What the Hell is wrong with Canon?

SVan · May 5, 2003

I am in the market for a telephoto zoom. I already have the 28-135 IS which I am very happy with. So now where do I go. I do not want to spend $18,000 on a 50 pound 70-200 2.8L IS. So my logical choices seem to be:

75-300 IS- many people seem to dislike this lens, because of the type of focusing system it has, and the fact that it is "junky". If Canon is going to put hi-tech IS in the lens, why not put the more hi-tech focusing system into the lens also?

70-200 F4 L - everyone seems to love this lens, but why would Canon build such a nice lens, and then not put IS into this lens? They put IS into a lens that only goes to 135mm (28-135), but not into the better quality lens which goes up to 200mm. Does this make sense to anyone?

I also like the fact that the 75-300 does go to 300 rather than only 200, which sways me more toward this lens. I know I can add a 1.4 TC to the 70-200, but then I have 200mm x 1.6 multiplier x 1.4 TC = 448 mm hand held (how I choose to mainly shoot) which I think will not work without IS

Then I throw into the mix the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 lens. I like the 2.8, but not the weight (1270 grams) before adding a 1.4 TC again giving 448mm hand held with no IS.

Without a TC, the 200 mm max Canon (70-200L F4) and Sigma (70-200 F2.8) do not give me that much more reach than the 28-135IS I have now, so seem to be pointed back to the "junky", poor focusing 75-300IS.

A. What the hell is wrong with Canon?

B. Please give me your thoughts on my choices, or any other choices you might have.

Thanks.

SVan

Diane B · May 5, 2003

SVan wrote:
?

SVan said:
70-200 F4 L - everyone seems to love this lens, but why would Canon
build such a nice lens, and then not put IS into this lens? They
put IS into a lens that only goes to 135mm (28-135), but not into
the better quality lens which goes up to 200mm. Does this make
sense to anyone?

It doesn't NEED IS--its a relatively light lens, very easy to hold and shoot with--that's why many of us love it.
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries
B/W lover, but color is seducing me

Icypeak · May 5, 2003

The Sigma 100-300 f4 is a very good lens (ratings), and probably what I'll be getting. I have the cheaper SIgma APO 70-300 now, and feel fairly good at hand-holding shots at 300mm, often by increasing ISO to 400 and shooting at 1/1000 or higher. You could do that with the f4 at ISO 200 on a moderately overcast day.

SVan said:
I am in the market for a telephoto zoom. I already have the 28-135
IS which I am very happy with. So now where do I go. I do not
want to spend $18,000 on a 50 pound 70-200 2.8L IS. So my logical
choices seem to be:

75-300 IS- many people seem to dislike this lens, because of the
type of focusing system it has, and the fact that it is "junky". If
Canon is going to put hi-tech IS in the lens, why not put the more
hi-tech focusing system into the lens also?

70-200 F4 L - everyone seems to love this lens, but why would Canon
build such a nice lens, and then not put IS into this lens? They
put IS into a lens that only goes to 135mm (28-135), but not into
the better quality lens which goes up to 200mm. Does this make
sense to anyone?

I also like the fact that the 75-300 does go to 300 rather than
only 200, which sways me more toward this lens. I know I can add a
1.4 TC to the 70-200, but then I have 200mm x 1.6 multiplier x 1.4
TC = 448 mm hand held (how I choose to mainly shoot) which I think
will not work without IS

Then I throw into the mix the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 lens. I like the
2.8, but not the weight (1270 grams) before adding a 1.4 TC again
giving 448mm hand held with no IS.

Without a TC, the 200 mm max Canon (70-200L F4) and Sigma (70-200
F2.8) do not give me that much more reach than the 28-135IS I have
now, so seem to be pointed back to the "junky", poor focusing
75-300IS.

A. What the hell is wrong with Canon?

B. Please give me your thoughts on my choices, or any other choices
you might have.

Thanks.

