Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II in Development [CR2]

[Canon Rumors]

We’re told that Canon is actively developing a new EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II and it will be incorporate new processes and technologies.</p>
<p>Some specifics were given, but we are unable to post them at this time. I can say that the source claimed the new lens would be the most advanced zoom lens in the Canon lineup.</p>
<p>This lens is slated to come before an update to its f/2.8 bigger brother. Though we have no release date and good sources are saying it’s likely in development, but there’s no evidence we’ll see the lens in 2017.</p>
<p>There are a few other rumoured lenses we’re trying to get more information on and will pass them on as we hear more.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[Loswr]

Sweet

The current one is already an excellent lens (although for a travel zoom I opted for the 70-300L instead, in large part becuase of the shorter collapsed length).

 

[Jopa]

I thought I saw a rumor here about the "bigger brother" being in development and coming in 2017?

 

[BeenThere]

Maybe it will be a DO zoom. Smaller, lighter, better IQ?

 

[Maiaibing]

Sounds nice. The existing lens is one of the best zooms you can get at a very reasonable price. Great Canon continues to try to improve on it.

 

[slclick]

While some will find a way, I personally can't see any reason to complain about this possibility. I might even spring for one!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Sounds nice. The existing lens is one of the best zooms you can get at a very reasonable price. Great Canon continues to try to improve on it.

It's a sweet lens, really light, not too big, sharp, great contrast, great IS, fast AF and it's not too expensive. It's hard not to like it. Pop a 1.4x tc on it and it's every bit as good as 70-300 LIS, although not as compact. It was a shame to sell my copy and I wish I still had one, but one can't own every lens!

 

[Canon Rumors]

I thought I saw a rumor here about the "bigger brother" being in development and coming in 2017?

You did here.

Sometimes people will assume the speed of a lens when sending in lens information. It happened with the 11-24 for example.

If you recall when the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS was released, it was a superior lens optically to the f/2.8L IS version 1, except at f/2.8 .

 

[H. Jones]

Most advanced zoom in Canon's line up? Does that include the 200-400?

I'm interested to know that that means, I'm going to assume it will have the top LCD like the new 70-300, probably some new IS system, some real nice IQ, and maybe a new build.

It's tough to imagine what brand new tech could come with the replacement to a zoom that's already so great--but then again--that's why Canon makes lenses and I just make pictures.

 

[vscd]

Why not make a new black one? The white lenses are very noticeable and the f4 lens is not that large to need a white threatment. Neither for heat nor for "goodloiking"

I like the black 80-200 1.8L way more on weddings than the white pipes...

 

[Handrews]

As mentioned above, the current version is an exceptional lens already.
I wonder why Canon insists on improving very good lenses (aka 70-200 F4 & F2.8) while releasing a 24-105L which is not optically superior to current version.
But maybe this is another topic..

 

[Jopa]

I thought I saw a rumor here about the "bigger brother" being in development and coming in 2017?

You did here.

Sometimes people will assume the speed of a lens when sending in lens information. It happened with the 11-24 for example.

If you recall when the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS was released, it was a superior lens optically to the f/2.8L IS version 1, except at f/2.8 .

I see. Thank you for the clarification!

 

[vscd]

Maybe the focallength of 24-105 is very difficult to optimizie. it's nealry 5x and it goes from very wide to a quite long focallenght. 70-200 is nuts with <3x

 

[ahsanford]

Ooh, if it comes out before the f/2.8L IS III, it'll be just like the 16-35 situation:

1) The 16-35 f/4L IS comes out run circles around prior UWA zooms Canon has offered to date. Finally, a very sharp UWA lens is available.
2) People buy the reasonably priced 16-35 f/4L IS in a hurry.
3) The 16-35 f/2.8L III comes out. Turns out it's even better than the f/4L IS (for some needs).
4) People freak out a little. Some bought the 16-35 f/4L IS when they really needed f/2.8 but gave up on an f/2.8 replacement happening anytime soon. Others want to future proof their lineup and go f/2.8 just because they might start shooting sports or astro sometime down the road. In either case, Canon + GAS may end up seeing folks buy both lenses.

Now replace every 16-35 reference above with 70-200. They might try to do this again.

The only difference is that this is that 70-200s are the beating heart of Canon's lens dominance. Disregarding the safari-money 200-400, Canon's various 70-200s are the strongest and deepest part of Canon's zoom lens lineup. Surpassing the current offerings will be no small feat.

- A

 

[Handrews]

Maybe the focallength of 24-105 is very difficult to optimizie. it's nealry 5x and it goes from very wide to a quite long focallenght. 70-200 is nuts with <3x

You're probably right, it makes sense

 

[H. Jones]

Ooh, if it comes out before the f/2.8L IS III, it'll be just like the 16-35 situation:

1) The 16-35 f/4L IS comes out run circles around prior UWA zooms Canon has offered to date. Finally, a very sharp UWA lens is available.
2) People buy the reasonably priced 16-35 f/4L IS in a hurry.
3) The 16-35 f/2.8L III comes out. Turns out it's even better than the f/4L IS (for some needs).
4) People freak out a little. Some bought the 16-35 f/4L IS when they really needed f/2.8 but gave up on an f/2.8 replacement happening anytime soon. Others want to future proof their lineup and go f/2.8 just because they might start shooting sports or astro sometime down the road. In either case, Canon + GAS may end up seeing folks buy both lenses.

