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

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
24,764
2,425
fullstop said:
well, I find apologists' incessant attempts trying to discredit people's opinion/statement, that the f/2.8 III update appears to be rather miniscule - compared to the f/4 update...

Who is claiming that? Really, you should try reading what people post instead of just making stuff up in your head. The argument is not about the 70-200/2.8 III being a minor upgrade – the argument is about you characterizing public perception of that update as it’s a fail, with no evidence to back that up and your own admission that the opposite is true, at least here in this thread.

The only fail here is you.
 

fullstop

EOS R
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
the reception the f/2.8 upgrade has received in public is definitely not jubilant but "rather mixed". I did not say it is a total fail. I said, in my opinion it would have been smarter for Canon to avoid that "mixed reception" by coming out with the f/4 now and the f/2.8 later with an update similar to the one the f/4 got. Even if IQ improvements on f/2.8 might not have been as significant as (they may be) on the (older design) f/4.

That's what I said.
 

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,077
359
Vancouver, BC
fullstop said:
the reception the f/2.8 upgrade has received in public is definitely not jubilant but "rather mixed". I did not say it is a total fail. I said, in my opinion it would have been smarter for Canon to avoid that "mixed reception" by coming out with the f/4 now and the f/2.8 later with an update similar to the one the f/4 got. Even if IQ improvements on f/2.8 might not have been as significant as (they may be) on the (older design) f/4.

That's what I said.

I think the biggest problem that I have with your perspective is that you're constantly looking for gear that impresses you, rather than gear you want to buy.

The reason that Canon has gotten a lot of my dollars is because they hit the mark with gear that works the way I want it to, not because they are awesome because charts say they are.
 

Quirkz

EOS RP
CR Pro
Oct 30, 2014
284
201
fullstop said:
the reception the f/2.8 upgrade has received in public is definitely not jubilant but "rather mixed". I did not say it is a total fail. I said, in my opinion it would have been smarter for Canon to avoid that "mixed reception" by coming out with the f/4 now and the f/2.8 later with an update similar to the one the f/4 got. Even if IQ improvements on f/2.8 might not have been as significant as (they may be) on the (older design) f/4.

That's what I said.

So you’re saying that right now, if you were in the market to buy the 70-200, you would rather have the v2 than the v3 with the new coatings?
Interesting.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
24,764
2,425
fullstop said:
the reception the f/2.8 upgrade has received in public is definitely not jubilant but "rather mixed". I did not say it is a total fail...

That's what I said.

Is it?

fullstop said:
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.

So 'has not gone down well' and 'majority of disappointed votes' has now become a 'rather mixed' reception.

The thing is, you can rewrite history in your head to your heart's content...but the Internet remembers what you actually said, so posting your revisionist history merely makes you look foolish.
 

FTb-n

Canonet QL17 GIII
Sep 22, 2012
533
8
St. Paul, MN
The 70-200 f2.8 Mark III came out of the blue. I don't recall any noise from the masses asking Canon to upgrade this lens. Arguably. most of think there are other lenses in greater need of an upgrade. So, a simple refresh that is reasonably priced seems fine to me.

Some have argued that the designation Mark III should be reserved for a major upgrade. I can see this point. Maybe Mark IIb would have been more appropriate. But, neither really matters to me.

Now, if there is a 50 1.4 IS introduced that isn't tact sharp wide-open, then Canon would deserve the criticism that filled many of these 20+ pages in this thread.

Meanwhile, I have some images to capture...
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
24,764
2,425
FTb-n said:
The 70-200 f2.8 Mark III came out of the blue. I don't recall any noise from the masses asking Canon to upgrade this lens. Arguably. most of think there are other lenses in greater need of an upgrade. So, a simple refresh that is reasonably priced seems fine to me.

