A New EF 70-200mm is Coming in 2018 [CR3]

[3dit0r]

We haven't really seen them beating their chests about the Blue Goo since the release of the 35II. I've been wondering if they've been employing it but opted not to feature it, as "plastic optical elements" doesn't really have an "L" ring to it. Have to say, having owned that 35, that the stuff works great.

One of the reasons the 35LII is high on my list of lenses. I really wish they'd look at the 50mm range with the latest tech like this, could do with less CA on the 50s.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I recon it's a new line of DO zooms. Or it's got a funky new light weight plastic element that was patented a few years back.

We haven't really seen them beating their chests about the Blue Goo since the release of the 35II. I've been wondering if they've been employing it but opted not to feature it, as "plastic optical elements" doesn't really have an "L" ring to it. Have to say, having owned that 35, that the stuff works great.

Yes I'd love a 35IIL, I have a great MkI and it's one of my 2 top fav lenses. I find it odd that Canon didn't put the blue goo in the new 85mm f1.4 LIS. The 85mm f1.2 II L really needed it more than the 35L replacement. So i found it odd that Canon didn't bother with the new 85. I wonder if Canon needed to develop this particular blue goo tech due to a design penis up. I wonder if they designed a really good 35 f1.4 lens that amazing in every regard except that it had horrific fringing. One techie says to another...I wonder if we have the budget to fix that...

 

[Dfunk99]

More Big white lenses??? Where is the 50mm 1.4 replacement, & a New 20mm, 85mm 1.8, 100 f2.0 with IS????

 

[Talys]

An ArcaSwiss Tripod Collar would be a good feature for a new lens.

+100.

Totally ridiculous and inacceptable that those 2 groves are still not being milled into each and every OEM tripod collar ... by default.

Canon should build it with a removable foot, like the 100-400LII, which has one of the nicest collars of any lens ever made, except that it can't be fully removed.

Then, they should make several feet, including non-arca, RC2 compatible, and at least two lengths of Arca compatible feet, for a lens the size of a 70-200/2.8. It would be even better if the arca foot had a flip-down latch to support a blackrapid carbiner, like the plates that Fusion makes.

It'd be good money, anyhow. Photographers would easily pay $100 for the right foot.

 

[kaihp]

Also consider that the Mk II doesn't resolve excellently on a 5Ds. As I recall an earlier post, the MkII resolves to 21Mpix out of 22Mpix on a 5D3, but to 'just' 36Mpix on the 50Mpix 5Ds.

I've made this argument myself a few times, but keep in mind that the Mk II is still the 6th sharpest lens and #1 sharpest zoom that Canon sells according to DXOMark. So if you set some arbitrary bar (using DXO methodology ) that a lens has to be 40 out of 50 sharpness to be 'rated' for the 5DS rigs, only one lens would qualify (the 300 f/2.8L IS II).

Ah, but unless DxO deliberately gives the raw resolution data for their dog to chew on before posting them (and with DxO I'll believe anything), then it's not a matter of an arbitrary sharpness bar.

The Mpix resolution should be a formula like 1/R_sys^2 = 1/R_sensor^2 + 1/R_lens^2. This type of formula show up when calculating bandwidth in electronic systems, so I presume that it is similar when calculating "bandwidth" of an optical systems. (Neuro will surely set me right).

I jotted in the numbers from DxOmark database for the 5D1, 5D2, 5D3, 5D4, 1DX & 1DX2, and giving some margin since DxO only reports integer values as result, the above formula matches pretty well with a resolution of around 50-55Mpixel for the lens. The resolution numbers for the 5D1 & 5D2 are the most off (70Mpix & 38Mpix) but this is where any rounding errors would show up the most.

From this, the 300/2.8 Mk II would be a ~100-200Mpix lens (lowest score is 98Mpix on the 50.6Mpix 5Ds. I'm suspicious of that 'data'point); other scores are above 134Mpix).

 

[ahsanford]

The Mpix resolution should be a formula like 1/R_sys^2 = 1/R_sensor^2 + 1/R_lens^2. This type of formula show up when calculating bandwidth in electronic systems, so I presume that it is similar when calculating "bandwidth" of an optical systems. (Neuro will surely set me right).

I jotted in the numbers from DxOmark database for the 5D1, 5D2, 5D3, 5D4, 1DX & 1DX2, and giving some margin since DxO only reports integer values as result, the above formula matches pretty well with a resolution of around 50-55Mpixel for the lens. The resolution numbers for the 5D1 & 5D2 are the most off (70Mpix & 38Mpix) but this is where any rounding errors would show up the most.

