July 20, 2018, 01:13:36 AM

Author Topic: Review: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II by TDP  (Read 4432 times)

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 7233
  • USM > STM
Re: Review: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II by TDP
« Reply #15 on: July 12, 2018, 07:41:03 PM »
There was one key point in the 24-105L II that I suspect is also part of Canon's strategy with these new 70-200s - the focus motor was MUCH better tuned for use with both DPAF and for Video Servo AF.  That indicates that it will also function much better in a mirrorless application...which may be Canon's strategy if they continue to utilize the EF mount for their rumored FF mirrorless.

Whoa, time out.  The Ring USM in the 24-105L II is better than the I version under the same camera body's DPAF?!  You've published on this, Dustin?  I would love to read about that.

I was under the impression that lenses with ring USM -- ring USM + FTM focusing, not the odd ring USM + FBW variants out there -- didn't get better / worse with respect to DPAF.  I thought they all worked about the same under DPAF, and if DPAF performance improvements ever came, they'd come from body improvements, not lens improvements. 

If this is true, why the hell wouldn't Canon bring that up in the launch video?  Mirrorless schmirrorless, DPAF is in LiveView right now and if Canon could tout better LiveView performance, why didn't they?

Also: this finding, if true, feels like a Ring USM for DPAF, or Ring USM II, and I'd want to know exactly which lenses do and do not have it.

- A

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II by TDP
« Reply #15 on: July 12, 2018, 07:41:03 PM »

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 7233
  • USM > STM
Re: Review: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II by TDP
« Reply #16 on: July 12, 2018, 07:43:22 PM »
If this is true, why the hell wouldn't Canon bring that up in the launch video?  Mirrorless schmirrorless, DPAF is in LiveView right now and if Canon could tout better LiveView performance, why didn't they?

This would totally be a top-line selling point.  It would encourage Mk I people with DPAF bodies to pony up to buy the new one, it would scare off prospective FF mirrorless users or current DPAF SLR owners from bargain-hunting the Mk I, etc.

Again: If true, why on earth wouldn't Canon come out front and center with this?

- A

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6972
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: Review: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II by TDP
« Reply #17 on: July 12, 2018, 07:54:34 PM »
If this is true, why the hell wouldn't Canon bring that up in the launch video?  Mirrorless schmirrorless, DPAF is in LiveView right now and if Canon could tout better LiveView performance, why didn't they?

This would totally be a top-line selling point.  It would encourage Mk I people with DPAF bodies to pony up to buy the new one, it would scare off prospective FF mirrorless users or current DPAF SLR owners from bargain-hunting the Mk I, etc.

Again: If true, why on earth wouldn't Canon come out front and center with this?

- A
i agree

Obviously the electronics is upgraded, there is more computing power so it can IS better, and if the algorithms for AF have also been improved, then one would expect better AF performance.....

It’s hard to put numbers on these things, but one would at least expect Canon to say that it is improved.....  surely they would be bragging about “new and improved”....

I can see them keeping quiet and not mentioning “less copy variation” or “greater AF consistency” because they don’t want to publicly admit to the masses that such things exist.... but not saying “faster” is something I don’t understand
« Last Edit: July 12, 2018, 07:58:30 PM by Don Haines »
The best camera is the one in your hands

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 7233
  • USM > STM
Re: Review: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II by TDP
« Reply #18 on: July 12, 2018, 07:57:00 PM »
And this is my point..... version one of the lens was approaching lens design perfection. There is very little room to improve the optics, if any..... and yet people complain?
Enough of this whingeing! This is what photozone wrote when they reviewed the lens first in 2007:

Glad you brought that up.  From Photozone, here's how they pegged the Mk I:

8 MP Crop:  5.0 stars optical rating
15 MP Crop:  4.5 stars
21 MP FF:  4.0 stars

It's 2018 now, and there are +29 more MP to perform on.   How do you think it will rate on that finer canvas?

IMHO, Canon can't keep cranking out higher resolution sensors and not have us expect to see L glass improve over time in return.   I wasn't looking for a budget optical miracle, but a clearly optically better lens for (say) $1699-1799 would have been a better call I think.  In absence of that, this remains an underweight and unwarranted refresh to me.

