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

[ahsanford]

anyone notice that Canon is disappointing long time users and professionals constantly and consistently in the last few years. Have they even released anything great since the mark 3.

(Which Mark 3? 16-35? 5D3? What do you mean?)

There are some fits and starts, sure, but no, I disagree. Last 5 years, we've gotten:

200-400L + 1.4x = great
100-400L II = great
35 f/1.4L II = off the charts
85 f/1.4L IS = excellent
Three L tilt-shifts = jury still out, but reviews I've seen so far look great
70-200 f.4L IS = strength on strength; looks a worthy step forward
Expansion of the FF line with the 6D and 5DS lines
Crop mirrorless finally looking comprehensively useful (DPAF + integral VF, etc.)

Plus all sorts of useful tech: DPAF, anti-flicker, On-chip ADC sensors, One pancake for each mount, Nano USM as a step up from STM, digital multi-readout panels on lens barrels, illuminated macro, motorized auto-bounce for speedlites.

It's been a great few years, actually. Unless you like body spec sheets and high body spec-per-dollar, which Canon does not have to give us if we keep buying their gear.

- A

 

[unfocused]

Surely they vetted more ambitious options...

I have no idea, but I think it may have something to do with a reasonable cost-benefit ratio given current design and manufacturing limitations.

Again, I refer to the much maligned 24-105 (which I happily upgraded to and do consider it an improvement over the previous model).

There simply is no competitor in the market today that offers a better zoom in that range. That leads me to think that with the current state of the art, it is simply not possible to produce an affordable 24-105mm that performs significantly better. I've said before that I think if they could have produced a stellar 24-105 at $1,600 they would have done so. But, if the price point was closer to $2,000 they may have determined it wasn't viable.

With the 70-200mm we know that neither Nikon nor Sony can produce a 70-200 2.8 that matches Canon's price point. I believe it is entirely possible that Canon ran the numbers and determined that the incremental cost to achieve a noticeable improvement in optical performance was too great given the current state of lens design. Now, admittedly, that doesn't explain their lack of interest in other, more modest changes like IS and close focusing distance.

 

[amorse]

OR Canon just updated the 2.8 in such a minor way to keep to their pre-determined EF release timeline, while instead investing more R&D on lenses and equipment for their upcoming full frame mirrorless body. For all we know, Canon may announce a mirrorless body with a new mount and a "trifecta" of lenses (16-35, 24-70, 70-200) all at once. If they're going all in on a new mount, they're going to need lenses to go with it.

This presumes thin mount FF mirrorless happens (certainly a good chance) + Canon goes all in on that mount because of... why, exactly? Pros having an aversion to adaptors? Consider: they won't save a lick of space with f/2.8 zooms!

So if [thin mount is happening] + [there's no size savings for pro lenses] + [pros hate adaptors], you'd have three choices:

1) Offer the thin FF mirrorless platform and remake EF in the thin mount.

2) Offer the thin FF mirrorless platform, keep the new thin mount lens portfolio to 4-5 smaller/shorter/wider lenses and offer an EF mount mirrorless line of bodies.

3) Option 1 but watered down. Perhaps remake the sexiest bits of EF in the thin mount and use the adaptor for the oddities and niche gear.

I'll be brave and say that the blue costs just a wee bit less and is much faster implement to do than the red.

- A

Yes, 2.8 zooms on a thin mount will be the same length as cameras with a mirror box, but slower lenses will allow for a smaller and lighter over all package: with the great low light performance of modern full frame sensors, not having a 2.8 may be less limiting than in the past. If you need to shrink a competent camera kit in both weight and size, Canon has few options in full frame. Crop sensors have the SL2, but a mirrorless equivalent may be the way to achieve the smaller package for a full frame. That's just one option - certainly everyone here has their own priorities for a mirrorless camera.

I was being partly facetious in suggesting that Canon go "all in" on the mount (not trying to insinuate EF is dead) - I instead mean that if there is indeed a new mount, and regardless of whether there is or is not continuing compatibility with EF (whether by adapter or by hybrid mount or by other "clever" solution) it makes absolutely no sense to release a new mount unless there will be new lenses to go with it. Why come up with any solution at all if it just has an EF mount? We've heard several indications of a possible new mount - patent for a full frame 16-35 mirrorless lens, new communication protocol patent for a mount to accept more than one type of lens, indication that some sort of eloquent solution exists for the mount paradox. If a new mount is coming, new lenses are not likely far behind. I have a hard time envisioning Canon releasing a mirrorless body with a new mount and suggesting that all users adapt lenses rather than releasing native lenses with the camera on day one. If that is a fair assessment, then yes, Canon would likely have some unusual R&D burden in the short term to release a new mirrorless body with a new mount, and at least a few lenses designed specifically for that body all at once. If that is happening, then yes that could be partly why the 70-200 2.8 wasn't re-hashed more fully (that and it may not really need it). Again - lots of grains of salt and wild speculation.