From this, the 300/2.8 Mk II would be a ~100-200Mpix lens (lowest score is 98Mpix on the 50.6Mpix 5Ds. I'm suspicious of that 'data'point); other scores are above 134Mpix).

That's a lovely mathematical treatise, but I think we're getting wrapped around the axle and missing the bigger point.

If the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II data is to be taken at face value and that it needs to be improved for future higher resolving sensors, all but six of Canon's lenses warrant that improvement to a greater degree.

So I am not saying you cannot improve the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II optically. I am saying you can improve dozens of other Canon lenses to a greater degree than that 70-200. So any decision to improve it before improving the other lens is for prestige / pride / price reasons more than actual 'optical necessity'.

- A

 

[kaihp]

That's a lovely mathematical treatise, but I think we're getting wrapped around the axle and missing the bigger point.

Since when has things like that stopped from geeking out in GAS here?

If the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II data is to be taken at face value and that it needs to be improved for future higher resolving sensors, all but six of Canon's lenses warrant that improvement to a greater degree.

So I am not saying you cannot improve the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II optically. I am saying you can improve dozens of other Canon lenses to a greater degree than that 70-200. So any decision to improve it before improving the other lens is for prestige / pride / price reasons more than actual 'optical necessity'.

I think a decision to make a higher-resolving 70-200 f/2.8L IS III would come down to financial reasons. That, and being able to rub their noses at Nikon.

BTW: I have a family member lined up behind you in the 50mm queue. We're not sure if her f/1.4 is particularly botched or just as-designed botched in terms of sharpness, but she has to work hard in PP to make the photos look sharp (no it's not a shift in focus, but the entire image is just soft).

 

[AJ]

A New EF 70-200mm is Coming in 2018 [CR3]

What if the 70-200/4 IS is getting an update

 

[photo212]

While I should be happy that Canon is improving this lens, I fear I've been fooled once again.

I recently sent my original 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM in for cleaning, and wanting the focus ring tightened. My CPS reply said, the lens could not be repaired as it was beyond its service life. Huh? What? Yep, short time after Canon released the Ver II, they stopped repairing the original one. Perhaps the worse insult was that Canon offered me a $20 credit towards a new lens. Really? 20 whole dollars? Adorama (I assume B&H, too) bundle extra stuff worth more than $20.

Now, whenever Canon releases the Ver III, I will have to be extremely careful with the Ver II lens I bought. The service life of the Ver II is ticking away...

 

[privatebydesign]

Canon generally offer support for lenses for 7 years after they stop production.

 

[rlarsen]

Sure an updated 70-200 is exciting, but for once can Canon focus its attention on reliable flash metering. It's 2018
My current zoom is sharp but my camera has unreliable metering. I'm in no hurry for another lens.

 

[jeffa4444]

The Mpix resolution should be a formula like 1/R_sys^2 = 1/R_sensor^2 + 1/R_lens^2. This type of formula show up when calculating bandwidth in electronic systems, so I presume that it is similar when calculating "bandwidth" of an optical systems. (Neuro will surely set me right).

I jotted in the numbers from DxOmark database for the 5D1, 5D2, 5D3, 5D4, 1DX & 1DX2, and giving some margin since DxO only reports integer values as result, the above formula matches pretty well with a resolution of around 50-55Mpixel for the lens. The resolution numbers for the 5D1 & 5D2 are the most off (70Mpix & 38Mpix) but this is where any rounding errors would show up the most.

From this, the 300/2.8 Mk II would be a ~100-200Mpix lens (lowest score is 98Mpix on the 50.6Mpix 5Ds. I'm suspicious of that 'data'point); other scores are above 134Mpix).

That's a lovely mathematical treatise, but I think we're getting wrapped around the axle and missing the bigger point.

If the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II data is to be taken at face value and that it needs to be improved for future higher resolving sensors, all but six of Canon's lenses warrant that improvement to a greater degree.

So I am not saying you cannot improve the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II optically. I am saying you can improve dozens of other Canon lenses to a greater degree than that 70-200. So any decision to improve it before improving the other lens is for prestige / pride / price reasons more than actual 'optical necessity'.

- A

I'm regularly using the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II on a 5DS and frankly don't believe the DXOMark data. Their methods of testing are questionable and not as complete as manufacturers would do. As Ive stated previously on this thread the lens could benefit from better control of CAs particularly at 70mm and at or near wide open but generally this is one of Canon best zooms for sharpness, that's not to say it cannot be improved upon.
We own a bunch of these and have MTF, projection and test rigs for testing on & off camera (we have high end cinematography glass so need rigorous testing procedures).

