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

[scyrene]

For me, yes the mk2 is nice, but the bokeh and weight could be approved on, especially the bokeh... at least an update to AF algorithms....

Point being, why even release a mk3, instead of waiting until it could actually be better. Think if they did THIS sort update to a 10 year old camera body, yipes!

Lens and body technologies move at different paces. I would argue there's far more difference between a 2018 camera body and a 2003 camera body and two lenses of the same dates. The analogy simply doesn't work, but even if it did - let's say there was a camera body that most of its owners described as 'near perfect', would a minor update be a problem then?

For the record, I thought the 2.8 II could be improved in a few ways - I've mentioned this in the last few months in this forum. I owned one (yes, copy variation might account for a lot of it) and found the image quality at 200mm and MFD a little disappointing. It could be lighter, with better AF, IS, etc, but the point is people seem to be contradicting themselves, because before it was announced most people were saying 'it's fine as it is', and now they're saying 'how dare they not upgrade it massively'. Perhaps it's different people, but more likely folks just like to moan. If they'd increased the price massively, I'd understand their point, but as it stands...

 

[unfocused]

Just a quick reminder. Some of us were trying to tamp down expectations well before this lens was introduced.

...So I agree the sharpness must improve to draw folks to this new design over the Mk II...

Why?

This is one of the best-selling telephoto lenses in Canon's lineup. I view this as a little like the 24-105 standard zoom. Canon may feel it's time for a refresh, possibly for reasons that are unknown to us, such as updated manufacturing processes.

It doesn't have to have anything. They may just want to retire the old model and bring out a new one. The "I" version had a nine year lifespan. The "II" is eight years old. No doubt there are thousands of professionals out there that need to replace their lenses anyway, simply because they are wearing out and getting beat up.

I'm not saying it won't be slightly better optically, I'm just saying that it's not a requirement. It's not like new buyers will have a choice, as Canon would likely discontinue the "II" version shortly after the "III" hits the streets.

Looking back on it now, it's easy to say that some folks had unrealistic expectations and those expectations ran up against hard realities this week.

Note, this is not a personal dig at ahsanford. I think you are a great contributor to this site. I just think in this case you let your hopes get in the way of realistic expectations.

 

[unfocused]

I think a lot of the frustration on this post comes from the simple fact that Canon has rereleased a 70-200 f/2.8 that most of who own a version II didn't need and have still not released a 50mm 1.4L IS, that we ALL want!

Not all of us. I couldn't care less about 50mm anything.

Some more so the 135mm f/2.0 IS (that would be me).

Nope

Of coarse, there always the dreamt of 24-70mm f/2.8 IS also!

And another nope.

As owners of the Canon system, these would be the smack down lenses that could give us an advantage in the field, or at least higher % of keepers w/ AF on higher MP bodies. Anyone else willing to admit this? I thinks it's part of a twelve step program

I'm not at all sure what you mean by a "smack down lens that would give you an advantage in the field," since I don't generally participate in competitive shoot outs with other photographers.

I think your post was meant to be light-hearted, so not going to make too much of it, just trying to illustrate that needs/wants aren't universal.

 

[Viggo]

For me, yes the mk2 is nice, but the bokeh and weight could be approved on, especially the bokeh... at least an update to AF algorithms....

Point being, why even release a mk3, instead of waiting until it could actually be better. Think if they did THIS sort update to a 10 year old camera body, yipes!

Lens and body technologies move at different paces. I would argue there's far more difference between a 2018 camera body and a 2003 camera body and two lenses of the same dates. The analogy simply doesn't work, but even if it did - let's say there was a camera body that most of its owners described as 'near perfect', would a minor update be a problem then?

For the record, I thought the 2.8 II could be improved in a few ways - I've mentioned this in the last few months in this forum. I owned one (yes, copy variation might account for a lot of it) and found the image quality at 200mm and MFD a little disappointing. It could be lighter, with better AF, IS, etc, but the point is people seem to be contradicting themselves, because before it was announced most people were saying 'it's fine as it is', and now they're saying 'how dare they not upgrade it massively'. Perhaps it's different people, but more likely folks just like to moan. If they'd increased the price massively, I'd understand their point, but as it stands...

I have never said it was fine as it is, I sold mines because of the boring 2.8 aperture and the gritty bokeh. I don’t really care about 70-200’s, but they decided to make a mk3, so why? They should’ve just kept it with the mk2.

And that analogy works, because people said the old mk1 70-200 was great, but then we were godsmacked when we saw how sharp and nice the mk2 was. Lots of products were like “what can they improve?” And then they did in a big way...

Pont stil is; Why release something that isn’t better than what already was...

