An EF 70-200 f/4L IS II in Mid January? [CR1]

[JR]

It does sound a bit weird to have this lens updated (would have preferred an updated 135 with IS  ) but if it is better than the current version, it will make an interesting choice for a walkaround lens (my 70-200 2.8 II IS is a bit heavy for long walk or simply going to the park!).

[dr croubie]

Is it possible at all for Canon to add the coating and not make it a Mk. II, so it would stay at the same price point, and eventually as stock moves, it would replace the older model without the coating since it's only a minor change? Or is that something that doesn't happen in the camera world?

Can, quite easily, yes.
But doesn't. They'll take any excuse to put a 'II' next to even the slightest change if it helps them increase the profit margins (either by cheaper materials or higher pricetag or both). Case in point, the 18-55IS and 55-250 both got 'upgraded' to exactly the same lens.
But then, I suppose if they'd just silently brought out the newer versions of those without a 'II', people all over the net would have called shenanigans and hounded them for silently changing the design (even if it turned out to be a change for the better), so I suppose they can't win either way....

[scottsdaleriots]

This might seem as a dumb question but when you say better image quality for the mkII will/does that mean it'll have better image quality than the 70-200 2.8 IS II?

[unfocused]

I have this lens and the 2.8 and I find that I carry the f/4 IS more often when I can get away with it because it's so much lighter and compact. I can carry a full range without killing myself. Although a metal body would be more durable, it also would make it a bit heavier. I'd definitely not upgrade.

I don't own this lens. Does it not have a metal body now? That seems like a pretty major change if they are going from a composite to metal. Also seems kind of unusual, since it seems like most of the new lenses are going in the other direction. Also wondering how you effectively weather seal a metal body.

Can anyone shed more light on this?

[AJ]

If you had carte blanche to upgrade this lens, what would you do? What specs would it have after your upgrades?

Paint it black

[dr croubie]

If you had carte blanche to upgrade this lens, what would you do? What specs would it have after your upgrades?

Paint it black

?

[whatta]

70-200 F4 IS is the lens I've been considering (efs 2.8 version would be better though). I hope it is not becoming metal and would like it in black too

[neuroanatomist]

70-200 F4 IS is the lens I've been considering (efs 2.8 version would be better though). I hope it is not becoming metal

It's already metal.  An EF-S f/2.8 version would not be substantially lighter than the EF version - that's the way it works with telephoto lenses.

[whatta]

It's already metal.

I thought the outside of the 70-200 f4 is was plastic..

[tron]

There are so many lenses to upgrade instead:

24mm f/1.4L II (yes, version II vignets too much!)
28mm f/1.8 (better performance at the large appertures)
35mm f/1.4L (better edges...)
50mm f/1.4 (better performance at the large appertures)
135mm f/2.0 (Can you put IS without sacrificing quality? If not please leave it alone...)
400mm f/5.6L  (IS please...)
400mm f/4 DO (better contrast please)

16-35mm f/2.8L II (yes version II needs better edges and corners)

to name but a few...
(feel free to complement the list...)

[distant.star]

Apparently you have a different 135L than the rest of us.

If you had carte blanche to upgrade this lens, what would you do? What specs would it have after your upgrades?

Paint it black

[whatta]

24mm f/1.4L II (yes, version II vignets too much!)

isn't it very easy to fix (already in camera jpg)?

28mm f/1.8 (better performance at the large appertures)

a good apsc normal is missing from canon, make it 1.4

50mm f/1.4 (better performance at the large appertures)

change it to ring usm

[Cornershot]

Actually, it's not. Most of the body is plastic. It does have some metal parts like the zoom ring, the mount, the front ring that has the markings. Most of the rest of the outer body is white plastic.


It's already metal.  An EF-S f/2.8 version would not be substantially lighter than the EF version - that's the way it works with telephoto lenses.
[/quote]

[nightbreath]

Actually, it's not. Most of the body is plastic. It does have some metal parts like the zoom ring, the mount, the front ring that has the markings. Most of the rest of the outer body is white plastic.

Are we speaking about the same lens? The EF 70-200 f/4.0L IS is metal, focusing/zooming rings are made of rubber (sorry if the word isn't chosen properly, this is what translator gave me). Here's an article about the lens: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

[Cornershot]

@Nightbreath, I own the lens and use it for work so know that it has a plastic body. That story you link to doesn't mention it but Ken Rockwell does. Plastic barrel with metal zoom and focus rings. The rings are not made of rubber. The rubber grip is added over the metal rings.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-200mm-f4-is.htm



Are we speaking about the same lens? The EF 70-200 f/4.0L IS is metal, focusing/zooming rings are made of rubber (sorry if the word isn't chosen properly, this is what translator gave me). Here's an article about the lens: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx