Vern said:
That's kind of shocking to hear for something with such a narrow field of view. I'm used to sweating thin vs. thick CPL on wide lenses but not a 70-200.
Can you describe when this happens for you? Presume 70mm + MFD?
- A
Upvote
0
New Canon 70-200mm Lenses Coming in Early June [CR3]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
That's kind of shocking to hear for something with such a narrow field of view. I'm used to sweating thin vs. thick CPL on wide lenses but not a 70-200.
Can you describe when this happens for you? Presume 70mm + MFD?
- A
Architect1776 said:
Canon has a 0.7x max mag zoom L lens that works only on the longest focal length. It's funny that I seem to hear about 3x more about the marvel of the 100-400L II's and Tamron 35's max magnification than I do about the 24-70 f/4L IS. Why is that?
- A
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
I saw it at 100mm f/5.6 focused at infinity.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5296.msg104929#msg104929
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
That is shocking. Will test mine now.
Update: doesn't seem to be happening on my end.
At least with a quick test on my 5D3 with PIC turned off, infinity focus (MF) shot at a white sky from 70, 100, 135, 200, I'm not seeing it with either my standard (non-slim) UV or standard (non-slim) CPL -- both F-Pro from B+W. I did not use a hood.
(I did this very very quickly and just chimped off the LCD, in fairness -- any chance the LCD ever-so-slightly crops the output and I'd actually see blackened corners in ACR/PS?)
- A
Upvote
0
infared said:
I'm not suggesting that minor upgrades justify buying a new lens, but lenses do get worn out through regular use and wear and tear; as well, for other reasons (like not owning the predecessor), people do buy new ones.
So nearly a decade later, why not refresh it so that the new one has the little things that are nice?
If there are some big things, that's great too. But as someone who is very happy with their 70-200/2.8IS II, I don't really need any big things.
Upvote
0
Talys said:infared said:
I'm not suggesting that minor upgrades justify buying a new lens, but lenses do get worn out through regular use and wear and tear; as well, for other reasons (like not owning the predecessor), people do buy new ones.
So nearly a decade later, why not refresh it so that the new one has the little things that are nice?
If there are some big things, that's great too. But as someone who is very happy with their 70-200/2.8IS II, I don't really need any big things.
There have been numerous interviews where Canon has indicated that they're increasing the level of automation used to manufacture lenses. A mark iii could be driven by changes to the design to accommodate production process needs as much as anything else. Increased automation, of course, leads to lower production costs (once the automation improvement have been recouped). So my bet is a marginally improved lens, and a new production process that results in (long term) higher margins.
Upvote
0
ken said:
Yes, I'm sure that's a non-public upside for Canon, but I again ask this forum for the last time a top quality L lens got a II or a III version offered that didn't step up in performance.
Unless folks want to offer the 24-105L II as an example -- a kit FF lens that happens to have a red ring on it -- I am still waiting for that answer. There are tiers of lenses Canon sells and the 24-105 is not the same level of instrument as the f/2.8 zooms, red ring or not. Canon may indeed get production costs down through automation, but this class of lens historically doesn't get revised without improvement.
- A
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Thanks for digging up the old thread, Neuro.
I haven't done a study, but when using the B&W 77mm (XS-PRO MC) Kaesemn HTC Circ Pol, it is definitely a problem at 70-100 mm (at least). I often use this lens in these focal lengths for panoramas and if the stitching doesn't remove the vignetting, it can be a pain to correct in sections of the sky. I would certainly update just to fix this issue.
Upvote
0
Also, in doing the quick vignetting test, I'll ping a very small area of improvement over the Mk II: filter attachment and removal can be a pain compared to other lenses -- and I'm not talking about the hood at all here.
This is obviously an n of 1 phenomenon my single copy, but I thought I'd share my experience:
1) Compared to other lenses my Mk II is notoriously harder to start the thread filtering process, with many false starts and spins before threads bite. No idea if this is deliberate (i.e. modified minor thread, single lead, etc.) for even better sealing or if this is due to a less rigid filter ring that may gone every-so-slightly out of round over time.