 

[ahsanford]

Just a quick reminder. Some of us were trying to tamp down expectations well before this lens was introduced.

[truncated]

Looking back on it now, it's easy to say that some folks had unrealistic expectations and those expectations ran up against hard realities this week.

Note, this is not a personal dig at ahsanford. I think you are a great contributor to this site. I just think in this case you let your hopes get in the way of realistic expectations.

No dig taken -- fair post. But I didn't consider my expectations unrealistic per se, but yes, I was bullish on a new optical design being the decision for sure. Why? I was expecting Canon to do what it does based on past track record, and offer a '10% better all around' sort of instrument:

• New optical design: I expected the lens to get sharper (ever so slightly)
• New IS was thought to be a shoe-in if a new optical design materialized
• A bit lighter
• A CPL window in the hood

...stuff like that. That's not unreasonable at all, IMHO -- that's what you'd expect of a good L lens getting a next version. In fact, I went back and itemized every better-than-kit L 'sequel' for a number of years and could not identify a single one in which Canon phoned it in like this. I don't recall the last time this has ever happened.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I think a lot of the frustration on this post comes from the simple fact that Canon has rereleased a 70-200 f/2.8 that most of who own a version II didn't need and have still not released a 50mm 1.4L IS, that we ALL want! Some more so the 135mm f/2.0 IS (that would be me). Of coarse, there always the dreamt of 24-70mm f/2.8 IS also!

+1, but I think that's just part of life in the EF pecking order. Fast zooms always get the love -- that's just where the business is.

In fairness, a coat of paint and some coating implementation is a fraction of the work needed to design and build a new lens. So as someone else correctly mentioned in my catch-up this morning (can't find it, forgive me), this decision not only saved Canon some R&D costs, it freed up a team to work on something else.

- A

 

[sanj]

How come no one is discussing the implication of this regarding mirrorless? So no new mount? 8)

 

[ahsanford]

How come no one is discussing the implication of this regarding mirrorless? So no new mount? 8)

^^^ Every EF mount lens that comes out from here until FF mirrorless announcement will come with posts like this. ^^^

A comment on another site said that this 70-200 2.8 was Canon's farewell gift to EF users, as if the mount would shrivel up and die the moment mirrorless is announed. :

Unless we were expecting Canon to...

• Tip it's hand with comments about mount communication, electrical contacts, etc.
  
  
• Release a thin mount lens and adaptor now prior to FF mirrorless being announced

an EF release... is an EF release. This tells us precisely nothing more than we knew before about Canon's mirrorless intentions.

- A

 

[fullstop]

How come no one is discussing the implication of this regarding mirrorless? So no new mount? 8)

Based on information publicly available I see no implications. EF lenses will work on Canon FF mirrorless bodies. With a simple adapter. And there seem to be enough people out there who will continue to buy EOS DSLRs for enough years to come.

Maybe Canon also took the opportunity to quietly upgrade chips/electronics inside these 2 lenses to be fully prepared for future FF mirrorless lens mount protocol requiring higher data speed and more bandwidth [see recent discussion around lens mount protocol patent in another thread].

 

[ahsanford]

How come no one is discussing the implication of this regarding mirrorless? So no new mount? 8)

Maybe Canon also took the opportunity to quietly upgrade chips/electronics inside these 2 lenses to be fully prepared for future FF mirrorless lens mount protocol requiring higher data speed and more bandwidth [see recent discussion around lens mount protocol patent in another thread].

Yep. I'm not saying it's happening with this lens, but Canon might be dropping some future-looking communications information into new EF lenses and not tell us when the lens is released.

A teardown from Uncle Rog might find something on that front, but even in the unlikely event that they did find something, I don't think it will read one bit on the pending mirrorless mount decision. The mount's thin vs. EF decision will be a mystery until the week it drops, unless someone is very sloppy with new product information getting keyed into their inventory lists.

- A

 

[scyrene]

For me, yes the mk2 is nice, but the bokeh and weight could be approved on, especially the bokeh... at least an update to AF algorithms....

Point being, why even release a mk3, instead of waiting until it could actually be better. Think if they did THIS sort update to a 10 year old camera body, yipes!

Lens and body technologies move at different paces. I would argue there's far more difference between a 2018 camera body and a 2003 camera body and two lenses of the same dates. The analogy simply doesn't work, but even if it did - let's say there was a camera body that most of its owners described as 'near perfect', would a minor update be a problem then?

