Another Mention of a New EF 70-200mm Lens [CR2]

[LordofTackle]

• [*]Canon does not presently sell a lens for the astro crowd that is simultaneously ultrawide + fast + coma free. (You usually only get two out of three of those things.)

I think the new 16-35/III ticks all your point if I understand Dustin correctly....but it also has that horrible vignette, don't know how much that will affect the astro folk

Or do you want fast fast? (i.e. 1.4)

 

[dufflover]

Like others I don't see anything wrong with the current mkII, it still shines above most lenses. And unlike say a super tele or some brand name ones it doesn't charge a perfectionist price. So I agree they'd only re-do it if:
- it costs them not much to do in the first place, like a few minor tweaks, no significant changes to production costs or extra R&D costs
- as part of their manufacturing processing overall, they change the design to suit some other manufacturing change overall and it would've cost more to keep it the way it is

(there are others but these would be my top two thoughts)

 

[docsmith]

Just looking at DXO [throw up in mouth noise] as they are one of the very few places that tests lenses on the 22, 30 and 50 MP format, and strictly from a resolution perspective, they peg the 70-200 F/2.8L IS II as:

5D3: 21 P-Mpix (out of a max possible 22)
5D4: 26 out of 30
5DS R: 33 out of 50

So, in that light, there is room to improve. On my 5D3, as I said before, I'm hard pressed to want more sharpness. Perhaps if I made the jump to 50 MP I'd see more room for improvement, but that is quite literally splitting pixels at that point.

- A

Using a 5DS/R I can attest there is actually room for improvement.

However, I can also safely say there are quite a lot of other lenses that need it even more.

I believe that this lens is a high earner for Canon and it makes sense to upgrade to revive the 2.500$ price level for a while and sell the new version to people like me who will find it hard to resist simply because we use this lens a lot.

I think this is likely what is going on. There will be a core set of lenses that Canon will want to be able to take advantage of their high MP cameras. If Canon is to go greater than 50 MP with the s/r line, they will need the core set of lenses to match. This might be the start of a reboot of core lenses.

 

[Sharlin]

Canon does not presently sell a lens for the astro crowd that is simultaneously ultrawide + fast + coma free. (You usually only get two out of three of those things.)

I think the new 16-35/III ticks all your point if I understand Dustin correctly....but it also has that horrible vignette, don't know how much that will affect the astro folk

Wide open vignetting isn't a big deal to your standard daylight ISO 100 f/11 landscape photographer, but with astro where you're working at f/2.8 AND a high ISO, pushing the corners four stops is going to be a nonstarter unfortunately :/ The DR simply isn't there.

 

[tron]

• [*]Canon does not presently sell a lens for the astro crowd that is simultaneously ultrawide + fast + coma free. (You usually only get two out of three of those things.)

I think the new 16-35/III ticks all your point if I understand Dustin correctly....but it also has that horrible vignette, don't know how much that will affect the astro folk

Or do you want fast fast? (i.e. 1.4)

So much vignetting will affect my landscape astrophotography. Correcting in post increases noise a lot in an already noisy picture! My 14 2.8L II is more balanced. It has some coma but not a disgusting one (like Canon 24 1.4 II) and it has vignetting but not a terrible one (like 16-35 2.8 III).
So a 14 2.8 III with improved coma would be THE landscape astrophotography solution for me...

 

[Etienne]

It's not high on my priority, but it is one of the most popular pro lenses that Canon makes, so it'll sell well.

Improvements? They'll use nano USM, which will work better with DPAF video. And a new IS system will synchronize with digital and/or sensor based IS to give incredible 5 axis IS. And of course they'll improve the resolution to handle the 50MP+ sensors, and give it new coatings. You can count on this lens being noticeably better than the mark II.

Having said that, what I really want is a really good 50mm f/1.4 IS that's no bigger than the 35mm f/2 IS

 

[Etienne]

..... AND some EF-M primes with IS !!!

 

[LordofTackle]

• [*]Canon does not presently sell a lens for the astro crowd that is simultaneously ultrawide + fast + coma free. (You usually only get two out of three of those things.)

I think the new 16-35/III ticks all your point if I understand Dustin correctly....but it also has that horrible vignette, don't know how much that will affect the astro folk

Or do you want fast fast? (i.e. 1.4)

So much vignetting will affect my landscape astrophotography. Correcting in post increases noise a lot in an already noisy picture! My 14 2.8L II is more balanced. It has some coma but not a disgusting one (like Canon 24 1.4 II) and it has vignetting but not a terrible one (like 16-35 2.8 III).
So a 14 2.8 III with improved coma would be THE landscape astrophotography solution for me...

Ok, then it's a real bummer. Pity, since besides that it seems to be an awesome lens.
BTW, could you point me to some of your landscape astrophotographs?

And to go back on topic: the current 70-200 is a heck of a lens. I don't see why it would need an update (except maybe the weight, but that's of no concern for me personally).

 

[LordofTackle]

Improvements? They'll use nano USM, which will work better with DPAF video. And a new IS system will synchronize with digital and/or sensor based IS to give incredible 5 axis IS. And of course they'll improve the resolution to handle the 50MP+ sensors, and give it new coatings. You can count on this lens being noticeably better than the mark II.

Can you? I bet a lot of buyers of the new 24-105 might disagree...

I thought the nano USM, is the USM for cheap lenses? And maybe not as fast and precise as the true ring USM. Therefore I don't think they would put it in such a high-class lens.

 

[Maiaibing]

The 70-200 F2.8 IS II is an incredible lens. Mine consistently delivers better results than my 300 F2.8 IS II, even with an 1,4x extender on, to the point where i rarely take my 300 out any more.

