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

[ahsanford]

That's what struck me too. Full Frame Mirrorless will be an EF mount

That's speculation, not fact. I agree that very well may be what happens, but we won't know until the day it's announced.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Personally, I don't think the mount will be a new one. If it is, I wouldn't care. Happy to keep using a DSLR and my current lenses. Heck, the DSLR will never completely go away in our lifetimes. At least not in mine.

+1. EF is not going away. The question is: will EF have a mirrorless-specific little brother that runs along side it someday?

• If it does, EF will still truck on for a very long time.
  
  
• If it doesn't, EF will still truck on for a very long time.

Panic that anyone has bought into EF 'just as it is going away' needs to consider (a) it isn't going away and (b) even if a thin mirrorless mount becomes the dominant mount, it would take a decade to even begin to replace what EF offers. Hence, EF is here for the near, mid and long term.

Annnnnd we're OT. My bad.

- A

 

[Don Haines]

That's what struck me too. Full Frame Mirrorless will be an EF mount

That's speculation, not fact. I agree that very well may be what happens, but we won't know until the day it's announced.

- A

+1

 

[MrFotoFool]

Two radical (perhaps unrealistic) options that would make 200 2.8 iii stand out from competition.

1. Make it DO and thus smaller and lighter than any competitors.

2. Put in a built-in 1.4x extender (a la 200-400 f4).

 

[ahsanford]

Two radical (perhaps unrealistic) options that would make 200 2.8 iii stand out from competition.

1. Make it DO and thus smaller and lighter than any competitors.

2. Put in a built-in 1.4x extender (a la 200-400 f4).

Sure, but it's only competition appears to be itself, i.e. the Mk II. (It's a staggeringly good lens already.)

I think they can cobble together enough 10% improvements in weight, MFD, sharpness, etc., add a 1-2 stops of IS, a CPL window and it will sell itself -- and they won't have to push the boat out on potentially turning folks off with the added cost/length/weight of an in-line T/C or any contrast concerns of DO.

(Also, sorry for being pedantic, but a DO lens wouldn't be an L or a III -- it would be a 70-200 f/2.8 DO IS USM. If the rumors are correct in that we'll see an f/2.8L IS III and f/4L IS II, DO won't be part of it.)

- A

 

[Adelino]

Two radical (perhaps unrealistic) options that would make 200 2.8 iii stand out from competition.

1. Make it DO and thus smaller and lighter than any competitors.

2. Put in a built-in 1.4x extender (a la 200-400 f4).

Sure, but it's only competition appears to be itself, i.e. the Mk II. (It's a staggeringly good lens already.)

I think they can cobble together enough 10% improvements in weight, MFD, sharpness, etc., add a 1-2 stops of IS, a CPL window and it will sell itself -- and they won't have to push the boat out on potentially turning folks off with the added cost/length/weight of an in-line T/C or any contrast concerns of DO.

(Also, sorry for being pedantic, but a DO lens wouldn't be an L or a III -- it would be a 70-200 f/2.8 DO IS USM. If the rumors are correct in that we'll see an f/2.8L IS III and f/4L IS II, DO won't be part of it.)

- A

Out of curiosity could a DO lens be an L lens? I'm not sure what the full requirements are for an L lens but can a DO lens be high enough quality and meet the other requirements, whatever those are?

 

[ahsanford]

Out of curiosity could a DO lens be an L lens? I'm not sure what the full requirements are for an L lens but can a DO lens be high enough quality and meet the other requirements, whatever those are?

Someone more well read than I will quote some part of Canon's brand/nomenclature strategy that formally says 'DO is DO and L is L and never the twain shall meet', but I just go to TDP and check:

"Apparently, "DO" and "L" are mutually exclusive at this point in Canon lens product development, but more important is that DO is essentially L in terms of quality."

All the DO lenses have a green ring and not a red ring, and none have the L in their nomenclature.

Conversely, the L lenses get the red ring and I can't find DO in the name anywhere.

I'm not saying it will always be that way, but that's the way it appears to be now.

- A

 

[Antono Refa]

I would like a 70-200mm f/2.0 with a 100mm filter that is 1.5 kg heavier weight than the f/2.8.

You're in a minority.

Just not the astronomical price associated with a f/2.0

If only every lens was priced like a 50mm f/1.8...

 

[drmikeinpdx]

A couple of days ago I made what I think of as a "house call" in which I did a boudoir shoot for a woman at her own home. I was surprised to learn that she is a wedding/portrait photographer who also shoots Canon.

After completing the indoor shoot and having a great conversation about our favorite Canon gear, we decided to drive a few blocks to a park to do some outdoor portrait shots for her. I didn't bring my 70-200 F/4, so I asked to borrow her 70-200 F/2.8 Mark II.

Good heavens, that is a nice lens! I can see why you guys put up with the size and weight. The subject/background separation wide open is even better than I expected and the bokeh is fabulous. I shot hand held and the stabilization worked really well.

I have a number of prime lenses and my 70-200 F/4 that cover the same range, but I'm starting to lust after the F/2.8. I would just go for the Mark II, I can't imaging the Mark III could offer anything more that I would need, unless it is smaller and lighter! LOL

 

[AlanF]

Two radical (perhaps unrealistic) options that would make 200 2.8 iii stand out from competition.

