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

[Jopa]

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

Interesting fact. Does it mean Nikon just assumes their lenses will never overheat?

 

[goldenhusky]

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.

was that a 70-200 f/4 or f/2.8. That would make it clear which one Canon will release first

 

[Cochese]

"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."

"Some specifics were given, but we are unable to zoom in on them at this time..."

This is a camera site, get the puns right.

 

[goldenhusky]

I wonder why almost all manufactures are stuck with 70-200 why not a 70-300 f/4L or 50-200 f/4L,.... some different focal length. I understand the front element size, overall lens size and weight might go up. The same goes for the f/2.8 why not try to make them f/2. Looking at history 80-200mm f/2.8L was replaced with a 70-200 f/2.8L why not do something like that?

 

[Agent XE-5]

I've owned the original 70-200 f2.8 non-IS for a dozen years now. I needed the speed for shooting a lot in low light, and my highest clean ISO was around 1600. (The 5D Mk I topped out at a noisy 3200.) With ISOs so high these days, I can't imagine why I'd still need an f2.8 lens.

 

[Alex_M]

why? for a better and more pronounced bokeh at F2.8 vs F4, for starters?

I've owned the original 70-200 f2.8 non-IS for a dozen years now. I needed the speed for shooting a lot in low light, and my highest clean ISO was around 1600. (The 5D Mk I topped out at a noisy 3200.) With ISOs so high these days, I can't imagine why I'd still need an f2.8 lens.

 

[ahsanford]

I wonder why almost all manufactures are stuck with 70-200 why not a 70-300 f/4L or 50-200 f/4L,.... some different focal length. I understand the front element size, overall lens size and weight might go up. The same goes for the f/2.8 why not try to make them f/2. Looking at history 80-200mm f/2.8L was replaced with a 70-200 f/2.8L why not do something like that?

They would get bigger and heavier, yes. But front element size for the ones you listed would stay under the 'reasonableness diameter' of 82mm or less. That wouldn't be an issue.

High FL multiple lenses...

1) Are not as sharp as lower FL multiple lenses. A 70-200 f/4 made with the same tech / tolerances / precision would be markedly sharper than a 70-300 f/4.

2) Start making people think they don't need as many lenses. Canon doesn't want everyone buying a 24-105 and a 100-400 and saying "I'm good. I'm all set."

I think that's why they have these 'protected buckets' of lenses: 16-35 / 24-something / 70-something ...so that folks will buy three instead of two lenses. (I own one of each of those -- how about you?)

For that reason, I strongly doubt Canon will ever make (say) a bucket-straddling 16-50 f/4, a 50-200 f/4, a 24-135 f/4, etc. It's not just size. It's about sharpness and dollars.

- A

 

[vjlex]

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...

This! This is exactly what I came here to say and wonder if I was crazy? I love my 80-200L, but I would love something a bit more up to date. But a big white lens is just not my idea of practical for my purpose of trying to stay as lowkey as possible and capture the best image I can. I don't understand why a black version of the current 70-200L lineup isn't offered. I can't see a black version not selling well or even better than the white. Am I in the minority here?

 

[ahsanford]

I've owned the original 70-200 f2.8 non-IS for a dozen years now. I needed the speed for shooting a lot in low light, and my highest clean ISO was around 1600. (The 5D Mk I topped out at a noisy 3200.) With ISOs so high these days, I can't imagine why I'd still need an f2.8 lens.

This is more of an IS argument, but is applies to an f/2.8 vs. f/4 as well.

Just because our sensors do well with noise doesn't mean we should just blast the ISO and slap f/4 lenses on everything.

Being able to gather more light with the lens -- either with a quicker lens or with IS -- lets us use a lower ISO to get that same exposure. Lower ISO gives you shots with better color and better DR, and I find those to be good things. (I know, I know -- I'm weird like that.)

Plot below presumes a three stop IS setup. Obviously the delta in DR and color is less with just one stop on a lens, but the idea is the same.

- A

 

[Woody]

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

My suspicion too. The entire Canon 70-200 series is already amazing. I am not sure how much better they can get with new iterations. ;D

Edit: Another thought just struck me. If they can improve on the macro capability of the 70-200 f/4 IS, it'll be greatly welcome by some. I remember I was disappointed by the image quality of the 70-200 f/4 IS when I introduced a lens tube in my set-up.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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

There was a rumor for that a short time ago, refresh of all the big whites.

