May 27, 2018, 06:08:14 AM

Author Topic: Another Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III Mention [CR2]  (Read 17300 times)

CanonFanBoy

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2083
  • I like cheap wine and even cheaper women.
Re: Another Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III Mention [CR2]
« Reply #30 on: January 29, 2018, 02:38:45 PM »
And If it stays the same filter size, I'll buy the hood with the filter window for my IS II.

Good thinking (and I would do the same!), but 82 may be the new 77:

16-35 f/2.8L III = 82
24-70 f/2.8L II = 82

Perhaps Canon wants it's zoom trilogy to share the same filter size?

- A

That has been my thinking ever since the 24-70/2.8 MkII came out.

But wouldn't the trinity be 11-24, 24-70, 70-200? I just don't see how the 16-35 fills out a trinity, but I guess the cost of that trinity would be lower.

I'm happy with my current 70-200 II. It will probably never be replaced... unless I fall into a pile of money. :)
« Last Edit: January 29, 2018, 02:42:43 PM by CanonFanBoy »
5D Mark III, Canon EF 24-70 F/2.8L II, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 35 f/1.4L II, 135 f/2L, Streaklight 360ws, Flashpoint XPLOR 600PRO, 26x m42 screw mount lenses adapted to my DSLR. Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II, Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Another Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III Mention [CR2]
« Reply #30 on: January 29, 2018, 02:38:45 PM »

Ryananthony

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 498
Re: Another Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III Mention [CR2]
« Reply #31 on: January 29, 2018, 02:42:56 PM »
And If it stays the same filter size, I'll buy the hood with the filter window for my IS II.

Good thinking (and I would do the same!), but 82 may be the new 77:

16-35 f/2.8L III = 82
24-70 f/2.8L II = 82

Perhaps Canon wants it's zoom trilogy to share the same filter size?

- A

That has been my thinking ever since the 24-70/2.8 MkII came out.

But wouldn't the trilogy be 11-24, 24-70, 70-200? I just don't see how the 16-35 fills out a trilogy, but I guess the cost of that trilogy would be lower.

I'm happy with my current 70-200 II. It will probably never be replaced.

The trilogy usually consists of fast glass.

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6618
  • USM > STM
Re: Another Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III Mention [CR2]
« Reply #32 on: January 29, 2018, 03:08:47 PM »
But wouldn't the trinity be 11-24, 24-70, 70-200? I just don't see how the 16-35 fills out a trinity, but I guess the cost of that trinity would be lower.

A modern zoom is preferably f/2.8 and front-filterable.  That's what makes the 16-35 / 24-70 / 70-200 the 'trinity' to me, but no one ever agrees on that sort of thing.

But, in this case, I imagine that many folks would agree with me -- I'd be stunned to no end if the 16-35 f/2.8L III didn't outsell the 11-24 f/4L by at least a ratio of 5:1.  The former is a far far far more versatile instrument.

- A

kirispupis

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 451
    • CalevPhoto
Re: Another Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III Mention [CR2]
« Reply #33 on: January 29, 2018, 03:11:36 PM »
A new 70-200/2.8 IS III would be very exciting and would definitely be a priority for me. My top ask would be to improve flare. While I'm very happy with the sharpness of my II, it flares like crazy if the sun is in the shot - so much that I don't use it for my sunrise/sunset shots.

I know that Canon has the coatings to improve this now, so if they fix this one thing while keeping the sharpness, CA, vignetting, etc similar to the existing model - I'll buy it as quickly as my funds allow.

My second ask would be better performance under IR, though few manufacturers pay attention to that these days.
1Dx2|TS-E 24 II|TS-E 17|TS-E 90|200-400/1.4x|MP-E 65|100/2.8 IS Macro|70-200/2.8 IS II||16-35/2.8 II|EOS M

CanonFanBoy

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2083
  • I like cheap wine and even cheaper women.
Re: Another Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III Mention [CR2]
« Reply #34 on: January 29, 2018, 03:17:37 PM »
But wouldn't the trinity be 11-24, 24-70, 70-200? I just don't see how the 16-35 fills out a trinity, but I guess the cost of that trinity would be lower.

