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

[Sporgon]

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

To be fair when the 5Ds image is reduced in size to that of the 5DIV it's not that bad.

 

[ethanz]

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.

Good question John. I think you should add to #2 additional weight. I'm no expert when it comes to lenses, but I don't think they could improve the IS and optics without adding weight.

 

[ahsanford]

Good question John. I think you should add to #2 additional weight. I'm no expert when it comes to lenses, but I don't think they could improve the IS and optics without adding weight.

IS vs. non-IS in a lens = absolutely results in a weight difference.

But Older IS vs. newer IS in a lens (without a major optical redesign)? Not nearly as much.

70-200 f/2.8 IS I --> II only gained 20g

70-200 f/4L IS I --> II only gained 40g (and that optical design actually changed from I to II)

But I am not an expert either. I want to say it's more than just IS modes, it also has to do with how much glass you are moving during the stabilization. A recent Canon developer interview stated that the one in the recent 85 f/1.4L IS is nearly the size of the one in the 400 f/2.8L IS II!

- A

 

[whothafunk]

I personally would jump to III if faster AF and IS Mode 3 would be presented with this lens at 2500 EUR. But as it is, no way.

 

[ahsanford]

I personally would jump to III if faster AF and IS Mode 3 would be presented with this lens at 2500 EUR. But as it is, no way.

You're not alone. But Canon surely ran the numbers on that, and retreading the Mk II into the Mk III they've offered probably nets larger margins and larger units than a pricier higher-performing instrument.

Again, as a business, I rarely can fault Canon. What they leave out of new offerings doesn't seem to send people to the other team.

- A

 

[scottkinfw]

I have both the 2.8II and 4 predecessors and am very happy with both. I therefore wouldn't be tempted to upgrade (would rather get a 5DSRII for the money). I am very interested however in seeing objective reviews and comparisons.

Scott

 

[Talys]

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.

I'd be equally fine with either

The reality is that I probably wouldn't have upgraded in Scenario 2 right away, and perhaps not for a very long time if it required 82mm filters. Putting aside the obvious (cost), I don't really want to pack around 77's and 82's.

Obviously, I won't upgrade in Scenario 1, unless there's something wrong with my lens. I'm happy with my copy, and I get attached to lenses that produce good results for me. It's like a lucky rabbit's foot.

 

[AlanF]

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

To be fair when the 5Ds image is reduced in size to that of the 5DIV it's not that bad.

+1, and even more positive about the 5DSR. I have both the 5DSR and 5DIV and use them routinely at high iso. The 5DSR is excellent at high iso when you clean up the noise with DxO prime. I can use it at iso6400, my maximum setting, and push it a couple of stops.
Here are two shots taken in the near dark under a green canopy in a wood in New Zealand of a male bellbird. Top is by me using a 5DIV + 400mm DO II at 1/250s and iso 12800. Bottom us by my wife using a 5DSR + 100-400mm II 1/200s iso 6400 pushed 1.6ev. It is advisable to use a camera before making comments about its performance.

 

[fullstop]

i dont think it would be a big problem if Canon also were to move the last of the 3 lenses in their f/2.8 trifecta to 82mm filter threads. i think many/most? purchasers of a 70-200/2.8 III already have or plan to also buy a 24-70 ii and/or 16-35 III.

and many of those users will likely also use lee-type filters 100/150mm - all they need is an 82 mount ring. no big deal. http://www.thefilterdude.com/ and others sell them in decent quality for little money.

even i got 77 and 82 and i am far from "pro" or "entusiast gear collector". but of course, that's only me, and millions of other users may find it very difficult to use filters on lenses with different diameter filter threads ...

 

[ahsanford]

+1, and even more positive about the 5DSR. I have both the 5DSR and 5DIV and use them routinely at high iso. The 5DSR is excellent at high iso when you clean up the noise with DxO prime. I can use it at iso6400, my maximum setting, and push it a couple of stops.

Lovely shots. I simply lack the acumen in post to clean up high ISO pushed shots and they always pose a challenge capture-wise to me:

Option A: Nailing the exposure requires an ISO I don't want to use. Besides NR and loss of detail it brings, the lack of DR and color at that high ISO level forces me to do some crude adjustments -- big negative slides on blacks and usually more saturation than I ought to add.

Option B: Underexpose and push just feels... different, or 'off' somehow. It leads to flat output on my 5D3 -- for me it almost looks like HDR output from my phone (not at the pixel level of course, but you know what I mean). And then, again, I'm aggressively chasing it in post to stretch out the files in unpleasant ways.

