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

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,974
729
Davidson, NC
RayValdez360 said:
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."

How expensive would the filters be to fit on the front of a lens that had room for that whole name?
 

slclick

Unsolicited & Always Free
Dec 17, 2013
4,440
2,625
18 pages....There should be a thread for just the f/4. No need to chat about the 2.8 any longer...it's the little brother that has the biggest changes, the most to chat about.
 

fullstop

EOS R
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
slclick said:
18 pages....There should be a thread for just the f/4. No need to chat about the 2.8 any longer...it's the little brother that has the biggest changes, the most to chat about.

yes. Canon should just have launched the f/4. And waited with f/2.8 III until they are able to give it an update as good as the f/4 one.
 

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
CR Pro
Aug 25, 2015
1,412
900
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
fullstop said:
yes. Canon should just have launched the f/4. And waited with f/2.8 III until they are able to give it an update as good as the f/4 one.

Then they'd still be selling the 2.8 II with the older coatings. I don't get people. Canon update one of their most highly-regarded lenses to make it even better, sell it for the same price as before, yet still people complain.
 

ethanz

1DX II
CR Pro
Apr 12, 2016
1,178
468
ethanzentz.com
jolyonralph said:
fullstop said:
yes. Canon should just have launched the f/4. And waited with f/2.8 III until they are able to give it an update as good as the f/4 one.

Then they'd still be selling the 2.8 II with the older coatings. I don't get people. Canon update one of their most highly-regarded lenses to make it even better, sell it for the same price as before, yet still people complain.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 

fullstop

EOS R
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
jolyonralph said:
fullstop said:
yes. Canon should just have launched the f/4. And waited with f/2.8 III until they are able to give it an update as good as the f/4 one.

Then they'd still be selling the 2.8 II with the older coatings. I don't get people. Canon update one of their most highly-regarded lenses to make it even better, sell it for the same price as before, yet still people complain.

MSRP stays the same. Not equal to actual street price.

The way Canon did it, they opened themselves up for criticism. the "lower tier, cheaper" f/4 gets a "full upgrade" whereas the more expensive, "flagship f/2.8" only gets new coatings and a new paint job.

Maybe those coatings really prove to increase IQ noticably [e.g. signifcant flare reduction]. But if not, Canon would have been better off to wait a bit until they would have been able to also give the f/2.8 a full upgrade. With 5 stop + mode 3 IS and umpteen iris blades etc. ... "the full Mark III works". :)
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,975
4,731
fullstop said:
jolyonralph said:
fullstop said:
yes. Canon should just have launched the f/4. And waited with f/2.8 III until they are able to give it an update as good as the f/4 one.

Then they'd still be selling the 2.8 II with the older coatings. I don't get people. Canon update one of their most highly-regarded lenses to make it even better, sell it for the same price as before, yet still people complain.

MSRP stays the same. Not equal to actual street price.

The way Canon did it, they opened themselves up for criticism. the "lower tier, cheaper" f/4 gets a "full upgrade" whereas the more expensive, "flagship f/2.8" only gets new coatings and a new paint job.

Maybe those coatings really prove to increase IQ noticably [e.g. signifcant flare reduction]. But if not, Canon would have been better off to wait a bit until they would have been able to also give the f/2.8 a full upgrade. With 5 stop + mode 3 IS and umpteen iris blades etc. ... "the full Mark III works". :)

Only Canon know what their expectations are of the lens so only they could possibly say, and only then after time has passed and sales and savings targets have been hit or not, if they have made a mistake.
 

fullstop

EOS R
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
"only Canon knows". sure. Only they know how many of their lenses they sell and how many they wanted to sell.

But it is evident that from a marketing/brand image point of view this "micro-update" of the "flagship" f/2.8 has not gone down well. And I maintain, that Canon could have spared themselbves most of it, had they waited until they are able to release a full Mk. III-upgrade.

But lets see how much if any improvements in IQ [flare resistance etc.] the new coatings bring. The new paint job sure does not bring functional value.
 
Jun 10, 2018
1
0
Hey guys,

As most of you most probably know the price of Canon 70-200mm 2.8 mk ii has dropped not too long ago, 2- weeks ago in the case of authorized retailers (B&H, Adorama, Amazon, etc.). Do you guys think there will be further price drops or that's it for now (the next 6-12 months or so).

Thanks!
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,265
1,935
Canada
privatebydesign said:
fullstop said:
jolyonralph said:
fullstop said:
yes. Canon should just have launched the f/4. And waited with f/2.8 III until they are able to give it an update as good as the f/4 one.

Then they'd still be selling the 2.8 II with the older coatings. I don't get people. Canon update one of their most highly-regarded lenses to make it even better, sell it for the same price as before, yet still people complain.

MSRP stays the same. Not equal to actual street price.

The way Canon did it, they opened themselves up for criticism. the "lower tier, cheaper" f/4 gets a "full upgrade" whereas the more expensive, "flagship f/2.8" only gets new coatings and a new paint job.

