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

[jolyonralph]

I was told by a photojourno who did work in Iraq after the Iraq war that he much prefered the White long lenses to the Nikon black ones as it looked less like a gun to jumpy US soldiers at a distance. But he also said that at other times he'd keep it well wrapped to conceal the camera.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

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.

This has been my experience historically...but on recent trips, a funny thing has happened...

I was out shooting a weekend festival. Two days. First day I took the 5DIV +70-200 2.8, a big white lens. No one said a word. Now, of course I wasn't flying under the radar, but I didn't get stopped either.

The next day, I decided to travel light and took my M10 and 55-200. This time, I was stopped - TWICE - by folks that were curious about my camera.

If people are curious, they will ask...

Anyway, the lens that takes the record for most unwanted attention - a few years ago I was out at a festival with a 6D, with the 28-300L attached (I no longer have either). Virtually EVERYONE I spoke to commented on how "big" the lens was. I've never had this happen with any other lens - the 70-200 included.

 

[ahsanford]

I was told by a photojourno who did work in Iraq after the Iraq war that he much prefered the White long lenses to the Nikon black ones as it looked less like a gun to jumpy US soldiers at a distance. But he also said that at other times he'd keep it well wrapped to conceal the camera.

I have a pretty consistent zero tolerance policy with / zero interest in discussing:

• Camera / lens manufacturers who offer the same product in more than one color
• People who care enough about how a camera or lens looks attractiveness-wise to have it affect their buying decisions
• LensCoat-ing gear for strictly cosmetic purposes

That said, if the appearance element of things ties to functionality (elements overheating in the sun, for instance) or increasing the likelihood of something you don't want to happen (scaring away a varmint, drawing attention and getting mugged, etc.), then I care pretty quickly. So I find all this white v black discussion fascinating -- I never considered the photojournalist's need to not look like a combatant.

For me, I do not pine for a black lens just so it will match, so the rig won't stand out, etc.... So on this issue I'm comfortable trusting Canon to do the right thing. I admit my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II looks a bit 'pro' / intimidating for the occasional gun-shy subjects on a portraiture request from friends or family, but they get over it.

- A

 

[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?

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

Thanks and I agree that comes at the high price tag. While by no means I am an expert on this but I guess the sharpness can be maintained or improved with the compromise of size, weight and dollars.

Like you said it might be a business decision to make people by multiple lenses. When I bought my first DSLR (7D) I thought I am good with EF-S 18-200 and 70-300L. Three years down the line I got the 6D with that my lens craze started. I now own 16-35 f/4L, 24-70 f/2.8L II, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, still holding on to my 70-300L for travel. I recently started to shoot wildlife and I got the 100-400L II. I also have the 35 f/2 IS, sigma Art 50, and 85 f/1.8 and the 135 f/2L (my favorite portrait lens)

 

[slclick]

The standing out thing seems to go hand in hand with the creepy photographer (male) image many conjure when they see you with a dslr. Funny thing though is that the real creeps would use a phone for uploading to anywhere for anyone and to blend in with every living sole who has their phones out at all times. It's so damn backwards it blows my mind.

 

[retroreflection]

Canon's "Big Whites" is a good example of a technical requirement becoming a marketing feature. The commenters in this thread seem to think that marketing is just something that is done to customers, but please consider how customers may end up demanding that feature.
Despite the rancor gun stuff recently elicited in these pages, I will provide the example of the belted magnum rifle cartridges. Way back when Holland and Holland wanted to produce a cartridge that fed smoothly from a stacked magazine (i.e. rimless cartridge) and gave good headspace control without a significant case shoulder. (Pretty obscure stuff, gun tech-wise). The .300 and .375 H&H magnums resulted, then Winchester did their .458 Win Mag. All hits that legitimately needed a belt. That was followed by a series of magnums with shoulders and no need for a belt, that were actually degraded by a belt. But for about 50 years no significant volume of customers believed a manly magnum rifle could work without a belt. Then there was a sweep of marketing success with unbelted super magnums. I rate that last step as mostly nonsense in the face of a stagnant product development cycle.
Another example. As fuel economy standards become more stringent, the design of engines has been changing. High pressure when the exhaust valves opens represents lost energy (and is responsible for the sound), so designs have been drifting towards lower exhaust pressure. Customers have been resisting this shift, especially in performance cars, because it doesn't sound right. There is a large group which will never appreciate the acceleration of an electric sports car because they are so darn quiet. I have been led to believe that rule changes limiting engine rpms in Formula 1 have resulted in a reduction in popularity, because it doesn't sound right. Isn't the speed the critical issue in owning a performance car, or in watching a race?
Well, established expectations in ancillary aspects of a product are critical (surprisingly so) for customer satisfaction. These expectations can lead to apparently stupid product offerings, but a sales disaster is a sales disaster, no matter the illogic surrounding the cause. I think the x-24, 24-70, and 70-200 pattern in zooms is a similar thing. Too many customers just expect that sequence.
Now, back to the technical requirement for white. A Seattle wedding shooter may never use their 70-200 out in the dessert sun, but Canon cannot distribute some of their lenses just to customers who will never use them in the dessert sun. There can be only one. They seem to have a design standard which says fluoride elements will only be installed in lenses with all overheating protections employed. I find that admirable, if true. Has Nikon developed an alternative protective technology, or are they so dedicated to not looking like Canon, that they will forgo the best design principles?
I also think, of course without any direct evidence, that Canon has an electronics design standard which does not allow the thermal protection circuits to trip when the camera is used in the specified capability range. One of their competitors clearly does not have that same design standard. I think, again without any direct evidence, that this is why Canon lags in full frame 4K video. And I think Canon is doing right by their customers.