You do realize that makes you a Canon apologist and paid shill, right? ;)
 

FTb-n

Canonet QL17 GIII
Sep 22, 2012
533
8
St. Paul, MN
neuroanatomist said:
FTb-n said:
The 70-200 f2.8 Mark III came out of the blue. I don't recall any noise from the masses asking Canon to upgrade this lens. Arguably. most of think there are other lenses in greater need of an upgrade. So, a simple refresh that is reasonably priced seems fine to me.

You do realize that makes you a Canon apologist and paid shill, right? ;)
Was it that obvious?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
24,764
2,425
FTb-n said:
Was it that obvious?

Actually, it was quite subtle. You mentioned capturing images and didn't even mention that you'd be storing them on Irista. You will be using Irista, won't you?? ;)
 

tpatana

EOS 5D Mark IV
Nov 1, 2012
1,546
269
Really thinking upgrading my v2 into v3. V2 is by far my most used lens, probably 300k-400k clicks already. I wonder how low the used prices will go when v3 is out... if not too low, I think it's worth the upgrade.
 

slclick

Unsolicited & Always Free
Dec 17, 2013
4,440
2,625
I haven't had a 70-200 in quite some time as I've been a prime shooter for the most part but the f/4 II has me interested again. I cannot wait for Bryan and other reputable reviewers to chime in. Not too mention I could be holding my breath for a long time waiting for an update to the 200 2.8L.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,265
1,935
Canada
FTb-n said:
The 70-200 f2.8 Mark III came out of the blue. I don't recall any noise from the masses asking Canon to upgrade this lens. Arguably. most of think there are other lenses in greater need of an upgrade. So, a simple refresh that is reasonably priced seems fine to me.


Th F4 seems like a solid upgrade and it was to be expected.... but you are right about the F2.8.... it is "out of the blue" Makes me wonder if there is another reason for it, and that makes me wonder about the electronics.... I wonder how the AF speed will be, and could this lens be compatible with a new high speed communications protocol that may appear on newer bodies? There has to be a reason.....
 

Durf

Picture Taker - Image Maker
I've been using the EF 70–300mm f/4–5.6 IS II USM Lens since it was released and am happy with the image quality and sharpness for most of the things I use this type of lens for. It's actually a surprisingly great lens that is seldom talked about.

Every time I start to think about upgrading to the better white colored 70-300mm or even a 70-200mm L lens I immediately think about how it would make my pack even heavier and if I could even make it fit.....and then there's the high cost factor involved in upgrading too.

So I instead just keep shooting with my EF 70–300mm f/4–5.6 IS II USM Lens and look at the results and see there's really no reason I really need to upgrade after all ;)
 

Maiaibing

EOS R
Mar 7, 2014
1,054
2
Kabul
www.flickr.com
Hector1970 said:
Maiaibing said:
Hector1970 said:
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

I have used both a lot - and written reviews for both. And your experience is based on what exactly...?
 

Trigger

I'm New Here
Jul 3, 2018
15
3
Canada
It was quite exciting to initially hear of the new 70-200 f/2.8, and I thought that I would sell my Tamron version for the Canon if there were enough improvements, but it looks like I will be keeping the Tamron.
 

slclick

Unsolicited & Always Free
Dec 17, 2013
4,440
2,625
Trigger said:
It was quite exciting to initially hear of the new 70-200 f/2.8, and I thought that I would sell my Tamron version for the Canon if there were enough improvements, but it looks like I will be keeping the Tamron.

The G2 is a great lens. imho the next best thing to the Canon Mk2, with a huge savings to boot.
 
I just pre-ordered the 2.8 version iii (using the CR link to Adorama to help this site). Since I have the non-IS version of the lens it makes sense for me (will now have IS and closer focus, both of which are equally important to me). For people with the current version ii it would make little sense to change.
 

Steve Dmark2

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 30, 2016
93
21
33
Germany
Because many hit on canon because of "lack" of improvements, I recommend to watch dustins review where he mentiones a few interessting points.
 
<-- start Taboola -->