# Another Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III Mention [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 29, 2018)

```
The last time we were told that a <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/another-mention-of-a-new-ef-70-200mm-lens-cr2/">new 70-200mm lens was coming</a>, we assumed it was for DSLRs, but it turned out to be a new <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-announces-the-compact-servo-70-200mm-telephoto-zoom-lens/">COMPACT-SERVO 70-200mm T/4.4</a>.</p>

<p>We have been told that a new EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III is currently in testing, though there was no mention of when it may be coming.</p>
<p>There were only 9 years between the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and I expect we’re going to see a similar thing with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III. Other lens series such as the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III have seen even shorter times between updates.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## tron (Jan 29, 2018)

In the EF70-200 F/2.8L IS I and the EF16-35 F/2.8L II cases there were IQ problems to be fixed. Now not so much. I cannot see the urgency in updating the 2.8L IS II version.


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Jan 29, 2018)

and even better IS and better stabilization would be great also even though doubtful a slight price decrease


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 29, 2018)

tron said:


> In the EF70-200 F/2.8L IS I and the EF16-35 F/2.8L II cases there were IQ problems to be fixed. Now not so much. I cannot see the urgency in updating the 2.8L IS II version.



I'll say the same thing I say about 135 primes: As good as our current one is, 50+ MP sensors and the progress of Canon's competition will spur Canon to act. 

...and that applies to even Canon's historically best lenses, of which, this 70-200 is absolutely one.

Using (admittedly iffy) DXOMark as a very crude tool to make a point here:

70-200 f/2.8L IS II on 5D3: 21 out of 22 possible P-Mpix
70-200 f/2.8L IS II on 5D4: 26 out of 30 possible P-Mpix
70-200 f/2.8L IS II on 5DS R: 33 out of 50 possible P-Mpix

...and you can see that Canon has a fine instrument here (Canon's sharpest zoom tested at DXO, btw), but the point where one can argue the lens is outresolving the sensor (with the 5D3) has passed. New glass for the higher resolution future will eventually be in order.

In fairness, this is still a top top lens some 8 years after it came out, so I don't think a new version is sorely needed or is imminently upon us. But this is a staple lens in (nearly) every photographer's bag, and Canon takes great pride in having best in class kit with these sort of lenses. They do this with the 24-70 2.8 and 16-35 2.8 as well.

I love my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, I do. But Canon simply updates these pro zooms faster than others. 

- A


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 29, 2018)

tron said:


> In the EF70-200 F/2.8L IS I and the EF16-35 F/2.8L II cases there were IQ problems to be fixed. Now not so much. I cannot see the urgency in updating the 2.8L IS II version.



You update cash cows at a much faster pace than other lenses (16-35, 24-70, 70-200). The version II could stand to see some improvements in IQ, IS and weight reduction.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 29, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > In the EF70-200 F/2.8L IS I and the EF16-35 F/2.8L II cases there were IQ problems to be fixed. Now not so much. I cannot see the urgency in updating the 2.8L IS II version.
> ...



+1.

...and a CPL window in the hood.

- A


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 29, 2018)

I will add, that when I owned a rental house here in Canada, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II wasn't the most reliable lens in the line-up. They constantly had elements shift and it de-centered a fair bit. If I remember correctly, IS failure was quite high too.

I'd have to dig up the old repair spreadsheets, but I think it was in the top 5 in repair dollars spent. Yes, it rented more often, but we also had more of them than any other lens, so I think the repair cost per copy was quite high too.

It could definitely use a build quality upgrade.


----------



## Ryananthony (Jan 29, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



And If it stays the same filter size, I'll buy the hood with the filter window for my IS II.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 29, 2018)

Ryananthony said:


> And If it stays the same filter size, I'll buy the hood with the filter window for my IS II.



Good thinking (and I would do the same!), but 82 may be the new 77: 

16-35 f/2.8L III = 82
24-70 f/2.8L II = 82 

Perhaps Canon wants it's zoom trilogy to share the same filter size?

