Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III Information Ahead of Tonight's Announcement

[Alexlin]

It’s outttttt..
Canon JP’s official website

 

[Alexlin]

See details

 

[ahsanford]

Oh it's out all right. (Not a gag, I actually stacked the two plots.)

- A

 

[Michael Clark]

Oh it's out all right. (Not a gag, I actually stacked the two plots.)

- A

MTF charts from manufacturers are based on theoretical lens designs, not actual measured lens performance. It may well be that Canon has found a way to insure actual copies of the lens leave the factory closer to the blueprint and, more importantly, remain closer to the blueprint than before. The EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II is a VERY sharp lens when in proper alignment, but it also has a reputation of being fairly easily knocked out of proper alignment. Not only can this occur from impacts, but the nylon rollers in some of the collar slots tend to wear excessively which impacts the alignment of the various lens elements. Uncle Roger (lensgurugod1@lensrentals) has also said more than once that the IS unit on the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II is one of the most frequently needed repairs for that lens.

If Canon has been able to improve in the areas of maintaining proper lens alignment and IS unit reliability and also add the better lens coatings that have real world benefits in terms of less flare and ghosting in certain shooting scenarios, then I think it is a legitimate upgrade. Better reliability may be about as sexy a lens upgrade as buying a UPS for your computer is, but in the long run a UPS is one of the best things you can spend your computer money on.

Will it be enough to cause most "II" owners to upgrade? Probably not, unless they are abusing their "II" to the point it has to be sent in for realignment frequently. But it will be a better lens than the "II" for those who don't have a 70-200/2.8 and need to buy one.

It will be interesting to see how the various reviewers and testors place this lens' optical performance in comparison to the latest Nikon and Tamron 70-200/2.8 models, which are ever so slightly sharper at the edges and corners. I imagine the rating at DxO will be significantly improved, since their test results of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II were so much worse than everyone else's that it seems they must have tested a bad batch of the "II."

I do think too many of us have lost sight of the price we usually pay in terms of a lens' rendering character in order to get "perfect" flat field correction designed specifically to score as well as possible when shooting flat test charts. Lenses with the flattest field of focus don't usually give us the best rendering of non-flat subjects, particularly in the out of focus areas of the frame.

Who is the world's greatest photographer of flat test charts? Does anyone aspire to be remembered as the world's greatest flat test chart photographer?

Yet we increasingly demand lenses that are "sharp from edge to edge and corner to corner" and insist that the sole criteria for comparing and purchasing lenses is how well they perform taking photos of flat test charts rather than seeing how they perform taking images of the things for which we want to be remembered.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Oh it's out all right. (Not a gag, I actually stacked the two plots.)

- A

MTF charts from manufacturers are based on theoretical lens designs, not actual measured lens performance. It may well be that Canon has found a way to insure actual copies of the lens leave the factory closer to the blueprint and, more importantly, remain closer to the blueprint than before. The EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II is a VERY sharp lens when in proper alignment, but it also has a reputation of being fairly easily knocked out of proper alignment. Not only can this occur from impacts, but the nylon rollers in some of the collar slots tend to wear excessively which impacts the alignment of the various lens elements. Uncle Roger (lensgurugod1@lensrentals) has also said more than once that the IS unit on the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II is one of the most frequently needed repairs for that lens.

If Canon has been able to improve in the areas of maintaining proper lens alignment and IS unit reliability and also add the better lens coatings that have real world benefits in terms of less flare and ghosting in certain shooting scenarios, then I think it is a legitimate upgrade. Better reliability may be about as sexy a lens upgrade as buying a UPS for your computer is, but in the long run a UPS is one of the best things you can spend your computer money on.

Will it be enough to cause most "II" owners to upgrade? Probably not, unless they are abusing their "II" to the point it has to be sent in for realignment frequently. But it will be a better lens than the "II" for those who don't have a 70-200/2.8 and need to buy one.

