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

[ahsanford]

f4 is a much older lens. So got more 'upgrades'.

One got a new optical design, more blades, Mode 3 IS, 5 stop IS, MFD reduction, etc.

And the other one got a sweet paint job.

- A

 

[MrFotoFool]

This has got to be the most anti-climactic announcement in the history of Canon Rumors (I mean the 2.8 of course, not the 4). I am shocked. Honestly why even bother changing to a version iii? If you watch the video he almost comes right out and tells 2.8 owners not to upgrade.

I wonder if the members of Nikon Rumors are having a good laugh at this non-announcement?

 

[sanj]

I do thank Canon for upgrading. Even if the upgrade is not spectacular.

 

[ahsanford]

This has got to be the most anti-climactic announcement in the history of Canon Rumors (I mean the 2.8 of course, not the 4). I am shocked. Honestly why even bother changing to a version iii? If you watch the video he almost comes right out and tells 2.8 owners not to upgrade.

I wonder if the members of Nikon Rumors are having a good laugh at this non-announcement?

+1. Please forgive my ranting as I process this in real time, but it's all shock and not anger. This would be like releasing a 5D5 with the same sensor and AF module and burst as the 5D4. There may be some redeeming other properties to it, but at it's core, a staple professional instrument the company has built it's stellar reputation on just got a paint job and was put back out in the field.

You do this with a kit zoom. You do this with a nifty fifty. You do this when you re-hash an EF-S into an EF-M. (or vice versa).

You don't do this with this very elite class of lens.

I'm quite simply flabbergasted.

- A

 

[padam]

Someone please help me understand how Canon just phoned in the redesign of one of their legendary and most heavily used instruments. It is the same damn lens with (presumably) better flare control and a new coat of paint. That's it.

I get the Mk II is a tough act to follow. So why not wait until you can follow it with something clearly better?

- A

They do have a 70-200/2.8 DO as a patent, they've probably abandoned that for cost reasons (too much to fully develop / too costly to produce)

 

[jd7]

f4 is a much older lens. So got more 'upgrades'.

...

And the other one got a sweet paint job.

- A

And, apparently, a less effective IS system than its predecessor ... at a time when other lenses like the 100-400L IS II and the 85 1.4L IS seem have excellent IS systems. Curious! Will be interesting to find out of the new coatings make any significant difference to IQ, but despite the official announcement it still feels like we're missing something. Then again, maybe Canon sees value in the change even if we don't (lower production costs, some value in simply having a "new model" on the shelves?).

Oh well, the good news is so far I'm not feeling any temptation to buy a mk III

 

[MikeD]

f4 is a much older lens. So got more 'upgrades'.

One got a new optical design, more blades, Mode 3 IS, 5 stop IS, MFD reduction, etc.

And the other one got a sweet paint job.

- A

I wonder how many 70-200mm f2.8 iis are now being pulled off craigslist and ebay
I noticed a spike in ii sales on craigslist the past few weeks. Sure glad I didnt dump mine!

 

[ahsanford]

And, apparently, a less effective IS system than its predecessor ...

Don't get fooled by the 4 vs. 3.5 stops. Neuro recently posted that claims of IS performance are being standardized in the industry, and most prior claims overshoot the standard. I guess 3.5 is just a more conservative reporting of the performance. (Kind of sounds like what happened when every car manufacturer in the US starting touting mileage with lower figures, all using the units 'emm-pee-gee' instead of saying miles per gallon a few years back.)

Besides: Rudy in the video said it's the same optics, same AF, same IS, so it's not a step down. It's the same.

- A

 

[weixing]

Hi,
I think the new 70-200 f2.8 III is a "manufacturing" update... reduce the number of different type of coating/paint they need to maintain and to improve the efficiency of their coating/paint chamber.

Have a nice day.

 

[pwp]

70-200 f2.8 III? More of a II.1
Can't see an upgrade happening here unless my 70-200 f2.8 II breaks.

-pw

 

[Maximilian]

What a show : :-\

Of course the f/4 got a really good update and I am very interested in the optical performance compared to its predecessor and to the f/2.8 II/III (at f/4).

But the f/2.8 III? Almost same opinion as all others here.

WOW. I'm floored. No wonder the price is so low ...

Same here.

BUT
Of course after reading some information about coatings from Zeiss posted here some time ago I know what coatings can deliver.
Plus maybe some cost saving internal design changes might make it necessary to give this one a Mark III labeling.
But the spec sheet surely doesn't.
AND
With such a good optical performance as the f/2.8 II already had and that price it might be a good market approach decision from Canon:
Not to go the race for 99% (Nikon) over 97% (f/2.8 II) optical performance for more than 30% more price.
Interesting but also a choice.
Think about being a press or sports photog deciding between Nikon and Canon (and maybe Sony).
And now you can save almost one grand and get an optical performance, that is just slightly worse than the best and surely good enough for all news papers and press agencies around the world.
I know which way I'd go...

