Another Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III Mention [CR2]

[Talys]

Do you really find the CPL window useful? Very hard to adjust the polarizer through mine. And the little "shutter" doesn't stay tightly open or closed. Current assessment: Gimmick.

I don't own the 100-400L II, so I can't comment.

But it can't possibly be worse than the current options of (a) pulling off the hood to turn the CPL or (b) reaching into the hood while attached to turn the CPL and the pain points of doing that (accidentally fingerprint smearing the filter, occluding the OVF to assess CPL strength while doing this, etc.)

- A

I think the little polarizer window on 100-400L II is a whole lot better than without. I usually point mine facing down, so that it doesn't matter if it opens by accident. I have smudged my filter on occasion by accident.

On a tripod, it is easier to use (where my left hand is free) than when handheld. This is especially true on the 100-400 L II where the lens extends out, and once it's extended more than a little, the hood/filter are just too far forward. However, on the 70-200, this wouldn't be the case (it'd act like adjusting a polarizer without tripod at 100mm on the 100-400 L II, which isn't bad).

Again, having the window facing down is helpful, because accessing the top of the lens isn't easy (you'd have to support the camera + lens with just your right hand)

 

[tron]

In addition, regarding IS even a new technology say a 5-stop IS will give a 1 stop advantage of IS in the new version. If Canon decides to update 24-70 2.8 II to an IS version they will give it a 4 stop advantage at least!

The wider they go, the harder it is to get so many stops of IS benefit, correct? I seem to recall the 16mm end of the 16-35 f/4L IS saw less benefit from IS than at the 35mm end. Perhaps the same would be true of the 24 vs. 70 end of a standard zoom?

- A

Perhaps! And perhaps there is the rest of the zoom range that will benefit alot. Just like your future 50mm would benefit from IS! Or perhaps all of the zoom range!

 

[ahsanford]

In addition, regarding IS even a new technology say a 5-stop IS will give a 1 stop advantage of IS in the new version. If Canon decides to update 24-70 2.8 II to an IS version they will give it a 4 stop advantage at least!

The wider they go, the harder it is to get so many stops of IS benefit, correct? I seem to recall the 16mm end of the 16-35 f/4L IS saw less benefit from IS than at the 35mm end. Perhaps the same would be true of the 24 vs. 70 end of a standard zoom?

- A

Perhaps! And perhaps there is the rest of the zoom range that will benefit alot. Just like your future 50mm would benefit from IS! Or perhaps all of the zoom range!

Don't misunderstand me -- virtually every lens would benefit from IS. I'm just arguing that 4 stops might be a tall ask for a 24mm lens.

- A

 

[tron]

In addition, regarding IS even a new technology say a 5-stop IS will give a 1 stop advantage of IS in the new version. If Canon decides to update 24-70 2.8 II to an IS version they will give it a 4 stop advantage at least!

The wider they go, the harder it is to get so many stops of IS benefit, correct? I seem to recall the 16mm end of the 16-35 f/4L IS saw less benefit from IS than at the 35mm end. Perhaps the same would be true of the 24 vs. 70 end of a standard zoom?

- A

Perhaps! And perhaps there is the rest of the zoom range that will benefit alot. Just like your future 50mm would benefit from IS! Or perhaps all of the zoom range!

Don't misunderstand me -- virtually every lens would benefit from IS. I'm just arguing that 4 stops might be a tall ask for a 24mm lens.

- A

There is a whole range up to 70mm though.

 

[Canoneer]

So... This means I can get the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II version for $699, right? RIGHT?????

 

[tron]

So... This means I can get the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II version for $699, right? RIGHT?????

Ehhh hmmm maybe with "1" in front of that number Seriously now maybe you would find it for less than 1699 but not much. 699 isn't the price of a used version I so it definitely will not be the price of a used version II.

 

[unfocused]

So... This means I can get the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II version for $699, right? RIGHT?????

It depends on how many lens scratches and how much dust and fungus you can tolerate...and if you don't mind if the serial numbers have been ground off.

 

[davidcl0nel]

also even though doubtful a slight price decrease

No way!
Remember the difference between 24-70 I and II.
They will take a sum, guaranteed.

 

[Talys]

Oh, oh, one other thing. Replace the tripod ring with the really sweet one from the 100-400LII. The "glide" is much smoother on it, and it doesn't accidentally slide out. Also, I like the idea of the removable/replaceable foot, though I don't use an arca foot on my 100-400, preferring the Fusion plate, as it is available as a popular lengths (longer = more gimbal friendly) and has a flip-down ring for a blackrapid or other hook/strap system.

 

[scyrene]

Obvious change would be the addition of the third IS option. Closer minimum focus distance is also needed. The 100-400 II focuses much closer than the 70-200 II.

I would expect any improvement in sharpness and reduction in weight to be minimal.

I found the sharpness wasn't all that great close to MFD especially at 200mm, but I don't know how much sample variation played a part.

 

[Ozarker]

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.

 

[Ryananthony]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Ozarker]

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.

 

[leGreve]

How do you repaint The Mona Lisa? :O

 

[Ozarker]

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.

 

[[email protected]]

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]

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]

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.