Canon Working on New EF 70-200 L Lens [CR2]

[whothafunk]

No professional lens will have a STM because USM is still superior in terms of autofocus speed (for stills).

My personal wish for 70-200L f2.8 IS USM III would be that it would have more robust switches, as my IS ON/OFF and AF/MF get switched when I swap dslr position from normal to portrait and that costed me many good photos.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Since I just ordered a 70-200 f2.8 II I'm guessing that's the lens they will replace.

All kidding aside, I would not be in the least surprised to see a 70-200 mm "L" III.

This is a foundation lens for Canon and I'm sure they want it to remain the best 70-200 available.

Given the stellar performance of some of Canon's most recent lenses, there is always room for improvement, even if it is only marginal. With ever-higher megapixel sensors on the horizon, they will want to make sure the 70-200 stays ahead of the game.

I would expect to see the latest lens coating added as well as IS improvements that have been developed since its introduction. They might reduce the weight slightly and it would not surprise me to see additional weather sealing and a few other enhancements added.

From a business standpoint, updating one of your core lenses so you can generate new sales among owners of the II version makes a lot of sense.

I don't think there is much to gain optically with a mkIII 70-200 f2.8 LIS. The update with be superficial at best. Probably constrained to coatings and BR elements. I think it just missed the subwave and flourine coatings, which was a pity. But not a massive loss. The main goal of the mkII was the updated the optics to the modern sensor requirements from the mkI version. Canon has been "knocking it our of the park" for quite a while in their lens design. The 70-200 f2.8 LIS II was one of those early "change of heart" lenses which seemed to happen after the 50mm f1.2 L fiasco. The TS-e 24 II L and TS-e 17 L were the first two wide lenses in Canon's modern era which really displayed Canon's new lens making ethos. In Canon's history, they seem to like a 10 year design life span for their lenses and they usually get it right at launch.

 

[rbr]

Wasn't there a rumor of a zoom macro a while back? I could see a new 70-200 f4 IS macro zoom that really was 200mm at 1:1 magnification being very useful. It would be more of a replacement for the 180 macro lens than any if the current zooms. If the AF was fast at normal working distances it would be even more versatile and sell very well I'd think.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

they could remove, or better balance the aspherics to improve the nasty transition zone bokeh

The f4 LIS bokeh is a lot more pleasing than the f2.8 LIS II. Sure it's no ef 200mm f2.8 prime but it's still very nice.

 

[Maximilian]

An EF 70-200 STM, together with the 24-105 STM, makes sense IF (some of) the new Full Frame bodies feature the DPAF.

Why not a 70-300 STM?
The only advantage of the 200 mm would be a little smaller size. But that'll be almost not recognizable.
On FF you'll (most) be longing for at least 300 mm. I put mine aside for a 100 - 400, because I felt 300 not being enough.
So why combine 200 mm with an aperture more than f4, when you can get 70-300 at reasonable sizes?

 

[JonAustin]

Maybe they'll replace the tripod ring on the 70-200 2/8L IS II with one like on the new 100-400 II.

That should be enough to merit a vIII designation, right? ;D

 

[Maximilian]

Maybe they'll replace the tripod ring on the 70-200 2/8L IS II with one like on the new 100-400 II.

That should be enough to merit a vIII designation, right? ;D

*LOL*

 

[pwp]

The current 70-200 f/2.8isII is far and away my most used lens. It's in daily use. It's consistently brilliant. However as I'm not exactly Mr Muscles, after long shooting days I do feel the weight of the 1-series bodies and heavy glass. My next lens will be a 70-200 f/4is not as a replacement to the f/2.8 but as well as, for those long days on my feet on projects where f2.8 isn't vital. The f/4 really could do with a tripod/monopod collar.

So what I'd like to see in a potential 70-200 f/2.8 is III is a weight-loss program, even better IS, updated coatings and no loss of IQ. How could it get any better?

It has been noted that the current f/2.8 was a 2010 release so it's more likely to be an update on the f/4.

-pw

 

[Haydn1971]

All kidding aside, I would not be in the least surprised to see a 70-200 mm "L" III.

This is a foundation lens for Canon and I'm sure they want it to remain the best 70-200 available.

