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

[AdamBotond]

This 2.8 Mark III is just an insult to fellow photographers. All they could achieve in 8 years is a flare reducing coating and new painting in a flagship telephoto zoom? That is blasphemous.
With the 4.0 mark II having 5 stops stabilisation, IS mode 3, shorter MFD etc... am I asking too much by putting just these tech, nothing more into a flagship 70-200 workhorse from Canon? Again, they clearly have the tech to do so, they just decided to cripple it once again. Much like they did with the 24-105 successor. Shame.

 

[Don Haines]

I would prefer that Canon did not improve the coatings and keep the lens the same price.... said nobody.....

The original was as good as it could be for that price range..... there really was not much room for improvement, so out comes a minor update....

Nobody is forcing you to upgrade, and that's not the target market.... it is new buyers. Should they be denied the latest advancements because some people have bought the previous version?

 

[Maiaibing]

Difficult to imagine that one day the 70-200 mm f/2.8 IS L shooter should envy a 70-200 mm f/4 IS L companion...


Oh well, at least the price is right for the two of them and the 70-200 mm f/4 IS L II seems like a solid upgrade.

The biggest let down to me is that the smaller lens gets mode III IS - which is the IS to have - but the larger one does not ??!!??

 

[Don Haines]

This 2.8 Mark III is just an insult to fellow photographers. All they could achieve in 8 years is a flare reducing coating and new painting in a flagship telephoto zoom? That is blasphemous.
With the 4.0 mark II having 5 stops stabilisation, IS mode 3, shorter MFD etc... am I asking too much by putting just these tech, nothing more into a flagship 70-200 workhorse from Canon? Again, they clearly have the tech to do so, they just decided to cripple it once again. Much like they did with the 24-105 successor. Shame.

ok...

The F4 lens has smaller elements and the IS can move them faster than the F2.8 version. Both are the same IS tech, it is the laws of physics that make the IS on the F2.8 slower.... Remember, you only have so much power available to move the elements....

The previous optical design was fantastic. There is very little room to improve on it, short of adding a lot more fluorite elements, and that blows the cost out of the water! Making the minimum focus distance shorter has a negative impact on the image quality... what would people be saying if they did that?

 

[fullstop]

Fine. What specification should Canon use for the dovetail?

easy. Exactly the same one Tamron uses on its 70-200 G2. 8)

Canon should ofc also keep one (or 2) 1/4" hole/s in the bottom of the foot. So if grooves don't fit your very special lever clamps, you can always attach a matching super-special plate.

 

[lexptr]

Why not give it new paint and better coatings? If you like the one you've got, keep it. But if you NEED to buy one isn't it nice to have an improved one?

Right, they do it sometimes. E.g. they updated lens cap with new design for all lenses. So even if you buy an old lens, you get it with new cap. All are happy, everything is ok. This time they gone further: updated color and labels on the lens and even added new coatings. Everything would be fine, BUT they marked it with a new release number. We all know lenses are updated a bit slower, than bodies. For this lens it was 8 years since the last update. And we probably going to wait another 8 years for the next. Now think again, is this lens good enough for another 8 years? Currently it is a great lens. But it is already not the best in class. And it could get all the same improvements, the f4 version got.

 

[Maiaibing]

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

- A

Great joke with the GIF if it was not actually sad... :'(

 

[Larsskv]

I would prefer that Canon did not improve the coatings and keep the lens the same price.... said nobody.....

The original was as good as it could be for that price range..... there really was not much room for improvement, so out comes a minor update....

Nobody is forcing you to upgrade, and that's not the target market.... it is new buyers. Should they be denied the latest advancements because some people have bought the previous version?

Well said!

To those who wanted more from this upgrade, remember that the asking price is fair and not pumped up.

Further, if you move outside the canonrumors world and into the “real world” where people care more about the pictures they get, than which lens they use, I guess that most people appreciate that Canon puts their best coatings on the lenses they have for sale, and that they don’t blame Canon for the lack of redesigning one of their most popular lenses.

