# A New EF 70-200mm is Coming in 2018 [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 1, 2018)

```
<p>A few days ago <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/another-canon-ef-70-200mm-f-2-8l-is-iii-mention-cr2/">we wrote about a new EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III</a> was in testing, but we didn’t know when it was coming.</p>
<p>We have received confirmation that a new EF 70-200mm is coming in 2018, and again, we’re pretty sure it’ll be announced ahead of Photokina in August or September.</p>
<p>We’re not calling it an “EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III” for the time being, as a couple of our sources have hinted that there’s something “different” and “more” about this lens release. No one seems to want to let the cat out of the bag yet.</p>
<p>This is one of those rumors that is going to play out over time, we likely only have half of the information. Please keep your excitement in check until I have all of the information and can provide definitive answers.</p>
<p>I’m starting to feel that 2018 is going to be a fun year for Canon, more on that later.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 1, 2018)

the "more" could be Macro capability?


----------



## Besisika (Feb 1, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> the "more" could be Macro capability?


I wish they add the ability to tighten or loosen (according to need) the zoom ring like they do on the 100-400 II. The range 70-200 range is very usable for both photo and video. It is perfect for photo, but a bit too tighten for video.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 1, 2018)

Oh snap

- A


----------



## chrysoberyl (Feb 1, 2018)

Could the 'more' be DO?


----------



## nonac (Feb 1, 2018)

Built in teleconverter like the 200-400????


----------



## Hector1970 (Feb 1, 2018)

As a normal 70-200mm lens I don’t know how they could improve version II.
It will be interesting to see what they do.
Maybe lighter or better IS but I can’t imagine better image quality.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 1, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> I’m starting to feel that 2018 is going to be a fun year for Canon, more on that later.



+1. Fast primes for EF-M! A new body type for a new market segment! Possibly FF mirrorless! 

Lots going on.

- A


----------



## RiceCanon (Feb 1, 2018)

I wish they would update the F4 version for those of us that like to carry less weight.


----------



## docsmith (Feb 1, 2018)

I like the DO idea. Smaller, lighter and make it sharper. Having macro capability would be amazing for wedding photographers (among others).

Figuring out how to get faster than f/2.8 would also be amazing.

Then, if we are talking FF mirrorless in 2018, if they do go with a new mount, I would expect the new mount to be launched with its own "holy trinity" of zoom lenses in the new mount.

I would dislike that, but that would be "new."


----------



## Karlbug (Feb 1, 2018)

The "more" is certainly the EF-M mount... Because it's the EF-M zoom that is coming later this year. 8) ;D


----------



## slclick (Feb 1, 2018)

angrykarl said:


> The "more" is certainly the EF-M mount... Because it's the EF-M zoom that is coming later this year. 8) ;D



As much as I'm wishing for more and better M glass, I'm not sure a 112-320 FF Equivalent lens is going to be making the EF-M rounds. Let's keep our dreams grounded and wish for the Prime Trinity to be completed.a bit more


----------



## ScottyP (Feb 1, 2018)

The “something more” will be more money. The price of the current model has dropped and they’ll be able to charge a thousand bucks more for the new one.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 1, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> As a normal 70-200mm lens I don’t know how they could improve version II.
> It will be interesting to see what they do.
> Maybe lighter or better IS but I can’t imagine better image quality.



The present EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II is a very sharp lens. However I do believe that particularly at close focus on the 70mm end the CAs are "average" especially shooting at or near f2.8
All lenses have their weaknesses particularly zoom lenses so I do see where they could improve the lens and the IQ of the Sony G Master 70-200mm f2.8 is better particularly in controlling CAs and Canon has made a bundle from this particular lens along with the EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM II with Pros so will not cede any crown easily. 
As to what maybe different in the MKIII version an internal "matched" 1.4X converter could be a potent differentiator giving f4 and 98-280mm. Macro is a possibility but I prefer "true macro" lenses.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Feb 1, 2018)

An ArcaSwiss Tripod Collar would be a good feature for a new lens.


----------



## Talys (Feb 1, 2018)

Oooo. I want to know what the special sauce is now!



davidcl0nel said:


> An ArcaSwiss Tripod Collar would be a good feature for a new lens.



With a flip-down ring for backrapid straps, like the fusion plates 

And a replaceable foot, in case you prefer a short one or a long one!


----------



## mistaspeedy (Feb 1, 2018)

They might expand the range a bit...

EF 69-201mm f2.8L IS USM

There... I fixed it


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 1, 2018)

mistaspeedy said:


> They might expand the range a bit...
