A New EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III Still a Possibility in 2018? [CR1]

[jolyonralph]

With the 2020 Tokyo olympics coming up expect Canon to refresh everything that they possibly can that is essential to the sports photog crowd, whether it needs updating or not.

 

[Maximilian]

How can you improve the mark 2 version?

If you compare it with the latest Nikon model you might find some advantages on the Nikon side - for a much higher price though.

If you now see the 24-70 and 70-200/2.8 zooms as the workhorse lenses for photo and sports journalists you might consider that it is a pride and important image point for a brand to have the top notch / best in class here.
Also latest AF, IS and of course cost saving design or production methods could be a reason.

Nikon took over with the last version, so it's time for Canon to take the lead again.
Maybe also on the sales price - which would be disappointing for users.

I can understand your opinion. I suppose I wouldn't see any difference in real life.
But you know: Some have a strong GAS if something is better - even just by a little bit.

Are you sure about that with the Nikon? https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1089&CameraComp=1052&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Hi ethanz!

See my statement bold above. And I know the TDP results. There I see obvious advantages on the wide end for the Nikon while the Canon seems to win at 200 mm.

When you believe in uncle Roger and his "Olaf" optical bench
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/nikon-70-200mm-f2-8e-fl-ed-af-s-vr-mtf-tests/

I think the Nikon is clearly a bit better at 200mm. As always, let me emphasize this is ‘lab better.’ Actual photographs with all of the variables that introduce, I doubt the difference at 70mm or 200mm would be of any visible significance

These results fit to the German fotomagazin with similar advantages for the Nikon in lab results over the whole zoom range.

So in summary of several tests I see the Nikon slightly ahead and maybe Canon feels compelled to act.

Its a nice lens, but way over priced

I think you can obviously read the same opinion out of my original post, so ... ?

Have you seen it perform better in these other areas?

Question answered well enough?

 

[ethanz]

Have you seen it perform better in these other areas?

Question answered well enough?

Yes, well enough. Thanks for the reply with information.

 

[Ozarker]

How can you improve the mark 2 version? I don't have it, but I have understood it is nothing less than stellar piece of glass.

Easy, revert to the MkI falloff and blur rendition. The MkII is so bad I never saw the utility in 'upgrading' to a lens that is far worse at rendering a scene empathetically. The MkII is great for sports etc where the emphasis is on subject sharpness and speed to acquire focus, but it was always too jarring in the background elements to do a better job then the MkI for portraits and event work in my personal opinion.

Sharpness is s severely over rated aspect of lens performance.

I agree. While I love a razor sharp lens for some things, there can be too much sometimes. I've thrown away a lot of photos because when I peep them they aren't pin sharp. I think that was a mistake on my part so I've pulled back on the reins a little bit. My wife is 54 and is not a fan of ultra-sharp photos of herself. A little unsharpness that doesn't have to be added in post is nice in a situation like that. It's one of the reasons I've been experimenting with vintage glass. Also, proper composition covers a multitude of sins.

Interesting. I would rather have a razor-sharp photo with all the detail possible, and remove it in post-processing, than to have a blurry/soft image to begin and be unable to bring out lost detail.

A thing for every place and a place for every thing. There are probably 100 different opinions on this. I love my sharp lenses. I love my not so sharp lenses. I love the ones that faithfully render colors, and the ones that don't. I love the ones where flair is very well controlled, and others that flair like mad. They each have their place, and purpose, for what I do. ;D

 

[ethanz]

A thing for every place and a place for every thing. There are probably 100 different opinions on this. I love my sharp lenses. I love my not so sharp lenses. I love the ones that faithfully render colors, and the ones that don't. I love the ones where flair is very well controlled, and others that flair like mad. They each have their place, and purpose, for what I do. ;D

So what you are really saying is you love spending money and making Canon wealthier.

 

[filipe.ngra]

I will not upgrade! I will not upgrade! I will not upgrade! I will not upgrade!

 

[ScottyP]

Hard to believe they would upgrade a lens as much-loved as this one before upgrading their much less universally satisfying 50mm offerings.

 

[Ozarker]

A thing for every place and a place for every thing. There are probably 100 different opinions on this. I love my sharp lenses. I love my not so sharp lenses. I love the ones that faithfully render colors, and the ones that don't. I love the ones where flair is very well controlled, and others that flair like mad. They each have their place, and purpose, for what I do. ;D

So what you are really saying is you love spending money and making Canon wealthier.

Yup!

 

[Ozarker]

It won't actually be a III. It will be an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L S with a native Sony mount. Canon is going to kill off Metabones and Sony's lens business at the same time.

 

[kaptainkatsu]

I'd want to see a shorter MFD and Mode 3 IS.