Would you be happy if Canon did this to another legendary, perceived-to-be-perfect instrument?  If the 135 f/2L II only got about the same performance, would you be all right with that?

I believe my pros-cons list was fair.  If that is whinging, I shall continue to do it. 

- A

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6972
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: Review: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II by TDP
« Reply #19 on: July 12, 2018, 08:03:10 PM »
And this is my point..... version one of the lens was approaching lens design perfection. There is very little room to improve the optics, if any..... and yet people complain?
Enough of this whingeing! This is what photozone wrote when they reviewed the lens first in 2007:

Glad you brought that up.  From Photozone, here's how they pegged the Mk I:

8 MP Crop:  5.0 stars optical rating
15 MP Crop:  4.5 stars
21 MP FF:  4.0 stars

It's 2018 now, and there are +29 more MP to perform on.   How do you think it will rate on that finer canvas?

IMHO, Canon can't keep cranking out higher resolution sensors and not have us expect to see L glass improve over time in return.   I wasn't looking for a budget optical miracle, but a clearly optically better lens for (say) $1699-1799 would have been a better call I think.  In absence of that, this remains an underweight and unwarranted refresh to me.

Would you be happy if Canon did this to another legendary, perceived-to-be-perfect instrument?  If the 135 f/2L II only got about the same performance, would you be all right with that?

I believe my pros-cons list was fair.  If that is whinging, I shall continue to do it. 

- A

But are we now at the point where even the best zooms are not good enough to get the full potential out of high megapixel cameras? Have we reached the point where it’s only good primes to get that level of performance?
The best camera is the one in your hands

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 7233
  • USM > STM
Re: Review: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II by TDP
« Reply #20 on: July 12, 2018, 08:11:50 PM »
If this is true, why the hell wouldn't Canon bring that up in the launch video?  Mirrorless schmirrorless, DPAF is in LiveView right now and if Canon could tout better LiveView performance, why didn't they?

This would totally be a top-line selling point. 
i agree

Obviously the electronics is upgraded, there is more computing power so it can IS better, and if the algorithms for AF have also been improved, then one would expect better AF performance.....

We need a better AF testing database.

1) Time to run the full focus distance
2) Time to lock/confirm
3) Hit rate, hopefully as a function of aperture (choose a few?  wide open, f/2.8,  f/5.6?)
4) Hit rate at center vs. peripheral points
5) General statements on accuracy, if large AFMA adjustments were needed, etc.
6) Performance of Servo vs. One Shot (really hard to quantify, presume this would be observations only)

And then all that again under LiveView.

LensTip gives us (1) and a bit of (3) (usually at f/2.8.) while rather rarely making comments on the other points.

But if the internet can give me tabulated testing on Sony fps / buffer performance on JPG vs. compressed RAW vs. uncompressed RAW, the internet can give me this, too.   ;D

- A

AlanF

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3631
Re: Review: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II by TDP
« Reply #21 on: July 12, 2018, 09:16:11 PM »
And this is my point..... version one of the lens was approaching lens design perfection. There is very little room to improve the optics, if any..... and yet people complain?
Enough of this whingeing! This is what photozone wrote when they reviewed the lens first in 2007:

Glad you brought that up.  From Photozone, here's how they pegged the Mk I:

8 MP Crop:  5.0 stars optical rating
15 MP Crop:  4.5 stars
21 MP FF:  4.0 stars

It's 2018 now, and there are +29 more MP to perform on.   How do you think it will rate on that finer canvas?

IMHO, Canon can't keep cranking out higher resolution sensors and not have us expect to see L glass improve over time in return.   I wasn't looking for a budget optical miracle, but a clearly optically better lens for (say) $1699-1799 would have been a better call I think.  In absence of that, this remains an underweight and unwarranted refresh to me.

Would you be happy if Canon did this to another legendary, perceived-to-be-perfect instrument?  If the 135 f/2L II only got about the same performance, would you be all right with that?

I believe my pros-cons list was fair.  If that is whinging, I shall continue to do it. 

