Canon Announces the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III and EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II

[Maximilian]

Hi everyone,

I am interested in buying a 70-200mm lens. However I can not choose between the f4 II or the f2.8 II

I am mostly interested in portraits, street photography, photojournalism and sometimes sport.

Thanks in advance

For (indoor) sports and portrait you'll need the f/2.8 to gather light an get shallow DOF.
For street and photojournalism light weight and easy handling/carrying. (Of course variation in DOF is nice, too)

The f/2.8 is much bigger an almost double the weight.

So if portrait is your main goal, and if you can afford it, go for the f/2.8 II.
If street and travel is more important, get the f/4 II.

If you have the time and possibilities, go and rent an f/2.8 and try it out.

 

[Talys]

Hi everyone,

I am interested in buying a 70-200mm lens. However I can not choose between the f4 II or the f2.8 II

I am mostly interested in portraits, street photography, photojournalism and sometimes sport.

Thanks in advance

Personally, I would get a 2.8 from someone with a shiny II who absolutely wants the new paintjob.

It's a marvelous lens that does beautiful portraiture and takes fantastic fast-action telephoto with lightning fast autofocus.

My suspicion is that even with the new f/4, AF is constrainted to... well, f/4 aperture, which means, less light and slower, especially if it's indoor sports, or less than ideal light (like afternoon/evening soccer). Even if you stop the 2.8 down to f/4 or f/5.6, it will AF super-fast.

There are some reasons to go f/4 though -- primarily, if you like the size/weight, and of course, price. The only way you'll be able to tell if the weight is a difference maker is if you actually try one out. The new 3ft minimum focus distance is pretty awesome too. But like someone said above, once you use f/2.8 on the 70-200 range, it's really, really hard to imagine going back to a f/4, despite any other features that may be there.

 

[sanj]

Hi everyone,

I am interested in buying a 70-200mm lens. However I can not choose between the f4 II or the f2.8 II

I am mostly interested in portraits, street photography, photojournalism and sometimes sport.

Thanks in advance

If you have any of the latest cameras 5d4, 6d2, 1dx2 then I would go with the f4. Lighter. Better IS. Cheaper.

The quality in IQ is very good now at higher ISO. The subject isolation between 2.8 and 4 is minimal.

Unless you will shoot EVERYTHING in low light, f4 is the way to go in my opinion.

 

[fullstop]

have not followed current Canon DSLRs like 5D4, 6D2 much - but are there not some AF fields with "extra precision mode" in many/all (?) Canon EOS DSLRs when used with f/2.8 lenses? When using slower lenses that "extra AF precision" does not kick in. Not sure about exact terminology, but I dimly recall something to that effect.

 

[Hector1970]

You should consider your budget first.
Buy only what you can afford.
Is there a difference in the image shot at F4 and F2.8?
Sanj may consider it small but that difference is vital. It’s what makes your images stand out and the ability to capture images at a lower ISO. A wedding photographer would go for a 2.8
Yes newer cameras have got good ISO abilities but having 2.8 ensures a better quality images as you can use a stop lower ISO in poor lighting. That’s vital at times.
But you pay a price for that stop.
The lens is heavy and expensive. Prolonged use will give you repetitive strain.
The F4 is a great lens. Super light and portable.
As said above ideal for street and travel photography.
Either way you won’t be disappointed

 

[Talys]

have not followed current Canon DSLRs like 5D4, 6D2 much - but are there not some AF fields with "extra precision mode" in many/all (?) Canon EOS DSLRs when used with f/2.8 lenses? When using slower lenses that "extra AF precision" does not kick in. Not sure about exact terminology, but I dimly recall something to that effect.

If you mean Spot AF (square with dot), it's not lens- or maximum aperture dependent. Spot AF works with any lens in any non-liveview mode where autofocus works at all.

 

[sanj]

have not followed current Canon DSLRs like 5D4, 6D2 much - but are there not some AF fields with "extra precision mode" in many/all (?) Canon EOS DSLRs when used with f/2.8 lenses? When using slower lenses that "extra AF precision" does not kick in. Not sure about exact terminology, but I dimly recall something to that effect.