I've settled on getting the exposure right and relying on downsampling to manage noise a bit. I imagine that's a much more powerful NR move when you are starting from 50 MP on your 5DS.

- A

 

[scyrene]

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

To be fair when the 5Ds image is reduced in size to that of the 5DIV it's not that bad.

+1, and even more positive about the 5DSR. I have both the 5DSR and 5DIV and use them routinely at high iso. The 5DSR is excellent at high iso when you clean up the noise with DxO prime. I can use it at iso6400, my maximum setting, and push it a couple of stops.
Here are two shots taken in the near dark under a green canopy in a wood in New Zealand of a male bellbird. Top is by me using a 5DIV + 400mm DO II at 1/250s and iso 12800. Bottom us by my wife using a 5DSR + 100-400mm II 1/200s iso 6400 pushed 1.6ev. It is advisable to use a camera before making comments about its performance.

+1

People talking about the 5Ds(R) as 'tripod only, low ISO only' cameras sound like people who haven't used them, or at least, haven't pushed them. They are capable bodies.

 

[RayValdez360]

To end all the discussion. Canon shouldnt have called it the III. They could have been like "the updated II with better coatings and a new color to match current white lens for sale in late 2018 forward." With the level of complaints and bashing, i dont know if calling a III is wise and the only people that care it is called a III are people with a II.

 

[Isaacheus]

+1, and even more positive about the 5DSR. I have both the 5DSR and 5DIV and use them routinely at high iso. The 5DSR is excellent at high iso when you clean up the noise with DxO prime. I can use it at iso6400, my maximum setting, and push it a couple of stops.

Lovely shots. I simply lack the acumen in post to clean up high ISO pushed shots and they always pose a challenge capture-wise to me:

Option A: Nailing the exposure requires an ISO I don't want to use. Besides NR and loss of detail it brings, the lack of DR and color at that high ISO level forces me to do some crude adjustments -- big negative slides on blacks and usually more saturation than I ought to add.

Option B: Underexpose and push just feels... different, or 'off' somehow. It leads to flat output on my 5D3 -- for me it almost looks like HDR output from my phone (not at the pixel level of course, but you know what I mean). And then, again, I'm aggressively chasing it in post to stretch out the files in unpleasant ways.

I've settled on getting the exposure right and relying on downsampling to manage noise a bit. I imagine that's a much more powerful NR move when you are starting from 50 MP on your 5DS.

- A

I found doing the same thing on the 5dmk3 too, while the 6d seemed to hold up a little better (not great but didn't have quite the same deterioration?). The mk3 seems to lose all the contrast/colour in an odd way. The 5dmk4 seems to be a considerable step up over both, for the little playing around I've seen of that

 

[AprilForever]

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.

Maybe there could be a market for the major upgrade lens. I am guessing not much of one size wise, but, maybe they could sell both and differentiate the higher priced one by making it a bit longer. Maybe make the front element 88mm, extend it to 70-250 2.8.... This might get heavy though.
Maybe make a 70-200 and a 70-200 HR (A new abbreviation!!!! Markwtting gold!!! HR is high res.), kind of like the 5d line and the 5dc?

 

[Talys]

+1, and even more positive about the 5DSR. I have both the 5DSR and 5DIV and use them routinely at high iso. The 5DSR is excellent at high iso when you clean up the noise with DxO prime. I can use it at iso6400, my maximum setting, and push it a couple of stops.

Lovely shots. I simply lack the acumen in post to clean up high ISO pushed shots and they always pose a challenge capture-wise to me:

Option A: Nailing the exposure requires an ISO I don't want to use. Besides NR and loss of detail it brings, the lack of DR and color at that high ISO level forces me to do some crude adjustments -- big negative slides on blacks and usually more saturation than I ought to add.

Option B: Underexpose and push just feels... different, or 'off' somehow. It leads to flat output on my 5D3 -- for me it almost looks like HDR output from my phone (not at the pixel level of course, but you know what I mean). And then, again, I'm aggressively chasing it in post to stretch out the files in unpleasant ways.

I've settled on getting the exposure right and relying on downsampling to manage noise a bit. I imagine that's a much more powerful NR move when you are starting from 50 MP on your 5DS.

- A

I found doing the same thing on the 5dmk3 too, while the 6d seemed to hold up a little better (not great but didn't have quite the same deterioration?). The mk3 seems to lose all the contrast/colour in an odd way. The 5dmk4 seems to be a considerable step up over both, for the little playing around I've seen of that

Bleh. Point a profoto at your subject

I lack the patience to use multiple pieces of software to muck with my photos, generally; certainly multiple suites by different vendors. Bearing in mind that I used a 5DIV nearly a year before I purchased a 6D2, I found the 6D2 easier to perform high ISO noise reduction on. Many photos just look astonishingly great even with minimal effort.

