A New EF 70-200mm is Coming in 2018 [CR3]

[Sharlin]

Figuring out how to get faster than f/2.8 would also be amazing.

I doubt a 70-200mm f/2 would be popular in the stills industry for several reasons:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Price. An f/2 zoom will be expensive.
[*]Weight. The existing 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses weight ~3 pounds, an f/2 would be significantly heavier.
[*]Front element at least 100mm in diameter. 105mm screw in filters are expensive and rare.
[/list]

My bet is such a lens would be heavier and more expensive than a 300mm f/2.8, so at least 6 pounds and $6,0000. Might work for the cinema market, as another poster mentioned.

Seeing that there exists exactly one commercially available full-frame f/2 zoom, the Sigma 24-35mm A, I think it's safe to say that a 70-200mm f/2 is far beyond the limits of engineering and economical feasibility, at least pending major breakthroughs in optics such as full-spectrum optical metamaterials.

 

[Talys]

Seeing as a 200mm f/2 PRIME lens is huge and ungodly expensive -- USD$5,500+, 2.5kg+, and 8"+ without a hood -- I would shudder to think of what a 70-200mm would be in size, weight, and price

 

[Sharlin]

Though now /me wonders what it would take to upscale the Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 A to full frame. I’m sure Sigma engineers have internally done some modelings..

 

[Michael Clark]

For this all you need to do is buy a rubber hood that screws on the CPL. Very cheap on those chinese sites (DX, etc).

There's a reason hoods don't rotate and have cutouts in the front, though, aren't there? An entire hood that turns would not optimally shade from flare.

- A

At 70mm with a FF camera maybe there's a reason for the very middle of the very forward parts of those cutouts.

I can tape a piece of paper around the end of the hood for my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II. (Note: the vignetting in this shot is due to the peripheral illumination falloff of the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS at 105mm.)

Here's what a photo taken with the paper taped in place on the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II looks like at 70mm and f/11 on a FF camera. There is just barely a bit of vignetting in some of the very extreme corners. The vignetting was even softer and harder to see at f/2.8. If I pull the paper back just a quarter of an inch or so, the vignetting is gone. The deep cutouts on the ET-87 hood appear to be far larger and deeper than needed for any reason other than looks.

Notice that all of Canon's lenses with minimum focal lengths of 100mm or more do not have cutouts in the hoods. They are all plain round hoods. This is because the angles of view of such lenses is so narrow that a hood would need to be considerably longer than those supplied to obstruct the optical path.

Canon's 70-300mm lenses (both L and consumer versions) have plain round hoods. The 70-200mm f/4 L lenses have plain round hoods. All of them are longer than the shortest parts of the cutouts for the 70-200mm f/2.8 hoods. They are almost, but not quite, as long as the 70-200mm f/2.8 hoods with the deep cutouts.

 

[Michael Clark]

Anyone else hoping for a EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM?
And will Canon make a EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM already???

There's no real motivation for Canon to upgrade the EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS. Tamron hasn't just released a 70-200/4 IS that is slightly sharper on the edges at 2/3 the price of Canon's current lens. Nikon hasn't just released a 70-200/4 that is demonstrably better at 3/2 the price of Canon's current 70-200/4 IS.

This is about Canon leapfrogging back to the top of the heap of the 70-200mm f/2.8 pyramid, like they did back in 2010.

 

[Ozarker]

For this all you need to do is buy a rubber hood that screws on the CPL. Very cheap on those chinese sites (DX, etc).

There's a reason hoods don't rotate and have cutouts in the front, though, aren't there? An entire hood that turns would not optimally shade from flare.

- A

At 70mm with a FF camera maybe there's a reason for the very middle of the very forward parts of those cutouts.

I can tape a piece of paper around the end of the hood for my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II. (Note: the vignetting in this shot is due to the peripheral illumination falloff of the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS at 105mm.)

Here's what a photo taken with the paper taped in place on the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II looks like at 70mm and f/11 on a FF camera. There is just barely a bit of vignetting in some of the very extreme corners. The vignetting was even softer and harder to see at f/2.8. If I pull the paper back just a quarter of an inch or so, the vignetting is gone. The deep cutouts on the ET-87 hood appear to be far larger and deeper than needed for any reason other than looks.

Notice that all of Canon's lenses with minimum focal lengths of 100mm or more do not have cutouts in the hoods. They are all plain round hoods. This is because the angles of view of such lenses is so narrow that a hood would need to be considerably longer than those supplied to obstruct the optical path.

Canon's 70-300mm lenses (both L and consumer versions) have plain round hoods. The 70-200mm f/4 L lenses have plain round hoods. All of them are longer than the shortest parts of the cutouts for the 70-200mm f/2.8 hoods. They are almost, but not quite, as long as the 70-200mm f/2.8 hoods with the deep cutouts.