- A

Very few lenses get to 4 stars in photozone’s more recent tests. It’s up there with best primes. Everyone believes themselves to be fair. It’s what others think that counts.
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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II by TDP
« Reply #21 on: July 12, 2018, 09:16:11 PM »

jd7

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 534
Re: Review: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II by TDP
« Reply #22 on: July 12, 2018, 09:31:39 PM »
If this is true, why the hell wouldn't Canon bring that up in the launch video?  Mirrorless schmirrorless, DPAF is in LiveView right now and if Canon could tout better LiveView performance, why didn't they?

This would totally be a top-line selling point.  It would encourage Mk I people with DPAF bodies to pony up to buy the new one, it would scare off prospective FF mirrorless users or current DPAF SLR owners from bargain-hunting the Mk I, etc.

Again: If true, why on earth wouldn't Canon come out front and center with this?

- A

It's certainly a good question, but speculating (and assuming it is true the AF is indeed improved with PDAF and movie servo) ... perhaps a concern it might discourage sales of other lenses which haven't been updated yet - which would include lenses such as the 70-200s until the recent refreshes? Or a belief that making a big deal out of it in the context of a FF mirrorless camera being available will help make the whole FF mirrorless thing make a bigger splash?
6DII | 24-70 4L IS | 70-200 2.8L IS II | Sigma 35 1.4 Art | Sigma 50 1.4 Art | Sigma 85 1.4 EX | 135 2L |1.4x mk II

takesome1

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1229
Re: Review: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II by TDP
« Reply #23 on: July 12, 2018, 10:44:29 PM »
And this is my point..... version one of the lens was approaching lens design perfection. There is very little room to improve the optics, if any..... and yet people complain?
Enough of this whingeing! This is what photozone wrote when they reviewed the lens first in 2007:

Glad you brought that up.  From Photozone, here's how they pegged the Mk I:

8 MP Crop:  5.0 stars optical rating
15 MP Crop:  4.5 stars
21 MP FF:  4.0 stars

It's 2018 now, and there are +29 more MP to perform on.   How do you think it will rate on that finer canvas?

IMHO, Canon can't keep cranking out higher resolution sensors and not have us expect to see L glass improve over time in return.   I wasn't looking for a budget optical miracle, but a clearly optically better lens for (say) $1699-1799 would have been a better call I think.  In absence of that, this remains an underweight and unwarranted refresh to me.

Would you be happy if Canon did this to another legendary, perceived-to-be-perfect instrument?  If the 135 f/2L II only got about the same performance, would you be all right with that?

I believe my pros-cons list was fair.  If that is whinging, I shall continue to do it. 

- A

But are we now at the point where evcomn the best zooms are not good enough to get the full potential out of high megapixel cameras? Have we reached the point where it’s only good primes to get that level of performance?

I think we are getting closer, not fully there yet. The improvements going forward will seem and be smaller and smaller. I am looking forward to the day that I do not think I need more mp, fps or dr.

It would be nice to only upgrade because your camera wears out, not because it is obsolete or doesn't perform to the current standards.

It is getting closer, but not there yet.

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 7233
  • USM > STM
Re: Review: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II by TDP
« Reply #24 on: July 12, 2018, 11:08:18 PM »
It's certainly a good question, but speculating (and assuming it is true the AF is indeed improved with PDAF and movie servo) ... perhaps a concern it might discourage sales of other lenses which haven't been updated yet - which would include lenses such as the 70-200s until the recent refreshes? Or a belief that making a big deal out of it in the context of a FF mirrorless camera being available will help make the whole FF mirrorless thing make a bigger splash?

Ah, so this is the 'Rated for 5DS' lens list that was not published until the 5DS came out, i.e. they could do the same for 'DPAF/mirrorless optimized' a year from now.  The could surprise us that they've been doing this with lenses the last 5 years and we had no idea.

Interesting theory!  Perhaps we test lenses' DPAF focus speed on a standardized DPAF body (say a 5D4) and see if might already be implemented in a few cases?  Compare all these recent refreshes vs. their predecessors?

- A
« Last Edit: July 12, 2018, 11:11:52 PM by ahsanford »

Antono Refa

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 595
Re: Review: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II by TDP
« Reply #25 on: July 13, 2018, 01:54:54 AM »
    Pro: 
    <snip>
    Photographers: All your superwhites are a matching color now.[/li]
    [/list]

    Yes, this is a very important pro.

    jd7

    • EOS 7D Mark II
    • *****
    • Posts: 534
    Re: Review: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II by TDP
    « Reply #26 on: July 13, 2018, 02:16:44 AM »
    Interesting theory!  Perhaps we test lenses' DPAF focus speed on a standardized DPAF body (say a 5D4) and see if might already be implemented in a few cases?  Compare all these recent refreshes vs. their predecessors?

