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

[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.

+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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Yasko]

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 .

 

[AlanF]

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

 

[Talys]

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.

 

[brad-man]

I haven't yet updated my 100-400 and I don't believe I will update my 70-200 ll. Still, this sort of thing does make my arsenal feel a little dated.

 

[slclick]

The first thing I thought of was how it will affect Mk2 prices but I bet it won't Canon holds steady which is a good thing and a bad thing. Anywho, I'm interested in the G2. Black is beautiful.

 

[[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.

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 .

I like Tony a great deal. I think he's most times a voice of reason. That said, he's smoking something if he things the 70-200 x2 is as good as the 100-400 II at 400 mm. I did those bench tests too. Maybe copy variation could explain it, but that would be one cruddy 100-400. I kept my 70-200 mostly for the aperture shooting nature under canopy. Wouldn't even put the 1.4x on it in those circumstances. Not that it wasn't OK, but that it was pointless when I had access to a 100-400 II.

 

[ahsanford]

I kept my 70-200 mostly for the aperture shooting nature under canopy. Wouldn't even put the 1.4x on it in those circumstances. Not that it wasn't OK, but that it was pointless when I had access to a 100-400 II.

One imagines Canon's topline, make-or-break design inputs for the 100-400L II were:

• EF mount
• Comes in a lovely shade of white
• Is sharper than a 2x teleconvertered 70-200L

Because if that third one wasn't satisfied, why even make the lens?

- A

 

[pwp]

I will add, that when I owned a rental house here in Canada, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II wasn't the most reliable lens in the line-up. They constantly had elements shift and it de-centered a fair bit. If I remember correctly, IS failure was quite high too.

I'd have to dig up the old repair spreadsheets, but I think it was in the top 5 in repair dollars spent. Yes, it rented more often, but we also had more of them than any other lens, so I think the repair cost per copy was quite high too.

It could definitely use a build quality upgrade.

Wow those renters must have been rough. I've had a 70-200 f/2.8 in pretty robust daily use since the 1995 original, an IS updated version from 2001 and my current IS-II version since 2011. They've all been stellar performers and none of them ever saw the CPS repair centre. They bang around in my bag, occasionally get wet or exposed to extreme dust, salt spray, the odd bump and biff but mercifully, no drops. I'd rate them as tough.

It's pretty hard to imagine what Canon could upgrade. Latest generation IS is an obvious one. New lens coatings. A better, smoother collar design. After the very welcome weight loss on the current 300 f/2.8 and 400 f/2.8, I'd welcome a little weight loss on a 70-200 f/2.8 is III. Retaining the current 77mm filter size would keep the size down vs 82mm. Every bit counts in a heavy, full bag.

70-200 f/2.8 is III ? Yep, I'll get one.

-pw

 

[Yasko]

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.

I wouldnt use a TC either... and I assessed his judgement critically, because I just couldnt believe it (pretty dumb reason, eh?).
But one thing is for certain: Both are great lenses, the 100-400 being the more modern one and I really was thjnking about getting a 100-400 instead of the 2.8 70-200.
But as Ahsanford said, there is a reason for both lenses. And mine was the 2.8 aperture. Now I will need to get a FF camera before I upgrade the lens or buy a 100-400 I guess .

 

[Hesbehindyou]

I owned a rental house here in Canada, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II wasn't the most reliable lens in the line-up. [...] It could definitely use a build quality upgrade.

Wow those renters must have been rough. I've had a 70-200 [yada yada about a single data point ]

Lens issues is probably as much the repeated courier shipments as it is the renters.

I'd imagine rental companies regularly test their lenses to pick up and fix issues before they're at a level that will be noticeable in general use so pick up more problems than do normal people.

 

[3dit0r]

Isn’t an update to the already stellar 70-200 2.8 L II IS about the last priority lens-wise? The 50mm 1.4 and 1.2 prime range badly needs a refresh...