Others have shown improvements so Canon is responding, its one of their premium Pro lenses and I'm sure one of the best sellers its the right decision.

 

[slclick]

This has got me thinking of the primes vs zoom thing, again. I've had both setups off and on since 1999 and someone here said something that resonated with me. Let me paraphrase...

Would you rather have a heavy bag and a light camera or a lighter bag and a heavy camera?

Notice how it's 'lighter' and not light. You never get it all. I've had my heart set on a Tammy G2 70-200 for a while since I've been missing that zoom size in my kit for a while but heavier bag and lighter camera are starting to appeal to me...if only Canon would give me the 85 and 135 I'm asking for.

 

[Sporgon]

Would performance not be the only criteria to update a lens?

I know there's a lot of tongue-in-cheek banter about collars etc etc but I imagine that non of these would be enough to warrant an upgrade.

I guess it's performance related: phase detect AF precision. Roger at lens rentals did a very interesting blog series back in around 2013 I think, recording how much more accurate and consistent the phase AF is on the (then) new 5Diii but only when coupled with lenses from 2012 onwards. It appeared that this was due to the addition of rotation sensors in these later USM driven lenses and a closed loop communication between camera and lens. The 70-200/2.8ii wasn't up to the standards of the 2012 release lenses, where those lenses were as accurate in phase AF as they were in lv but only when coupled with the modern bodies. I guess this is where the 24-105/4 II came from too.

Since I got the 5Ds I've really seen this for myself; the AF on the 28/2.8 IS, the 35/2 IS and 40 pancake is just flawless - always. I'm going to have to rethink some of my older lenses, such as the 85/1.8 and 100/2. I also guess this is partly where the stunning performance of the 100-400 L II is coming from too.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/autofocus-reality-part-3b-canon-cameras/

 

[goldenhusky]

the "more" could be Macro capability?

Could the 'more' be DO?

None of those, "more" means more clicks for CR. My take, this is nothing more than an educated guess. Now that Nikon release their newer version it is Canon's turn. So it's time to start spinning the rumor mill until Canon releases the lens.

No more news on the camera with the "hole"

The G7 III pictures had obvious signs showing it was fake yet it was posted here

Most of you are aware how the UWA EF-M prime rumor went.

If you dislike the place so much, why hang around here?

I don't dislike this place but I feel lately the posts from CR got way out of way and more sounds like just clickbait.

 

[Talys]

the "more" could be Macro capability?

Could the 'more' be DO?

None of those, "more" means more clicks for CR. My take, this is nothing more than an educated guess. Now that Nikon release their newer version it is Canon's turn. So it's time to start spinning the rumor mill until Canon releases the lens.

No more news on the camera with the "hole"

The G7 III pictures had obvious signs showing it was fake yet it was posted here

Most of you are aware how the UWA EF-M prime rumor went.

If you dislike the place so much, why hang around here?

I don't dislike this place but I feel lately the posts from CR got way out of way and more sounds like just clickbait.

I think that's totally unfair.

If it turns out that "more" is some interesting new feature or technology, CR will be bang on (as it most often is with CR3 rumors). If not, or if the lens doesn't materialize at all, it will tarnish that track record.

If CR has a credible leak that there's a 70-200 coming out with some special sauce, would you prefer that he keep that a secret from you?

I mean, this is a rumor site; if you want to know things that are unambiguous, go to canon.com and go to press releases ;D

 

[jeffa4444]

Hearing rumors in cinematography circles that Canon will have a 70-200mm f2 equivelent zoom.

 

[Ozarker]

Figuring out how to get faster than f/2.8 would also be amazing.

Canon already knows how to do that. There is no mystery. The "more" will be BR.

 

[Ozarker]

I will vote with others who say built in 1.4x extender (like the 200-400). This would differentiate it from the current offerings, including the (reportedly excellent) Tamron G2 and Sigma Sport. They may still offer the current model which would be preferable for wedding and portrait photographers (and anyone wanting a lower price and less weight). But the new one would appeal to sports and wildlife photographers.

But then it wouldn't be a III.

 

[Antono Refa]

Figuring out how to get faster than f/2.8 would also be amazing.

I doubt a 70-200mm f/2 would be popular in the stills industry for several reasons:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Price. An f/2 zoom will be expensive.
[*]Weight. The existing 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses weight ~3 pounds, an f/2 would be significantly heavier.
[*]Front element at least 100mm in diameter. 105mm screw in filters are expensive and rare.
[/list]

My bet is such a lens would be heavier and more expensive than a 300mm f/2.8, so at least 6 pounds and $6,0000. Might work for the cinema market, as another poster mentioned.