> 
> EF 69-201mm f2.8L IS USM
> 
> There... I fixed it



I think they'll add a builtin 0.7x wide converter to make it work as a 50-120mm f/2 IS USM. Just to mess with ahsanford.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 1, 2018)

Talys said:


> Oooo. I want to know what the special sauce is now!



Stabs in the dark:


If it's not just a CPL window in the hood like with the 100-400L II (which I think is what we're going to get), I wonder if there's a slicker solution with a dedicated knob/ring that allows _turning of the CPL through the hood_. Effectively, imagine a very low profile gasketed/silicone 'focus ring' on the hood that would snugly grab the outside of the CPL ring so that you could turn it while the hood is attached. I would _love_ that on my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, on my 100L Macro, etc.


Something fancy with the tripod collar -- perhaps it could be completely attached/removed without having to dismount the lens?


In-line 1.4x T/C as other have said, but it would make the lens even longer/bulkier to pack and I do not want to know what Canon would charge for that. But surely some folks would pay top dollar for that.


Perhaps the EF 24-70 f/4L IS 0.7x macro mode? Love that feature on my 24-70, but I don't pro sports / reportage / wedding folks are asking for something like that, are they?


Another zany idea: they revert to an externally zooming design (telescoped like a 24-something zoom instead of holding constant length) but go all-in to make the most compact 70mm footprint possible (for storage/carry). This strikes me as a flaming leap in the wrong direction, and they already do this with 70-300L for the travelers out there, so file this idea under 'highly unlikely'.

I'm out of ideas. Any others?

- A


----------



## horshack (Feb 1, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> As a normal 70-200mm lens I don’t know how they could improve version II.
> It will be interesting to see what they do.
> Maybe lighter or better IS but I can’t imagine better image quality.



It is indeed very sharp but the newest version from Nikon indicates it can be sharper still, especially in mid-frame and edges of the frame. Here's a comparison Roger did at Lens Rentals:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/nikon-70-200mm-f2-8e-fl-ed-af-s-vr-mtf-tests/


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 1, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> I think they'll add a builtin 0.7x wide converter to make it work as a 50-120mm f/2 IS USM. Just to mess with ahsanford.



It would violate the pickle jar rule, so it wouldn't wind me up that much.

- A


----------



## olympus593 (Feb 1, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Stabs in the dark:
> 
> 
> If it's not just a CPL window in the hood like with the 100-400L II (which I think is what we're going to get), I wonder if there's a slicker solution with a dedicated knob/ring that allows _turning of the CPL through the hood_. Effectively, imagine a very low profile gasketed/silicone 'focus ring' on the hood that would snugly grab the outside of the CPL ring so that you could turn it while the hood is attached. I would _love_ that on my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, on my 100L Macro, etc.





For this all you need to do is buy a rubber hood that screws on the CPL. Very cheap on those chinese sites (DX, etc).


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 1, 2018)

olympus593 said:


> For this all you need to do is buy a rubber hood that screws on the CPL. Very cheap on those chinese sites (DX, etc).



There's a reason hoods don't rotate and have cutouts in the front, though, aren't there? An entire hood that turns would not optimally shade from flare.

- A


----------



## 3dit0r (Feb 1, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>I’m starting to feel that 2018 is going to be a fun year for Canon, more on that later.</p>



Ah come on, tell us, or at least give us some good hints to start the year. a) I need some fun in my life, and b) I'm changing my whole system back to Canon, so it would be useful to have at least a heads-up of major changes to come... 8)


----------



## kaihp (Feb 1, 2018)

horshack said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > As a normal 70-200mm lens I don’t know how they could improve version II.
> ...



Also consider that the Mk II doesn't resolve excellently on a 5Ds. As I recall an earlier post, the MkII resolves to 21Mpix out of 22Mpix on a 5D3, but to 'just' 36Mpix on the 50Mpix 5Ds.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 1, 2018)

I recon it's a new line of DO zooms. Or it's got a funky new light weight plastic element that was patented a few years back. It would be cool to have a sharp 20-700 f2.8 IS that weighs the same as the F4 LIS version....
But you know...probably not...coz apparently...Canon doesn't innovate....ok Gareth...move on....


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 1, 2018)

kaihp said:


> Also consider that the Mk II doesn't resolve excellently on a 5Ds. As I recall an earlier post, the MkII resolves to 21Mpix out of 22Mpix on a 5D3, but to 'just' 36Mpix on the 50Mpix 5Ds.



I've made this argument myself a few times, but keep in mind that the Mk II is still the 6th sharpest lens and #1 sharpest zoom that Canon sells according to DXOMark. So if you set some arbitrary bar (using DXO methodology ) that a lens has to be 40 out of 50 sharpness to be 'rated' for the 5DS rigs, *only one lens would qualify* (the 300 f/2.8L IS II).

