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

[ethanz]

Was expecting to see the newer f2.8 shed a little weight as Canon has done with all the latest "white lens" upgrades but it seems they have only shed a mere 50g (1440g vs 1490g/3.17lbs vs 3.28lbs.)

The 2.8 weighs less now? How is that possible if nothing changed?

The f4 got 20g heavier.

 

[ethanz]

MTF still not posted at Canon USA for the f/2.8L IS III, but here it is from Japan:

http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/tele-zoom/ef70-200-f28l-iii/spec.html

Same site, Mk II:

http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/tele-zoom/ef70-200-f28l-is-ii/spec.html

...and a GIF, below, that I just made. Flare may improve, folks, but that's probably going to be it.

- A

Great gif Adam.

 

[Talys]

MTF still not posted at Canon USA for the f/2.8L IS III, but here it is from Japan:

http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/tele-zoom/ef70-200-f28l-iii/spec.html

Same site, Mk II:

http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/tele-zoom/ef70-200-f28l-is-ii/spec.html

...and a GIF, below, that I just made. Flare may improve, folks, but that's probably going to be it.

- A

Wow, I guess I get to remain perfectly happy with my Mk II

I'm glad for the people who are f/4 users; that lens looks like a great upgrade for them. White paint and little bit of flare doesn't give me a reason to upgrade unless mine dies from damage or wear and tear. I wonder if the tripod collar rotation is better on the new one.

 

[kirispupis]

The upgrade for the 2.8 is a professional upgrade, not a fanboy one. If all you're interested in are MTF charts that "prove" your photos are awesome because you're using the best equipment in the industry, then you'll want to move on. There's nothing to see here.

My biggest gripe with my 2.8 is that flare is horrible. Since most of my landscape photography incorporates the sun, that means the lens is of limited use. This upgrade changes all that. The sharpness and everything else are already there. Why monkey with it?

What Canon has done is fix the one major flaw on an otherwise awesome lens, then release it for $400 below what the original II cost.

 

[ahsanford]

Was expecting to see the newer f2.8 shed a little weight as Canon has done with all the latest "white lens" upgrades but it seems they have only shed a mere 50g (1440g vs 1490g/3.17lbs vs 3.28lbs.)

Yep, same optical design, but they could have tweaked the outer housing more, gone with more engineering plastic than metal, etc. Hard to tell from the overlay what really changed here, but I'm guessing a host of really small cosmetic touches (surface finish, blend radii at transitions, etc.) in line with the 100-400L II were done.

That said, the Mk II is a tank and perhaps Canon got strong guidance from it's pros that weight reduction should only be pursued if durability/sealing wasn't compromised. It's possible that they couldn't do that without a really major/expensive/risky transformation to the barrel/housing -- using carbon fiber for instance.

Or maybe they said 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' and put all their chips on reducing production costs and kept most of it the same. That's what the photos would imply.

- A

 

[scyrene]

This forum, before announcement: "The 70-200/2.8 II is already the best and sharpest thing ever, I can't see how they could make it even better"

This forum, after announcement: "Omg I can't believe they didn't do a real upgrade, the 70-200/2.8 II optics are no match for future 100MP sensors and anyway GREEDY CANON"

: : :

Heh, pretty much!

 

[scyrene]

Two points:

First, why does the F4 lens have 5 stops of IS and the F2.8 lens have only 3.5 stops? The answer is easy..... the faster lens has heavier elements and they can not be moved as quickly as the elements in the F4 lens....

Second: Why does it seem like there is no update to the F2.8 lens? What about coatings? What about accuracy of machining? Just because it has the same number of elements does not mean it is the same resolution, the optical design can still have been changed and the lens elements may also be more accurately polished...... Wait until you see the results from an optical test bench before you pronounce judgement.......

The clouds parted, the sunshine surrounded us, and, lo and behold, we heard the voice of reason. Nice for a change!

+1

Also why is it whenever a new version of something comes out, people assume that the target market is owners of the previous version? Just cos there's a mark III doesn't mean you should upgrade from your mark II. But if you're starting out, you get the newer one if you can afford it/want brand new. It's not complicated.

 

[ethanz]

Was expecting to see the newer f2.8 shed a little weight as Canon has done with all the latest "white lens" upgrades but it seems they have only shed a mere 50g (1440g vs 1490g/3.17lbs vs 3.28lbs.)

Yep, same optical design, but they could have tweaked the outer housing more, gone with more engineering plastic than metal, etc. Hard to tell from the overlay what really changed here, but I'm guessing a host of really small cosmetic touches (surface finish, blend radii at transitions, etc.) in line with the 100-400L II were done.

That said, the Mk II is a tank and perhaps Canon got strong guidance from it's pros that weight reduction should only be pursued if durability/sealing wasn't compromised. It's possible that they couldn't do that without a really major/expensive/risky transformation to the barrel/housing -- using carbon fiber for instance.

Or maybe they said 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' and put all their chips on reducing production costs and kept most of it the same. That's what the photos would imply.

