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

[GMCPhotographics]

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

I don't think it's a cynical marketing decision, I think it's far easier to build and design an f4 zoom lens than an up scaled f2.8. So it makes sense to use the f4 development to get the technology right and then focus on equipping that tech to a new f2.8 design, spending your limited resources in getting the optics and build right.

 

[ahsanford]

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.

Agree, of course. Again, this is Canon's wheelhouse -- I can't recall the last EF something-200 that was not dynamite.

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is both optically stellar and everyone already seems to own it (myself included). So I will 100% skip the 70-200 f/4L IS II and very skeptically await Canon to blow my mind with the new f/2.8.

Going out on a very short limb with a prediction here, it will get sharper but I won't see much of a sharpness improvement on my 22 MP 5D3, and the AF can't get much faster than it already is. So for me, the only upside would be a lighter weight, some 50 MP future-proofing and a lens hood with a CPL window. Such small improvements won't be worth the $2,500-3,000 Canon will charge for it (...for me and my circumstance). I'd likely wait for the day that I need a high res rig, rent the new one and shoot it alongside my current one, and make a decision.

- A

 

[Random Orbits]

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

Except that the 70-200s are much better in IQ than the 16-35 f/2.8 II and the 17-40 are. The newer 70-200s will be better but the difference between generations will be smaller than the UWA zoom range. That and the fact that f/2.8 and f/4 70-200 zooms already have IS options. The penalty is cost and size and does not involve trading max aperture for IS like the 16-35 f/2.8 III and 16-35 f/4 IS.

 

[ahsanford]

I don't think it's a cynical marketing decision, I think it's far easier to build and design an f4 zoom lens than an up scaled f2.8. So it makes sense to use the f4 development to get the technology right and then focus on equipping that tech to a new f2.8 design, spending your limited resources in getting the optics and build right.

Sure. It's not solely a marketing move to sell more glass.

Also, with everyone so obsessed with the 70-200 f/2.8 (I see it at virtually every wedding, it's on the 2nd body of every sideline sports photographer, everyone in this forum seems to own one, etc.), breathing new life into the f/4 makes sense: the f/2.8 is selling itself quite nicely right now.

I see the f/4 as being perfect for...

• The IQ-obsessed traveler who wants to keep weight down but won't buy a 70-300L. (This is how you get a someone to buy a 2nd lens at the same FL range.)
  
  
• Someone who needs a short tele for landscape work -- again, f/4 keeps the weight down if you need to hike to the location, and you'll largely be shooting around f/8 anyway.
  
  
• Parents with a kid in sports / music / drama that might have either already made the plunge to FF or are strongly contemplating it. A 70-200 would give them reach, IS for video, and the peace of mind that the lens will still work in a FF future if their current rig is crop. (I recently offered up this sales pitch to my brother -- who is 100% in this demographic -- but he opted for an EF-S 55-250 instead due to the nontrivial price differential).

You can do so much more with a 70-200 f/4, of course. I recently saw an advert for a Peter Hurley workshop where he was shooting portraiture with it, for instance. The applications are wide, but above is a high-opportunity-target sort of list, IMHO.

- A

 

[mnclayshooter]

ARGHH!!! This is my nemesis... IF you all want to know when Canon will announce (or we find a rumor of) a new lens, just wait until I purchase a lens... that will trigger it.

I bought a 100-400 about 3 weeks before the new 100-400 was announced
I bought a 16-35 about 2 weeks before the new 16-35 was announced
I literally just bought (should be arriving today if I'm lucky) 70-200

Any takers? I am in the market for a new 300... so be on the lookout... we'll get a new one soon.

hahahah. Its still better to have the gear now and wish you could upgrade it, than to have no gear and hope that a better version will come out soon.

 

[rfdesigner]

and there was I wondering if I can scrape together enough for the 70-200 f4 IS

from what I can gather the lens is very nearly perfect.. which then begs the question, how do you improve on perfection?

lighter.. well that works, especially for the f4.

smaller.. yup good move, I'll take that.

sharper.. really?.. this is an action lens, sharper = faster shutter speeds = more light needed = I want f2.8

but then 90% of my shots have at least one person in them, and there's a limit to the pixels one needs for that.

One thought though, sure the 70-200s are great lenses, but I keep skipping between my 50 & 100mm occasionally wanting a bit more length but using every bit of my 50mm, my 28 spends most of it's life in my bag. I would love a 50-150mm zoom, just so long as it would take a 1.4x.

 

[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...

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.

It may be true for the fluorite, although fluorite is not neccesary for good optics. The 70-200L IS II is way better than the 70-200L IS 4 without having fluorite, the 80-200L, too. I just meant that the white color is very eye-catching and sometimes not very nice to carry around "undercover".

Old fluorite lenses are black, but yes, they are not common anymore (f.e. EF100-300mm f/5.6L or EF50-200mm f/3.5-4.5L). By the way, Nikon was true for breaking fluorite glass... for example that's a reason why they use Nikon in space, because they don't break at launch.

Greetings.

 

[Loswr]

It may be true for the fluorite, although fluorite is not neccesary for good optics. The 70-200L IS II is way better than the 70-200L IS 4 without having fluorite, the 80-200L, too. I just meant that the white color is very eye-catching and sometimes not very nice to carry around "undercover".

Well, my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II has a fluorite element, just as Canon designed it. I'm sorry to hear that your copy of the lens is optically incomplete, but glad that it has good IQ in spite of its missing element. You should probably call Canon and ask them to please give you the chunk of CaF2 they left out.