 

[unfocused]

anyone notice that Canon is disappointing long time users and professionals constantly and consistently in the last few years. Have they even released anything great since the mark 3.

(Which Mark 3? 16-35? 5D3? What do you mean?)

There are some fits and starts, sure, but no, I disagree...

I double-disagree.

Assuming we are talking cameras, let's examine that statement.

5D III: Great camera, but the main "innovation" was an improved autofocus system. Noise and dynamic range were good for the time, but not headline material.

Since then:

6D: Most affordable full-frame camera. Released at a price point that was slightly high and criticized for same, but quickly dropped in price and became the top selling full frame camera on Amazon's list. It performed well above its specs and made full frame possible for the mass of enthusiasts.

5Ds: Highest resolution full frame camera ever.

7DII: Mini 1Dx. Canon spared almost nothing in loading this APS-C camera up with incredible pro-level performance features. Singlehandedly revived the high-end APS-C market, forcing Nikon to return to the market with a very competitive body that was released more than a year later and still is only marginally improved over the Canon.

1Dx II/80D: First Canons with on-chip ADC. Suddenly the whole debate over dynamic range became largely irrelevant in real world use.

5DIV: On-chip ADC and 30 mp. The whole presumption that you must choose between resolution and noise seems irrelevant now. Little to no difference in noise performance with its much lower resolution big brother the 1Dx II.

So, no, I don't "notice that Canon is disappointing long time users and professionals." Disappointing forum whiners? Yes.

 

[ethanz]

anyone notice that Canon is disappointing long time users and professionals constantly and consistently in the last few years. Have they even released anything great since the mark 3.

(Which Mark 3? 16-35? 5D3? What do you mean?)

There are some fits and starts, sure, but no, I disagree. Last 5 years, we've gotten:

200-400L + 1.4x = great
100-400L II = great
35 f/1.4L II = off the charts
85 f/1.4L IS = excellent
Three L tilt-shifts = jury still out, but reviews I've seen so far look great
70-200 f.4L IS = strength on strength; looks a worthy step forward
Expansion of the FF line with the 6D and 5DS lines
Crop mirrorless finally looking comprehensively useful (DPAF + integral VF, etc.)

Plus all sorts of useful tech: DPAF, anti-flicker, On-chip ADC sensors, One pancake for each mount, Nano USM as a step up from STM, digital multi-readout panels on lens barrels, illuminated macro, motorized auto-bounce for speedlites.

It's been a great few years, actually. Unless you like body spec sheets and high body spec-per-dollar, which Canon does not have to give us if we keep buying their gear.

- A

+ 16-35f4 + 1dx2
Canon has released great stuff in the last few years.

 

[Hector1970]

5D III I felt was a great camera. It was a great improvement over the 5DII. It was a significant upgrade that kept it competitive against any camera in that range

5D III: Great camera, but the main "innovation" was an improved autofocus system. Noise and dynamic range were good for the time, but not headline material.

Since then:
6D very good camera for its price. A bit knobbled I thought by Canon. It could have been ever better. 3FPS was a bit mean. 6DII was a non event - not sure why they bothered
6D: Most affordable full-frame camera. Released at a price point that was slightly high and criticized for same, but quickly dropped in price and became the top selling full frame camera on Amazon's list. It performed well above its specs and made full frame possible for the mass of enthusiasts.

5Ds: Highest resolution full frame camera ever.
5DS a pure race to 50mp. A very good camera on a tripod at ISO 100 - good with studio lights but I think with a horrible high ISO performance

7DII: Mini 1Dx. Canon spared almost nothing in loading this APS-C camera up with incredible pro-level performance features. Singlehandedly revived the high-end APS-C market, forcing Nikon to return to the market with a very competitive body that was released more than a year later and still is only marginally improved over the Canon.
For me one of Canon's biggest disappointments. I assume the same or similar sensor to the 5DSR as it displays the same bad performance at high ISO. I think a 7D is a camera that needs to be as good as possible at high ISO as you are often shooting at as high as possible shutter speeds. I think less MP's would have helped it be a better camera. A good focusing system wasted I always think.