A modern zoom is preferably f/2.8 and front-filterable.  That's what makes the 16-35 / 24-70 / 70-200 the 'trinity' to me, but no one ever agrees on that sort of thing.

But, in this case, I imagine that many folks would agree with me -- I'd be stunned to no end if the 16-35 f/2.8L III didn't outsell the 11-24 f/4L by at least a ratio of 5:1.  The former is a far far far more versatile instrument.

- A

Very true. I guess my focus was on the focal lengths too much. You are probably very correct on the sales difference. The 11-24 is no slouch in the price department and really is sort of a specialty lens.

I guess it is the focal length overlap that bugs me. That, though, is a personal problem. Yup, that overlap with my Tamron really bugs me. :)

Is the prime trinity 35, 50, 85? I guess that probably varies by user too.

Honestly, the Canon zooms are so good I almost skipped primes altogether. It will be interesting to see what improvements will be made on a 70-200 III vs the II. Maybe BR? There I go again with the BR.  :D
« Last Edit: January 29, 2018, 03:22:22 PM by CanonFanBoy »
5D Mark III, Canon EF 24-70 F/2.8L II, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 35 f/1.4L II, 135 f/2L, Streaklight 360ws, Flashpoint XPLOR 600PRO, 26x m42 screw mount lenses adapted to my DSLR. Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II, Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

leGreve

  • EOS 80D
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
  • Full time photographer and film maker omnifilm.dk
    • OmniFilm DK
Re: Another Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III Mention [CR2]
« Reply #35 on: January 29, 2018, 03:18:38 PM »
How do you repaint The Mona Lisa? :O

CanonFanBoy

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2083
  • I like cheap wine and even cheaper women.
Re: Another Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III Mention [CR2]
« Reply #36 on: January 29, 2018, 03:25:04 PM »
How do you repaint The Mona Lisa? :O

Correct! I may not have been paying attention very closely, but I never read all the bad stuff about the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II until this thread. All I have ever read was good. I had no idea there was a flare issue either. Maybe I should use it more. :)
5D Mark III, Canon EF 24-70 F/2.8L II, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 35 f/1.4L II, 135 f/2L, Streaklight 360ws, Flashpoint XPLOR 600PRO, 26x m42 screw mount lenses adapted to my DSLR. Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II, Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Another Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III Mention [CR2]
« Reply #36 on: January 29, 2018, 03:25:04 PM »

tiggy@mac.com

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 336
  • 5D4, 1DX
    • Forest Metrix
Re: Another Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III Mention [CR2]
« Reply #37 on: January 29, 2018, 03:28:21 PM »
You could do better on the focus transitions. It could certainly be lighter.  There were coatings advances 5 years ago that the version II doesn't have, so I bet there is more image quality to be had. The 70-200 II is the worst white lens in performing with teleconverters (version III), and I bet it could be better optimized to the purpose. Mode 3 IS. CPL hood window.

If the IQ upgrade is at all significant, it's worth bringing out, and that's a real possibility.

YuengLinger

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1733
Re: Another Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III Mention [CR2]
« Reply #38 on: January 29, 2018, 03:29:11 PM »
How do you repaint The Mona Lisa? :O

Correct! I may not have been paying attention very closely, but I never read all the bad stuff about the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II until this thread. All I have ever read was good. I had no idea there was a flare issue either. Maybe I should use it more. :)

+1 and +1

I think I'll keep limping by for a while longer, tough as it may be.


scyrene

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2003
    • My Flickr feed
Re: Another Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III Mention [CR2]
« Reply #39 on: January 29, 2018, 03:36:37 PM »
How do you repaint The Mona Lisa? :O

