# New Canon 70-200mm Lenses Coming in Early June [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 15, 2018)

```
<p>We’re told that Canon will finally unveil their new 70-200mm lenses with an early June announcement. Yes, that’s plural.</p>
<p>We can 100% confirm that one of the new lenses will be an EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II.</p>
<p>We can also 95% confirm that the second lens will be a EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III. All of the tips we’ve seen point to this lens coming, but we haven’t actually seen the “f/2.8L IS III” in writing.</p>
<p>We do not know pricing or when these new 70-200mm lenses will begin shipping.</p>
<p>Please keep in mind that lens announcement dates can change, even at the last minute.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## ethanz (May 15, 2018)

Get your check books ready people.


----------



## ahsanford (May 15, 2018)

CPL window hoods for everyone!

- A


----------



## tmc784 (May 15, 2018)

When is the new Canon DSLR with IBIS coming ? :-\


----------



## ethanz (May 15, 2018)

tmc784 said:


> When is the new Canon DSLR with IBIS coming ? :-\



Next week, GUARANTEED. A doozie OF a camera. CR4


 ;D


----------



## justawriter (May 15, 2018)

What's it going to cost? How much you got? :


----------



## RunAndGun (May 15, 2018)

How much?

If you've gotta ask, you can't afford it.


----------



## H. Jones (May 15, 2018)

Dammit Canon, right when I think I could finally go buy myself a nice prime lens this summer, you replace my most-used, most mission-critical lens. 

Well, guess that 85mm f/1.4L IS can wait until next year.... My 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is my oldest lens still in service, and the age is starting to show. Have beat it up in all kinds of ways in all kinds of places. Not sure if it ever hasn't smelled like smoke with the amount of fire it has seen.


----------



## Hector1970 (May 15, 2018)

It will be interesting in what ways it will be better than the existing camera and how in real world situations that would prove itself.
I find it hard to perceive a 70-200mm better than the existing one so it will be interesting.
A 70-200 F4 is tempting for travel as its far lighter and also the existing version is very good.
I can't wait to see the tests on these two.


----------



## te1973 (May 15, 2018)

How many versions will they make of this one until they finally make a usable 50mm 1.2 ?

It's difficult to focus correctly on close distances and wide open. Even the contrast AF does it wrong.

All alternatives don't do it for me.


----------



## mb66energy (May 15, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> It will be interesting in what ways it will be better than the existing camera and how in real world situations that would prove itself.
> I find it hard to perceive a 70-200mm better than the existing one so it will be interesting.
> A 70-200 F4 is tempting for travel as its far lighter and also the existing version is very good.
> I can't wait to see the tests on these two.



I own the existing f/4 70-200 IS and it is really really good. Only f/4 @ 1.2m & 200mm shows some halos around sharp subjects but just that is some interesting rendering of the real object and at the end the sharpness/contrast/"texture fidelity" are great just in that worst case scenario.

Maybe the have shorter minimum focus distance (others have in their comparable lenses) and
maybe they have some movie related AF mechanism which uses USM for sports and STM for video and
maybe some enhancements for the IS (5-stop? 6-stop?).


----------



## cayenne (May 15, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> It will be interesting in what ways it will be better than the existing camera and how in real world situations that would prove itself.
> I find it hard to perceive a 70-200mm better than the existing one so it will be interesting.
> A 70-200 F4 is tempting for travel as its far lighter and also the existing version is very good.
> I can't wait to see the tests on these two.



Yeah, when I read this, that was my first thought too...

the 70-200mm f/2.8 is about my oldest (2nd lens I bought after I got my first DSLR, a 5D# when it came out)...and I have a hard time imagining what they could do to really make any meaningful improvements to it.

I'll look forward to reading about it, but man..what could they do that would warrant a few thousand dollars upgrade?

cayenne


----------



## The Fat Fish (May 15, 2018)

Well it looks like any hope of a new mount for mirrorless is dead.


----------



## hendrik-sg (May 15, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> Well it looks like any hope of a new mount for mirrorless is dead.



Why "hope" ?

Do you want to have all your existing lenses obsoleted and buy new? Little longer ones to compensate for the shorter flange distance of the new camera??? did you do the math how much this would cost you? i did...


----------



## ahsanford (May 15, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> Well it looks like any hope of a new mount for mirrorless is dead.



This (impending) lens announcement has nothing to do with Canon's mount decision for mirrorless.

- A


----------



## hendrik-sg (May 15, 2018)

i hope it has, and they will not bring out high end lenses immediately before changing the mount. i do not believe that there will be 2 similar huge lens lines as is now the EF lineup, so of they bring a new FF mirrorless mount, it will either stay a niche market or it will replace the EF linup sooner or later


----------



## Rampuri (May 15, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> The Fat Fish said:
> 
> 
> > Well it looks like any hope of a new mount for mirrorless is dead.
> ...



They might want to announce both of them now so people buy them now and they can announce both of them next year again, but with a new mount ;D


----------



## ahsanford (May 15, 2018)

Here's a rough swag: If FF mirrorless is announced tomorrow and it indeed turns out to have a thinner than EF/EF-S mount...

50% chance you will never see a big lens like a 70-200 2.8 made for it. Only smallish lenses that maximize size savings may get made, and for everything else you crave in mirrorless you will use EF on an adaptor.

50% chance a mirrorless-only 70-200 2.8 gets rolled out. ...five years after mirrorless launched. ...for $3500. ...and it's probably FBW.

Put another way, the likelihood of:

[Probability of mirrorless FF happening imminently] X [Probability it has a thin mount] X [Probability it offers a 70-200 2.8 within 5 years from now] has got to be very low probability.

I appreciate there is a complicated if/then structure in some folks' heads about buying decisions and future-proofing and all that, but a 70-200 2.8 is not an iffy/nuanced/'I wonder' sort of call. If you need one, get this new one. If you don't, don't. I just don't see how mirrorless would steer someone on this class/size of lens. 

- A


----------



## NorskHest (May 15, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’re told that Canon will finally unveil their new 70-200mm lenses with an early June announcement. Yes, that’s plural.</p>
> <p>We can 100% confirm that one of the new lenses will be an EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II.</p>
> <p>We can also 95% confirm that the second lens will be a EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III. All of the tips we’ve seen point to this lens coming, but we haven’t actually seen the “f/2.8L IS III” in writing.</p>
> <p>We do not know pricing or when these new 70-200mm lenses will begin shipping.</p>
> ...


I think it is safe to say that Canon will not be abandoning the EF mount.


----------



## JoseB (May 16, 2018)

My english is not fireproof but doesn't mirrorless mean mirror-less? what comes 'size-less'?
A shorter mount aims at what lenses?


----------



## MrFotoFool (May 16, 2018)

I have the original (non IS) 70-200 2.8. It is amazingly sharp and my most used and loved lens, but also my only lens without IS. A version iii might just make me jump for the IS and also for (presumably) closer focusing distance.


----------



## [email protected] (May 16, 2018)

every 5-10 years, the zooms get so darned good that it makes me think I should ditch the primes and enjoy the convenience, along with just about as good image quality, if thinner aperture. And then, 3-5 years later, new primes come out that are astoundingly better than the zooms. 

We're in the latter part of the oh-my-here-come-the-primes stage right now, if you count Sigma and Tamron as participants. Canon hasn't quite done as much fleshing out on its own.

OPTION 1:
Perhaps it is time to come out with a 70-200 and a 24-70 that are about as good as the 35 L II and the new 85, but just a couple stops slower. I would like that very much.

OPTION 2:
More likely, unfortunately, these will be updates akin to the 24-105 II, which is to say there will be some small changes, but the benefit over the previous model will have to do with manufacturing and repair costs. This is by far the best odds option, as a plurality of lens revenue is earned off the 2.8 II, and increasing the margin on that would be very rational.

OPTION 3:
This is exceedingly unlikely. A benefit of having pro-sized bodies is that larger glass doesn't feel odd in the hand. Canon could produce a 70-200 f/2 IS DO that would be shorter than the 2.8 II and rather a bit wider. Put that on a 1 or 5 series body, and it wouldn't look crazy. The center of gravity would be similar to the 2.8. This complete speculation is astronomically unlikely.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 16, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> OPTION 3:
> This is exceedingly unlikely. A benefit of having pro-sized bodies is that larger glass doesn't feel odd in the hand. Canon could produce a 70-200 f/2 IS DO that would be shorter than the 2.8 II and rather a bit wider. Put that on a 1 or 5 series body, and it wouldn't look crazy. The center of gravity would be similar to the 2.8. This complete speculation is astronomically unlikely.



