Canon 70-300L price and rebates?

[mferring]

Hello! I was wondering whether you have any sense as to whether the 70-300L price will start to come down any time soon and/or when do you think that the next Canon Rebate will become available and the likelihood of the new 70-300L being on the list!

Thanks for any thoughts.

Mark

[Bob Atkins]

As far as I know the 70-300L has only just hit the stores (and not all the stores). The price is likely to be within a few dollars of $1599 for a while as the "early adopters" buy in.

I have no idea what Canon may include in their Spring rebate program, assuming that there is in fact a spring rebate program this year. The timing makes a difference. The later the program is announced, the greater the chance of a rebate.

See: EF 70-300L at Amazon

See: EF 70-300L at Adorama

[mferring]

Thanks much. Appreciate the comments.

[emanresu]

Hi Bob,

Is it worth it to upgrade from the 70-300 IS USM to this new L lens?  I find the non-L a bit soft on the far end.  Not sure how sharp this new L is compared to the non-L, its physical size is much smaller than the non-L, yet but it costs twice as much.  waiting for your review...

[Bob Atkins]

I don't know if the Canon EF 70-300/4-5.6L IS USM worth it since I haven't had a chance to test one yet. It's on the list, but it all depends when Canon have one available for loan.

Even with a review it's not going to be easy to say if it's "worth it" or not. I have absolutely no doubt at all that it will be better constructed and nicer to use than the Canon EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM. I have absolutely no doubt that it will also show higher image quality as well, but whether it would be worth upgrading depends on what you need and how much spare money you have!

It's actually almost three times the price of the non-L version. I guess it all depends how much you need a fairly small telephoto zoom. If you just want better 300mm performance, the Canon EF 300mm f4L IS USM is excellent and is faster and cheaper than the 70-300L zoom. Plus you can use a multiplier on the 300mm prime. The EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS USM is another option which gives you a little more reach.

So the new 70-300L IS is probably going to be a tough call. I'm sure it will turn out to be a great little lens, but whether it's best buy will depend a lot on the photographer's needs.

[emanresu]

Hi Bob,

I googled a little and found some sample MTF charts from

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=358&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=3

I must say the image quality of the L lens is far superior.  But you are absolutely right that it all depends on whether I need it or not.  It costs 3x (i have been having a streak of bad math lately... not sure why I said costs twice as much earlier...), and is actually bigger than the non-L (the L lens is of the same length, but fatter than the non-L, so I first thought it was smaller until I saw a picture with the two lenses side by side). 

[Bob Atkins]

You have to be careful with MTF charts. First the Canon plots are theoretical, not measured. Should be close but you never really know. Second how does MTF translate to image quality? It's not a direct, linear correlation because the sensor doesn't have infinite resolution and the image quality is a convolution of the sensor MTF and the lens MTF.

So just because MTF is better, doesn't necessarily mean that an 8x10 print will look better. They might look pretty similar. The bigger the print the more likely it is you'll see a difference.

So you have to factor in the camera sensor and the print size before you can really judge how much difference an improved MTF might make.

Of course if you are pixel peeping on a monitor, I'm sure you'll find a difference!

[whizkid]

Pop Photo's opinion of the 70-300L was not so enthusiastic about the sample they tested.  The non-L version did about as well and at 300 mm even outscored the new "L" version. Their advice...if you don't need the build quality go with the 70-300 non-L.

[Bob Atkins]

I'd be cautious about basing decisions on a single sample reviewed by a single reviewer. Pop Photo have gotten things wrong in the past. I'd be very surprised indeed if the "L" lens didn't turn out to be better than the non-L version, especially at 300mm and especially in regions away from the center of the frame. Time will tell though!

[whizkid]

I agree with not relying on one test sample. If one can find two or more such tests that form the same opinion then I would be cautious.  In my post I did mention "the sample they tested". I'm sure Pop Photo does get things wrong on occassion but that I would say is true of any testing site.  I do believe the Pop Photo sample should have raised their eyebrowss before publishing an opinion as they did. They also said the non-L lens could focus a little closer.

[Bob Atkins]

I think the original Pop Photog test of the 400/5.6L made it look pretty poor. That's another one they got wrong.

In their position, where presumably they get first crack at any new lens and have a lot of influence with the manufactures, I'd have asked for another sample and presumably got one. If a lens performs about as well as you'd expect then it's OK to go with a single sample result (though more samples is always better). However if a lens significantly underperforms expectations then it would be reasonable to try a second sample (or even a third), or send it back to be checked out by Canon To be fair you'd need to state that in the test, but it's not responsible to publish a test on a defective lens without doing some checking.

I suppose the same applies to a lens that tests much better than expected but that is a very rare event. Given any lens design there are a dozen ways you can assemble it wrong or use a defective element and make it worse, but 99.999% of the time there's really nothing you can accidentally do that can make it better than the original design.

So far, looking at user reports, I haven't seen one that was critical of the Canon EF 70-300/4-5.6L IS USM  . The only gripe I see is that the price is high and you have to fork out even more money if you want the tripod foot. Optically it seems to receive almost universal praise (as it should for $1500+).

[whizkid]

Bob

Just saw a second review of the 70-300L. This one at Photozone. The sample they tested did very well and noteworthy was  rather good 300mm performance. Reversal of Pop Photo. They tested using a 5D Mk2. I know I know ... you can't trust lens reviews :-)

[emanresu]

Hi Bob,

I must have gotten the terms mixed up here after seeing you saying that MTF charts are theoretical.  Is there an alternative name for the ISO 12233 charts?  Because the link I provided above is not for the theoretical curve plots (just realized these are actually MTF charts), but rather it is the sample image comparison using the two different lenses.  The site calls them the ISO 12233 chart, but it is the first time I heard the term.

Also just read your article on MTF vs SQF.  The USAF 1951 is similar to the ISO 12233.

[Bob Atkins]

Canon publishes the theoretical MTF plots.

The ISO 12233 charts are just charts. Pictures of them are useful for comparing lenses, just like shots of any resolution charts are, but they don't give MTF numbers. You might be able to derive MTF numbers from them with enough analysis and math, but that's not generally done.

USAF 1951 is just a different resolution chart. Again they don't provide MTF information, they can be used to provide resolution information, but resolution isn't MTF. It's related, but it's not the same thing as the article you cite hopefully points out!

[KeithB]

Just for the record, here:

http://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-300mm-is-l.htm

is Ken Rockwell's take on the 70-300L.  His comments:  There is some distortion at the zoom extremes and some color fringing.  But still a great, super sharp lens.