An EF 70-200 f/4L IS II in Mid January? [CR1]

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Its very possible that they might update the lens coatings and tweak minor things. I am in doubt of anything major. The 18-55 was updated to a ver II, with only minor changes, which no one could detect except for the paint job.

It does make sense that canon would update the coatings on all their "L" lenses, having different coatings on different lens elements is a waste of factory space and money. Keeping two very high tech processes going is going to be expensive and may even slow production down.

 

[Loswr]

They cannot just bump up the price $500 on current lenses.

They can't? Say...are you by any chance interested in purchasing a bridge, or some prime swampland?

You have to look at this from Canon's, as a business, point of view rather than from customer's point of view: how to increase profit with minimal expenses.

What better way to do that than to increase the price of a product and not change anything else about it? If they do their research properly, it's possible to do just that without impacting sales negatively enough to offset the increaed profit...

 

[torger]

It depends a bit on which test one looks at if the 70-200/4 IS or the 70-200/2.8 IS II provides higher resolution, so they're pretty close I guess, it depends on which sample one gets.

I'm very satisfied with my 70-200/2.8 II, but for my landscape hikes when it would be nice with a lighter lens, for landscape shots I use it around f/8 anyway. So a 70-200/4 II with further resolution bump so it is guaranteed even sharper than the 70-200/2.8 II would be a nice alternative.

 

[te4o]

The way it goes looks like Canon engineers have a mad new FF DSLR with all blowe and whistles right and they put the current lens line on it and ooops, not workable: so they phone the lens department and let them know in advance...

 

[candyman]

The way it goes looks like Canon engineers have a mad new FF DSLR with all blowe and whistles right and they put the current lens line on it and ooops, not workable: so they phone the lens department and let them know in advance...

Sure, it wouldn't be the first company where two departments working on products that must work together have different roadmaps (timeframe and specs) ;D

 

[Cornershot]

I have this lens and the 2.8 and I find that I carry the f/4 IS more often when I can get away with it because it's so much lighter and compact. I can carry a full range without killing myself. Although a metal body would be more durable, it also would make it a bit heavier. I'd definitely not upgrade.

 

[dr croubie]

There's about 60 different models of lens that need to be updated before this one (like all of them, except maybe the TS-E 24).

I have to be cynical and call shenanigans. Either it's:
- Bogus.
- Meant to be the 70-200 f/4L non-IS (getting weather-sealed maybe?).
- An excuse to raise the price as some have said (and i'll be there to buy a second-hand mk1 from all the chumps who sell theirs for the "upgrade").
- Maybe maybe maybe (although i very much doubt it) maybe they've figured out how to make it auto-focus with a 2x T/C on the 1DX but they need to release a new model to do it (hey, we can dream can't we?).
- An EF-s version, to make it smaller and lighter (yeah right).

Everyone grab a broom.

 

[Enrico]

I dunno much about how to produce a lens... But couldn't some Mk II changes be due to new production plants ? Streamlining production using the same elements/part as in other lenses and hence lowering the costs?

Most (all?) lens improvements are most likelt to be made to increase profit or decrease cost. Not bringing us better pictures (as long as your competitors doesn't run ahead of you which seems not to be the case this time...)

 

[samueljay]

Is it possible at all for Canon to add the coating and not make it a Mk. II, so it would stay at the same price point, and eventually as stock moves, it would replace the older model without the coating since it's only a minor change? Or is that something that doesn't happen in the camera world?

 

[JR]

It does sound a bit weird to have this lens updated (would have preferred an updated 135 with IS ) but if it is better than the current version, it will make an interesting choice for a walkaround lens (my 70-200 2.8 II IS is a bit heavy for long walk or simply going to the park!).

 

[dr croubie]

Is it possible at all for Canon to add the coating and not make it a Mk. II, so it would stay at the same price point, and eventually as stock moves, it would replace the older model without the coating since it's only a minor change? Or is that something that doesn't happen in the camera world?

Can, quite easily, yes.
But doesn't. They'll take any excuse to put a 'II' next to even the slightest change if it helps them increase the profit margins (either by cheaper materials or higher pricetag or both). Case in point, the 18-55IS and 55-250 both got 'upgraded' to exactly the same lens.
But then, I suppose if they'd just silently brought out the newer versions of those without a 'II', people all over the net would have called shenanigans and hounded them for silently changing the design (even if it turned out to be a change for the better), so I suppose they can't win either way....

 

[scottsdaleriots]

This might seem as a dumb question but when you say better image quality for the mkII will/does that mean it'll have better image quality than the 70-200 2.8 IS II?

 

[unfocused]

I have this lens and the 2.8 and I find that I carry the f/4 IS more often when I can get away with it because it's so much lighter and compact. I can carry a full range without killing myself. Although a metal body would be more durable, it also would make it a bit heavier. I'd definitely not upgrade.

I don't own this lens. Does it not have a metal body now? That seems like a pretty major change if they are going from a composite to metal. Also seems kind of unusual, since it seems like most of the new lenses are going in the other direction. Also wondering how you effectively weather seal a metal body.

Can anyone shed more light on this?

 

[AJ]

If you had carte blanche to upgrade this lens, what would you do? What specs would it have after your upgrades?

Paint it black

 

[dr croubie]

If you had carte blanche to upgrade this lens, what would you do? What specs would it have after your upgrades?

Paint it black

?

 

[whatta]

70-200 F4 IS is the lens I've been considering (efs 2.8 version would be better though). I hope it is not becoming metal and would like it in black too

 

[Loswr]

70-200 F4 IS is the lens I've been considering (efs 2.8 version would be better though). I hope it is not becoming metal

It's already metal. An EF-S f/2.8 version would not be substantially lighter than the EF version - that's the way it works with telephoto lenses.

 

[whatta]

It's already metal.

I thought the outside of the 70-200 f4 is was plastic..

 

[tron]

There are so many lenses to upgrade instead:

24mm f/1.4L II (yes, version II vignets too much!)
28mm f/1.8 (better performance at the large appertures)
35mm f/1.4L (better edges...)
50mm f/1.4 (better performance at the large appertures)
135mm f/2.0 (Can you put IS without sacrificing quality? If not please leave it alone...)
400mm f/5.6L (IS please...)
400mm f/4 DO (better contrast please)

16-35mm f/2.8L II (yes version II needs better edges and corners)

to name but a few...
(feel free to complement the list...)

 

[distant.star]

Apparently you have a different 135L than the rest of us.

If you had carte blanche to upgrade this lens, what would you do? What specs would it have after your upgrades?

Paint it black