So, yes, the Mk III could have better optics, but I see this more about Canon keeping its reputation up (and maintain a high asking price) on a showhorse of a lens.

- A


----------



## bholliman (Feb 1, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> If it's not just a CPL window in the hood like with the 100-400L II (which I think is what we're going to get), I wonder if there's a slicker solution with a dedicated knob/ring that allows _turning of the CPL through the hood_. Effectively, imagine a very low profile gasketed/silicone 'focus ring' on the hood that would snugly grab the outside of the CPL ring so that you could turn it while the hood is attached. I would _love_ that on my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, on my 100L Macro, etc.
> 
> - A





I hope a CPL window isn't the "something different". I owned a 100-400 II and found the CPL window ineffective. I usually removed the hood to rotate the CPL and replaced it, just like I do with my other lenses. Your gasketed silicone ring might be promising.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 1, 2018)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I recon it's a new line of DO zooms. Or it's got a funky new light weight plastic element that was patented a few years back.



We haven't really seen them beating their chests about the Blue Goo since the release of the 35II. I've been wondering if they've been employing it but opted not to feature it, as "plastic optical elements" doesn't really have an "L" ring to it. Have to say, having owned that 35, that the stuff works great.


----------



## horshack (Feb 1, 2018)

kaihp said:


> horshack said:
> 
> 
> > Hector1970 said:
> ...



The Mk II does very well on the 5DS/R. I tested it here:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1376130


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 1, 2018)

If CanonRumors dude things that it might not be titled a III, but rather a new name, that would lead one to believe that one of the following is true if it is indeed a 70-200:
- It's changing aperture
- Ditching IS (least likely)
- Going DO
or
- Changing mount

Those are the elements that would disallow a Mark III designation. Pretty radical stuff. I for one would welcome a larger aperture or a DO version, but would be disappointed if this indicated that the new full frame camera was employing a different mount system.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 1, 2018)

Please, not another 24-105 fiasco.


----------



## hne (Feb 1, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> If CanonRumors dude things that it might not be titled a III, but rather a new name, that would lead one to believe that one of the following is true if it is indeed a 70-200:
> - It's changing aperture
> - Ditching IS (least likely)
> - Going DO
> ...



...or macro. Possibly a new focus motor type.
Servo zoom/focus, waterproof (submersible) or wider aperture. There are loads of things you could do that's warrant a different name.

EF 50-200mm f/2L IS USM PowerZoom WaterProof. Only $5000. Any takers?


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 1, 2018)

70-200 F5.6 EF-M


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 1, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Please, not another 24-105 fiasco.



That's an L lens, but it's a second-tier L lens fit for kitting. The Mk III 70-200 is flagship professional instrument.

They will not put out a Mk III that does not clearly outperform its predecessor. 

I just think folks need to keep their feet on the ground for how sharp this lens could be. They can't improve it that much in sharpness without taking to some stratospheric cost, so I'm assuming the big improvements will be in _other_ areas -- weight, IS, AF performance with a teleconverter, MFD, stuff with the hood or tripod collar, etc.

Also, with the noted exception of the 24-105 L II, can you name me a recent better-than-ground-floor price point lens that did not deliver a strong improvement? I'm hard pressed to think of one. Other than that lens, Canon's been on a bit of a killing streak the last 5 years or so. Over that time, we've seen the 35L II, the 85 f/1.4L IS, two 16-35 L lenses, etc. -- all very strong instruments.

- A


----------



## Yasko (Feb 1, 2018)

Blue goo for CA reduction. Doesnt matter if necessary or not 8)


----------



## Ryananthony (Feb 1, 2018)

Not that I'm in any rush to replace my version II, but I hope they don't move the zoom ring further from the camera body as seen on the Tamron G2 and the new Nikon.


----------



## Ditboy (Feb 1, 2018)

With a FF mirrorless on the horizon, maybe this will be the first lens made specifically for it. IMHO it would be ridiculous to make a mirrorless body with the same flange distance just for EF lenses. If EF lenses can function really well on a Sony, Canon should be able to make an adaptor that preserves all function and speed. Then start the conversion of their lens line up to mirrorless as current lenses come up for redesign.


----------



## Talys (Feb 1, 2018)

How about, built-in teleconveter like the 200-400?   Either 1.4 or 2.0 would be _really_ sweet.



[email protected] said:


> - Changing mount



To what? Besides, he's confirmed that it's EF.



> We’re not calling it an “EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III” for the time being, as a couple of our sources have hinted that there’s something “different” and “more” about this lens release. No one seems to want to let the cat out of the bag yet.



Something "different": For the first time ever, an L lens will come bundled with a second L lens! 
