Canon Announces the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III and EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II

[jolyonralph]

Give it a rest, people. Canon do a decent thing by re-engineering one of their best lenses to use the latest developments with coatings and still people complain.

Aren't there better things to waste your time on?

 

[Viggo]

... I await someone to tell me that Canon has just knocked out a refresh like this for such a high-end instrument before.
..

Correct me when i'm wrong, but isn't the 85 1.2 L II very similar to the 85 1.2 L. It got only a faster AF and some coatings???

Lightthief

Someone on TDP just poked me with the same tidbit.

Okay, we have an historical reference: the last time they did a (relatively) superficial refresh to a top notch lens was 12 years ago. Noted -- thx.

- A

Well, if you’re using a 1-series body it wouldn’t call the AF speed of 85 II “slightly” faster, it went from useless to very capable. The 85 L II also got updated to support the ETTL mode, which was absolutely needed. So it wasn’t a big improvement in image quality, but the usefulness was taken up a few levels.

The 70-200 with the same AF improvement alone, would have been a huge reason to upgrade

 

[djack41]

Baby steps. Zzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[neuroanatomist]

Give it a rest, people. Canon do a decent thing by re-engineering one of their best lenses to use the latest developments with coatings and still people complain.

Aren't there better things to waste your time on?

Plus they launched it at a lower price. But whiners gonna whine.

 

[fullstop]

yes, BUT ... for a Mark III update the f/2.8 looks "underwhelming".

In addition to new coatings, why not include some or all of the "feature improvements" as on f/4 II?
* improved IS with mode 3 and 5 stops
* and/or 9-blade iris?
* some very low-cost, but "useful to many" little details - like arca-style dovetail/grooves in lens tripod foot? [see Tamron 70-200 G2]?
* or an "easy on-off" lens collar that is "really right, not just white?

And is the CPL slot in lens hood now there or not?

 

[Hector1970]

5Ds: Highest resolution full frame camera ever.
5DS a pure race to 50mp. A very good camera on a tripod at ISO 100 - good with studio lights but I think with a horrible high ISO performance

You clearly do not have any clue what you are talking about.

No need to use with tripod - its actually better to hand hold than other Canon models, because you can choose to electronically reduce the mirror slap. And high iso is great - fully on par with 5DIV > iso 400.

Completely on par with a 5D IV above 400 ISO?
Maybe you should borrow both and try them out rather than making things up

 

[Don Haines]

Give it a rest, people. Canon do a decent thing by re-engineering one of their best lenses to use the latest developments with coatings and still people complain.

Aren't there better things to waste your time on?

Plus they launched it at a lower price. But whiners gonna whine.

Yes.... what many may not have considered is that this is, for all practical purposes, as good as you can make a zoom lens in that range..... it just may not be possible to improve noticeably on the current design.

Just wait until the 600F4 mark III comes out.... people will be demanding that the lens is significantly sharper and that the MTF curves be above 1.......

 

[scyrene]

Consider: what happens if they try an update like this for the superwhites? For the 24-70 f/2.8L III? For the 135 f/2L II?

Rather like the 70-200 II, the supertelephoto lenses are already excellent, class-leading, and we can't expect much in the way of substantial improvements until and unless there's some big shift in technology. Even the mark I - mark II update just added a bit better IS (with a new mode), shaved a bit of weight (largely down to removing the clear front element), and one or two othe tweaks. Optically, they weren't much different from their predecessors. And if the mark IIIs come out with very little change, I don't see what difference it makes. The 135L is a little different, I think a lot of people are hoping it'll get IS added, which is not an unrealistic expectation, but then I guess it won't be named mark II, but just EF 135mm f/2(or 1.8)L IS?.

Yep. I'll ask again: when's the last time Canon pulled something like this on a staple pro / top of the line instrument? I have yet to hear one from a really bright and knowledgeable group of folks here.

The extenders come to mind. The mark III extenders didn't improve on image quality very much if at all, but just worked a bit better with the mark II supertelephotos in terms of AF (there were a few other tweaks including *paint colour*!). I don't know if that counts though.

 

[scyrene]

anyone notice that Canon is disappointing long time users and professionals constantly and consistently in the last few years.

Nope. Just a minority of vocal forum-dwellers, mostly.