It will be interesting to see how the various reviewers and testors place this lens' optical performance in comparison to the latest Nikon and Tamron 70-200/2.8 models, which are ever so slightly sharper at the edges and corners. I imagine the rating at DxO will be significantly improved, since their test results of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II were so much worse than everyone else's that it seems they must have tested a bad batch of the "II."

I do think too many of us have lost sight of the price we usually pay in terms of a lens' rendering character in order to get "perfect" flat field correction designed specifically to score as well as possible when shooting flat test charts. Lenses with the flattest field of focus don't usually give us the best rendering of non-flat subjects, particularly in the out of focus areas of the frame.

Who is the world's greatest photographer of flat test charts? Does anyone aspire to be remembered as the world's greatest flat test chart photographer?

Yet we increasingly demand lenses that are "sharp from edge to edge and corner to corner" and insist that the sole criteria for comparing and purchasing lenses is how well they perform taking photos of flat test charts rather than seeing how they perform taking images of the things for which we want to be remembered.

Some very valid points made here. I just hope that this isn't a similar scenario to the 24-105L II, a lens that left me completely underwhelmed.

Am I alone in feeling that Canon really needs a new "smash hit"? I haven't been blown away by a Canon lens since the 35L II.

 

[ahsanford]

Am I alone in feeling that Canon really needs a new "smash hit"? I haven't been blown away by a Canon lens since the 35L II.

You're on the wrong thread, Dustin. I'm in the minority getting hammered on the release thread over why the 70-200 2.8 needed to be more. It was a symbolic instrument that was unquestionably the best in the industry and tented up the reputation of the EF system. ...and they went with white paint and coatings and everything else the same.

I am disappointed they didn't try for more here, but financially it's clear what they are trying to do -- and it will make them a lot of money.

- A

 

[bokehlicious]

A FF canon mirrorless DSLR must be a ways off if new EF L lenses are just now hitting the market. How long until the new lense mount is announced - FF version of EF-M? At this point I'm avoiding any new L glass.
The EF mount should now be considered legacy.

 

[ahsanford]

A FF canon mirrorless DSLR must be a ways off if new EF L lenses are just now hitting the market. How long until the new lense mount is announced - FF version of EF-M? At this point I'm avoiding any new L glass.
The EF mount should now be considered legacy.

Welcome to CR! There have been dozens of threads on this.

EF isn't going anywhere, and all those lenses will work FF Mirrorless on day one via adaptor. Further, remaking all of EF in a thin mount design does you no size savings for perhaps 2/3 of the lenses, so those lenses need to stick around in even the most bullish, all-in thin mount future.

And it's still a possibility that FF mirrorless is full EF mount. Really.

All of those things say EF isn't legacy until Canon decides to cut off its own leg by publicly promising to re-make everything for the new mount -- which they surely won't do.

That said, there was a good thread recently on holding off on new glass until FF mirrorless happens. Worth a read:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=35095.0

- A

 

[Michael Clark]

Oh it's out all right. (Not a gag, I actually stacked the two plots.)

- A

MTF charts from manufacturers are based on theoretical lens designs, not actual measured lens performance. It may well be that Canon has found a way to insure actual copies of the lens leave the factory closer to the blueprint and, more importantly, remain closer to the blueprint than before. The EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II is a VERY sharp lens when in proper alignment, but it also has a reputation of being fairly easily knocked out of proper alignment. Not only can this occur from impacts, but the nylon rollers in some of the collar slots tend to wear excessively which impacts the alignment of the various lens elements. Uncle Roger (lensgurugod1@lensrentals) has also said more than once that the IS unit on the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II is one of the most frequently needed repairs for that lens.

If Canon has been able to improve in the areas of maintaining proper lens alignment and IS unit reliability and also add the better lens coatings that have real world benefits in terms of less flare and ghosting in certain shooting scenarios, then I think it is a legitimate upgrade. Better reliability may be about as sexy a lens upgrade as buying a UPS for your computer is, but in the long run a UPS is one of the best things you can spend your computer money on.