Something "more": And, it will be a 50mm 1.4 IS USM!


----------



## Perio (Feb 1, 2018)

Never going to happen, but 2.0 aperture would be great.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 1, 2018)

Ditboy said:


> With a FF mirrorless on the horizon, maybe this will be the first lens made specifically for it.



_Explosively_ unlikely. Even if FF mirrorless body was coming and it was a thin flange design as you suggest (certainly plausible), you wouldn't first come out with a lens that does not showcase the size savings. The opening lenses for a thin flange mirrorless platform would undoubtedly be small f/2.8 primes of modest FLs and a slow f/4 (or possibly variable aperture) standard zoom. A 70-200 f/2.8 lens would be a 2nd or 3rd wave of lenses Canon would release. It's a vital lens for photographers, don't get be wrong, but _you'd just use a nearly identically sized EF mount 70-200 f/2.8L IS II on an adaptor_ until Canon deems us fit for a mirrorless-mount version.



Ditboy said:


> IMHO it would be ridiculous to make a mirrorless body with the same flange distance just for EF lenses. If EF lenses can function really well on a Sony, Canon should be able to make an adaptor that preserves all function and speed. Then start the conversion of their lens line up to mirrorless as current lenses come up for redesign.



You are starting an entirely different topic here. Just start another thread on this topic and you'll have 10 responses in an hour on this. It's probably the #1 thing we debate here these days.

- A


----------



## scyrene (Feb 1, 2018)

nonac said:


> Built in teleconverter like the 200-400????



That was the first thing that occurred to me, but if it is the case, I'd expect them to continue selling the version II alongside.



ahsanford said:


> I'm out of ideas. Any others?



What about an LCD distance scale like that cheaper lens released a year or two ago?


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 1, 2018)

Maybe it will come with a real lens case? That would rock the Canon world!


----------



## Talys (Feb 1, 2018)

scyrene said:


> What about an LCD distance scale like that cheaper lens released a year or two ago?



You mean the 70-300II? I bought one to attach to an old 60D and leave in the car, which is something I wouldn't be prepared to do with a 100-400LII. I have never found a use for the distance LCD scale, and in my opinion, it's far inferior to the analog scale.

But that brings up another possibility: what if it were a _cheaper_ 70-200 IS/2.8? nano USM, more plastic, no weather sealing, same IQ, same price as the f/4, not L. Would that be interesting to anyone?

Of course, the Canon hood would probably cost $150 then


----------



## filmmaker119 (Feb 1, 2018)

It has a new built in .5 converter that electronically slides in. It's built into the tripod mount. 70-200mm f1.8-2.8 IS
70-135 @1.8 and 136-200 @2.8. 
Similar weight to V2 and a new stabilization mode for video.
82mm thread
3.9k


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 1, 2018)

Perio said:


> Never going to happen, but 2.0 aperture would be great.



You are correct. That will never happen.

See my fun cross-product exercise below (images from TDP). 

Again: never. gonna. happen. (At least for 70-*200*. As Sigma has shown with three faster-than-f/2.8 zooms, anything's possible if you don't mind a small FL multiplier.) 

- A


----------



## goldenhusky (Feb 1, 2018)

> the "more" could be Macro capability?





> Could the 'more' be DO?



None of those, "more" means more clicks for CR. My take, this is nothing more than an educated guess. Now that Nikon release their newer version it is Canon's turn. So it's time to start spinning the rumor mill until Canon releases the lens.

No more news on the camera with the "hole"

The G7 III pictures had obvious signs showing it was fake yet it was posted here

Most of you are aware how the UWA EF-M prime rumor went.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 1, 2018)

Talys said:


> But that brings up another possibility: what if it were a _cheaper_ 70-200 IS/2.8? nano USM, more plastic, no weather sealing, same IQ, same price as the f/4, not L. Would that be interesting to anyone?



Why do that with the f/2.8, though? Surely that's a better move for the next f/4. 

(I brace for things being thrown at me with that statement as the 70-200 f/4L IS is absolutely loved.)

- A


----------



## Talys (Feb 1, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > But that brings up another possibility: what if it were a _cheaper_ 70-200 IS/2.8? nano USM, more plastic, no weather sealing, same IQ, same price as the f/4, not L. Would that be interesting to anyone?
> ...



Well, I wouldn't buy it, and you're right, it sounds like a better idea for the F/4. But this would compete with sigma/tamron 70-200/2.8, and I think there are people who would love f/2.8 for this super-popular zoom but can't afford the price of the LII.

