New Canon 70-200mm Lenses Coming in Early June [CR3]

[unfocused]

... 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...

The problem is that you ask for an example and then when someone offers up the obvious example, you say "that doesn't count."

You rule out the 24-105 because you don't seem to think it is a "real" L lens (according to your personal standards). I think the 24-105 is relevant because it appears that Canon did not make any significant improvement in image quality because they couldn't significantly improve upon the lens. As evidence, I offer up every other version of a 24-105 or in the case of Nikon the 24-120 zoom. Why is it that no one has offered a better version? Probably because it's not possible to do so (at least at a price the market will bear).

None of us knows the cost-benefit for optical improvements in the next version. Canon will balance out the cost and benefits and if the cost is too high, they will take a pass.

Ultimately, the 70-200mm III may indeed be optically better than the II version. You seem to think it will be better. Others, including myself, think it might be better. No matter how many times you keep posting your rationale, until the lens is released, it means nothing.

 

[Chaitanya]

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?

Maybe because it's unusable (the minimum focus distance is too short to meaningfully illuminate most scenes)?

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

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

It's not just dragons or damsels but also larger butterflies especially of Papilionidae family, whole bunch of lizards(especially skinks) are skittish at best. I know quite a few people who shoot using 100-400mm II lens just for the convenience of that longer working distance. Most of these people dont use a flash and rather prefer using natural light to take photos as flashes cannot cover the distance efficiently.

 

[Talys]

@ahsanford -

I love the MFD on the 100-400LII because it allows me to take these types of photos with the same lens -- the two photos were actually photographed at the same location, though on different days.

I normally use my 100-400LII with just ambient light, but occasion, I do use additional lighting, for example, for photographing hummingbirds. It's rare that I set up softboxes for this, though the Godox AD-200 with the little snap-on round softbox for the bare-head mode works nicely in a pinch, if I want to take close-up shots of, for example, flowers. For most macro work that I do which can benefit from a flash, the subject is so small that it is acceptable to use something like a 7" reflector dish with a frosted diffuser and simply move the strobe very close to the subject, and set the power low. If I need softer, more diffuse light, I can just position a white translucent reflector between the flash and the subject.

If I know I'm going to be taking macro photos, of course a 100L macro is a better lens (and absolutely, I would do this in a studio). But often, the 100-400 is just what's on my camera, and it can take great photos of little things up close, without having to do a lens swap. When taking macro, if possible (ie not outside), I avoid softboxes, and just use battery powered LED panels.

 

[Don Haines]

Ultimately, the 70-200mm III may indeed be optically better than the II version. You seem to think it will be better. Others, including myself, think it might be better. No matter how many times you keep posting your rationale, until the lens is released, it means nothing.

Myself, I think it will probably be better.... but I agree with you, until we see it, all is speculation.

 

[Ozarker]

The great thing about a gear update: If you are happy with what you have, you don't have to buy the new thing. That's it.

Here's what went through my small mind: "I thought I had the latest and greatest. Now what I've got is old. What would my CR neighbors think? Have to stay on top of things, so need to come up with another $2,500."

Then the rational side kicked in: "If I were just getting ready to buy my first 70-200 L here's a real opportunity to get the latest and greatest (Mark III) or a great price on an already fantastic lens in the Mark II."

So there it is. I really do like my Mark II. Mine is fantastic as far as I am concerned. It will probably still be producing great photos in 10 more years. It certainly isn't holding me back. Not even close. So I won't fret or speculate about what might come to pass on the Mark III. Doesn't matter to me.

Now, anymore news on the 135mm f/2L IS front?

 

[stevelee]

By the time I can afford to buy something, it is up to Mark II version. That's a mixed blessing, but it does mean that most of the stuff I use is the latest (and greatest) of its model.

 

[Talys]

Ultimately, the 70-200mm III may indeed be optically better than the II version. You seem to think it will be better. Others, including myself, think it might be better. No matter how many times you keep posting your rationale, until the lens is released, it means nothing.

Myself, I think it will probably be better.... but I agree with you, until we see it, all is speculation.

Okay, well, I think that it is highly unlikely that Mk3 will be worse

 

[Don Haines]

Ultimately, the 70-200mm III may indeed be optically better than the II version. You seem to think it will be better. Others, including myself, think it might be better. No matter how many times you keep posting your rationale, until the lens is released, it means nothing.

Myself, I think it will probably be better.... but I agree with you, until we see it, all is speculation.

Okay, well, I think that it is highly unlikely that Mk3 will be worse

When you figure that coatings have improved, machining accuracy has improved (more constancy), and that they almost certainly will not come up with a worse optical design then they already have, I think the worst case is optical performance about the same but with better IS.... the best case is probably better IS and a slightly better optical design that you need a test bed to see. These are already very good lenses, there is not a huge amount of room for improvement.....

