# Canon Working on New EF 70-200 L Lens [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 28, 2015)

```
<p>We’re told that Canon is working on a new EF 70-200 lens, though the source didn’t know if it was going to be an f/2.8 or f/4 lens. The EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II was announced in 2010, while the EF 70-200 f/4L IS was announced in 2006. Going by that, the f/4 version is the likelier of the two to be replaced next.</p>
<p>The last EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS replacement only took 9 years, so it’s possible they’re already working on its replacement. It’s definitely a cash cow you’d like to continue to upgrade.</p>
<p>Some have noted that the EF 70-200 f/4L IS has <a href="http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup" target="_blank">disappeared from the Canon USA web site</a>, but that is a fairly common occurrence for whatever reason and has never signalled an imminent lens replacement as far as we can remember.</p>
```


----------



## tomscott (Sep 28, 2015)

Maybe an even lighter version to compete better with Sonys mirrorless version. Although I'm pretty sure the Canon already bests the Sony.


----------



## sanj (Sep 28, 2015)

A lighter lens would be most welcome.

A thought crossed my mind: Canon is preparing this lens to launch with a mirrorless camera. Hmmm.


----------



## beckstoy (Sep 28, 2015)

Anyone know if anyone (any company) ever considered a faster lens than 2.8 in this range? I understand weight would be a serious issue...

...just wondering...


----------



## davidcl0nel (Sep 28, 2015)

And maybe its an non-IS-f/4-version? I've heard a lot, that the L without IS (half price) is not as good as the IS version, which is already good and can compete with the 2.8 IS II. Only if you need the f/2.8, you can get it, not for better sharpness.
The f/4 without IS maybe lacks of sharpness, because the 55-250 STM (yes I know it is only for crop!) is a very good buy...


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 28, 2015)

Hmm! 

Strange rumor, IMHO. 

Both 70-200 L IS lenses perform very well and I have not heard about lack of resolution even with the 5DS/R. 
Maybe Canon wants to add the BR element to this lens but I see other lenses (incl. zooms) more in need of replacement. 

Let's see, what happens here...


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 28, 2015)

tomscott said:


> Maybe an even lighter version to compete better with Sonys mirrorless version. Although I'm pretty sure the Canon already bests the Sony.



Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS $1,398
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM $1,149

The Canon is slightly smaller but a touch heavier, when direct comparisons like this are drawn it really brings the size differences (one of the main selling points of mirrorless) of the systems into perspective, there isn't any! And you get a $250 penalty for the pleasure.....

Back to the rumour, the f2.8 IS MkII is not as nice a portrait lens as the MkI, the bokeh is harsher, maybe they would consider a portrait centric 70-200 f2.8 non IS. Though I am sure a 70-200 f4 IS MkII would sell well, so it is probably that.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 28, 2015)

Maybe it's a 70-200mm f/2.8 *DO* IS USM, or a 70-200mm f/?-5.6.

People want smaller cameras w/ small lenses. To decrease the size and weight of a 70-200mm lens, it should be either slower, [and?/]or have something like DO to make it shorter.


----------



## midluk (Sep 28, 2015)

afaik they didn't include the f/4L IS (but the f/4L) in the list of recommended lenses for the 5DS. So It is likely they are preparing a f/4L IS II. According to tests I have read the f/4L IS is not as sharp as the f/2.8 L IS II at 70mm.


----------



## TheJock (Sep 28, 2015)

I predict it's going to be a BR variant, I think if it is then we'll start to see a whole range of lenses being upgraded to include a BR element, maybe even ones you might not expect are ready for an upgrade!!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 28, 2015)

The f/4L could use a upgrade, but it won't happen. The f/4L IS is wonderfully sharp, Of course, it could be better, but it does not need a replacement.

I suppose that the f/2.8 IS III is being readied for the new 150 MP Body, buyers will want to throw money at it, needed or not. The price on the existing version has dropped substantially.


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 28, 2015)

A new 2.8 version with the Blue Goo seems to be more likely. It seems like that is a rather easy upgrade to build into existing lens designs without much change, and one that also appears to yield some notable results. If they also managed to make the IS even better (maybe we can get 5 stops now), it will sell just the current one does. Extremely well.

I guess my point is, IF they are doing a Blue Goo upgrade, seems more likely they would put it on the flagship first rather than the f4.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 28, 2015)

beckstoy said:


> Anyone know if anyone (any company) ever considered a faster lens than 2.8 in this range? I understand weight would be a serious issue...
> 
> ...just wondering...