The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkII has a filter diameter of 77mm. An f/2 would have a filter diameter >100mm, so at least 30% wider. It would also be heavier than the 1.5kg mkII. I don't see such a large lens selling well.


----------



## MrToes (May 16, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> every 5-10 years, the zooms get so darned good that it makes me think I should ditch the primes and enjoy the convenience, along with just about as good image quality, if thinner aperture. And then, 3-5 years later, new primes come out that are astoundingly better than the zooms.
> 
> We're in the latter part of the oh-my-here-come-the-primes stage right now, if you count Sigma and Tamron as participants. Canon hasn't quite done as much fleshing out on its own.
> 
> ...



I would like a 70-200mm f/2.0 with a 100mm filter that is 1.5 kg heavier weight than the f/2.8. Just not the astronomical price associated with a f/2.0


----------



## Chaitanya (May 16, 2018)

Still no new Macro lens either to replace now discontinued 50mm Compact macro or ageing 180mm L macro.


----------



## Drainpipe (May 16, 2018)

Chaitanya said:


> Still no new Macro lens either to replace now discontinued 50mm Compact macro or ageing 180mm L macro.



This is what I want to see. If Canon updated the MP-E 65mm, I would buy it and the new MT-26EX in a heartbeat. Not that there’s anything wrong with the MP-E, but I’d like to see it go from .5x-5x. I can dream...


----------



## PureClassA (May 16, 2018)

......SHIT! There goes more money (assuming results are markedly better than my Mark II)


----------



## sanj (May 16, 2018)

Good news for all who want this. I got rid of my version 2 of this lens. Reasons:

1. Too heavy
2. 70-300 (black lens) serves my purpose much better for wildlife. Lighter, better range and I can't see any IQ difference in day time photography. 
3. When I want large aperture, primes (135, 85) work better.

But again good for those who want this... Earlier in life I considered 70-200 a must have. Not anymore.


----------



## fullstop (May 16, 2018)

ethanz said:


> Get your check books ready people.



definitely not. Will not buy any more marginally iterated EF lenses. For the time being I keep my EF 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 Mark II's. If Canon wants me to spend any money they gotta come forward with compelling FF mirrorless offers.


----------



## tomscott (May 16, 2018)

I know these are cash cows.

But come on... they are already the best in class there is so much other stuff they could focus on...


----------



## hendrik-sg (May 16, 2018)

Drainpipe said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > Still no new Macro lens either to replace now discontinued 50mm Compact macro or ageing 180mm L macro.
> ...



The Mp-e 65 is a fantastic lens. It has a buld quality which newer lenses just can dream of, and used appropriate, it is as sharp as physics allow. In macro, the real apertrure is (1+x) times what is the setting, with x being the magnification used. This means wide open at 5x it has a real opening of 17, which is above the diffraction limit, and simulanously a DOF of 0.05mm. For this reason, any real object needs stacking and any stopping down massively decreases sharpness, which is not the fault of the lens, it's physics. If there are not enough frames taken (typically 100's) the is image quality loss by misalignement and ghosting, beside the unevitable pixel mapping losses. Only after this comes the imense maginification of any subject or camera movement.

Me including, unsharp pictures with this lens are being caused by lack of skills or unevitable physical limits, a "better" lens with the same parameters will just be more expensive and trade build quality for a red ring, but it will not get us better extreme macro pictures.

So the best improvement for this lens would be to make it f2.0, which i do not know if it's possible.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 16, 2018)

hendrik-sg said:


> The Fat Fish said:
> 
> 
> > Well it looks like any hope of a new mount for mirrorless is dead.
> ...



You do realise there will be an adaptor for EF glass? Canon won't likely produce EF-M versions of their long EF glass, they'll just let you use the adaptor with it.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 16, 2018)

hendrik-sg said:


> The Mp-e 65 isa fantastic lens. It has a buld Quality which newer lenses just can dream of, and used appropriate, it is as sharp as physics allow.



The MPE-65 is no longer in production according to Canon UK, and once stocks run out that's it.

I doubt it's a big enough seller that it would justify a replacement


----------



## hendrik-sg (May 16, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> hendrik-sg said:
> 
> 
> > The Fat Fish said:
> ...



Of course i do, just the question is, will we want to have a lens lineup which will have to be adapted for ever or will they make a decission one day, to move mirrorless completely. If so, it will make no sense to build even long lenses with EF mount but to build them for mirrrorless. If not, most lenses need to be EF, except the ones which benefit from shorter flange distance, so the mirrorless will be the niche market with only few native lenses, like EF-M is now. 

maybe there will be a conversion service for the more worthfull lenses?


----------



## Sabaki (May 16, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> hendrik-sg said:
> 
> 
> > The Mp-e 65 isa fantastic lens. It has a buld Quality which newer lenses just can dream of, and used appropriate, it is as sharp as physics allow.
> ...



The MP-E 65, in my opinion, is a critical part of Canon's lineup.

I hear your argument in terms of sales numbers but it is a lens unparalleled and for those macro fundis looking to buy into a system, it does give Canon a massive leg up on the other manufacturers


----------



## Kit. (May 16, 2018)

JoseB said:


> My english is not fireproof but doesn't mirrorless mean mirror-less? what comes 'size-less'?
> A shorter mount aims at what lenses?


Typically, during the film era, a shorter mount of mirrorless cameras was aimed at lighter and cheaper wide-angle lenses and at smaller "pancake" normal lenses. In digital era, with sensor's microlenses shading each other at large angles of incidence, even that is of doubtful importance.


----------



## fullstop (May 16, 2018)

hendrik-sg said:


> Of course i do, just the question is, will we want to have a lens lineup which will have to be adapted for ever or will they make a decission one day, to move mirrorless completely. If so, it will make no sense to build even long lenses with EF mount but to build them for mirrrorless. If not, most lenses need to be EF, except the ones which benefit from shorter flange distance, so the mirrorless will be the niche market with only few native lenses, like EF-M is now.



I would be perfectly happy with a lineup of new, compact native mirrorless FF lenses for most frequently used focal length range [16-135mm] and EF glass plus adapter for tele and specialty lenses [eg Tilt-Shift] - which are a much smaller niche in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 16, 2018)

hendrik-sg said:


> Of course i do, just the question is, will we want to have a lens lineup which will have to be adapted for ever or will they make a decission one day, to move mirrorless completely.
> 
> maybe there will be a conversion service for the more worthfull lenses?



Once they stop selling DSLRs with EF mount then yes, they'll phase out the EF lens range. But even at the most optimistic that'll be five years away, more likely ten, possibly more.

Conversion service? An adaptor and some hot glue?


----------



## lisa (May 16, 2018)

This is the interesting news. So, may I consider the A 70-200mm on my wish list. Has anyone have any idea of the actual price of the targeted lenses?


----------



## jolyonralph (May 16, 2018)

Is it not more likely that the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (non IS) gets updated? It's a 1995 design compared to the IS II being a 2010 lens.


----------



## Diltiazem (May 16, 2018)

These two lenses are so good that most are wondering why replace them. 
I may replace my 70-200/2.8 II with the new one, not because something is wrong with my lens but because of my Gear Acquisition Syndrome. Canon surely is aware of this syndrome.


----------



## BeenThere (May 16, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Is it not more likely that the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (non IS) gets updated? It's a 1995 design compared to the IS II being a 2010 lens.


Doubtful Canon will backpedal to a non IS version now that they have demonstrated that they can achieve a superb IS version. Only a few hundred dollars difference in price and a big loss of functionality.


----------



## NorskHest (May 16, 2018)

I recently got rid of my 70-200 vii and I feel it was a great decision, when you are at 200 you wish you are at 300 or more and when you are at 70 you wish you were wider. It is a great introduction to better glass but it is to short and not wide enough. If you are doing video with a 1.3-1.5 crop then it becomes a far better lens in my opinion. Optically the vii I feel needs no work and I do not get why canon would possibly come out with a viii.


----------



## Chaitanya (May 16, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> hendrik-sg said:
> 
> 
> > The Mp-e 65 isa fantastic lens. It has a buld Quality which newer lenses just can dream of, and used appropriate, it is as sharp as physics allow.
