 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2006Canon 70-300 IS USM lens-length (to fit backpack)
I'm considering buying the Canon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM lens to use with my EOS-350D, and also a LowePro "Compudaypack" camera/everything else day-backpack (http://www.lowepro.com/Products/Backpacks/notebook_camera/CompuDaypack.aspx). But I'm worried that the 70-300mm lens might be too big to fit inside the backpack. Unfortunately the only information I can find at Canon's sites is the *extended* length of the lens, but how short can it be? I currently have a Sigma 17-70mm lens which is approx 80mm long at the shortest. Finally I'll also be dragging along a Canon EX-430 flash. Anyone have this backpack? Can the dividers for the camera equipment be adjusted freely? That way I can perhaps place the 70-300 lens sideways. > I'm considering buying the Canon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM lens to use > with my EOS-350D, and also a LowePro "Compudaypack" camera/everything [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Anyone have this backpack? Can the dividers for the camera equipment be > adjusted freely? That way I can perhaps place the 70-300 lens sideways. Cap to cap, 171.5mm in length (6 3/4"), a little over 76mm wide (3"). The optional lens hood is much wider than that... dwight > > But I'm worried that the 70-300mm lens might be too big to fit inside > > the backpack. Unfortunately the only information I can find at Canon's > > sites is the *extended* length of the lens, but how short can it be? > Cap to cap, 171.5mm in length (6 3/4"), a little over 76mm wide (3"). The > optional lens hood is much wider than that... Thanks for checking, but are you sure about that? According to Canon's spec page for that lens (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelTechSpecsAct&fcategoryid=1 50&modelid=11922) the lens' *maximum* dimensions are 142.8mm (length) and 76.5mm (width). So the width is consistent with what you say, but not the length. Maybe the numbers are the other way round? Do you have the lens so you can check? I couldn't find one at the store today, and it seems nobody has them. Has Canon recalled all of them because of the resolution problems, or is it being discontinued awaiting a (better?) replacement? >> > But I'm worried that the 70-300mm lens might be too big to fit inside >> > the backpack. Unfortunately the only information I can find at Canon's [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Has Canon recalled all of them because of the resolution problems, or > is it being discontinued awaiting a (better?) replacement? Yes, that's the lens. We agree on the 3" girth, Just remeasured the lens from cap to cap, and got 6 1/2", but, stupid me, the focus ring wasn't fully retracted. How's 6" (152.4mm), fully compacted? As for "maximum" dimensions, I don't know what they're talking about. I would consider that minimum. Fully extended ("maximum"), the lens goes a full 9" (228.6mm). Last I heard, there was some resolution problem at the far end of the zoom, but I haven't noticed anything in my own (poor) photography with this lens. Certainly, I've had no recall from Canon, myself, although the lens was registered at the site. (Just checked, and even B&H has it on backorder.) I would suspect that it's just a very popular model - it's quick, has a great range, and is priced attractively. And image stabilization - what can I say? I know it was MY first choice... dwight Arild, are you referring to the: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM or the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-4.6 IS USM? Your first post said f/4.5-5.6 which is why I ask but later you posted a link to the f/4-5.6 version, The first one is claimed to be 3.2 x 3.9" (dia x length) and 720g. Very compact, more expensive, and many think not as good optically as the non-DO version and a slower aperture and heavier. The second one is claimed to be 3.0 x 5.6" and 630 grams. I have the non-DO version here in front of me. With both caps installed and one screw-in filter it measures 169mm long or 6.65" at its shortest possible length. Canon's length measurement is true if there are no caps, no filter and is measured from the lens mounting flange, not the rear element, so Canon's dimension is a measure of how far it sticks out of your camera, not how long it is when stored in the bag. The Canon ET-65B lens hood for it is about 95mm dia x 72mm long. It is also expensive but well made. Copies of this lens with a '0' or a '1' in the third digit of the serial number may be slightly less sharp in portrait orientation than in landscape at 300mm focal length. Canon is going to repair them after July 18, 2006 according to this post on their website: http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=21 12&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11922 Unfortunately mine has a '0' in the third digit. I haven't noticed the problem yet, but I'm going to look for it now. It is a great lens otherwise and I get very good photos from it and the "IS" is amazing (to me). > I'm considering buying the Canon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM lens to use > with my EOS-350D, and also a LowePro "Compudaypack" camera/everything [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Anyone have this backpack? Can the dividers for the camera equipment be > adjusted freely? That way I can perhaps place the 70-300 lens sideways. > Arild, are you referring to the: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Your first post said f/4.5-5.6 which is why I ask but later you posted a > link to the f/4-5.6 version, My mistake! I must have forgotten that it goes down to f/4.0, thinking it started at 4.5. I meant the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (not the "DO" version which is a lot more expensive). > I have the non-DO version here in front of me. With both caps installed and > one screw-in filter it measures 169mm long or 6.65" at its shortest possible > length. Hmmm... I was hoping it'd be shorter. I don't know if it'll fit inside the bag, but if it really won't fit in any direction I could probably get one of those soft pouches (mainly to prevent it from scratches) and put it inside the main section of the backpack. > The Canon ET-65B lens hood for it is about 95mm dia x 72mm long. It is also > expensive but well made. I can never understand how they can charge so much for a piece of plastic. But it's probably because they know people need it. > Copies of this lens with a '0' or a '1' in the third digit of the serial > number may be slightly less sharp in portrait orientation than in landscape > at 300mm focal length. Canon is going to repair them after July 18, 2006 > according