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

[Canon Rumors Guy]

We have confirmed that the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II will be announced in April. We have not confirmed if the Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM has moved up to April from the original Photokina announcement we were previously told about.</p>
<p>We also think there is a good chance that another 70-200mm lens will be coming for Photokina in September.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[slclick]

Depending on the specs and price, this might be a take my money Canon moment.

I think I figured it out, it's getting the new white L paint

 

[naylor83]

Does it come in E-mount?

 

[hendrik-sg]

Does it come in E-mount?

You mean in FE Mount? Or maybe in doomed EF Mode? or in Typo-mode? And damn, again without 50mm 1.4 IS mode.

But to be serious, the 50mm 1.2 and 1.4 would need a update more urgently than this already fantastic zoom lens, ok maybe except if it could be produced cheaper (which is maybee no more possible for the 50mm primes, which are all simple Double-Gauss Designs.

 

[CanoKnight]

Does it come in E-mount?

In a few years it might be Canon's only hope of selling these lenses !

 

[Woody]

Does it come in E-mount?

In a few years it might be Canon's only hope of selling these lenses !

You mean the Sony E mount 70-200 f/4 G OSS lens was so awfully designed (it weighed (840g) MORE than Canon EF 70-200 f/4 IS (760g) designed for full frame DSLRs) that E mount users are now green with envy?

 

[kiwiengr]

....

But to be serious, the 50mm 1.2 and 1.4 would need a update more urgently than this already fantastic zoom lens, ok maybe except if it could be produced cheaper (which is maybee no more possible for the 50mm primes, which are all simple Double-Gauss Designs.

Or there is more dosh to made out of new 70~200, both versions?

 

[ahsanford]

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

I know the zero-length-change of the 70-200 L lenses is attractive for a host of a reasons, but so is a smaller lens that fits in smaller bags. I love my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, but a much smaller version of it for travel would be attractive.

In general, I'm just curious why some L zooms get the compact/telescoping designs (100-400, 70-300, 24-something, surely the future 'inexpensive' -500 or -600 zoom) while others get the rigid fixed length treatment (70-200s, 200-400).

- A

 

[Maximilian]

....

But to be serious, the 50mm 1.2 and 1.4 would need a update more urgently than this already fantastic zoom lens, ok maybe except if it could be produced cheaper (which is maybee no more possible for the 50mm primes, which are all simple Double-Gauss Designs.

Or there is more dosh to made out of new 70~200, both versions?

When I see press conferences or when I just take a walk through my local zoo I am really amazed by the number of white tele zoom lenses I see there. And also at events and weddings where low light performance might be important, zooms rule over primes - at least by numbers not in IQ.
So these zooms, the two 70-200 and the 100-400, are surely the ones with the highest numbers at L lenses and therefore big cash cows.
So even if I can understand (and also have) the desire to get new better primes I can also understand that Canon sees the priorities different than some enthusiasts and studio photogs that are outnumbered by the zoom buyers.

 

[BillB]

....

But to be serious, the 50mm 1.2 and 1.4 would need a update more urgently than this already fantastic zoom lens, ok maybe except if it could be produced cheaper (which is maybee no more possible for the 50mm primes, which are all simple Double-Gauss Designs.

Or there is more dosh to made out of new 70~200, both versions?

Bingo! I wonder how many new middle to high end 50mm primes Canon thinks it could sell in comparison to the two new 70-200's. For quite a long time now, Canon has been focussing on the zooms, especially the core trinity--the 16-35's, the 24-xxx's, and the 70-200's. It seems quite clear to me that Canon sees the zoom trinity as the foundation for its lens development strategy. Still, I wonder why Canon thinks it should put out a new 70-200 f4 and a new 70-200 f2.8.

 

[traveller]

Does it come in E-mount?

In a few years it might be Canon's only hope of selling these lenses !

You mean the Sony E mount 70-200 f/4 G OSS lens was so awfully designed (it weighed (840g) MORE than Canon EF 70-200 f/4 IS (760g) designed for full frame DSLRs) that E mount users are now green with envy?

At least it breaks in two for transport:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4190160

Oh, wait... that isn’t a feature, it breaks in two during transport! ;D

 

[Maximilian]

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

Zero Chance IMO. That "form factor" is settled.
I understand the thought but even third party suppliers think that changing the zoom range is the better differentiator than barrel design and size, see the Tamron 70-210 f/4
https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=34518.msg708288#msg708288

 

[BillB]

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

I know the zero-length-change of the 70-200 L lenses is attractive for a host of a reasons, but so is a smaller lens that fits in smaller bags. I love my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, but a much smaller version of it for travel would be attractive.

