New Canon 70-200mm Lenses Coming in Early June [CR3]

[[email protected]]

every 5-10 years, the zooms get so darned good that it makes me think I should ditch the primes and enjoy the convenience, along with just about as good image quality, if thinner aperture. And then, 3-5 years later, new primes come out that are astoundingly better than the zooms.

We're in the latter part of the oh-my-here-come-the-primes stage right now, if you count Sigma and Tamron as participants. Canon hasn't quite done as much fleshing out on its own.

OPTION 1:
Perhaps it is time to come out with a 70-200 and a 24-70 that are about as good as the 35 L II and the new 85, but just a couple stops slower. I would like that very much.

OPTION 2:
More likely, unfortunately, these will be updates akin to the 24-105 II, which is to say there will be some small changes, but the benefit over the previous model will have to do with manufacturing and repair costs. This is by far the best odds option, as a plurality of lens revenue is earned off the 2.8 II, and increasing the margin on that would be very rational.

OPTION 3:
This is exceedingly unlikely. A benefit of having pro-sized bodies is that larger glass doesn't feel odd in the hand. Canon could produce a 70-200 f/2 IS DO that would be shorter than the 2.8 II and rather a bit wider. Put that on a 1 or 5 series body, and it wouldn't look crazy. The center of gravity would be similar to the 2.8. This complete speculation is astronomically unlikely.

 

[Antono Refa]

OPTION 3:
This is exceedingly unlikely. A benefit of having pro-sized bodies is that larger glass doesn't feel odd in the hand. Canon could produce a 70-200 f/2 IS DO that would be shorter than the 2.8 II and rather a bit wider. Put that on a 1 or 5 series body, and it wouldn't look crazy. The center of gravity would be similar to the 2.8. This complete speculation is astronomically unlikely.

The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkII has a filter diameter of 77mm. An f/2 would have a filter diameter >100mm, so at least 30% wider. It would also be heavier than the 1.5kg mkII. I don't see such a large lens selling well.

 

[MrToes]

every 5-10 years, the zooms get so darned good that it makes me think I should ditch the primes and enjoy the convenience, along with just about as good image quality, if thinner aperture. And then, 3-5 years later, new primes come out that are astoundingly better than the zooms.

We're in the latter part of the oh-my-here-come-the-primes stage right now, if you count Sigma and Tamron as participants. Canon hasn't quite done as much fleshing out on its own.

OPTION 1:
Perhaps it is time to come out with a 70-200 and a 24-70 that are about as good as the 35 L II and the new 85, but just a couple stops slower. I would like that very much.

OPTION 2:
More likely, unfortunately, these will be updates akin to the 24-105 II, which is to say there will be some small changes, but the benefit over the previous model will have to do with manufacturing and repair costs. This is by far the best odds option, as a plurality of lens revenue is earned off the 2.8 II, and increasing the margin on that would be very rational.

OPTION 3:
This is exceedingly unlikely. A benefit of having pro-sized bodies is that larger glass doesn't feel odd in the hand. Canon could produce a 70-200 f/2 IS DO that would be shorter than the 2.8 II and rather a bit wider. Put that on a 1 or 5 series body, and it wouldn't look crazy. The center of gravity would be similar to the 2.8. This complete speculation is astronomically unlikely.

I would like a 70-200mm f/2.0 with a 100mm filter that is 1.5 kg heavier weight than the f/2.8. Just not the astronomical price associated with a f/2.0

 

[Chaitanya]

Still no new Macro lens either to replace now discontinued 50mm Compact macro or ageing 180mm L macro.

 

[Drainpipe]

Still no new Macro lens either to replace now discontinued 50mm Compact macro or ageing 180mm L macro.

This is what I want to see. If Canon updated the MP-E 65mm, I would buy it and the new MT-26EX in a heartbeat. Not that there’s anything wrong with the MP-E, but I’d like to see it go from .5x-5x. I can dream...

 

[PureClassA]

......SHIT! There goes more money (assuming results are markedly better than my Mark II)

 

[sanj]

Good news for all who want this. I got rid of my version 2 of this lens. Reasons:

1. Too heavy
2. 70-300 (black lens) serves my purpose much better for wildlife. Lighter, better range and I can't see any IQ difference in day time photography.
3. When I want large aperture, primes (135, 85) work better.

But again good for those who want this... Earlier in life I considered 70-200 a must have. Not anymore.

 

[fullstop]

Get your check books ready people.

definitely not. Will not buy any more marginally iterated EF lenses. For the time being I keep my EF 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 Mark II's. If Canon wants me to spend any money they gotta come forward with compelling FF mirrorless offers.

 

[tomscott]

I know these are cash cows.

But come on... they are already the best in class there is so much other stuff they could focus on...

 

[hendrik-sg]

Still no new Macro lens either to replace now discontinued 50mm Compact macro or ageing 180mm L macro.

This is what I want to see. If Canon updated the MP-E 65mm, I would buy it and the new MT-26EX in a heartbeat. Not that there’s anything wrong with the MP-E, but I’d like to see it go from .5x-5x. I can dream...