Like 200mm f/1.0?


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 28, 2015)

Comes in a NEX mount for the Sony Alphas :



Antono Refa said:


> beckstoy said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone know if anyone (any company) ever considered a faster lens than 2.8 in this range? I understand weight would be a serious issue...
> ...


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 28, 2015)

Even the basic EF 70-200 f4L is sharp Ive used this lens for years (on a tripod) and Ive never felt it was a "bad" lens. Ive only bought a 5Ds this weekend so not had the chance to try the lens on it yet but I certainly will be the only aspect of this lens that makes it a departure from normal L lenses is the lack of weather sealing at the rear of the lens which must be peanuts to add.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 28, 2015)

I agree that this would be the ideal lens to introduce DO with zoom. And they could make version 1 just an upgrade in size leaving room for a version 2 with perfected optics later.
I doubt they could perfect the optics on their first try anyway, even the 400f4DO gives lesser IQ to the non-DO equivalents.
The 70-200f2.8IS2 also still has a bit of room for upgrading the optics across the zoom range and in general as well. Given the state of the competition I can only assume that the 70-200 range at f2.8 is not an easy task to begin with.


----------



## Zv (Sep 28, 2015)

The f/4L IS could do with a few minor improvements I'd say but certainly not something that is in dire need of replacing. Would be interesting if it's a lighter design with updated and less noisy IS! My copy is OK at 70mm, nothing great so maybe they could sort that issue out and throw in the BR element and you'd have a very tidy little lens fit for all kinds of high megapixel action! 

Note to self - I really need to start using this lens more!


----------



## Bullwye (Sep 28, 2015)

I do not think that BR is required for the 2.8 II. Never noticed any purple borders, not even wide open


----------



## davidcl0nel (Sep 28, 2015)

Bullwye said:


> I do not think that BR is required for the 2.8 II. Never noticed any purple borders, not even wide open



Yes, but maybe you can replace 14 lenses in 7 groups (just kidding) with _one_ BR, just to correct the color abberation.


----------



## Alejandro (Sep 28, 2015)

How big would a 70-200 f/2 be?


----------



## TeT (Sep 28, 2015)

Alejandro said:


> How big would a 70-200 f/2 be?



About $3,800.00 Big


----------



## unfocused (Sep 28, 2015)

Since I just ordered a 70-200 f2.8 II I'm guessing that's the lens they will replace.


----------



## CanoKnight (Sep 28, 2015)

Antono Refa said:


> Maybe it's a 70-200mm f/2.8 *DO* IS USM



Or a 70-200mm f/4 DO BR EF-S IS USM ?
(What letters of the alphabet did I miss.. )


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 28, 2015)

TeT said:


> Alejandro said:
> 
> 
> > How big would a 70-200 f/2 be?
> ...



Bigger: $15 000 - compare to 200-400 and it isn't easier to do similar with shorter focal ranges.

About the new 70-200: Still hoping for a 50-200 or 40-200 walk-around lens ...


----------



## midluk (Sep 28, 2015)

CanoKnight said:


> Or a 70-200mm f/4 DO BR EF-S IS USM ?
> (What letters of the alphabet did I miss.. )


you missed "L". At least the rumor tells us it's "L".


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 28, 2015)

Given that both the 70-200F2.8 and the 70-200F4 are both stellar performers with astounding sharpness, if Canon is working on a replacement then whatever configuration the lens comes in will probably be one of the best IQ zoom lenses ever, perhaps even good enough to crack the top 1000 on DXO......


----------



## Daniel Flather (Sep 28, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> and one that also appears to yield some notable results.




Like profit margins.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 28, 2015)

Maybe the 70-200 2.8 non-IS II? otherwise it seems very odd

the f/4 IS already works very well and, of course so does the 2.8 IS II

the 2.8 non-IS was awesome on aps-c but borders a little dicey on FF and I think it's not been made for a while

never tried the f/4 non-IS but heard it was fine enough


----------



## hubie (Sep 28, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Given that both the 70-200F2.8 and the 70-200F4 are both stellar performers with astounding sharpness, if Canon is working on a replacement then whatever configuration the lens comes in will probably be one of the best IQ zoom lenses ever, perhaps even good enough to crack the top 1000 on DXO......



Well it's not in the top 1000 because the lens is too noisy (in terms of ISO) ???