> ...


I think Canon not only has stopped production(may not be discontinued like 50mm Macro) but there are some issues with not having enough parts for repairs either. I think there are couple of threads on this forum and others on interweb with users of this lens being told that repairs are not possible due to shortage of parts.


----------



## MrFotoFool (May 16, 2018)

Someone mentioned filter size. I wonder (on the new 2.8 ) if it will go up from 77 to 82? This might be a reason NOT to get it, as my three main lenses (including non_IS 70-200 2.8 ) are all 77 now.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 16, 2018)

MrFotoFool said:


> Someone mentioned filter size. I wonder (on the new 2.8 ) if it will go up from 77 to 82? This might be a reason NOT to get it, as my three main lenses (including non_IS 70-200 2.8 ) are all 77 now.



True, but it would also be more consistent with the other f/2.8 zooms at 82mm (16-35 III and 24-70 II). The 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/4 IS and 24-105 f/4 IS II all use 77mm filters, so I'm also wondering if the 70-200 f/4 IS replacement will also use 77mm filters...


----------



## ahsanford (May 16, 2018)

MrFotoFool said:


> Someone mentioned filter size. I wonder (on the new 2.8 ) if it will go up from 77 to 82? This might be a reason NOT to get it, as my three main lenses (including non_IS 70-200 2.8 ) are all 77 now.



Could happen. Then all the latest top of the line 16-35 2.8 / 24-70 2.8 / 70-200 2.8 lenses would be 82mm.

- A


----------



## cayenne (May 16, 2018)

NorskHest said:


> I recently got rid of my 70-200 vii and I feel it was a great decision, when you are at 200 you wish you are at 300 or more and when you are at 70 you wish you were wider. <snip>



Ahem...that's why I have *other* lenses too....


----------



## deleteme (May 16, 2018)

While I have no doubt about the real improvements we may see in the next generation of this lens, I will find it hard to muster enthusiasm for what will be a near $3000 lens if Nikon pricing is any guide.


----------



## triggermike (May 16, 2018)

The 70-200 2.8 IS II is hard to beat for photo quality as-is. I suspect Canon will be producing this as a lighter lens as they have done with the big whites - weight is the only "flaw" I can find with the vII.


----------



## Talys (May 16, 2018)

Normalnorm said:


> While I have no doubt about the real improvements we may see in the next generation of this lens, I will find it hard to muster enthusiasm for what will be a near $3000 lens if Nikon pricing is any guide.



Or Sony. That's just the going rate for a pro 70-200/2.8 now. If Canon sells it for much cheaper, they're just leaving money on the table.

On the bright side, the II is an _excellent_ lens, and for all the people who want one, a used II will go for another $100-$200 cheaper than the current prices as people who have to have the new color of paint run out and upgrade 

I will probably upgrade mine; but I will wait for them to go on sale.


----------



## ahsanford (May 16, 2018)

Normalnorm said:


> While I have no doubt about the real improvements we may see in the next generation of this lens, I will find it hard to muster enthusiasm for what will be a near $3000 lens if Nikon pricing is any guide.



Canon has higher production volumes of these lenses, one would presume, so they often come in under Nikon and Sony's often preposterous initial pricing. Whether they choose to do that or not (i.e. leave money on the table) remains to be seen.

I see this lens -- depending on if there is some exclusive new tech onboard -- dropping in around $2500... which is what I believe the Mk II originally went for.

- A


----------



## Talys (May 16, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Normalnorm said:
> 
> 
> > While I have no doubt about the real improvements we may see in the next generation of this lens, I will find it hard to muster enthusiasm for what will be a near $3000 lens if Nikon pricing is any guide.
> ...



Maybe he means Canadian dollar -- the Sony/Nikon are about $2,500 USD, and a little over $3k CAD?

The II in Canada retails around CAD $2200 during the Canon lens sales that go on and off for around half the year.


----------



## Daan Stam (May 16, 2018)

*awsome* !!!


----------



## Ozarker (May 16, 2018)

ethanz said:


> tmc784 said:
> 
> 
> > When is the new Canon DSLR with IBIS coming ? :-\
> ...



Harry is the guy working on that. Just to let you know, a week after the first rendition the Mark II will be announced.


----------



## Ozarker (May 16, 2018)

te1973 said:


> How many versions will they make of this one until they finally make a usable 50mm 1.2 ?
> 
> It's difficult to focus correctly on close distances and wide open. Even the contrast AF does it wrong.
> 
> All alternatives don't do it for me.



My money is on a 50mm f/1.4L... someday. No f/1.2L, ever.


----------



## Ozarker (May 16, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> Well it looks like any hope of a new mount for mirrorless is dead.



Why the hope for a new mount?


----------



## Hector1970 (May 16, 2018)

That's what struck me too. Full Frame Mirrorless will be an EF mount


----------



## Ozarker (May 16, 2018)

hendrik-sg said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > hendrik-sg said:
> ...



If there is a change in mounts, the new mount will accept EF and whatever the new thing is. Or, maybe Canon will offer a mount change service (doubtful). Personally, I don't think the mount will be a new one. If it is, I wouldn't care. Happy to keep using a DSLR and my current lenses. Heck, the DSLR will never completely go away in our lifetimes. At least not in mine.


----------



## Ozarker (May 16, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> hendrik-sg said:
> 
> 
> > Of course i do, just the question is, will we want to have a lens lineup which will have to be adapted for ever or will they make a decission one day, to move mirrorless completely.
> ...



Adapter and hot glue. ;D That's funny Ralph!!!


----------



## ahsanford (May 16, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> That's what struck me too. Full Frame Mirrorless will be an EF mount



That's speculation, not fact. I agree that very well may be what happens, but we won't know until the day it's announced.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 17, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Personally, I don't think the mount will be a new one. If it is, I wouldn't care. Happy to keep using a DSLR and my current lenses. Heck, the DSLR will never completely go away in our lifetimes. At least not in mine.



+1. EF is not going away. The question is: will EF have a mirrorless-specific little brother that runs along side it someday? 


If it does, EF will still truck on for a very long time.


If it doesn't, EF will still truck on for a very long time.
 
Panic that anyone has bought into EF 'just as it is going away' needs to consider (a) it _isn't_ going away and (b) even if a thin mirrorless mount becomes the dominant mount, it would take a decade to even begin to replace what EF offers. Hence, EF is here for the near, mid and long term.

Annnnnd we're OT. My bad.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (May 17, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > That's what struck me too. Full Frame Mirrorless will be an EF mount
> ...



+1


----------



## MrFotoFool (May 17, 2018)

Two radical (perhaps unrealistic) options that would make 200 2.8 iii stand out from competition.

1. Make it DO and thus smaller and lighter than any competitors.

2. Put in a built-in 1.4x extender (a la 200-400 f4).


----------



## ahsanford (May 17, 2018)

MrFotoFool said:


> Two radical (perhaps unrealistic) options that would make 200 2.8 iii stand out from competition.
> 
> 1. Make it DO and thus smaller and lighter than any competitors.
> 
> 2. Put in a built-in 1.4x extender (a la 200-400 f4).



Sure, but it's only competition appears to be itself, i.e. the Mk II. (It's a staggeringly good lens already.)

I think they can cobble together enough 10% improvements in weight, MFD, sharpness, etc., add a 1-2 stops of IS, a CPL window and it will sell itself -- and they won't have to push the boat out on potentially turning folks off with the added cost/length/weight of an in-line T/C or any contrast concerns of DO.

(Also, sorry for being pedantic, but a DO lens wouldn't be an L or a III -- it would be a 70-200 f/2.8 DO IS USM. If the rumors are correct in that we'll see an f/2.8L IS III and f/4L IS II, DO won't be part of it.)

- A


----------



## Adelino (May 17, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> MrFotoFool said:
> 
> 
> > Two radical (perhaps unrealistic) options that would make 200 2.8 iii stand out from competition.
> ...



Out of curiosity could a DO lens be an L lens? I'm not sure what the full requirements are for an L lens but can a DO lens be high enough quality and meet the other requirements, whatever those are?