Given the stellar performance of some of Canon's most recent lenses, there is always room for improvement, even if it is only marginal. With ever-higher megapixel sensors on the horizon, they will want to make sure the 70-200 stays ahead of the game.

Spot on, the f2.8 24-70 & 70-200 are the traditional foundation duo combo, the only reason not to have a 70-200 2.8 II L in my opinion is the sheer scale and weight, trim the fat, add recent developments in coatings and IS, mix in the 100-400 II build quality (not that the current lens is bad), then some ergonomic enhancements like the collar and 100-400 style hood - bingo

 

[pardus]

Damn, better not be a replacement for the 70-200 f2.8 II - I just bought one last week. My non-IS version just didn't cut it on the 5DS R. Huge difference between the 2 lenses. I would guess a non-IS version replacement, that lens really is not that great, especially since I got my hands on the new IS version.

 

[SeanW]

Since I just ordered a 70-200 f2.8 II I'm guessing that's the lens they will replace.

Likewise, but I'm more than happy with what I have. Just need to use it some more!

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Both of the f/4 70-200 lenses need to be updated. The current designs may be "sharp" to some, but in the corners, they're somewhat terrible and the CA is out of control. They need to be updated for critical work with higher end cameras.

New designs for either one or both of the f/4 lenses would update them with BR (hopefully) to get better IQ.

The f/2.8 70-200s are "too new" to be replaced just yet.

Agreed. The f/4 lenses are old design so these are the ones needing an update

 

[Botts]

The f/4L could use a upgrade, but it won't happen. The f/4L IS is wonderfully sharp, Of course, it could be better, but it does not need a replacement.

It would be nice if they would focus while the lens is less than level though.

Quite a few 70-200 f/4Ls don't focus if pointed upwards or downwards at a steep angle.

 

[Spiros Zaharakis]

The list of recommended lenses for the 5Ds does not have the 70-200 f4IS but has the 70-200 f4. I suspect it is because they were planning to introduce a replacement and didn't want to risk sales by also recommending the previous model (the non IS version is not a direct competitor)

 

[Antono Refa]

... I would have guessed 70-200 STM (maybe 3.5-5.6) to team up with the 24-105 STM.

In the "old days" there was the telezoom type 70 - 210mm/4-5.6 as available tele lens.
Nowadays we have the 70-300mm/4-5.6 for this job. And quite good price performers from third parties here.
I see absolutely no reason for any lens manfacturer to make that step backwards. Sorry but that's a miss.

If it's 200mm is at the long end, rather than 300mm, the front element would be 1/3rd smaller, which would make a difference for EOS-M body owners.

 

[Maximilian]

If it's 200mm is at the long end, rather than 300mm, the front element would be 1/3rd smaller, which would make a difference for EOS-M body owners.

But we're talking about a FF lens, don't we?

Antono, of course you're right when it comes to M system. but here we already have an up to 200 mm zoom.

 

[K-amps]

Anyone know if anyone (any company) ever considered a faster lens than 2.8 in this range? I understand weight would be a serious issue...

...just wondering...

Considering the 200mm F2 costs in the $6000-7000 region, anything with a 70-200 F2 type spec would be at least $7500, but probably in the 8-9k region... considering it gives you just 1 additional stop for 3-4x the price, you can appreciate how limited the market for such a lens would be.

 

[whothafunk]

f2 gives you additional 2/3 of light over f2.8, not 1 whole stop.

 

[Coldhands]

f2 gives you additional 2/3 of light over f2.8, not 1 whole stop.

Standard full-stop f-number scale goes f/1, f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4... Therefore going from 2.8 to 2 does provide a difference of one full stop. 2/3 of a stop faster than f/2.8 is f/2.2

Check the wikipedia page for f-number if you'd like to see how the scale is derived.

 

[AJ]

f2 gives you additional 2/3 of light over f2.8, not 1 whole stop.

Standard full-stop f-number scale goes f/1, f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4... Therefore going from 2.8 to 2 does provide a difference of one full stop. 2/3 of a stop faster than f/2.8 is f/2.2

Check the wikipedia page for f-number if you'd like to see how the scale is derived.

Or else you can compute 2.8 squared divided by 2 squared, which is two, meaning one full stop.

I wonder if the new 70-200 will be a DO lens