 

[fullstop]

Further, if you move outside the canonrumors world and into the “real world” where people care more about the pictures they get, than which lens they use, I guess that most people appreciate that Canon puts their best coatings on the lenses they have for sale, and that they don’t blame Canon for the lack of redesigning one of their most popular lenses.

wow! You just qualified for a "Can-Apologist Merit Award 2nd class"! ;D

 

[Isaacheus]

This reminds me a lot of the 24-105 f4 replacement and to a lesser degree the 6dmk2 release; it just seems like they aren't aiming for the top of what they could do, pushing the envelope so to speak. Decent options yes, but it feels like they're only competing with themselves rather than the other manufacturers

I wonder what people would have said if they had just released the f4 though, and called the new 2.8 the 'facelift 2.8 mk2' rather than marketing it as a full new release?

 

[ahsanford]

Then again, you see his example photos. He really was hoping that Canon would up his game. :

It would appear your personal Mk III phase of your life is a looking a lot like your Mk II phase: classy as always.

- A

 

[ken]

This 2.8 Mark III is just an insult to fellow photographers. All they could achieve in 8 years is a flare reducing coating and new painting in a flagship telephoto zoom? That is blasphemous.
With the 4.0 mark II having 5 stops stabilisation, IS mode 3, shorter MFD etc... am I asking too much by putting just these tech, nothing more into a flagship 70-200 workhorse from Canon? Again, they clearly have the tech to do so, they just decided to cripple it once again. Much like they did with the 24-105 successor. Shame.

They are updating their manufacturing processes to increase automation. This has been well documented. So maybe an internal screw or bracket has to be modified to support robotic assembly vs human assembly. This will make the lens cheaper to manufacturer AND should decrease deviations from one lens to the other. But it also means it's ever so slightly different from a mark ii, and requires a new name. So they did a small coating upgrade and plan to sell it at the same price.

If you were a manufacturer, updating your manufacturing lines, which lines would you address first? The ones with the highest return-on-investment. Which is to say, it's a function of the lines with highest throughput and the cost savings expected from the automation. Hence... the kit lens was first because you produce more of them than anything else. And now the popular "high-dollar" EF lens, which is likely costly to manually assemble due to its complexity. Expect a 24-70 refresh soon.

They're a business. They're not crippling things to piss off their customers. They're focussed on increasing margins. Those margins will eventually flow back into R&D to keep them competitive. The mark ii already compares very well to it's competition. I don't see how anyone can see delivering a slightly improved product for about the same price as some kind of scheme to rip them off. No offense intended to you, but it's actually mind-boggling to me the way people across this forum are reacting.

 

[ahsanford]

This reminds me a lot of the 24-105 f4 replacement and to a lesser degree the 6dmk2 release; it just seems like they aren't aiming for the top of what they could do, pushing the envelope so to speak. Decent options yes, but it feels like they're only competing with themselves rather than the other manufacturers

I wonder what people would have said if they had just released the f4 though, and called the new 2.8 the 'facelift 2.8 mk2' rather than marketing it as a full new release?

+1. To their credit, Canon is really wise at leaving stuff out of new products that are not essential for you to get the sale. This maximizes profits for them. In the 6D2, it clearly appears to have been to leave out the on-chip ADC sensor. And now some financially shrewd market analyst ran the numbers and showed Canon management that a paint job and a coating and a $2099 price point will make the company more money than say a new design like the f/4L IS at a higher production cost, $2500 price and lower unit sales.

All of this is to Canon's credit. This is what they do better than the rest of the industry.

I just thought this class of lens warranted better treatment than a paint job and some coatings. This feels like an EF-S 18-55 or 24-105L refresh, folks, honestly -- the product is worlds better, of course, but the changes are equally small. One wonders why they couldn't have just soldiered on with the Mk II as is.

With that, what's done is done. I've vented. All is well.

- A

 

[Talys]

This reminds me a lot of the 24-105 f4 replacement and to a lesser degree the 6dmk2 release; it just seems like they aren't aiming for the top of what they could do, pushing the envelope so to speak. Decent options yes, but it feels like they're only competing with themselves rather than the other manufacturers

I wonder what people would have said if they had just released the f4 though, and called the new 2.8 the 'facelift 2.8 mk2' rather than marketing it as a full new release?