 

[jeffa4444]

I will add, that when I owned a rental house here in Canada, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II wasn't the most reliable lens in the line-up. They constantly had elements shift and it de-centered a fair bit. If I remember correctly, IS failure was quite high too.

I'd have to dig up the old repair spreadsheets, but I think it was in the top 5 in repair dollars spent. Yes, it rented more often, but we also had more of them than any other lens, so I think the repair cost per copy was quite high too.

It could definitely use a build quality upgrade.

Interesting. We own a rental house here in the UK in both London & Manchester and have a fairly large number of EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II lenses. I checked our rental system after reading your post and our failure rate on a highly utilised lens is actually quite low so I could not explain the difference.
The CAs on this lens at close focus particularly at the 70mm end are fairly average and its this above all else that should be addressed in a MK III. I cannot see weight dramatically changing given the f stop, coating improvements could help transmission & clarity but the current MKII is already a fairly sharp lens even on a 5DS/r. The lens Canon should really address first is the EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM II namely adding IS as this makes a big difference for cameras like the 5DS/r.

Weighing in on the EF 100-400mm f4-5.6L IS USM II vs the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II they are really quite different lenses with different intents. Both suffer image quality losses using the EF 1.4X III TC as indeed any lens does but the TC is a get you out of jail card in certain situations its not meant to be a permanent fixture to the lens.

From a personal perspective the current EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II I use mainly with my 5DS as a portrait lens mainly but not exclusively in the studio and its come to be one of my go to lenses. I was able to "select" my version from a batch of six lenses and I'm fortunate to be able to use professional tools to test it on.
For me to change it the new MKIII version would need to justify a marked IQ improvement particularly regarding CAs because Canon are bound to significantly increase the cost at least initially.

In part Canon maybe spurred to do so because the Sony FE 70-200mm f2.8 GM OSS re-set the goal posts its just as sharp if not sharper than the Canon MKII but controls CAs far better and whilst I'm not a lover of the Sony A7 / A9 series ergonomically the G Master lenses have thrown down the intent Sony has to grab some of Canon & Nikon business.

The strangest omission from Canon line-up however remains a decent EF 50mm f1.4L IS USM

 

[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.

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.

It felt like the effect was worst at 200mm and MFD as I say, and I guess that wouldn't be the usual setting for a portrait (you'd either use a shorter FL or be further from your subject), as a person's face might be too large to fit in the frame? Anyhow, it's my own fault for trying to use a screwdriver to hammer nails, so to speak

 

[Ozarker]

Isn’t an update to the already stellar 70-200 2.8 L II IS about the last priority lens-wise? The 50mm 1.4 and 1.2 prime range badly needs a refresh...

Different teams working on those lenses.

 

[WillT]

Glad to see Canon keeping their lens lineup fresh.

 

[ahsanford]

Isn’t an update to the already stellar 70-200 2.8 L II IS about the last priority lens-wise? The 50mm 1.4 and 1.2 prime range badly needs a refresh...

Different teams working on those lenses.

+1. The 70-200 team is the Avengers and the 50 prime team is a 3 month old who sleeps all day and gets nothing done.

- A

 

[tron]

Isn’t an update to the already stellar 70-200 2.8 L II IS about the last priority lens-wise? The 50mm 1.4 and 1.2 prime range badly needs a refresh...

Different teams working on those lenses.

+1. The 70-200 team is the Avengers and the 50 prime team is a 3 month old who sleeps all day and gets nothing done.

- A

;D ;D ;D That 3 month old must be some Avenger's child who work on all 70-200 lenses with time to spare ;D ;D ;D

 

[Ozarker]

Isn’t an update to the already stellar 70-200 2.8 L II IS about the last priority lens-wise? The 50mm 1.4 and 1.2 prime range badly needs a refresh...

Different teams working on those lenses.

+1. The 70-200 team is the Avengers and the 50 prime team is a 3 month old who sleeps all day and gets nothing done.

- A

hahaha!