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 28, 2015)

A lighter f/4 with IS or a sharper f/2.8 without IS, I'll take either. The f/2.8 IS mk II is optically fantastic but is pretty hefty and, for me, has always been overkill; I rent in on occasion but have never had the need to own it outright. The non-IS f/2.8 is noticably worse, optically, and though the f/4 IS is already a bit smaller than the f/2.8 versions, you'd think it'd be lighter than it is. Solve either of those problems with the existing lenses and I'll be very happy. A revision of the already top-in-class f/2.8 IS or the too-medicore-to-bother-with f/4 non-IS holds no interest, for me.

I do wonder, regardless of the aperture and whether it's IS or not, if they'll simply start stripping back things like weather sealing and the thicker, white-painted shells from these zooms and longer primes. The way I hear it from stores and magazine writers around here, things like the Fuji 50-140 and the Sigma and Tamron 70-200—all lighter, cheaper and black plastic—have shot up in sales, as people move toward smaller cameras and generally don't value camera equipment as highly. (E.g. Only making around £40 profit on every £1000 body sold because the market won't support the larger margins of ten years ago.)
So it wouldn't surprise me if Canon went that way. Maybe scrap the non-IS versions and have the f/2.8L IS II at the high end of the price range, an f/4L IS II for the mid price and a black, non-L 70-200 f/4 or f/4-5.6 for the lower price range. As it is, Canon has _four_ white, 'L' 70-200 zooms, two of which come in at pretty much the same price point. Pairing those middle two down into a fresh f/4 IS and replacing the lowest model with a non-L would make a lot of sense with the current market.


----------



## jd7 (Sep 28, 2015)

If the rumour didn't specifically say L I would have guessed 70-200 STM (maybe 3.5-5.6) to team up with the 24-105 STM. If it's an L lens though, my guess is 70-200 f/4L IS II to update the IS and reduce weight a little. Wonder if they'd even consider some sort of extending design so it can be made relatively short to pack in your bag? I suppose that might suggest 70-200 DO.

If it's an update to the 2.8 IS II, it will be very interesting to see what they have up their sleeve for it!

Perhaps the rumoured new 70-300 is the partner lens for the 24-105 STM (although there has been no update on that rumour for a while now). I figure the 24-105 STM will get a partner one of these days.


----------



## HaroldC3 (Sep 28, 2015)

I'd like them to switch up the focal length a little bit. How bout a 50-200mm f4L IS?


----------



## Mac Duderson (Sep 29, 2015)

Canon EF 70-200mm f/3.5 L IS BR Macro Zoom - $2299.95usd.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 29, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Since I just ordered a 70-200 f2.8 II I'm guessing that's the lens they will replace.



All kidding aside, I would not be in the least surprised to see a 70-200 mm "L" III. 

This is a foundation lens for Canon and I'm sure they want it to remain the best 70-200 available.

Given the stellar performance of some of Canon's most recent lenses, there is always room for improvement, even if it is only marginal. With ever-higher megapixel sensors on the horizon, they will want to make sure the 70-200 stays ahead of the game.

I would expect to see the latest lens coating added as well as IS improvements that have been developed since its introduction. They might reduce the weight slightly and it would not surprise me to see additional weather sealing and a few other enhancements added. 

From a business standpoint, updating one of your core lenses so you can generate new sales among owners of the II version makes a lot of sense.


----------



## siegsAR (Sep 29, 2015)

They'll update the F4L non IS first, then the 2.8, F4L IS last. In between them would be the new 24-105L. ;D


----------



## Aglet (Sep 29, 2015)

they could remove, or better balance the aspherics to improve the nasty transition zone bokeh


----------



## captainkanji (Sep 29, 2015)

I had the 70-200 f/4 and really enjoyed it, but it just couldn't perform in low light so I parted with it. Great image quality though. A great affordable L lens.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 29, 2015)

jd7 said:


> If the rumour didn't specifically say L I would have guessed 70-200 STM (maybe 3.5-5.6) to team up with the 24-105 STM. If it's an L lens though, my guess is 70-200 f/4L IS II to update the IS and reduce weight a little. Wonder if they'd even consider some sort of extending design so it can be made relatively short to pack in your bag? I suppose that might suggest 70-200 DO.



Watch out! I said about the same, and got mocked for it.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 29, 2015)

jd7 said:


> ... I would have guessed 70-200 STM (maybe 3.5-5.6) to team up with the 24-105 STM.