- A


----------



## tron (Jan 29, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > In the EF70-200 F/2.8L IS I and the EF16-35 F/2.8L II cases there were IQ problems to be fixed. Now not so much. I cannot see the urgency in updating the 2.8L IS II version.
> ...


And these updates will be minimal at most. IQ is already good and even if improved it cannot be much improved, IS is at 4 stops already so unless Canon makes a new generation of IS we will not see much of an improvement (if not at all) and weight cannot be significantly improved. Even on the heavier 300 2.8 L IS the weight improvement was 150grams from version I to II (From 2550 down to 2400). On the 70-200 the difference will be much less. In addition I am confident that this top (indeed) of the range lens will NOT be a "green" (DO technology) lens so as to have top IQ (I am thinking of contrast in against the sun situations).


----------



## tron (Jan 29, 2018)

In addition, regarding IS even a new technology say a 5-stop IS will give a 1 stop advantage of IS in the new version. If Canon decides to update 24-70 2.8 II to an IS version they will give it a 4 stop advantage at least!


----------



## Talys (Jan 29, 2018)

Exciting! This is one of my favorite lenses.

I would imagine that we'd be looking at 2019-2020, if you look back at when test rumors of 85/1.4 started circulating.


----------



## Larsskv (Jan 29, 2018)

tron said:


> In the EF70-200 F/2.8L IS I and the EF16-35 F/2.8L II cases there were IQ problems to be fixed. Now not so much. I cannot see the urgency in updating the 2.8L IS II version.



The “urgency” could come from the stiff competition from the latest Nikon 70-200, as well as the new Tamron 70-200 f2.8 (which Dustin Abbot found to be better than the Canon in several areas). I believe Canon is determined to have the best 70-200 f2.8 on the market.


----------



## midluk (Jan 29, 2018)

I bought the IS II about 1.5 months ago, so it will definitely be updated in the near future.
The thing I miss most is the "enable and forget" IS mode 3.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 29, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



Do you really find the CPL window useful? Very hard to adjust the polarizer through mine. And the little "shutter" doesn't stay tightly open or closed. Current assessment: Gimmick.


----------



## docsmith (Jan 29, 2018)

Larsskv said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > In the EF70-200 F/2.8L IS I and the EF16-35 F/2.8L II cases there were IQ problems to be fixed. Now not so much. I cannot see the urgency in updating the 2.8L IS II version.
> ...



I have to agree, the Tamron is direct competition for Canon for people that already have bought into Canon systems. Unlike Nikon, Tamron is potentially "stealing" business Canon may consider theirs. I am still impressed that Canon only had a slight lead over Sigma and Tamron in lens sold in Japan last year.

That said, Canon doesn't seem to be pushed by competition. While it may be a factor, I suspect Canon is more focused on the question of "how do we make the most revenue" than what everyone else is doing. Staying focused on their own game. Thus, if Canon is ready to update the 70-200 II, then they see a market where the update would sell. Thus, better performance with high MP bodies, better IS, better build quality, better bokeh, and better optics. While the 70-200 II is remarkable, it can be improved upon.

If I was to only have two lenses, they would be my 24-70 II and 70-200 II. If I see a better version of the 70-200 II, I am probably jumping at it. This is a good move.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 29, 2018)

tron said:


> In addition, regarding IS even a new technology say a 5-stop IS will give a 1 stop advantage of IS in the new version. If Canon decides to update 24-70 2.8 II to an IS version they will give it a 4 stop advantage at least!



The wider they go, the harder it is to get so many stops of IS benefit, correct? I seem to recall the 16mm end of the 16-35 f/4L IS saw less benefit from IS than at the 35mm end. Perhaps the same would be true of the 24 vs. 70 end of a standard zoom?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 29, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Do you really find the CPL window useful? Very hard to adjust the polarizer through mine. And the little "shutter" doesn't stay tightly open or closed. Current assessment: Gimmick.



I don't own the 100-400L II, so I can't comment. 