1. Make it DO and thus smaller and lighter than any competitors.

2. Put in a built-in 1.4x extender (a la 200-400 f4).

Sure, but it's only competition appears to be itself, i.e. the Mk II. (It's a staggeringly good lens already.)

I think they can cobble together enough 10% improvements in weight, MFD, sharpness, etc., add a 1-2 stops of IS, a CPL window and it will sell itself -- and they won't have to push the boat out on potentially turning folks off with the added cost/length/weight of an in-line T/C or any contrast concerns of DO.

(Also, sorry for being pedantic, but a DO lens wouldn't be an L or a III -- it would be a 70-200 f/2.8 DO IS USM. If the rumors are correct in that we'll see an f/2.8L IS III and f/4L IS II, DO won't be part of it.)

- A

Contrast problems of DO? You are a generation of lenses behind - Canon solved the problem of poor contrast in the original 400mm DO by adding a second Fresnel lens in the 400mm DO II.

 

[ahsanford]

Contrast problems of DO? You are a generation of lenses behind - Canon solved the problem of poor contrast in the original 400mm DO by adding a second Fresnel lens in the 400mm DO II.

I am behind, yes. You are correct that I am referring to problems from some time ago in reading the 70-300 DO review.

But if DO problems have been solved and shorten up lenses so dramatically -- why haven't we seen them in others FLs? Less length-saving bang for the buck? Too expensive to make? Problematic with fast zoom designs? Just curious why we've seen in it in a 400 prime and a 70-300 zoom and nowhere else.

- A

 

[AlanF]

Contrast problems of DO? You are a generation of lenses behind - Canon solved the problem of poor contrast in the original 400mm DO by adding a second Fresnel lens in the 400mm DO II.

I am behind, yes. You are correct that I am referring to problems from some time ago in reading the 70-300 DO review.h

But if DO problems have been solved and shorten up lenses so dramatically -- why haven't we seen them in others FLs? Less length-saving bang for the buck? Too expensive to make? Problematic with fast zoom designs? Just curious why we've seen in it in a 400 prime and a 70-300 zoom and nowhere else.

- A

Nikon does a lovely little 300mm f/4 DO equivalent (= PF), which is very light. It’s not worth the weight saving in shorter lenses and I am sure we will see more DO telephoto in the future.

 

[Bahrd]

Personally, I don't think the mount will be a new one. If it is, I wouldn't care. Happy to keep using a DSLR and my current lenses. Heck, the DSLR will never completely go away in our lifetimes. At least not in mine.

+1. EF is not going away. The question is: will EF have a mirrorless-specific little brother that runs along side it someday?

• If it does, EF will still truck on for a very long time.
  
  
• If it doesn't, EF will still truck on for a very long time.

Panic that anyone has bought into EF 'just as it is going away' needs to consider (a) it isn't going away and (b) even if a thin mirrorless mount becomes the dominant mount, it would take a decade to even begin to replace what EF offers. Hence, EF is here for the near, mid and long term.

Annnnnd we're OT. My bad.

- A

I know it is not a popular idea here, but wouldn't a mirrorless system with an MF sensor allow Canon to "protect" the EF legacy a little longer?

 

[Alexlin]

I’ll buy the F/2.8 immediately without any hestitation

 

[Kit.]

I know it is not a popular idea here, but wouldn't a mirrorless system with an MF sensor allow Canon to "protect" the EF legacy a little longer?

Do you realize that only TS-E lenses have an image circle big enough for a medium format?

 

[gregster]

Any bets on resale value of the 2.8 II? I cannot see myself upgrading and since I rarely use it, wonder if it's best to sell asap. However, given recent lens releases, I could see this lens being quite a bit more expensive than the II.

 

[Random Orbits]

Any bets on resale value of the 2.8 II? I cannot see myself upgrading and since I rarely use it, wonder if it's best to sell asap. However, given recent lens releases, I could see this lens being quite a bit more expensive than the II.

The drop in resale in the 2.8 II will probably be smaller than the premium that you would pay for the 2.8 III if you buy it in the first year that it is released compared to when it is available with rebates/street price/refurb store.

 

[hendrik-sg]

I know it is not a popular idea here, but wouldn't a mirrorless system with an MF sensor allow Canon to "protect" the EF legacy a little longer?

Do you realize that only TS-E lenses have an image circle big enough for a medium format?

Writing wishlists isn't bound to physical realities. My wish is a 1200mm F4 lens with 77mm filter thread, it should be really compact for my Himalaya hiking, but what luck, mirrorless will be the answer of all questions.

And to answer the next question, i am not smoking grass, i am just cynical

 

[ahsanford]

Any bets on resale value of the 2.8 II? I cannot see myself upgrading and since I rarely use it, wonder if it's best to sell asap. However, given recent lens releases, I could see this lens being quite a bit more expensive than the II.

You could go to canonpricewatch.com and see what happened to the 24-70 f/2.8L I and 16-35 f/2.8L II after their replacements came out.

- A

 

[ethanz]

Any bets on resale value of the 2.8 II? I cannot see myself upgrading and since I rarely use it, wonder if it's best to sell asap. However, given recent lens releases, I could see this lens being quite a bit more expensive than the II.

You could go to canonpricewatch.com and see what happened to the 24-70 f/2.8L I and 16-35 f/2.8L II after their replacements came out.

- A

Spoiler: Not a whole lot happened.