SVan

--
David

http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/home?userid= {F351C88E-FEF7-4892-9F30-9FD2DDD1593C}&tio=0tio=0&st=he&GUID={0AB0EAE9-1AF7-41AE-966B-588570432D96}&sent=stored

RayAmos · May 5, 2003

SVan said:
I am in the market for a telephoto zoom. I already have the 28-135
IS which I am very happy with. So now where do I go. I do not
want to spend $18,000 on a 50 pound 70-200 2.8L IS.

SVan,

I have a 70-200 2.8L IS lens that is like new that only weighs 2 pounds that I will sell you for $2,000. That will save your $16,000. E-mail me privately and we can complete the transaction.

Ray Amos
--

Canon EOS digital & film cameras and lenses from 17-500mm. Patiently awaiting my new 24-105 f/2.8 IS lens.

Rich007 · May 5, 2003

SVan said:
A. What the hell is wrong with Canon?

I would rephrase. The correct question to ask is: What the hell is wrong with Nikon?

)))

SVan said:
B. Please give me your thoughts on my choices, or any other choices
you might have.

IS on 70-200 f/4L would make it probably bigger. I like the lens. No problems even when shooting handheld, just make sure you're using a decently short time when shooting w/o tripod (I'm trying to stick to my not very scientific rule (=1/(focal length*1.6; that's on the 10D) or bump ISO.

For most of my amateur photography this lens is fine. If you don't need 2.8, you should be fine. If you have the money go ahead, get the 2.8 IS version.

SVan said:
Thanks.

SVan

--
Regards,

Rich
http://www.pbase.com/rich007

For my Equipment, check Profile

Ty Doram · May 5, 2003

SVan said:
I am in the market for a telephoto zoom. I already have the 28-135
IS which I am very happy with. So now where do I go. I do not
want to spend $18,000 on a 50 pound 70-200 2.8L IS. So my logical
choices seem to be:

$18,000?

SVan said:
75-300 IS- many people seem to dislike this lens, because of the
type of focusing system it has, and the fact that it is "junky". If
Canon is going to put hi-tech IS in the lens, why not put the more
hi-tech focusing system into the lens also?

I tend to agree. But that would have put it out of the price range that Canon was looking for.

SVan said:
70-200 F4 L - everyone seems to love this lens, but why would Canon
build such a nice lens, and then not put IS into this lens? They
put IS into a lens that only goes to 135mm (28-135), but not into
the better quality lens which goes up to 200mm. Does this make
sense to anyone?

Again the price thing, they probably also figure that if you can afford the extra cash for IS you are going to buy the 2.8 anyway. Also give the difference in size and number of elements in the lens integrating IS would be proportionally more expensive that the 28-135. Just look at the difference in price between the 2.8 IS and the 2.8 non-IS.

SVan said:
I also like the fact that the 75-300 does go to 300 rather than
only 200, which sways me more toward this lens. I know I can add a
1.4 TC to the 70-200, but then I have 200mm x 1.6 multiplier x 1.4
TC = 448 mm hand held (how I choose to mainly shoot) which I think
will not work without IS

I got lost, what doesn't work without IS?

SVan said:
Then I throw into the mix the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 lens. I like the
2.8, but not the weight (1270 grams) before adding a 1.4 TC again
giving 448mm hand held with no IS.

OK, I get it, 448mm without IS. Forgive me I haven't had my coffee yet. Yeah, If weight is big issue don't buy this lens. Plus the autofocus is nowhere near the Canon versions speed, smoothness or silence.

SVan said:
Without a TC, the 200 mm max Canon (70-200L F4) and Sigma (70-200
F2.8) do not give me that much more reach than the 28-135IS I have
now, so seem to be pointed back to the "junky", poor focusing
75-300IS.

It kinda boils down to if you want the technology you have to pay for it.

SVan said:
A. What the hell is wrong with Canon?

Canon is the market leader. It's kinda tough to for me to criticize their lineup. You always have the choice of going to Nikon, but I think that you will have the same dillemas there.