Will it be enough to cause most "II" owners to upgrade? Probably not, unless they are abusing their "II" to the point it has to be sent in for realignment frequently. But it will be a better lens than the "II" for those who don't have a 70-200/2.8 and need to buy one.

It will be interesting to see how the various reviewers and testors place this lens' optical performance in comparison to the latest Nikon and Tamron 70-200/2.8 models, which are ever so slightly sharper at the edges and corners. I imagine the rating at DxO will be significantly improved, since their test results of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II were so much worse than everyone else's that it seems they must have tested a bad batch of the "II."

I do think too many of us have lost sight of the price we usually pay in terms of a lens' rendering character in order to get "perfect" flat field correction designed specifically to score as well as possible when shooting flat test charts. Lenses with the flattest field of focus don't usually give us the best rendering of non-flat subjects, particularly in the out of focus areas of the frame.

Who is the world's greatest photographer of flat test charts? Does anyone aspire to be remembered as the world's greatest flat test chart photographer?

Yet we increasingly demand lenses that are "sharp from edge to edge and corner to corner" and insist that the sole criteria for comparing and purchasing lenses is how well they perform taking photos of flat test charts rather than seeing how they perform taking images of the things for which we want to be remembered.

Some very valid points made here. I just hope that this isn't a similar scenario to the 24-105L II, a lens that left me completely underwhelmed.

Am I alone in feeling that Canon really needs a new "smash hit"? I haven't been blown away by a Canon lens since the 35L II.

Was the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L III before or after the EF 35mm f/1.4 II?

The new TS-E lenses are phenomenal, but then TS-E lenses are for niche photographers that care more about how their work looks than whether the lens hanging on their camera scored a 0.0007% higher MPix score at DxO than the lens hanging on their buddy's camera.

In my opinion, the EF 85mm f/1.4 IS is less than it could be precisely because it attempts to have too flat a field of focus and in exchange for selling its soul to the gods of the flat test chart numbers it gave up the smooth bokeh it could have had.

As far as the 24-105/4 goes, that lens has always been about flexibility, durability and dependability. It's never been a particularly outstanding optical performer. Canon updated it to simplify manufacturing with robotics and made it even more robust in the process if Uncle Roger is to be believed.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Oh it's out all right. (Not a gag, I actually stacked the two plots.)

- A

MTF charts from manufacturers are based on theoretical lens designs, not actual measured lens performance. It may well be that Canon has found a way to insure actual copies of the lens leave the factory closer to the blueprint and, more importantly, remain closer to the blueprint than before. The EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II is a VERY sharp lens when in proper alignment, but it also has a reputation of being fairly easily knocked out of proper alignment. Not only can this occur from impacts, but the nylon rollers in some of the collar slots tend to wear excessively which impacts the alignment of the various lens elements. Uncle Roger (lensgurugod1@lensrentals) has also said more than once that the IS unit on the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II is one of the most frequently needed repairs for that lens.

If Canon has been able to improve in the areas of maintaining proper lens alignment and IS unit reliability and also add the better lens coatings that have real world benefits in terms of less flare and ghosting in certain shooting scenarios, then I think it is a legitimate upgrade. Better reliability may be about as sexy a lens upgrade as buying a UPS for your computer is, but in the long run a UPS is one of the best things you can spend your computer money on.

Will it be enough to cause most "II" owners to upgrade? Probably not, unless they are abusing their "II" to the point it has to be sent in for realignment frequently. But it will be a better lens than the "II" for those who don't have a 70-200/2.8 and need to buy one.

It will be interesting to see how the various reviewers and testors place this lens' optical performance in comparison to the latest Nikon and Tamron 70-200/2.8 models, which are ever so slightly sharper at the edges and corners. I imagine the rating at DxO will be significantly improved, since their test results of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II were so much worse than everyone else's that it seems they must have tested a bad batch of the "II."