Correct! I may not have been paying attention very closely, but I never read all the bad stuff about the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II until this thread. All I have ever read was good. I had no idea there was a flare issue either. Maybe I should use it more. :)

No lens is perfect, but we're probably over-emphasising the minor problems as it's otherwise hard to justify a new version. For my part, I wanted to use it as an alternative to a 180mm macro lens (for flowers and large insects at medium range) - so my criticism is a little unfair, as it's not designed for that sort of work, and consequently I found it not sharp enough at close range. For portraiture and reportage, where pinpoint sharpness is less critical, it's absolutely fine.
Current equipment: 5Ds, 5D mark III, 50D, 24-105L, MP-E, 100L macro, 500L IS II; 1.4xIII + 2x III extenders; 600EX-RT.
Former equipment includes: 300D; EOS-M, EF-M 18-55, Samyang 14mm f/2.8, EF 35 f/2 IS, 70-200L f/4 non-IS and f/2.8L IS II, 85L II, Sigma 180 macro, 200L 2.8, 400L 5.6

CanonFanBoy

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2083
  • I like cheap wine and even cheaper women.
Re: Another Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III Mention [CR2]
« Reply #40 on: January 29, 2018, 03:43:34 PM »
How do you repaint The Mona Lisa? :O

Correct! I may not have been paying attention very closely, but I never read all the bad stuff about the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II until this thread. All I have ever read was good. I had no idea there was a flare issue either. Maybe I should use it more. :)

+1 and +1

I think I'll keep limping by for a while longer, tough as it may be.

 ;) Yeah. It's a rough life. Just when you think you've got what you need they move the goalposts. I won't feel any pressure to upgrade on this one. It could still be 8 or 10 years away too.
5D Mark III, Canon EF 24-70 F/2.8L II, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 35 f/1.4L II, 135 f/2L, Streaklight 360ws, Flashpoint XPLOR 600PRO, 26x m42 screw mount lenses adapted to my DSLR. Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II, Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

CanonFanBoy

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2083
  • I like cheap wine and even cheaper women.
Re: Another Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III Mention [CR2]
« Reply #41 on: January 29, 2018, 03:49:03 PM »
How do you repaint The Mona Lisa? :O

Correct! I may not have been paying attention very closely, but I never read all the bad stuff about the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II until this thread. All I have ever read was good. I had no idea there was a flare issue either. Maybe I should use it more. :)

No lens is perfect, but we're probably over-emphasising the minor problems as it's otherwise hard to justify a new version. For my part, I wanted to use it as an alternative to a 180mm macro lens (for flowers and large insects at medium range) - so my criticism is a little unfair, as it's not designed for that sort of work, and consequently I found it not sharp enough at close range. For portraiture and reportage, where pinpoint sharpness is less critical, it's absolutely fine.

I could be one of the outliers, but I like to see pinpoint sharpness on the subject's iris. While it is different used as a macro lens (macro it isn't), I find the sharpness to be very good for my use. Mine is very sharp. I guess everything can be improved though.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2018, 03:55:48 PM by CanonFanBoy »
5D Mark III, Canon EF 24-70 F/2.8L II, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 35 f/1.4L II, 135 f/2L, Streaklight 360ws, Flashpoint XPLOR 600PRO, 26x m42 screw mount lenses adapted to my DSLR. Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II, Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

Yasko

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 48
Re: Another Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III Mention [CR2]
« Reply #42 on: January 29, 2018, 03:49:11 PM »
You could do better on the focus transitions. It could certainly be lighter.  There were coatings advances 5 years ago that the version II doesn't have, so I bet there is more image quality to be had. The 70-200 II is the worst white lens in performing with teleconverters (version III), and I bet it could be better optimized to the purpose. Mode 3 IS. CPL hood window.

If the IQ upgrade is at all significant, it's worth bringing out, and that's a real possibility.