----------



## ahsanford (May 17, 2018)

Adelino said:


> Out of curiosity could a DO lens be an L lens? I'm not sure what the full requirements are for an L lens but can a DO lens be high enough quality and meet the other requirements, whatever those are?



Someone more well read than I will quote some part of Canon's brand/nomenclature strategy that formally says 'DO is DO and L is L and never the twain shall meet', but I just go to TDP and check:

_"Apparently, "DO" and "L" are mutually exclusive at this point in Canon lens product development, but more important is that DO is essentially L in terms of quality."
_
All the DO lenses have a green ring and not a red ring, and none have the L in their nomenclature.

Conversely, the L lenses get the red ring and I can't find DO in the name anywhere.

I'm not saying it will always be that way, but that's the way it appears to be now.

- A


----------



## Antono Refa (May 17, 2018)

MrToes said:


> I would like a 70-200mm f/2.0 with a 100mm filter that is 1.5 kg heavier weight than the f/2.8.



You're in a minority.



MrToes said:


> Just not the astronomical price associated with a f/2.0



If only every lens was priced like a 50mm f/1.8...


----------



## drmikeinpdx (May 17, 2018)

A couple of days ago I made what I think of as a "house call" in which I did a boudoir shoot for a woman at her own home. I was surprised to learn that she is a wedding/portrait photographer who also shoots Canon. 

After completing the indoor shoot and having a great conversation about our favorite Canon gear, we decided to drive a few blocks to a park to do some outdoor portrait shots for her. I didn't bring my 70-200 F/4, so I asked to borrow her 70-200 F/2.8 Mark II.

Good heavens, that is a nice lens! I can see why you guys put up with the size and weight. The subject/background separation wide open is even better than I expected and the bokeh is fabulous. I shot hand held and the stabilization worked really well.

I have a number of prime lenses and my 70-200 F/4 that cover the same range, but I'm starting to lust after the F/2.8. I would just go for the Mark II, I can't imaging the Mark III could offer anything more that I would need, unless it is smaller and lighter! LOL


----------



## AlanF (May 17, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> MrFotoFool said:
> 
> 
> > Two radical (perhaps unrealistic) options that would make 200 2.8 iii stand out from competition.
> ...



Contrast problems of DO? You are a generation of lenses behind - Canon solved the problem of poor contrast in the original 400mm DO by adding a second Fresnel lens in the 400mm DO II.


----------



## ahsanford (May 17, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Contrast problems of DO? You are a generation of lenses behind - Canon solved the problem of poor contrast in the original 400mm DO by adding a second Fresnel lens in the 400mm DO II.



I am behind, yes. You are correct that I am referring to problems from some time ago in reading the 70-300 DO review.

But if DO problems have been solved and shorten up lenses so dramatically -- why haven't we seen them in others FLs? Less length-saving bang for the buck? Too expensive to make? Problematic with fast zoom designs? Just curious why we've seen in it in a 400 prime and a 70-300 zoom and nowhere else.

- A


----------



## AlanF (May 17, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Contrast problems of DO? You are a generation of lenses behind - Canon solved the problem of poor contrast in the original 400mm DO by adding a second Fresnel lens in the 400mm DO II.
> ...



Nikon does a lovely little 300mm f/4 DO equivalent (= PF), which is very light. It’s not worth the weight saving in shorter lenses and I am sure we will see more DO telephoto in the future.


----------



## Bahrd (May 17, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I don't think the mount will be a new one. If it is, I wouldn't care. Happy to keep using a DSLR and my current lenses. Heck, the DSLR will never completely go away in our lifetimes. At least not in mine.
> ...




I know it is not a popular idea here, but wouldn't a mirrorless system with an MF sensor allow Canon to "protect" the EF legacy a little longer?


----------



## Alexlin (May 17, 2018)

I’ll buy the F/2.8 immediately without any hestitation


----------



## Kit. (May 17, 2018)

Bahrd said:


> I know it is not a popular idea here, but wouldn't a mirrorless system with an MF sensor allow Canon to "protect" the EF legacy a little longer?


Do you realize that only TS-E lenses have an image circle big enough for a medium format?


----------



## gregster (May 17, 2018)

Any bets on resale value of the 2.8 II? I cannot see myself upgrading and since I rarely use it, wonder if it's best to sell asap. However, given recent lens releases, I could see this lens being quite a bit more expensive than the II.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 17, 2018)

gregster said:


> Any bets on resale value of the 2.8 II? I cannot see myself upgrading and since I rarely use it, wonder if it's best to sell asap. However, given recent lens releases, I could see this lens being quite a bit more expensive than the II.



The drop in resale in the 2.8 II will probably be smaller than the premium that you would pay for the 2.8 III if you buy it in the first year that it is released compared to when it is available with rebates/street price/refurb store.


----------



## hendrik-sg (May 17, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Bahrd said:
> 
> 
> > I know it is not a popular idea here, but wouldn't a mirrorless system with an MF sensor allow Canon to "protect" the EF legacy a little longer?
> ...



Writing wishlists isn't bound to physical realities. My wish is a 1200mm F4 lens with 77mm filter thread, it should be really compact for my Himalaya hiking, but what luck, mirrorless will be the answer of all questions.

And to answer the next question, i am not smoking grass, i am just cynical


----------



## ahsanford (May 17, 2018)

gregster said:


> Any bets on resale value of the 2.8 II? I cannot see myself upgrading and since I rarely use it, wonder if it's best to sell asap. However, given recent lens releases, I could see this lens being quite a bit more expensive than the II.



You could go to canonpricewatch.com and see what happened to the 24-70 f/2.8L I and 16-35 f/2.8L II after their replacements came out.

- A


----------



## ethanz (May 17, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> gregster said:
> 
> 
> > Any bets on resale value of the 2.8 II? I cannot see myself upgrading and since I rarely use it, wonder if it's best to sell asap. However, given recent lens releases, I could see this lens being quite a bit more expensive than the II.
> ...



Spoiler: Not a whole lot happened.


----------



## ahsanford (May 17, 2018)

ethanz said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > gregster said:
> ...



I misspoke. You should look at CPW around the dates that the lower 'numbered' version _is discontinued_. If there is magic that will happen with the price, that's when it may happen.

- A


----------



## jolyonralph (May 17, 2018)

I wonder if the new 70-200 2.8 will be as much of a leap as the 24-105 II was


----------



## ahsanford (May 17, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I wonder if the new 70-200 2.8 will be as much of a leap as the 24-105 II was



"Leap" = nice. [cue laugh track]

Zero chance, IMHO. This is a flagship piece of kit Canon has never "rev'd for the sake of rev'ing". To my knowledge, other than some bokeh fanatics feeling some magic was lost since the original IS version, these sorts of lenses consistently step forward performance-wise. 

As I said earlier in the thread, Canon typically doesn't 'II' or 'III' an L lens without it being a big step forward. The 24-105 f/4L IS II is very much the exception to the rule.

And this one -- a staple pro instrument -- I'd bet good money on it being stellar to the point that Mk II people pull out their CCs and snap one up. In no uncertain terms, I'm bullish on this one.

- A


----------



## cayenne (May 17, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if the new 70-200 2.8 will be as much of a leap as the 24-105 II was
> ...



Am I the *only* one having a *VERY difficult time* thinking about what exactly they could improve upon with the existing 70-200 f/2.8, that would be stellar enough to rate ditching the current one and buying a new one?

C


----------



## ahsanford (May 17, 2018)

cayenne said:


> Am I the *only* one having a *VERY difficult time* thinking about what exactly they could improve upon with the existing 70-200 f/2.8, that would be stellar enough to rate ditching the current one and buying a new one?
> 
> C



No, but I'd coach to not overly focus on IQ. (That should improve, but yes, many folks here doubt it will be a big improvement.)

It could get lighter. The IS could get more effective or quieter. CPLs could be a lot easier to manipulate with the hood attached. It could have the mythical USM / STM or USM / Nano USM rocker switch some videographers have dreamed of for L lenses. They could jazz up the blade design for better sunstars. _It could come in black. _ 

Who knows? Let's wait and see.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 17, 2018)

cayenne said:


> Am I the *only* one having a *VERY difficult time* thinking about what exactly they could improve upon with the existing 70-200 f/2.8, that would be stellar enough to rate ditching the current one and buying a new one?