- A

I've got it figured out. The gold "Image Stabilizer" on the II weighed and cost extra because it was real gold so they skipped it on the new III, hence the slightly reduced weight and cost.

 

[timmy_650]

I wonder if this is a way to deal with Tamron and sigma 70-200. The Tamron G2 is $1300 which is a lot cheaper than $2100 which the canon 70-200 2.8 mIII cost. Now the price of the mII could drop to 1400-1500 which makes the G2 less appealing.

 

[ahsanford]

The 2.8 weighs less now? How is that possible if nothing changed?

The optical components are the same and the outer housing (see above) sure seems the same, but there are obviously things between the two that are onboard. Internal components could be hollowed out, made thinner, etc., some metal internals could be replaced with plastic, etc.

You can always put a part on a diet if you look hard enough.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I wonder if the tripod collar rotation is better on the new one.

Hard to tell -- it's in the box with the lens, unlike the f/4 ring. So I think they name that part but they don't inventory it with solo marketing shots. (I just tried to find my Mk II ring at B&H and it doesn't come up as a standalone item.)

But surely it's a new subcomponent due to the paint, I would guess.

- A

 

[unfocused]

Well you have to understand that people don't expect canon to upgrade again for a long ass time. so when new cameras come out canon might still use this as a flagship for another 5 to 10 years. every camera and brand standards will surpass it by then. if this happens

There is no law that says Canon has to wait five to 10 years to issue a Mk IV. This was a minor update and once Canon rolls the Mk III into its rebate program and the street price settles in, it will be about the same price as the Mk II, which is significantly less than the competition.

If, in a couple of years, Canon comes out with a Mk IV that is a more significant upgrade at a higher price point, what's the harm? I could understand the complaining if they were asking $2,500 for the Mk III. But they are not.

As far as "every camera and brand standards will surpass it," it all depends on what you mean by "surpass it." If you mean imperceptible test chart differences, maybe. If you mean differences that will impact actual photography, maybe not.

People whine about the 24-105 "L," but I have yet to find any examples of any manufacturer producing a better lens in that same range. Just as with the 24-105, Canon may have taken a look at the 70-200 2.8 and said, "we can make a marginally better lens for 50% more, or we can keep the same lens design for the time being until we can produce a noticeably better lens at a price point the market will accept."

Since no one anywhere is complaining about the quality of the MkII, what sense would it make to produce a significantly more costly lens just to win a test chart contest?

 

[ahsanford]

I wonder if this is a way to deal with Tamron and sigma 70-200. The Tamron G2 is $1300 which is a lot cheaper than $2100 which the canon 70-200 2.8 mIII cost. Now the price of the mII could drop to 1400-1500 which makes the G2 less appealing.

That's a move you do in the budget superzoom space where Canon hasn't historically played before, or possibly in the f/4 zoom pricing (where cost is clearly a bigger consideration).

But here, in this class of lens, Canon are the king of the hill in both reputation and in the product's performance. I just don't see them given two hoots about Sigma or Tamron here.

- A

 

[unfocused]

...I just tried to find my Mk II ring at B&H and it doesn't come up as a standalone item...

You can have mine. Worthless accessory for me on a lens that never sees a tripod. Just gets in the way when zooming. I keep mine rotated 180 degrees so I can grasp the zoom ring from below.

 

[ahsanford]

Since no one anywhere is complaining about the quality of the MkII, what sense would it make to produce a significantly more costly lens just to win a test chart contest?

Why do high end car manufacturers -- even ones with high quality standards (Mercedes, Audi, etc.) -- have race teams? :

There needs to be some 'best' to what they do that isn't just best at sales. Some products are undeniably sexy performers that other companies cannot match. This particular lens (along with the superwhites, the exotic f/1.2 primes, etc.) is one of those products.

This lens is a workhorse and a showhorse. I would have left the Mk II as is and come out with a Mk III when it was truly better. But as we all have said here: Canon is here to make money and they ran the numbers. This lens is happening.

I'm one of the bigger Canon apologists here -- I'm a happy, happy customer despite a few OCD whinges I have. But I think this move was a mistake for the EF brand. Where there was energy and excitement for new lens releases, a small amount of skepticism creeps in with each of these overtly commercial moves. It's a shame.

Still with Canon, still happily so. But I wouldn't have made this call.

- A

 

[Deleted member 7828]

Actually, a boost in AF accuracy would be nice to see...again, let’s see what the reviews say. Field results and comparisons between the two lenses will be infinitely more insightful than looking at on-paper differences...

Rudy, around 2:00-2:05 in the video: AF speed and responsiveness are unchanged (for the f/2.8.).

I seem to recall something else said about better focusing on newer bodies, but that may have been the f/4.

- A

Hmm. So according to that video, flare is better controlled and there are minor cosmetic updates, but other than that it’s the same. Ok, fair enough.

Would be interesting to compare the new f4 with the 2.8 optically.

Worthless accessory for me on a lens that never sees a tripod. Just gets in the way when zooming. I keep mine rotated 180 degrees so I can grasp the zoom ring from below.