 

[fullstop]

i expect the Mk. III to be a little improved in IQ, IS, AF. quite likely also more cost-effective, automated production.
Also, Canon II ws clearly better than Nikon, then Nikon pulled ever so slightly ahead (according to reviews) with their II, now Canon will try to best them again with the III. the usual non-innovative, marginal improvement iterative stuff we've seen for the past decades. MSRP price will be raised by 20+ %, especially as there is some upwards margin to Ninon (and Sony GM stuff). and the usual clientele will buy. nothing exciting, just "CaNikon business as usual".

 

[woodman411]

Ultimately, the 70-200mm III may indeed be optically better than the II version. You seem to think it will be better. Others, including myself, think it might be better. No matter how many times you keep posting your rationale, until the lens is released, it means nothing.

Myself, I think it will probably be better.... but I agree with you, until we see it, all is speculation.

Okay, well, I think that it is highly unlikely that Mk3 will be worse

When you figure that coatings have improved, machining accuracy has improved (more constancy), and that they almost certainly will not come up with a worse optical design then they already have, I think the worst case is optical performance about the same but with better IS.... the best case is probably better IS and a slightly better optical design that you need a test bed to see. These are already very good lenses, there is not a huge amount of room for improvement.....

Plus the fact Canon seems to be the only Japanese camera and lens maker not moving their manufacturing overseas wholesale, going the other way, possibly shutting down their Taiwan base and moving everything back to Japan. That's a good thing - quality control at home, designers and manufacturing in a shorter loop, plus workers who have a culture of paying attention to detail. Japanese labor is more costlier than China, Thailand, and Vietnam, that's an area Canon is paying extra for - everyone else, including Nikon, Fuji, and Sony, have cheaped out in this area.

 

[ahsanford]

Thx for the macro 100-400 comments. That's not my wheelhouse of shooting at all, so I appreciate the context!

- A

 

[ahsanford]

The problem is that you ask for an example and then when someone offers up the obvious example, you say "that doesn't count."

Fair. I just see the f/2.8 zooms a bulletproof professional instruments with unreasonably high user expectations, while I see the two 24-105s as 'the lens that came with my shiny new FF camera'. I'm scratching my head to remember the last top-end L lens that got the II or III treatment that didn't deliver the goods. I honestly don't consider the 24-105s to be on that highest tier of lenses like the f/2.8L zooms, f/1.2L and f/1.4L primes, etc.

I could see Canon not trying to smash resolution records with an instrument that *must* come in at a certain standard cost for kitting reasons. Perhaps they couldn't make the 24-105L II sharper, or perhaps they absolutely could but it would quickly get priced out of where Canon needed it to be.

But yes, I am certainly bullish on this 70-200 2.8's prospect of improvement -- but I could very well be wrong.

- A

 

[Don Haines]

The problem is that you ask for an example and then when someone offers up the obvious example, you say "that doesn't count."

Fair. I just see the f/2.8 zooms a bulletproof professional instruments with unreasonably high user expectations, while I see the two 24-105s as 'the lens that came with my shiny new FF camera'. I'm scratching my head to remember the last top-end L lens that got the II or III treatment that didn't deliver the goods. I honestly don't consider the 24-105s to be on that highest tier of lenses like the f/2.8L zooms, f/1.2L and f/1.4L primes, etc.

I could see Canon not trying to smash resolution records with an instrument that *must* come in at a certain standard cost for kitting reasons. Perhaps they couldn't make the 24-105L II sharper, or perhaps they absolutely could but it would quickly get priced out of where Canon needed it to be.

But yes, I am certainly bullish on this 70-200 2.8's prospect of improvement -- but I could very well be wrong.

- A

Given similar levels of technology, a long focal length lens will be sharper than a short focal length lens, and a 3X zoom will be sharper than a 4X zoom... the 24-105 may well be at or close to its limit.......

 

[unfocused]

The problem is that you ask for an example and then when someone offers up the obvious example, you say "that doesn't count."

Fair. I just see the f/2.8 zooms a bulletproof professional instruments with unreasonably high user expectations, while I see the two 24-105s as 'the lens that came with my shiny new FF camera'. I'm scratching my head to remember the last top-end L lens that got the II or III treatment that didn't deliver the goods. I honestly don't consider the 24-105s to be on that highest tier of lenses like the f/2.8L zooms, f/1.2L and f/1.4L primes, etc.

I could see Canon not trying to smash resolution records with an instrument that *must* come in at a certain standard cost for kitting reasons. Perhaps they couldn't make the 24-105L II sharper, or perhaps they absolutely could but it would quickly get priced out of where Canon needed it to be.

But yes, I am certainly bullish on this 70-200 2.8's prospect of improvement -- but I could very well be wrong.

- A

Fair enough. For the record I do expect some slight improvement in sharpness in the 70-200 2.8 III. I just don’t think that it will be noticeably better under most real world circumstances. I don’t see many people trading in the II because of optical improvements. Rather, I see a combination of improved IS and improved close focusing and possibly some weight reduction, prompting some users to trade in their older well-worn models.