SVan said:
B. Please give me your thoughts on my choices, or any other choices
you might have.

Thanks.

SVan

--
TyDo

KD · May 5, 2003

i think it's just marketing...different lens type for different people with different budget. If canon put L type IS on 75-300, I don't think Canon would sell it at 400 bucks level. If memory serves, the IS in 75-300 is not the high-tech one like in 70-200IS

I personally like 70-200F4...easier to carry around....if I detect my shake, I'll try to lean against something to stablize myself. If that still cause problem, i either bump up ISO or simply forget it. Oh yeah, I don't like to carry tripod around unless its neccessary. Lens cost me $540 after rebate and image quality suppose to be close to its large aperture cousin.

How much do you want to spend? May be it's time to save enough money to get 100-400IS

--KD

SVan said:
I am in the market for a telephoto zoom. I already have the 28-135
IS which I am very happy with. So now where do I go. I do not
want to spend $18,000 on a 50 pound 70-200 2.8L IS. So my logical
choices seem to be:

75-300 IS- many people seem to dislike this lens, because of the
type of focusing system it has, and the fact that it is "junky". If
Canon is going to put hi-tech IS in the lens, why not put the more
hi-tech focusing system into the lens also?

70-200 F4 L - everyone seems to love this lens, but why would Canon
build such a nice lens, and then not put IS into this lens? They
put IS into a lens that only goes to 135mm (28-135), but not into
the better quality lens which goes up to 200mm. Does this make
sense to anyone?

I also like the fact that the 75-300 does go to 300 rather than
only 200, which sways me more toward this lens. I know I can add a
1.4 TC to the 70-200, but then I have 200mm x 1.6 multiplier x 1.4
TC = 448 mm hand held (how I choose to mainly shoot) which I think
will not work without IS

Then I throw into the mix the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 lens. I like the
2.8, but not the weight (1270 grams) before adding a 1.4 TC again
giving 448mm hand held with no IS.

Without a TC, the 200 mm max Canon (70-200L F4) and Sigma (70-200
F2.8) do not give me that much more reach than the 28-135IS I have
now, so seem to be pointed back to the "junky", poor focusing
75-300IS.

A. What the hell is wrong with Canon?

B. Please give me your thoughts on my choices, or any other choices
you might have.

Thanks.

SVan

Will Robinson · May 5, 2003

me thinks even Goldilocks finally found something that was 'just right'

You have three different versions of the 70-200 and each one differs in the way to fix the problem you found with the previous ie; this one's too heavy and doesn't have IS...this one is lighter but doesn't have IS...this one's cheaper and fast but too heavy...

I think the 75-300 IS is the closest you will come to what you want for what you are willing to pay.

It's all about comprimise and only you can decide where you want to make that comprimise.

So the answers are:

A) Nothing, they gave you the 75-300, it's everything you wish the 70-200 was...lighter, longer, cheaper with IS
B) see A above

Laurie Sokoloff · May 5, 2003

SVan said:
I am in the market for a telephoto zoom. I already have the 28-135
IS which I am very happy with. So now where do I go. I do not
want to spend $18,000 on a 50 pound 70-200 2.8L IS. So my logical
choices seem to be:

75-300 IS- many people seem to dislike this lens, because of the
type of focusing system it has, and the fact that it is "junky". If
Canon is going to put hi-tech IS in the lens, why not put the more
hi-tech focusing system into the lens also?

70-200 F4 L - everyone seems to love this lens, but why would Canon
build such a nice lens, and then not put IS into this lens? They
put IS into a lens that only goes to 135mm (28-135), but not into
the better quality lens which goes up to 200mm. Does this make
sense to anyone?

I also like the fact that the 75-300 does go to 300 rather than
only 200, which sways me more toward this lens. I know I can add a
1.4 TC to the 70-200, but then I have 200mm x 1.6 multiplier x 1.4
TC = 448 mm hand held (how I choose to mainly shoot) which I think
will not work without IS

Then I throw into the mix the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 lens. I like the
2.8, but not the weight (1270 grams) before adding a 1.4 TC again
giving 448mm hand held with no IS.