I remove it altogether...I have no use for it, personally. But - I’m still glad it’s included.

 

[ahsanford]

You can have mine. Worthless accessory for me on a lens that never sees a tripod. Just gets in the way when zooming. I keep mine rotated 180 degrees so I can grasp the zoom ring from below.

Mine comes out for the odd tripod landscapes or once-in-never monopod sports use.

We have a pretty great view of the LA area from the back of our house, and it's actually fun to 'telescope tourist' little things -- the Hollywood sign, the Oscars, and the 4th of July out here is absolute insanity.

It's tough to shoot well as early shooting has a not pitch black horizon, and later the sky is too smoky from so much getting set off. But it's a great lazy evening with a few beers and our one dog that doesn't go into the armageddon bunker while it's all going off (the other most certainly does).

- A

 

[unfocused]

Since no one anywhere is complaining about the quality of the MkII, what sense would it make to produce a significantly more costly lens just to win a test chart contest?

Why do high end car manufacturers -- even ones with high quality standards (Mercedes, Audi, etc.) -- have race teams? :

There needs to be some 'best' to what they do that isn't just best at sales. Some products are undeniably sexy performers that other companies cannot match. This particular lens (along with the superwhites, the exotic f/1.2 primes, etc.) is one of those products.

This lens is a workhorse and a showhorse...

Workhorse, yes. Show horse? Not so much.

This is a lens that is always in my working bag. I use it so frequently that I bought a second body so I could keep this lens on one body and put a 24-105 on the other body and not have to lose time changing lenses. I use it for portraits, indoor sports, meetings, performances, etc. It gets banged around a lot and keeps functioning.

For me, this isn't some finely tuned racing machine, it's a pickup truck.

Will I buy the MkIII? Not until my MkII has come to the end of its useful life and then, only if a MkIV isn't out by then. But, as I said at the start of the whole discussion/debate when this lens was just a rumor: There are enough MKIIs out there nearing the end of their life and enough new buyers to justify a refresh, without ever selling a single lens to people who have newer or pristine copies of the Mk II.

 

[Tony Bennett]

Look at the upside of the new 2.8: Parts obsolescence is pushed out another 10 years if you ever need repair of your v II.

That’s one of the reasons I waited for this Version 3 update. My 70-200 2.8L version one is 12 years this year and is no longer "supported" by Canon. By supported, I mean until they stop making/run out of parts for it.

 

[Talys]

Well you have to understand that people don't expect canon to upgrade again for a long ass time. so when new cameras come out canon might still use this as a flagship for another 5 to 10 years. every camera and brand standards will surpass it by then. if this happens

There is no law that says Canon has to wait five to 10 years to issue a Mk IV. This was a minor update and once Canon rolls the Mk III into its rebate program and the street price settles in, it will be about the same price as the Mk II, which is significantly less than the competition.

If, in a couple of years, Canon comes out with a Mk IV that is a more significant upgrade at a higher price point, what's the harm? I could understand the complaining if they were asking $2,500 for the Mk III. But they are not.

As far as "every camera and brand standards will surpass it," it all depends on what you mean by "surpass it." If you mean imperceptible test chart differences, maybe. If you mean differences that will impact actual photography, maybe not.

People whine about the 24-105 "L," but I have yet to find any examples of any manufacturer producing a better lens in that same range. Just as with the 24-105, Canon may have taken a look at the 70-200 2.8 and said, "we can make a marginally better lens for 50% more, or we can keep the same lens design for the time being until we can produce a noticeably better lens at a price point the market will accept."

Since no one anywhere is complaining about the quality of the MkII, what sense would it make to produce a significantly more costly lens just to win a test chart contest?

To be honest, I'm slightly relieved that the Mk3 isn't so awesome that I feel the urge to run out and buy it

I am very happy with photos from my Mk2; it's one of my favourite lenses, period. When I take a photo from it, I'm always pleased with the results, and it's a super-reliable, trusty lens. It's almost inconceivable that Canon could produce something that would make me feel, "wow, that's $2,000 well spent!". On the other hand, if I were to be forced to buy one due to wear or damage or whatever, sure, I'd rather get it in a little whiter paint and with some minor upgrade

Now that the f/4 Mk2 has IS3 and more stabilization stops, I'd like to see it in the f/2.8 -- especially IS mode 3 -- but that's mostly for backyard patio birding. It's not a reason I would go and run out to buy the lens, but it would be great to see it there. I'm genuinely happy for f/4 shooters; the 70-200/4L2 sounds just awesome.

I think the verdict is not in yet as to image quality, right? It could have slightly better characteristics in terms of corner sharpness and such -- on a tripod, under a microscope, and in a scenario that never actually happens in daily photography, some of the newer lenses appear slightly sharper, so there's that, I guess. And I would really like a smooth-gliding tripod collar.

But these are such minor things, and since I've used the Sony and Sigma lenses and far prefer the Canon MkII (for different reasons), Canon is still ahead in my book.