Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II Confirmed

[hendrik-sg]

This is a great contribution to the mirrorless discussion. It's nice how the smaller Sony camera sacrifies the top plate display (which i always use on my Canon) for having a larger lens.

I honestly don't miss this on my A7RII as I shoot mostly straight through the viewfinder.

But I also don't get those who claim the ergonomics on the Sony are significantly worse than on the Canon. I love my 5DSR, but there are plenty of things that that Sony does better. For example having a dedicated exposure +/- wheel.

I am not a fanboy and no hater. I do not know sony ergonomics, so i can not judge about it. What the size comparision clearly shows is, that with usual FF lenses the combination doesn't get smaller. So just from this point there is no benefit. Therefor a system change must give other benefit than a usually false promise of size reduction.

For any system change the costs are so high, (i get no discount on new gear for the reason that i sold old gear) so after selling the gear, i can decide if i keep the money or buy new gear. If Canon abandonnes the EF mount, EF gear will loose value drastically. Sony did the same, it's maybe no pleasure to sell sony alpha gear.

Conclusion is, if Canon gives me the "pleasure" of having to sell obsolete gear, i will have to accept the loss, but i will abandon this hobby and not buy new ILC gear, from no supplier. I will buy a better phone or a high end compact.

 

[neuroanatomist]

...but there are plenty of things that that Sony does better. For example having a dedicated exposure +/- wheel.

My Canon M6 has one of those.

 

[AvTvM]

Getting back to subject..... this is an update that is long overdue and welcome.

EF 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2.0 and (maybe) 135/2.0 are "long overdue" for a decent update with IS ... but not the 70-200/4 L IS.

Video shooters shall just go away and buy themselves decent video cameras and decent video lenses if they are phased by the "incredibly loud noise" of the IS system.

 

[hendrik-sg]

The original is a fantastic lens, within ist specifications. I replaced it (and a 300 2.8) by a 100-400ii which i did not regret.

From build quality perspecive, this is a expensive lens, with magnesium housing, complicated optical formula, weather sealing etc. So they may want to replace it by a "engineering plastic" Version, to be lighter officially, but more likely to be cheaper in production.

And maybe they can introduce the actual, more bright white as breathtaking innovation

 

[neuroanatomist]

Getting back to subject..... this is an update that is long overdue and welcome.

EF 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2.0 and (maybe) 135/2.0 are "long overdue" for a decent update with IS ... but not the 70-200/4 L IS.

From the update patterns of lenses over time, it's apparent that zooms >> primes, in the minds of most consumers.

 

[AvTvM]

...but there are plenty of things that that Sony does better. For example having a dedicated exposure +/- wheel.

My Canon M6 has one of those.

hehe ... physical control points I don't need on a digital camera
1. dedicated monofunctional EV compensation dial [when +/- can be so easily accessed via big thumb wheel in back of camera)
2. top LCD
3. lens stop down button
4. any sort "Record video" button
5. monofunctional, hard-coded aperture ring
6. monofunctional, hard-coded shutter speed dial

would happily forego all of them for
1. Back-Button AF key ... in addition to AE-lock key ... both re-programmable of course
2. fully articulated main LCD (not flip-flop up down only)
3. excellent touch screen [happy with Canon on that one]
4. less buttons and wheels, but bigger/more tactile [glove useable; slightly better with nikon]
5. buttons and wheels showing status and lit in the dark

something along these lines:

but with LESS information displayed ... only what is necessary in line with context-sensitive function of the respective dial.

 

[Talys]

@AvTvM - I'm a fan of the DSLR style top displays over a fancy one in the rendering because of power. The simple display on a xxD/xD gives me all the information I need and uses practically no battery power. I've liked these displays ever since film cameras, and they come in really handy when the camera is on a tripod at waist level.

Even with EVF, I miss that top display. I know that it takes up more space, but I'm one of the folks that would like to see the FF mirrorless not really be much smaller than a FF DSLR, simply because all the lens I mount are relatively large -- and so, I'd have all that top space anyways.

I don't really like the EV compensation dial because I hit it by accident sometimes (usually putting the camera in the bag or taking it out), and if WYSIWYG is turned off (for example because I'm using a flash), I might miss it completely.

On the other hand, the EV compensation dial is kind of important on the Sony I'm playing with at the moment (a7r3), because its equivalent to evaluative metering is so often off

 

[NancyP]

Why sell "obsolete" gear if it works for you?