to this post on their website: > http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=21 12&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11922 Yeah, I've been following that website and have awaited buying it until Canon came with a solution. Now that they've acknowledged the problem there are no more lenses to be found anywhere! > Unfortunately mine has a '0' in the third digit. I haven't noticed the > problem yet, but I'm going to look for it now. It is a great lens otherwise > and I get very good photos from it and the "IS" is amazing (to me). I was hoping to hear that, which I now have from you and Dwight. The camera store tells me to get the 70-200 f/4L instead, so do a lot of the pros in these groups, but my instinct tells me the 70-300 will be the best choice *for me*. Indeed, I got to try out the 70-200 f/4L in the store the other day, and yes, I immediately got the feeling that this was a "Rolls Royce of lenses" though I'm no expert and don't have much to compare with. The build was very good and it focused quickly. However, I asked to try a 300mm lens as well, just to see the difference and have to say that the additional 100mm makes a huge difference. 200mm seems very short in comparison and I think 300mm will come in handy in a lot of situations. I don't know which 300mm lens they let me try, but unfortunately they didn't have the 70-300 IS USM. >> I have the non-DO version here in front of me. With both caps installed and >> one screw-in filter it measures 169mm long or 6.65" at its shortest possible >> length. > >Hmmm... I was hoping it'd be shorter. Someone else posted saying that the focus ring position affects overall length and once positioned properly, the lense was down to 6". >> The Canon ET-65B lens hood for it is about 95mm dia x 72mm long. It is also >> expensive but well made. > >I can never understand how they can charge so much for a piece of >plastic. >But it's probably because they know people need it. I believe you're right - gouging for the heck of it. That's one of the few things that really irks me about Canon lenses. Nikon includes the hood with the majority of their lenses, and many also include a soft case. Sometimes it's the little things that make a difference, and including the lense hood is a nice touch. >I was hoping to hear that, which I now have from you and Dwight. The >camera store tells me to get the 70-200 f/4L instead, so do a lot of >the pros in these groups, but my instinct tells me the 70-300 will be >the best choice *for me*. That's important...if it's right for you. The 70-200 f/4 is certainly among the best from Canon, and being reasonably priced makes it a real gem. I always recommend it over the 70-300 models because of its excellent optics. But if the intended use does not require great optics, such as typical vacation and family shots, then the 70-300 is a reasonable option. >>> I have the non-DO version here in front of me. With both caps installed >>> and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Someone else posted saying that the focus ring position affects overall > length and once positioned properly, the lense was down to 6". Yes, you can get it down to 6", but you wouldn't want to for transport. For that, you'd have both caps installed, which adds to the total overall length. With the filter on, and both caps, "default" is about right - I get 6 3/4". dwight >That's one of the few things that really irks me about Canon lenses. >Nikon includes the hood with the majority of their lenses, and many also >include a soft case. Canon does too on L glass. At least on the L lens I have they did. 24-105L  SignatureScott in Florida >>That's one of the few things that really irks me about Canon lenses. >>Nikon includes the hood with the majority of their lenses, and many also [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >24-105L Lucky for you... But my 17-40 f/4 L and 70-200 f/4 L did not have lense hoods of any kind. At first I thought I got ripped off by the shop, until I checked with Canon and they don't include it as part of the sale. A friend of mine has the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS lense, arguably the admiral of the fleet, and it did not include a lense hood either. Some places may sell the lense hood in the sale to promote good will, but it's not Canon policy. >>>That's one of the few things that really irks me about Canon lenses. >>>Nikon includes the hood with the majority of their lenses, and many also [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >kind. At first I thought I got ripped off by the shop, until I checked >with Canon and they don't include it as part of the sale. Looks like you should buy at B and H http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=2 79582&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=1 83198&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation >A friend of mine has the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS lense, arguably the admiral >of the fleet, and it did not include a lense hood either. Looking at B and H it appears they include the lens hood http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=2 34444&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation >Some places may sell the lense hood in the sale to promote good will, >but it's not Canon policy. SignatureScott in Florida >>That's one of the few things that really irks me about Canon lenses. >>Nikon includes the hood with the majority of their lenses, and many also >>include a soft case. >Canon does too on L glass. At least on the L lens I have they did. >24-105L You get both a lens hood and a carry case with the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS. --- Paul J. Gans >>>That's one of the few things that really irks me about Canon lenses. >>>Nikon includes the hood with the majority of their lenses, and many also [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > --- Paul J. Gans I received both with my 17-40 f/4 L. Jack Mac >>>>That's one of the few things that really irks me about Canon lenses. >>>>Nikon includes the hood with the majority of their lenses, and many also [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >I received both with my 17-40 f/4 L. Is it different in Canada? Or did I get ripped off? (Perhaps I shouldn't say ripped off since I got pretty good deals on the lenses, but still) > camera store tells me to get the 70-200 f/4L instead, so do a lot of > the pros in these groups, but my instinct tells me the 70-300 will be > the best choice *for me*. If you don't need IS, and if you don't need zoom, then 200/2.8. It is 1 to 2 stops brighter. When you want longer, you can put on a 1.4x or 2x. Otherwise, 70-300/4-5.6 IS. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.