Another Mention of a New EF 70-200mm Lens [CR2]

[j-nord]

Nikons got a new 70-200 for $2,800. In typical Canon fashion they are going produce a new lens that outperforms and under cuts Nikons latest and greatest lens.

 

[rrcphoto]

the last time there was any mention at all over how long it takes to develop a pro lens - it was suggested that it takes from start to finish around 7 years.

Advances in tech may cut that down but probably not significantly.

So people should step back off the ledge, just because we hear about it doesn't mean it's coming out tomorrow.

 

[riker]

/4 PLEEEEEASE

 

[Random Orbits]

Hmm.... will Canon start propagating its newest DO technology into the regular L line?

 

[David - Sydney]

Maybe they could put the large front element to good use and deliver larger aperture on the wide end.

No need to artificially limit it to 2.8 at 70mm when it could do 1.4 at 70, 2 at 135 and 2.8 at 200.

For those that like constant aperture you still have 2.8 everywhere, but for those that like more versility you get faster lens at the wider end.

You need to go into optical engineering. Canon has a job waiting for you!

+1

#armchairexpert

Maybe the great Neuro could explain why when Canon is designing a new lens with an entrance pupil of 71mm it can not be a 1.4 aperture at 70mm (70/71=1 and 200/71=2.8)?

It is not like Canon does not know how to do variable aperture lenses.

Sure, Canon knows how to do variable aperture lenses. The 100-400 needs the same 71mm entrance pupil as a 200/2.8, and 100/71 = 1.4. Why the heck did those dumb optical engineers at Canon make it a pathetic f/4.5 at the wide end, when clearly it can be f/2 or even f/1.8? Same with the 70-300L, limiting its variable aperture to a pathetic f/4 at the wide end when clearly since 70/53.5 = 1.3 it should be f/1.4 or at worst f/1.8?

What could Canon know that you don't? Oh yeah, they know how to design lenses. :

From an amateur observer.... could Canon up the aperture to say f/2.5 with a 82mm filter size with the other "small" mods (IS/coatings etc) and then significantly lead the market and justify an increased price?

 

[neuroanatomist]

From an amateur observer.... could Canon up the aperture to say f/2.5 with a 82mm filter size with the other "small" mods (IS/coatings etc) and then significantly lead the market and justify an increased price?

Possibly. But I actually think they should have gone to an 82mm filter for the current 70-200/2.8 IS II, as they did for the 16-35/2.8 II and the 24-70/2.8 II. If you put a standard UV filter (e.g. B+W F-Pro mount) on the 70-200 II, you actually get increased vignetting – pretty rare for a telezoom lens.

 

[AJ]

Nikons got a new 70-200 for $2,800. In typical Canon fashion they are going produce a new lens that outperforms and under cuts Nikons latest and greatest lens.

Or, in typical Canon fashion, they will jack up the price to $2800

 

[ntt2007]

I am very surprise if they would update this lens while other ancient primes need more urgent update. However, I will very please with a new mark 3, so I can get a mark 2 for better price.

 

[serenaur]

I'm another one in the "literally just bought a 70-200 f2.8L II" camp and thought it would be another few years before it was updated because of other lenses that could have been updated & product cycle timing. Many salient points in this thread have made me realise I was perhaps a bit naiive there though! Either way, I took advantage of a Canon cashback offer and the post Brexit UK sterling currency fall to get a good deal on it and it's blown me away (as I expected it would do!). Even if the updated lens is released next year, my new 70-200 will easily earn it's money back before I could even pre-order the new one .

 

[arthurbikemad]

I'd not panic over a Mk3 of the 70-200, as said by all the Mk2 is SOO good you'd be hard pushed to tell any difference IF they did make it sharper, again as said makes you wonder if Canon have "revised" the materials used and have aimed for a more cost effective lens, maybe they are rethinking the manufacturing process and trying to cut costs in order to maximize profit, not saying that's the case as I like to think Canon give the BEST they can and the best comes at a cost no matter how high that maybe, the consumer has a choice after all. If the lens is lighter, smaller, has LCD screen, perhaps sharper etc etc etc then someone who is already happy would upgrade, others with GAS may just upgrade anyway... one thing is for sure it's NOT going to be the same price as the Mk2! Just look at the 24-105!!!

 

[9VIII]

Nikons got a new 70-200 for $2,800. In typical Canon fashion they are going produce a new lens that outperforms and under cuts Nikons latest and greatest lens.

Or, in typical Canon fashion, they will jack up the price to $2800

Nikon already beat them to it...

Speaking of non-Canon lenses with Fluorite, now that Sigma appears to be using it in their Supertelephoto lenses, I have to wonder if they won't include Fluorite in the new 70-200A (or is that "S"?).

 

[ewg963]

This cannot be the lens they think most needs updating. It is a great lens no one criticises. Not like their 50mm offerings.

+1000000000000000000000

 

[ewg963]

When are they updating the 35L II and 100-400L II?? ;D

Everyone's a comedian.

We presently have a staple tool of a 50mm f/1.4 that dates back to the earliest parts of the Clinton administration and here goes Canon, updating its f/2.8 zooms every 8-10 years with the regularity of Old Faithful.

Give me a damn sharp 50 prime with modern USM that is smaller than a pickle jar. Take my money.

- A

 

[photojoern.de]

But it also sells in strong numbers. It could be that the manufacturing tools are now requiring replacement or ongoing maintenance to keep going, so a replacement lens could be just as cost effective as maintaining the current design with some newer technology in the areas of IS and some optical improvement opportunities. It isn't necessarily about optical performance.

This is pretty much what I thought as well when reading the rumor. There is no need for an update with this lens (70-200 L f2.8 IS II). When you use this lens and something is wrong with your photo: it was you!

 

[Maiaibing]

LCD screen,

Totally missing LCD screens on my lenses...

 

[Maximilian]

LCD screen,

Totally missing LCD screens on my lenses...

Does it have to be a swivel screen? ;D

 

[Antono Refa]

LCD screen,

Totally missing LCD screens on my lenses...

Does it have to be a swivel screen? ;D

No, but it should support wi-fi so users could see the data on their smartphones.

 

[tron]

LCD screen,

Totally missing LCD screens on my lenses...

Does it have to be a swivel screen? ;D

No, but it should support wi-fi so users could see the data on their smartphones.

And GPS in case camera does not have one ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

 

[arthurbikemad]

LCD screen,

Totally missing LCD screens on my lenses...

Does it have to be a swivel screen? ;D

No, but it should support wi-fi so users could see the data on their smartphones.

And GPS in case camera does not have one ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Am I missing something, is the LCD display on lenses not something that's happening? i.e EF 70-300??? It can have a friken milkshake machine on it for all I care..

 

[tron]

LCD screen,

Totally missing LCD screens on my lenses...

Does it have to be a swivel screen? ;D

No, but it should support wi-fi so users could see the data on their smartphones.

And GPS in case camera does not have one ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Am I missing something, is the LCD display on lenses not something that's happening? i.e EF 70-300??? It can have a friken milkshake machine on it for all I care..

It could but it would increase size and weight. Plus you would be inclined to have a milkshake instead of taking a nice photo ;D ;D ;D