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

[ahsanford]

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.

+1. If I shatter my hood or need some critical subcomponent, my Mk II just got another 10 year lease on life.

- A

 

[scyrene]

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? :

Do you really think that is the model to follow? Flashy, maybe headline-grabbing stuff that makes no practical difference to customers' experiences?

these overtly commercial moves.

LOL! You do remember they're a commercial enterprise? Everything they do is commercial, whether you interpret it that way or not. Nobody is making you buy this lens. How is it a problem that a minor upgrade gets a new model number (which seems to be the nub of the criticism)? The lineup is not worse than it was a week ago, in some small ways it may be better. I genuinely don't understand your problem with this.

 

[Talys]

Workhorse, yes. Show horse? Not so much.

That's what the white paint is for

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.

Couldn't agree more!

 

[jeffa4444]

Yesterday I posted that the biggest issue with the current EF 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM II lens is CAs especially at the 70mm end and close focus. I said overall the lens was great and maybe coating improvements could improve the CAs issue. The coating changes may well be to address this issue (and to address fingerprints some of which attack old coatings).
Before condemming the minimal changes I think we need to wait and see production models that have been tested fully, independently. Everyone seems to have stated the MKII would be a hard act to follow and it only fall behind the Sony FE 70-200mm f2.8 G Master because of the CA issue. Be patient and wait for real world testing.

 

[ahsanford]

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

Do you really think that is the model to follow? Flashy, maybe headline-grabbing stuff that makes no practical difference to customers' experiences?

My bad: I should have specified. I meant the much less flashy rally/road racing, where bleeding edge tech leads to high performance and winning. I'm not a big racing aficionado, but a friend is, and I would hear stories to no end how Audi was mopping the floor with folks with some turbodiesel fancypants design. That built a reputation around the brand of what the rest of company's offerings could do.

One could argue Canon's best glass is serving that exact same sort of role for the EF portfolio at large: showy, super expensive, but man, it delivers. Not every Canon lens is a value/reliability-obsessed Honda -- some are supercars with spectacular engineering.

LOL! You do remember they're a commercial enterprise? Everything they do is commercial, whether you interpret it that way or not. Nobody is making you buy this lens. How is it a problem that a minor upgrade gets a new model number (which seems to be the nub of the criticism)? The lineup is not worse than it was a week ago, in some small ways it may be better. I genuinely don't understand your problem with this.

My beef is that they are hooking up the cash wagon to a lens that serves an additional role to the business than just earning cash. Some elements of EF tent up the reputation of the system -- this is absolutely one of them.

Help me understand how this offering increases folks' esteem or perceived value of the brand. I don't believe it does (unless colors matching is a must for you). It's an overtly/strictly commercial move to me because all it's going to do is make money -- not improve the system, unlock new functionality, improve the reputation of the brand, etc.

I like the fact that Canon has a few very special lenses no one else can match. Slapping white paint on one of those special lenses and having the audacity to call it new and improved tarnishes the brand, IMHO. That's all.

- A

 

[Talys]

I like the fact that Canon has a few very special lenses no one else can match. Slapping white paint on one of those special lenses and having the audacity to call it new and improved tarnishes the brand, IMHO. That's all.

- A

Technically, I agree with you, and I totally understand where you're coming from -- but practically, I don't care, because the II was just fine yesterday, and remains just fine today.

For all my jokes about white paint, it isn't really important to me one way or the other, though I suppose if I were buying a new lens and they were side by side, I'd pick the one with matching paint (to the extenders), lol. Still, what would you have them call a repainted II with ASC coatings and maybe some other minor stuff? II.1?

 

[ethanz]

I think we've pretty much said everything that can be said until we see real world results from the lenses. So I'll just be

 

[Talys]

Yesterday I posted that the biggest issue with the current EF 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM II lens is CAs especially at the 70mm end and close focus. I said overall the lens was great and maybe coating improvements could improve the CAs issue. The coating changes may well be to address this issue (and to address fingerprints some of which attack old coatings).
Before condemming the minimal changes I think we need to wait and see production models that have been tested fully, independently. Everyone seems to have stated the MKII would be a hard act to follow and it only fall behind the Sony FE 70-200mm f2.8 G Master because of the CA issue. Be patient and wait for real world testing.

Right. Uncorrectable CA is one of the banes of my existence when it comes to product photography.

