Canon Announces the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III and EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II

[symmar22]

I am surprised as well they didn't go for a complete redesign of the f2.8. Having both f4 IS and f2.8 IS II, the f4 is as sharp (if not sharper) on my 5DSr, but with a bit more chroma (cyan/red). So it might be that the new f4 IS is actually a sharper lens than the 2.8. Having more blades, a better IS, cheaper, much lighter, it seems to be a no brainer if you don't need the speed. Looks like the filter size is bigger as well, that should translate in less vignetting. But IMO they should have aimed higher for the 2.8.

Canon greed being Canon greed, it seems we'll have to shell out about 150€ more for the tripod collar of the f4, as usual.

 

[riker]

Nooooooo! (((
The genius about f4 is the size and weight (and image quality). And now instead of making it lighter, they make it even a bit bigger and heavier. Why?!?!?

I'm so sure the same tragedy will happen with 50/1.4. Decades go by with fast evolving technologies everything getting a LOT smaller and lighter, but the most used dslr lenses just don't seem to follow

 

[docsmith]

the 3

Don't believe nothin' until we see some testing.

Could the coatings help improve optics? Maybe, but why wasn't it hyped? I'll wait for the testing. Was ghosting an issue? I missed that one with this lens.

But, in the end, I feel relieved. I do not feel the need to upgrade a lens that I love. We get to stay together forever

the new 2

Very intrigued. I went the 70-300 L for my lightweight alternative to the 70-200 f/2.8 II, but 5 stop IS, improved optics, lighter weight. Throw on a 1.4xTC....hmmm....


EDIT---TDP has a tool to compare the MTFs. Big jump in the f/4, at 70 mm....very slight at 200 mm
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx

 

[YuengLinger]

Someone please help me understand how Canon just phoned in the redesign of one of their legendary and most heavily used instruments. It is the same damn lens with (presumably) better flare control and a new coat of paint. That's it.

I get the Mk II is a tough act to follow. So why not wait until you can follow it with something clearly better?

- A

You are also upset that the price is so low that "they are leaving money on the table."

When was the last time you ran a large corporation? Have you ever run a business at all? When was the last time you thought a company could be fair and profitable if not controlled by a bureaucracy? Do you have any concept of how difficult business is in our era of constant change? Not only does the market change radically, sometimes from quarter to quarter, but regulations and taxing also drastically change. And now any PR misstep by an employee, once broadcast by social media, can result in millions of dollars of "shame penalties." Yet even in these uniquely difficult times Canon and others, followng their own strategies which apparently exasperate you, manage to keep steering their corporate ships along profitable courses.

Stacking posts loaded with bizarrely detailed yet meaningless conjecture does not make for interesting, helpful, or informative reading.

Optically, and within the price range of Canon's overall market, there really wasn't much room for the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II to improve. It is one of the finest portrait lenses ever produced, and it's great for action too.

If Canon's upgrade history led to unrealistic expectations at this point in a product line, maybe they need to tweak their marketing.

In addition to changes to control production costs, the new 2.8 might also be slightly easier to service and even more reliable. Surely such a popular lens shows up often in Canon service centers, and hopefully Canon listens to reports from the frontline service techs.

Now, if we find a degradation of actual performance, say analogous to the now infamous 24-105 II, Canon sales will likely take a significant hit in the high-end body and lens lineup. But as of this morning, and certainly during the last couple of weeks filled with breathless nonsense speculation, there is no evidence that the new lenses will not be up to the standards of their predecessors.

 

[weixing]

Hi,

I am surprised as well they didn't go for a complete redesign of the f2.8. Having both f4 IS and f2.8 IS II, the f4 is as sharp (if not sharper) on my 5DSr, but with a bit more chroma (cyan/red). So it might be that the new f4 IS is actually a sharper lens than the 2.8. Having more blades, a better IS, cheaper, much lighter, it seems to be a no brainer if you don't need the speed. Looks like the filter size is bigger as well, that should translate in less vignetting. But IMO they should have aimed higher for the 2.8.

Hi,
I'm not surprise... F4 version will usually be better than the F2.8 version if both are the same generation. F4 lens is easier to design and manufacture compare to a F2.8, so everything should be better in the F4.

Canon greed being Canon greed, it seems we'll have to shell out about 150€ more for the tripod collar of the f4, as usual.

If they include the tripod collar, someone out there will said:"Canon greed being Canon greed, it seems we'll have to paid for the tripod collar that we don't need, as usual.". Hard to make everyone happy.

Anyway, may be Canon research show them that most people don't use the tripod collar for the F4 lens especially with a good IS and lightweight, so they can reduce cost and more competitive/profit.

Have a nice day.

 

[BeenThere]

Look at the upside of the new 2.8: Parts obsolescence is pushed out another 10 years if you ever need repair of your v II.