1Dx II/80D: First Canons with on-chip ADC. Suddenly the whole debate over dynamic range became largely irrelevant in real world use.
IDX II for me is Canon's last really good camera in comparison to its opposition. 80D no idea)

5DIV: On-chip ADC and 30 mp. The whole presumption that you must choose between resolution and noise seems irrelevant now. Little to no difference in noise performance with its much lower resolution big brother the 1Dx II.
Very solid camera - very happy with it myself but Canon didn't push out the boat far with it. Minimal incremental improvements so that it didn't lag to far behind its competitors at the time.

So, no, I don't "notice that Canon is disappointing long time users and professionals." Disappointing forum whiners? Yes.

To disappoint whiners who whine about whiners who whine about Canon I do find long time users and professionals are not so determined as they were in the past to stay with Canon. There is a big inertia when you are heavily invested in Canon glass. Sigma have become very mainstream. Sony have yet to crack the pro market at the World Cup etc but if they could make great big whites they might yet. Canon have traded on the image of being the best for sports. They are potentially vulnerable to Sony in this category by the sheer frame rate potential of mirrorless

 

[x-vision]

Well there are reasons for doing so - internal company reasons that don't affect us. Let's say that they changed the architecture inside, so it takes different repair parts, it might be useful for them to have different model numbers.

But I don't accept your premise that it hasn't changed. It's not changed substantially as far as the specifications are concerned, but so what? It's entirely subjective how much change warrants a new model number, but more than that, why does anyone really care? How does this impact us in any way? Older lenses still work, you don't have to buy the new one. All this 'reputational damage' stuff is just people trying to justify feeling personally let down.

+1000

Canon likely changed the internal "mechanics" of these lenses, while keeping the optical formulas the same.

The 70-200/4L is obviously getting a more capable IS system.
Both lenses are likely getting better AF modules and other "mechanical" improvements.

People should definitely not feel let down by this announcement.

 

[Larsskv]

anyone notice that Canon is disappointing long time users and professionals constantly and consistently in the last few years. Have they even released anything great since the mark 3.

(Which Mark 3? 16-35? 5D3? What do you mean?)

There are some fits and starts, sure, but no, I disagree. Last 5 years, we've gotten:

200-400L + 1.4x = great
100-400L II = great
35 f/1.4L II = off the charts
85 f/1.4L IS = excellent
Three L tilt-shifts = jury still out, but reviews I've seen so far look great
70-200 f.4L IS = strength on strength; looks a worthy step forward
Expansion of the FF line with the 6D and 5DS lines
Crop mirrorless finally looking comprehensively useful (DPAF + integral VF, etc.)

Plus all sorts of useful tech: DPAF, anti-flicker, On-chip ADC sensors, One pancake for each mount, Nano USM as a step up from STM, digital multi-readout panels on lens barrels, illuminated macro, motorized auto-bounce for speedlites.

It's been a great few years, actually. Unless you like body spec sheets and high body spec-per-dollar, which Canon does not have to give us if we keep buying their gear.

- A

+ 16-35f4 + 1dx2
Canon has released great stuff in the last few years.

The 11-24 f4 L and 16-35 f2.8LIII deserves a mention as well. Both are stellar lenses, unmatched by the competition.

 

[ahsanford]

+1000

Canon likely changed the internal "mechanics" of these lenses, while keeping the optical formulas the same.

The 70-200/4L is obviously getting a more capable IS system.
Both lenses are likely getting better AF modules and other "mechanical" improvements.

Disagree somewhat. As I understand it, we've got a case of two very different new products here:

f/4L IS II = new optical design, new MTF, shorter MFD, new IS setup, can't speak to AF routines (presume new), hood is new. No promises on performance or handling here, but we should expect a shiny new modern lens in the vein of the 100-400 II here.

f/2.8L IS III = existing optical design (+ new coating), MTF unchanged, MFD unchanged, IS unchanged, AF unchanged, hood is existing. Rudy Winston at 2:02 in the video: "AF speed and responsiveness... are unchanged" could mean Canon put some new modules in there that perform identically compared to before, in fairness, but it also might mean that they used the same damn stuff.

I do agree that you can have the same optical design packaged in a design that is much easier to produce/repair. That said, look at the attached. The biggest areas of variability between the two lenses comes from the slight projection differences in photographs of those lenses -- they are very very close. So yes, it might be easier to take apart but the internal (at least mechanical) architecture can't be that different. But Uncle Rog will tell us if plastic item X is now metal, if three screws now do the job of 5 so it's easier to come apart, etc. Time will tell.

- A

 

[lightthief]

... I await someone to tell me that Canon has just knocked out a refresh like this for such a high-end instrument before.
..

Correct me when i'm wrong, but isn't the 85 1.2 L II very similar to the 85 1.2 L. It got only a faster AF and some coatings???