As for your "undercover" problem, there's always neoprene...DIY or buy from LensCoat.

 

[privatebydesign]

By the way, Nikon was true for breaking fluorite glass... for example that's a reason why they use Nikon in space, because they don't break at launch.

That is an old wives tale with no basis in truth. It is easily disproved by the fact that NASA have several Canon lenses with fluorite elements in orbit!

Further, the notion that NASA couldn't launch anything less fragile than a camera lens into orbit is, frankly, comical.

The real reason NASA use Nikon for stills images in space is that they have a long history of working together and Nikon were prepared to do the very extensive work needed to manufacture cameras to the detailed specs NASA required. But NASA use Canon C Line products for video images in the Space Station, those lenses have fluorite elements.

 

[Loswr]

Seems like vscd isn't having a very good day. Then again, maybe he's just keeping up with current events.

 

[vscd]

Seems like vscd isn't having a very good day. Then again, maybe he's just keeping up with current events.

I just missed that Canon didn't list the L IS in it's second reincarnation @http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/fluorite_aspherical_and_ud_lenses.do. No need to get impolite. Sorry for that. (I assumed that the 70-200L IS is like the L IS II). This would explain why until the second 2.8L IS no lense came up to the old 80-200L. 8)

 

[Ladislav]

Looks like great lenses which already exist get even greater update before new lenses are even introduced
Yes, I'm talking about 24-70/2.8 L IS.

 

[slclick]

I can easily see it being new coatings and more stops/modes of IS. Up to speed.

 

[Loswr]

I can easily see it being new coatings and more stops/modes of IS. Up to speed.

But that doesn't seem like enough to make it, "...the most advanced zoom lens in the Canon lineup." Then again, if you take the view that 'most advanced' means 'newest', then that could be said of every lens upon release. #marketingspeak

 

[ahsanford]

It may be true for the fluorite, although fluorite is not neccesary for good optics. The 70-200L IS II is way better than the 70-200L IS 4 without having fluorite, the 80-200L, too. I just meant that the white color is very eye-catching and sometimes not very nice to carry around "undercover".

If you want sneaky + reach, you have plenty of options already:

• Crop + 55-250
• FF + non-L 70-300
• FF + the 200m f/2.8L II (the longest black L Canon sells)
• FF + 3rd party glass

I'd have a hard look at that 200 f/2.8 L II. Compact, sharp and relatively discreet (for that FL) and a steal at $749 new / $599 refurb. It lacks IS, however.

- A

 

[jeffa4444]

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

Your assuming everyone needs / wants f2.8. I have the 16-35mm f4L IS USM lens and as I'm using the lens as much as possible at f8-11 for landscape the different is almost unperceivable. I don't have the 70-200mm f4L IS USM lens but I have the non-IS version which mainly gets used on a tripod again for my usage its perfectly sharp & its definitely lightweight. Canon segments its products and at the most popular focal lengths gives multiple choices which is very smart why have more weight if you don't require f2.8

Their is a issue with the new Canon 16-35mm f2.8L IS USM III lens when using 100mm filter holders because of the design at the front at 16mm it vignettes which necessitates considering larger filters for landscape that larger size is a pain in the a....

 

[slclick]

I can easily see it being new coatings and more stops/modes of IS. Up to speed.

But that doesn't seem like enough to make it, "...the most advanced zoom lens in the Canon lineup." Then again, if you take the view that 'most advanced' means 'newest', then that could be said of every lens upon release. #marketingspeak

Could be ...BR ll, BR-X (just to please our mirrorless and unhappy friend)


Then there's the possibility of it being 70-200 f/4L IS ll USM-Nano BR-X+ 1.4TC Macro TS

 

[ahsanford]

Your assuming everyone needs / wants f2.8.

Agree. Some of us know what we need, f/2.8 isn't it, and we just move on when the f/2.8 is announced. I am in this boat with you, love my 16-35 f/4L IS and have no need to upgrade presently.

So I agree with you but I am not assuming everyone needs/wants it. I am referring to others in my prior comments -- folks who want the 'best' lens for all-purpose use, folks who want to future proof, folks with GAS, etc.

Their is a issue with the new Canon 16-35mm f2.8L IS USM III lens when using 100mm filter holders because of the design at the front at 16mm it vignettes which necessitates considering larger filters for landscape that larger size is a pain in the a....

We all know about the 16mm f/2.8 lens vignetting, but it appears you are talking about mechanical vignetting from 100mm holders. That's news to me -- is this better/worse than the 16-35 f/4L IS? (Which is pretty damn good on this front, but 16mm FF is still 16mm and it is mortal with 100mm filtering.)

(We're getting OT, so pls msg me privately about the 16-35 f/2.8L III with holder systems. I'd like to read that!)

- A

 

[NancyP]

The existing one is lovely. Maybe they are adding the latest IS?

 

[Sabaki]

I used to own the f/4.0 version, which I felt was walready excellent but upgraded to the better f/4.0 IS version because of a great deal I got. I absolutely love the lens as it produces excellent images.

I kinda think the 70-200 range is blessed by some of Canon's best engineering but if I had to nitpick a few things on the f/4 IS L, here goes!

• Quieter IS motor
• Shorter minimum focusing distance (dragonflies!)
• Elimination of slight CA on full frame images
• 9th aperture blade
• Built in 1.4 TC
• Future proofing resolution for 50mp+ bodies

PS the grindy sound of the IS really had me worried the first time I heard it! ;D