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

[neuroanatomist]

But it is evident that from a marketing/brand image point of view this "micro-update" of the "flagship" f/2.8 has not gone down well.

Evident how?

Oh, that's right...you don't like it. : : :

it is evident just by looking at the comments on any portal/forum covering the f/2.8 and f/4 lens version updates. overwhelmingly positive reactions on f/4 improvements vs. majority of disappointed votes on f/2.8. quite evidently not what Canon marketing was hoping for.

maybe it would have gone doen better had Canon used a line of communication as suggested a few postings earlier. they did not and so the impression will linger that the f/4 got a full update and the f/ 2.8 only a half(-assed) one.

Oh, so you and a few disgruntled Internet forum posters don't like it. And that represents the market. : : :

 

[fullstop]

But it is evident that from a marketing/brand image point of view this "micro-update" of the "flagship" f/2.8 has not gone down well.

Evident how?

Oh, that's right...you don't like it. : : :

it is evident just by looking at the comments on any portal/forum covering the f/2.8 and f/4 lens version updates. overwhelmingly positive reactions on f/4 improvements vs. majority of disappointed votes on f/2.8. quite evidently not what Canon marketing was hoping for.

maybe it would have gone doen better had Canon used a line of communication as suggested a few postings earlier. they did not and so the impression will linger that the f/4 got a full update and the f/ 2.8 only a half(-assed) one.

Oh, so you and a few disgruntled Internet forum posters don't like it. And that represents the market. : : :

No, that's not what i said - if you would read what i wrote rather than launching your usual blind attacks.

 

[sanj]

I feel I'm about the only one in the room who thinks the 70-200 2.8 IS II could use improvement. Sure sharpness and contrast in my copy are overall very good, except in the corners at both short and long ends. I could also do with less vignetting.
But, where I find the lens fails for me is in its construction. I've had to tighten screws in it many times and I've taped the manual focus ring because the barrel is loose otherwise. To make matters worse, the paint near the lens mount started flaking off within eight weeks.
In the last 25 years, I've owned at least ten Canon L mid-range zooms, at least one of every model, from the 80-200/2.8 "Magic Drainpipe" through the latest 70-200 IS varieties, in both the 2.8 and 4 flavors. While it may be sharpest of the lot, it has also been the most disappointing in terms of build and finish.
Maybe my problems stem from the fact that I bought a refurbished lens from the Canon store, but I've purchased several others before and since without issues. And, it might have been less annoyed had I not spent so much for it, as I must have been one of the last to buy this lens when it listed of $2499. After factoring in the sales tax, I wound up paying $50 more than what the new Version III sells for.
So I, for one, am certainly looking forward to see if this one has solved these issues.

Sir please do not forget this is a zoom lens and evaluate it accordingly. Having said that, this lens does not belong to my collection. I prefer the lighter version and use primes for other needs.

 

[jeffa4444]

I work for a company that makes some of the best lenses in the world. I know that during the design process the choice of coatings is critical to the final performance of the lens and coatings have been improving over the last decade.
The improvement Canon has made to the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM III flare control will have other benefits in maximizing light transmission and hopefully controlling CAs. The EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II optically is a very good lens, yes it has slight vignetting at 70mm and 200mm but this is easily fixed in Lightroom / Photoshop. What cannot be easily fixed in Lightroom or Photoshop is the mild chromatic aberrations this lens has particularly used close focus at 70mm end. My hope is the new coating will improve this its one area where coating improvements can help.

Either way the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II I don't feel will drop in value, its still an outstanding lens given what we ask of it and any small improvement in the MKIII version is a success not a failure of what is a classic Canon design.

 

[scyrene]

But it is evident that from a marketing/brand image point of view this "micro-update" of the "flagship" f/2.8 has not gone down well.

Evident how?

Oh, that's right...you don't like it. : : :

it is evident just by looking at the comments on any portal/forum covering the f/2.8 and f/4 lens version updates. overwhelmingly positive reactions on f/4 improvements vs. majority of disappointed votes on f/2.8. quite evidently not what Canon marketing was hoping for.

maybe it would have gone down better had Canon used a line of communication as suggested a few postings earlier. they did not and so the impression will linger that the f/4 got a full update and the f/ 2.8 only a half(-assed) one.

I really shouldn't have to say this, and I know you won't listen but: forum comments are intrinsically biased. Forum commenters are a self-selected group, and people only comment when they feel strongly enough about something (the topic, or someone else's comment) to make the effort to do so. You will always get a more extreme view of people's opinions in places like that. Reputable opinion polling attempts to correct for all sorts of sampling biases, and even then it's often a poor predictor of what people really think (compare political polls with election results, for instance). You can choose to believe that the chatter in places like this is important, but it is not representative because most people (who might be in the market for this lens, say) aren't commenting at all.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But it is evident that from a marketing/brand image point of view this "micro-update" of the "flagship" f/2.8 has not gone down well.

Evident how?