> 
> C



Or perhaps put another way, perhaps there are non-trivial groups of people who won't touch the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II for a very specific reason -- it's too heavy, ring USM and IS noise doesn't play well for video, MFD is still too far for some wedding applications (I'm competely riffing here), etc.

Perhaps this rev of the 70-200 will eliminate those reasons not to buy it?

- A


----------



## Don Haines (May 17, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > Am I the *only* one having a *VERY difficult time* thinking about what exactly they could improve upon with the existing 70-200 f/2.8, that would be stellar enough to rate ditching the current one and buying a new one?
> ...


OR.......

There is always the possibility that they are making a whole bunch of very minor changes.... it could be that a special glass is hard to find and gets replaced with a newer element, newer coatings, a stop better IS, more exact machining to get rid of inconsistencies between units and/or to make assembly and testing easier.....

The better machining alone could be enough economic reason to come out with an updated version, and while you are at it, throw in the latest components, glass, and coatings....


----------



## Ripley (May 17, 2018)

While the 70-200G is ok, the 70-200GM is stellar so I'm glad to hear about an L2.8III


----------



## infared (May 18, 2018)

I have the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II version....on a 5DIV. The lens is amazing...I just cannot imagine needing more....Actually less busy bokeh would be nice..but I will take the sharpness instead....its GREAT!!!! 
I guess we will see what all the fuss is about! I am guessing that this new lens is for the large files of the 5DR and maybe some new huge megapixel camera that is coming. Mirrorless...I HOPE!!!!!


----------



## infared (May 18, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Is it not more likely that the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (non IS) gets updated? It's a 1995 design compared to the IS II being a 2010 lens.



Ah..that may be the answer to the mystery. I just can't see Canon replacing the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. Just does not make any sense to me.


----------



## monkey44 (May 18, 2018)

I've not shot with the 70-200 2.8, but own the f4 ... and can't even imagine improving it much ... one of the best lenses I've ever owned. So, an improvement on the 2.8 would be hard to figure out. Lots of little fixes add up to a great lens tho, so maybe that, as happens occasionally.


----------



## Talys (May 18, 2018)

infared said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > Is it not more likely that the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (non IS) gets updated? It's a 1995 design compared to the IS II being a 2010 lens.
> ...



If you use the 100-400LII and the 70-200LII, you'll notice a few small things that you really wish were on the 70-200, like:

- Mode 3 Image Stabilization is really nice. It's also possible that a new generation of IS gives one more stop of stabilization.
- The 100-400 tripod collar design is exceptional, providing super-smooth gliding rotation and a foot that you can replace with a third party alternative (eg arca foot).
- The lens hood on the newer little white has a CPL window
- Nicer paint!
- I prefer the MF ring on the 100-400LII, though that's comparing a 10/10 with a 10.5/10


----------



## Bahrd (May 18, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Bahrd said:
> 
> 
> > I know it is not a popular idea here, but wouldn't a mirrorless system with an MF sensor allow Canon to "protect" the EF legacy a little longer?
> ...



Of course, I do. I am just speculating that making a non-EF mirrorless system would have more sense if there was a larger sensor as well.


----------



## scottkinfw (May 18, 2018)

H. Jones said:


> Dammit Canon, right when I think I could finally go buy myself a nice prime lens this summer, you replace my most-used, most mission-critical lens.
> 
> Well, guess that 85mm f/1.4L IS can wait until next year.... My 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is my oldest lens still in service, and the age is starting to show. Have beat it up in all kinds of ways in all kinds of places. Not sure if it ever hasn't smelled like smoke with the amount of fire it has seen.



Why don't you buy Lens Coats on them?

Scott


----------



## ahsanford (May 18, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> OR.......
> 
> There is always the possibility that they are making a whole bunch of very minor changes.... it could be that a special glass is hard to find and gets replaced with a newer element, newer coatings, a stop better IS, more exact machining to get rid of inconsistencies between units and/or to make assembly and testing easier.....
> 
> The better machining alone could be enough economic reason to come out with an updated version, and while you are at it, throw in the latest components, glass, and coatings....



Yep -- this is the likely guess (that I made earlier): screw the videographers and just make a stellar stills instrument better 10% in a bunch of places. And throw in a CPL hood window. Done.

- A


----------



## dboris (May 18, 2018)

Can you tell me why you say "screw the videographers"?
Why would you consider the 70-200 IS II made for the videographers?


----------



## infared (May 18, 2018)

Talys said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > jolyonralph said:
> ...



At the price of this next lens, I can get out my dremmel an cut a CPL window in the hood of my f/2.8L IS II, and save a bundle.! LOL! ...and what is Mode 3 Stabilization?
I have Arca plate permanently attached to the foot...no biggie, there...
As suggested in this thread, perhaps this is an updated version of the f/2.8L non IS version?
We will soon see apparently!!!


----------



## Vern (May 18, 2018)

didn't read the whole thread to see if anyone mentioned vignetting with the II version. I use a thin B&W polarizer and there are still focal lengths with the II that vignette badly. I would upgrade just to get rid of this - assuming they go with an 82 mm filter, it should be sorted.


----------



## criscokkat (May 18, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Bahrd said:
> 
> 
> > I know it is not a popular idea here, but wouldn't a mirrorless system with an MF sensor allow Canon to "protect" the EF legacy a little longer?
> ...



True, but if you limit yourself to 40mm width by 32 height just about every full frame lens out there works. There is a lot of wiggle room. One application of that is squarely at the videographers - by having a 30% larger sensor by area you can capture full 35mm while digitally shifting the image for stabilization.


----------



## Architect1776 (May 18, 2018)

Talys said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > jolyonralph said:
> ...



I would add the incredible close up capability of the 100-400mm II added to this lens would make it a real winner and by far best in class and unique compared to all other competitors. The 100-400 does the close focus at 400mm not like some so called macro zooms that you only do it at the wide setting.


----------



## ahsanford (May 18, 2018)

Vern said:


> didn't read the whole thread to see if anyone mentioned vignetting with the II version. I use a thin B&W polarizer and there are still focal lengths with the II that vignette badly. I would upgrade just to get rid of this - assuming they go with an 82 mm filter, it should be sorted.



That's kind of shocking to hear for something with such a narrow field of view. I'm used to sweating thin vs. thick CPL on wide lenses but not a 70-200.

Can you describe when this happens for you? Presume 70mm + MFD?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 18, 2018)

Architect1776 said:


> I would add the incredible close up capability of the 100-400mm II added to this lens would make it a real winner and by far best in class and unique compared to all other competitors. The 100-400 does the close focus at 400mm not like some so called macro zooms that you only do it at the wide setting.



Canon has a 0.7x max mag zoom L lens that works only on the longest focal length. It's funny that I seem to hear about 3x more about the marvel of the 100-400L II's and Tamron 35's max magnification than I do about the 24-70 f/4L IS. Why is that?

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 18, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Vern said:
> 
> 
> > didn't read the whole thread to see if anyone mentioned vignetting with the II version. I use a thin B&W polarizer and there are still focal lengths with the II that vignette badly. I would upgrade just to get rid of this - assuming they go with an 82 mm filter, it should be sorted.
> ...



I saw it at 100mm f/5.6 focused at infinity.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5296.msg104929#msg104929


----------



## ahsanford (May 18, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I saw it at 100mm f/5.6 focused at infinity.
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5296.msg104929#msg104929



That is shocking. Will test mine now.

Update: doesn't seem to be happening on my end. 

At least with a quick test on my 5D3 with PIC turned off, infinity focus (MF) shot at a white sky from 70, 100, 135, 200, I'm not seeing it with either my standard (non-slim) UV or standard (non-slim) CPL -- both F-Pro from B+W. I did not use a hood.

(I did this very very quickly and just chimped off the LCD, in fairness -- any chance the LCD ever-so-slightly crops the output and I'd actually see blackened corners in ACR/PS?)

- A


----------



## Talys (May 18, 2018)

infared said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...



I'm not suggesting that minor upgrades justify buying a new lens, but lenses do get worn out through regular use and wear and tear; as well, for other reasons (like not owning the predecessor), people do buy new ones.

So nearly a decade later, why not refresh it so that the new one has the little things that are nice? 

If there are some big things, that's great too. But as someone who is very happy with their 70-200/2.8IS II, I don't really need any big things.