 

[ahsanford]

Canon's "Big Whites" is a good example of a technical requirement becoming a marketing feature.

[truncated]

Appreciate the perspective. I'm sure Canon could have engineered another way to allow the lenses to be colored black and not go to hell in the sun. But they didn't, and we got white lenses.

Years pass and they are still white.

We can dissect why Canon would ever aim to switch to black and require a new engineering project just to get back to where they were performance-wise with the white design, what is the value proposition of such a project, how would the brand suffer if they walked towards Nikon's approach in any way, etc.

Or we can just keep snapping and enjoy the best lens portfolio out there. In the meantime, I'm guessing Canon might be devoting its considerable lens expertise in areas other than the color of the outer housing:

• Expand Nano USM's functionality or find a way to have USM/STM AF switchability on the fly
• Offer it's users a modern 50mm lens that is sharp, lacks focus shift and focuses quickly (IS would also be welcomed)
• Give us a way to shoot > 400mm on FF without needing a teleconverter or spending $9,000.
• Develop a built-in-the-lens fast UV / CPL changeout method (rare-earth magnets or some similar witchcraft) that doesn't degrade weather sealing
• Make an astro lens that is wider than 24mm, faster than f/2 and well coma controlled.

- A

 

[Loswr]

In the meantime, I'm guessing Canon might be devoting its considerable lens expertise in areas other than the color of the outer housing

Then again, they changed the 'white' color in 2010. The 70-200/2.8L IS II launched in the 1st half of that year is the 'old' white, the 70-300L launched in the second half of that year is the 'new' white, as are the MkII superteles and the MkIII TCs. They even released W II versions of all the 52mm drop-ins to match the new white.

 

[ahsanford]

Then again, they changed the 'white' color in 2010. The 70-200/2.8L IS II launched in the 1st half of that year is the 'old' white, the 70-300L launched in the second half of that year is the 'new' white, as are the MkII superteles and the MkIII TCs. They even released W II versions of all the 52mm drop-ins to match the new white.

Whaaaaaaaaat -- they do not match?!

- A

 

[Ozarker]

In the meantime, I'm guessing Canon might be devoting its considerable lens expertise in areas other than the color of the outer housing

Then again, they changed the 'white' color in 2010. The 70-200/2.8L IS II launched in the 1st half of that year is the 'old' white, the 70-300L launched in the second half of that year is the 'new' white, as are the MkII superteles and the MkIII TCs. They even released W II versions of all the 52mm drop-ins to match the new white.

I wish you hadn't posted this. That bothers me as much as having focal length overlap. Had the EF 11-24mm f/4L USM not been so darned expensive (just a few hundred less expensive would have been great) I wouldn't have the overlap with my Tamron 15-30 and my Canon 24-70 (Which still bugs me.).

Now I'll have to get a new model 70-200 when I buy a Great White so the colors will match. Crap!

All my black lenses match my black lenses except there's no red ring on the Tamron... which bugs me too. The Tamron is going to have to go sooner or later.

Putting up with two different shades of white is inconceivable.

 

[scyrene]

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.

Another fascinating titbit.

 

[scyrene]

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

I see what you're saying here but faster bursts can partly mitigate that, as you get more shots from which to pick the sharpest.

 

[scyrene]

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?

