Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II Confirmed

[AvTvM]

My guess is reduced production costs.

exactly. my "non-existing business acumen" tells me the same.

some Canon controller found out that some cheap parts inside can be made even cheaper by 5 cents ... sourcing them from somewhere 5 miles deeper into China ... and at the same time some Canon marketing genius said, "we can easily slap 20% onto the sales price of an *ALL NEW Mk. III* ...

and voila! :

 

[lexaclarke]

Who the hell needs 2.8 III? Since when is the II not good enough?

Just because something is "good enough" doesn't mean you shouldn't want to see it improve further.

But also...

The /4 is the best travel lens ever but it is outdated. Had better IQ than the 2.8 IS back in the days, but the 2.8II surpassed it. Time to catch up.

You're contradicting yourself here. You're saying one lens is "good enough" and doesn't need to be updated while another lens is no longer "good enough" because a more expensive version manged to be better? It's not like the f/2.8 IS mark II existing suddenly stops the f/4 IS from working.

I'd like the f/4 IS to be improved, but it is also still more than good enough.

Quieter IS?!? Now where did that come from? Why not simply a more efficient IS?!

The answer is both. All new IS lenses are both more effective and quieter than the f/4 IS. The noise of the f/4 IS is pretty famous and it's a problem for video, and generally annoying.

Less weight/size, closer focusing distance, AF speed, AF accuracy, many attributes can be improved.

There's a lot of contradictions here. You can't really get faster AF but also expand the close focusing. The longer focus throw means the focus will take longer to rack through its range, right? And lenses which focus closer without compromising on AF speed usually end up being bigger and heavier. I assume because they need a more powerful motor to get through that extra range quicker. AF accuracy and speed also seem to be opposed because high accuracy requires higher gear ratios and speed is best achieved with lower gear ratios.

I'm not saying any of those individual parts can't be improved but I don't think all of them can be improved together all at once. You'd have to give up size or weight at the least. You'd probably end up with a much more expensive lens at the same time. I think you're writing off the realistic upgrades and expecting too much.

 

[MrFotoFool]

Thanks for the announcement. I really would like to read a rumor about a 400 f/5.6 update; I almost certainly would buy it.

Me too.

 

[Joe M]

Maybe the design flaw known as "slippery autofocus", where if you pointed the lens upwards and it won't focus, because of the inner mechanism in USM slipping. Happened to my friend. Bill for the repair at Canon CPS was around 2/3 price of the used lens on the market.

I was thinking the same thing. I don't see how the optics can be improved but I guess anything is possible. Maybe even the IS can be improved. But that slipping autofocus is the one thing that needs to be addressed if nothing else.

 

[NancyP]

Cue AHSanford, 3, 2, 1..... WANNA 50 1.4 IS!!!!

I finally broke down and got a 100-400 f/variable L IS II. I could easily have bought a 400 f/5.6L IS II instead, if it had been offered. Now, the zoom does offer some useful features, including 1:3 magnification for larger butterflies and dragonflies, but I don't expect to use the 100-400 much in the 100-300 range - mostly use in the 300 - 400 range, probably 90%+ at 400.

It's burning a hole in my camera bag. I bought it about 10 days ago, then promptly got too sick to feel like going outdoors to inaugurate it. Come Saturday...

I do like the 70-200 f/4 L IS. For non-birding travel use, it is perfect.

 

[AJ]

The /4 is the best travel lens ever but it is outdated. Had better IQ than the 2.8 IS back in the days, but the 2.8II surpassed it. Time to catch up.

^^^ this

Canon did a good job updating the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and the 100-400. Now it's the 70-200/4 IS' turn.

 

[chrysoberyl]

I finally broke down and got a 100-400 f/variable L IS II. I could easily have bought a 400 f/5.6L IS II instead, if it had been offered.

OK, that makes three of us - how many are needed to make it worthwhile to Canon?

Cue AHSanford, 3, 2, 1..... WANNA 50 1.4 IS!!!!

Ha! I'm waiting for that, too. Poor guy! I really don't understand why no 50mm update.

 

[Graphic.Artifacts]

The 70-200 f4's balance very nicely on a light weight body. Would be a perfect companion to a lighter weight EF mount mirror-less assuming that will be offered at some point. As others have mentioned, the AF and IS could probably use some updating to conform to modern specs and PDAF only focusing.

IMO, one more indicator that when canon makes it's next big move in morroriless it will be with an EF mount.

Naturally, i just bought a new one of these a few months ago. Its a personal favorite of mine as a travel lens. Not without it's flaws but it sure checks a lot of boxes for me. Quieter IS, better IS for panning, a little sharper in the corners for landscape and detail shots, new coatings to reduce flare sans hood, maybe a little quieter bokeh wide open and I'll bite. Offer it in black and I promise I'll buy two.