2) Because there is a taper/step of a larger diameter immediately behind the filter ring, it's very hard to get force to generate friction to turn the ring to take filters off. Whenever I get a CPL stuck on a lens and have to pull out a filter wrench, it's this one. I've looked at this compared to other more-recent 77mm filter lenses I own (24-70 f/4L, 16-35 f/4L) and they tend to have lens barrel transitions behind the filter ring that are very close to the 77mm itself, so it's much easier to tighten your grip on those and get the filter off.
It's a really small thing, but in the spirit of (a) continuous improvement and (b) the fact that they have already solved this nuisance on more recent lenses, one would think this is a shoo-in to include.
- A
This is obviously an n of 1 phenomenon my single copy, but I thought I'd share my experience:
1) Compared to other lenses my Mk II is notoriously harder to start the thread filtering process, with many false starts and spins before threads bite. No idea if this is deliberate (i.e. modified minor thread, single lead, etc.) for even better sealing or if this is due to a less rigid filter ring that may gone every-so-slightly out of round over time.
2) Because there is a taper/step of a larger diameter immediately behind the filter ring, it's very hard to get force to generate friction to turn the ring to take filters off. Whenever I get a CPL stuck on a lens and have to pull out a filter wrench, it's this one. I've looked at this compared to other more-recent 77mm filter lenses I own (24-70 f/4L, 16-35 f/4L) and they tend to have lens barrel transitions behind the filter ring that are very close to the 77mm itself, so it's much easier to tighten your grip on those and get the filter off.
It's a really small thing, but in the spirit of (a) continuous improvement and (b) the fact that they have already solved this nuisance on more recent lenses, one would think this is a shoo-in to include.
- A
Upvote
0
Kit. said:
Forgive my ignorance, but are people actually softboxing or macro-speedliting their 100-400L II at MFD for macro work? Is this a preferable setup for the dragonfly and poisonous varmint folks? That seems like quite a production for something not expressly fashioned to serve that need. (Why not a long 180mm macro with 1:1?)
I am not arguing the working distance of the 24-70 is ideal. I am just continually perplexed why folks rave about MFD leading to a 0.3x max mag in the 100-400L II or 0.4x in a Tamron 35 prime while no one seems to talk about what I believe is a far more impressive 0.7x plopped into an L standard zoom. My 100L (for handheld floral macro work or very casual 'oh neat, I see a lizard on a hike' purposes) hasn't traveled with me since I got the 24-70 f/4L IS. For casual macro like that, the working distance is indeed very short, but I just frame / position the camera to avoid shading the subject.
- A
Upvote
0
Talys said:
Maybe they could bring themselves to name instead of number the modes. The more there are, the harder I find it to remember them all.
I would pay for a replacement hood that didn't have this misfeature. It was forever falling open, until I gooped it up with silicone. And it wasn't actually feasible to turn the C-POL through it (I needed to and ended up just leaving the hood off.) These problems have been widely reported. The hood is also unreasonably heavy for a hood.
I did replace it with a third party foot, but only because the stock foot is so bad. I would really like to be able to remove the tripod ring completely, as overwhelmingly I use this lens handheld. Yet I wanted a decent foot in order to complete AF microadjiustment.
I'll grant you this, but the new colour still looks old fashioned. One wonders why they bothered to change at all.
While L lenses have been getting better optically, IMO they've gone backwards ergonomically and in cosmetics. One can overlook those things, but they're certainly not a positive for me.
Upvote
0
I think there should be an award for the first CR member to actually get a version 3 in the first shipment. (Of course the reward is contingent on a concise yet thorough review).
Upvote
0
MrFotoFool said:
I'm sure we know a certain person who could STEAL one or get his HANDS on one before the general public to REVIEW IT.
Upvote
0
hollybush said:
It's easy. I just leave it on mode 3, and I'm all good
But seriously... 1 = stationary, 2 = moving, 3 = IS doesn't kick in until just before shutter.
I like Mode 3 because I don't have to "fight" IS drift, especially if it's in live view magnify. On the 100-400LII I usually just leave IS on 3, even when the camera is on a tripod, if only because then I can't forget to turn back on. I've tried taking a lot of BIF and bird portraits with IS on the various modes while on a tripod with gimbal, and I have settled on 3 yielding the best results overall, generally (including no IS).