 

[SV]

Well, on a positive note I feel zero need to upgrade my 2.8...

 

[Sharlin]

This forum, before announcement: "The 70-200/2.8 II is already the best and sharpest thing ever, I can't see how they could make it even better"

This forum, after announcement: "Omg I can't believe they didn't do a real upgrade, the 70-200/2.8 II optics are no match for future 100MP sensors and anyway GREEDY CANON"

: : :

 

[Don Haines]

Two points:

First, why does the F4 lens have 5 stops of IS and the F2.8 lens have only 3.5 stops? The answer is easy..... the faster lens has heavier elements and they can not be moved as quickly as the elements in the F4 lens....

Second: Why does it seem like there is no update to the F2.8 lens? What about coatings? What about accuracy of machining? Just because it has the same number of elements does not mean it is the same resolution, the optical design can still have been changed and the lens elements may also be more accurately polished...... Wait until you see the results from an optical test bench before you pronounce judgement.......

 

[jolyonralph]

For those complaining, just remember this is the same lens as before, at the same retail price, but with improved coatings.

It was a good idea for Canon to update this lens with the newer coatings.

It was a good idea to give it a new version number, so buyers can be clear about which version they are buying.

I am therefore officially calling the complaints to close. Good day

 

[YuengLinger]

Two points:

First, why does the F4 lens have 5 stops of IS and the F2.8 lens have only 3.5 stops? The answer is easy..... the faster lens has heavier elements and they can not be moved as quickly as the elements in the F4 lens....

Second: Why does it seem like there is no update to the F2.8 lens? What about coatings? What about accuracy of machining? Just because it has the same number of elements does not mean it is the same resolution, the optical design can still have been changed and the lens elements may also be more accurately polished...... Wait until you see the results from an optical test bench before you pronounce judgement.......

The clouds parted, the sunshine surrounded us, and, lo and behold, we heard the voice of reason. Nice for a change!

 

[Ozarker]

am quite surprised that Canon gave the f/4 "better specs" in some regards than f/2.8. Especially IS with 5 vs. 3.5 stops [I'd assume that both numbers are now stated based on the same new, "more realistic" standard?] and 3rd IS mode [not on 2.8 III, correct?] and also number of iris blades [9 vs. 8] - not that I would care very much about the latter, but it's still a "spec sheet spec".

I expected Canon to come out with a "killer" f/2.8 Mk. III that optically bests Nikon and Sony GM - at least by some ever so small margin - but measurable in Lens Rentals OLAF tests. But, lets wait for those tests and see what "coating the airsphere" really does for IQ. ;D

Looks like they put their lens design resources into the f/4 version rather than the f/2.8.

The Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 E will remain the lens to beat, though note that (despite his enthusiasm for the Nikkor’s mif graphs) Roger Cicala only thinks the difference would be noticeable at 135mm.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/nikon-70-200mm-f2-8e-fl-ed-af-s-vr-mtf-tests/

The Sony FE 70-200 f/2.8 GM on the other hand, just doesn’t seem to be that impressive optically:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/01/an-update-and-comparison-of-the-sony-fe-70-200mm-f2-8-gm-oss/

Perhaps Canon see Sony as the main threat.

If it takes a machine to "see" the difference, then there is no practical difference.

 

[Ozarker]

I am surprised as well they didn't go for a complete redesign of the f2.8. Having both f4 IS and f2.8 IS II, the f4 is as sharp (if not sharper) on my 5DSr, but with a bit more chroma (cyan/red). So it might be that the new f4 IS is actually a sharper lens than the 2.8. Having more blades, a better IS, cheaper, much lighter, it seems to be a no brainer if you don't need the speed. Looks like the filter size is bigger as well, that should translate in less vignetting. But IMO they should have aimed higher for the 2.8.

Canon greed being Canon greed, it seems we'll have to shell out about 150€ more for the tripod collar of the f4, as usual.

Yes, all about greed. That's it. Greed.

Greed: intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.

Canon could have included the collar and just raised the price to cover it, or people who don't want it don't have to pay for it. Greed? Not forcing someone to pay for a feature they don't want is greed? Wow.

Do you really think the collar on the f/2.8 is free? :

For those saying there is no change on the inside... new coatings. There might be something else in the way things are now done as opposed how they were done on the II that makes it better.

"Big deal, coatings." Then maybe Canon should scrap the coatings altogether.

This gave some of you the cramps? There are pills for that. Take one.

 

[YuengLinger]

I am surprised as well they didn't go for a complete redesign of the f2.8. Having both f4 IS and f2.8 IS II, the f4 is as sharp (if not sharper) on my 5DSr, but with a bit more chroma (cyan/red). So it might be that the new f4 IS is actually a sharper lens than the 2.8. Having more blades, a better IS, cheaper, much lighter, it seems to be a no brainer if you don't need the speed. Looks like the filter size is bigger as well, that should translate in less vignetting. But IMO they should have aimed higher for the 2.8.

