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

[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. An improvement on this regard is at the top of my list. It would also be nice to incorporate an integrated telescoping lens hood in lieu of the clunky detachable hood.

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.

 

[traveller]

I notice that the street price of the 70-200 f/4 L IS USM in the UK has now gone up to £1208. This is quite a price hike, considering that I bought one in May 2017 for £877.55 and Canon was offering a £100 mail-in rebate at the time! [To be fair, it was a very good price even then: Amazon trying to get me to sign up to Prime; unfortunately, I had to return the lens as it was defective and the offer finished before I could get a replacement].

This could be Canon trying to soften the shock of a new 70-200 f/4 IS USM II by making the price rise seem smaller. Don’t be too surprised at a launch price of £1500+

 

[Ozarker]

Any chance this new 70-200 f/4 reverts to an externally zooming (i.e. length-changing) design like the 70-300L?

Every time I go to this site and look at the comments, this guy makes the most inane comments in every single thread. I wish CR had a block users options, because this is literally the one and only reason I do not come here.

Oh and you don't have to sign your posts. We can literally see your username right there next to it.

So let me get this straight: a troll just informed me that me just being me keeps that very same troll away.

I really don't see a problem here.

- A

- A

He's wound way too tight.

 

[AvTvM]

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.

 

[hne]

f/2.8 might not be fast for some, but I find myself stopping down to that with my 35mm more often than not. Between a fast 35, fast 135, fast 24-70 and hopefully the 85 one day... I would find a 50 to be a hard sell fo me.

I guess a new 50/1.whatever isn't for people walking around with a 35/1.4 and an 85/1.4 but rather for people with either a 24/2.8IS or 16-35/something, and a 100/2.8 macro

 

[YuengLinger]

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

 

[LeeBabySimms]

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.

We do have flaring issues with the 135L, but if you want to start talking about weaknesses, you could write a book about the 50L. IMO, Canon should be attacking the biggest problems with their glass portfolio first. Sony has two great 50's (the small 55ZA and the newer god smack 50 1.4), Nikon has the 58, Sigma has the 50Art, and even Fuji has two awesome small 35's (50 equiv). Canon's the only brand without a no-excuses 50 at the moment. I would love a mate to our 35L II and 85L 1.4

Whatever. We're making great images in the meanwhile with the Tamron 45. Awesome for the dough.

 

[AJ]

So with the exceptional 12 year old optical formula, what other than weight and improved IS can be done?

The folks who say "the 135L is already so good, what is there to improve?" get the same answer from me: it can always be sharper. Since the 135L came out, a glut of sharper 135 primes have come out. (Ask Dustin Abbott, he's tested them all.) I'd also add the IS could always be improved.

Interestingly, here with the 70-200 f/4, no one has outdone Canon's offering yet. I believe this is less to do with it not being possible nearly so much as this specific FL / aperture combo being one of those 'only Canon would offer this extra price point' between the pro (70-200 2.8.) and enthusiast/travel (70-300 variable) versions. It's also stellar sharpness per dollar -- it's not a pricey lens -- so there is less opportunity for a Tamron or Sigma to swoop in with a much cheaper option.

But I have zero doubt a sharper 70-200 f/4 lens could be made. The question is whether *this* new Canon actually will be sharper... or if they'll pull a 24-105L II with this one. :-[

- A

There is a rumor about a Sigma 70-200/4 OS contemporary being in the works.
http://www.canonrumors.com/sigma-70-200-f-2-8-os-sport-sigma-70-200-f-4-os-contemporary-coming-cr1/
So it looks like we'll get duelling 70-200/2.8 lenses from Canon and Sigma, as well as duelling 70-200/4 lenses. Competition is good!

 

[Don Haines]

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.

When you consider that a camera body is meant to recap development costs and turn a profit in a few years, and that lenses are meant to do the same over a decade, the recent, and continuing, introduction of new FF L glass by Canon is an indicator that they expect the EF mount to be around for the immediate future.

 

[ahsanford]

We do have flaring issues with the 135L, but if you want to start talking about weaknesses, you could write a book about the 50L. IMO, Canon should be attacking the biggest problems with their glass portfolio first. Sony has two great 50's (the small 55ZA and the newer god smack 50 1.4), Nikon has the 58, Sigma has the 50Art, and even Fuji has two awesome small 35's (50 equiv). Canon's the only brand without a no-excuses 50 at the moment. I would love a mate to our 35L II and 85L 1.4

This is totally off-topic, but the above passage is poetry to me. +1

- A

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

 

[ahsanford]

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.