Without a TC, the 200 mm max Canon (70-200L F4) and Sigma (70-200
F2.8) do not give me that much more reach than the 28-135IS I have
now, so seem to be pointed back to the "junky", poor focusing
75-300IS.

A. What the hell is wrong with Canon?

You mean other than them wanting all our money??[g]

SVan said:
B. Please give me your thoughts on my choices, or any other choices
you might have.

I own both the 28-135 IS and the 70-200 2.8 IS, and there's a lot more that's different between them than just 65mm. The 70-200 2.8 IS is indeed 3 lbs. and extremely expensive . . . but it's also fast, sharp, and one of the best zoom lenses in existence. I believe the 70-200 4 L is rated even slightly higher optically by some - but if you want to skip the tripod, then IS is definitely the way to go.

My hunch is that if you are so happy with the 28-135, you may be very pleased with the 75-300 IS. But I really can't advise you - I've found buying the best lenses I can afford has worked well for me.

--
Best,
Laurie

John Mankos · May 5, 2003

SVan said:
70-200 F4 L - everyone seems to love this lens, but why would Canon
build such a nice lens, and then not put IS into this lens? They
put IS into a lens that only goes to 135mm (28-135), but not into
the better quality lens which goes up to 200mm. Does this make
sense to anyone?

Makes perfect sense. The point of the 70-200 f/4L is an affordable, light, small(ish) 70-200 L zoom with a constant f/4 aperture. You add IS to it...you add bulk, weight, and cost to the lens.

SVan said:
I also like the fact that the 75-300 does go to 300 rather than
only 200, which sways me more toward this lens. I know I can add a
1.4 TC to the 70-200, but then I have 200mm x 1.6 multiplier x 1.4
TC = 448 mm hand held (how I choose to mainly shoot) which I think
will not work without IS

It will work....depends how steady your hand is. I shoot 500mm regularly with decent results

SVan said:
Then I throw into the mix the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 lens. I like the
2.8, but not the weight (1270 grams) before adding a 1.4 TC again
giving 448mm hand held with no IS.

Without a TC, the 200 mm max Canon (70-200L F4) and Sigma (70-200
F2.8) do not give me that much more reach than the 28-135IS I have
now, so seem to be pointed back to the "junky", poor focusing
75-300IS.

A. What the hell is wrong with Canon?

Most here happen to think their lens lineup is second to none.

--
John
http://www.pbase.com/mankman
Canon EOS 10D

Equipment list in profile...subject to change on a daily basis ;^)

Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together

Kit59087 · May 5, 2003

Diane B said:
Diane B said:

70-200 F4 L - everyone seems to love this lens, but why would Canon
build such a nice lens, and then not put IS into this lens? They
put IS into a lens that only goes to 135mm (28-135), but not into
the better quality lens which goes up to 200mm. Does this make
sense to anyone?

Click to expand...

It doesn't NEED IS--its a relatively light lens, very easy to hold
and shoot with--that's why many of us love it.
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries
B/W lover, but color is seducing me

Actually, having used both lenses, I felt the opposite. Would be good to see an updated version of the f/4 with IS. Its light and that's precisely why I need IS on it. I felt the heavier f/2.8 stable pretty stable because of its mass.

Ty Doram · May 5, 2003

This lens was designed from the start as lightweight lower cost alternative to the 2.8. Adding weight with IS would kinda oppose the initial concept by adding to the weight and price.

Kit59087 said:
Diane B said:

Kit59087 said:

70-200 F4 L - everyone seems to love this lens, but why would Canon
build such a nice lens, and then not put IS into this lens? They
put IS into a lens that only goes to 135mm (28-135), but not into
the better quality lens which goes up to 200mm. Does this make
sense to anyone?

Click to expand...

It doesn't NEED IS--its a relatively light lens, very easy to hold
and shoot with--that's why many of us love it.
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries
B/W lover, but color is seducing me

Click to expand...