    - A

    Could be an interesting experiment! Unfortunately the newest model lens I have (in terms of release dates) is the 24-70 f/4L IS so I don't have a good range of lenses to test. I'd be happy to assist if anyone wants to lend me some fancy new lenses to play with though :)
    6DII | 24-70 4L IS | 70-200 2.8L IS II | Sigma 35 1.4 Art | Sigma 50 1.4 Art | Sigma 85 1.4 EX | 135 2L |1.4x mk II

    ahsanford

    • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
    • ***********
    • Posts: 7233
    • USM > STM
    Re: Review: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II by TDP
    « Reply #27 on: July 13, 2018, 02:22:29 AM »
    Interesting theory!  Perhaps we test lenses' DPAF focus speed on a standardized DPAF body (say a 5D4) and see if might already be implemented in a few cases?  Compare all these recent refreshes vs. their predecessors?

    - A

    Could be an interesting experiment! Unfortunately the newest model lens I have (in terms of release dates) is the 24-70 f/4L IS so I don't have a good range of lenses to test. I'd be happy to assist if anyone wants to lend me some fancy new lenses to play with though :)

    Apparently the two 24-105Ls would be the place to start, according to the comments on this thread.

    - A

    canon rumors FORUM

    Re: Review: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II by TDP
    « Reply #27 on: July 13, 2018, 02:22:29 AM »

    Sharlin

    • EOS 5D Mark IV
    • ******
    • Posts: 660
    Re: Review: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II by TDP
    « Reply #28 on: July 13, 2018, 04:54:36 AM »
    If this is true, why the hell wouldn't Canon bring that up in the launch video?  Mirrorless schmirrorless, DPAF is in LiveView right now and if Canon could tout better LiveView performance, why didn't they?

    Also: this finding, if true, feels like a Ring USM for DPAF, or Ring USM II, and I'd want to know exactly which lenses do and do not have it.

    I don't think it's such a binary thing. There's no reason to assume that there's One Ring USM to rule them all, (pardon the terrible pun) eternally unchanging. Given that the video autofocus enabled by DPAF has very different requirements from stills AF, it makes sense that new-gen Ring USM implementations have software and hardware improvements to make them more DPAF-and-particularly-video-friendly—but not the sort of major changes that would warrant a new brand name for the tech.

    In particular, given that the classic Ring USM motor drive electronics and its guiding firmware have been engineered to do one thing well—move the focus group(s) from A to B as quickly and precisely as possible—it makes sense that they're not well-optimized for doing the same thing slowly and smoothly. Indeed, it's perhaps somewhat surprising that the current-gen DPAF bodies are able to drive most USM lenses pretty smoothly (the first-gen DPAF could only do that with STM lenses, designed from the get-go for doing exactly that).
    « Last Edit: July 13, 2018, 05:16:18 AM by Sharlin »

    marcel

    • PowerShot G1 X II
    • ***
    • Posts: 44
      • personal work
    Re: Review: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II by TDP
    « Reply #29 on: July 13, 2018, 03:21:26 PM »
    I have the EF 50-200 f/3.5-4.5L from 1987  the 4x zoom and the size/weight are perfect, I do not understand why they have not done something similar anymore.
    5D | 550D | 600D | 600 | RT | 14 L | 28 1.8 | 35 2 | 50 1.8 mk 1 | 16-35 L mk 2 | 28-80 2.8-4L | 50-200 3.5-4.5 L | 80-200 2.8 L | 100-300 5.6 L | Pixma Pro 9500 |  FT QL | FTbN QL |  FD 24 2.8 | FD 28 3.5 | FD 35 3.5 | FDn 35 2 | FD 50 3.5 SSC M | FD 100 2.8 | FD 135 3.5 |  FD 200 4 |

    canon rumors FORUM

    Re: Review: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II by TDP
    « Reply #29 on: July 13, 2018, 03:21:26 PM »