There's also the crowd that doesn't care at all about how durable a lens is (or isn't willing to pay for that). Who knows, just a random thought that maybe we're thinking the wrong direction


----------



## scyrene (Feb 2, 2018)

goldenhusky said:


> > the "more" could be Macro capability?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you dislike the place so much, why hang around here?


----------



## scyrene (Feb 2, 2018)

Ditboy said:


> With a FF mirrorless on the horizon, maybe this will be the first lens made specifically for it. IMHO it would be ridiculous to make a mirrorless body with the same flange distance just for EF lenses. If EF lenses can function really well on a Sony, Canon should be able to make an adaptor that preserves all function and speed. Then start the conversion of their lens line up to mirrorless as current lenses come up for redesign.



Please go and read the many, long threads on potential future Canon FF mirrorless cameras before trotting out this again!


----------



## slclick (Feb 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Perio said:
> 
> 
> > Never going to happen, but 2.0 aperture would be great.
> ...



Part of me lives for these graphics.


----------



## ethanz (Feb 2, 2018)

I really don't think they would add a 1.4 TC, that doesn't change it much. I think most people who use a TC on the 70-200 use a 2xTC. 

What if they added motorized zoom capabilities, useful for video?


----------



## richro (Feb 2, 2018)

Anyone else hoping for a EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM?
And will Canon make a EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM already???


----------



## deleteme (Feb 2, 2018)

My money is on an integrated TC.

They already have experience with that and it would be something others do not have.

As for DO it seems that with the rabid focus on bokeh that would be a bold move as the bokeh boys would be wailing.
OTOH, the lens would be nice and tiny-ish.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Feb 2, 2018)

I will vote with others who say built in 1.4x extender (like the 200-400). This would differentiate it from the current offerings, including the (reportedly excellent) Tamron G2 and Sigma Sport. They may still offer the current model which would be preferable for wedding and portrait photographers (and anyone wanting a lower price and less weight). But the new one would appeal to sports and wildlife photographers.


----------



## Talys (Feb 2, 2018)

slclick said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Perio said:
> ...



lol, me too. Glad I'm not the only one that gets a kick out of them, haha


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 2, 2018)

davidcl0nel said:


> An ArcaSwiss Tripod Collar would be a good feature for a new lens.



+100. 

Totally ridiculous and inacceptable that those 2 groves are still not being milled into each and every OEM tripod collar ... by default.


----------



## mistaspeedy (Feb 2, 2018)

Two letters that could be added to the name are: BR
http://www.canon-asia.com/cplus/en/br-lens-elements/

However, the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM got the same technology but is lacking these letters in the name... so who knows.


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 2, 2018)

Would performance not be the only criteria to update a lens?

I know there's a lot of tongue-in-cheek banter about collars etc etc but I imagine that non of these would be enough to warrant an upgrade.


----------



## 3dit0r (Feb 2, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> We haven't really seen them beating their chests about the Blue Goo since the release of the 35II. I've been wondering if they've been employing it but opted not to feature it, as "plastic optical elements" doesn't really have an "L" ring to it. Have to say, having owned that 35, that the stuff works great.



One of the reasons the 35LII is high on my list of lenses. I really wish they'd look at the 50mm range with the latest tech like this, could do with less CA on the 50s.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 2, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > I recon it's a new line of DO zooms. Or it's got a funky new light weight plastic element that was patented a few years back.
> ...



Yes I'd love a 35IIL, I have a great MkI and it's one of my 2 top fav lenses. I find it odd that Canon didn't put the blue goo in the new 85mm f1.4 LIS. The 85mm f1.2 II L really needed it more than the 35L replacement. So i found it odd that Canon didn't bother with the new 85. I wonder if Canon needed to develop this particular blue goo tech due to a design cock up. I wonder if they designed a really good 35 f1.4 lens that amazing in every regard except that it had horrific fringing. One techie says to another...I wonder if we have the budget to fix that...


----------



## Dfunk99 (Feb 2, 2018)

*More Big white lenses??? *Where is the 50mm 1.4 replacement, & a New 20mm, 85mm 1.8, 100 f2.0 with IS????


----------



## Talys (Feb 2, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> davidcl0nel said:
> 
> 
> > An ArcaSwiss Tripod Collar would be a good feature for a new lens.
> ...



Canon should build it with a removable foot, like the 100-400LII, which has one of the nicest collars of any lens ever made, except that it can't be fully removed.

Then, they should make several feet, including non-arca, RC2 compatible, and at least two lengths of Arca compatible feet, for a lens the size of a 70-200/2.8. It would be even better if the arca foot had a flip-down latch to support a blackrapid carbiner, like the plates that Fusion makes.

