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

[riker]

OMG YEEEEESSS FINALYYYY. The news I have been waiting for so long. I have always owned the 70-200/4 even when I had the 2.8. Best travel lens ever.
You always see in these promotional videos people travelling with the 2.8 but that is such a bsht.

Let's pray for small size and light weight compared with excellent IQ!

 

[arbitrage]

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.

Yes disregarding Nikon's sudden turn of face with the inclusion of fluorite which they used to bash openly on their website, I think Nikon has called Canon's bluff about the white paint. We all know the white paint is for marketing and nothing else. Sure in theory keeping the fluorite cooler is probably a good thing but unless we see Nikon's new FL lenses start cracking the elements I think it is safe to say that Canon never really "needed" the white paint as much as they claimed to need it for that reason.

It has been an amazing marketing tool and probably the smartest marketing tool of any camera company ever.

 

[mnclayshooter]

I realize the rumor is all about an "L" presumably for an EF mount - but is there possibility of updating the EF-M 55-200 STM to offer a more "pro-level" lens? .. My reasoning is there's presumably a mirrorless 6DII guts camera coming per other rumors. It would pair well.

 

[Zv]

The 70-200 f/4L IS was my first L lens and it started my love affair with L lenses! Such a great lens but it could still use a little updating. The IS could be quieter and it could be sharper at 200mm. Contrast is spot on though. Files hardly need any contrast added in post. This and my 16-35 f/4L IS are about the only lens I really use nowadays.

Curious about this update and what it will bring!

 

[Maiaibing]

I think it is safe to say that Canon never really "needed" the white paint as much as they claimed to need it for that reason.

It has been an amazing marketing tool and probably the smartest marketing tool of any camera company ever.

It was Minolta that started with the big white lenses. Just say'in.

 

[mb66energy]

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.

Yes disregarding Nikon's sudden turn of face with the inclusion of fluorite which they used to bash openly on their website, I think Nikon has called Canon's bluff about the white paint. We all know the white paint is for marketing and nothing else. Sure in theory keeping the fluorite cooler is probably a good thing but unless we see Nikon's new FL lenses start cracking the elements I think it is safe to say that Canon never really "needed" the white paint as much as they claimed to need it for that reason.

It has been an amazing marketing tool and probably the smartest marketing tool of any camera company ever.

Maybee the coolest one ... I really like the behaviour of my 70-200 in direct sunlight. While cameras get hot if not shadowed the white parts of the lens stay cool. The only thing I need is a 6d mkii in white. Will never happen but would be "cool".

 

[Loswr]

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.

Reason...or excuse.

Yes disregarding Nikon's sudden turn of face with the inclusion of fluorite which they used to bash openly on their website, I think Nikon has called Canon's bluff about the white paint. We all know the white paint is for marketing and nothing else. Sure in theory keeping the fluorite cooler is probably a good thing but unless we see Nikon's new FL lenses start cracking the elements I think it is safe to say that Canon never really "needed" the white paint as much as they claimed to need it for that reason.

It has been an amazing marketing tool and probably the smartest marketing tool of any camera company ever.

In fact, they still bash it. Their glossary still states:

[quote author=Nikon]Put simply, chromatic aberration is a type of image and color dispersion that occurs when light rays of varying wavelengths pass through optical glass. In the past, correcting this problem for telephoto lenses required special optical elements that offer anomalous dispersion characteristics - specifically calcium fluoride crystals. However, fluorite easily cracks and is sensitive to temperature changes that can adversely affect focusing by altering the lens' refractive index.
[/quote]

Elsewhere on the page, they extoll the virtues of fluorite. :

However, there is a technical rationale for painting lenses with fluorite white. It may be that the black Nikkor FL lenses won't hold up as well over time...after all, they only started using fluorite with the 800/5.6 a mere four years ago, whereas there are Canon fluorite-containing superteles that have been in use for decades.

But independent of the rationale, it's very clear that it's a marketing tactic, since there are multiple white lenses that do not have fluorite elements (e.g. 70-200/2.8L non IS, 28-300L, 70-300L).