In general, I'm just curious why some L zooms get the compact/telescoping designs (100-400, 70-300, 24-something, surely the future 'inexpensive' -500 or -600 zoom) while others get the rigid fixed length treatment (70-200s, 200-400)

- A

Interesting. There are those among us who yearn for a new high quality 50mm prime, while others pine for compact f4 zooms (but not necessarily with an EF mount).

 

[ahsanford]

So these zooms, the two 70-200 and the 100-400, are surely the ones with the highest numbers at L lenses and therefore big cash cows.

Potentially profitable lenses, sure, but I'm not sure they are very high runners. At first glance, I'd guess 24-something f/4 L lenses and possibly the old 17-40 f/4L would be much higher runners than the shorter/slower white zooms you referenced.

I did a quick check of Amazon's best sellers of "Best Sellers in Digital Camera Lenses" and only one Canon L zoom cracked the Top 100 (against a sea of primes, non-L zooms and options for different sensor sizes, etc.):

It was the 24-105L IS (Mk I) at #60.

- A

 

[slclick]

I'm curious just how light they could make this. The Non IS f/4L is only 2 ounces lighter than the IS model. Have engineering plastics come so far that that could really be a factor for this? I for one am not considering it to be an extending version. So with the exceptional 12 year old optical formula, what other than weight and improved IS can be done? One other thing, what is the precedent for price drops on the older model in regards to 70-200's when the next Mark comes out?

 

[neuroanatomist]

One other thing, what is the precedent for price drops on the older model in regards to 70-200's when the next Mark comes out?

Variable. In most cases, if the newer lens is more expensive, new copies of the previous lens hold a steady price. Used copies of the previous version usually fall, but in some cases they actially rise (a used market increase of $200-300 happened to 70-200/2.8 IS prices when the 70-200/2.8 IS II came out, although they eventually dropped back down below their pre-MkII levels, that took a couple of years).

 

[Maximilian]

So these zooms, the two 70-200 and the 100-400, are surely the ones with the highest numbers at L lenses and therefore big cash cows.

Potentially profitable lenses, sure, but I'm not sure they are very high runners. At first glance, I'd guess 24-something f/4 L lenses and possibly the old 17-40 f/4L would be much higher runners than the shorter/slower white zooms you referenced.

I did a quick check of Amazon's best sellers of "Best Sellers in Digital Camera Lenses" and only one Canon L zoom cracked the Top 100 (against a sea of primes, non-L zooms and options for different sensor sizes, etc.):

It was the 24-105L IS (Mk I) at #60.

- A

I admit I haven't done any research on sales numbers and other statistics. And I knew that my statement was easy to charge and difficult to prove, esp. in this forum. So I reduce it just to "cash cows" and withdraw the statement of sold numbers.
But I wrote it because it seems that Canon has their focus here. And normally their focus is not just on being the summit of technology but to gain profit, don't they?

 

[jeffa4444]

Both the Canon EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM and the Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L II IS USM are very good lenses. That doesn't mean they cannot be improved and as we move increasingly to cameras like the 5D MKIV or the 5DS/r the increased resolution shows flaws we may have not noticed before.

My copy of the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM is a very sharp lens and generally provides superb results however it has one notable flaw and that's chromatic aberration and the 200mm end is particularly noticeable at close distance out of focus bokah. This also picks-up on things like black dresses in low key lighting on edges and if Canon can improve this then they will really have the benchmark back again because the Sony G Master 70-200mm f2.8 is currently a better zoom optically.

 

[ahsanford]

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

 

[Don Haines]

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

In the last 12 years, there have been great advances in coatings, so it is a given that the new lens will benefit there....

This was one of the early IS systems, and particularly famous for the noise it made..... It is a safe bet that the new lens will have a better and quiter IS.

the quality of machining has gone up, and as a result, the alignment and consistancy of lenses has gone up.

the software simulation of new lens designs is constantly improving, and as a result, we can expect minor tweaking to the optical design....

Remember the 100-400F5.6? The version 2 was a significant improvement.... All those version 1 supertelephotos andthe better version 2's....

As to weight, I really doubt that we will see a change of more than a few grams, and who knows, it could even be a few grams heavier... the 100-400 grew by 190 grams.... it could happen again.....

It is a safe bet that it will be better, but the question is, by how much?