Maybe those coatings really prove to increase IQ noticably [e.g. signifcant flare reduction]. But if not, Canon would have been better off to wait a bit until they would have been able to also give the f/2.8 a full upgrade. With 5 stop + mode 3 IS and umpteen iris blades etc. ... "the full Mark III works". :)

Only Canon know what their expectations are of the lens so only they could possibly say, and only then after time has passed and sales and savings targets have been hit or not, if they have made a mistake.

I'll go one further.....

We people on the user groups are noise. What we say does not matter because we do not represent the typical user.....

Canon had two scenarios... a minor update on the F2.8, or no update. If they did not do the refresh, then they would be still producing a lens with older components, some of which may be getting harder to supply. Since there was no refresh, obviously, nobody would be doing an update. They would still be selling one of the finest 70-200 lenses ever made at a reasonable price and there would be no change in it's attractiveness to new buyers.


The second scenario is that they do an update. The coatings are better, the electronics are newer, but because there is so little optical difference, existing users do not update and new buyers continue as they would have without the upgrade...

In other words, NO DIFFERENCE IN SALES! and new buyers get a slightly better lens.

On a more fundamental level, why is there no increase in resolution? Is it because the design is as good as it can get? You have a freaking sharp lens with 23 elements in it? Do you have any concept as to the insane level of design work that went into such a lens? Once you get so good, there is nowhere to improve to.

To those who are complaining about why the F4 lens has more stops of IS, the answer is physics. The F2.8 lens has larger (read heavier) elements to move in the IS system, and with the same power availiable to drive them, they must move slower..... and as a result, the smaller F4 elements move faster and you get an extra 1.5 stops of IS....

And finally, wait till it hits the shelves to pass judgement. Just how much better are those coatings? Is 3.5 stops of IS according to the new rating standard better than 4 stops of the old standard? What happens with the AF speed?
 

justawriter

EOS 90D
Sep 17, 2012
142
48
CANON'S SOOPER SEEKRIT PLAN ...
Develop new 70-200 but realize it will have to sell at $2,800 to meet profit goals, which will hurt total sales numbers. Release version with significant but low cost updates to sell for $2,100. Wait a year and announce Mark IV that will sell alongside Mark III for foreseeable future ... priced at $3,500. Canon users wanting 98% of the best will continue to buy the Mark III in large, profitable numbers while those users wanting the very best will make up for their lack of numbers by contributing a $700 premium.

It's so evil it just might work! 8)
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
24,764
2,425
fullstop said:
But it is evident that from a marketing/brand image point of view this "micro-update" of the "flagship" f/2.8 has not gone down well.

Evident how?

Oh, that's right...you don't like it. ::) ::) ::)
 

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
3,735
601
I do not see the anger. We have a better lens for the same price. That is wonderful.
 

jhpeterson

EOS RP
CR Pro
Feb 7, 2011
264
33
I feel I'm about the only one in the room who thinks the 70-200 2.8 IS II could use improvement. Sure sharpness and contrast in my copy are overall very good, except in the corners at both short and long ends. I could also do with less vignetting.
But, where I find the lens fails for me is in its construction. I've had to tighten screws in it many times and I've taped the manual focus ring because the barrel is loose otherwise. To make matters worse, the paint near the lens mount started flaking off within eight weeks.
In the last 25 years, I've owned at least ten Canon L mid-range zooms, at least one of every model, from the 80-200/2.8 "Magic Drainpipe" through the latest 70-200 IS varieties, in both the 2.8 and 4 flavors. While it may be sharpest of the lot, it has also been the most disappointing in terms of build and finish.
Maybe my problems stem from the fact that I bought a refurbished lens from the Canon store, but I've purchased several others before and since without issues. And, it might have been less annoyed had I not spent so much for it, as I must have been one of the last to buy this lens when it listed of $2499. After factoring in the sales tax, I wound up paying $50 more than what the new Version III sells for.
So I, for one, am certainly looking forward to see if this one has solved these issues.
 

Quirkz

EOS RP
CR Pro
Oct 30, 2014
284
201
Canon: ‘Hey everyone! We released it was pretty easy and cheap for us to update the lens to use the latest coatings, so were doing it every new lens we make from now. Best of all, we’re not changing the price! Basically a no brainer, since you get something for free, and we love our happy customers! Oh, and to avoid confusion between the older lens without these new coatings, we’re going to change the version number.
You’re welcome!`

Internet: `STFU`
 

fullstop

EOS R
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
neuroanatomist said:
fullstop said:
But it is evident that from a marketing/brand image point of view this "micro-update" of the "flagship" f/2.8 has not gone down well.

Evident how?

Oh, that's right...you don't like it. ::) ::) ::)

it is evident just by looking at the comments on any portal/forum covering the f/2.8 and f/4 lens version updates. overwhelmingly positive reactions on f/4 improvements vs. majority of disappointed votes on f/2.8. quite evidently not what Canon marketing was hoping for.

maybe it would have gone down better had Canon used a line of communication as suggested a few postings earlier. they did not and so the impression will linger that the f/4 got a full update and the f/ 2.8 only a half(-assed) one.
 
<-- start Taboola -->