But it can't possibly be worse than the current options of (a) pulling off the hood to turn the CPL or (b) reaching into the hood while attached to turn the CPL and the pain points of doing that (accidentally fingerprint smearing the filter, occluding the OVF to assess CPL strength while doing this, etc.)

- A


----------



## kaihp (Jan 29, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Ryananthony said:
> 
> 
> > And If it stays the same filter size, I'll buy the hood with the filter window for my IS II.
> ...



That has been my thinking ever since the 24-70/2.8 MkII came out.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 29, 2018)

Obvious change would be the addition of the third IS option. Closer minimum focus distance is also needed. The 100-400 II focuses much closer than the 70-200 II. 

I would expect any improvement in sharpness and reduction in weight to be minimal. 

There will be some sticker shock as well, as the current version has come down in price by about $700 over the past several years. Expect the new version to be introduced between $2,500 and $3,000.


----------



## Talys (Jan 29, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Do you really find the CPL window useful? Very hard to adjust the polarizer through mine. And the little "shutter" doesn't stay tightly open or closed. Current assessment: Gimmick.
> ...



I think the little polarizer window on 100-400L II is a whole lot better than without. I usually point mine facing down, so that it doesn't matter if it opens by accident. I have smudged my filter on occasion by accident.

On a tripod, it is easier to use (where my left hand is free) than when handheld. This is especially true on the 100-400 L II where the lens extends out, and once it's extended more than a little, the hood/filter are just too far forward. However, on the 70-200, this wouldn't be the case (it'd act like adjusting a polarizer without tripod at 100mm on the 100-400 L II, which isn't bad).

Again, having the window facing down is helpful, because accessing the top of the lens isn't easy (you'd have to support the camera + lens with just your right hand)


----------



## tron (Jan 29, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > In addition, regarding IS even a new technology say a 5-stop IS will give a 1 stop advantage of IS in the new version. If Canon decides to update 24-70 2.8 II to an IS version they will give it a 4 stop advantage at least!
> ...


Perhaps! And perhaps there is the rest of the zoom range that will benefit alot. Just like your future 50mm would benefit from IS! Or perhaps all of the zoom range!


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 29, 2018)

tron said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



Don't misunderstand me -- virtually every lens would benefit from IS. I'm just arguing that 4 stops _might_ be a tall ask for a 24mm lens.

- A


----------



## tron (Jan 29, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


There is a whole range up to 70mm though.


----------



## Canoneer (Jan 29, 2018)

So... This means I can get the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II version for $699, right? RIGHT?????


----------



## tron (Jan 29, 2018)

Canoneer said:


> So... This means I can get the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II version for $699, right? RIGHT?????


Ehhh hmmm maybe with "1" in front of that number  Seriously now maybe you would find it for less than 1699 but not much. 699 isn't the price of a used version I so it definitely will not be the price of a used version II.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 29, 2018)

Canoneer said:


> So... This means I can get the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II version for $699, right? RIGHT?????



It depends on how many lens scratches and how much dust and fungus you can tolerate...and if you don't mind if the serial numbers have been ground off.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jan 29, 2018)

BigAntTVProductions said:


> also even though doubtful a slight price decrease



No way! 
Remember the difference between 24-70 I and II. 
They will take a sum, guaranteed.


----------



## Talys (Jan 29, 2018)

Oh, oh, one other thing. Replace the tripod ring with the really sweet one from the 100-400LII. The "glide" is much smoother on it, and it doesn't accidentally slide out. Also, I like the idea of the removable/replaceable foot, though I don't use an arca foot on my 100-400, preferring the Fusion plate, as it is available as a popular lengths (longer = more gimbal friendly) and has a flip-down ring for a blackrapid or other hook/strap system.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 29, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Obvious change would be the addition of the third IS option. Closer minimum focus distance is also needed. The 100-400 II focuses much closer than the 70-200 II.
> 
> I would expect any improvement in sharpness and reduction in weight to be minimal.



