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?