Well... Tony Northrup stated it is even a bit sharper with TC2x than the new 100-400 at its long end. Althouh that may come down to differences in the copy or just because you think he's a douch, depends on you. I found that an interesting statement, andnit somehow collides with your estimation. But I guess pixel peeping is not everyone's buisness 🙄.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Another Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III Mention [CR2]
« Reply #42 on: January 29, 2018, 03:49:11 PM »

AlanF

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3514
Re: Another Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III Mention [CR2]
« Reply #43 on: January 29, 2018, 04:23:13 PM »
You could do better on the focus transitions. It could certainly be lighter.  There were coatings advances 5 years ago that the version II doesn't have, so I bet there is more image quality to be had. The 70-200 II is the worst white lens in performing with teleconverters (version III), and I bet it could be better optimized to the purpose. Mode 3 IS. CPL hood window.

If the IQ upgrade is at all significant, it's worth bringing out, and that's a real possibility.

Well... Tony Northrup stated it is even a bit sharper with TC2x than the new 100-400 at its long end. Althouh that may come down to differences in the copy or just because you think he's a douch, depends on you. I found that an interesting statement, andnit somehow collides with your estimation. But I guess pixel peeping is not everyone's buisness 🙄.

Normally, I don't like quoting TDP as it usually compares only one copy of each.  But, I'll make an exception for Mr. Northrup. Here's a pair where the 100-400mm II is most clearly sharper.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
5D IV, 5DS R, 400mm DO II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM,  EF 24-105, 100-400 II, EF-S 15-85, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M5 15-45, f/2 22, 11-22, Samyang 8mm f/2.8 fisheye: sold 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X,  Sigma 10-20, EF 300/2.8 II, 70-200/4 IS.

Talys

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1543
  • Canon 6DII
Re: Another Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III Mention [CR2]
« Reply #44 on: January 29, 2018, 04:55:30 PM »
You could do better on the focus transitions. It could certainly be lighter.  There were coatings advances 5 years ago that the version II doesn't have, so I bet there is more image quality to be had. The 70-200 II is the worst white lens in performing with teleconverters (version III), and I bet it could be better optimized to the purpose. Mode 3 IS. CPL hood window.

If the IQ upgrade is at all significant, it's worth bringing out, and that's a real possibility.

Well... Tony Northrup stated it is even a bit sharper with TC2x than the new 100-400 at its long end. Althouh that may come down to differences in the copy or just because you think he's a douch, depends on you. I found that an interesting statement, andnit somehow collides with your estimation. But I guess pixel peeping is not everyone's buisness 🙄.

Normally, I don't like quoting TDP as it usually compares only one copy of each.  But, I'll make an exception for Mr. Northrup. Here's a pair where the 100-400mm II is most clearly sharper.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I own both lenses and 2x and 1.4x teleconverters.  Comparing tons of photos that I've done to manually check lens calibration/AFMA between them with a Spyder LensCal, with, without the TC's, whatever -- my copy of the 100-400LII is sharper at f/5.6 than my copy of the 70-200/2.8 IS II for everything except close to the wide end (near 100mm).  This is also true of the chromatic aberration.

The consistency of focus from Reikan FoCal is also a little better on the 100-400, but since both are excellent, that's neither here nor there.

I don't think this is an isolated copy thing, because I borrowed (a different copy) both of those lenses before I purchased either, and I have a couple of friends with both of them too, and we've all commented on how clean you can pixel peep the 100-400LII.

But it's neither here nor there.  If you own both lenses, there is no way you'll stick a 2x TC onto a 70-200 to use a 400/5.6 unless you happen to be somewhere without the 100-400.  The extra collapsed length, greater weight, loss of 100-140, and greater MFD all just make the 100-400LII a better tool for that job.

I would really welcome a 70-200/2.8 that had the improvements in the 100-400LII, and I would probably spring for it, because this is my cat photography lens.  Mode 3 IS would be really nice too, for backyard birding.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Another Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III Mention [CR2]
« Reply #44 on: January 29, 2018, 04:55:30 PM »