I found the sharpness wasn't all that great close to MFD especially at 200mm, but I don't know how much sample variation played a part.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 29, 2018)

kaihp said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Ryananthony said:
> ...



But wouldn't the trinity be 11-24, 24-70, 70-200? I just don't see how the 16-35 fills out a trinity, but I guess the cost of that trinity would be lower.

I'm happy with my current 70-200 II. It will probably never be replaced... unless I fall into a pile of money.


----------



## Ryananthony (Jan 29, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



The trilogy usually consists of fast glass.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 29, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> But wouldn't the trinity be 11-24, 24-70, 70-200? I just don't see how the 16-35 fills out a trinity, but I guess the cost of that trinity would be lower.



A modern zoom is preferably f/2.8 and front-filterable. That's what makes the 16-35 / 24-70 / 70-200 the 'trinity' to me, but no one ever agrees on that sort of thing.

But, in this case, I imagine that many folks would agree with me -- I'd be stunned to no end if the 16-35 f/2.8L III didn't outsell the 11-24 f/4L by at least a ratio of 5:1. The former is a far far far more versatile instrument.

- A


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 29, 2018)

A new 70-200/2.8 IS III would be very exciting and would definitely be a priority for me. My top ask would be to improve flare. While I'm very happy with the sharpness of my II, it flares like crazy if the sun is in the shot - so much that I don't use it for my sunrise/sunset shots.

I know that Canon has the coatings to improve this now, so if they fix this one thing while keeping the sharpness, CA, vignetting, etc similar to the existing model - I'll buy it as quickly as my funds allow.

My second ask would be better performance under IR, though few manufacturers pay attention to that these days.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 29, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > But wouldn't the trinity be 11-24, 24-70, 70-200? I just don't see how the 16-35 fills out a trinity, but I guess the cost of that trinity would be lower.
> ...



Very true. I guess my focus was on the focal lengths too much. You are probably very correct on the sales difference. The 11-24 is no slouch in the price department and really is sort of a specialty lens.

I guess it is the focal length overlap that bugs me. That, though, is a personal problem. Yup, that overlap with my Tamron really bugs me. 

Is the prime trinity 35, 50, 85? I guess that probably varies by user too.

Honestly, the Canon zooms are so good I almost skipped primes altogether. It will be interesting to see what improvements will be made on a 70-200 III vs the II. Maybe BR? There I go again with the BR.


----------



## leGreve (Jan 29, 2018)

How do you repaint The Mona Lisa? :O


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 29, 2018)

leGreve said:


> How do you repaint The Mona Lisa? :O



Correct! I may not have been paying attention very closely, but I never read all the bad stuff about the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II until this thread. All I have ever read was good. I had no idea there was a flare issue either. Maybe I should use it more.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 29, 2018)

You could do better on the focus transitions. It could certainly be lighter. There were coatings advances 5 years ago that the version II doesn't have, so I bet there is more image quality to be had. The 70-200 II is the worst white lens in performing with teleconverters (version III), and I bet it could be better optimized to the purpose. Mode 3 IS. CPL hood window.

If the IQ upgrade is at all significant, it's worth bringing out, and that's a real possibility.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 29, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> leGreve said:
> 
> 
> > How do you repaint The Mona Lisa? :O
> ...



+1 and +1

I think I'll keep limping by for a while longer, tough as it may be.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 29, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> leGreve said:
> 
> 
> > How do you repaint The Mona Lisa? :O
> ...



No lens is perfect, but we're probably over-emphasising the minor problems as it's otherwise hard to justify a new version. For my part, I wanted to use it as an alternative to a 180mm macro lens (for flowers and large insects at medium range) - so my criticism is a little unfair, as it's not designed for that sort of work, and consequently I found it not sharp enough at close range. For portraiture and reportage, where pinpoint sharpness is less critical, it's absolutely fine.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 29, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > leGreve said:
> ...



 Yeah. It's a rough life. Just when you think you've got what you need they move the goalposts. I won't feel any pressure to upgrade on this one. It could still be 8 or 10 years away too.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 29, 2018)

scyrene said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > leGreve said:
> ...