Oh, that's right...you don't like it. : : :

it is evident just by looking at the comments on any portal/forum covering the f/2.8 and f/4 lens version updates. overwhelmingly positive reactions on f/4 improvements vs. majority of disappointed votes on f/2.8. quite evidently not what Canon marketing was hoping for.

maybe it would have gone doen better had Canon used a line of communication as suggested a few postings earlier. they did not and so the impression will linger that the f/4 got a full update and the f/ 2.8 only a half(-assed) one.

Oh, so you and a few disgruntled Internet forum posters don't like it. And that represents the market. : : :

No, that's not what i said - if you would read what i wrote rather than launching your usual blind attacks.

That's exactly what you said. Your metacognition is very poor.

Incidentally, the comments in this thread are about 50/50 supporting/denigrating the f/2.8 update. If we ignore your plethora of denigrating posts, the balance tips toward supporting it.

 

[snoke]

The new Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM is an ideal lens for professional photographers who shoot with the Canon 1D and 5D series of DSLR cameras. The inclusion of Air Sphere Coating (ASC) technology helps to reduce flaring and ghosting, and suppresses the reflection of light.

I research problem in 70-200/2.8L IS ISM II.

dpreview talk about it here:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-70-200-2p8-is-usm-ii-c16/5

Conslusion:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-70-200-2p8-is-usm-ii-c16/6
Canon 70-200/2.8L IS USM III fix "Cons" #2?

TDP review kinder:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

DxO review:
https://www.dxomark.com/canon-ef-70-200mm-f-2-8l-is-ii-usm-measurements-and-review/
bad review.

photozone bad review.

https://improvephotography.com/29731/canon-70-200mm-f2-8l-ii-lens-review/
say bad flare.

http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/canonef70200f28lisi/
show bad flare. but bad flare better.

Now wait new review!

 

[neuroanatomist]

DxO review:
https://www.dxomark.com/canon-ef-70-200mm-f-2-8l-is-ii-usm-measurements-and-review/
bad review.

They concluded the MkI was better. When challenged on their results for this lens, DxO defended them. Then, a year later, they quietly updated their measurement database with significantly higher numbers for it. They never acknowledged their screwup, nor did they go back and edit the review.

 

[fullstop]

I am not saying the minor update on the f/2.8 is "bad" or "marketing nerfed". All I am saying is: in my opinion it would have been smarter for Canon to launch f/4 II now and f/2.8 III at some later point in time, with a more comprehensive update ... similar in scope to the f/4 update to avoid negative feedback. Comments "in internet fora" may or may not be biased. For every critical comment here there are 2 apologist ones ... so overall ...
but irrespective of that, "internet noise" is highly relevant to any consumer brand, its perception, the brand image.

All of that said, I believe the III will sell fairly well, but would expect numbers to be lower than in the past. Many potential buyers already have the the Mk. II and some are also waiting until reliable information on Canon's mirrorless FF plans becomes available. Plus DSLR and interchangeable lens sales are still slowing (see CIPA numbers).

 

[Don Haines]

I am not saying the minor update on the f/2.8 is "bad" or "marketing nerfed". All I am saying is: in my opinion it would have been smarter for Canon to launch f/4 II now and f/2.8 III at some later point in time, with a more comprehensive update ... similar in scope to the f/4 update to avoid negative feedback. Comments "in internet fora" may or may not be biased. For every critical comment here there are 2 apologist ones ... so overall ...
but irrespective of that, "internet noise" is highly relevant to any consumer brand, its perception, the brand image.

All of that said, I believe the III will sell fairly well, but would expect numbers to be lower than in the past. Many potential buyers already have the the Mk. II and some are also waiting until reliable information on Canon's mirrorless FF plans becomes available. Plus DSLR and interchangeable lens sales are still slowing (see CIPA numbers).

But what if they can’t make the F2.8 lens sharper, and coatings, electronics, and machining are the reasons for the update!

 

[snoke]

All I am saying is: in my opinion it would have been smarter for Canon to launch f/4 II now and f/2.8 III at some later point in time, with a more comprehensive update ... similar in scope to the f/4 update to avoid negative feedback

70-200/f4L IS USM II fix:
* IS. 3 stop, now 5 stop
* IS have 3 mode
* IS less noisy

70-200/f2.8L IS USM III not have problem for noise. No update.
Use f/2.8, 3.5 stop IS, half stop different to f/4L 5 stop IS. Why update?

Negative feedback from poster not understand improvements.

 

[fullstop]

But what if they can’t make the F2.8 lens sharper, and coatings, electronics, and machining are the reasons for the update!

That is not even remotely imaginable for innovative Canon and it's cutting edge lens design prowess. Or is it? ;D ;D ;D

 

[neuroanatomist]

For every critical comment here there are 2 apologist ones ... so overall ...

I see. Critical comments are just that, supportive comments are apologies. That bit of self-serving sophistry is pathetic, even for you.

But thanks for confirming that the overall Internet opinion on this update is actually positive (and in the process, showing yourself to be as incapable of telling the truth as ever).

 

[scyrene]

Comments "in internet fora" may or may not be biased. For every critical comment here there are 2 apologist ones ... so overall ...