Now replace every 16-35 reference above with 70-200. They might try to do this again.

The only difference is that this is that 70-200s are the beating heart of Canon's lens dominance. Disregarding the safari-money 200-400, Canon's various 70-200s are the strongest and deepest part of Canon's zoom lens lineup. Surpassing the current offerings will be no small feat.

- A

This is kinda what happened to me with the 16-35mm F/4L IS, since I wanted f/2.8 but opted for higher image quality. Still considering if I'll swap the F/4L IS for the F/2.8L III, but right now it's not too big a priority.

In my opinion I think the current 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is still such a stunning lens that I don't really see that happening unless the new F/4L IS II is from another planet.

The problem with the 16-35mm F/2.8L II was that it was extremely lacking IQ-wise, so there was a lot of people willing to sacrifice F/2.8 for F/4 thanks to the IQ. I can't say the same about the 70-200mm F/2.8L IS II because it's excellent even on a 5DS, though the majority of the users of it will be around 20-30 megapixels anyway between the 7D2, 5D IV, and 1DX2.

But then again, I'm a journalist that could hardly do my job without an f/2.8L 70-200, so who am I kidding! While working I see a lot more people with the ancient 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS than I do with the 70-200mm f/4L IS. Some even still use their 80-200 f/2.8 for remote cameras.

 

[ethanz]

Ooh, if it comes out before the f/2.8L IS III, it'll be just like the 16-35 situation:

1) The 16-35 f/4L IS comes out run circles around prior UWA zooms Canon has offered to date. Finally, a very sharp UWA lens is available.
2) People buy the reasonably priced 16-35 f/4L IS in a hurry.
3) The 16-35 f/2.8L III comes out. Turns out it's even better than the f/4L IS (for some needs).
4) People freak out a little. Some bought the 16-35 f/4L IS when they really needed f/2.8 but gave up on an f/2.8 replacement happening anytime soon. Others want to future proof their lineup and go f/2.8 just because they might start shooting sports or astro sometime down the road. In either case, Canon + GAS may end up seeing folks buy both lenses.

Now replace every 16-35 reference above with 70-200. They might try to do this again.

The only difference is that this is that 70-200s are the beating heart of Canon's lens dominance. Disregarding the safari-money 200-400, Canon's various 70-200s are the strongest and deepest part of Canon's zoom lens lineup. Surpassing the current offerings will be no small feat.

- A

Yeah, start out updating the lesser 70-200 lenses first. Then when they have the new methods ironed out, update the 70-200 2.8 and charge $3,000 this time. I've had my 2.8 since it came out years ago and it still seems new to me. Not sure I would upgrade.

 

[9VIII]

I have to wonder if they aren't going to start putting DO in their zooms.

At least the non-telescoping 70-200 design could benefit from chopping an inch or two off.

 

[Loswr]

Why not make a new black one? The white lenses are very noticeable and the f4 lens is not that large to need a white threatment. Neither for heat nor for "goodloiking"

I like the black 80-200 1.8L way more on weddings than the white pipes...

The functional point of a white lens is mainly to reduce thermal stress on fluorite elements. The current 70-200/4L IS has a fluorite element, and assuming it's successor does, it should be white. The old 80-200/2.8L has no fluorite elements.

There are some Canon telezoom lenses, like the 70-300L, that are white but do not have a fluorite element - that's for 'looks'. But AFAIK, there aren't any current Canon lenses with fluorite elements that are not white.

OTOH, Nikon recently started putting fluorite elements in their lenses (after years of bashing them as prone to cracking), and their lenses are black.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

Ooh, if it comes out before the f/2.8L IS III, it'll be just like the 16-35 situation:

1) The 16-35 f/4L IS comes out run circles around prior UWA zooms Canon has offered to date. Finally, a very sharp UWA lens is available.
2) People buy the reasonably priced 16-35 f/4L IS in a hurry.
3) The 16-35 f/2.8L III comes out. Turns out it's even better than the f/4L IS (for some needs).
4) People freak out a little. Some bought the 16-35 f/4L IS when they really needed f/2.8 but gave up on an f/2.8 replacement happening anytime soon. Others want to future proof their lineup and go f/2.8 just because they might start shooting sports or astro sometime down the road. In either case, Canon + GAS may end up seeing folks buy both lenses.

Now replace every 16-35 reference above with 70-200. They might try to do this again.

The only difference is that this is that 70-200s are the beating heart of Canon's lens dominance. Disregarding the safari-money 200-400, Canon's various 70-200s are the strongest and deepest part of Canon's zoom lens lineup. Surpassing the current offerings will be no small feat.

- A

70-200 to me is different though than 16-35. In the 70-200 range I actually NEED f2.8, no way around it. F4 just won't cut it - I often need to stop action in low light. Sometimes even 2.8 can be restrictive...

For 16-35, the decision is much more nuanced...for scenes, f4 seems to get by and I'm often shooting narrower than that anyway. There are SOME instances where 2.8 would be better, but not sure if it's worth giving up IS for