What about this?

https://www.amazon.com/Professional-80-400mm-24-120mm-70-200mm-24-105mm/dp/B007OKIAS8/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1520306081&sr=8-7&keywords=metal+lens+hood+canon+70-200

 

[hne]

At 70mm with a FF camera maybe there's a reason for the very middle of the very forward parts of those cutouts.

I can tape a piece of paper around the end of the hood for my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II. (Note: the vignetting in this shot is due to the peripheral illumination falloff of the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS at 105mm.)

Here's what a photo taken with the paper taped in place on the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II looks like at 70mm and f/11 on a FF camera. There is just barely a bit of vignetting in some of the very extreme corners. The vignetting was even softer and harder to see at f/2.8. If I pull the paper back just a quarter of an inch or so, the vignetting is gone. The deep cutouts on the ET-87 hood appear to be far larger and deeper than needed for any reason other than looks.


Notice that all of Canon's lenses with minimum focal lengths of 100mm or more do not have cutouts in the hoods. They are all plain round hoods. This is because the angles of view of such lenses is so narrow that a hood would need to be considerably longer than those supplied to obstruct the optical path.

Canon's 70-300mm lenses (both L and consumer versions) have plain round hoods. The 70-200mm f/4 L lenses have plain round hoods. All of them are longer than the shortest parts of the cutouts for the 70-200mm f/2.8 hoods. They are almost, but not quite, as long as the 70-200mm f/2.8 hoods with the deep cutouts.

Try it again with an open aperture. Stopping down means you're only using the centre of your front lens and thus the cutouts make less difference.
I know I've posted some examples of a 200/2.8 with tape at the end of the hood with a rectangular hole that would only affect exposure from a certain aperture. Just can't find it.

 

[jhpeterson]

I, too, am hoping that a new EF 70-200 is coming soon. Not that my current f:2.8 IS II is all that bad, but it could improvement.
It's plenty sharp in most all cases, though it could still use more work in the corners. But, I think what bothers me the most is there's still a good bit of falloff in mine, at almost all focal lengths even without a hood or filter. Sure, it's not as bad as the original version, which I sent back three times to get corrected, but it's noticeable just the same.
Another problem I've had is it gets loose, not all that often, but maybe every few months. I've had to tighten screws on the barrel just to make it sharp enough to use, even on one short trip running to a hardware store for a screwdriver.
I not sure my experience is typical or whether I have a bad copy. I bought mine as a refurb from the Canon Factory Store just a few months before the price dropped. Had I waited until then, I could have bought new for the same price - or less. By that time, my lens was starting to show problems with the paint near the mount and around the lens collar starting to bubble and peel off. I've had very good experiences with other refurbished gear, so I think this is a one-off case.
Generally speaking, this has been a well-performing lens, otherwise I would have dumped it long ago. It's almost always delivered crisp images and, when it didn't, all I needed to do was tighten a few screws. (I seldom keep the lens collar on these days in case I need to make a quick fix.) But, Canon could do well if it were to improve the build quality, say to the level of the new 35 and 85 1.4 models. And, optically, a little more evenness of illumination would be nice. I hope somebody at Canon is listening.

 

[mppix]

I, too, am hoping that a new EF 70-200 is coming soon. Not that my current f:2.8 IS II is all that bad, but it could improvement.
It's plenty sharp in most all cases, though it could still use more work in the corners. But, I think what bothers me the most is there's still a good bit of falloff in mine, at almost all focal lengths even without a hood or filter. Sure, it's not as bad as the original version, which I sent back three times to get corrected, but it's noticeable just the same.
Another problem I've had is it gets loose, not all that often, but maybe every few months. I've had to tighten screws on the barrel just to make it sharp enough to use, even on one short trip running to a hardware store for a screwdriver.
I not sure my experience is typical or whether I have a bad copy. I bought mine as a refurb from the Canon Factory Store just a few months before the price dropped. Had I waited until then, I could have bought new for the same price - or less. By that time, my lens was starting to show problems with the paint near the mount and around the lens collar starting to bubble and peel off. I've had very good experiences with other refurbished gear, so I think this is a one-off case.
Generally speaking, this has been a well-performing lens, otherwise I would have dumped it long ago. It's almost always delivered crisp images and, when it didn't, all I needed to do was tighten a few screws. (I seldom keep the lens collar on these days in case I need to make a quick fix.) But, Canon could do well if it were to improve the build quality, say to the level of the new 35 and 85 1.4 models. And, optically, a little more evenness of illumination would be nice. I hope somebody at Canon is listening.