 

[cnc]

The only reason of white coating on the large L lenses is for a sun heating absorption , Black lenses get hot on the sun and loosing sharpness. Longer lens = more distortions !!! So the white coating has nothing to do with Show off. Just low of physics

 

[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

Alan, the f4 lenses have always preceded the f2.8 lenses. It goes way way back to the 17-40L

 

[ahsanford]

Alan Adam, the f4 lenses have always preceded the f2.8 lenses. It goes way way back to the 17-40L

It's awfully hard to line them all up in order as f/4L zooms don't get updated as quickly as f/2.8L zooms, some focal length discrepancies are in there, and IS vs. non-IS monkeys with this as well.

But that said, are you sure about that trend?

Green = GMC's trend holds
Red = GMC's trend doesn't hold

UWA (leaving out the U-UWA lenses):

2001: 16-35 f/2.8L
2003: 17-40 f/4L
2007: 16-35 f/2.8L II (it would appear the 17-40 just plugged away without replacement)
2014: 16-35 f/4L IS
2016: 16-35 f/2.8L III

Standard (leaving out the -105s):

2002: 24-70 f/2.8L
Early 2012: 24-70 f/2.8L II
Late 2012: 24-70 f/4L IS

Short Tele (leaving out the -300s):

1995: 70-200 f/2.8L
1999: 70-200 f/4L

2001: 70-200 f/2.8L IS
2006: 70-200 f/4L IS

2010: 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

So I'd say your statement is a real mixed bag as far as 'always' is concerned. Am I forgetting a lens on this list?

- A

 

[Luds34]

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.

I couldn't imagine upgrading to the IS versions as I own or have owned both the non-IS f/4 and f/2.8 70-200s and have never found those lenses lacking either optically or focusing performance wise. I'm sure the corners are much much better on the newer (IS) versions but I just never find myself shooting say brick walls wide open with this style lens (wide open shots are almost always subject isolation).

I will say though that IS would help a bit in those times where I'm shooting static subjects in a theater or something and that IS would save me a stop or two on the old ISO. Aka, allow me to shoot 1/125 or 1/80 and be comfortable the shot will be sharp.

 

[Ozarker]

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.

Who says black is the standard?

Not trying to argue, just wondering. If light absorption were the reason for the black color then Canon has been messing up the white lenses for a long time (from a technical standpoint).

I think the lens coat is the best option.

As far as my reference to "noticeable"... I've seen many posts from people with white lenses saying they draw unwanted attention and bring questions from people. One poster even went as far as to say his wife told him not to bring his white lens to the kid's basketball practice because it draws too much attention. It embarrassed her. :

My point being that large lenses will always draw attention. Always.

Either way, there are choices from other manufacturers who don't produce the lenses in white, but if you are like me, only Canon will do most of the time.

 

[Loswr]

Alan Adam, the f4 lenses have always preceded the f2.8 lenses. It goes way way back to the 17-40L

It's awfully hard to line them all up in order as f/4L zooms don't get updated as quickly as f/2.8L zooms, some focal length discrepancies are in there, and IS vs. non-IS monkeys with this as well.

But that said, are you sure about that trend?

Green = GMC's trend holds
Red = GMC's trend doesn't hold

UWA (leaving out the U-UWA lenses):

2001: 16-35 f/2.8L
2003: 17-40 f/4L
2007: 16-35 f/2.8L II (it would appear the 17-40 just plugged away without replacement)
2014: 16-35 f/4L IS
2016: 16-35 f/2.8L III

Standard (leaving out the -105s):

2002: 24-70 f/2.8L
Early 2012: 24-70 f/2.8L II
Late 2012: 24-70 f/4L IS

Short Tele (leaving out the -300s):

1995: 70-200 f/2.8L
1999: 70-200 f/4L

2001: 70-200 f/2.8L IS
2006: 70-200 f/4L IS

2010: 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

So I'd say your statement is a real mixed bag as far as 'always' is concerned. Am I forgetting a lens on this list?

- A

On the UWA zoom list, you left off the predecessors to the 16-35/2.8L, the 20-35/2.8L (1989) and the 17-35/2.8L (1996), that's a lot of f/2.8 lenses before the f/4 version.