Lightthief

 

[filipe.ngra]

well... it is almost impossible to improve the perfect lens...

I think the weight is the main issue. (talking about 2.8 II/III).

my mkII will endure 15+ years and survive 4 camera bodies...

 

[RGF]

better coatings on the F2.8 III. Slight improvement on an already great lens. It would be hard for me to justify an upgrade but if I had to buy a replacement lens I would opt for the Mark III

 

[ahsanford]

... I await someone to tell me that Canon has just knocked out a refresh like this for such a high-end instrument before.
..

Correct me when i'm wrong, but isn't the 85 1.2 L II very similar to the 85 1.2 L. It got only a faster AF and some coatings???

Lightthief

Someone on TDP just poked me with the same tidbit.

Okay, we have an historical reference: the last time they did a (relatively) superficial refresh to a top notch lens was 12 years ago. Noted -- thx.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

better coatings on the F2.8 III. Slight improvement on an already great lens. It would be hard for me to justify an upgrade but if I had to buy a replacement lens I would opt for the Mark III

Yep. We've heard exact sentiment a few times on this thread.

I agree. At relatively the same price, I probably would replace a worn out Mk II with a Mk III as well.

- A

 

[Maiaibing]

5Ds: Highest resolution full frame camera ever.
5DS a pure race to 50mp. A very good camera on a tripod at ISO 100 - good with studio lights but I think with a horrible high ISO performance

You clearly do not have any clue what you are talking about.

No need to use with tripod - its actually better to hand hold than other Canon models, because you can choose to electronically reduce the mirror slap. And high iso is great - fully on par with 5DIV > iso 400.

 

[djack41]

Canon fiddles as Rome burns!

 

[deleteme]

I used my 70-200 2.8L IS v1 on a business portrait project two days ago.
60 portraits of staff at a large firm. I brought the lens in addition to my 24-70 f4 as I did not know what sort of space I might have available. I prefer shooting in the 100-135 range for portraits and fortunately I had enough room to use the longer lens.
When examining the files I was struck by the eye watering sharpness and contrast of the files.
While I have heard of the improvements in the v2 I can hardly imagine that I could even see any meaningful improvement in real world photography.

I bought the lens used in 2003 and have used it with some vigor these many years and it seems it is good for another 15 years at least.

 

[ethanz]

I used my 70-200 2.8L IS v1 on a business portrait project two days ago.
60 portraits of staff at a large firm. I brought the lens in addition to my 24-70 f4 as I did not know what sort of space I might have available. I prefer shooting in the 100-135 range for portraits and fortunately I had enough room to use the longer lens.
When examining the files I was struck by the eye watering sharpness and contrast of the files.
While I have heard of the improvements in the v2 I can hardly imagine that I could even see any meaningful improvement in real world photography.

I bought the lens used in 2003 and have used it with some vigor these many years and it seems it is good for another 15 years at least.

Nice, still rocking the v1! You must be taking lots of Beano. You give all of us hope for a better day from our disease.

 

[sanj]

better coatings on the F2.8 III. Slight improvement on an already great lens. It would be hard for me to justify an upgrade but if I had to buy a replacement lens I would opt for the Mark III

But obviously. No?

 

[Talys]

better coatings on the F2.8 III. Slight improvement on an already great lens. It would be hard for me to justify an upgrade but if I had to buy a replacement lens I would opt for the Mark III

Yep. We've heard exact sentiment a few times on this thread.

I agree. At relatively the same price, I probably would replace a worn out Mk II with a Mk III as well.

- A

It would be much more of an issue if either of these were true:

(a) the MkII wasn't a great lens that I wasn't considering upgrading
(b) there was a new body where the MkII couldn't "keep up" (resolution, autofocus, image quality, whatever)

But at the moment, neither is true, so a MkII upgrade (as opposed to a minor refresh) is mostly a solution in search of a problem, also known as a price hike reaching for my wallet. I guess I'm happy that if I have to replace my MkII, at least it will have a new paint job.

The biggest "worry" as some others have noted is that at some point in the next 5 years, there will be a great reason to upgrade the MkIII, and we'll have to wait another 5 years before that happens. But then again, maybe not, who knows. Some of the stuff, like more IS stops, sounds great, but just isn't worth spending money on. I mean, how many people who own a Mk2 get blurry camera shake pictures? Again, it turns into fixing a problem that doesn't exist. I would have loved IS mode 3 for birding, though.

Oh well, I won't worry about it, because what I really want is to roll my pennies for a lens I don't have, not a tiny improvement to something that I own and am happy with.