I could be one of the outliers, but I like to see pinpoint sharpness on the subject's iris. While it is different used as a macro lens (macro it isn't), I find the sharpness to be very good for my use. Mine is very sharp. I guess everything can be improved though.


----------



## Yasko (Jan 29, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> You could do better on the focus transitions. It could certainly be lighter. There were coatings advances 5 years ago that the version II doesn't have, so I bet there is more image quality to be had. The 70-200 II is the worst white lens in performing with teleconverters (version III), and I bet it could be better optimized to the purpose. Mode 3 IS. CPL hood window.
> 
> If the IQ upgrade is at all significant, it's worth bringing out, and that's a real possibility.



Well... Tony Northrup stated it is even a bit sharper with TC2x than the new 100-400 at its long end. Althouh that may come down to differences in the copy or just because you think he's a douch, depends on you. I found that an interesting statement, andnit somehow collides with your estimation. But I guess pixel peeping is not everyone's buisness .


----------



## AlanF (Jan 29, 2018)

Yasko said:


> [email protected] said:
> 
> 
> > You could do better on the focus transitions. It could certainly be lighter. There were coatings advances 5 years ago that the version II doesn't have, so I bet there is more image quality to be had. The 70-200 II is the worst white lens in performing with teleconverters (version III), and I bet it could be better optimized to the purpose. Mode 3 IS. CPL hood window.
> ...



Normally, I don't like quoting TDP as it usually compares only one copy of each. But, I'll make an exception for Mr. Northrup. Here's a pair where the 100-400mm II is most clearly sharper.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## Talys (Jan 29, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Yasko said:
> 
> 
> > [email protected] said:
> ...



I own both lenses and 2x and 1.4x teleconverters. Comparing tons of photos that I've done to manually check lens calibration/AFMA between them with a Spyder LensCal, with, without the TC's, whatever -- my copy of the 100-400LII is sharper at f/5.6 than my copy of the 70-200/2.8 IS II for everything except close to the wide end (near 100mm). This is also true of the chromatic aberration.

The consistency of focus from Reikan FoCal is also a little better on the 100-400, but since both are excellent, that's neither here nor there.

I don't think this is an isolated copy thing, because I borrowed (a different copy) both of those lenses before I purchased either, and I have a couple of friends with both of them too, and we've all commented on how clean you can pixel peep the 100-400LII.

But it's neither here nor there. If you own both lenses, there is no way you'll stick a 2x TC onto a 70-200 to use a 400/5.6 unless you happen to be somewhere without the 100-400. The extra collapsed length, greater weight, loss of 100-140, and greater MFD all just make the 100-400LII a better tool for that job.

I would really welcome a 70-200/2.8 that had the improvements in the 100-400LII, and I would probably spring for it, because this is my cat photography lens. Mode 3 IS would be really nice too, for backyard birding.


----------



## brad-man (Jan 29, 2018)

I haven't yet updated my 100-400 and I don't believe I will update my 70-200 ll. Still, this sort of thing does make my arsenal feel a little dated.


----------



## slclick (Jan 29, 2018)

The first thing I thought of was how it will affect Mk2 prices but I bet it won't Canon holds steady which is a good thing and a bad thing. Anywho, I'm interested in the G2. Black is beautiful.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 30, 2018)

Yasko said:


> [email protected] said:
> 
> 
> > You could do better on the focus transitions. It could certainly be lighter. There were coatings advances 5 years ago that the version II doesn't have, so I bet there is more image quality to be had. The 70-200 II is the worst white lens in performing with teleconverters (version III), and I bet it could be better optimized to the purpose. Mode 3 IS. CPL hood window.
> ...



I like Tony a great deal. I think he's most times a voice of reason. That said, he's smoking something if he things the 70-200 x2 is as good as the 100-400 II at 400 mm. I did those bench tests too. Maybe copy variation could explain it, but that would be one cruddy 100-400. I kept my 70-200 mostly for the aperture shooting nature under canopy. Wouldn't even put the 1.4x on it in those circumstances. Not that it wasn't OK, but that it was pointless when I had access to a 100-400 II.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 30, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> I kept my 70-200 mostly for the aperture shooting nature under canopy. Wouldn't even put the 1.4x on it in those circumstances. Not that it wasn't OK, but that it was pointless when I had access to a 100-400 II.