----------



## ken (May 18, 2018)

Talys said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



There have been numerous interviews where Canon has indicated that they're increasing the level of automation used to manufacture lenses. A mark iii could be driven by changes to the design to accommodate production process needs as much as anything else. Increased automation, of course, leads to lower production costs (once the automation improvement have been recouped). So my bet is a marginally improved lens, and a new production process that results in (long term) higher margins.


----------



## ahsanford (May 18, 2018)

ken said:


> There have been numerous interviews where Canon has indicated that they're increasing the level of automation used to manufacture lenses. A mark iii could be driven by changes to the design to accommodate production process needs as much as anything else. Increased automation, of course, leads to lower production costs (once the automation improvement have been recouped). So my bet is a marginally improved lens, and a new production process that results in (long term) higher margins.



Yes, I'm sure that's a non-public upside for Canon, but I again ask this forum for the last time a top quality L lens got a II or a III version offered that _didn't_ step up in performance.

Unless folks want to offer the 24-105L II as an example -- a kit FF lens that happens to have a red ring on it -- I am still waiting for that answer. There are tiers of lenses Canon sells and the 24-105 is not the same level of instrument as the f/2.8 zooms, red ring or not. Canon may indeed get production costs down through automation, but this class of lens historically doesn't get revised without improvement.

- A


----------



## Vern (May 18, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Vern said:
> ...



Thanks for digging up the old thread, Neuro. 

I haven't done a study, but when using the B&W 77mm (XS-PRO MC) Kaesemn HTC Circ Pol, it is definitely a problem at 70-100 mm (at least). I often use this lens in these focal lengths for panoramas and if the stitching doesn't remove the vignetting, it can be a pain to correct in sections of the sky. I would certainly update just to fix this issue.


----------



## ahsanford (May 18, 2018)

Also, in doing the quick vignetting test, I'll ping a very small area of improvement over the Mk II: filter attachment and removal can be a pain compared to other lenses -- and I'm not talking about the hood at all here.

This is obviously an n of 1 phenomenon my single copy, but I thought I'd share my experience:

1) Compared to other lenses my Mk II is notoriously harder to start the thread filtering process, with many false starts and spins before threads bite. No idea if this is deliberate (i.e. modified minor thread, single lead, etc.) for even better sealing or if this is due to a less rigid filter ring that may gone every-so-slightly out of round over time.

2) Because there is a taper/step of a larger diameter immediately behind the filter ring, it's very hard to get force to generate friction to turn the ring to take filters off. Whenever I get a CPL stuck on a lens and have to pull out a filter wrench, it's this one. I've looked at this compared to other more-recent 77mm filter lenses I own (24-70 f/4L, 16-35 f/4L) and they tend to have lens barrel transitions behind the filter ring that are very close to the 77mm itself, so it's much easier to tighten your grip on those and get the filter off.

It's a really small thing, but in the spirit of (a) continuous improvement and (b) the fact that they have already solved this nuisance on more recent lenses, one would think this is a shoo-in to include.

- A


----------



## Kit. (May 18, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Canon has a 0.7x max mag zoom L lens that works only on the longest focal length. It's funny that I seem to hear about 3x more about the marvel of the 100-400L II's and Tamron 35's max magnification than I do about the 24-70 f/4L IS. Why is that?


Maybe because it's unusable (the minimum focus distance is too short to meaningfully illuminate most scenes)?


----------



## ahsanford (May 18, 2018)

Kit. said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has a 0.7x max mag zoom L lens that works only on the longest focal length. It's funny that I seem to hear about 3x more about the marvel of the 100-400L II's and Tamron 35's max magnification than I do about the 24-70 f/4L IS. Why is that?
> ...



Forgive my ignorance, but are people actually softboxing or macro-speedliting their 100-400L II at MFD for macro work? Is this a preferable setup for the dragonfly and poisonous varmint folks? That seems like quite a production for something not expressly fashioned to serve that need. (Why not a long 180mm macro with 1:1?)

I am not arguing the working distance of the 24-70 is _ideal_. I am just continually perplexed why folks rave about MFD leading to a 0.3x max mag in the 100-400L II or 0.4x in a Tamron 35 prime while no one seems to talk about what I believe is a far more impressive 0.7x plopped into an L standard zoom. My 100L (for handheld floral macro work or very casual 'oh neat, I see a lizard on a hike' purposes) hasn't traveled with me since I got the 24-70 f/4L IS. For casual macro like that, the working distance is indeed very short, but I just frame / position the camera to avoid shading the subject.

- A


----------



## hollybush (May 19, 2018)

Talys said:


> If you use the 100-400LII and the 70-200LII, you'll notice a few small things that you really wish were on the 70-200, like:
> 
> - Mode 3 Image Stabilization is really nice. It's also possible that a new generation of IS gives one more stop of stabilization.



Maybe they could bring themselves to name instead of number the modes. The more there are, the harder I find it to remember them all.



> - The lens hood on the newer little white has a CPL window



I would pay for a replacement hood that didn't have this misfeature. It was forever falling open, until I gooped it up with silicone. And it wasn't actually feasible to turn the C-POL through it (I needed to and ended up just leaving the hood off.) These problems have been widely reported. The hood is also unreasonably heavy for a hood.



> - The 100-400 tripod collar design is exceptional, providing super-smooth gliding rotation and a foot that you can replace with a third party alternative (eg arca foot).



I did replace it with a third party foot, but only because the stock foot is so bad. I would really like to be able to remove the tripod ring completely, as overwhelmingly I use this lens handheld. Yet I wanted a decent foot in order to complete AF microadjiustment.



> - Nicer paint!



I'll grant you this, but the new colour still looks old fashioned. One wonders why they bothered to change at all.

While L lenses have been getting better optically, IMO they've gone backwards ergonomically and in cosmetics. One can overlook those things, but they're certainly not a positive for me.


----------



## MrFotoFool (May 19, 2018)

I think there should be an award for the first CR member to actually get a version 3 in the first shipment. (Of course the reward is contingent on a concise yet thorough review).


----------



## ethanz (May 19, 2018)

MrFotoFool said:


> I think there should be an award for the first CR member to actually get a version 3 in the first shipment. (Of course the reward is contingent on a concise yet thorough review).



I'm sure we know a certain person who could STEAL one or get his HANDS on one before the general public to REVIEW IT.


----------



## Talys (May 19, 2018)

hollybush said:


> Maybe they could bring themselves to name instead of number the modes. The more there are, the harder I find it to remember them all.



It's easy. I just leave it on mode 3, and I'm all good  

But seriously... 1 = stationary, 2 = moving, 3 = IS doesn't kick in until just before shutter.

I like Mode 3 because I don't have to "fight" IS drift, especially if it's in live view magnify. On the 100-400LII I usually just leave IS on 3, even when the camera is on a tripod, if only because then I can't forget to turn back on. I've tried taking a lot of BIF and bird portraits with IS on the various modes while on a tripod with gimbal, and I have settled on 3 yielding the best results overall, generally (including no IS).




> I did replace it with a third party foot, but only because the stock foot is so bad. I would really like to be able to remove the tripod ring completely, as overwhelmingly I use this lens handheld. Yet I wanted a decent foot in order to complete AF microadjiustment.



I also shoot my 100-400LII handheld almost all of the time. However, the tripod foot is also valuable to put the camera strap loop onto. As was explained to me (here!) it's better to support it by the lens than by the body. I use an arca plate with a flip-down loop (by Fusion), so that I can use it on a tripod if I want to, and clip it onto a blackrapid otherwise.

With respect to the 70-200 II, there are a few minor quibbles I have about the tripod ring:

- When it's on, and in the free rotation mode (which I use if it's on a gimbal, for example, for backyard bird photography), it's easy to rotate it into the unlock notch accidentally.

- The rolling mechanism isn't nearly as good as the 100-400LII.

- When I take the tripod ring off entirely, I don't like the nubs that are left on the ring.

- I'm not a fan of the default foot, primarily because it doesn't have a second pin to prevent it from rotating when there's a tripod plate on it. But there's no way to change the foot without changing the plate.

Incidentally, something Sony got right, I think, is the tripod foot on the GM 100-400. It's quite nice how you can press a button and "eject" the foot from the collar. Also, the design of the collar, sans foot, is nice, as it has a standard 1/4" threaded socket, allowing you to put a blackrapid loop directly on it, without the foot.


----------



## sanj (May 19, 2018)

ken said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...