At the end of the day, it's why I love the 6D2 -- and the 70-200Mk2. I really don't care what MTFs or pixel exploded studio shots show, because I'm very pleased both with the quality and consistency of the photos that I'm able to shoot.

 

[Isaacheus]

+1, and even more positive about the 5DSR. I have both the 5DSR and 5DIV and use them routinely at high iso. The 5DSR is excellent at high iso when you clean up the noise with DxO prime. I can use it at iso6400, my maximum setting, and push it a couple of stops.

Lovely shots. I simply lack the acumen in post to clean up high ISO pushed shots and they always pose a challenge capture-wise to me:

Option A: Nailing the exposure requires an ISO I don't want to use. Besides NR and loss of detail it brings, the lack of DR and color at that high ISO level forces me to do some crude adjustments -- big negative slides on blacks and usually more saturation than I ought to add.

Option B: Underexpose and push just feels... different, or 'off' somehow. It leads to flat output on my 5D3 -- for me it almost looks like HDR output from my phone (not at the pixel level of course, but you know what I mean). And then, again, I'm aggressively chasing it in post to stretch out the files in unpleasant ways.

I've settled on getting the exposure right and relying on downsampling to manage noise a bit. I imagine that's a much more powerful NR move when you are starting from 50 MP on your 5DS.

- A

I found doing the same thing on the 5dmk3 too, while the 6d seemed to hold up a little better (not great but didn't have quite the same deterioration?). The mk3 seems to lose all the contrast/colour in an odd way. The 5dmk4 seems to be a considerable step up over both, for the little playing around I've seen of that

Bleh. Point a profoto at your subject

I lack the patience to use multiple pieces of software to muck with my photos, generally; certainly multiple suites by different vendors. Bearing in mind that I used a 5DIV nearly a year before I purchased a 6D2, I found the 6D2 easier to perform high ISO noise reduction on. Many photos just look astonishingly great even with minimal effort.

At the end of the day, it's why I love the 6D2 -- and the 70-200Mk2. I really don't care what MTFs or pixel exploded studio shots show, because I'm very pleased both with the quality and consistency of the photos that I'm able to shoot.

Haha, find me a profoto that works on milkyway photography and I'll give it a go.
(The other application I usually try is wildlife, which don't take kindly to lights in their eyes)

 

[Talys]

At the end of the day, it's why I love the 6D2 -- and the 70-200Mk2. I really don't care what MTFs or pixel exploded studio shots show, because I'm very pleased both with the quality and consistency of the photos that I'm able to shoot.

Haha, find me a profoto that works on milkyway photography and I'll give it a go.
(The other application I usually try is wildlife, which don't take kindly to lights in their eyes)

* tugs out supernova * 8)

Remarkably, most of my feathered friends don't mind flashes/strobes, and they're by far the best way to stop action. For example, it's nearly impossible to freeze a hovering hummingbird's wings without, and trivial to do, with a cheap flash.

Raccoons, squirrels, bunnies, and my cat (which doesn't qualify as wildlife...) don't seem to mind either, but then, they are pretty used to me. Also, very curiously, light in general doesn't seem to bother raccoons -- for instance, shining a flood light or studio-bright light panels onto them won't alarm them.

I wouldn't try with anything bigger, though, lol. I don't want to find out what a black bear or cougar would think of a profoto, hahaha And I would feel really bad if a doe got scared off by one.

 

[-1]

Ummm... Is it the exact same optical design for the f/2.8L IS III?! That would be a shocking move for a flagship instrument like this.

TDP implies yes: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=687&LensComp=1197 --> same elements count, same hood, same filter diameter

PB outright says yes: https://www.thephoblographer.com/2018/06/07/the-new-canon-70-200mm-lens-updates-are-very-perplexing/

There could be some differences in the firmware that then would show in a near future:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=35129.msg722340#msg722340

 

[snoke]

Canon say 70-200/2.8L IS USM II need internal reflection/flare improvement. Now 70-200/2.8L IS USM III exist. New coatings. Lens rentals say new coatings make front element expensive. Is answer for more $$.

If 70-200/2.8L IS USM II perfect every other way, then Canon right make no more change.

Never have problem with flare/internal reflection? Keep 70-200/2.8L IS USM II.
If have problem then buy new lens.
Simple.

Canon fix 70-300/f4-5.6L IS USM too? Same problem as 70-200/2.8L IS USM II.

 

[transpo1]

I like how the guy's shirt EXACTLY matches the color of the lenses. They were very precise with that choice