On the bright side, I never use this lens for product photography

 

[ethanz]

Yesterday I posted that the biggest issue with the current EF 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM II lens is CAs especially at the 70mm end and close focus. I said overall the lens was great and maybe coating improvements could improve the CAs issue. The coating changes may well be to address this issue (and to address fingerprints some of which attack old coatings).
Before condemming the minimal changes I think we need to wait and see production models that have been tested fully, independently. Everyone seems to have stated the MKII would be a hard act to follow and it only fall behind the Sony FE 70-200mm f2.8 G Master because of the CA issue. Be patient and wait for real world testing.

Right. Uncorrectable CA is one of the banes of my existence when it comes to product photography.

On the bright side, I never use this lens for product photography

Maybe I'm forgetful but I've never really had issues with CA on copy. And if there has been, CA correction in ACR has fixed it.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I wonder how many of the snide posts are coming from photographers who own and use the current 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. Just wonder.

yes, here! I find the absence of Arca-grooves on the lens/tripod foot already annoying on the Mk. II. On Mk. III i find it ... insane. Even Tamron has finally seen the light on their 70-200 G2! Lack of such a simple feature that certainly would not break the bank on manufacturing cost of a 2000+ lens, but would be extremely useful to many user and does not hurt users who don't need it ... is simply "Canon-esque". And it certainly does not increase my desire for an "upgrade".

Yes, we aren't spec sheeters like Sony people, we like real world differences.

yes. In my real world use, having Arca-compatible grooves right were they long - directly on the OEM Canon lens foot - would make a real, positive difference.

Fine. What specification should Canon use for the dovetail?

[quote author=RRS]
A Note About Compatibility
There are a number of companies that sell gear based on the Arca-Swiss dovetail rail. In addition to Really Right Stuff, companies such as Wimberley, Markins, AcraTech, Foba, Novoflex, and Kirk sell gear that is commonly marketed as "Arca-Swiss style" or "Arca-type" or "Arca-Swiss compatible." Arcs-Swiss has never published a standard, so we developed our own and distributed it within the industry. In general, most of this gear is cross-compatible (but many Novoflex plates do not fit our screw-knob style clamps). For example, a Really Right Stuff L-plate will work just fine with the quick-release clamp on your Markins ballhead. And your Wimberley lens plates will work great with any Really Right Stuff clamp and ballhead. An exception to this is our lever-release clamp.


WARNING ABOUT OUR LEVER-RELEASE CLAMPS
Due to wide variations in other brands of Arca-Swiss compatible plates, we recommend using our lever-release clamps only with Really Right Stuff or Wimberley brand quick-release plates. If you own other brand plates, see this note about our plate exchange policy.

Our lever-release clamps are not user adjustable, so the plate that you use in our lever-release clamp has to be EXACTLY the right width. Only Really Right Stuff and Wimberley build plates to the same exacting tolerances. But screw-knob style clamps are much more forgiving of slight differences in plate width since you control the clamp jaws by turning the screw. So most Arca-Swiss style quick-release plates will work in most screw-knob versions of Arca-Swiss style clamps. Warning: many Novoflex plates do not work even in our screw-knob style plates.
[/quote]

These are issues that designers and engineers need to be concerned with, whereas armchair experts with zero practical expertise or knowledge don't even consider them. Arca-Swiss is Arca-Swiss, right? Sure...in the AvTvM Universe, at any rate.

Maybe you should just tell Canon what clamps you use, so they can use those exact measurements. Then at least the tripod collar feet will fit in the clamps used by you and your millions of imaginary friends. :

 

[Quackator]

I place my bet on the easter egg. Have you seen the patent about the switch
to asynchronous data transfer? This lens certainly can do that, and while it
is a fine lens now, it's AF speed will be stellar on the new mirrorless to come.

 

[H. Jones]

Fine. What specification should Canon use for the dovetail?

These are issues that designers and engineers need to be concerned with, whereas armchair experts with zero practical expertise or knowledge don't even consider them. Arca-Swiss is Arca-Swiss, right? Sure...in the AvTvM Universe, at any rate.

Maybe you should just tell Canon what clamps you use, so they can use those exact measurements. Then at least the tripod collar feet will fit in the clamps used by you and your millions of imaginary friends. :

As someone who uses the tripod foot as a handhold, I'm glad Canon didn't change the foot on the III to a clamp plate. The grooves would start getting uncomfortable on my hands pretty quickly. I despise shooting handheld with my white glass whenever I have a tripod foot on for this reason.

 

[gmon750]

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.

 

[ahsanford]

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

 

[Maximilian]

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).

Don't forget the very important zoom lock

 

[Maximilian]

If anybody posted this before: sorry for reading over it.

