The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II is Coming in April [CR3]

[ahsanford]

Oh for the days we could read reviews declaring, "A significant improvement, in all aspects, to an already fine lens."

Disagree somewhat. (I actually feel that way much more about sensors these days.)

The L lens sequels (Mk II, III, etc.) of the last 5 years have been largely a clear step forward:

100-400L II = that's a fine upgrade over the Mk I
35L II = stellar, that one's a mic drop accomplishment
16-35 f/2.8L III = much sharper than the II version, though 16mm / 2.8 vignetting was a step backwards
24-105 f/4L IS II = a big disappointment in comparison to the others above (it's fine, but it's not a meaningful step forward over the original)

And over that same time period, let's not forget some not-technically-sequels that are pretty damn awesome: 200-400L, 85 f/1.4L IS, 16-35 f/4L IS, 24-70 f/4L IS, 11-24L, all the tilt-shifts, etc.

- A

 

[Don Haines]

Oh for the days we could read reviews declaring, "A significant improvement, in all aspects, to an already fine lens."

Disagree somewhat. (I actually feel that way much more about sensors these days.)

The L lens sequels (Mk II, III, etc.) of the last 5 years have been largely a clear step forward:

100-400L II = that's a fine upgrade over the Mk I
35L II = stellar, that one's a mic drop accomplishment
16-35 f/2.8L III = much sharper than the II version, though 16mm / 2.8 vignetting was a step backwards
24-105 f/4L IS II = a big disappointment in comparison to the others above (it's fine, but it's not a meaningful step forward over the original)

And over that same time period, let's not forget some not-technically-sequels that are pretty damn awesome: 200-400L, 85 f/1.4L IS, 16-35 f/4L IS, 24-70 f/4L IS, 11-24L, all the tilt-shifts, etc.

- A

When I started shooting, lenses were typically 7 elements in 5 groups..... double that now.

Todays zooms (the non-L ones) are as good as primes were back then.....

The L zooms of today assassinate the old primes....

And the series II or III primes of today are unbelievable!

Every new L lens that comes out seems to push the boundaries somewhere. We are riding high on 50+ years of steady improvements. Those days are not over yet.

 

[Maximilian]

[snip]

When I started shooting, lenses were typically 7 elements in 5 groups..... double that now.

Todays zooms (the non-L ones) are as good as primes were back then.....

The L zooms of today assassinate the old primes....

And the series II or III primes of today are unbelievable!

Every new L lens that comes out seems to push the boundaries somewhere. We are riding high on 50+ years of steady improvements. Those days are not over yet.

100% confirm that.
Coming from the 70ies and 80ies photog, I started playing the vintage game with adaptor for just two tries and then stopped it. The old lenses are small, but the IQ... meh. I didn't have access to old L or similar glass, these were the consumer lenses. They made good pictures, but compared to today (consumer zooms and primes) they feel like using bottle bottoms for lenses.

 

[snoke]

Still, I wonder why Canon thinks it should put out a new 70-200 f4 and a new 70-200 f2.8.

Noisey IS cannot use for video.

Look at MTF, Tamron 70-210 better.

 

[Andreos]

I will also mention, the IS version of the lens is not as sharp as the older non-IS version! Not by a lot; but more than a little. So, there is room for improvement, even in sharpness.

no. 70-200/4 L IS is optically somewhat better (and sharper) than the older non -IS version of the lens. In my own experience (owned both) and in all halfway credible reviews I've seen.

I really consider it a waste of development efforts on Canon's side to work on (presumably) marginal improvements for the last few years of their mirrorslapper lenses, rather than spending the time, effort and money on finally getting a "really right", superior mirrorless FF lens lineup [ + camery bodies] to market.

Yes, actually.

I proved to myself (when I owned both lenses) that the non-IS version is somewhat sharper than the new.

I don't have to prove it to you.

 

[Andreos]

Yikes - do we need better 70-200's? I've owned the 70-200 ƒ4 IS since it came out and it's awesome.

The lens is very good in terms of sharpness, but resistance to flare, esp. flaring between the rear of the lens and the sensor, is a problematic weakness.

I only shoot 100 weddings a year, but I've never encountered any noticeable weakness with "Little White" (what we internally call the 70-200 ƒ4 IS). And with the 5DmkIV, you can actually focus in reception-lighting.

I only shoot 100 (sellable) landscapes a year. But, yes, there are flare problems with the lens that need improvements. Maybe something you don't see doing wedding photography! But I surely do.

 

[Michael Clark]

I really consider it a waste of development efforts on Canon's side to work on (presumably) marginal improvements for the last few years of their mirrorslapper lenses, rather than spending the time, effort and money on finally getting a "really right", superior mirrorless FF lens lineup [ + camery bodies] to market.