If you mean Spot AF (square with dot), it's not lens- or maximum aperture dependent. Spot AF works with any lens in any non-liveview mode where autofocus works at all.

No. There are more points available with wider aperture lenses. But as far as I know, there is no difference between 2.8 and 4. I COULD BE WRONG HERE. Pls check.

 

[fullstop]

have not followed current Canon DSLRs like 5D4, 6D2 much - but are there not some AF fields with "extra precision mode" in many/all (?) Canon EOS DSLRs when used with f/2.8 lenses? When using slower lenses that "extra AF precision" does not kick in. Not sure about exact terminology, but I dimly recall something to that effect.

If you mean Spot AF (square with dot), it's not lens- or maximum aperture dependent. Spot AF works with any lens in any non-liveview mode where autofocus works at all.

no, not Spot-AF.

I mean this here:

Some camera models have additional sensors that provide extra high-precision AF capability for lenses with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 or faster.

https://www.learn.usa.canon.com/app/pdfs/quickguides/CDLC_Accurate_EOS_AF_QuickGuide.pdf

only works with lenses f/2.8 or faster. Not with f/4 lenses.
It was one of the reasons why i got 70-200 II and 24-70 II in f/2.8 version.

 

[sanj]

have not followed current Canon DSLRs like 5D4, 6D2 much - but are there not some AF fields with "extra precision mode" in many/all (?) Canon EOS DSLRs when used with f/2.8 lenses? When using slower lenses that "extra AF precision" does not kick in. Not sure about exact terminology, but I dimly recall something to that effect.

If you mean Spot AF (square with dot), it's not lens- or maximum aperture dependent. Spot AF works with any lens in any non-liveview mode where autofocus works at all.

no, not Spot-AF.

I mean this here:

Some camera models have additional sensors that provide extra high-precision AF capability for lenses with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 or faster.

https://www.learn.usa.canon.com/app/pdfs/quickguides/CDLC_Accurate_EOS_AF_QuickGuide.pdf

only works with lenses f/2.8 or faster. Not with f/4 lenses.

It was one of the reasons why i got 70-200 II and 24-70 II in f/2.8 version.

Thank you for this! So yeah focus points will be less. But will that affect your photography? You decide. It will not affect mine...

 

[sanj]

100 percent agree that 2.8 has advantages. But how much is the advantage? Is it worth the weight and the money? Not to me. It would have been if I did not have primes with wider apertures or if I shot only at low light.

 

[fullstop]

f/2.8 or faster lenses bring very real benefits on Canon EOS DSLR AF systems.

Finally found the article i was after ... Neuro ftw ... thx, excellent write-up!
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Photography-Tips/canon-eos-dslr-autofocus-explained.aspx

As mentioned above with the precision discussion, there's a modified type of AF point called a 'high-precision' point, which focuses within 1/3 of the depth of focus of the lens at max aperture, vs. the normal precision spec of within 1 depth of focus.

Read the full article, it is well worth it! 8)

On more recent Canon EOS models there are more of those "extra precision AF points" - so the advantage of f/2.8 over f/4 lenses is likely even greater now. Furthermore, 7D II, 1DX II and other current EOS models have central AF field sensitivity down to -3EV ... but again, only when using f/2.8 (or faster) lenses.

Here is info for 1DX II https://snapshot.canon-asia.com/article/en/interview-with-developers-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-part-2-improved-af-functions

In short: if you have a higher-end Canon EOS DSLR and really want to get everything out of its AF system, you have to use f/2.8 or faster lenses.

 

[infared]

Gee...do you think that there will be a lot of comparison reviews?

 

[Memirsbrunnr]

+1. Please forgive my ranting as I process this in real time, but it's all shock and not anger. This would be like releasing a 5D5 with the same sensor and AF module and burst as the 5D4. There may be some redeeming other properties to it, but at it's core, a staple professional instrument the company has built it's stellar reputation on just got a paint job and was put back out in the field.