Wouldn't matter to me. I'm happy for the f/4 folks, and frankly, I'm happy that I won't feel the urge to go run out and buy a new $2500 lens that, no matter what they did, wouldn't really improve my photography one bit

The real question is, if I didn't already own a 70-200/2.8IS2, would I be tempted to look at the f/4?

With the benefit of experience, probably not; 2.8 is too important for portraiture, probably autofocuses faster, and gives nice isolation for patio bird shots. But I'd likely think about it if I weren't already a 2.8 user. The MFD on the new 4 is nice, too.

 

[ahsanford]

The real question is, if I didn't already own a 70-200/2.8IS2, would I be tempted to look at the f/4?

With the benefit of experience, probably not; 2.8 is too important for portraiture, probably autofocuses faster, and gives nice isolation for patio bird shots. But I'd likely think about it if I weren't already a 2.8 user. The MFD on the new 4 is nice, too.

Always an interesting exercise, this. My personal take:

Standard zoom: 24-70 f/4L IS > f/2.8L all day. I migrated from the f/2.8L (I) to the f/4L IS and it was a no-brainer for what I shoot at those FLs. It was also better for hiking, travel, low-light indoors, the macro mode, etc. In short, I've been delighted with the decision. The f/2.8L II is a beast of an optic, of course, but the value of f/2.8 for a standard zoom is not worth the cost and weight to me.

Tele zoom: Different story. I rented both the f/4L IS and f/2.8L IS II about 6-7 years ago and both were terrific. At the time, I knew it would be the longest thing I'd own and (at that time) f/8 AF points for 2x T/C use were not widespread. So I went with the f/2.8L IS II. Over time, I realize how much at those FLs I loved the output on the wide open end -- much more so than with my standard zoom. So, in this comparison, I made the right call for the wrong reason. With today's bodies I would have chosen the f/4L IS and missed out on some lights-out f/2.8, f/3.2 @ 200mm shots I've reeled in with the f/2.8 version.

I would guess we all have our own take on this.

- A

 

[Talys]

The real question is, if I didn't already own a 70-200/2.8IS2, would I be tempted to look at the f/4?

With the benefit of experience, probably not; 2.8 is too important for portraiture, probably autofocuses faster, and gives nice isolation for patio bird shots. But I'd likely think about it if I weren't already a 2.8 user. The MFD on the new 4 is nice, too.

Always an interesting exercise, this. My personal take:

Standard zoom: 24-70 f/4L IS > f/2.8L all day. I migrated from the f/2.8L (I) to the f/4L IS and it was a no-brainer for what I shoot at those FLs. It was also better for hiking, travel, low-light indoors, the macro mode, etc. In short, I've been delighted with the decision. The f/2.8L II is a beast of an optic, of course, but the value of f/2.8 for a standard zoom is not worth the cost and weight to me.

Tele zoom: Different story. I rented both the f/4L IS and f/2.8L IS II about 6-7 years ago and both were terrific. At the time, I knew it would be the longest thing I'd own and (at that time) f/8 AF points for 2x T/C use were not widespread. So I went with the f/2.8L IS II. Over time, I realize how much at those FLs I loved the output on the wide open end -- much more so than with my standard zoom. So, in this comparison, I made the right call for the wrong reason. With today's bodies I would have chosen the f/4L IS and missed out on some lights-out f/2.8, f/3.2 @ 200mm shots I've reeled in with the f/2.8 version.

I would guess we all have our own take on this.

- A

Wow. That mirrors my experience. I also went from 2.8 Mk1 to 4IS for 24-70, and went straight to the 2.8 Mk2 after briefly borrowing a f4.

I'm very happy with that mix as I was always stopping down on my 24-70 anyways, and the size/weight in the f4 is very nice, particularly if I'm hiking, using it as a second body or if it's on a capture clip.

 

[HarryFilm]

These discussion are kinda a waste of time. The new F4 will do ABSOLUTE FINE for most people. For simple portraiture at 85mm and your Sunday morning birdwalks at 135mm on the local nature trail it will work out GREAT!

