EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM price?

[seragram]

<p>Does anybody know the price on this lens?</p>

[railphotog]

<p>Check for yourself on the B&H site: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/</a> A great reference for such questions.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Also can be found new or used on eBay. For actual selling prices in each condition, do a search for "completed listings". Make sure you get the <strong>70</strong>mm to 300mm not the older 7<strong>5</strong>-300mm IS lens</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>I don't think it's available now. Here's B&H:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&A=RetrieveSku&IC=CA70300LIS&Q">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&A=RetrieveSku&IC=CA70300LIS&Q</a>=</p>

<p>And The-Digital-Picture:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Sorry, Mendel is right -- I was assuming that the question referred to the older non-L 70-300mm IS, which is actually a nice lens in its own right. Somehow missed the L in the query.</p>

<p>Must read these things more carefully......</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>It's $1500 (or will be when if finally gets released). That makes it only a hundred dollars or so cheaper than the 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS USM, so at least for a while buyers will be in the typical Canon induced dilemma of "which one to buy".</p>

<p>At $1000 or even $1200, the choice would be much clearer. With the non"L" version being quite good and only $550 again there's a hard choice. Could the "L" version be worth and extra $1000 (or almost 3x the price).</p>

<p>I'm sure the "L" version's price will drop from the initial $1500, but it's still going to be an expensive lens.</p>

<p>The only solution to the inevitable "which one to buy" dilemma will be when Canon release a new version of the 100-400L IS at $2100. That will make the choice MUCH easier.</p>

[seragram]

<p>buyers will be in the typical Canon induced dilemma of "which one to buy".<br>

LOL!<br>

Thanks guys. It looks like it is going to be an attractive lens.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>"At $1000 or even $1200, the choice would be much clearer"<br>

Wow ! that is allot of money to pay for a f4.5/5.6 lens !</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>Wow ! that is allot of money to pay for a f4.5/5.6 lens !</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True enough, but <strong><em>for the top-end focal lengths in question</em></strong>, and with IS on it, these are not exactly "slow" lenses either. There aren't a lot of 300mm f/1.4 lenses out there. :)</p>

[dogbert]

<p>Canon sure has been milking the digital revloution for all it worth, with the prices of their new lenses.<br>

This one is a good example, as a lens aimed at "advanced amatuers" in Canon's words, with a price aimed at hard core junkies.</p>

[ben_pike]

<p>Over in the UK where listed, this lens is currently an amusing £1599 which makes it £500 more than the 100-400 can be obtained for. Certainly not going to pre-order at that price.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<blockquote>

<p>Over in the UK where listed, this lens is currently an amusing £1599 which makes it £500 more than the 100-400 can be obtained for. Certainly not going to pre-order at that price.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My feeling, exactly Ben.<br>

Being much more compact than the 100-400 the 70-300 has huge advantages as travel lens but at that price I will happily go 70-200 f4L IS plus t/c.</p>

[ben_pike]

<p>Just in case any UK Canon reps are reading, I'll buy for £900....</p>

[bobatkins]

<blockquote>

<p>Being much more compact than the 100-400 the 70-300 has huge advantages as travel lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"In the flesh" it's actually not <em>that</em> much smaller, at least when set to minium focal length</p><div></div>

[wang_erwin]

<p ><a name="00XGvv"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1841065">JDM von Weinberg</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Sep 12, 2010; 02:58 p.m.</p>

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Wow ! that is allot of money to pay for a f4.5/5.6 lens !</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>True enough, but <strong><em>for the top-end focal lengths in question</em></strong>, and with IS on it, these are not exactly "slow" lenses either. There aren't a lot of 300mm f/1.4 lenses out there. :)</p>

<p> </p>

 

<p>well,IS dont means faster shutter speed in low light ；）</p>

[dogbert]

<p>Interesting photo. It looks like one fat, heavy sucker. Guess, I'll stick to my 70-300 DO for the time being. If Canon brings the lens down to about $1000 I'll think about it.<br>

I am also keenly waiting on the first reports of the new Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6 VC USM lens, which on paper at least looks as good as the non L Canon 70-300 IS, but has USM as well.</p>

 

[mike_hitchen]

<p>An interesting comparison, Bob - thanks for posting it.</p>

<p>I agree that the 5.6 is a reasonable aperture at the top end - any idea of what the aperture is at 200mm? All I seem to find is opinion based on biased preconceptions.</p>

[massimo_foti]

<p>Here you can find some additional info, including max aperture at different focal length:<br>

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>