Actually, having used both lenses, I felt the opposite. Would be
good to see an updated version of the f/4 with IS. Its light and
that's precisely why I need IS on it. I felt the heavier f/2.8
stable pretty stable because of its mass.

--
TyDo

nikko · May 5, 2003

SVan said:
I am in the market for a telephoto zoom. I already have the 28-135
IS which I am very happy with. So now where do I go. I do not
want to spend $18,000 on a 50 pound 70-200 2.8L IS. So my logical
choices seem to be:

75-300 IS- many people seem to dislike this lens, because of the
type of focusing system it has, and the fact that it is "junky". If
Canon is going to put hi-tech IS in the lens, why not put the more
hi-tech focusing system into the lens also?

70-200 F4 L - everyone seems to love this lens, but why would Canon
build such a nice lens, and then not put IS into this lens? They
put IS into a lens that only goes to 135mm (28-135), but not into
the better quality lens which goes up to 200mm. Does this make
sense to anyone?

I also like the fact that the 75-300 does go to 300 rather than
only 200, which sways me more toward this lens. I know I can add a
1.4 TC to the 70-200, but then I have 200mm x 1.6 multiplier x 1.4
TC = 448 mm hand held (how I choose to mainly shoot) which I think
will not work without IS

Then I throw into the mix the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 lens. I like the
2.8, but not the weight (1270 grams) before adding a 1.4 TC again
giving 448mm hand held with no IS.

Without a TC, the 200 mm max Canon (70-200L F4) and Sigma (70-200
F2.8) do not give me that much more reach than the 28-135IS I have
now, so seem to be pointed back to the "junky", poor focusing
75-300IS.

A. What the hell is wrong with Canon?

B. Please give me your thoughts on my choices, or any other choices
you might have.

Thanks.

SVan

the 75/300 "is" is one superb lens. the only bad shots i have gotten from this lens have been operator error. imo, i don't think you can go wrong in purchasing this lens.
nikko
--
ten-D; sixteen/thirtyfive-2.8L; twentyfour/seventy-2.8L;
seventy/twohundred -2.8L-IS; eightyfive-1.8;
hundredthirtyfive-2.0L; hundred/fourhundred-L-IS; fivefiftyEX

Kit59087 · May 5, 2003

Probably true but I still think the f/4 would benefit greatly from IS. As i've said before, its light and that's precisely why it needs IS.

Zero · May 5, 2003

SVan said:
75-300 IS- many people seem to dislike this lens, because of the
type of focusing system it has, and the fact that it is "junky". If
Canon is going to put hi-tech IS in the lens, why not put the more
hi-tech focusing system into the lens also?

This is the very first lens with IS. One has to crawl before they can walk.

SVan said:
70-200 F4 L - everyone seems to love this lens, but why would Canon
build such a nice lens, and then not put IS into this lens? They
put IS into a lens that only goes to 135mm (28-135), but not into
the better quality lens which goes up to 200mm. Does this make
sense to anyone?

The build of the L is so much more substantial that it is easier to hold steady. It seems you're rather hung up on IS. Personally I will take build and fluorite over IS any day. Before anyone comments, I have both lenses in question.

SVan said:
Without a TC, the 200 mm max Canon (70-200L F4) and Sigma (70-200
F2.8) do not give me that much more reach than the 28-135IS I have
now, so seem to be pointed back to the "junky", poor focusing
75-300IS.

The problem is the 28-135. If you had gotten a 24-85 or 28-70, then you wouldn't have such a large overlap, and possibly a better lens too.

SVan said:
A. What the hell is wrong with Canon?

SVan said:
B. Please give me your thoughts on my choices, or any other choices
you might have.

100-300 L is one other choice to consider.

Thomas Gardner · May 5, 2003

SVan said:
A. What the hell is wrong with Canon?