One imagines Canon's topline, make-or-break design inputs for the 100-400L II were:


EF mount
Comes in a lovely shade of white
Is sharper than a 2x teleconvertered 70-200L

Because if that third one wasn't satisfied, why even make the lens?

- A


----------



## pwp (Jan 30, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> I will add, that when I owned a rental house here in Canada, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II wasn't the most reliable lens in the line-up. They constantly had elements shift and it de-centered a fair bit. If I remember correctly, IS failure was quite high too.
> 
> I'd have to dig up the old repair spreadsheets, but I think it was in the top 5 in repair dollars spent. Yes, it rented more often, but we also had more of them than any other lens, so I think the repair cost per copy was quite high too.
> 
> It could definitely use a build quality upgrade.



Wow those renters must have been rough. I've had a 70-200 f/2.8 in pretty robust daily use since the 1995 original, an IS updated version from 2001 and my current IS-II version since 2011. They've all been stellar performers and none of them ever saw the CPS repair centre. They bang around in my bag, occasionally get wet or exposed to extreme dust, salt spray, the odd bump and biff but mercifully, no drops. I'd rate them as tough.

It's pretty hard to imagine what Canon could upgrade. Latest generation IS is an obvious one. New lens coatings. A better, smoother collar design. After the very welcome weight loss on the current 300 f/2.8 and 400 f/2.8, I'd welcome a little weight loss on a 70-200 f/2.8 is III. Retaining the current 77mm filter size would keep the size down vs 82mm. Every bit counts in a heavy, full bag. 

70-200 f/2.8 is III ? Yep, I'll get one.

-pw


----------



## Yasko (Jan 30, 2018)

Talys said:


> I own both lenses and 2x and 1.4x teleconverters. Comparing tons of photos that I've done to manually check lens calibration/AFMA between them with a Spyder LensCal, with, without the TC's, whatever -- my copy of the 100-400LII is sharper at f/5.6 than my copy of the 70-200/2.8 IS II for everything except close to the wide end (near 100mm). This is also true of the chromatic aberration.
> 
> The consistency of focus from Reikan FoCal is also a little better on the 100-400, but since both are excellent, that's neither here nor there.
> 
> ...



I wouldnt use a TC either... and I assessed his judgement critically, because I just couldnt believe it (pretty dumb reason, eh?).
But one thing is for certain: Both are great lenses, the 100-400 being the more modern one and I really was thjnking about getting a 100-400 instead of the 2.8 70-200.
But as Ahsanford said, there is a reason for both lenses. And mine was the 2.8 aperture. Now I will need to get a FF camera before I upgrade the lens or buy a 100-400 I guess .


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Jan 30, 2018)

pwp said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > I owned a rental house here in Canada, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II wasn't the most reliable lens in the line-up. [...] It could definitely use a build quality upgrade.
> ...



Lens issues is probably as much the repeated courier shipments as it is the renters.

I'd imagine rental companies regularly test their lenses to pick up and fix issues before they're at a level that will be noticeable in general use so pick up more problems than do normal people.


----------



## 3dit0r (Jan 30, 2018)

Isn’t an update to the already stellar 70-200 2.8 L II IS about the last priority lens-wise? The 50mm 1.4 and 1.2 prime range badly needs a refresh...


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 30, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> I will add, that when I owned a rental house here in Canada, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II wasn't the most reliable lens in the line-up. They constantly had elements shift and it de-centered a fair bit. If I remember correctly, IS failure was quite high too.
> 
> I'd have to dig up the old repair spreadsheets, but I think it was in the top 5 in repair dollars spent. Yes, it rented more often, but we also had more of them than any other lens, so I think the repair cost per copy was quite high too.
> 
> It could definitely use a build quality upgrade.