It'd be good money, anyhow. Photographers would easily pay $100 for the right foot.


----------



## kaihp (Feb 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > Also consider that the Mk II doesn't resolve excellently on a 5Ds. As I recall an earlier post, the MkII resolves to 21Mpix out of 22Mpix on a 5D3, but to 'just' 36Mpix on the 50Mpix 5Ds.
> ...



Ah, but unless DxO deliberately gives the raw resolution data for their dog to chew on before posting them (and with DxO I'll believe anything), then it's not a matter of an arbitrary sharpness bar.

The Mpix resolution should be a formula like 1/R_sys^2 = 1/R_sensor^2 + 1/R_lens^2. This type of formula show up when calculating bandwidth in electronic systems, so I presume that it is similar when calculating "bandwidth" of an optical systems. (Neuro will surely set me right).

I jotted in the numbers from DxOmark database for the 5D1, 5D2, 5D3, 5D4, 1DX & 1DX2, and giving some margin since DxO only reports integer values as result, the above formula matches pretty well with a resolution of around 50-55Mpixel for the lens. The resolution numbers for the 5D1 & 5D2 are the most off (70Mpix & 38Mpix) but this is where any rounding errors would show up the most.

From this, the 300/2.8 Mk II would be a ~100-200Mpix lens (lowest score is 98Mpix on the 50.6Mpix 5Ds. I'm suspicious of that 'data'point); other scores are above 134Mpix).


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 2, 2018)

kaihp said:


> The Mpix resolution should be a formula like 1/R_sys^2 = 1/R_sensor^2 + 1/R_lens^2. This type of formula show up when calculating bandwidth in electronic systems, so I presume that it is similar when calculating "bandwidth" of an optical systems. (Neuro will surely set me right).
> 
> I jotted in the numbers from DxOmark database for the 5D1, 5D2, 5D3, 5D4, 1DX & 1DX2, and giving some margin since DxO only reports integer values as result, the above formula matches pretty well with a resolution of around 50-55Mpixel for the lens. The resolution numbers for the 5D1 & 5D2 are the most off (70Mpix & 38Mpix) but this is where any rounding errors would show up the most.
> 
> From this, the 300/2.8 Mk II would be a ~100-200Mpix lens (lowest score is 98Mpix on the 50.6Mpix 5Ds. I'm suspicious of that 'data'point); other scores are above 134Mpix).



That's a lovely mathematical treatise, but I think we're getting wrapped around the axle and missing the bigger point.

If the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II data is to be taken at face value and that it needs to be improved for future higher resolving sensors, _all but six of Canon's lenses warrant that improvement to a greater degree.
_
So I am not saying you cannot improve the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II optically. I am saying you can improve dozens of other Canon lenses to a greater degree than that 70-200. So any decision to improve it before improving the other lens is for prestige / pride / price reasons more than actual 'optical necessity'.

- A


----------



## kaihp (Feb 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> That's a lovely mathematical treatise, but I think we're getting wrapped around the axle and missing the bigger point.



Since when has things like that stopped from geeking out in GAS here?



ahsanford said:


> If the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II data is to be taken at face value and that it needs to be improved for future higher resolving sensors, _all but six of Canon's lenses warrant that improvement to a greater degree.
> _
> So I am not saying you cannot improve the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II optically. I am saying you can improve dozens of other Canon lenses to a greater degree than that 70-200. So any decision to improve it before improving the other lens is for prestige / pride / price reasons more than actual 'optical necessity'.


I think a decision to make a higher-resolving 70-200 f/2.8L IS III would come down to financial reasons. That, and being able to rub their noses at Nikon. 

BTW: I have a family member lined up behind you in the 50mm queue. We're not sure if her f/1.4 is particularly botched or just as-designed botched in terms of sharpness, but she has to work hard in PP to make the photos look sharp (no it's not a shift in focus, but the entire image is just soft).


----------



## AJ (Feb 2, 2018)

> A New EF 70-200mm is Coming in 2018 [CR3]


What if the 70-200/4 IS is getting an update


----------



## photo212 (Feb 3, 2018)

While I should be happy that Canon is improving this lens, I fear I've been fooled once again.

I recently sent my original 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM in for cleaning, and wanting the focus ring tightened. My CPS reply said, the lens could not be repaired as it was beyond its service life. Huh? What? Yep, short time after Canon released the Ver II, they stopped repairing the original one. Perhaps the worse insult was that Canon offered me a $20 credit towards a new lens. Really? 20 whole dollars? Adorama (I assume B&H, too) bundle extra stuff worth more than $20.

Now, whenever Canon releases the Ver III, I will have to be extremely careful with the Ver II lens I bought. The service life of the Ver II is ticking away...


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 3, 2018)

Canon generally offer support for lenses for 7 years after they stop production.


