8 new Canon lenses!

With so many people saying that after seeing the 60D, they are more likely to splash out for the more expensive 7D, it seems canon are not all that daft. ;)
 
existent said:
Finally someone is actually comparing the new prices with the old ones... All of these lenses will be much more affordable in 6 months when the initial hype is gone and the prices go down..

Now, regarding 70-300.. I would say it is a nice addition. Within this range, only lenses without any drawbacks are the 70-200Ls and they cost a lot (other than 70-200F4 non-IS).

55-250 is cheap but very bad build quality

old 70-300 has a better built but not a proper USM and IQ suffers beyond 200mm..

so if the price of the new 70-300mm falls somewhere between IS and non-IS 70-200mm F4, then it would be great buy (depending on the IQ of course).
Click to expand...


You saw the RRP right ? £1599 street price after 6 months might hit a grand ?
 
malla1962 said:
Not sure I totally agree here, depends on what you call huge? and why would it not perform as good being f4?
Click to expand...

It would be quite a bit bigger and heavier than the 70-200L 2.8 - that's just physics, as the glass area would have to double. So on that basis, using the 70-200L 2.8 as a guide, at least 50% heavier.

And it would not perform as well because making faster lenses perform well is very difficult. So either it would not be as good, or it would need even more glass in it, or something super-special like fluorite which would shoot the price up.

You have to compromise. I'm sure Canon would love to make it f/4 throughout, or f/2.8 would be even better, and then run it out to 400mm. You might not like where Canon have drawn the line, but they will have drawn it there after considerating absolutely every option, and pushing their technology to the max on every aspect. The price is surely high enough as it is.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
It would be quite a bit bigger and heavier than the 70-200L 2.8 - that's just physics, as the glass area would have to double. So on that basis, using the 70-200L 2.8 as a guide, at least 50% heavier.

And it would not perform as well because making faster lenses perform well is very difficult. So either it would not be as good, or it would need even more glass in it, or something super-special like fluorite which would shoot the price up.

You have to compromise. I'm sure Canon would love to make it f/4 throughout, or f/2.8 would be even better, and then run it out to 400mm. You might not like where Canon have drawn the line, but they will have drawn it there after considerating absolutely every option, and pushing their technology to the max on every aspect. The price is surely high enough as it is.
Click to expand...
But the 100-300f4 sigma is lighter than the canon 70-200f2.8Lis and very sharp, but there again canon must have a market for it and im sure it will sell well, great for traveling light I guess,
 
malla1962 said:
But the 100-300f4 sigma is lighter than the canon 70-200f2.8Lis and very sharp, but there again canon must have a market for it and im sure it will sell well, great for traveling light I guess,
Click to expand...

It's a huge thing! Long, heavy, expensive, doesn't have IS and I'll bet nowhere near as good optically as this new Canon will be.

It's unfair to compare them really, but if that particular blend of optical package was really the one folks want, why are Sigma not selling tons of them? It's even disappeared from the Sigma UK website listing (no idea why).
 
mipevo6 said:
You saw the RRP right ? £1599 street price after 6 months might hit a grand ?
Click to expand...

I could think of numerous ways to spend £1k better IMHO

Lets consider 2nd hand 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM mk1
Canon 300mm f/4 L IS
Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS + 1.4x + 2x, etc.
 
The fisheye.......

Full frame - pure whacky I would guess !

A more traditional 'fisheye' view on a crop but something (not ure if this is normal) I thought was a good feature....

A zoom-lock mechanism on the lens body allows the range to be limited to the focal length - ‘C’ and ‘H’ markings can be found next to the zoom operation ring, indicating the wide-angle zoom position where vignette-free shooting is possible with either sensor
 
dinners said:
The fisheye.......

Full frame - pure whacky I would guess !

A more traditional 'fisheye' view on a crop but something (not ure if this is normal) I thought was a good feature....

A zoom-lock mechanism on the lens body allows the range to be limited to the focal length - ‘C’ and ‘H’ markings can be found next to the zoom operation ring, indicating the wide-angle zoom position where vignette-free shooting is possible with either sensor
Click to expand...