I really bought the 100-400 not to "replace" the 400 f/5.6L no-IS for dedicated birding use, but to have a versatile wildlife lens with IS (woo hoo - I don't have any other IS lenses except for the EF-S 15-85 - I am a tripod devotee for landscape) for upcoming travel and visits in Belize (family member is retiring there shortly, and I have an open invitation), and for more versatility, though to date I have swapped out the 400, 70-200 f/4, and various macro lenses on ordinary local bird / insect / wildlife / plants and mushrooms photo walks.

 

[jeffa4444]

A fair number of pro landscape photographers have the EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM lens mainly because it is lighter than its f2.8 cousin and they don't need f2.8. All of them I know like the current lens so unless its a marked improvement its difficult to see why they would trade-up.

The 2.8 lens is equally a very good lens but at the longer end and close-focus does suffer from colour fringing in out of focus areas, quite a bit is some situations so I can see why that has areas of improvement.

 

[AJ]

I wonder about the future of the 70-200/4 non-IS
Will they update it, discontinue it, or keep selling it as is?

 

[Don Haines]

Getting back to subject..... this is an update that is long overdue and welcome.

EF 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2.0 and (maybe) 135/2.0 are "long overdue" for a decent update with IS ... but not the 70-200/4 L IS.

From the update patterns of lenses over time, it's apparent that zooms >> primes, in the minds of most consumers.

I agree, zooms definitely have a shorter update cycle, probably because they outsell the primes...

AvTvM is also right, there are some primes that are longer overdue for an update. If they ever updated the 50F1.4, there are several very vocal CR members who would love to get one. Also, there is the 400F5.6, which if they updated it would find a home in my camera bag...

 

[degos]

Oh, still a 70-200. Shame they couldn't wide the short-end to 50mm and it'd be a perfect gap-filler in the bag. Lovely for walkaround when the 70mm is just too much.

But when was the last time Canon introduced a new zoom range? 200-400?

 

[slclick]

I bet this will be an amazing lens. Canon surely won't repeat the 24-105 mistake and prior to the 70-200 2.8L IS ll coming out there was quite a bit of folks who had no idea what was coming and others who wondered why an update was needed. One things is for sure, Canon knows this zoom focal length like no one else and most likely will produce a near perfect f/4 lens. I agree with the landscape sentiment, it's the perfect compliment to a wide lens for weight and IQ. Aperture be damned.

 

[degos]

I had forgotten that Canon made a pair of 50-200 zooms, back in the late 1980s. Both f3.5 - 4.0, one an L and one for the paupers.

So the 70-200 f4 'replacement' was actually a step backwards in several regards.

At least Tamron will have us paupers covered with the 70-210 f4 this time whilst Canon pricing wanders off into the L stratosphere.

 

[Don Haines]

I had forgotten that Canon made a pair of 50-200 zooms, back in the late 1980s. Both f3.5 - 4.0, one an L and one for the paupers.

So the 70-200 f4 'replacement' was actually a step backwards in several regards.

The more the range, the lower the quality. You can design a better 3X zoom range lens than a 4X zoom range, plus it is easier to keep it constant aperture. This was a step forward.

 

[degos]

The more the range, the lower the quality. You can design a better 3X zoom range lens than a 4X zoom range, plus it is easier to keep it constant aperture. This was a step forward.

The 100-400 II is regarded as probably the best zoom ever made... at 4x

And there's the 24-105 which is tolerably good.

And the third-party 150-600s.

Sorry, I am not buying the "4x is too hard" excuse. Canon like 70mm because it forces sales of the 24-70 standard zooms to cover useful prime lengths, not because it is a useful focal length itself.

 

[slclick]

The more the range, the lower the quality. You can design a better 3X zoom range lens than a 4X zoom range, plus it is easier to keep it constant aperture. This was a step forward.

The 100-400 II is regarded as probably the best zoom ever made... at 4x

And there's the 24-105 which is tolerably good.

And the third-party 150-600s.

Sorry, I am not buying the "4x is too hard" excuse. Canon like 70mm because it forces sales of the 24-70 standard zooms to cover useful prime lengths, not because it is a useful focal length itself.

Four parts to your post. 1-3, sure, I'm with you. #4, Totally ricockulous. Conspiratorial marketing...uh yeah.

 

[Alexlin]

Pretty sad....I thought it was F/2.8...disappointing news

A slight sigh of relief, to be honest. I'm very happy with my 2.8, but I know that it's slightly dated. But because it's a lens I use a lot, I'd almost certainly upgrade it, if not immediately, as soon as there's a telephoto MIR.