Have you *seen* the 200mm f/2L? Its size, and more importantly price suggest why a 70-200mm f/2 zoom is unlikely to appear - far too niche.

 

[scyrene]

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.

I agree; it's possible they might introduce a zoom macro, I believe Nikon used to make one. Even half macro would be useful for larger subjects like butterflies.

 

[scyrene]

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.

I agree with the beginning part, less noticeable is not unnoticed. But the part I've highlighted is special pleading. A lens coat weights very little, and is hardly bulky - it's just neoprene, after all.

I'm afraid accepting that big lenses are (off-)white is the price you pay for using Canon long lenses. There are third party offerings, and Nikon's are black. They're not going to start producing them in multiple colours, so come to peace with it.

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.

I don't know; all I can say is that when I use my 500L in sunshine/warm weather, it is noticeably cool to the touch long after the black camera body is warm; and that when it finally does get hot, the image quality deteriorates markedly (and I'm not talking about distant subjects through heat haze - the hot lens/camera seems to be the cause). I dread to think what it would be like in a hot climate!

I suspect marketing is a big driver for the colour, but I also think these top products are produced after long and detailed consultation with pros, and if the lenses being white were a problem for most, they wouldn't be white.

Then again, they changed the 'white' color in 2010. The 70-200/2.8L IS II launched in the 1st half of that year is the 'old' white, the 70-300L launched in the second half of that year is the 'new' white, as are the MkII superteles and the MkIII TCs. They even released W II versions of all the 52mm drop-ins to match the new white.

Whaaaaaaaaat -- they do not match?!

- A

I thought this was common knowledge! But I had the mark II 2x TC on my 500L (which itself being a mark II is the newer white, to match the mark III TCs), and it wasn't glaringly obvious, and depended on the lighting. However, if you are a perfectionist, it might be annoying. Best to upgrade everything!

 

[scyrene]

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.

Surely the assumption is any FF mirrorless camera would use the EF mount, not EF-M?

 

[rwvaughn]

All my black lenses match my black lenses except there's no red ring on the Tamron... which bugs me too.

LOL You do know that placing a 1/8 inch wide strip of gloss red auto decal pin striping tape over the gold ring on your Tamron lens magically turns it into an L lens right? just kidding pardon my humor

 

[jolyonralph]

Surely the assumption is any FF mirrorless camera would use the EF mount, not EF-M?

It has been rumoured that the Canon could launch a mirrorless camera with the EF mount rather than using the EF-M mount, but I don't really see what benefit that would bring over a DSLR. I think it's inevitable that a FF EF-M mount camera will be launched. Maybe not in 2017 but in the future for sure.

The EF-M mount is full-frame capable already.

 

[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?

Have you *seen* the 200mm f/2L? Its size, and more importantly price suggest why a 70-200mm f/2 zoom is unlikely to appear - far too niche.

I have seen 200 f/2L only in pictures and videos Good point though. I definitely don't want to pay in the order of 5.7k.

 

[ahsanford]

Surely the assumption is any FF mirrorless camera would use the EF mount, not EF-M?

It has been rumoured that the Canon could launch a mirrorless camera with the EF mount rather than using the EF-M mount, but I don't really see what benefit that would bring over a DSLR. I think it's inevitable that a FF EF-M mount camera will be launched. Maybe not in 2017 but in the future for sure.

The EF-M mount is full-frame capable already.

This remains (IMHO) the single most important/impactful decision Canon will need to make for many years: what mount will FF mirrorless use?

This forum -- full of SLR enthusiasts and pros -- generally (about 2/3 of us) say that a full EF mount mirrorless is best for seamlessly useable 2nd body, best for seamless integration of existing glass, etc.... but we are not the entire market by a long shot. They may be gunning for day 1 early adopter spec sheet lunatic enthusiasts or the trust fund photography crowd (think Leica SL), which would imply the product isn't immediately aimed at us. Canon very well may 'go thin' and force EF users to use an adaptor.

Other than the Sigma mirrorless rigs that came our recently (the SD quattro rigs), which had the 'lens tube' like integral projection that maintained effectively a full lens mount without a mirror, no one else to my knowledge has gone the pragmatic route and kept a full mount for mirroless. That's been true in m43, APS-C, and FF so far.

So I would personally prefer a full mounted FF mirrorless setup, but everyone in the market thusfar has 'gone skinny' to chase a rather fleeting illusion of making things smaller and (in fairness) the neat trick of adapting other mounts' lenses.

- A