Nothing wrong with Canon, it's called marketing and were the "Marks"

Andy Biggs · May 5, 2003

Put things into a timeline, and you will then understand why some lenses have IS and some do not. I would rather see newer lens designs, than adding IS to certain existing lenses. IS increases weight and cost, as well.

Just accept what we have, which is a wonderful selection of lenses at all price levels.

Kudos, Canon.

--
Andy Biggs
http://www.andybiggs.com
African Photo Workshops ~ Photo Safaris ~ Fine Art Prints

Bob Graham rvg · May 5, 2003

Diane B said:
It doesn't NEED IS--its a relatively light lens, very easy to hold
and shoot with--that's why many of us love it.

Besides, do you want to pay $550 for the lens or $1000? Is isn't free, look at the price difference between the 2.8 with and without it.

Bob

Diane B · May 5, 2003

Bob Graham rvg said:
Bob Graham rvg said:

It doesn't NEED IS--its a relatively light lens, very easy to hold
and shoot with--that's why many of us love it.

Click to expand...

Besides, do you want to pay $550 for the lens or $1000? Is isn't
free, look at the price difference between the 2.8 with and without
it.

Bob

I may add the 70-200 f/2.8 to my lens lineup just for the f/2.8.
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries
B/W lover, but color is seducing me

greentank · May 5, 2003

Laurie Sokoloff said:
SVan said:

I am in the market for a telephoto zoom. I already have the 28-135
IS which I am very happy with. So now where do I go. I do not
want to spend $18,000 on a 50 pound 70-200 2.8L IS. So my logical
choices seem to be:

75-300 IS- many people seem to dislike this lens, because of the
type of focusing system it has, and the fact that it is "junky". If
Canon is going to put hi-tech IS in the lens, why not put the more
hi-tech focusing system into the lens also?

70-200 F4 L - everyone seems to love this lens, but why would Canon
build such a nice lens, and then not put IS into this lens? They
put IS into a lens that only goes to 135mm (28-135), but not into
the better quality lens which goes up to 200mm. Does this make
sense to anyone?

I also like the fact that the 75-300 does go to 300 rather than
only 200, which sways me more toward this lens. I know I can add a
1.4 TC to the 70-200, but then I have 200mm x 1.6 multiplier x 1.4
TC = 448 mm hand held (how I choose to mainly shoot) which I think
will not work without IS

Then I throw into the mix the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 lens. I like the
2.8, but not the weight (1270 grams) before adding a 1.4 TC again
giving 448mm hand held with no IS.

Without a TC, the 200 mm max Canon (70-200L F4) and Sigma (70-200
F2.8) do not give me that much more reach than the 28-135IS I have
now, so seem to be pointed back to the "junky", poor focusing
75-300IS.

A. What the hell is wrong with Canon?

Click to expand...

You mean other than them wanting all our money??[g]

Laurie Sokoloff said:

B. Please give me your thoughts on my choices, or any other choices
you might have.

Click to expand...

I own both the 28-135 IS and the 70-200 2.8 IS, and there's a lot
more that's different between them than just 65mm. The 70-200 2.8
IS is indeed 3 lbs. and extremely expensive . . . but it's also
fast, sharp, and one of the best zoom lenses in existence. I
believe the 70-200 4 L is rated even slightly higher optically by
some - but if you want to skip the tripod, then IS is definitely
the way to go.

My hunch is that if you are so happy with the 28-135, you may be
very pleased with the 75-300 IS. But I really can't advise you -
I've found buying the best lenses I can afford has worked well for
me.

--
Best,
Laurie

I've talked myself into the 28-135IS and the 70-200IS w/ 1.4 tc. I dont want to be forced to lug a tripod, and the 2.8+IS should make give me much more freedom, including better results with the tc attached.

The one question I have is...are you familiar with the 24-85? Is this lens a decent alternative to the 28-135? If it were (optically), then does it make sense to give up the IS and extra zoom for the 4mm shorter length?

Mark

What the Hell is wrong with Canon?

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Icypeak

Guest

New member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Will Robinson

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Keyboard shortcuts