In the "old days"  there was the telezoom type 70 - 210mm/4-5.6 as available tele lens. 
Nowadays we have the 70-300mm/4-5.6 for this job. And quite good price performers from third parties here. 
I see absolutely no reason for any lens manfacturer to make that step backwards. Sorry but that's a miss.



> I suppose that might suggest 70-200 DO.


That might be something. But I don't know how well the actual DO generation performs in zooms. 
The 70-300 DO (quite old) was nicely short but way too expensive for its optical performance.
So as I said in my first post I see only little reason to make an update to the existing lenses.
_Edit: And I don't know if and how that BR element can be used in zooms, or if it's only working well in primes._



> Perhaps the rumoured new 70-300 is the partner lens for the 24-105 STM (although there has been no update on that rumour for a while now). I figure the 24-105 STM will get a partner one of these days.


That fits 100% to what I said above. It's just a matter of time...


----------



## JohanCruyff (Sep 29, 2015)

An EF 70-200 STM, together with the 24-105 STM, makes sense IF (some of) the new Full Frame bodies feature the DPAF.


----------



## whothafunk (Sep 29, 2015)

No professional lens will have a STM because USM is still superior in terms of autofocus speed (for *stills*). 

My personal wish for 70-200L f2.8 IS USM III would be that it would have more robust switches, as my IS ON/OFF and AF/MF get switched when I swap dslr position from normal to portrait and that costed me many good photos.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 29, 2015)

unfocused said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Since I just ordered a 70-200 f2.8 II I'm guessing that's the lens they will replace.
> ...



I don't think there is much to gain optically with a mkIII 70-200 f2.8 LIS. The update with be superficial at best. Probably constrained to coatings and BR elements. I think it just missed the subwave and flourine coatings, which was a pity. But not a massive loss. The main goal of the mkII was the updated the optics to the modern sensor requirements from the mkI version. Canon has been "knocking it our of the park" for quite a while in their lens design. The 70-200 f2.8 LIS II was one of those early "change of heart" lenses which seemed to happen after the 50mm f1.2 L fiasco. The TS-e 24 II L and TS-e 17 L were the first two wide lenses in Canon's modern era which really displayed Canon's new lens making ethos. In Canon's history, they seem to like a 10 year design life span for their lenses and they usually get it right at launch.


----------



## rbr (Sep 29, 2015)

Wasn't there a rumor of a zoom macro a while back? I could see a new 70-200 f4 IS macro zoom that really was 200mm at 1:1 magnification being very useful. It would be more of a replacement for the 180 macro lens than any if the current zooms. If the AF was fast at normal working distances it would be even more versatile and sell very well I'd think.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 29, 2015)

Aglet said:


> they could remove, or better balance the aspherics to improve the nasty transition zone bokeh



The f4 LIS bokeh is a lot more pleasing than the f2.8 LIS II. Sure it's no ef 200mm f2.8 prime but it's still very nice.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 29, 2015)

JohanCruyff said:


> An EF 70-200 STM, together with the 24-105 STM, makes sense IF (some of) the new Full Frame bodies feature the DPAF.


Why not a 70-300 STM? 
The only advantage of the 200 mm would be a little smaller size. But that'll be almost not recognizable. 
On FF you'll (most) be longing for at least 300 mm. I put mine aside for a 100 - 400, because I felt 300 not being enough. 
So why combine 200 mm with an aperture more than f4, when you can get 70-300 at reasonable sizes?


----------



## JonAustin (Sep 29, 2015)

Maybe they'll replace the tripod ring on the 70-200 2/8L IS II with one like on the new 100-400 II. 

_That _should be enough to merit a vIII designation, right? ;D


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 29, 2015)

JonAustin said:


> Maybe they'll replace the tripod ring on the 70-200 2/8L IS II with one like on the new 100-400 II.
> 
> _That _should be enough to merit a vIII designation, right? ;D


*LOL*


----------



## pwp (Sep 29, 2015)

The current 70-200 f/2.8isII is far and away my most used lens. It's in daily use. It's consistently brilliant. However as I'm not exactly Mr Muscles, after long shooting days I do feel the weight of the 1-series bodies and heavy glass. My next lens will be a 70-200 f/4is not as a replacement to the f/2.8 but as well as, for those long days on my feet on projects where f2.8 isn't vital. The f/4 really could do with a tripod/monopod collar.