If I wanted a fisheye, that's surely the one I'd get. But I don't want a fisheye, certainly not at that price. And I'm pretty sure most folks feel the same.

Of all the new lenses Canon could have made, that's surely got to be last on the flippin list :(
 
HoppyUK said:
I think that unless you fancy the extenders option, the current lenses are pretty damn good, and cheaper. But for pros looking to ease their load of maybe a 300/2.8 and a 600/4, if you can maybe cover that with just one lens and an extender, you're laughing* all the way to the bank.

*until the new 500 and 600s appear :lol:
Click to expand...

Richard

I think the main thing I am interested in will be the weight saving, the 70-200 mk11 image quality improvement I think proves Canon are working in the right direction as most people seemed to think that the lens was one of their best anyway. Any idea how they make weight savings in these type of lenses ?
Surely not changing anything to plastic I hope !

C
 
Titanium, lighter alloys, new optical glass formulas, maybe even thinner elements (higher refraction glass), etc.

The 28% weight saving on the 400/2.8 can't have been cheap to implement. Now I want one even more and have even less chance of getting it :lol:
 
Was pondering on the 70-300 'odd-ball' and just wondered if Canon might be working on a FF rangefinder type body..., would seem like a rather nice travel combo... I can but dream...
 
I am most interested to see the weight of the 500 f4. The current model is 3.8kg. If they shaved 28% off the 400 2.8, I wonder what this will do to thr 500f4. That would place it at about 3kg, only very slightly more than the current 300 2.8. The quality of the current crop of mk1 300s, 400s etc speaks for itself. The new ones might be better, but will the really make your photos that much better than the ones the current lenses deliver? I doubt it. What I might pay good money for is for less to carry around though. That would be awesome.
 
ooooh, the thing I'm MOST excited about with the 400 is the user-moveable AF stop buttons.

Not excited enough to buy it...but thats not a bad move!
 
pearce_jj said:
Was pondering on the 70-300 'odd-ball' and just wondered if Canon might be working on a FF rangefinder type body..., would seem like a rather nice travel combo... I can but dream...
Click to expand...

Not really, unlike Nikon who focused on DX lenses for a long time, Canon didn't really. The old 70-300IS was full frame (as are all EF lenses).

If anyone is about to release a prosumer FX body, its Nikon...
 
HoppyUK said:
It's a huge thing! Long, heavy, expensive, doesn't have IS and I'll bet nowhere near as good optically as this new Canon will be.

It's unfair to compare them really, but if that particular blend of optical package was really the one folks want, why are Sigma not selling tons of them? It's even disappeared from the Sigma UK website listing (no idea why).
Click to expand...

They'll be replacing it because I bought it last week.

And it is pretty great, it has to be said. Obviously IS would be nice, but I don't think it was invented, or at least in use, when the lens first came out (2001) which would have made it a bit tricksy. And the constant f4 is...nice. It's good to have it there, but I don't think I'd miss it - it was the sharpness for the price that sold the lens to me.
 
Rusk said:
I wish there was a new 100-400. Everytime I think about buying it I stop when I remember how old it is...
Click to expand...

The friction bearings have gone on mine.

So my plan, is to save up and buy a used 70-200 f2.8, get the 100-400mm repaired and serviced, sell that, then buy a 300 f4.

I have had some great shots from my 100-400, but I have decided I no longer want it.
 
RevOnline said:
They'll be replacing it because I bought it last week.

And it is pretty great, it has to be said. Obviously IS would be nice, but I don't think it was invented, or at least in use, when the lens first came out (2001) which would have made it a bit tricksy. And the constant f4 is...nice. It's good to have it there, but I don't think I'd miss it - it was the sharpness for the price that sold the lens to me.
Click to expand...

IS has been around since before 2001.
 
combat squirrel said:
Ill hold out until the 100-400 replacement I think :), im hoping sigma will come out with a 100-400, (or similar) f4 with OS, id have there 100-300 now if it was OS.
Click to expand...

I reckon so, once they've got hold of the Canon 70-300L they can rip it apart and reverse-engineer a 100-400 with OS.

