Another EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III Mention [CR2]

[Canon Rumors]

The announcement for the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II which was <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-ef-70-200mm-f-4l-is-ii-coming-very-soon/">scheduled for this past April</a>, appears to have been delayed. We’re still being told that it is coming “soon”. However, as mentioned preciously, we don’t think this is the last 70-200mm lens coming from Canon in 2018.</p>
<p>We’re being told again that a new EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III could be announced in the 2nd half of 2018. We figured Photokina 2018 in September would be a good place to announce it, however it’s always possible that the lens gets announced after the show, like we have seen with previous lenses such as the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II which came a couple of months after Photokina 2014.</p>
<p>A lot of sources are quite coy at the moment, but we’re getting the feeling that the 2nd half of 2018 is going to be an exciting time for Canon announcements.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[Canoneer]

The EF 70-200 F/2.8L IS II is already an excellent performer. I'm scratching my head as to what Canon will be adding to make it worth upgrading to: Nano USM, Diffractive Optics design, 6-stop IS, etc.

I'll be happy either way, because that means the price of the mark 2 should drop into the territory of the Tamron 70-200 F/2.8 G2.

 

[Random Orbits]

The EF 70-200 F/2.8L IS II is already an excellent performer. I'm scratching my head as to what Canon will be adding to make it worth upgrading to: Nano USM, Diffractive Optics design, 6-stop IS, etc.

I'll be happy either way, because that means the price of the mark 2 should drop into the territory of the Tamron 70-200 F/2.8 G2.

The new Nikon is sharper, so it's the see-saw back and forth as technology improves. The 70-200 is probably one of the higher volume sellers of L-lenses, so it makes sense that it is updated more frequently. I'd expect the III to be sharper, but it would be nice if DO became mainstream. That technology could make lenses shorter/lighter which is more valuable as newer lenses have more elements for corrections. I'm also wondering if it will finally go to 82mm filters...

 

[BasXcanon]

The EF 70-200 F/2.8L IS II is already an excellent performer. I'm scratching my head as to what Canon will be adding to make it worth upgrading to: Nano USM, Diffractive Optics design, 6-stop IS, etc ??????

Yes, but I suspect at least one of those rumored 70-200mm to be a Cinema 70-200mm T4.4 with Servo rack focus for the new C700 FF. The other 70-200mm T4.4 is only for Super 35.

 

[Stuart]

The EF 70-200 F/2.8L IS II is already an excellent performer. I'm scratching my head as to what Canon will be adding to make it worth upgrading to.........

If there is a new mirrorless, and everyone wants a 70 to 200 lens, then perhaps its one for the new mirrorless mount?

 

[Random Orbits]

The EF 70-200 F/2.8L IS II is already an excellent performer. I'm scratching my head as to what Canon will be adding to make it worth upgrading to.........

If there is a new mirrorless, and everyone wants a 70 to 200 lens, then perhaps its one for the new mirrorless mount?

Then it wouldn't be a III if the mount is different... but who knows what the final name will be...

 

[Talys]

The EF 70-200 F/2.8L IS II is already an excellent performer. I'm scratching my head as to what Canon will be adding to make it worth upgrading to.........

If there is a new mirrorless, and everyone wants a 70 to 200 lens, then perhaps its one for the new mirrorless mount?

But what camera would it go onto? It's kind of strange to release a new lens that you can't mount yet, hehehe. As a general use lens, 24-70 or 24-105 are probably the most popular.

@Canoneer - I love my 70-200 IS II, and I really doubt I'd upgrade to the IS III, since the II does everything I can imagine that I'd want it to. However, even if it's only a minor refresh that makes a few small improvements (like the tripod ring), I think Canon should. After all, if I had to replace mine or if I were w a new buyer, I'd want that option.

Plus, the current II might face a little bit of downward pricing pressure, and that would be good for everyone -- though I suspect Canon will price the new III closer to the price of Nikon/Sony.

 

[ahsanford]

The EF 70-200 F/2.8L IS II is already an excellent performer. I'm scratching my head as to what Canon will be adding to make it worth upgrading to: Nano USM, Diffractive Optics design, 6-stop IS, etc.