So what I'd like to see in a potential 70-200 f/2.8 is III is a weight-loss program, even better IS, updated coatings and no loss of IQ. How could it get any better?

It has been noted that the current f/2.8 was a 2010 release so it's more likely to be an update on the f/4. 

-pw


----------



## Haydn1971 (Sep 29, 2015)

unfocused said:


> All kidding aside, I would not be in the least surprised to see a 70-200 mm "L" III.
> 
> This is a foundation lens for Canon and I'm sure they want it to remain the best 70-200 available.
> 
> Given the stellar performance of some of Canon's most recent lenses, there is always room for improvement, even if it is only marginal. With ever-higher megapixel sensors on the horizon, they will want to make sure the 70-200 stays ahead of the game.



Spot on, the f2.8 24-70 & 70-200 are the traditional foundation duo combo, the only reason not to have a 70-200 2.8 II L in my opinion is the sheer scale and weight, trim the fat, add recent developments in coatings and IS, mix in the 100-400 II build quality (not that the current lens is bad), then some ergonomic enhancements like the collar and 100-400 style hood - bingo


----------



## pardus (Sep 29, 2015)

Damn, better not be a replacement for the 70-200 f2.8 II - I just bought one last week. My non-IS version just didn't cut it on the 5DS R. Huge difference between the 2 lenses. I would guess a non-IS version replacement, that lens really is not that great, especially since I got my hands on the new IS version.


----------



## SeanW (Sep 29, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Since I just ordered a 70-200 f2.8 II I'm guessing that's the lens they will replace.



Likewise, but I'm more than happy with what I have. Just need to use it some more!


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Sep 29, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Both of the f/4 70-200 lenses need to be updated. The current designs may be "sharp" to some, but in the corners, they're somewhat terrible and the CA is out of control. They need to be updated for critical work with higher end cameras.
> 
> New designs for either one or both of the f/4 lenses would update them with BR (hopefully) to get better IQ.
> 
> The f/2.8 70-200s are "too new" to be replaced just yet.



Agreed. The f/4 lenses are old design so these are the ones needing an update


----------



## Botts (Sep 29, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The f/4L could use a upgrade, but it won't happen. The f/4L IS is wonderfully sharp, Of course, it could be better, but it does not need a replacement.



It would be nice if they would focus while the lens is less than level though.

Quite a few 70-200 f/4Ls don't focus if pointed upwards or downwards at a steep angle.


----------



## Spiros Zaharakis (Sep 29, 2015)

The list of recommended lenses for the 5Ds does not have the 70-200 f4IS but has the 70-200 f4. I suspect it is because they were planning to introduce a replacement and didn't want to risk sales by also recommending the previous model (the non IS version is not a direct competitor)


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 30, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > ... I would have guessed 70-200 STM (maybe 3.5-5.6) to team up with the 24-105 STM.
> ...



If it's 200mm is at the long end, rather than 300mm, the front element would be 1/3rd smaller, which would make a difference for EOS-M body owners.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 30, 2015)

Antono Refa said:


> If it's 200mm is at the long end, rather than 300mm, the front element would be 1/3rd smaller, which would make a difference for EOS-M body owners.


But we're talking about a FF lens, don't we? 

Antono, of course you're right when it comes to M system. but here we already have an up to 200 mm zoom.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 30, 2015)

beckstoy said:


> Anyone know if anyone (any company) ever considered a faster lens than 2.8 in this range? I understand weight would be a serious issue...
> 
> ...just wondering...



Considering the 200mm F2 costs in the $6000-7000 region, anything with a 70-200 F2 type spec would be at least $7500, but probably in the 8-9k region... considering it gives you just 1 additional stop for 3-4x the price, you can appreciate how limited the market for such a lens would be.


----------



## whothafunk (Oct 1, 2015)

f2 gives you additional 2/3 of light over f2.8, not 1 whole stop.


----------



## Coldhands (Oct 1, 2015)

whothafunk said:


> f2 gives you additional 2/3 of light over f2.8, not 1 whole stop.



Standard full-stop f-number scale goes f/1, f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4... Therefore going from 2.8 to 2 _does_ provide a difference of one full stop. 2/3 of a stop faster than f/2.8 is f/2.2

Check the wikipedia page for f-number if you'd like to see how the scale is derived.


----------



## AJ (Oct 1, 2015)

Coldhands said:


> whothafunk said:
> 
> 
> > f2 gives you additional 2/3 of light over f2.8, not 1 whole stop.
> ...


