders are still compatible with current Extender-enabled lenses).</p>

<p>I am sure that the fisheye zoom will fill its very specialist slot admirably.</p>

<p>The new 70~300 is probably a nice lens, although incredibly heavy for its specification. Perhaps the 70~300 DO will quietly disappear now. Incidentally, we now know why the 100/2.8L tripod ring is designated D. The new 70~300 uses C. How many slightly different tripod rings do Canon need, for goodness' sake?</p>

<p>But if this is all we are going to get for the next six months, it represents a further postponement of upgrades that many users have been calling for over some years. My own top priority is a new version of the 100~400 with significantly improved performance in the 300mm to 400mm range, latest-generation IS, and a bit of enmvironmental sealing. This isn't a fantasy upgrade, nor yet the replacement of the 100~400 with, say, a 200~400/4 as made by Nikon, which would be a completely different lens. I know many other users share that upgrade priority, but there are plenty of other candidates, ranging from those legacy Arc Form Drive primes from the 1980s to respectable lenses in need of a refresh like the 300/4L IS (better optics, new IS) and the 400/5.6L (still without IS!).</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>The 70-300mm seems interesting. It competes with the 70-200f4IS + and - 1.4X extender. From my perspective a lot will depend on the performance. If it is better at 300mm and almost as good from 70-200mm then it could replace that combo. I suspect though it will not be f4 at 200mm so one would take a speed hit with the new lens. I think it is an interesting new option myself.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>The 100-400mm may not be a priority upgrade simply because it is so popular as it is. I agree about the 400mm f5.6, adding IS to that would be a boon. All those other new super-teles are great but too rich for me anyway and I'm not in that market. I suspect the new extenders are redesigned simply to match these new lenses and probably do nothing extra compared to the II versions for the current/old crop of lenses.</p>

[dmanthree]

<p>I won't be buying one, but check the MTF chart on the new 400:<br>

<a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_400mm_f_2_8_is_ii_usm">http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_400mm_f_2_8_is_ii_usm</a><br>

The first two are with converters, the last one is "naked." Yoiks...</p>

[pavan_nagaraj1]

<p>Have any of you taken a look at Canon USA's EF lens line up page?<br>

<a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup">http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup</a><br>

The old (non-L) 70-300 4-5.6 IS USM is no longer listed there. Looks like that lens is now discontinued?<br>

What is strange is that <a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_70_300mm_f_4_5_5_6_do_is_usm">EF 70-300mm DO</a> and the older EF 75-300 lenses are still listed there.<br>

Does canon expect users to shell out the $1500 OR be content with the vastly inferior 75-300 lens (or limit one's reach to EF-S 55-250)<br>

What are the implications of the ~$550 lens being discontinued? Will there be a price run on the few EF 70-300 IS USMs left on stock with retailers?<br>

I have been saving up to buy a telephoto and the EF 70-300 IS USM was one of the lenses I was considering. Do you think the price will go up or down after this new announcement and the apparent discontinuance of the non-L EF 70-300 IS USM?<br>

Please let me know what you think...</p>

[daniel flather]

<p>Any guesses on the pricing of that sweet new 8-15mm fisheye? I'll peg it at $1899.</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>I want a 500 f5.6 or 400 f4 non-is, non-do, for about $2500-3000</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>where's the 24-70mm f/2.8L IS?</p>

[jeff_bubis]

<p>Couldn't agree more, Nathan. That is probably the most popular zoom and the one that most needs an update IMHO. Maybe it will come with the 5DMIII.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I agree, Nathan. I had a hard time choosing between the 24-70 and the 24-105. I'd have bought the 24-70 if it had IS (which is very important to me). I considered my choice a compromise either way -- softer, slower lens with IS, or faster, sharper lens without. I figured the 24-105 was the better choice for a hand-held shooter, but a 24-70IS would have probably closed the gap for me.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Canon screw up their web pages all the time. The observation that a lens is "missing" from a list shouldn't be taken as evidence a lens has been discontinued unless that's confirmed by other sources.</p>

<p>I'd be quite surprised if the 70-300 IS (non-L) was dropped, but I guess anything is <em>possible</em></p>

<p>It's still there on the Canon website at http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_is_usm</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Thanks, Bob! I'm a bit less in shock now. I hope to see the non-L 70-300 completely reappear. I think the surprise factor (because it's such a popular and needed lens) is what was giving me palpitations.</p>

[pavan_nagaraj1]

<p>Thanks for that info Bob. I'll hold off on making a shotgun purchase and buy it when I am good and ready.</p>

[electron]

<p>I'll second Bob's observation. The EF lens chart available as a PDF from the Canon site has at least a couple of missing current lenses (the 17-55 f/2.8, the 24-105 f/4, and perhaps others).</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>How is the weight reduction on the 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 possible while not making the lenses substantially simpler optically? Nikon 300/2.8 is 2.9kg and the new Canon is 2.4kg. Big differences in the 400's also.</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>I don't know but the performance of the new Canon 400 2.8 looks astonishing, or should I say even more astonishing than it already is</p>

[dan_south]

How can you say that the 70-300 price is disappointing without seeing test results? If it's a decent but not exemplary

performer like the Nikon, okay, start complaining. But if it is the optical equal of the new 70-200 f/2.8, the price is more

than fair. That would be an amazing travel lens.

[yakim_peled1]

 

<p >I'm extremely impressed with the new 8-15 and the huge weight reduction in the 400/2.8 IS II but I'm really disappointed about the “missing” 24-70/2.8 IS and 50/1.4 II (ring USM and ID design like the 85/1.8). 28/1.8 II (improved optics) would also be welcomed AFAIAC. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >70-300 L? Well, I can't see the advantage it has over the 70-200/4 IS + 1.4X TC which is lighter and cheaper. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Prices? Nothing's new. It's the recent trend in Canon. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Happy shooting,</p>

<p >Yakim. </p>

<p > </p>

[jim_larson1]

<p>Question: Is the new 70-300/L compatible with the 1.4TC?<br>

If so: I am buying. If not. . . .meh.</p>