I do think too many of us have lost sight of the price we usually pay in terms of a lens' rendering character in order to get "perfect" flat field correction designed specifically to score as well as possible when shooting flat test charts. Lenses with the flattest field of focus don't usually give us the best rendering of non-flat subjects, particularly in the out of focus areas of the frame.

Who is the world's greatest photographer of flat test charts? Does anyone aspire to be remembered as the world's greatest flat test chart photographer?

Yet we increasingly demand lenses that are "sharp from edge to edge and corner to corner" and insist that the sole criteria for comparing and purchasing lenses is how well they perform taking photos of flat test charts rather than seeing how they perform taking images of the things for which we want to be remembered.

Some very valid points made here. I just hope that this isn't a similar scenario to the 24-105L II, a lens that left me completely underwhelmed.

Am I alone in feeling that Canon really needs a new "smash hit"? I haven't been blown away by a Canon lens since the 35L II.

Was the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L III before or after the EF 35mm f/1.4 II?

The new TS-E lenses are phenomenal, but then TS-E lenses are for niche photographers that care more about how their work looks than whether the lens hanging on their camera scored a 0.0007% higher MPix score at DxO than the lens hanging on their buddy's camera.

In my opinion, the EF 85mm f/1.4 IS is less than it could be precisely because it attempts to have too flat a field of focus and in exchange for selling its soul to the gods of the flat test chart numbers it gave up the smooth bokeh it could have had.

As far as the 24-105/4 goes, that lens has always been about flexibility, durability and dependability. It's never been a particularly outstanding optical performer. Canon updated it to simplify manufacturing with robotics and made it even more robust in the process if Uncle Roger is to be believed.

I don't consider the 16-35LIII to be a home run, myself. I think the degree of vignette is a fatal flaw, particularly when I've seen noise introduced even on the 5DIV (a body with great shadow recovery) when correcting for it. It's an excellent lens in many ways, but I'd personally choose something like the new Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 ART over it without hesitation.

The amount of contrast-robbing longitudinal CA in the 85L IS was unfortunate, and, while I consider it a very good lens, I don't consider it a great one.

I'm schedule to look at the T/S lenses (and reports have been very positive on them), but they are very expensive, very niche lenses.

 

[Durf]

It wouldn't surprise me if Canon was not fully disclosing all the info on these two lenses and perhaps many of the L lenses that have been upgraded and or newly released in the last year or two. Such as; technology to make them work great and or excel on a mirrorless full frame machine they have yet to release.

I doubt Canon would be working on a full frame mirrorless body to offer without first making sure many of their top selling good L lenses will work flawlessly on it first.

just my opinion and me thinking out loudly

I believe their full frame mirrorless they will reveal soon will be able to accept EF mount lenses.....

 

[ahsanford]

I believe their full frame mirrorless they will reveal soon will be able to accept EF mount lenses.....

That's not a brave assertion -- that's a hammerlock certainty.

The question is: will it be full EF or a thinner-than-EF mount that requires an EF adaptor. We've been debating that for a few years here.

- A

 

[Michael Clark]

It wouldn't surprise me if Canon was not fully disclosing all the info on these two lenses and perhaps many of the L lenses that have been upgraded and or newly released in the last year or two. Such as; technology to make them work great and or excel on a mirrorless full frame machine they have yet to release.

I doubt Canon would be working on a full frame mirrorless body to offer without first making sure many of their top selling good L lenses will work flawlessly on it first.

just my opinion and me thinking out loudly

I believe their full frame mirrorless they will reveal soon will be able to accept EF mount lenses.....

I think you just hit the nail on the head.

The new (admittedly goofy) 470EX-AI automatic bounce head flash was introduced in February 2018. It turned out that every new Canon EOS body introduced since mid-2014 (except the four digit xx00D/Tx Rebels) had the ability to run that new auto bounce head feature already built in. Canon included the needed hardware/software and left it hidden in those models for up to 3 1/2 years until they announced the 470EX-AI earlier this year!