Reading mode: Light Dark

What the Hell is wrong with Canon?

Go to last post
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
Click to expand...
 
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?
Click to expand...
Because Canon are very sensible. They NEVER debut brand-new technologies in top-of-the-line, sales-critical cameras or lenses. If IS had turned out to be a complete flop, it wouldn't have mattered a lot. If they'd debuted it in a lens that pros rely on routinely (like the 70-200 F2.8L) and it had flopped, they'd have been in serious trouble.
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?
Click to expand...
Cost. Performance. It would not be possible to sell the lens at the incredible price it is with the incredible performance it has with IS. Either it would cost more or perform rather worse. Plus, you must remember that if this lens had IS, many would not buy the F2.8 L IS lens (as in fact many stopped buying the non-IS F2.8L in favour of the F4). Canon are in this for money...
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
Click to expand...
Can work without IS. Just bear the reciprocal rule in mind and you'll be fine.
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.
Click to expand...
Again, there was life before IS...
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.
Click to expand...
Although actually the 70-200 F4L and sigma 70-200 F2.8L will probably enlarge so much better than the 75-300 IS (barring exceptional examples) that the reach is probably about the same before using TCs.
SVan said:
A. What the hell is wrong with Canon?
Click to expand...
They're out for something called "profit". They offer a wider range of AF lenses than ANY other manufacturer, particularly when you take USM and IS into account (eg nikon have a limited number of AF-S lenses, as do sigma, and Nikon and sigma offer three IS lenses between them (two the same 80-400 range) compared to the wider choice that canon offer). You can't please all of the people all of the time.
SVan said:
B. Please give me your thoughts on my choices, or any other choices
you might have.
Click to expand...
Me, I use a 20 F2.8, 24-85, 50 F1.8, 70-200 F4L and 300 F4L IS, and both 1.4X and 2X TCs.

Personally, the 70-200 is going to remain a permanent fixture (as will the 300, but none of the others). It's a superb lens in almost every single respect. If asked how to improve it, the only answer I could give would be IS, but even for IS I wouldn't change for the 75-300, but that's in the light of having the 300 F4L IS also. However, I get superb results from the 70-200 with 1.4X TC when I can't be bothered to carry the 300 (or don't think I'll need it so much as to be worth carrying) so I probably still wouldn't buy the 75-300 (bearing in mind that I have an addiction to FTM/ring USM also, the former of which is the only reason I intend to upgrade my 50 F1.8 mk I to a 50 F1.4 USM).

--
Mostly Full Frame user!

EOS Tree + Nikon Coolscan III
Deef Hurty.
 
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
Click to expand...
I seriously don't think IS will increase the cost by almost 100% and yes, I don't mind paying more if it helps me out there.
 
With the IS you don't need a tripod unless you have strong arms to hold the lens up all day in which case you DO need a tripod. For hand-holding, I much prefer the f4 (I have the f2.8 IS as well but only take it out for specific jobs).

David
greentank said:
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]
greentank 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
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
 
Lenses are summed up as FAST (usually HEAVY too), GOOD and CHEAP.

Pick any two - all three don't exist except for the 50mm prime.

David
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
Click to expand...
 
If you shoot at the long end mainly, how about the 200mm/2.8L. A superb, (relatively) light weight lens, costing about the same as the 70-200/4
 
Kit said:
I seriously don't think IS will increase the cost by almost 100%
and yes, I don't mind paying more if it helps me out there.
Click to expand...
The only L series lens available with and without IS is the closely related 70-200 2.8, and it has a $520 difference for that feature.

I can barely afford the lens (the F4) as it is, I'm sure glad they don't try to make me choke down the IS feature that I don't happen to want.

Bob
 
Bob Graham rvg said:
Kit said:
I seriously don't think IS will increase the cost by almost 100%
and yes, I don't mind paying more if it helps me out there.
Click to expand...
The only L series lens available with and without IS is the closely
related 70-200 2.8, and it has a $520 difference for that feature.

I can barely afford the lens (the F4) as it is, I'm sure glad they
don't try to make me choke down the IS feature that I don't happen
to want.

Bob
Click to expand...
Oh well, I'm not sure if IS is the only difference between the 2 lense..... might be, might not.

On a side note, price difference between the Nikkor AF-S 80-200 F/2.8 and the 70-200 F/2.8 VR is negligible, in not the same.
 
David R Stout said:
With the IS you don't need a tripod unless you have strong arms to
hold the lens up all day in which case you DO need a tripod. For
hand-holding, I much prefer the f4 (I have the f2.8 IS as well but
only take it out for specific jobs).
Click to expand...
And I've heard that from others too. I don't own the f4, so I can't really compare. But I do know it's my heaviest lens (so far[g]), and for me the weight seems to me to provide an additional measure of stability. But my arms do get tired after a while - That will probably be an even shorter "while" now that I have my 1Ds! But I am definitely NOT complaining!

--
Best,
Laurie
 
greentank said:
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
Click to expand...
Hi Mark - I'm afraid I have no experience with a 24-85. You might want to post this question under its own heading - surely someone here could venture an opinion. Good luck - you're going to love the 70-200 2.8 IS!
--
Best,
Laurie
 
SVan,

With all these choices, why not give a consideration to the 100-300 F5.6 L? I sold the 75-300IS because I liked the F5.6L so much better. It may not have the IS, but with the low noise of the 10D, I just bump up the ISO rating a bit. Also trying to get better with a monpod. I've also used it with a Tamron SP1.4X.

Jim
 
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
Click to expand...
 
No response since original post, and the subject is inflammatory...

Gee, can't Canon just make me a 70-200F4L IS for $175? Canon has the best and most versatile lineup of IS lenses and still complaints abound...

SUCKERS!
--
'In cyberspace, you can't hear the screams...'
'Price is only an issue in the absence of value.'
'Being 6'8' means not having to say you're sorry...'

Equipment list in profile.
 
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
Click to expand...
--
PC writes:

You must not be a saleperson. Engineering thinks like you but the marketing guy will object because everyone would just buy one lens... that would be enough to pay both salaries... so the engineer must give in and produce lens that only do certain thing well but not quite enough so that buyer must owner a few more lenses to do the job. Voila, profit. Kaching! Music to Canon executives' ears. Same way why your brand new car always have several unused/not-yet-install blank button on the dashboard - Oh yeah... they'll tell you... those features will come next year :)
Paul
 
they don't make a 10-1000 f1.0 IS lens for $100. I was just minding my own business until a troll came around...
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
Click to expand...
 
I would be thrilled if it had IS. It would be the perfect lens for me with IS. Having said that, I don't expect to see an IS version any time soon.

Greg
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
Click to expand...
 
Just do what I did and get the 100-400 with IS. Sure it's not a prime but when you consider the 400mm primes with IS start at $5K, I think I can live with "just a zoom".
jblann said:
No response since original post, and the subject is inflammatory...

Gee, can't Canon just make me a 70-200F4L IS for $175? Canon has
the best and most versatile lineup of IS lenses and still
complaints abound...

SUCKERS!
--
'In cyberspace, you can't hear the screams...'
'Price is only an issue in the absence of value.'
'Being 6'8' means not having to say you're sorry...'

Equipment list in profile.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top