 

[Ozarker]

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

Future proofing would be a whole lot less expensive if I'd just put a couple of extra 5D Mark III away in the closet.

 

[Ozarker]

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.

Compromise: Light pink with a save the Ta-Tas logo.

I'll never understand the "gets noticed" or "draws too much attention" mental twisting. Spray paint it black or lens coat it.

A lens that size is going to get noticed no matter what color it is.

 

[vjlex]

Compromise: Light pink with a save the Ta-Tas logo.

I'll never understand the "gets noticed" or "draws too much attention" mental twisting. Spray paint it black or lens coat it.

A lens that size is going to get noticed no matter what color it is.

Really? A standard-colored, light-absorbing black lens being less noticeable than a bright, light-reflecting white lens is mental twisting?

Also, less noticeable =/= noticeable. And I do I find it hard to imagine that many people willing to invest in lenses upward of $2000 really want to spray paint it. The lens coat is an interesting option, but adding more bulk to generally already bulky lenses seems counter-intuitive. Maybe a good stopgap measure, but it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to ask that the lens be offered in the standard color that the majority of all lenses are offered in. I didn't think anyone would find the idea of wanting a standard color such as black for a lens would constitute mental gymnastics. ???

The fluorite tidbit is interesting, but ultimately I find it hard to believe that one internal element is the primary reason that the "great whites" are white. I'm actually more prone to believe it's because Canon WANTS the white lenses to be more noticeable (ie. brand distinction). I'm just curious if there are others who have held off on "great whites" due to their being greatly and noticeably... white. Perhaps not many; afterall, if you need it, you need it. But I am curious who else would prefer black 70-200mm L-lenses.

 

[Maiaibing]

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!

Several good suggestions here.

• 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

[/quote]

Grindy sound of the IS is certainly "old-style" if you do video.

 

[hne]

I wonder why almost all manufactures are stuck with 70-200 why not a 70-300 f/4L or 50-200 f/4L,.... some different focal length. I understand the front element size, overall lens size and weight might go up. The same goes for the f/2.8 why not try to make them f/2. Looking at history 80-200mm f/2.8L was replaced with a 70-200 f/2.8L why not do something like that?

They would get bigger and heavier, yes. But front element size for the ones you listed would stay under the 'reasonableness diameter' of 82mm or less. That wouldn't be an issue.

High FL multiple lenses...

1) Are not as sharp as lower FL multiple lenses. A 70-200 f/4 made with the same tech / tolerances / precision would be markedly sharper than a 70-300 f/4.

2) Start making people think they don't need as many lenses. Canon doesn't want everyone buying a 24-105 and a 100-400 and saying "I'm good. I'm all set."

I think that's why they have these 'protected buckets' of lenses: 16-35 / 24-something / 70-something ...so that folks will buy three instead of two lenses. (I own one of each of those -- how about you?)

For that reason, I strongly doubt Canon will ever make (say) a bucket-straddling 16-50 f/4, a 50-200 f/4, a 24-135 f/4, etc. It's not just size. It's about sharpness and dollars.

- A

Well, they're making the 17-40/4L and 28-135 IS.
Can we compromise and hope for an EF 50-150/2.5 DO IS the same size/weight as the current 70-200/4L IS?

 

[photojoern.de]

I own both, the 70-200 L f4 and f2.8 II and they are both excellent lenses. So crystal clear sharp. I will not replace any of them. At least for now I cannot imagine what should be really better. In the end what makes the difference is the tool behind the camera.

 

[N2itiv]

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...

I've only seen one person w/an 80-200 f/2.8L. Was(is) a good/nice looking lens. With the newer whites, Canon gets seen/recognition. Other brands are trying to mimic that success. Always lens coat.

 

[N2itiv]

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

The 24-105L is an gateway L lens. Certainly, it could have been greatly improved on. We Canon users have proved we'd pay the price for higher quality, mostly. Your comment reminded me of the 28-300L and the older 35-350L. That was some X.

 

[N2itiv]

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!
[/quote]

Considering this as a portrait lens over the 24-105L. Your description nails it. No balance issues on a 6d.