 

[Larsskv]

With regard to the f2.8 LIII, I actually do believe that the new coatings will have a pretty significant impact on the overall image quality, especially in terms of improving contrast and clarity. I’m not claiming significant enough that one need to upgrade from version II, but pixel peepers will see a difference. Given the quality of version II, only pixel peepers should crave for more sharpness. Some might therefore want to upgrade.

I guess Canon has another thing in mind with this upgrade. They will get rid of some of the competition Canon face when selling new lenses, namely the competition they face from people buying used f2.8LIII lenses.

 

[xps]

Hi,
I think the new 70-200 f2.8 III is a "manufacturing" update... reduce the number of different type of coating/paint they need to maintain and to improve the efficiency of their coating/paint chamber.

Have a nice day.

Indeed, also other companies do bring their products on the current manufacturing standard. Often the core components stay the same. This is much cheaper than having an older manufacturing "street" and an newer one parallel.

 

[xps]

Let us see, if there is really no update inside. I´m sure in some weeks there are the first comparison shots between mk 0, I,II and III
And the testing procedures for the IS are now more standardized, so no Producer can claim 5 stops, if the lens is not able to do this.

 

[mppix]

Wow, first the 24-105 now the 70-200 f2.8. I mean we are used to the "not quite" on the bodies but lenses ...
I understand tough that coatings may very well get the f2.8 ready for 50MP+ territory. Still, the f4 has gotten a lot more attractive. It will also (marginally) outperform the f2.8 in low light for reasonably static subjects, not to speak of panning

 

[jd7]

And, apparently, a less effective IS system than its predecessor ...

Don't get fooled by the 4 vs. 3.5 stops. Neuro recently posted that claims of IS performance are being standardized in the industry, and most prior claims overshoot the standard. I guess 3.5 is just a more conservative reporting of the performance. (Kind of sounds like what happened when every car manufacturer in the US starting touting mileage with lower figures, all using the units 'emm-pee-gee' instead of saying miles per gallon a few years back.)

Rudy in the video said it's the same optics, same AF, same IS, so it's not a step down. It's the same.

- A

That sounds fair - just cannot imagine the IS system really is less effective.

Still, makes for interesting marketing when Canon is still claiming 4 stops on the mk II
https://www.canon.com.au/camera-lenses/ef-70-200mm-f-2-8l-is-ii-usm

 

[fullstop]

am quite surprised that Canon gave the f/4 "better specs" in some regards than f/2.8. Especially IS with 5 vs. 3.5 stops [I'd assume that both numbers are now stated based on the same new, "more realistic" standard?] and 3rd IS mode [not on 2.8 III, correct?] and also number of iris blades [9 vs. 8] - not that I would care very much about the latter, but it's still a "spec sheet spec".

I expected Canon to come out with a "killer" f/2.8 Mk. III that optically bests Nikon and Sony GM - at least by some ever so small margin - but measurable in Lens Rentals OLAF tests. But, lets wait for those tests and see what "coating the airsphere" really does for IQ. ;D

 

[traveller]

am quite surprised that Canon gave the f/4 "better specs" in some regards than f/2.8. Especially IS with 5 vs. 3.5 stops [I'd assume that both numbers are now stated based on the same new, "more realistic" standard?] and 3rd IS mode [not on 2.8 III, correct?] and also number of iris blades [9 vs. 8] - not that I would care very much about the latter, but it's still a "spec sheet spec".

I expected Canon to come out with a "killer" f/2.8 Mk. III that optically bests Nikon and Sony GM - at least by some ever so small margin - but measurable in Lens Rentals OLAF tests. But, lets wait for those tests and see what "coating the airsphere" really does for IQ. ;D

Looks like they put their lens design resources into the f/4 version rather than the f/2.8.

The Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 E will remain the lens to beat, though note that (despite his enthusiasm for the Nikkor’s mif graphs) Roger Cicala only thinks the difference would be noticeable at 135mm.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/nikon-70-200mm-f2-8e-fl-ed-af-s-vr-mtf-tests/

The Sony FE 70-200 f/2.8 GM on the other hand, just doesn’t seem to be that impressive optically:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/01/an-update-and-comparison-of-the-sony-fe-70-200mm-f2-8-gm-oss/

Perhaps Canon see Sony as the main threat.

 

[Hector1970]

I'd say a partial reason to upgrade the 70-200mm F2.8 was to say it was a new lens as its up against new Sony Lens.
It's probably good news for me as I didn't intend upgrading and now it looks like I won't have to. I'm sure the changes have made it slightly better but its hard to top the II lens.

The F4 I've always been tempted by for travel or street photography. It was always a good lens but now it has been improved.

When you have a lot of gear its harder to be tempted but I'd have to say Sigma are turning my head a bit. Their 14mm 1.8 is a great specialised lens which I've really enjoyed and now they are tempting me with a 105mm 1.4 another specialised lens.

Canon have to probably play to a broader audience. I'd say both these lens will sell well as newer photographers thinking of upgrading will buy the newest versions.

 

[Rampuri]

At least the price of f2,8 II has gone 380 EUR down in 3 days . If they lowered it by another 100 or so and added some nice cashback I would most likely but one.