I would include the 24-105 lenses in the standard zooms, but the trend is still f/2.8 first:

28-70/2.8 (1993)
24-70/2.8 (2002)
24-105/4 (2005)
24-70/2.8 II (Feb 2012)
24-70/4 (Nov 2012)
24-105/4 II (2016)

To sum up, this:

...the f4 lenses have always preceded the f2.8 lenses. It goes way way back to the 17-40L

is just flat out wrong.

 

[ahsanford]

On the UWA zoom list, you left off the predecessors to the 16-35/2.8L, the 20-35/2.8L (1989) and the 17-35/2.8L (1996), that's a lot of f/2.8 lenses before the f/4 version.

I left those out as he said 'since the 17-40L'.

In fact, before the 17-40L was released, there was also a cheaper/slower non-L 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 (sounds familiar to the EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5)... and it too came out after the 20-35 f/2.8L.

But I don't think any trending on this is revelatory or bankable as a hard pattern, as f/2.8L zoom products seem to either get refreshed more quickly for the pros or f/4L zoom products skip a generation because of relatively lower market appeal.

- A

 

[H. Jones]

Who says black is the standard?

Not trying to argue, just wondering. If light absorption were the reason for the black color then Canon has been messing up the white lenses for a long time (from a technical standpoint).

I think the lens coat is the best option.

As far as my reference to "noticeable"... I've seen many posts from people with white lenses saying they draw unwanted attention and bring questions from people. One poster even went as far as to say his wife told him not to bring his white lens to the kid's basketball practice because it draws too much attention. It embarrassed her. :

My point being that large lenses will always draw attention. Always.

Either way, there are choices from other manufacturers who don't produce the lenses in white, but if you are like me, only Canon will do most of the time.

Totally agree honestly. Work around a lot of Nikon shooters in my area. People are constantly saying things about their 70-200s being so big, and in a single day of renting a 120-300 from Sigma I had many more comments on the huge black lens than in several years of owning my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.

People are going to notice a huge camera lens no matter what. A former coworker of mine, who used Nikon, would often use a small 35mm lens instead of Nikon's 24-70mm because he felt people were too intimidated by that lens-- and that's a black normal zoom.

Sure, at night a Canon lens will stand out a little more and be slightly more reflective.. But if you're trying to hide that badly, put some camouflage lens coats on the lens anyway.

 

[RGF]

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>

wonder what an "advanced zoom" will be / how will it be different from other lenses?

 

[ahsanford]

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>

wonder what an "advanced zoom" will be / how will it be different from other lenses?

They might dream of something...

- A

 

[Ozarker]

Who says black is the standard?

Not trying to argue, just wondering. If light absorption were the reason for the black color then Canon has been messing up the white lenses for a long time (from a technical standpoint).

I think the lens coat is the best option.

As far as my reference to "noticeable"... I've seen many posts from people with white lenses saying they draw unwanted attention and bring questions from people. One poster even went as far as to say his wife told him not to bring his white lens to the kid's basketball practice because it draws too much attention. It embarrassed her. :

My point being that large lenses will always draw attention. Always.

Either way, there are choices from other manufacturers who don't produce the lenses in white, but if you are like me, only Canon will do most of the time.

Totally agree honestly. Work around a lot of Nikon shooters in my area. People are constantly saying things about their 70-200s being so big, and in a single day of renting a 120-300 from Sigma I had many more comments on the huge black lens than in several years of owning my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.

People are going to notice a huge camera lens no matter what. A former coworker of mine, who used Nikon, would often use a small 35mm lens instead of Nikon's 24-70mm because he felt people were too intimidated by that lens-- and that's a black normal zoom.

Sure, at night a Canon lens will stand out a little more and be slightly more reflective.. But if you're trying to hide that badly, put some camouflage lens coats on the lens anyway.

Tried a camouflage lens coat on my 70-200 once. Put it down and couldn't find it for a week.

 

[ethanz]

Tried a camouflage lens coat on my 70-200 once. Put it down and couldn't find it for a week.

;D lol

 

[midluk]

They might dream of something...

I think your images are fake. 8)
I'm sure the new lens will have the "enable and forget" IS mode 3.