Prices are out for Germany (MRSP incl. VAT):

• EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM: 2299,- €
• EF 70-200mm f/4.0L IS II USM: 1399,- €

 

[privatebydesign]

I wonder how many of the snide posts are coming from photographers who own and use the current 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. Just wonder.

yes, here! I find the absence of Arca-grooves on the lens/tripod foot already annoying on the Mk. II. On Mk. III i find it ... insane. Even Tamron has finally seen the light on their 70-200 G2! Lack of such a simple feature that certainly would not break the bank on manufacturing cost of a 2000+ lens, but would be extremely useful to many user and does not hurt users who don't need it ... is simply "Canon-esque". And it certainly does not increase my desire for an "upgrade".

Yes, we aren't spec sheeters like Sony people, we like real world differences.

yes. In my real world use, having Arca-compatible grooves right were they long - directly on the OEM Canon lens foot - would make a real, positive difference.

Fine. What specification should Canon use for the dovetail?

[quote author=RRS]
A Note About Compatibility
There are a number of companies that sell gear based on the Arca-Swiss dovetail rail. In addition to Really Right Stuff, companies such as Wimberley, Markins, AcraTech, Foba, Novoflex, and Kirk sell gear that is commonly marketed as "Arca-Swiss style" or "Arca-type" or "Arca-Swiss compatible." Arcs-Swiss has never published a standard, so we developed our own and distributed it within the industry. In general, most of this gear is cross-compatible (but many Novoflex plates do not fit our screw-knob style clamps). For example, a Really Right Stuff L-plate will work just fine with the quick-release clamp on your Markins ballhead. And your Wimberley lens plates will work great with any Really Right Stuff clamp and ballhead. An exception to this is our lever-release clamp.


WARNING ABOUT OUR LEVER-RELEASE CLAMPS
Due to wide variations in other brands of Arca-Swiss compatible plates, we recommend using our lever-release clamps only with Really Right Stuff or Wimberley brand quick-release plates. If you own other brand plates, see this note about our plate exchange policy.

Our lever-release clamps are not user adjustable, so the plate that you use in our lever-release clamp has to be EXACTLY the right width. Only Really Right Stuff and Wimberley build plates to the same exacting tolerances. But screw-knob style clamps are much more forgiving of slight differences in plate width since you control the clamp jaws by turning the screw. So most Arca-Swiss style quick-release plates will work in most screw-knob versions of Arca-Swiss style clamps. Warning: many Novoflex plates do not work even in our screw-knob style plates.

These are issues that designers and engineers need to be concerned with, whereas armchair experts with zero practical expertise or knowledge don't even consider them. Arca-Swiss is Arca-Swiss, right? Sure...in the AvTvM Universe, at any rate.

Maybe you should just tell Canon what clamps you use, so they can use those exact measurements. Then at least the tripod collar feet will fit in the clamps used by you and your millions of imaginary friends. :
[/quote]

Not to mention that there are two entirely different Arca-Swiss dovetails that are totally incompatible made by Arca-Swiss themselves!

Oh and are we going to make 'the standard' the standard for stills, most of which work around the RRS implementation of the old Arca-Swiss mount or are we going to use the video shooters 'standard' which is the Manfrotto clamp plate?

 

[Ozarker]

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? :

Do you really think that is the model to follow? Flashy, maybe headline-grabbing stuff that makes no practical difference to customers' experiences?

these overtly commercial moves.

Nobody is making you buy this lens. How is it a problem that a minor upgrade gets a new model number?

^^^
This.

Then again, you see his example photos. He really was hoping that Canon would up his game. :

 

[FramerMCB]

Confirmed around 1:55 in the video. Same optics (in the f/2.8 ) but new coating. Same blade count, filter size, same IS, same AF speed, and the same hood as well (no CPL window in the hood for us :'().

WOW. I'm floored. No wonder the price is so low -- they only had to work on the outer structure / weight / handling.

- A

From my reading of the announcement, it would seem lens coatings have been updated and the placement of lens elements/groups was optimized (i.e. changed). Both of these should improve ghosting/flaring and probably CA/color-fringing, while at the same time, perhaps because of better control of the former, resolution gets an incremental bump...

 

[Aaron D]

I'm curious what's the overlap between those who last week said "Why are they updating the 2.8? it's a great lens!" and the ones who today are saying, "You call that an update?!"

Why not give it new paint and better coatings? If you like the one you've got, keep it. But if you NEED to buy one isn't it nice to have an improved one?