When I had a siggy 70-200 I went to Welwyn to see Sigma's repair centre and that's exactly what they told me they do. Kind of like we did to Messerschmidt's during WW2...rip them apart and figure out how they did it.
 
jamesb84 said:
I reckon so, once they've got hold of the Canon 70-300L they can rip it apart and reverse-engineer a 100-400 with OS.

When I had a siggy 70-200 I went to Welwyn to see Sigma's repair centre and that's exactly what they told me they do. Kind of like we did to Messerschmidt's during WW2...rip them apart and figure out how they did it.
Click to expand...

That might be how they reverse engineer flash guns and the like, but not lenses.

There are no optical secrets left anymore and Sigma could make any lens* they liked just as well as Canon does. The problem is that it would not be any cheaper and nobody would buy it in preference to the branded product. Some lenses that Sigma makes are actually better than the manufacturers' own, such as the 50mm f/1.4, but that is also more expensive than the Canikon versions.

Which is why Sigma makes 'different' lenses that are either not in the manufacturer's line up, or are cheaper, or both.

* With the possible exception of fluorite crystal which is a Canon exclusive I think - wonderful stuff but very expensive. It is 'grown' in a special factory and is mildly radioactive (a problem for factory workers, not users) and degrades in the atmosphere so has to sit in a hermetically sealed unit. If you see fluorite in the lens spec, it is going to be damn good, and also top price (eg new 70-200L 2.8 Mk2, 300L 2.8, 400L 2.8 and the longer primes).

malla1962 said:
IS has been around since 1995 I think.
Click to expand...

1997, Canon 300L 4 IS. I think.
 
Amp34 said:
Nope, 1995 actually, at least on Canon lenses. ;)

(The 75-300 IS)
Click to expand...

Google isn't playing fair :D

Edit: actually, I have half an idea I read somewhere than Panasonic or somebody was first with a video camera :thinking: Gonna have to google that now!
 
Last edited:
Have you seen the WEX page on the 400mm f/2.8?

£11,499 - and they recommend a 52mm Hoya pro 1 digital filter to go with it..... [now, I don't know about you, but if I'd splurged £11499 on the best MTF's ever, would you drop in a UV filter, no matter how good?]
 
Last edited:
There are a few bits of info on here about the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM and the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM and new extenders,EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM and the EF 8–15mm f/4L USM fisheye that are worth a read.
 
HoppyUK said:
* With the possible exception of fluorite crystal which is a Canon exclusive I think - wonderful stuff but very expensive. It is 'grown' in a special factory and is mildly radioactive (a problem for factory workers, not users) and degrades in the atmosphere so has to sit in a hermetically sealed unit. If you see fluorite in the lens spec, it is going to be damn good, and also top price (eg new 70-200L 2.8 Mk2, 300L 2.8, 400L 2.8 and the longer primes).
Click to expand...

That'll be why I got a funny look for licking those lenses in Jessops the other day then.
 
Just confirmed that the 70-300 does indeed extend when zoomed to 300mm. It grows by about 35% - about 2in - as you would expect.
 
danbroad said:
Have you seen the WEX page on the 400mm f/2.8?

£11,499 - and they recommend a 52mm Hoya pro 1 digital filter to go with it..... [now, I don't know about you, but if I'd splurged £11499 on the best MTF's ever, would you drop in a UV filter, no matter how good?]
Click to expand...

I think you will find all Canon tele's already have a Canon 52mm. UV filter in them . at least mine have except when I occasionally replace it with a Pol. filter.

C
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Just confirmed that the 70-300 does indeed extend when zoomed to 300mm. It grows by about 35% - about 2in - as you would expect.
Click to expand...

Which just makes me wonder even more why anyone would choose this over a 70-200 f/4 IS & 1.4x
 
It must be because the new 70-300 is just as good as the 70-200/4L IS up to 200 (including being f/4), and better than the old 70-300 beyond that ;)

I wish...
 
Ceejay said:
I think you will find all Canon tele's already have a Canon 52mm. UV filter in them . at least mine have except when I occasionally replace it with a Pol. filter.
Click to expand...

Yes and I read somewhere that the filter is part of the optical magic in the lens, so it should never be left out, just replaced with an appropriate "effect" filter as needed.

Not that I think my Canon UV filters are very good :gag:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top