----------



## rlarsen (Feb 6, 2018)

Sure an updated 70-200 is exciting, but for once can Canon focus its attention on reliable flash metering. It's 2018
My current zoom is sharp but my camera has unreliable metering. I'm in no hurry for another lens.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 6, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > The Mpix resolution should be a formula like 1/R_sys^2 = 1/R_sensor^2 + 1/R_lens^2. This type of formula show up when calculating bandwidth in electronic systems, so I presume that it is similar when calculating "bandwidth" of an optical systems. (Neuro will surely set me right).
> ...


I'm regularly using the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II on a 5DS and frankly don't believe the DXOMark data. Their methods of testing are questionable and not as complete as manufacturers would do. As Ive stated previously on this thread the lens could benefit from better control of CAs particularly at 70mm and at or near wide open but generally this is one of Canon best zooms for sharpness, that's not to say it cannot be improved upon. 
We own a bunch of these and have MTF, projection and test rigs for testing on & off camera (we have high end cinematography glass so need rigorous testing procedures).

Others have shown improvements so Canon is responding, its one of their premium Pro lenses and I'm sure one of the best sellers its the right decision.


----------



## slclick (Feb 6, 2018)

This has got me thinking of the primes vs zoom thing, again. I've had both setups off and on since 1999 and someone here said something that resonated with me. Let me paraphrase...

Would you rather have a heavy bag and a light camera or a lighter bag and a heavy camera? 

Notice how it's 'lighter' and not light. You never get it all. I've had my heart set on a Tammy G2 70-200 for a while since I've been missing that zoom size in my kit for a while but heavier bag and lighter camera are starting to appeal to me...if only Canon would give me the 85 and 135 I'm asking for.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 7, 2018)

Sabaki said:


> Would performance not be the only criteria to update a lens?
> 
> I know there's a lot of tongue-in-cheek banter about collars etc etc but I imagine that non of these would be enough to warrant an upgrade.



I guess it's performance related: phase detect AF precision. Roger at lens rentals did a very interesting blog series back in around 2013 I think, recording how much more accurate and consistent the phase AF is on the (then) new 5Diii but only when coupled with lenses from 2012 onwards. It appeared that this was due to the addition of rotation sensors in these later USM driven lenses and a closed loop communication between camera and lens. The 70-200/2.8ii wasn't up to the standards of the 2012 release lenses, where those lenses were as accurate in phase AF as they were in lv but only when coupled with the modern bodies. I guess this is where the 24-105/4 II came from too. 

Since I got the 5Ds I've really seen this for myself; the AF on the 28/2.8 IS, the 35/2 IS and 40 pancake is just flawless - always. I'm going to have to rethink some of my older lenses, such as the 85/1.8 and 100/2. I also guess this is partly where the stunning performance of the 100-400 L II is coming from too. 

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/autofocus-reality-part-3b-canon-cameras/


----------



## goldenhusky (Feb 14, 2018)

scyrene said:


> goldenhusky said:
> 
> 
> > > the "more" could be Macro capability?
> ...



I don't dislike this place but I feel lately the posts from CR got way out of way and more sounds like just clickbait.


----------



## Talys (Feb 14, 2018)

goldenhusky said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > goldenhusky said:
> ...



I think that's totally unfair. 

If it turns out that "more" is some interesting new feature or technology, CR will be bang on (as it most often is with CR3 rumors). If not, or if the lens doesn't materialize at all, it will tarnish that track record.

If CR has a credible leak that there's a 70-200 coming out with some special sauce, _would you prefer that he keep that a secret from you?_

I mean, this is a rumor site; if you want to know things that are unambiguous, go to canon.com and go to press releases ;D


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 16, 2018)

Hearing rumors in cinematography circles that Canon will have a 70-200mm f2 equivelent zoom.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 17, 2018)

docsmith said:


> Figuring out how to get faster than f/2.8 would also be amazing.



Canon already knows how to do that. There is no mystery. The "more" will be BR.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 17, 2018)

MrFotoFool said:


> I will vote with others who say built in 1.4x extender (like the 200-400). This would differentiate it from the current offerings, including the (reportedly excellent) Tamron G2 and Sigma Sport. They may still offer the current model which would be preferable for wedding and portrait photographers (and anyone wanting a lower price and less weight). But the new one would appeal to sports and wildlife photographers.



But then it wouldn't be a III.


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 17, 2018)

docsmith said:


> Figuring out how to get faster than f/2.8 would also be amazing.



I doubt a 70-200mm f/2 would be popular in the stills industry for several reasons:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Price. An f/2 zoom will be expensive.
[*]Weight. The existing 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses weight ~3 pounds, an f/2 would be significantly heavier.