You only need the F2.8 when you're in a Hockey Rink or Soccer (Football) Stadium shooting your favourite player coming at you blazing-quick near the boards or sidelines at 1/500 shutter speed under those crazy flickering flouro lights! For everyone else the F2.8 is WAAAAY OVERKILL !!! Just get a decent 135mm prime lens instead and save yourself $800 !!! i.e. try the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art Lens for Canon EF mount at only $1299 US

----

Otherwise, if you REALLY want some super-duper-lensing, do what we do at my work...we usually put a 135mm Arri/Zeiss Master Prime LDS PL-to-EF-adapted T1.3 cinema lens on the 1Dmk2. NOW THAT is a TRULY FAST lens! Great for indoor action sports such as soccer, lacrosse, hockey or U.S.-style arena football !!! It's a tad more expensive than the new and old Canon 70-to-200 F2.8 and you DO have to do a centre crop, ...BUT...I did notice the centre-cropped shots were MOST DEFINITELY sharper and had much better colours than almost any other Canon L-series lens!

 

[lexptr]

The real question is, if I didn't already own a 70-200/2.8IS2, would I be tempted to look at the f/4?

With the benefit of experience, probably not; 2.8 is too important for portraiture, probably autofocuses faster, and gives nice isolation for patio bird shots. But I'd likely think about it if I weren't already a 2.8 user. The MFD on the new 4 is nice, too.

I think, there is no way from faster lens to slower. No matter how cool the slower one is
The update of f4 looks very-very nice. So nice, that I also started to consider. But no. No way. Will ether wait and by the "fake-upgraded" f2.8 mark III or get by with my 100-400L II for tele and buy even faster primes for portraits and such. Almost decided on the new 85 f1.4.

 

[Etienne]

The real question is, if I didn't already own a 70-200/2.8IS2, would I be tempted to look at the f/4?

With the benefit of experience, probably not; 2.8 is too important for portraiture, probably autofocuses faster, and gives nice isolation for patio bird shots. But I'd likely think about it if I weren't already a 2.8 user. The MFD on the new 4 is nice, too.

Always an interesting exercise, this. My personal take:

Standard zoom: 24-70 f/4L IS > f/2.8L all day. I migrated from the f/2.8L (I) to the f/4L IS and it was a no-brainer for what I shoot at those FLs. It was also better for hiking, travel, low-light indoors, the macro mode, etc. In short, I've been delighted with the decision. The f/2.8L II is a beast of an optic, of course, but the value of f/2.8 for a standard zoom is not worth the cost and weight to me.

Tele zoom: Different story. I rented both the f/4L IS and f/2.8L IS II about 6-7 years ago and both were terrific. At the time, I knew it would be the longest thing I'd own and (at that time) f/8 AF points for 2x T/C use were not widespread. So I went with the f/2.8L IS II. Over time, I realize how much at those FLs I loved the output on the wide open end -- much more so than with my standard zoom. So, in this comparison, I made the right call for the wrong reason. With today's bodies I would have chosen the f/4L IS and missed out on some lights-out f/2.8, f/3.2 @ 200mm shots I've reeled in with the f/2.8 version.

I would guess we all have our own take on this.

- A

Wow. That mirrors my experience. I also went from 2.8 Mk1 to 4IS for 24-70, and went straight to the 2.8 Mk2 after briefly borrowing a f4.

I'm very happy with that mix as I was always stopping down on my 24-70 anyways, and the size/weight in the f4 is very nice, particularly if I'm hiking, using it as a second body or if it's on a capture clip.

I have a 24-105 f/4L IS that came with the 5D2 years ago, but I rarely use it. My workhorses on the 5D3 were the 16-35 f/2.8 mk II and the 70-200 f/2.8L IS mk II. The only change I would do is replace the 16-35 with the 16-35 f/4L IS. I never liked the standard zoom range, even with the 2.8 versions: it's never wide enough, never tight enough, and the bokeh never really impresses. If I want a "normal" focal length I'll use a 35 or 50mm prime.

 

[PureClassA]

Thank you Canon for giving me no reason whatsoever to upgrade! Now I can fully dedicate my attention and dollars to the new 135L, whenever we see it