I carry that lens almost daily since 5+ years and didn't experience anything like it. It may be worth to invest in a revision at CPS that should solve the issues.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But, I think what bothers me the most is there's still a good bit of falloff in mine, at almost all focal lengths even without a hood or filter. Sure, it's not as bad as the original version, which I sent back three times to get corrected, but it's noticeable just the same.
Another problem I've had is it gets loose, not all that often, but maybe every few months. I've had to tighten screws on the barrel just to make it sharp enough to use, even on one short trip running to a hardware store for a screwdriver.
I not sure my experience is typical or whether I have a bad copy.

The screws coming loose seems atypical. The vignetting is certainly noticeable, although it’s pretty easy to correct effectively. One thing to point out is that a standard filter will actually increase vignetting with the 70-200/2.8 II, so if you typically use a UV/protection filter, consider switching to a thinner one (e.g. B+W XS-Pro) or don’t use one. Personally, I think Canon cut the design a bit close on that lens – the other f/2.8 zooms (16-35, 24-70) went from 77mm to 82mm diameter filters with their MkII updates, but the 70-200/2.8 IS remained at 77mm.

I hope somebody at Canon is listening.

Not here. Contact them directly, or at least try posting on their own forum.

 

[Michael Clark]

At 70mm with a FF camera maybe there's a reason for the very middle of the very forward parts of those cutouts.

I can tape a piece of paper around the end of the hood for my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II. (Note: the vignetting in this shot is due to the peripheral illumination falloff of the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS at 105mm.)

Here's what a photo taken with the paper taped in place on the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II looks like at 70mm and f/11 on a FF camera. There is just barely a bit of vignetting in some of the very extreme corners. The vignetting was even softer and harder to see at f/2.8. If I pull the paper back just a quarter of an inch or so, the vignetting is gone. The deep cutouts on the ET-87 hood appear to be far larger and deeper than needed for any reason other than looks.


Notice that all of Canon's lenses with minimum focal lengths of 100mm or more do not have cutouts in the hoods. They are all plain round hoods. This is because the angles of view of such lenses is so narrow that a hood would need to be considerably longer than those supplied to obstruct the optical path.

Canon's 70-300mm lenses (both L and consumer versions) have plain round hoods. The 70-200mm f/4 L lenses have plain round hoods. All of them are longer than the shortest parts of the cutouts for the 70-200mm f/2.8 hoods. They are almost, but not quite, as long as the 70-200mm f/2.8 hoods with the deep cutouts.

Try it again with an open aperture. Stopping down means you're only using the centre of your front lens and thus the cutouts make less difference.
I know I've posted some examples of a 200/2.8 with tape at the end of the hood with a rectangular hole that would only affect exposure from a certain aperture. Just can't find it.

Color of applicable sentence changed to red so that the practically blind can see it.

 

[Michael Clark]

But, I think what bothers me the most is there's still a good bit of falloff in mine, at almost all focal lengths even without a hood or filter. Sure, it's not as bad as the original version, which I sent back three times to get corrected, but it's noticeable just the same.
Another problem I've had is it gets loose, not all that often, but maybe every few months. I've had to tighten screws on the barrel just to make it sharp enough to use, even on one short trip running to a hardware store for a screwdriver.
I not sure my experience is typical or whether I have a bad copy.

The screws coming loose seems atypical. The vignetting is certainly noticeable, although it’s pretty easy to correct effectively. One thing to point out is that a standard filter will actually increase vignetting with the 70-200/2.8 II, so if you typically use a UV/protection filter, consider switching to a thinner one (e.g. B+W XS-Pro) or don’t use one. Personally, I think Canon cut the design a bit close on that lens – the other f/2.8 zooms (16-35, 24-70) went from 77mm to 82mm diameter filters with their MkII updates, but the 70-200/2.8 IS remained at 77mm.

I hope somebody at Canon is listening.

Not here. Contact them directly, or at least try posting on their own forum.

I bought my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II new in August 2010. The screws on the bayonet mount and the screws under the tripod collar flush with the lens barrel were constantly working their way out and I tightened them often.

In 2014 I sent it to CPS for a minor tilt issue (possibly related to a minor drop a few months earlier). I got it back with only a little improvement in the optical alignment, but the screws suddenly miraculously stopped working themselves out.

I worked around the minor tilt issue until another drop definitely caused a major tilt issue in 2017. This time I sent a CD with test shots demonstrating the problem and a letter describing it in much more detail. I got the lens back in perfect optical alignment. The screws are *tight* this time.

My guess is that the earliest production runs either did not torque the screws tightly enough or didn't use any type of loctite type compound. Apparently by 2014 they had increased the torque or started using 'loctite'.