Interesting. We own a rental house here in the UK in both London & Manchester and have a fairly large number of EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II lenses. I checked our rental system after reading your post and our failure rate on a highly utilised lens is actually quite low so I could not explain the difference. 
The CAs on this lens at close focus particularly at the 70mm end are fairly average and its this above all else that should be addressed in a MK III. I cannot see weight dramatically changing given the f stop, coating improvements could help transmission & clarity but the current MKII is already a fairly sharp lens even on a 5DS/r. The lens Canon should really address first is the EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM II namely adding IS as this makes a big difference for cameras like the 5DS/r. 

Weighing in on the EF 100-400mm f4-5.6L IS USM II vs the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II they are really quite different lenses with different intents. Both suffer image quality losses using the EF 1.4X III TC as indeed any lens does but the TC is a get you out of jail card in certain situations its not meant to be a permanent fixture to the lens. 

From a personal perspective the current EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II I use mainly with my 5DS as a portrait lens mainly but not exclusively in the studio and its come to be one of my go to lenses. I was able to "select" my version from a batch of six lenses and I'm fortunate to be able to use professional tools to test it on. 
For me to change it the new MKIII version would need to justify a marked IQ improvement particularly regarding CAs because Canon are bound to significantly increase the cost at least initially. 

In part Canon maybe spurred to do so because the Sony FE 70-200mm f2.8 GM OSS re-set the goal posts its just as sharp if not sharper than the Canon MKII but controls CAs far better and whilst I'm not a lover of the Sony A7 / A9 series ergonomically the G Master lenses have thrown down the intent Sony has to grab some of Canon & Nikon business. 

The strangest omission from Canon line-up however remains a decent EF 50mm f1.4L IS USM


----------



## scyrene (Jan 30, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



It felt like the effect was worst at 200mm and MFD as I say, and I guess that wouldn't be the usual setting for a portrait (you'd either use a shorter FL or be further from your subject), as a person's face might be too large to fit in the frame? Anyhow, it's my own fault for trying to use a screwdriver to hammer nails, so to speak


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 30, 2018)

3dit0r said:


> Isn’t an update to the already stellar 70-200 2.8 L II IS about the last priority lens-wise? The 50mm 1.4 and 1.2 prime range badly needs a refresh...



Different teams working on those lenses.


----------



## WillT (Jan 30, 2018)

Glad to see Canon keeping their lens lineup fresh.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 30, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> 3dit0r said:
> 
> 
> > Isn’t an update to the already stellar 70-200 2.8 L II IS about the last priority lens-wise? The 50mm 1.4 and 1.2 prime range badly needs a refresh...
> ...



+1. The 70-200 team is the Avengers and the 50 prime team is a 3 month old who sleeps all day and gets nothing done.

- A


----------



## tron (Jan 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > 3dit0r said:
> ...


 ;D ;D ;D That 3 month old must be some Avenger's child who work on all 70-200 lenses with time to spare ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 31, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > 3dit0r said:
> ...



hahaha!


----------



## hne (Jan 31, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Is the prime trinity 35, 50, 85? I guess that probably varies by user too.



More likely 24, 50, 135 or 35, 85, 200.
Having less than 2x the focal length makes little sense. 85 to 135 is definitely on the boarder.

I'm holding on to my first generation 70-200/2.8 IS for as long as it lasts. It isn't worse than when it was introduced and is perfectly fine for A3/SuperB prints. A mkIII would be interesting to me... if it pushes down the price of the mkII and my first generation breaks down.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Feb 1, 2018)

slclick said:


> The first thing I thought of was how it will affect Mk2 prices but I bet it won't Canon holds steady which is a good thing and a bad thing. Anywho, I'm interested in the G2. Black is beautiful.


I agree with you black is beautiful. I really don't like white on Canon telephoto lenses. I have the original (non IS) 70-200 f2.8 and I recently covered it with black VividVynil. I even bought off ebay a black tripod collar to go with it. Still it would be nice to have IS and I am tempted like you to get the Tamron G2.


