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

[djack41]

The competition is changing the market and this is what Canon rolls out?? GEEEZ!

 

[JRPhotos]

They look like decent upgrades to me....

I'm just hoping for an upgrade to the 50mm 1.2; I'd like to see it get the same treatment that the 85 1.2 received.

 

[Sporgon]

Both these new lenses will undoubtably have the direction indicator feedback that Canon has been adding to its lenses since about 2012, and enables the phase detect from post 2012 cameras to be equal in accuracy and precision as contrast off the chip. As most of us value sharp in-focus images and have higher mp cameras than in the past I'd have thought that that in itself would be a useful upgrade for many.

Hopefully the reviews will report greater AF accuracy.

 

[YuengLinger]

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

Yes, corporations should be regulated so that they focus solely on being generous, nice, and caring. No need to produce profitable items so they can stay in business by meeting the needs of customers.

I wonder how many of the snide posts are coming from photographers who own and use the current 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. Just wonder.

I have no reason to upgrade mine, but if I were buying new, the updated lens coatings and electronics would be a sign that Canon is keeping a great portrait lens fresh--and will be supporting it with the industry's best service infrastructure for years to come.

 

[unfocused]

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"

Very true.

I would point out though that some of us were trying to tamp down expectations before the announcement, suggesting that the 2.8 III might not see much of a change.

On the other hand, I really did expect some modest changes:

• Newer IS
• Third IS Mode
• Closer Focusing Distance
• New Lens Hood with Filter access slot

Am I upset about any of this? Not really. The current IS is perfectly adequate for the work I do. I don't need IS when shooting indoor sports and when shooting other events, I'm more likely to be limited by the need to stop the movement of the subjects, not by the capacity of the IS.

I seldom use the lens for close focus work so the minimum focusing distance isn't a problem for me.

And, I've never used either the third IS Mode or the filter window on my 100-400 (and I don't ever use the lens hood on my 70-200 because it's one more thing I don't need to carry in my bag), so I have to admit that for me personally, I won't miss any of these features the III could have had.

Still, I do wonder, just from a speculative/business sense, if we will wait another eight years for a version IV, or if we will see the III replaced in a relatively short time frame. To me, the III feels like a last-minute addition. We've been reading predictions about the f4 upgrade for months, and I wonder if the f2.8 upgrade was added rather late in the game.

 

[ethanz]

Both these new lenses will undoubtably have the direction indicator feedback that Canon has been adding to its lenses since about 2012, and enables the phase detect from post 2012 cameras to be equal in accuracy and precision as contrast off the chip. As most of us value sharp in-focus images and have higher mp cameras than in the past I'd have thought that that in itself would be a useful upgrade for many.

Hopefully the reviews will report greater AF accuracy.

The video review I posted on the first page seems to say "increased resolution" and increased AF accuracy for both lenses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP8aBZdXLJQ

 

[gruhl28]

$210 for the (not included) tripod ring for the f/4?! And then you still need to buy an arca-swiss compatible foot.

 

[Act444]

Actually, a boost in AF accuracy would be nice to see...again, let’s see what the reviews say. Field results and comparisons between the two lenses will be infinitely more insightful than looking at on-paper differences...

 

[ethanz]

Actually, a boost in AF accuracy would be nice to see...again, let’s see what the reviews say. Field results and comparisons between the two lenses will be infinitely more insightful than looking at on-paper differences...

Yes, we aren't spec sheeters like Sony people, we like real world differences.

 

[Cali Capture]

Very Surprised by the comments here. As pointed out by some, we don't know what the performance of the new 2.8 is yet, so why conjecture. We all agree the current version is very good. Most of us are looking for upgrades in other lenses anyways, all 50mm, 135 f/2 w/ is, 16-35 f/2.8 is and 24-70 f/2.8 is, perhaps a new DO in long lenses. So money saved for most of us with the current f/2.8 70-200mm, we made a great investment in a hard to beat lens. Furthermore, it seams obvious that we are in an era of diminishing returns on large aperture glass improvement. Look at the cost, size, lack of AF and IS of Zeiss Otus glass and ask yourself how Canon (or anyone else) is going to make huge leaps? The trend for f/4 improvements has been consistent (11-24, 16-34is, 100-400) and I would guess due to improved technology abilities on the tolerances of those smaller elements. I'm looking forward to more IS Lenses (and perhaps in Body is) as the MP count goes up. Off tripod, this is were you are going to gain better resolution, especially at longer focal lengths. I have the 70-200 f/4 non IS, I bag it when out doing landscape w a tripod, it's sharp & light. This new f/4 IS might have me upgrading it, as it could be great to carry mounted as I hike, for wildlife & macro shots ect.