 

[Don Haines]

I finally broke down and got a 100-400 f/variable L IS II. I could easily have bought a 400 f/5.6L IS II instead, if it had been offered.

OK, that makes three of us - how many are needed to make it worthwhile to Canon?

I make it 4......

 

[YuengLinger]

Let me remind people about the 24-105mm f/4L IS II.....

I’d like to hear your take on why they bothered with that lens.

My guess is reduced production costs. It's a kit lens (albeit for FF), and they've revised the 18-55mm kit lenses with essentially cosmetic-only changes, presumably to reduce production cost.

It was the only Canon lens I gave up on. After selling my 5DIII with its kit lens, an excellent copy of the 24-105mm, sigh, I thought surely version II would be at least as good. Tried 3 copies, which is something I've never done either. All had either IQ or IS problems--or both!

Sad. But now I realize I never actually needed one AND the 24-70mm f/2.8L II, though the original did come in handy for family travel, paired with my 80D. I didn't mind it not being quite wide enough on cropped, and liked the reach of 105mm.

Surely version II of the 70-200mm f/4 IS will be as good or better? But not for me! I'm too happy with the version one that I nabbed during one of those refurbished double-discount holiday deals a couple years back. I don't care if the new one is advertised as having a 10 stop rated IS! My copy is great, and it is so light and fun on the 80D.

 

[AuroraChaserDoug]

I like the size and f/4 is usually fast enough. This lens makes me wonder if I need a 24-70 f/2.8. (Well, OTOH, who doesn't need a 24-70 f/2.8!) The 70-200 f/4 IS is compatible with extenders. What if they modified it to no longer be extender compatible but more compatible with a mirrorless FF? The smaller form factor of mirrorless would mate well with the 70-200 f/4 IS.

 

[Chaitanya]

Thanks for the announcement. I really would like to read a rumor about a 400 f/5.6 update; I almost certainly would buy it.

How about a little longer 500mm f5.6 IS L lens? Even though I rarely need telephoto lenses I wouldnt mind buying a 500mm f5.6 for mammals and raptors.

 

[Alexlin]

Pretty sad....I thought it was F/2.8...disappointing news

 

[Talys]

Pretty sad....I thought it was F/2.8...disappointing news

A slight sigh of relief, to be honest. I'm very happy with my 2.8, but I know that it's slightly dated. But because it's a lens I use a lot, I'd almost certainly upgrade it, if not immediately, as soon as there's a telephoto MIR.

Frankly, all they need to do to sell me is to make it more 100-400-ish (ergonomically) and give me some minor excuse to pull the trigger, like the tiniest of IQ bumps.

So, this way, I won't run out and buy a new lens I KNOW that I really don't need, but would love to have, hahaha.

 

[Ozarker]

I like the size and f/4 is usually fast enough. This lens makes me wonder if I need a 24-70 f/2.8. (Well, OTOH, who doesn't need a 24-70 f/2.8!) The 70-200 f/4 IS is compatible with extenders. What if they modified it to no longer be extender compatible but more compatible with a mirrorless FF? The smaller form factor of mirrorless would mate well with the 70-200 f/4 IS.

Compatible with a mirrorless FF what? Why would the lens have to be less extender friendly to compensate for mirrorless? Mounting an extender on the DSLR doesn't cause the sensor to be moved forward or back. Why would it be different for mirrorless?

I think we assume a FF mirrorless Canon will have to be the ergonomic disappointment that is Sony. Also, once a native Sony lens is mounted on a Sony, there is no size advantage over Canon DSLRs. The Sony lenses are longer, so the total footprint is the same or larger.

I think the assumption some make that Canon will have to give up superior ergonomics and the EF mount is wrong. There won't be a mirror box, but that doesn't mean the camera will be thinner or that the sensor will have to be moved forward as a result.

Maybe there will be a new mount and thinner body, but I doubt it.

Hmmmm... maybe removing the mirror box and prism will make room for a bigger cooling system for 4K? 4K might be another reason to keep the larger body for better cooling and room for more processing power.

I'd like to see a SSD instead of a memory card too. Maybe it will spool the 100 fps onto the slower memory cards.

 

[hendrik-sg]

This is a great contribution to the mirrorless discussion. It's nice how the smaller Sony camera sacrifies the top plate display (which i always use on my Canon) for having a larger lens. It looks like, as if the lens is similar in rear design as the mirror versions, just with included adapter (or call it rear extention more politely).
We will get FF mirrorless when they can produce it cheaper than a DSLR, we will pay a premium for "innovation" and if their marketing compartment is very innovative they will bring a new mount to obsolete our lenses. But maybe we will get a cool and innovative blue ring . Remind they just brought 2.5k$ TS-e lenses to market, i am sure the buyers will be very happy if they get obsolete in near future.