Interesting


----------



## Kit. (May 19, 2018)

Bahrd said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > Do you realize that only TS-E lenses have an image circle big enough for a medium format?
> ...


So, a super-expensive body with only like 5 super-heavy super-expensive lenses to choose from? That won't sell.



criscokkat said:


> True, but if you limit yourself to 40mm width by 32 height just about every full frame lens out there works. There is a lot of wiggle room. One application of that is squarely at the videographers - by having a 30% larger sensor by area you can capture full 35mm while digitally shifting the image for stabilization.


Actually, having a mirrorless body with a circular sensor with the diagonal of 35mm format would be nice. Some EF lenses will need their rectangular exit screen removed, though, but many really important ones will work without modifications.


----------



## Don Haines (May 19, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I find that dragonflies fly away when I try to squish them with the front element of the 100L..... you really do need a longer focal length for them....

That said, I think the 24-70 F4 is one of Canon’s under appreciated gems. When you are on foot, it is light, functions very well, and has a semi-macro mode. You can have a very portable walk-about kit with it and the 70-200 F4 IS... yes there are faster lenses, but it costs you weight, space, and dollars to get them


----------



## Kit. (May 19, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


Actually, if all you need is fill flash, for 100-400L II at MFD you could use your normal speedlite. Hotshoe-mounted. With the lens hood _on_.

That's what I'd call a comfortable working distance.

Light discs (or their ad-hoc substitutes, like a white grocery bag) can be helpful too, even for just the available light.



ahsanford said:


> Is this a preferable setup for the dragonfly and poisonous varmint folks?


For shooting live dragonflies on a full frame camera, you will definitely like the extra reach 400 mm give you.

(Granted, I have shot hummingbirds on the nest with a 100mm macro back in the film era, but they were visibly disturbed by that)

400 mm are also good for background separation, which is determined by the input pupil's absolute size (and not, as macro depth of field for given magnification, just by f-number).

180mm macro is nice for studio work, but quite heavy as a separate lens you need to carry on vacation (you would bring 100-400 there anyway). Besides, it lacks IS.



ahsanford said:


> I am not arguing the working distance of the 24-70 is _ideal_. I am just continually perplexed why folks rave about MFD leading to a 0.3x max mag in the 100-400L II or 0.4x in a Tamron 35 prime while no one seems to talk about what I believe is a far more impressive 0.7x plopped into an L standard zoom.


Can tell nothing about Tamron primes, which I have never used. As for 100-400L II - just rent it over a weekend and try it by yourself.


----------



## MrFotoFool (May 19, 2018)

On the topic of tripod collars/feet, I much prefer the design from the old black 80-200 f2.8L . (I also prefer the black color and in fact have modified my 70-200 with black vinyl). The old lens had a hinge that would allow user to flip half of the collar 180 degrees for easy removal. In other words, it was a complete collar (like the current 70-200) but you could remove it without taking the lens off the body (like the current 100-400).


----------



## unfocused (May 19, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> ... but I again ask this forum for the last time a top quality L lens got a II or a III version offered that _didn't_ step up in performance.
> 
> Unless folks want to offer the 24-105L II as an example -- a kit FF lens that happens to have a red ring on it -- I am still waiting for that answer...



The problem is that you ask for an example and then when someone offers up the obvious example, you say "that doesn't count."

You rule out the 24-105 because you don't seem to think it is a "real" L lens (according to your personal standards). I think the 24-105 is relevant because it appears that Canon did not make any significant improvement in image quality because they couldn't significantly improve upon the lens. As evidence, I offer up every other version of a 24-105 or in the case of Nikon the 24-120 zoom. Why is it that no one has offered a better version? Probably because it's not possible to do so (at least at a price the market will bear). 

None of us knows the cost-benefit for optical improvements in the next version. Canon will balance out the cost and benefits and if the cost is too high, they will take a pass. 

Ultimately, the 70-200mm III may indeed be optically better than the II version. You seem to think it *will* be better. Others, including myself, think it *might* be better. No matter how many times you keep posting your rationale, until the lens is released, it means nothing.


----------



## Chaitanya (May 19, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Kit. said:
> ...


It's not just dragons or damsels but also larger butterflies especially of Papilionidae family, whole bunch of lizards(especially skinks) are skittish at best. I know quite a few people who shoot using 100-400mm II lens just for the convenience of that longer working distance. Most of these people dont use a flash and rather prefer using natural light to take photos as flashes cannot cover the distance efficiently.


----------



## Talys (May 20, 2018)

@ahsanford -

I love the MFD on the 100-400LII because it allows me to take these types of photos with the same lens -- the two photos were actually photographed at the same location, though on different days.

I normally use my 100-400LII with just ambient light, but occasion, I do use additional lighting, for example, for photographing hummingbirds. It's rare that I set up softboxes for this, though the Godox AD-200 with the little snap-on round softbox for the bare-head mode works nicely in a pinch, if I want to take close-up shots of, for example, flowers. For most macro work that I do which can benefit from a flash, the subject is so small that it is acceptable to use something like a 7" reflector dish with a frosted diffuser and simply move the strobe very close to the subject, and set the power low. If I need softer, more diffuse light, I can just position a white translucent reflector between the flash and the subject.

If I know I'm going to be taking macro photos, of course a 100L macro is a better lens (and absolutely, I would do this in a studio). But often, the 100-400 is just what's on my camera, and it can take great photos of little things up close, without having to do a lens swap. When taking macro, if possible (ie not outside), I avoid softboxes, and just use battery powered LED panels.


----------



## Don Haines (May 20, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Ultimately, the 70-200mm III may indeed be optically better than the II version. You seem to think it *will* be better. Others, including myself, think it *might* be better. No matter how many times you keep posting your rationale, until the lens is released, it means nothing.



Myself, I think it will *probably* be better.... but I agree with you, until we see it, all is speculation.


----------



## Ozarker (May 20, 2018)

The great thing about a gear update: If you are happy with what you have, you don't have to buy the new thing. That's it.

Here's what went through my small mind: "I thought I had the latest and greatest. Now what I've got is old. What would my CR neighbors think?  Have to stay on top of things, so need to come up with another $2,500."

Then the rational side kicked in: "If I were just getting ready to buy my first 70-200 L here's a real opportunity to get the latest and greatest (Mark III) or a great price on an already fantastic lens in the Mark II."

So there it is. I really do like my Mark II. Mine is fantastic as far as I am concerned. It will probably still be producing great photos in 10 more years. It certainly isn't holding me back. Not even close. So I won't fret or speculate about what might come to pass on the Mark III. Doesn't matter to me.

Now, anymore news on the 135mm f/2L IS front?


----------



## stevelee (May 20, 2018)

By the time I can afford to buy something, it is up to Mark II version. That's a mixed blessing, but it does mean that most of the stuff I use is the latest (and greatest) of its model.


----------



## Talys (May 20, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Ultimately, the 70-200mm III may indeed be optically better than the II version. You seem to think it *will* be better. Others, including myself, think it *might* be better. No matter how many times you keep posting your rationale, until the lens is released, it means nothing.
> ...



Okay, well, I think that it is highly unlikely that Mk3 will be _worse_


----------



## Don Haines (May 20, 2018)

Talys said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



When you figure that coatings have improved, machining accuracy has improved (more constancy), and that they almost certainly will not come up with a worse optical design then they already have, I think the worst case is optical performance about the same but with better IS.... the best case is probably better IS and a slightly better optical design that you need a test bed to see. These are already very good lenses, there is not a huge amount of room for improvement.....


----------



## fullstop (May 20, 2018)

i expect the Mk. III to be a little improved in IQ, IS, AF. quite likely also more cost-effective, automated production. 
Also, Canon II ws clearly better than Nikon, then Nikon pulled ever so slightly ahead (according to reviews) with their II, now Canon will try to best them again with the III. the usual non-innovative, marginal improvement iterative stuff we've seen for the past decades. MSRP price will be raised by 20+ %, especially as there is some upwards margin to Ninon (and Sony GM stuff). and the usual clientele will buy. nothing exciting, just "CaNikon business as usual".


----------



## woodman411 (May 21, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Plus the fact Canon seems to be the only Japanese camera and lens maker not moving their manufacturing overseas wholesale, going the other way, possibly shutting down their Taiwan base and moving everything back to Japan. That's a good thing - quality control at home, designers and manufacturing in a shorter loop, plus workers who have a culture of paying attention to detail. Japanese labor is more costlier than China, Thailand, and Vietnam, that's an area Canon is paying extra for - everyone else, including Nikon, Fuji, and Sony, have cheaped out in this area.