Or else you can compute 2.8 squared divided by 2 squared, which is two, meaning one full stop.

I wonder if the new 70-200 will be a DO lens


----------



## jedy (Oct 2, 2015)

I hope they're not going to replace the 70-200 f4L. Currently in the UK this lens costs around £430 which makes it the cheapest L zoom. I am looking to pick up one or two of these for video work with my production company. The problem for me with a 70-200 f4L II would be the obvious price increase.


----------



## hubie (Oct 2, 2015)

to the aperture discussion...

k = f / D... 

D is the diameter of the aperture. Is it divided by the square root of 2 it's basically 1/2 illumination, as the diameter goes in square for total surface of the aperture. On the other hand, D times square root of 2 results in the doubled surface of the aperture and doubled amount of light... so * 0,7 is one stop less and * 1,4 is one stop more.

My guess for the lens would be the 70-200 f/4. I am planning on purchasing on so I hope it will lower the price for the old or bring new features that make it worth buying the new one.


----------



## ejenner (Oct 2, 2015)

I hope this is not a 70-200 f2.8 DO. It would kill my wallet.


----------



## Aglet (Oct 2, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > they could remove, or better balance the aspherics to improve the nasty transition zone bokeh
> ...


yes, I suspect you're right about that. I had, and sold, all 3 of the 2.8s as they didn't deliver what I expected of them. I may have kept the f/4 IS for the size, mass, and IQ/$.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 2, 2015)

Aglet said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



I get better out of focus rendering using a 1.4 x tc. I think the extra reach smooths out the backgrounds a bit more. But this lens wasn't intended to be a portrait lens, although it gets used a lot in that capacity. The mk1 had creamier bokeh. No it's a photojournalists tool. So it's built like a tank and has other design priorities. For portrait work, the 85L and 135L are far better tools and excel in their design goals.


----------



## JonAustin (Oct 2, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I get better out of focus rendering using a 1.4 x tc. I think the extra reach smooths out the backgrounds a bit more. But this lens wasn't intended to be a portrait lens, although it gets used a lot in that capacity. The mk1 had creamier bokeh. No it's a photojournalists tool. So it's built like a tank and has other design priorities. For portrait work, the 85L and 135L are far better tools and excel in their design goals.



Interesting observation about better bokeh with a 1.4x TC attached to the 70-200/2.8 IS II ... I'd check that out if I still owned a TC, but I sold my 1.4x II last summer.

Most of the portraits I shoot are corporate headshots, where the only out-of-focus area desired is the background; consequently, I usually set aperture between f/4 and f/8. So for me, the 70-200/2.8 IS II is my go-to portrait lens, and it works great for this application. (My backup is the 100/2.8 IS, which, being designated as a macro lens, probably wasn't intended for portraits, either ... ).


----------



## Ogreatkman (Oct 3, 2015)

For the people that own the 70-200 F/4. What should we hold onto our lenses or move to other lenses such as the 70-300? Or move up to the 70-200 F/2.8 or F/2.8 IS?


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 3, 2015)

Ogreatkman said:


> For the people that own the 70-200 F/4. What should we hold onto our lenses or move to other lenses such as the 70-300? Or move up to the 70-200 F/2.8 or F/2.8 IS?


Compromise on constant aperture aprerture (F4.0 over f5.6) weigth (lighter than F2.8 ) and size (smaller than F2.8 ).
Use of tele converters to get longer reach.
Great optics, mechanics, USM AF, weather sealing.
Need any more?


----------



## LSeries (Oct 5, 2015)

I pretty much love my 70-200 f/4L IS as the IQ is wonderful. My only gripe is that the AF action is quite slow by modern standards.


----------



## RGF (Oct 7, 2015)

I have noticed that Canon has been moving toward placing the zoom rink further from the camera and moving the focus rink closer to the camera body. This seems to hold for newer zoom lens 100+.

Perhaps there is some advantage to this design that would cause Canon to update the 70-200 F2.8 II IS?


----------



## JoeKerslake (Oct 14, 2015)

Is this going to drop the price of the 70-200 2.8 II? Worried my investment is going to considerably lose value.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Oct 18, 2015)

Could there be a confused rumour here in that Canon are actually working on a pair of 28-200mm lenses, the patent for a f3.5-5.6 has appeared, could this be a lower cost version of a f4 L or could indeed the f3.5-5.6 actually be a L that is being hinted at with this rumour.


----------