Let me be clearer: internet comments taken as a whole are not representative for the self-selecting reason I stated above. Each individual comment may be more or less biased in different ways. You were talking about the aggregate opinion across comments - that cannot be taken as unbiased. That different people have opposing views and express them in comments threads is irrelevant - because they don't cancel each other out in some imagined mathematical way, but more importantly because they tell us nothing about how the people *not* commenting think. A thought experiment: imagine if 90% of people were indifferent to something, 8% anti- and 2% pro - but only the pro- and anti- groups commented. You'd conclude that people were generally anti-, where in fact the vast majority were indifferent. Comments are unreliable because they tell us nothing beyond what the commenters think.

but irrespective of that, "internet noise" is highly relevant to any consumer brand, its perception, the brand image.

That is a matter of opinion. It may be relevant but it is rarely "highly relevant" for a product that doesn't entirely exist online, because many people do not seek the opinions of internet commenters when making a purchase decision - they may ask a shop assistant, or a friend, or family member, etc. And let's face it, given how extreme and nonsensical a lot of internet chatter is, they would be well advised not to listen too much to it. Additionally a brand may have different images in different contexts, to different people. Reading only comments on Dpreview, say, would give a very different brand image for Canon to reading national newspapers, for example.

 

[scyrene]

Incidentally there is something deeply suspect about the circular reasoning where someone makes repeated negative comments, then says 'look at all the negative comments! The chatter supports my position'. An echo chamber of the worst kind.

 

[fullstop]

1. i'd say "the entire market" or "the aggregate of all potential purchasers of a specific lens" is also not "unbiased". ;D

2. well, I find apologists' incessant attempts trying to discredit people's opinion/statement, that the f/2.8 III update appears to be rather miniscule - compared to the f/4 update and other Canon lenses "Mark updates" - by constantly claiming "it is only the internets, only some incessantly whining freaks, they are biased, and worse, the whole internets are biased" ... at least as ridiculous and "circular logic". ;D

 

[Don Haines]

But what if they can’t make the F2.8 lens sharper, and coatings, electronics, and machining are the reasons for the update!

That is not even remotely imaginable for innovative Canon and it's cutting edge lens design prowess. Or is it? ;D ;D ;D

Look at the 600F4.... for all practical purposes the MTF curve is flat at .99.... where do you go from there? For a zoom with 23 elements, the 70-200F2.8 may well be at the practical limit and I suspect the F4 version is there too now... yes, we would all like them to be even better, but what if that involves making all the elements fluorite and raising the price to $6000 for that slight improvement? We may well be at the practical limit.

 

[fullstop]

But what if they can’t make the F2.8 lens sharper, and coatings, electronics, and machining are the reasons for the update!

That is not even remotely imaginable for innovative Canon and it's cutting edge lens design prowess. Or is it? ;D ;D ;D

Look at the 600F4.... for all practical purposes the MTF curve is flat at .99.... where do you go from there? For a zoom with 23 elements, the 70-200F2.8 may well be at the practical limit and I suspect the F4 version is there too now... yes, we would all like them to be even better, but what if that involves making all the elements fluorite and raising the price to $6000 for that slight improvement? We may well be at the practical limit.

Well, Roger Cicala at lensrentals has shown that *in MTF tests* the current Nikon 70-200 is ahead of the Canon 70.200/2.8 II. https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/nikon-70-200mm-f2-8e-fl-ed-af-s-vr-mtf-tests/ -> scroll down all the way to end of article.

So there seems to be at least some room for IQ improvement. And btw, the Nikon does not cost 6000 either. And in real life differences may be very small to not even noticeable.

Me/some/many? folks expected that if Canon does an upgrade of their "flagship" 70-200/2.8 II they would also see to it that it optically comes out on top of the competition. Maybe the new lens coating will do just that. We don't know yet. However, what we do know is, that the f/4 also got an upgraded IS system and aperture iris. And other small, but potentially very useful improvements were also not implemented: no CPL slot in lens hood, no arca-style/dovetail grooves in lens foot. But a new paint job. And now - surprise! - not everybody is jubilant. Oh well.

 

[ahsanford]

Me/some/many? folks expected that if Canon does an upgrade of their "flagship" 70-200/2.8 II they would also see to it that it optically comes out on top of the competition.

Pump the brakes there, kiddo. My throwing a multi-page rant on why such an underwhelming sequel for a lens this important was a bad move is not remotely the same thing as the launch "has not gone down well".

Say it again with me: We are not the market. We're a very small/specific/gearheaded slice of it.

So I'll blow your mind here: Canon knows what it's doing. I disagree with its call on the 70-200 f/2.8L IS III to no end, but Canon is still going to make its money on it. Why? Because they ran the flipping numbers and this is likely the most profitable outcome. So, on this product, I am simultaneously a stern critic and apologist for Canon.

- A

 

[neuroanatomist]

well, I find apologists' incessant attempts trying to discredit people's opinion/statement, that the f/2.8 III update appears to be rather miniscule - compared to the f/4 update...

Who is claiming that? Really, you should try reading what people post instead of just making stuff up in your head. The argument is not about the 70-200/2.8 III being a minor upgrade – the argument is about you characterizing public perception of that update as it’s a fail, with no evidence to back that up and your own admission that the opposite is true, at least here in this thread.

The only fail here is you.