 

[fullstop]

I wonder how many of the snide posts are coming from photographers who own and use the current 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. Just wonder.

yes, here! I find the absence of Arca-grooves on the lens/tripod foot already annoying on the Mk. II. On Mk. III i find it ... insane. Even Tamron has finally seen the light on their 70-200 G2! Lack of such a simple feature that certainly would not break the bank on manufacturing cost of a 2000+ lens, but would be extremely useful to many user and does not hurt users who don't need it ... is simply "Canon-esque". And it certainly does not increase my desire for an "upgrade".

Yes, we aren't spec sheeters like Sony people, we like real world differences.

yes. In my real world use, having Arca-compatible grooves right were they long - directly on the OEM Canon lens foot - would make a real, positive difference.

 

[ahsanford]

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

That was clearly on the presumption that a proper/better new lens was coming. They took a different path. I still contend a proper sequel to the f/2.8L IS II would have comfortably reeled in $2500.

I never thought Canon would rest on its laurels in this class of lens. I clearly was wrong.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

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....

Sure, Don, agree -- but one design is from 2018 and the other is from 2010. That certainly plays into the difference.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Actually, a boost in AF accuracy would be nice to see...again, let’s see what the reviews say. Field results and comparisons between the two lenses will be infinitely more insightful than looking at on-paper differences...

Rudy, around 2:00-2:05 in the video: AF speed and responsiveness are unchanged (for the f/2.8.).

I seem to recall something else said about better focusing on newer bodies, but that may have been the f/4.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Very Surprised by the comments here. As pointed out by some, we don't know what the performance of the new 2.8 is yet, so why conjecture.

1) It's not conjecture. The f/2.8 is the same optical design -- straight out Rudy's mouth in the video -- with new ASC coatings added (I don't know if it was on 1 or 2 elements).

2) I just checked TDP, Canon, etc.: Canon appears (so far) to have only published new MTF charts for the f/4L IS II. That's not a good sign.

I'm sure the coatings help, but an altogether new optical design could have stepped resolution, reduced MFD, improved IS, etc.

Furthermore, it seams obvious that we are in an era of diminishing returns on large aperture glass improvement. Look at the cost, size, lack of AF and IS of Zeiss Otus glass and ask yourself how Canon (or anyone else) is going to make huge leaps?

Then don't release a III. Hold off on a III until it's truly better. Make a running change to the current design to switch to the new paint if the business wants its lenses to match in the field.

Others here are on point that a newer model that modernized for lower cost of manufacture, easier servicing, etc. are likely the drivers here. Canon will make money on this. The business rationale for this model is sound.

But I think what's critically different here is Canon's reputation for performance in this top top top class of lens. This specific lens is both a workhorse and a showhorse for Canon. You pull this sort of update with a nifty fifty, a kit L zoom going in boxes with FF bodies, etc. You just don't do this with a flagship instrument. Could you imagine what would happen if Canon did this with a superwhite?

- A

 

[RayValdez360]

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"

: : :

Well you have to understand that people dont expect canon to upgrade again for a long ass time. so when new cameras come out canon might still use this as a flagship for another 5 to 10 years. every camera and brand standards will surpass it by then. if this happens

 

[ahsanford]

MTF still not posted at Canon USA for the f/2.8L IS III, but here it is from Japan:

http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/tele-zoom/ef70-200-f28l-iii/spec.html

Same site, Mk II:

http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/tele-zoom/ef70-200-f28l-is-ii/spec.html

...and a GIF, below, that I just made. Flare may improve, folks, but that's probably going to be it.

- A

 

[dkangel]

MTF still not posted at Canon USA for the f/2.8L IS III, but here it is from Japan:

http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/tele-zoom/ef70-200-f28l-iii/spec.html

Same site, Mk II:

http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/tele-zoom/ef70-200-f28l-is-ii/spec.html

...and a GIF, below, that I just made. Flare may improve, folks, but that's probably going to be it.

- A

Wow. Just Wow. Good comparison - waste of an upgrade. Should have stuck with doing a new 50 1.4.

 

[triggermike]

Was expecting to see the newer f2.8 shed a little weight as Canon has done with all the latest "white lens" upgrades but it seems they have only shed a mere 50g (1440g vs 1490g/3.17lbs vs 3.28lbs.)

 

[ahsanford]

Wow. Just Wow. Good comparison - waste of an upgrade. Should have stuck with doing a new 50 1.4.

The coatings will help or they wouldn't have done it. I'm sure if portraits are your bread and butter you'll want to see how portraits look with a strong backlight.

Perhaps -- given the surprisingly low asking price and common componentry, accessories, AF, IS, etc. -- we shouldn't call this a III.

We should call it the 'Mk II 2018 edition' or 'Mk II White'. Mind you, it's not a rip off at all; it's a stellar piece of kit. But it's just this year's model in a new color.

- A