Of course you consider it a waste, but that’s merely because you don’t understand the market. Canon does.

...
Canon cannot similarly do that because it's A-mount is actually quite profitable, it's much more comprehensive, and it is not going away once FF mirrorless is launched.

- A

I've always wondered if they could keep the same EF mount currently used and later release a lens that actually protruded inside the body to bring the rear element closer to the sensor for lens setups that would benefit from that. You could have a pancake lens they that actually has an extra 26 mm of room to play with...

A very good question, and the answer is yes.....

But it’s even better..... do you know why you can’t see EF-S lenses with a FF camera? Yes, the vignetting would be terrible, but the big reason is that the FF mirror will not clear the back of the lens, because (just as you suggested) the lens protrudes into the camera body.

In actuality only a few of the ultrawide EF-S lenses take advantage of the possibility. Most of the EF-S lens lineup do not protrude any further into the mirror box than EF lenses safely can. As far as I am aware, no third party APS-C only lenses for Canon EF do it.

 

[ahsanford]

In actuality only a few of the ultrawide EF-S lenses take advantage of the possibility. Most of the EF-S lens lineup do not protrude any further into the mirror box than EF lenses safely can. As far as I am aware, no third party APS-C only lenses for Canon EF do it.

I seem to recall some folks put the Sigma EF-S mount 18-35 f/1.8 onto a FF camera and got usable results from it. The corners are mess on the wide end, of course, but otherwise it was serviceable. No idea if the AF works, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0IESO-mrQ4

- A

 

[AvTvM]

In actuality only a few of the ultrawide EF-S lenses take advantage of the possibility. Most of the EF-S lens lineup do not protrude any further into the mirror box than EF lenses safely can. As far as I am aware, no third party APS-C only lenses for Canon EF do it.

exactly! And even with EF-S 10-22 and EF-S 10-18 the rear lens element itself does not move behind flange plane ... only the protective rubber/plastics around it will protrude a bit inside mirror box ... so FF mirror would hit it at ultra-wide settings.

 

[Michael Clark]

In actuality only a few of the ultrawide EF-S lenses take advantage of the possibility. Most of the EF-S lens lineup do not protrude any further into the mirror box than EF lenses safely can. As far as I am aware, no third party APS-C only lenses for Canon EF do it.

exactly! And even with EF-S 10-22 and EF-S 10-18 the rear lens element itself does not move behind flange plane ... only the protective rubber/plastics around it will protrude a bit inside mirror box ... so FF mirror would hit it at ultra-wide settings.

When manipulated to the right focal length and focus distance, rear elements of some EF-S lenses do protrude past the flange. I don't have a list of which ones handy at the moment, but several years ago .I played around with several to see which ones would.

 

[padam]

Disagree somewhat. (I actually feel that way much more about sensors these days.)

24-105 f/4L IS II = a big disappointment in comparison to the others above (it's fine, but it's not a meaningful step forward over the original)

- A

That's true, but to be fair, it also costs almost the same as the old one (new) - unlike the others, which became much more expensive as well.

 

[Michael Clark]

I will also mention, the IS version of the lens is not as sharp as the older non-IS version! Not by a lot; but more than a little. So, there is room for improvement, even in sharpness.

no. 70-200/4 L IS is optically somewhat better (and sharper) than the older non -IS version of the lens. In my own experience (owned both) and in all halfway credible reviews I've seen.

I really consider it a waste of development efforts on Canon's side to work on (presumably) marginal improvements for the last few years of their mirrorslapper lenses, rather than spending the time, effort and money on finally getting a "really right", superior mirrorless FF lens lineup [ + camery bodies] to market.

Yes, actually.

I proved to myself (when I owned both lenses) that the non-IS version is somewhat sharper than the new.

I don't have to prove it to you.

So basically you're building your entire assessment of the relative merits of the EF 70-200mm f/4 L vs. EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS on a singular copy of each lens and how they perform on a very limited (one?) number of bodies?

What could possibly be wrong with any conclusions you drew?

 

[AvTvM]

nothing wrong with our firsthand observations. 70-200/4 L IS does not only offer image stabilization but also slightly better sharpness than the older 70-200/4 non IS - which is no slouch either.

if you dont believe or personal findings you'll have to google for reviews to get confirmation of the fact.

you may want to start at TDP and Bryan Carnahan's findings:

The non-IS 70-200 f/4 is similarly sharp in the center over the mid and long portion of the focal length range, but the f/4 IS is sharper in the center through 85mm or so and is noticeably sharper in the corners over most of the focal length range. These two lenses are most similar at 200mm. These differences are reduced as the subject distance is increased (the non-IS lens performs more similarly to the IS lens).

 

[Canondude2018]

April is almost over and still no sign of this lens. What happened?