However I am very pleased with my MKII and doubt I would upgrade. I have a few other things to purchase prior to upgrading an already superb lens.

 

[Talys]

It won't actually be a III. It will be an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L S with a native Sony mount. Canon is going to kill off Metabones.

LOL

;D 8) ;D

 

[gsw1]

the model II is awesome, what else to expect in the III?

 

[RGF]

the model II is awesome, what else to expect in the III?

Higher price tag - like the 24-105.

I agree that the 70-200F2.8 IS II is a great lens. The can improve it a bit, but not sure if they can make substantial improvement.

 

[Talys]

the model II is awesome, what else to expect in the III?

Higher price tag - like the 24-105.

I agree that the 70-200F2.8 IS II is a great lens. The can improve it a bit, but not sure if they can make substantial improvement.

To me, the EF 70-200L/2.8 IS II is representative of the entire high-end Canon DSLR field.

It's beautifully engineered, one of the most reliable performers on the field, and always works flawlessly -- but it shows a little bit of signs of age, in an era where Internet gurus all want things rapidly refreshed.

From a practical perspective, anyone with a 5DMk3 and 70-200L/2.8 IS II can absolutely take absolutely stunning professional-quality photographs for that focal range, competitive with any camera and lens combination made more recently. The incremental difference going to any of the flagships (including 5DMk4) and any newer 70-200 is going to be so small that nobody looking at the actual photograph will see it or care.

But that's a very old kit based on release dates, and unhelpful for reviewers that are looking for page views and for "buy your shiny new gear through this link".

 

[Random Orbits]

I would like to see Canon incorporate DO technology into more lenses. Hopefully, at some point, it'd drop the green ring and it would be an "ordinary" design tradeoff like any other.

 

[Ozarker]

I would like to see Canon incorporate DO technology into more lenses. Hopefully, at some point, it'd drop the green ring and it would be an "ordinary" design tradeoff like any other.

I think DO lenses are where the size /weight savings will be for those who want it, not in a scrawny mirrorless camera. The mirrorless cameras will be the same body shape, etc. as what we have now.

 

[Talys]

I would like to see Canon incorporate DO technology into more lenses. Hopefully, at some point, it'd drop the green ring and it would be an "ordinary" design tradeoff like any other.

I think DO lenses are where the size /weight savings will be for those who want it, not in a scrawny mirrorless camera. The mirrorless cameras will be the same body shape, etc. as what we have now.

I have always wondered if DO is something that could be made more inexpensively, or if it's one of these technologies that will always be expensive to implement.

 

[brad-man]

I would like to see Canon incorporate DO technology into more lenses. Hopefully, at some point, it'd drop the green ring and it would be an "ordinary" design tradeoff like any other.

I think DO lenses are where the size /weight savings will be for those who want it, not in a scrawny mirrorless camera. The mirrorless cameras will be the same body shape, etc. as what we have now.

I have always wondered if DO is something that could be made more inexpensively, or if it's one of these technologies that will always be expensive to implement.

From Canon News:

"Japan Patent Application 2018-45238
Diffractive Optics is still ongoing research in Canon, and there's several patent applications dealing with DO elements this week.
This first patent application is looking to improve the yield of manufacturing the diffractive optical element.
Any improvement in the yields and efficiency in manufacturing may lead us to see DO elements in cheaper lenses.


Japan Patent Application 2018-044063
More Diffractive Optics goodness. This patent application looks at a different chemical composition for the DO element to improve the ease of creating the diffractive element in a mold."


They are working on it. Good tech for all lenses, particularly very large and very small lenses...

 

[Michael Clark]

How can you improve the mark 2 version? I don't have it, but I have understood it is nothing less than stellar piece of glass.

Better IS, less distortion, less CR, Perhaps better Light transmission, Lighter weight, shorter length, potentially upgraded focus motor, macro capability, etc... There is a lot they could do to make the lens better. Whether it is necessary or not can be debated. But it's not perfect.
Hell, two of the copies I've used/ owned have an issue when paired with the t3i where it blurs the image out past the 125mm mark. Like the group that handles IS doesn't sit still or perhaps the camera can't transmit enough power to it to keep the IS group from shifting. Though, if you shake the lens a little, it corrects itself.


Never experiencd that with any other body with this lens. Not the 7D or the 5dMIII/ 5DMIV. So I dunno. Must be the camera.


Anybody else have any experience with that?

Several years ago Canon released firmware updates for several bodies to correct that glitch at 125mm.

 

[RGF]

I would like to see Canon incorporate DO technology into more lenses. Hopefully, at some point, it'd drop the green ring and it would be an "ordinary" design tradeoff like any other.

Bring on the 600 F4 DO. Hold it, that is delays for another 1-2 years (perhaps more).

how about a 600 F4 with a drop in 1.4 like the 200-400?