...Making a Mk III as dominant on 50+ MP as the Mk II was on 22 MP when it was released in 2010, one would guess.

But yes, already great things could be shined up on this one: better IS, more blades, a CPL window in the hood, less weight. These lenses sort of sell themselves on the notion that they are the best bestestness for the most exacting people, so I only see the (feature-set and IQ) rich getting richer here. This is a trophy horse and a workhorse for Canon, and I don't see that changing one bit with a Mk III. So the new hotness will surely come.

Very low chance bordering on none that this thing gets Nano USM (IMHO) as that has been positioned as the mid-level focusing tech for folks who dabble in stills and video. But this 70-200 is such a staple for the stills pros out there that I'd be stunned if it wasn't Ring USM.

- A

 

[unfocused]

...I'm scratching my head as to what Canon will be adding to make it worth upgrading to...

Latest generation of IS, including a third IS mode, new coatings and better close focusing are the obvious improvements (the 100-400mm actually has a shorter minimum focusing distance than the 70-200mm).

I would not expect to see much if any improvement in sharpness.

My 70-200 takes a lot of abuse banging around at sporting events, so I can see some logic to a refresh for heavy users who might feel it's time to retire their lens anyway.

 

[Diko]

The facts are quite obvious:

Current Perceptual resolution is about 33MPs. Current HiRes Canon body is 50MPs. We expect next year or 2020 at latest to get the second iteration of that beast. I bet between 60 to 80MP. Why not 100 (currently we are quite aware of a few Medium format bodies doing that).

I expect the new 70-200 2.8 to be at least 50 perceptual MPs. After all SIGMA achieved 45 (on a prime, true that).

I guess some at least light improvement over the previous model in the area of stabilization and speed of focus.

Let us not forget that this is the most sold L lense range among PROs. I hardly know anyone that is serious enough and doesn't possess this lense. Macro, Landscape, product photographers excluded of course. ;-)

 

[ahsanford]

The facts are quite obvious:

Current Perceptual resolution is about 33MPs. Current HiRes Canon body is 50MPs. We expect next year or 2020 at latest to get the second iteration of that beast. I bet between 60 to 80MP. Why not 100 (currently we are quite aware of a few Medium format bodies doing that).

I expect the new 70-200 2.8 to be at least 50 perceptual MPs. After all SIGMA achieved 45 (on a prime, true that).

I don't like devolving sharpness into a single number, and you all know I'm no fan of DXO. But if we take this reeeeeeally crudely as a '33 out of 50 sharpness on a 50 MP sensor', one has to wonder how much a 50 out of 50 (or '55 out of 80' on a future higher-res sensor, if you will) will cost to make.

There comes a point where clever tricks with manufacturing tolerances can only get you so far, and then you end up throwing more elements into the design -- the cost and weight would get out of hand.

So I agree the sharpness must improve to draw folks to this new design over the Mk II, but sharpness can't reasonably get that much better if you start with the assumption of a ~ $2500 initial asking price, can it?

- A

 

[pixel8foto]

+++weight reduction+++

 

[unfocused]

...So I agree the sharpness must improve to draw folks to this new design over the Mk II...

Why?

This is one of the best-selling telephoto lenses in Canon's lineup. I view this as a little like the 24-105 standard zoom. Canon may feel it's time for a refresh, possibly for reasons that are unknown to us, such as updated manufacturing processes.

It doesn't have to have anything. They may just want to retire the old model and bring out a new one. The "I" version had a nine year lifespan. The "II" is eight years old. No doubt there are thousands of professionals out there that need to replace their lenses anyway, simply because they are wearing out and getting beat up.

I'm not saying it won't be slightly better optically, I'm just saying that it's not a requirement. It's not like new buyers will have a choice, as Canon would likely discontinue the "II" version shortly after the "III" hits the streets.

 

[Talys]

No doubt there are thousands of professionals out there that need to replace their lenses anyway, simply because they are wearing out and getting beat up.

I'm not saying it won't be slightly better optically, I'm just saying that it's not a requirement.

Exactly!