I do think you underestimate the 24-105. If you need a zoom that goes beyond 70mm and need IS then the 24-105 “L” is your only choice. I use it almost daily and I’ve never been disappointed by the real world optical quality.

 

[ahsanford]

I do think you underestimate the 24-105. If you need a zoom that goes beyond 70mm and need IS then the 24-105 “L” is your only choice. I use it almost daily and I’ve never been disappointed by the real world optical quality.

Also fair -- a lot of it has to do with what we value. I'd rather have a sharper ~ 3x standard zoom with that lovely macro-in-a-pinch functionality than to have 71-105mm. I fully recognize that I am in the minority with that position -- this forums is full of folks who love the versatility of their 24-105s.

- A

 

[Ozarker]

i expect the Mk. III to be a little improved in IQ, IS, AF... the usual non-innovative, marginal improvement iterative stuff we've seen for the past decades.

What the heck are you talking about? Why don't you explain what you think would be innovative when it comes to an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III vs the II? Just what do you think could be done there to make it "innovative". What "thing" do you think would make any 70-200 "innovative"? Surely you must have some idea.

Past decades? No innovation since at least 1998? : : :

I swear, I think people use words sometimes and have no idea what they themselves mean when they use them. They just want to use the word. Or they decry what they think is a lack of innovation, but cannot articulate what they might perceive as innovative.

Nothing innovative since at least 1998? What world are you living in? Do you even think about what you type before you type it? Nothing, NOTHING could possibly satisfy somebody who has the perceptions you have.

 

[fullstop]

"slightly innovative" would for example be a 50-150/2.8 mirrorless FF lens, considerably smaller and lighter but in all respects [other than the 50mm less reach ] even better than the 70-200 2.8 L IS II: IQ, AF, IS, and providing distance information for use in a long overdue improved version of the Canon *wireless* E-TTL protocol - so it would finally also support second curtain sync.

Needless to say, that lens would come in new slim mount for an equally innovative mirrorless Canon FF body.

To make target specs specific, let's say something easily achievable like size&weight max (!) what the discontinued Sigma 50-150/2.8 EX HSM / II lenses were: DxL 3.0 x 5.3" (76 x 135mm), weight 27.2 oz (780g), 67mm filter thread, np if it was 77mm - as long as overall size parameters are met.

Ah yes, and make it black please, not that awful off-white bird's poo color. Now, that would be "slightly innovative" to me.

"Really innovative" would be something like a Canon lightfield/computational camera system without any need for large, heavy, clumsy and expensive optical lenses.

 

[neuroanatomist]

From a dictionary that somehow got transmogrified from the Mode Dial Boy Universe into the real world:

in·no·va·tive ˈinəˌvādiv adjective
1. when a manufacturer makes a product that I personally want

 

[Don Haines]

i expect the Mk. III to be a little improved in IQ, IS, AF... the usual non-innovative, marginal improvement iterative stuff we've seen for the past decades.

What the heck are you talking about? Why don't you explain what you think would be innovative when it comes to an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III vs the II? Just what do you think could be done there to make it "innovative". What "thing" do you think would make any 70-200 "innovative"? Surely you must have some idea.

Past decades? No innovation since at least 1998? : : :

I swear, I think people use words sometimes and have no idea what they themselves mean when they use them. They just want to use the word. Or they decry what they think is a lack of innovation, but cannot articulate what they might perceive as innovative.

Nothing innovative since at least 1998? What world are you living in? Do you even think about what you type before you type it? Nothing, NOTHING could possibly satisfy somebody who has the perceptions you have.

Sometimes it is hard to tell innovation from incremental increases....

For example, BR and other nano coatings could be described as innovative, yet could also be described as an incremental improvement.....

The lens design software (to those not using it) would be seen as an incremental improvement, yet aspects of the software such as new algorithms and GPU programming would be seen as innovation....

The preparation and machining of materials is yet another case where it can be seen as both.

The point being, that we users of the lenses do not have a detailed view of what goes into creating a new lens and that there is a lot of innovation that is invisible to us. All we see is the end product which is (hopefully) a bit better than the preceding version, so we think that it has been incrementally improved. The reality is that the incremental improvements are the result of innovation.

 

[unfocused]

i expect the Mk. III to be a little improved in IQ, IS, AF... the usual non-innovative, marginal improvement iterative stuff we've seen for the past decades.

What the heck are you talking about? ...

I swear, I think people use words sometimes and have no idea what they themselves mean when they use them...

Sometimes it is hard to tell innovation from incremental increases....

...The reality is that the incremental improvements are the result of innovation.

I struggle with trying to figure out what sort of "innovation" is lacking in a lens. It seems like a lens has a pretty basic purpose: focus light rays on a film (now sensor) plane. Beyond that, everything else is gravy. If a new lens is sharper, has better image stabilization, focuses faster, minimizes weight and minimizes optical problems, what sort of "innovation" are people looking for?

Maybe some sort of magical formula that makes an f1.0 lens the size and weight of an f8 lens at half the cost?