 

[scyrene]

5DS a pure race to 50mp. A very good camera on a tripod at ISO 100 - good with studio lights but I think with a horrible high ISO performance

I strongly disagree. I've used the 5Ds as a replacement for the 5D3 and it is as capable in 90+% of situations. The 5Ds's high ISO is no worse than the 5D3's on an image level, and may be better as the noise characteristics are easier to deal with (less magenta cast for instance).

 

[neuroanatomist]

anyone notice that Canon is disappointing long time users and professionals constantly and consistently in the last few years.

Thanks, I just knew there had to be an explanation for their consistently and consistently falling market share in the last few years. :

 

[ahsanford]

And is the CPL slot in lens hood now there or not?

Same hood as the Mk II.

- A

 

[AprilForever]

Something I noticed reading it: why do they recommend the f4 lens for crop sensors, and the f2.8 lens for full frame? Why not recommend them more situationally, like, use the f4 lens when distance hiking and climbing or when you want a lighter set up, and the f2.8 lens when low light or out of focus back grounds are desired?

I have a 7d mkii and a 5d mk iv. I use my 70-200 2.8 on them both. On the 7d, the 70-200 lens serves admirably for bird photography if the birds are close. The extra stop helps a lot. I would feel deeply the loss of the stop on the edge of day and dark, or during big storms, the sort of times when birds often come out (like those elusive rails......). Anyways....

Also, what is the new coating?

In general, I am rather excited about this, I will totally get the new f2.8 lens, in likely 7 years, when I can justify and afford the upgrade expense...

 

[fullstop]

And is the CPL slot in lens hood now there or not?

Same hood as the Mk II.

thx for info/confirmation!

"Innovative, customer-oriented, generous Canon". ;D

 

[FTb-n]

I don't get the complaints about the 70-200 f2.8 Mark III.

The Mark II was best in it's class and there was no collective demand for an upgrade. There was also no hype from Canon promising a major upgrade. So, Canon found a way to reduce flare and make exposed elements easier to clean. Should they have sat on these improvements until they do find a way to make this great lens significantly better?

Perhaps we have grown so accustomed to Canon upgrades being significant technological improvements that a simple refresh becomes a dissapointment.

I'm actually releaved that the Mark III was a simple refresh, because it won't be feeding my G.A.S. affliction.

 

[ethanz]

because it won't be feeding my G.A.S. affliction.

Yes, I think Canon did us a solid, by helping to not feed our affliction.

 

[FTb-n]

Something I noticed reading it: why do they recommend the f4 lens for crop sensors, and the f2.8 lens for full frame? Why not recommend them more situationally, like, use the f4 lens when distance hiking and climbing or when you want a lighter set up, and the f2.8 lens when low light or out of focus back grounds are desired?

I wondered the same thing. The faster 2.8 is better for crop if low light is a concern, plus it's depth of field is similar to the 4.0 on full frame.

I'm guessing that price and size is the main reason that the f4 version is recommended for crop bodies with the assumption that a $2,000 lens is too spendy for most crop owners. Plus, this is a nice upgrade for the various "consumer grade" f3.5-5.6 zoom lenses typically targeted for crop bodies.

 

[fullstop]

I don't get the complaints about the 70-200 f2.8 Mark III.
The Mark II was best in it's class

this is disputed. Most recent Nikon as well as Sony GM came out slightly ahead in various reviews.

Nobody is unhappy about improved coatings, but many would have liked to see Canon do "a bit more", when they re-launch one of their flagship lenses as Mark III. Some of the feature improvements Canon did on the f/4 [5 stop IS with mode 3, iris blades, ] would have been welcomed also on the f/2.8. And an all-out improvement on IQ to make it clearly "king of the hill" - at least until Nikon/Sony bring their next iterations.

 

[applecider]

Say for those of us who are deciding between the f4 and the f2.8 how about going to Flickr or your searchable photo database of choice and searching for canon EF 70-200L . Look at the images you like and decide if you’d be happy with the result.

That in combination with a little hands on should make a choice easy.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I wonder which of the following the market would prefer? Note that 'the market' is not represented by members of this forum, nor does it comprise any one member in particular (no matter how delusionally self-important they think they are, for example, one who believes their views represent those of millions).

1) The 70-200/2.8 III as announced and priced

or

2) A 70-200/2.8 III with Mode 3 IS and significant optical improvements (probably requiring an 82mm filter), priced at $2800 or higher

Certainly, this is not a lens intended to tempt owners of the MkII to upgrade.