The facts are quite obvious:

Current Perceptual resolution is about 33MPs. Current HiRes Canon body is 50MPs. We expect next year or 2020 at latest to get the second iteration of that beast. I bet between 60 to 80MP. Why not 100 (currently we are quite aware of a few Medium format bodies doing that).

If someone has a 5DSR and is unhappy with the sharpness of photos coming out of their 70-200 II, they're doing something wrong =X

I do agree that the next lens should be optically sharper, but in a list of things people would like to see from with Canon, the more sharpness from the 70-200/2.8 must be pretty close to the bottom of the wishlist. For me, a better tripod ring and a CPL window would be more important than a sharper lens, lol.

 

[Hector1970]

Just for anyone who doesn't own a 70-200mm II.
If it drops in price because a III version is out snap it up. It's a super lens that Canon will struggle to better.
I can understand Canon wanting to upgrade it as it will sell well.
I'm not sure if in reality it will be perceptibly better.
Works pretty good on 50mp already.
My 70-200 II is a workhorse. Such a great all rounder.

 

[ahsanford]

I'm not saying it won't be slightly better optically, I'm just saying that it's not a requirement.

I'm not saying sharper is a requirement -- I'm expecting it as a trend of Canon's. It seems to be the most sure-fire way (short of adding IS to a non-IS lens) to get a current user to give it a look and possibly pay the money.

Consider: Name me the last 'pro' L instrument that didn't get non-trivially sharper with a II, III, etc. version. (I'm talking about staple f/2.8 zoom, f/1.4 prime, superwhite, etc. -- not a kitted 24-105L.) Just off the top of my head:

35L II was dramatically sharper than the I
24-70 f/2.8L II was night and day over the I
16-35 f/2.8L III > II
100-400L II > I

None of those were cosmetic 'just because Canon wanted a new model' sort of upgrades. All of the above were strong steps forward resolution-wise. The 24-105L II is the famous exception, but that's a slower zoom aimed a different userbase.

I'm not saying 'don't put it out if it's not sharper than the last one', but I'd be stunned if it wasn't sharper.

- A

 

[timmy_650]

I wonder if one of the reason for upgrade will be for canon. I look at the 24-105L and kinda wonder why brother. But if you are making complex lenses with a lot of elements inside. If you could make some of those elements fit inside another lenses, that is a big saving in price.

 

[privatebydesign]

As has already been suggested, I strongly expect the main reason is economies in manufacturering, Canon have stated they are moving to fully automated lens manufacture and that could provide great cost savings over the production life of the lens and quite possibly reductions in sample variation.

The MkII lens was designed before the current series of automated manufacturing equipment and it is a good seller, it makes sense to make a redesign that can be automated.

Personally I’d prefer a less sharp lens that has the much smoother bokeh of the IS MkI, but I know I won’t get it so I’ll stick with my old MkI.

 

[ethanz]

Personally I’d prefer a less sharp lens that has the much smoother bokeh of the IS MkI, but I know I won’t get it so I’ll stick with my old MkI.

Could you please show me some examples of the difference in bokeh between I and II? I'm curious.

 

[josephandrews222]

I'm not saying it won't be slightly better optically, I'm just saying that it's not a requirement.

I'm not saying sharper is a requirement -- I'm expecting it as a trend of Canon's. It seems to be the most sure-fire way (short of adding IS to a non-IS lens) to get a current user to give it a look and possibly pay the money.

Consider: Name me the last 'pro' L instrument that didn't get non-trivially sharper with a II, III, etc. version. (I'm talking about staple f/2.8 zoom, f/1.4 prime, superwhite, etc. -- not a kitted 24-105L.) Just off the top of my head:

35L II was dramatically sharper than the I
24-70 f/2.8L II was night and day over the I
16-35 f/2.8L III > II
100-400L II > I

None of those were cosmetic 'just because Canon wanted a new model' sort of upgrades. All of the above were strong steps forward resolution-wise. The 24-105L II is the famous exception, but that's a slower zoom aimed a different userbase.

I'm not saying 'don't put it out if it's not sharper than the last one', but I'd be stunned if it wasn't sharper.

- A

If the 70-200 2.8 IS III is (when compared to the analogous II) as improved as the 100-400 IS II is (when compared to its I analog)...Canon will get my money.

I look forward to its release!