I'm quite simply flabbergasted.

- A
[/quote]
Don't give them ideas.. thy seem to be on this path anyways.

 

[Mark D5 TEAM II]

Difficult to imagine that one day the 70-200 mm f/2.8 IS L shooter should envy a 70-200 mm f/4 IS L companion...


Oh well, at least the price is right for the two of them and the 70-200 mm f/4 IS L II seems like a solid upgrade.

The biggest let down to me is that the smaller lens gets mode III IS - which is the IS to have - but the larger one does not ??!!??

Huh? That was the case with the f/4 IS Mark I when it was released in 2006: it was sharper, both in laboratory & real-world testing, than the f/2.8 IS Mark I.

 

[jolyonralph]

Terrible Canon for updating their 70-200 with better coatings and selling it for the same price. Bad Canon!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Hell hath no fury like a forum dweller scorned.

 

[jeffa4444]

I'm not sure what people were expecting here for the f/2.8. V2.0 (which I have) is about as perfect as a lens can get so unless you had visions of grandeur and expected them to include some kind of alien technology, it's a subtle, evolutionary update. Get over it.

If I had one wish, it would be to make it lighter, but at the same time I love the durability of the lens. Perhaps using a carbon-fiber barrel would help, but those glass lenses sure have a lot of weight I'm sure and nothing can't be done with that as far as I know.

It's a solid update. Owners of V2 have no real need for V3, but new buyers will certainly love it.

Respectfully disagree on this being neither an evolutionary nor a solid update. It is quite literally a coat of paint and a coating. Unless Canon has underreported something special here, it appears that we have:

Optical design = same (yes, coating will help flare)
AF = same
IS = same
MFD = same
Form factor = same
Weight = same (more or less, within what, 50g?)
Hood = same
Tripod ring = same (other than paint; presumed, we don't have details yet)
Weather sealing = unknown (could be better, but we lack standardized testing for that)

Yes, we need testing. Yes, we need reviews. I'm certain it will be a fine instrument. But at face value, we should expect much more "subtle" than "evolutionary" here.

For context -- the now infamous 24-105L II got more over its predecessor than this did: the IS at least improved on that one, and it adopted a nicer push-button hood (albeit recycled from the 24-105 STM).

- A

Coatings are not simply for mitigating flares they are now integral to lens design and specific coatings do different things so to dismiss this glibly is a “mistake”.

 

[Viggo]

For me, yes the mk2 is nice, but the bokeh and weight could be approved on, especially the bokeh... at least an update to AF algorithms....

Point being, why even release a mk3, instead of waiting until it could actually be better. Think if they did THIS sort update to a 10 year old camera body, yipes!

 

[amorse]

The two lenses are different products with different purposes - I own the V2 f/2.8, but I'd consider the new f/4 as not a replacement, but a better suited option for specific situations. That 2.8 is heavy has hell - the f/4 is just over half the weight. When weight really counts and you're not shooting action/don't need bokeh, the f/4 may be better suited.

Plenty of people noted how good the current 2.8 was and that it would take a miracle for them to upgrade. Obviously Canon agreed and felt that the current optical formula could go another round without a major upgrade other than coatings. I'm fine with that - if Canon has finite R&D resources, would any of you really want them dumping that into upgrading what many of us have agreed to be a great 70-200 f/2.8, or would you rather that investment go into any of the laundry list of other things people here have been asking for? I'm more curious about what they worked on instead of completely rehashing the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.

 

[Cali Capture]

I think a lot of the frustration on this post comes from the simple fact that Canon has rereleased a 70-200 f/2.8 that most of who own a version II didn't need and have still not released a 50mm 1.4L IS, that we ALL want! Some more so the 135mm f/2.0 IS (that would be me). Of coarse, there always the dreamt of 24-70mm f/2.8 IS also!
As owners of the Canon system, these would be the smack down lenses that could give us an advantage in the field, or at least higher % of keepers w/ AF on higher MP bodies. Anyone else willing to admit this? I thinks it's part of a twelve step program