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

[Loswr]

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!

+1

#armchairexpert

 

[e_honda]

* Is the f/4.0 L IS version a tad sharper?

At 70mm, yes the F4 is slightly sharper. Starting zooming in and the F2.8 II becomes sharper.

 

[arthurbikemad]

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

I have them both, I'd never want to be without the 70-200. As amazing as the 200/2 is it has its drawbacks and the MFD is one of them, try shooting with the 200/2 in a small ish room, or even out side when working area is limited, frame a whole person at close focus distance and your 10+ feet away. The 70-200ii is one of the greats imo, the 200/2 is king and even gets away with massive vignette but it can be a hard lens to live with day to day, oh and its size!

 

[wtlloyd]

Obviously, it'll have a green ring.

 

[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.

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

+1

#armchairexpert

Maybe the great Neuro could explain why when Canon is designing a new lens with an entrance pupil of 71mm it can not be a 1.4 aperture at 70mm (70/71=1 and 200/71=2.8)?

It is not like Canon does not know how to do variable aperture lenses.

 

[H. Jones]

The problem with this is, Canon definitely knows they'll sell a metric crap ton of these things if they release them! Even if it doesn't really need an update.

I've owned and abused my 70-200 f/f/2.8L IS II for years and I would probably swap it for the replacement as soon as it comes out! This is my most-used lens and I doubt I could help myself if they replace it.

That is, of course, if it's not $3000 like the Nikon. Then we might have some issues.

 

[ahsanford]

• [*]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)

Sure, but the astro folks on this forums went pale when they sized up a 4.6 stop corner push.

I guess I should add 'with reasonably controllable vignetting' to the list in light of the 16-35 f/2.8L III surprise.

One might argue Canon won't deliver the knockout blow astro lens until a 24 f/1.4L III arrives with the BR gunk -- the 35L II is great but not terribly wide.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

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.

+1. Someday Canon may switch many of it's lenses to nano-USM for 'this porridge is just right' reasons, but this lens, the big superwhites, etc. demand bleeding-edge stills performance -- so I see a 70-200 f/2.8L IS III with USM all the way.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

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.

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

+1

#armchairexpert

I await this 70-200 f/1.4-2.8L IS lens. I imagine we'll see it around the same time AvTvM gets their EF-M 80mm f/2 IS STM pancake.

- A

 

[Alex_M]

May be because photogs hate when their exposure is all over the shop when zooming in or out and your aperture forcibly changed due to its variability (M mode)? Focus breathing as a side effect would be another factor to consider, Bokeh shape and characteristics variation at various appertures, CA levels and spherical abberations, vignetting? I am sure that there are more issues to consider.

Maybe the great Neuro could explain why when Canon is designing a new lens with an entrance pupil of 71mm it can not be a 1.4 aperture at 70mm (70/71=1 and 200/71=2.8)?

It is not like Canon does not know how to do variable aperture lenses.

 

[kphoto99]

All of those issues go away if you keep the aperture at 2.8, same as it is now. The difference being you get to decide.

May be because photogs hate when their exposure is all over the shop when zooming in or out and your aperture forcibly changed due to its variability (M mode)? Focus breathing as a side effect would be another factor to consider, Bokeh shape and characteristics variation at various appertures? I am sure that there are more issues to consider.

Maybe the great Neuro could explain why when Canon is designing a new lens with an entrance pupil of 71mm it can not be a 1.4 aperture at 70mm (70/71=1 and 200/71=2.8)?

It is not like Canon does not know how to do variable aperture lenses.

 

[Alex_M]

Sure, but makes the design of such a lens (Pro level performing) more challenging likely? My point is: there is undoubtly some merit to your point that might be outweight by associated challenges in designing such a lens.

All of those issues go away if you keep the aperture at 2.8, same as it is now. The difference being you get to decide.

May be because photogs hate when their exposure is all over the shop when zooming in or out and your aperture forcibly changed due to its variability (M mode)? Focus breathing as a side effect would be another factor to consider, Bokeh shape and characteristics variation at various appertures? I am sure that there are more issues to consider.