----------



## slclick (Feb 1, 2018)

MrFotoFool said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > The first thing I thought of was how it will affect Mk2 prices but I bet it won't Canon holds steady which is a good thing and a bad thing. Anywho, I'm interested in the G2. Black is beautiful.
> ...



I need to use one firsthand, I've been through the online reviews thoroughly and it seems to be the only one out there that matches the Mk2 IS until you get to 200. My intention is for it to replace 3 lenses, the 85 (non L) and 135L Mk 2 I keep waiting for Canon to make and a 70-200 in itself.


----------



## Talys (Feb 2, 2018)

I think it's worth noting that of all the first party full frame 70-200/2.8 lenses with image stabilization (and I hope we can all agree that this is a super-popular focal length and aperture), Canon's EF 70-200 f2.8 IS II is by far the best priced, _and it's an excellent lens_, with great image and build quality. 

These are non-rebate/non-sale prices from Amazon.com:

Canon - $1950
Nikon - $2590
Sony - $2600

Keep in mind that Canon rebate prices are significantly less than that -- I think I bought mine brand new at CAD $2,100 from a camera store, which is about US$1,680. That's nearly the price of the Sony 70-200/f4, at $1,500. 

If there is a new premium 70-200/2.8, I hope they keep the Mark II, as I think it is an invaluable, super-useful part of any Canon shooter's kit, at a really decent price -- comparatively speaking, of course. There is the added benefit that these list used at less than 10% off of Boxing Day prices, and they sell pretty quickly. In fact, the reason that I bought mine new was that used asking prices were so close (and higher than refurb prices) that it really didn't make any sense, for me.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 2, 2018)

Talys said:


> These are non-rebate/non-sale prices from Amazon.com:
> 
> Canon - $1950
> Nikon - $2590
> Sony - $2600



There's the rub. In those prices above, Canon is leaving a lot of money on the table. The upcharge to market parity at $2500 would easily underwrite the costs to develop a new lens. That's why we get these 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 lenses get updated so often: they are vital professional tools in a staple focal length range, and folks pay very good money for them.

- A


----------



## slclick (Feb 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > These are non-rebate/non-sale prices from Amazon.com:
> ...



One more price, Tamron G2 -$1299


----------



## Talys (Feb 3, 2018)

slclick said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



@ahsanford - I totally agree with you, and even if I don't need it I'd spring the $2,500 because this is a FR and a lens that I love (besides, I'd sell my old one and recover some decent portion of that). I have gotten way more than $2.5k out of my existing lens.

However, it'd be wonderful if the IS II stayed on the market for $2k for a while, because $500 - 600 is quite a bit of money for some people (or the price of a good f4 zoom or f2.8 prime), and the much cheaper lenses in many popular FL's is not a bad reason to choose Canon over Sony if you're choosing systems and starting from scratch.

@slclick - Yup there are Sigma/Tamron, which was why I was hypothesizing the (unlikely) possibility of a cheaper 70-200/2.8. When I was listing them, though, I was only including first-party full frame lenses.


----------



## tron (Feb 4, 2018)

hne said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Is the prime trinity 35, 50, 85? I guess that probably varies by user too.
> ...


The originally mentioned trinity was 35, 85, 135. But of course anyone can declare their own lens trinity.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 4, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > These are non-rebate/non-sale prices from Amazon.com:
> ...



Just don't forget the effect of volume on profit margins. Raising the price doesn't always result in higher profits. We have no idea what the per unit profits are of each of these manufacturer's lenses are. The fact that these "get updated so often" (your words) tells me Canon probably has it right.


----------



## Talys (Feb 8, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



There's also sale prices. Canon aggressively marks down those prices at sale events.

I upgraded mine about 4 or so years ago when it was on sale for about 15%+ lower than it's priced on Amazon today. And during Black Friday/Boxing Day/Best in Glass event and other sales, it's recently been as low as around USD$1,650 from an authorized retail dealer (and obviously less than that for grey market).


----------