The Mp-e 65 is a fantastic lens. It has a buld quality which newer lenses just can dream of, and used appropriate, it is as sharp as physics allow. In macro, the real apertrure is (1+x) times what is the setting, with x being the magnification used. This means wide open at 5x it has a real opening of 17, which is above the diffraction limit, and simulanously a DOF of 0.05mm. For this reason, any real object needs stacking and any stopping down massively decreases sharpness, which is not the fault of the lens, it's physics. If there are not enough frames taken (typically 100's) the is image quality loss by misalignement and ghosting, beside the unevitable pixel mapping losses. Only after this comes the imense maginification of any subject or camera movement.

Me including, unsharp pictures with this lens are being caused by lack of skills or unevitable physical limits, a "better" lens with the same parameters will just be more expensive and trade build quality for a red ring, but it will not get us better extreme macro pictures.

So the best improvement for this lens would be to make it f2.0, which i do not know if it's possible.

 

[jolyonralph]

Well it looks like any hope of a new mount for mirrorless is dead.

Why "hope" ?

Do you want to have all your existing lenses obsoleted and buy new? Little longer ones to compensate for the shorter flange distance of the new camera??? did you do the math how much this would cost you? i did...

You do realise there will be an adaptor for EF glass? Canon won't likely produce EF-M versions of their long EF glass, they'll just let you use the adaptor with it.

 

[jolyonralph]

The Mp-e 65 isa fantastic lens. It has a buld Quality which newer lenses just can dream of, and used appropriate, it is as sharp as physics allow.

The MPE-65 is no longer in production according to Canon UK, and once stocks run out that's it.

I doubt it's a big enough seller that it would justify a replacement

 

[hendrik-sg]

Well it looks like any hope of a new mount for mirrorless is dead.

Why "hope" ?

Do you want to have all your existing lenses obsoleted and buy new? Little longer ones to compensate for the shorter flange distance of the new camera??? did you do the math how much this would cost you? i did...

You do realise there will be an adaptor for EF glass? Canon won't likely produce EF-M versions of their long EF glass, they'll just let you use the adaptor with it.

Of course i do, just the question is, will we want to have a lens lineup which will have to be adapted for ever or will they make a decission one day, to move mirrorless completely. If so, it will make no sense to build even long lenses with EF mount but to build them for mirrrorless. If not, most lenses need to be EF, except the ones which benefit from shorter flange distance, so the mirrorless will be the niche market with only few native lenses, like EF-M is now.

maybe there will be a conversion service for the more worthfull lenses?

 

[Sabaki]

The Mp-e 65 isa fantastic lens. It has a buld Quality which newer lenses just can dream of, and used appropriate, it is as sharp as physics allow.

The MPE-65 is no longer in production according to Canon UK, and once stocks run out that's it.

I doubt it's a big enough seller that it would justify a replacement

The MP-E 65, in my opinion, is a critical part of Canon's lineup.

I hear your argument in terms of sales numbers but it is a lens unparalleled and for those macro fundis looking to buy into a system, it does give Canon a massive leg up on the other manufacturers

 

[Kit.]

My english is not fireproof but doesn't mirrorless mean mirror-less? what comes 'size-less'?
A shorter mount aims at what lenses?

Typically, during the film era, a shorter mount of mirrorless cameras was aimed at lighter and cheaper wide-angle lenses and at smaller "pancake" normal lenses. In digital era, with sensor's microlenses shading each other at large angles of incidence, even that is of doubtful importance.

 

[fullstop]

Of course i do, just the question is, will we want to have a lens lineup which will have to be adapted for ever or will they make a decission one day, to move mirrorless completely. If so, it will make no sense to build even long lenses with EF mount but to build them for mirrrorless. If not, most lenses need to be EF, except the ones which benefit from shorter flange distance, so the mirrorless will be the niche market with only few native lenses, like EF-M is now.

I would be perfectly happy with a lineup of new, compact native mirrorless FF lenses for most frequently used focal length range [16-135mm] and EF glass plus adapter for tele and specialty lenses [eg Tilt-Shift] - which are a much smaller niche in the grand scheme of things.

 

[jolyonralph]

Of course i do, just the question is, will we want to have a lens lineup which will have to be adapted for ever or will they make a decission one day, to move mirrorless completely.

maybe there will be a conversion service for the more worthfull lenses?

Once they stop selling DSLRs with EF mount then yes, they'll phase out the EF lens range. But even at the most optimistic that'll be five years away, more likely ten, possibly more.

Conversion service? An adaptor and some hot glue?

 

[lisa]

This is the interesting news. So, may I consider the A 70-200mm on my wish list. Has anyone have any idea of the actual price of the targeted lenses?

 

[jolyonralph]

Is it not more likely that the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (non IS) gets updated? It's a 1995 design compared to the IS II being a 2010 lens.

 

[Diltiazem]

These two lenses are so good that most are wondering why replace them.
I may replace my 70-200/2.8 II with the new one, not because something is wrong with my lens but because of my Gear Acquisition Syndrome. Canon surely is aware of this syndrome.