I also shoot my 100-400LII handheld almost all of the time. However, the tripod foot is also valuable to put the camera strap loop onto. As was explained to me (here!) it's better to support it by the lens than by the body. I use an arca plate with a flip-down loop (by Fusion), so that I can use it on a tripod if I want to, and clip it onto a blackrapid otherwise.
With respect to the 70-200 II, there are a few minor quibbles I have about the tripod ring:
- When it's on, and in the free rotation mode (which I use if it's on a gimbal, for example, for backyard bird photography), it's easy to rotate it into the unlock notch accidentally.
- The rolling mechanism isn't nearly as good as the 100-400LII.
- When I take the tripod ring off entirely, I don't like the nubs that are left on the ring.
- I'm not a fan of the default foot, primarily because it doesn't have a second pin to prevent it from rotating when there's a tripod plate on it. But there's no way to change the foot without changing the plate.
Incidentally, something Sony got right, I think, is the tripod foot on the GM 100-400. It's quite nice how you can press a button and "eject" the foot from the collar. Also, the design of the collar, sans foot, is nice, as it has a standard 1/4" threaded socket, allowing you to put a blackrapid loop directly on it, without the foot.
Upvote
0
ken said:Talys said:infared said:
I'm not suggesting that minor upgrades justify buying a new lens, but lenses do get worn out through regular use and wear and tear; as well, for other reasons (like not owning the predecessor), people do buy new ones.
So nearly a decade later, why not refresh it so that the new one has the little things that are nice?
If there are some big things, that's great too. But as someone who is very happy with their 70-200/2.8IS II, I don't really need any big things.
There have been numerous interviews where Canon has indicated that they're increasing the level of automation used to manufacture lenses. A mark iii could be driven by changes to the design to accommodate production process needs as much as anything else. Increased automation, of course, leads to lower production costs (once the automation improvement have been recouped). So my bet is a marginally improved lens, and a new production process that results in (long term) higher margins.
Interesting
Upvote
0
So, a super-expensive body with only like 5 super-heavy super-expensive lenses to choose from? That won't sell.Bahrd said:
Actually, having a mirrorless body with a circular sensor with the diagonal of 35mm format would be nice. Some EF lenses will need their rectangular exit screen removed, though, but many really important ones will work without modifications.criscokkat said:
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
I find that dragonflies fly away when I try to squish them with the front element of the 100L..... you really do need a longer focal length for them....
That said, I think the 24-70 F4 is one of Canon’s under appreciated gems. When you are on foot, it is light, functions very well, and has a semi-macro mode. You can have a very portable walk-about kit with it and the 70-200 F4 IS... yes there are faster lenses, but it costs you weight, space, and dollars to get them
Upvote
0
Actually, if all you need is fill flash, for 100-400L II at MFD you could use your normal speedlite. Hotshoe-mounted. With the lens hood on.ahsanford said:
That's what I'd call a comfortable working distance.
Light discs (or their ad-hoc substitutes, like a white grocery bag) can be helpful too, even for just the available light.
For shooting live dragonflies on a full frame camera, you will definitely like the extra reach 400 mm give you.ahsanford said:
(Granted, I have shot hummingbirds on the nest with a 100mm macro back in the film era, but they were visibly disturbed by that)
400 mm are also good for background separation, which is determined by the input pupil's absolute size (and not, as macro depth of field for given magnification, just by f-number).
180mm macro is nice for studio work, but quite heavy as a separate lens you need to carry on vacation (you would bring 100-400 there anyway). Besides, it lacks IS.
Can tell nothing about Tamron primes, which I have never used. As for 100-400L II - just rent it over a weekend and try it by yourself.ahsanford said:
Upvote
0
On the topic of tripod collars/feet, I much prefer the design from the old black 80-200 f2.8L . (I also prefer the black color and in fact have modified my 70-200 with black vinyl). The old lens had a hinge that would allow user to flip half of the collar 180 degrees for easy removal. In other words, it was a complete collar (like the current 70-200) but you could remove it without taking the lens off the body (like the current 100-400).
Upvote
0
Similar threads