For the record, I thought the 2.8 II could be improved in a few ways - I've mentioned this in the last few months in this forum. I owned one (yes, copy variation might account for a lot of it) and found the image quality at 200mm and MFD a little disappointing. It could be lighter, with better AF, IS, etc, but the point is people seem to be contradicting themselves, because before it was announced most people were saying 'it's fine as it is', and now they're saying 'how dare they not upgrade it massively'. Perhaps it's different people, but more likely folks just like to moan. If they'd increased the price massively, I'd understand their point, but as it stands...

I have never said it was fine as it is, I sold mines because of the boring 2.8 aperture and the gritty bokeh. I don’t really care about 70-200’s, but they decided to make a mk3, so why? They should’ve just kept it with the mk2.

And that analogy works, because people said the old mk1 70-200 was great, but then we were godsmacked when we saw how sharp and nice the mk2 was. Lots of products were like “what can they improve?” And then they did in a big way...

Pont stil is; Why release something that isn’t better than what already was...

Well there are reasons for doing so - internal company reasons that don't affect us. Let's say that they changed the architecture inside, so it takes different repair parts, it might be useful for them to have different model numbers.

But I don't accept your premise that it hasn't changed. It's not changed substantially as far as the specifications are concerned, but so what? It's entirely subjective how much change warrants a new model number, but more than that, why does anyone really care? How does this impact us in any way? Older lenses still work, you don't have to buy the new one. All this 'reputational damage' stuff is just people trying to justify feeling personally let down.

 

[ahsanford]

All this 'reputational damage' stuff is just people trying to justify feeling personally let down.

I'm not personally let down. I wasn't going to buy this lens -- my f/2.8L IS II doesn't get enough use as it is, and even a stellar Mk III wouldn't have gotten me to reach for the CC.

Everyone has a different take on this. Mine is less about this announcement as a product and more about how this reads on Canon's ambitions to maintain (IMHO) it's #1 advantage over the competition. Canon has many strengths for photographers, but at the top of that list it's not sensors, ergonomics, handling, the sea of bodies they offer, video, etc. It's lenses.

I think the EF portfolio needs a mix of value / mid-level / high end options, and some of those high end options need to be lights out smash hits. The 70-200 space is the last of those three, and it has earned a stellar reputation for the system as a whole. That reputation keeps folks in the fold.

So I'm not butthurt my predictions were wrong (it happens!). I'm also not sad about my Mk II no longer being the latest greatest. I am concerned that Canon thought a pillar of it's great reputation warranted quite literally a paint job (and coatings). In my mind, the pillar is either strong or the pillar is replaced. I would have waited to replace this special class of lens with a bigger step forward.

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?

- A

 

[unfocused]

...I was expecting Canon to do what it does based on past track record, and offer a '10% better all around' sort of instrument:

• New optical design: I expected the lens to get sharper (ever so slightly)
• New IS was thought to be a shoe-in if a new optical design materialized
• A bit lighter
• A CPL window in the hood

...stuff like that. That's not unreasonable at all, IMHO ...could not identify a single one in which Canon phoned it in like this. I don't recall the last time this has ever happened.

Yeah, I was surprised as well. Not as much as you were, but then my expectations were pretty low. There is some precedent for this though not from Canon. I recall several years ago when Tokina released a II version of their excellent 11-16 f2.8 zoom and the only change was new coatings.

To me, this does have the feel of a last-minute decision: "We really need to update the coating on our 70-200, do we tell people about it or do we just quietly do it? What the heck, we are updating the f4 anyway and if we start making changes to lenses without any announcement, it's gonna bite us, so let's just call it a III and leave the MSRP the same. We'll take a little grief from the fans, but in a few months it will be over and they'll be on to something else."

 

[Viggo]

I’m not “let down” either, because I was never in the market for it. When was the last time they released a new L with just new paint and coating?

 

[ahsanford]

Yeah, I was surprised as well. Not as much as you were, but then my expectations were pretty low. There is some precedent for this though not from Canon.

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.

Have they done this before, and how was it received? Did they course-correct afterwards or just take their lumps from us and move on?

To me, this does have the feel of a last-minute decision: "We really need to update the coating on our 70-200, do we tell people about it or do we just quietly do it? What the heck, we are updating the f4 anyway and if we start making changes to lenses without any announcement, it's gonna bite us, so let's just call it a III and leave the MSRP the same. We'll take a little grief from the fans, but in a few months it will be over and they'll be on to something else."

+1. Absolutely plausible -- that feels like new product design discussions I've had in my line of work.

But as simple as their final call was, I don't see them blowing past the hard work in the run-up to that call. Surely they vetted more ambitious options. This was one of many proposals alongside a proposal for a very slight optical change to get in better IS, a proposal for a bigger optical change to shoot for better IQ, etc. Canon ran the numbers on all of them and paint/coatings approach was deemed the most profitable.

- A

 

[Cali Capture]

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?