Frankly, all they need to do to sell me is to make it more 100-400-ish (ergonomically) and give me some minor excuse to pull the trigger, like the tiniest of IQ bumps.

So, this way, I won't run out and buy a new lens I KNOW that I really don't need, but would love to have, hahaha.

Totally understand your feeling, especially to those who have the generation II...lol

When this confirmation was out, I couldn’t focus on my work in office and get insomnia at the nite. “The brightest colours fill my head. A million dreams keep me awake...I think of what the world could be (without III)”

Well...I’m not an occupational photographer..I just love photographing and enjoy in photography contests. Ironically, I have one lens only (16-35 F/2.8 III) with my mark IV. I did win in some contests...but it’s not enough... ahhh...it sounds so stupid to buy a II for 24-70 or 70-200 F/2.8 now...although the comments are pretty good on them

 

[Don Haines]

The more the range, the lower the quality. You can design a better 3X zoom range lens than a 4X zoom range, plus it is easier to keep it constant aperture. This was a step forward.

The 100-400 II is regarded as probably the best zoom ever made... at 4x

And there's the 24-105 which is tolerably good.

And the third-party 150-600s.

Sorry, I am not buying the "4x is too hard" excuse. Canon like 70mm because it forces sales of the 24-70 standard zooms to cover useful prime lengths, not because it is a useful focal length itself.

Given the same technology, a 3X zoom will be better than a 4X zoom. You can not compare across different manufacturers, different materials, and different accuracies of machining.

This is the same as why, given the same materials and technology, a prime is always better than a zoom.

In a zoom lens, you have to make compromises as to which focal length(s) will perform best. The wider the zoom range, the greater the compromises.

Nowhere did I say that 4X is too hard. There are several very good 4X zooms out there, and yes, the 100-400II is a very good example..... but you can not fairly compare the brand new design, modern materials, new coatings, and far more precise machining of a 2017 lens to an older lens. It is those factors that make it better than the version 1 lens that it replaces.

Similarly, you can expect to see the same range of improvement in the new 70-200F4, and I expect it to be a sharper lens than the 100-400, because it is less range, and partly because it in newer.... and if they ever come out with another 400F5.6, it will spank them both for sharpness.

 

[traveller]

The more the range, the lower the quality. You can design a better 3X zoom range lens than a 4X zoom range, plus it is easier to keep it constant aperture. This was a step forward.

The 100-400 II is regarded as probably the best zoom ever made... at 4x

And there's the 24-105 which is tolerably good.

And the third-party 150-600s.

Sorry, I am not buying the "4x is too hard" excuse. Canon like 70mm because it forces sales of the 24-70 standard zooms to cover useful prime lengths, not because it is a useful focal length itself.

Given the same technology, a 3X zoom will be better than a 4X zoom. You can not compare across different manufacturers, different materials, and different accuracies of machining.

This is the same as why, given the same materials and technology, a prime is always better than a zoom.

In a zoom lens, you have to make compromises as to which focal length(s) will perform best. The wider the zoom range, the greater the compromises.

Nowhere did I say that 4X is too hard. There are several very good 4X zooms out there, and yes, the 100-400II is a very good example..... but you can not fairly compare the brand new design, modern materials, new coatings, and far more precise machining of a 2017 lens to an older lens. It is those factors that make it better than the version 1 lens that it replaces.

Similarly, you can expect to see the same range of improvement in the new 70-200F4, and I expect it to be a sharper lens than the 100-400, because it is less range, and partly because it in newer.... and if they ever come out with another 400F5.6, it will spank them both for sharpness.

Pardon me for butting in or your argument friendly debate

I think that there is another factor at work in addition to zoom ratio and that is the number of lens designs that a zoom encompasses over its range. For example, a 100-400mm lens (all examples on 35mm format, before the pedantic cut in!) is a pure telephoto design, whereas a 24-105mm must change from a retro-focal optical layout at the wide end to a telephoto at the long end of its zoom range (other lens designs are possible, but I don’t know of any DSLR zooms that use them -I await correction...). This leads me to suspect that it is somewhat easier to design a high performance, 4x zoom ratio pure telephoto design than a 4x “normal zoom” (e.g. a 24-105), which would explain why there are now quite a few decent 100-400mm zooms on the market, but no one has yet “hit a home run”1 with a 24-105mm.

[1N.B. Being British, it pains me to use this analogy, but I though it would be more widely understood around here]