Maybe the great Neuro could explain why when Canon is designing a new lens with an entrance pupil of 71mm it can not be a 1.4 aperture at 70mm (70/71=1 and 200/71=2.8)?

It is not like Canon does not know how to do variable aperture lenses.

 

[midluk]

The f-stop also affects the needed size and/or distance from the sensor of the back lens element.
I seriously doubt that a f/1.4 lens which can take canon extenders is possible.

 

[BLFPhoto]

I will eagerly anticipate the next 70-200 f/2.8 IS L as I expect it to have the latest superior coatings like the 24-70 f/2.8 L II and the new 35mm L. I can find no fault with my current 70-200 Mk II, but it was designed just prior to the newer coatings that seem to impart a pop to the images I get out of those newer lenses. For one thing, when shooting events with both lenses, the images often require slightly different basic work between the images from the different lenses. Not bad. Just different. And slightly time consuming. Its an issue I didn't have when I was shooting the older 24-70 and 35mm lenses with the current 70-200.

I expect it to rival the new Nikon in price, as well. Situation normal, there. Can't speak whether many or most will find it necessary to upgrade. I will do so immediately, whether it's this year or 5 years hence when it finally appears. 70-200 is one of the two "can't do without" lenses in my bag.

 

[PHOTOPROROCKIES]

When are they updating the 35L II and 100-400L II?? ;D

Definitely don't need a version 3 of the 100-400 just yet, that is an exceptional lens. I also don't think canon needs to make a new 70-200 just because Nikon did.
I would however like a 35mm f1.4 version 3 that is optimized to work with the 5DSR.

 

[PHOTOPROROCKIES]

I'd be surprised to see this in 2017, maybe 2018 or 2019. I'm also guessing that the biggest changes will be in weight and IS (including adding a third IS mode) and possibly focusing speed, although it's already really fast. It will be hard to improve on the optical performance. One thing that would be interesting would be if Canon followed Sigma's lead and allowed users to select custom modes that prioritize either speed or accuracy.

Since the II version used to sell for around $2,500, I expect it will be several years after introduction before I even look at the III version.

The 70-200 version 2 still sells for $2,500 in Canada.

 

[scrup]

Lighter so it balances well with the full frame mirrorless.

 

[RGF]

I have the 70-200 F2.8 IS II and it is a great lens. Hard press to upgrade it unless there is something really special.

Plus the 70-200 gets used less and less - it is being replaced with100-400 II,

 

[Loswr]

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!

+1

#armchairexpert

Maybe the great Neuro could explain why when Canon is designing a new lens with an entrance pupil of 71mm it can not be a 1.4 aperture at 70mm (70/71=1 and 200/71=2.8)?

It is not like Canon does not know how to do variable aperture lenses.

Sure, Canon knows how to do variable aperture lenses. The 100-400 needs the same 71mm entrance pupil as a 200/2.8, and 100/71 = 1.4. Why the heck did those dumb optical engineers at Canon make it a pathetic f/4.5 at the wide end, when clearly it can be f/2 or even f/1.8? Same with the 70-300L, limiting its variable aperture to a pathetic f/4 at the wide end when clearly since 70/53.5 = 1.3 it should be f/1.4 or at worst f/1.8?

What could Canon know that you don't? Oh yeah, they know how to design lenses. :

 

[hendrik-sg]

what they could improve?

- Maybe add some urgently needed vignetting, 4.6 stops is state of the art now.
- To improve build quality, it could get a body of stylish engineering plastic instead of old fashioned magnesium
- To reduce flare, maybe the number of elements could be reduced

Maybe they could release a more worthfull looking new white, or maybe a golden shine with a platin ring would be even more prestigous than white with red ring

But to be serious, this high quality zooms are really complicated compared to the simplicity of the gauss 50 1.2. To produce it cheaper may be a big reason to update the lens, together with restauration of the original price. Or maybe it will be a DO version which would be less heavy and maybe cheaper (with less glass) to produce as well.