Ahansford, You make a good point. The 24-105mm f/4 is II, is another example of not great precident setting. No large increase in performance, so why update. I guess the only defense would be nomenclature. Canon updated, probably for economics over technology, so they had to rename the lens. They don't ever use Mark 2.5 or anything else beyond the next progression. So we get a mark III so the parts and inventory folks know what's what.

Sure hope we get another prime with Blue Goo and IS ! The future is bright w/ less CA in the day and less shaking in the night!

 

[ahsanford]

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?

Ahansford, You make a good point. The 24-105mm f/4 is II, is another example of not great precident setting.

The 24-105 doesn't count to me in that it's a kit lens -- an L lens, but a kit lens nonetheless. It simply has to hit a cost target or it won't fly. It's not the same as a flagship top-spec'd instrument like the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.

I do not know of a time something Canon considered best in portfolio (for a given slot) ever getting this treatment, but I've only been buying better than kit glass for about 10 years now. I await someone to tell me that Canon has just knocked out a refresh like this for such a high-end instrument before.

And the lack of that example is not me puffing up my chest that I'm right -- I don't want to be 'right' here. I concern myself with the trajectory of the EF system. This may be a legitimate first for Canon that heralds more refreshes like this.

- A

 

[amorse]

How come no one is discussing the implication of this regarding mirrorless? So no new mount? 8)

^^^ Every EF mount lens that comes out from here until FF mirrorless announcement will come with posts like this. ^^^

A comment on another site said that this 70-200 2.8 was Canon's farewell gift to EF users, as if the mount would shrivel up and die the moment mirrorless is announed. :

Unless we were expecting Canon to...

• Tip it's hand with comments about mount communication, electrical contacts, etc.
  
  
• Release a thin mount lens and adaptor now prior to FF mirrorless being announced

an EF release... is an EF release. This tells us precisely nothing more than we knew before about Canon's mirrorless intentions.

- A

OR Canon just updated the 2.8 in such a minor way to keep to their pre-determined EF release timeline, while instead investing more R&D on lenses and equipment for their upcoming full frame mirrorless body. For all we know, Canon may announce a mirrorless body with a new mount and a "trifecta" of lenses (16-35, 24-70, 70-200) all at once. If they're going all in on a new mount, they're going to need lenses to go with it. If they have to develop a load of in demand lenses all at once to support early sales, it makes sense that they would siphon R&D resources from other places to support that investment.

To wildly speculate even further, if Canon were to take a shortcut on a planned update in order to save resources for development elsewhere, why wouldn't they take a shortcut on a lens which is already great and many users being unsure if they would upgrade anyway? That seems like the right place to take a shortcut if you have another priority on the books at the same time.

But yes, this announcement gives us no conclusive clues about the future of the EF mount.

 

[RayValdez360]

anyone notice that Canon is disappointing long time users and professionals constantly and consistently in the last few years. Have they even released anything great since the mark 3. the last few good things I noticed was the c100/c300 and the 35mm II. Everything else seems to be barely anything worthly of upgrading or featuring a huge flaw in features but way higher prices compared to the nearest competition. It's like most of us stick with Canon for convenience and maybe reliability right now praying that one day they will give us a great new product that makes our lives easier. And also how they release these over a good 50mm is insane. At least they could update the dusty busty 17-55mm for us cinema users. This has been said a million times but As a hybrid shooter( i believe it is not only the future but the best way to make money easily for us middle class people) the competition is closing every single gap.

 

[ahsanford]

OR Canon just updated the 2.8 in such a minor way to keep to their pre-determined EF release timeline, while instead investing more R&D on lenses and equipment for their upcoming full frame mirrorless body. For all we know, Canon may announce a mirrorless body with a new mount and a "trifecta" of lenses (16-35, 24-70, 70-200) all at once. If they're going all in on a new mount, they're going to need lenses to go with it.

This presumes thin mount FF mirrorless happens (certainly a good chance) + Canon goes all in on that mount because of... why, exactly? Pros having an aversion to adaptors? Consider: they won't save a lick of space with f/2.8 zooms!

So if [thin mount is happening] + [there's no size savings for pro lenses] + [pros hate adaptors], you'd have three choices:

1) Offer the thin FF mirrorless platform and remake EF in the thin mount.

2) Offer the thin FF mirrorless platform, keep the new thin mount lens portfolio to 4-5 smaller/shorter/wider lenses and offer an EF mount mirrorless line of bodies.

3) Option 1 but watered down. Perhaps remake the sexiest bits of EF in the thin mount and use the adaptor for the oddities and niche gear.

I'll be brave and say that the blue costs just a wee bit less and is much faster implement to do than the red.

- A