----------



## ahsanford (May 21, 2018)

Thx for the macro 100-400 comments. That's not my wheelhouse of shooting at all, so I appreciate the context!

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 21, 2018)

unfocused said:


> The problem is that you ask for an example and then when someone offers up the obvious example, you say "that doesn't count."



Fair. I just see the f/2.8 zooms a bulletproof professional instruments with unreasonably high user expectations, while I see the two 24-105s as 'the lens that came with my shiny new FF camera'. I'm scratching my head to remember the last top-end L lens that got the II or III treatment that _didn't_ deliver the goods. I honestly don't consider the 24-105s to be on that highest tier of lenses like the f/2.8L zooms, f/1.2L and f/1.4L primes, etc.

I could see Canon not trying to smash resolution records with an instrument that *must* come in at a certain standard cost for kitting reasons. Perhaps they couldn't make the 24-105L II sharper, or perhaps they absolutely could but it would quickly get priced out of where Canon needed it to be. 

But yes, I am certainly bullish on this 70-200 2.8's prospect of improvement -- but I could very well be wrong.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (May 21, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that you ask for an example and then when someone offers up the obvious example, you say "that doesn't count."
> ...



Given similar levels of technology, a long focal length lens will be sharper than a short focal length lens, and a 3X zoom will be sharper than a 4X zoom... the 24-105 may well be at or close to its limit.......


----------



## unfocused (May 21, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that you ask for an example and then when someone offers up the obvious example, you say "that doesn't count."
> ...



Fair enough. For the record I do expect some slight improvement in sharpness in the 70-200 2.8 III. I just don’t think that it will be noticeably better under most real world circumstances. I don’t see many people trading in the II because of optical improvements. Rather, I see a combination of improved IS and improved close focusing and possibly some weight reduction, prompting some users to trade in their older well-worn models. 

I do think you underestimate the 24-105. If you need a zoom that goes beyond 70mm and need IS then the 24-105 “L” is your only choice. I use it almost daily and I’ve never been disappointed by the real world optical quality.


----------



## ahsanford (May 21, 2018)

unfocused said:


> I do think you underestimate the 24-105. If you need a zoom that goes beyond 70mm and need IS then the 24-105 “L” is your only choice. I use it almost daily and I’ve never been disappointed by the real world optical quality.



Also fair -- a lot of it has to do with what we value. I'd rather have a sharper ~ 3x standard zoom with that lovely macro-in-a-pinch functionality than to have 71-105mm. I fully recognize that I am in the minority with that position -- this forums is full of folks who love the versatility of their 24-105s.

- A


----------



## Ozarker (May 22, 2018)

fullstop said:


> i expect the Mk. III to be a little improved in IQ, IS, AF... the usual non-innovative, marginal improvement iterative stuff we've seen for the past decades.



What the heck are you talking about? Why don't you explain what you think would be innovative when it comes to an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III vs the II? Just what do you think could be done there to make it "innovative". What "thing" do you think would make any 70-200 "innovative"? Surely you must have some idea.

Past decades? No innovation since at least 1998?    : : :

I swear, I think people use words sometimes and have no idea what they themselves mean when they use them. They just want to use the word. Or they decry what they think is a lack of innovation, but cannot articulate what they might perceive as innovative.

Nothing innovative since at least 1998? What world are you living in? Do you even think about what you type before you type it? Nothing, NOTHING could possibly satisfy somebody who has the perceptions you have.


----------



## fullstop (May 22, 2018)

"slightly innovative" would for example be a 50-150/2.8 mirrorless FF lens, considerably smaller and lighter but in all respects [other than the 50mm less reach ] even better than the 70-200 2.8 L IS II: IQ, AF, IS, and providing distance information for use in a long overdue improved version of the Canon *wireless* E-TTL protocol - so it would finally also support second curtain sync. 

Needless to say, that lens would come in new slim mount for an equally innovative mirrorless Canon FF body. 

To make target specs specific, let's say something easily achievable like size&weight max (!) what the discontinued Sigma 50-150/2.8 EX HSM / II lenses were: DxL 3.0 x 5.3" (76 x 135mm), weight 27.2 oz (780g), 67mm filter thread, np if it was 77mm - as long as overall size parameters are met. 

Ah yes, and make it black please, not that awful off-white bird's poo color. Now, that would be "slightly innovative" to me. 

"Really innovative" would be something like a Canon lightfield/computational camera system without any need for large, heavy, clumsy and expensive optical lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 22, 2018)

From a dictionary that somehow got transmogrified from the Mode Dial Boy Universe into the real world:

*in·no·va·tive* ˈinəˌvādiv _adjective_
1. when a manufacturer makes a product that I personally want


----------



## Don Haines (May 22, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > i expect the Mk. III to be a little improved in IQ, IS, AF... the usual non-innovative, marginal improvement iterative stuff we've seen for the past decades.
> ...



Sometimes it is hard to tell innovation from incremental increases....

For example, BR and other nano coatings could be described as innovative, yet could also be described as an incremental improvement.....

The lens design software (to those not using it) would be seen as an incremental improvement, yet aspects of the software such as new algorithms and GPU programming would be seen as innovation....

The preparation and machining of materials is yet another case where it can be seen as both.

The point being, that we users of the lenses do not have a detailed view of what goes into creating a new lens and that there is a lot of innovation that is invisible to us. All we see is the end product which is (hopefully) a bit better than the preceding version, so we think that it has been incrementally improved. The reality is that the incremental improvements are the result of innovation.


----------



## unfocused (May 22, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



I struggle with trying to figure out what sort of "innovation" is lacking in a lens. It seems like a lens has a pretty basic purpose: focus light rays on a film (now sensor) plane. Beyond that, everything else is gravy. If a new lens is sharper, has better image stabilization, focuses faster, minimizes weight and minimizes optical problems, what sort of "innovation" are people looking for? 

Maybe some sort of magical formula that makes an f1.0 lens the size and weight of an f8 lens at half the cost?


----------



## bereninga (May 22, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Sometimes it is hard to tell innovation from incremental increases....
> 
> For example, BR and other nano coatings could be described as innovative, yet could also be described as an incremental improvement.....
> 
> ...



THIS, people.


----------



## ahsanford (May 22, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> From a dictionary that somehow got transmogrified from the Mode Dial Boy Universe into the real world:
> 
> *in·no·va·tive* ˈinəˌvādiv _adjective_
> 1. when a manufacturer makes a product that I personally want



Exactly. If I don't get a curved sensor paper thin body with a 35-135 f/1.4 IS BR Macro T/S Pancake DO USM, I'll go over to the other company that offers-- that I _thought_ offered this and tell _their_ users that I am going to leave them even though I never really was one of them if I don't get that same camera yesterday or the world sucks.

Canon is amazing in how many people it can irritate for not offering what they want, yet still get their money in the end.

- A


----------



## ethanz (May 22, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Canon is amazing in how many people it can irritate for not offering what they want, yet still get their money in the end.



Stupid Ca... pitalism


----------



## TommyLee (May 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> From a dictionary that somehow got transmogrified from the Mode Dial Boy Universe into the real world:
> 
> *in·no·va·tive* ˈinəˌvādiv _adjective_
> 1. when a manufacturer makes a product that I personally want




ha!...
I tried to resist ... a full belly laugh ..on this one ....for 1 microsecond..
then..
I did it....

this place is very smart in questions and answers..
...
most of us are crazy here...sometimes...
I always listen for YOUR quiet .. comment .....
...from the far corner...

Informative and entertaining.. this FORUM is..

I ask...
............. I listen....I learn.... I laugh 

thanks


----------



## Orangutan (May 25, 2018)

ethanz said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is amazing in how many people it can irritate for not offering what they want, yet still get their money in the end.
> ...


Brevity is the soul of wit! Bravo, perfect reply!


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 4, 2018)

TommyLee said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > From a dictionary that somehow got transmogrified from the Mode Dial Boy Universe into the real world:
> ...



He is actually the funniest and one of the most astute on these boards in my opinion. Dry as heck, but in the best way possible.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 5, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> TommyLee said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



"Dry?" Neuro? I do not think that word means what you think it means. Oh, you mean "dry" like a sledgehammer. Got it now!


----------