(I have had the 300 for a year now and have not gotten a single satisfactory photo from it. In the beginning i chalked it up to inexperience with such focal lengths but i am starting to believe there is something wrong with the lens)

There is something wrong here. 300mm IS L II is a far better lens. If you shoot FF you should be able to see it from your shots. Suggest you test or hand in your lens. You made a huge investment - it should deliver for the money.

For me its the other way around - and I have a great 70-200mm IS L II. But it just does not compare.

300mm IS L II is the sharpest Canon lens out there.

 

[Etienne]

Improvements? They'll use nano USM, which will work better with DPAF video. And a new IS system will synchronize with digital and/or sensor based IS to give incredible 5 axis IS. And of course they'll improve the resolution to handle the 50MP+ sensors, and give it new coatings. You can count on this lens being noticeably better than the mark II.

Can you? I bet a lot of buyers of the new 24-105 might disagree...

I thought the nano USM, is the USM for cheap lenses? And maybe not as fast and precise as the true ring USM. Therefore I don't think they would put it in such a high-class lens.

Nano USM is brand new, and much faster than STM, and works spectacularly in combination with DPAF. It's introduction in a non-L lens is for testing purposes I suspect. Ring USM is old technology. The new nano-USM will find it's way into L lenses sooner than later I suspect, especially since future Canon sensors will all have DPAF.

 

[BeenThere]

• [*]Canon does not presently sell a lens for the astro crowd that is simultaneously ultrawide + fast + coma free. (You usually only get two out of three of those things.)

I think the new 16-35/III ticks all your point if I understand Dustin correctly....but it also has that horrible vignette, don't know how much that will affect the astro folk

Or do you want fast fast? (i.e. 1.4)

So much vignetting will affect my landscape astrophotography. Correcting in post increases noise a lot in an already noisy picture! My 14 2.8L II is more balanced. It has some coma but not a disgusting one (like Canon 24 1.4 II) and it has vignetting but not a terrible one (like 16-35 2.8 III).
So a 14 2.8 III with improved coma would be THE landscape astrophotography solution for me...

As long as we're wishing, I would wish for a 14 f/2 with good coma an say only -2 EV vignette. Might as well wish for the stars! Anxious to see the performance of the announced Samyang 14 f/2.4

 

[tron]

• [*]Canon does not presently sell a lens for the astro crowd that is simultaneously ultrawide + fast + coma free. (You usually only get two out of three of those things.)

I think the new 16-35/III ticks all your point if I understand Dustin correctly....but it also has that horrible vignette, don't know how much that will affect the astro folk

Or do you want fast fast? (i.e. 1.4)

So much vignetting will affect my landscape astrophotography. Correcting in post increases noise a lot in an already noisy picture! My 14 2.8L II is more balanced. It has some coma but not a disgusting one (like Canon 24 1.4 II) and it has vignetting but not a terrible one (like 16-35 2.8 III).
So a 14 2.8 III with improved coma would be THE landscape astrophotography solution for me...

As long as we're wishing, I would wish for a 14 f/2 with good coma an say only -2 EV vignette. Might as well wish for the stars! Anxious to see the performance of the announced Samyang 14 f/2.4

Of course I would prefer that! But I believe I am a little more realistic wishing for an updated 14mm 2.8L III...

 

[BeenThere]

As others have mentioned, there could be a sourcing problem on the current 70-200 ii. For instance, it has a fluorite lens element that may be getting expensive, or impossible to source.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Interesting. Let's just hope that it is a better update than what the 24-105L II seems to be shaping up to be.

I think a lot of people would be most happy about the II prices dropping a bit!

One random thought: I've heard some "murmurs in the breeze" about a G2 version of Tamron's 70-200 VC. That lens is the one lens that is a threat in terms of image quality - many find that it is a bit sharper (save perhaps at 200mm) and with nicer bokeh. https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Tamron-SP-70-200mm-F28-Di-VC-USD-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Canon-EF70-200mm-f28L-IS-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R__1027_1009_408_1009

Right now the AF is better in the Canon (and probably will always be), but the newest Tamron lenses are much stronger in their focus speed and accuracy, not to mention their build and moisture resistance. I don't know how much of a threat in terms of overall sales they really are, but considering how important this lens is to Canon it's probably wise of them to start thinking about the update. Third party lenses are getting much better, and I think people are starting to become more open to choosing them, too.

 

[Talley]

I'll stick with the 200mm f/2 IS USM thank you.

Same here. 70-200s bore me now that I bought the 200/2

 

[TeT]

Maybe, just maybe what is in need of upgrading is sales volume. They are in the business to make money. An updated 70 200 will do just that.

 

[kphoto99]

Maybe they could put the large front element to good use and deliver larger aperture on the wide end.

No need to artificially limit it to 2.8 at 70mm when it could do 1.4 at 70, 2 at 135 and 2.8 at 200.

For those that like constant aperture you still have 2.8 everywhere, but for those that like more versility you get faster lens at the wider end.

 

[Maiaibing]

Maybe they could put the large front element to good use and deliver larger aperture on the wide end.

No need to artificially limit it to 2.8 at 70mm when it could do 1.4 at 70, 2 at 135 and 2.8 at 200.

For those that like constant aperture you still have 2.8 everywhere, but for those that like more versility you get faster lens at the wider end.

You need to go into optical engineering. Canon has a job waiting for you!

 

[haggie]

ahsanford wrote:

•The only way you can shoot longer than 400mm with Canon is to use a teleconverter or pay $9,000+ for a superwhite. Canon folks would give their left nut for a first-party zoom that goes to 600mm.

I'm not sure about the left nut part, ???
but I know that I for one would prefer a tele-zoom lens by Canon that reaches to 600 mm.
Unless there is some credible news about one coming before that time, I will probably get one-of-the-others in that range by the end of next year. One cannot keep waiting forever......