Canon greed being Canon greed, it seems we'll have to shell out about 150€ more for the tripod collar of the f4, as usual.

Yes, all about greed. That's it. Greed.

Greed: intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.

Canon could have included the collar and just raised the price to cover it, or people who don't want it don't have to pay for it. Greed? Not forcing someone to pay for a feature they don't want is greed? Wow.

Do you really think the collar on the f/2.8 is free? :

There's a healthy aftermarket for 70-200mm f/4 and 100mm f/2.8 IS macro collars. Only GREED would make a decision that fosters opportunity like that! ;D


(And, on a personal note, I use the f/4 for family and other fun outings. A collar just gets in the way in those cases. And, in a pinch, with a good ballhead on a decent tripod, the f/4 is light enough for camera-body mounting anyway.)

 

[Ozarker]

I am surprised as well they didn't go for a complete redesign of the f2.8. Having both f4 IS and f2.8 IS II, the f4 is as sharp (if not sharper) on my 5DSr, but with a bit more chroma (cyan/red). So it might be that the new f4 IS is actually a sharper lens than the 2.8. Having more blades, a better IS, cheaper, much lighter, it seems to be a no brainer if you don't need the speed. Looks like the filter size is bigger as well, that should translate in less vignetting. But IMO they should have aimed higher for the 2.8.

Canon greed being Canon greed, it seems we'll have to shell out about 150€ more for the tripod collar of the f4, as usual.

Yes, all about greed. That's it. Greed.

Greed: intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.

Canon could have included the collar and just raised the price to cover it, or people who don't want it don't have to pay for it. Greed? Not forcing someone to pay for a feature they don't want is greed? Wow.

Do you really think the collar on the f/2.8 is free? :

There's a healthy aftermarket for 70-200mm f/4 and 100mm f/2.8 IS macro collars. Only GREED would make a decision that fosters opportunity like that! ;D


(And, on a personal note, I use the f/4 for family and other fun outings. A collar just gets in the way in those cases. And, in a pinch, with a good ballhead on a decent tripod, the f/4 is light enough for camera-body mounting anyway.)

Yup.

Any reason to jab ribs and "stick it to the man", I guess. People are nuts. At the very least, economic illiterates.

 

[KirkD]

Improved coatings can increase contrast or "rendering"(as Dustin Abbot puts it) which can make a photograph "pop". That type of upgrade is more important to me than a minuscule increase in resolution at certain focal lengths in the zoom range (albeit both is even better). I can see that Canon would want to have a designation for this lens that sets it apart from the Mark II. What I am really waiting for are the two professional lens announcements rumoured for later this year. I would like to see an upgraded (resolution and contrast) 14 mm f2.8L and a 135 mm f2.0L IS or a 16-35mm f2.8L IS with the same optics but with IS. I'd gladly pay the extra.

 

[Act444]

Meh, I will wait for actual tests and samples before making a final judgment. Having said that, as a version II owner I’m not yet sold on a desire to upgrade. I consider that a good thing though!

The optics in V.II are already quite good anyway, so it’s not a lens that really needed replacing in the first place. That said, I must say that updates of high-end Canon lenses typically mean major upgrades...so this makes me wonder why they didn’t just give it another year or two to really invest in a solid upgrade of the current version, given that the life cycles of these lenses are like 7-9 years...

 

[neuroanatomist]

I really can't abide that my 70-200/2.8 II is not a good color match with my other white lenses. It looks especially appalling with one of the MkIII TCs mounted behind it. Thank you, Canon, for finally releasing a 70-200/2.8 III that is the proper color. I'll be preordering one immediately.

Well...maybe not.

 

[fullstop]

speaking of "upgrades": lens collars and tripod foot - still no Arca-compatible grooves in the OEM Canon tripod foot? For both lenses f/2.8 and f/4?

Now, playing devil's advocate Canapologist:

Of course it is only to the benefit of the customer that Canon in their infinite corporate wisdom chose to "upgrade" the lenses' paint job instead, as this provides another 0,0001% better heat dissipation in desert environments, which is much better for customers compared to not having to buy and think about suitable tripod plates.

And equally important: GENEROUS Canon is nice and caring enough to give a multitude of small aftermarket companies a *Really Right* business opportunity.


did I get it right? ;D

 

[stevelee]

This forum, before announcement: "The 70-200/2.8 II is already the best and sharpest thing ever, I can't see how they could make it even better"

This forum, after announcement: "Omg I can't believe they didn't do a real upgrade, the 70-200/2.8 II optics are no match for future 100MP sensors and anyway GREEDY CANON"

: : :

;D