For me this strategy would not work, i will not buy new lenses, if they obsolet my existing ones. I will use a last generation DSLR (bought used for cheap, no sale for canon) until exiting my hobby. And yes, i have more than 10k$ lenses. if keeping the lens mount, i will of course fail my fight against GAS occationally and get Canon some more money.

 

[Don Haines]

I like the size and f/4 is usually fast enough. This lens makes me wonder if I need a 24-70 f/2.8. (Well, OTOH, who doesn't need a 24-70 f/2.8!) The 70-200 f/4 IS is compatible with extenders. What if they modified it to no longer be extender compatible but more compatible with a mirrorless FF? The smaller form factor of mirrorless would mate well with the 70-200 f/4 IS.

Compatible with a mirrorless FF what? Why would the lens have to be less extender friendly to compensate for mirrorless? Mounting an extender on the DSLR doesn't cause the sensor to be moved forward or back. Why would it be different for mirrorless?

I think we assume a FF mirrorless Canon will have to be the ergonomic disappointment that is Sony. Also, once a native Sony lens is mounted on a Sony, there is no size advantage over Canon DSLRs. The Sony lenses are longer, so the total footprint is the same or larger.

I think the assumption some make that Canon will have to give up superior ergonomics and the EF mount is wrong. There won't be a mirror box, but that doesn't mean the camera will be thinner or that the sensor will have to be moved forward as a result.

Maybe there will be a new mount and thinner body, but I doubt it.

Hmmmm... maybe removing the mirror box and prism will make room for a bigger cooling system for 4K? 4K might be another reason to keep the larger body for better cooling and room for more processing power.

I'd like to see a SSD instead of a memory card too. Maybe it will spool the 100 fps onto the slower memory cards.

I agree!

You can miniaturize cameras and lenses all you want but we humans remain the same size. In particular, our hands remained the same size. If we want buttons, displays, and other controls, the camera needs the real estate to hold them. Canon’s current crop of full-size cameras is the size and shape that they are for reason, and this is where good ergonomics has taken them.

 

[Don Haines]

Getting back to subject..... this is an update that is long overdue and welcome.

The previous lens is great. A wonderful example of a balance between quality and price.... very sharp, reasonably light, and (unfortunately), the loudest IS in the Canon ecosystem. As video has increased in popularity, this has become more of a problem.

The new lens will probably be a bit sharper and a lot quieter. I hope that they keep it as a constant length lens, that is a fantastic feature to have when shooting in nasty conditions and you do not want to pump dust or moisture through the camera.

 

[jolyonralph]

This is a great contribution to the mirrorless discussion. It's nice how the smaller Sony camera sacrifies the top plate display (which i always use on my Canon) for having a larger lens.

I honestly don't miss this on my A7RII as I shoot mostly straight through the viewfinder.

But I also don't get those who claim the ergonomics on the Sony are significantly worse than on the Canon. I love my 5DSR, but there are plenty of things that that Sony does better. For example having a dedicated exposure +/- wheel.

 

[BillB]

I like the size and f/4 is usually fast enough. This lens makes me wonder if I need a 24-70 f/2.8. (Well, OTOH, who doesn't need a 24-70 f/2.8!) The 70-200 f/4 IS is compatible with extenders. What if they modified it to no longer be extender compatible but more compatible with a mirrorless FF? The smaller form factor of mirrorless would mate well with the 70-200 f/4 IS.

Compatible with a mirrorless FF what? Why would the lens have to be less extender friendly to compensate for mirrorless? Mounting an extender on the DSLR doesn't cause the sensor to be moved forward or back. Why would it be different for mirrorless?

I think we assume a FF mirrorless Canon will have to be the ergonomic disappointment that is Sony. Also, once a native Sony lens is mounted on a Sony, there is no size advantage over Canon DSLRs. The Sony lenses are longer, so the total footprint is the same or larger.

I think the assumption some make that Canon will have to give up superior ergonomics and the EF mount is wrong. There won't be a mirror box, but that doesn't mean the camera will be thinner or that the sensor will have to be moved forward as a result.

Maybe there will be a new mount and thinner body, but I doubt it.

Hmmmm... maybe removing the mirror box and prism will make room for a bigger cooling system for 4K? 4K might be another reason to keep the larger body for better cooling and room for more processing power.

I'd like to see a SSD instead of a memory card too. Maybe it will spool the 100 fps onto the slower memory cards.

I agree!

You can miniaturize cameras and lenses all you want but we humans remain the same size. In particular, our hands remained the same size. If we want buttons, displays, and other controls, the camera needs the real estate to hold them. Canon’s current crop of full-size cameras is the size and shape that they are for reason, and this is where good ergonomics has taken them.

I find myself using the QC button and touchscreen controls on my 5DIV more and more as the days go by.