Remind me, AvTvM: how did A-mount do when Sony was dialing in its "really right, superior mirrorless FF lens lineup"? :

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

 

[criscokkat]

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...

 

[ahsanford]

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 jillion things might be on offer with a new mount -- if that's what they choose to do. I still think we'll get a skinny mount with an EF adaptor, but FF mirrorless could be EF, people.

But Canon has shown a great patience to take the weight of a new mount before abandoning an existing one. Canon is actively putting out new glass in three stills mounts right now. So if they go new and plan to exit EF, we'll see the heart of EF re-made in the small mount before EF goes away. They absolutely will not 'pull a Sony' here.

- A

 

[Ozarker]

We do have flaring issues with the 135L, but if you want to start talking about weaknesses, you could write a book about the 50L. IMO, Canon should be attacking the biggest problems with their glass portfolio first. Sony has two great 50's (the small 55ZA and the newer god smack 50 1.4), Nikon has the 58, Sigma has the 50Art, and even Fuji has two awesome small 35's (50 equiv). Canon's the only brand without a no-excuses 50 at the moment. I would love a mate to our 35L II and 85L 1.4

This is totally off-topic, but the above passage is poetry to me. +1

- A

I think 2020 will be your year. Canon, in hindsight, will wonder itself what took Canon so long.

 

[Famateur]

Canon's the only brand without a no-excuses 50 at the moment. I would love a mate to our 35L II and 85L 1.4

I know that's not how you meant it, but now all I can see is a 35LII and an 85L 1.4 IS...mating...and producing a 50L 1.4 IS as their offspring. :-X

 

[Famateur]

Any chance this new 70-200 f/4 reverts to an externally zooming (i.e. length-changing) design like the 70-300L?

Every time I go to this site and look at the comments, this guy makes the most inane comments in every single thread. I wish CR had a block users options, because this is literally the one and only reason I do not come here.

Oh and you don't have to sign your posts. We can literally see your username right there next to it.

[spanish_accent] You keep using that word...inane. I do not think it means what you think it means. [/spanish_accent]

Seriously, though, ahsanford's posts are one of the reasons I *do* come to the forum and enjoy the discussions. They've always seemed thoughtful and well-put. He's not a push-over when someone rebuts his opinions (nor should he or anyone be), but he's not hostile, either -- quite polite, actually. We tease him about new 50L IS lenses, but if/when Canon produces it, I'm sure he'll still be a frequent and positive contributor to the forum.

 

[ahsanford]

Seriously, though, ahsanford's posts are one of the reasons I *do* come to the forum and enjoy the discussions. They've always seemed thoughtful and well-put. He's not a push-over when someone rebuts his opinions (nor should he or anyone be), but he's not hostile, either -- quite polite, actually. We tease him about new 50L IS lenses, but if/when Canon produces it, I'm sure he'll still be a frequent and positive contributor to the forum.

Aw shucks. Appreciated. I don't mind the inane tag and 'block users' nonsense -- it's more that I made a post that he or she (who are we kidding) simply presumed was nonsense and didn't speak to why. But... that's why we're here. To discuss!

So, troll or not, I'm still curious why my original question was dismissed. I asked if Canon might move to a telescoping/length changing design. Totally fair question to ask. But apparently the Terminator-style dialogue options from Lidocaineus were as follows:

1) No, I doubt they'd do that. They make the best 70-200 f/4 today, so why mess with a good thing?

2) No, I doubt they'd do that. More robust design + fewer pathways for particulate/moisture ingress > smaller footprint in your bag.

3) No, I doubt they'd do that. Because 'pro' gear doesn't telescope, yo. (Unless it's a 24-something lens.)

4) Maybe. Might be nice for travel but don't we already have that in the 70-300L? Also, some current users who love their current 70-200 f/4 might complain of this as a step in the wrong direction.

5) That's an idiotic post that I won't speak to. But while I'm here not responding to your obviously stupid question, I would like to take the time to express that I dislike you, both publicly and without remorse.

How #5 even makes the top 10 of potential responses to my question is simply bizarre.

- A

 

[Don Haines]

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.

 

[greger]

I bought the 70-200 f4 IS USM lens in November 2008 during a $200.00 instant Canon Rebate. I have not seen it priced that low since. I took a picture of an Osprey flying over a river and when I got home and zoomed in on the computer I saw it had a fish in it’s talons. Both the Osprey and fish were in perfect focus. It was tack sharp with the 1.4 Extender mounted to it. Not so good with the 2x Extender using manual focus. If Canon can improve this lens it will be perfect.