[*]Front element at least 100mm in diameter. 105mm screw in filters are expensive and rare.
[/list]

My bet is such a lens would be heavier and more expensive than a 300mm f/2.8, so at least 6 pounds and $6,0000. Might work for the cinema market, as another poster mentioned.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 17, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > Figuring out how to get faster than f/2.8 would also be amazing.
> ...



Seeing that there exists exactly one commercially available full-frame f/2 zoom, the Sigma 24-35mm A, I think it's safe to say that a 70-200mm f/2 is far beyond the limits of engineering and economical feasibility, at least pending major breakthroughs in optics such as full-spectrum optical metamaterials.


----------



## Talys (Feb 17, 2018)

Seeing as a 200mm f/2 PRIME lens is huge and ungodly expensive -- USD$5,500+, 2.5kg+, and 8"+ without a hood -- I would shudder to think of what a 70-200mm would be in size, weight, and price


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 17, 2018)

Though now /me wonders what it would take to upscale the Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 A to full frame. I’m sure Sigma engineers have internally done some modelings..


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 19, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> olympus593 said:
> 
> 
> > For this all you need to do is buy a rubber hood that screws on the CPL. Very cheap on those chinese sites (DX, etc).
> ...



At 70mm with a FF camera _maybe_ there's a reason for the very middle of the very forward parts of those cutouts.

I can tape a piece of paper around the end of the hood for my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II. (Note: the vignetting in this shot is due to the peripheral illumination falloff of the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS at 105mm.)







Here's what a photo taken with the paper taped in place on the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II looks like at 70mm and f/11 on a FF camera. There is just barely a bit of vignetting in some of the very extreme corners. The vignetting was even softer and harder to see at f/2.8. If I pull the paper back just a quarter of an inch or so, the vignetting is gone. The deep cutouts on the ET-87 hood appear to be far larger and deeper than needed for any reason other than looks.






Notice that all of Canon's lenses with minimum focal lengths of 100mm or more do not have cutouts in the hoods. They are all plain round hoods. This is because the angles of view of such lenses is so narrow that a hood would need to be considerably longer than those supplied to obstruct the optical path.

Canon's 70-300mm lenses (both L and consumer versions) have plain round hoods. The 70-200mm f/4 L lenses have plain round hoods. All of them are longer than the shortest parts of the cutouts for the 70-200mm f/2.8 hoods. They are almost, but not quite, as long as the 70-200mm f/2.8 hoods with the deep cutouts.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 22, 2018)

richro said:


> Anyone else hoping for a EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM?
> And will Canon make a EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM already???



There's no real motivation for Canon to upgrade the EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS. Tamron hasn't just released a 70-200/4 IS that is slightly sharper on the edges at 2/3 the price of Canon's current lens. Nikon hasn't just released a 70-200/4 that is demonstrably better at 3/2 the price of Canon's current 70-200/4 IS.

This is about Canon leapfrogging back to the top of the heap of the 70-200mm f/2.8 pyramid, like they did back in 2010.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 6, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > olympus593 said:
> ...



What about this?

https://www.amazon.com/Professional-80-400mm-24-120mm-70-200mm-24-105mm/dp/B007OKIAS8/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1520306081&sr=8-7&keywords=metal+lens+hood+canon+70-200


----------



## hne (Mar 6, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> At 70mm with a FF camera _maybe_ there's a reason for the very middle of the very forward parts of those cutouts.
> 
> I can tape a piece of paper around the end of the hood for my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II. (Note: the vignetting in this shot is due to the peripheral illumination falloff of the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS at 105mm.)
> 
> ...



Try it again with an open aperture. Stopping down means you're only using the centre of your front lens and thus the cutouts make less difference.
I know I've posted some examples of a 200/2.8 with tape at the end of the hood with a rectangular hole that would only affect exposure from a certain aperture. Just can't find it.


----------



## jhpeterson (Mar 6, 2018)

I, too, am hoping that a new EF 70-200 is coming soon. Not that my current f:2.8 IS II is all that bad, but it could improvement. 
It's plenty sharp in most all cases, though it could still use more work in the corners. But, I think what bothers me the most is there's still a good bit of falloff in mine, at almost all focal lengths even without a hood or filter. Sure, it's not as bad as the original version, which I sent back three times to get corrected, but it's noticeable just the same.
Another problem I've had is it gets loose, not all that often, but maybe every few months. I've had to tighten screws on the barrel just to make it sharp enough to use, even on one short trip running to a hardware store for a screwdriver. 
I not sure my experience is typical or whether I have a bad copy. I bought mine as a refurb from the Canon Factory Store just a few months before the price dropped. Had I waited until then, I could have bought new for the same price - or less. By that time, my lens was starting to show problems with the paint near the mount and around the lens collar starting to bubble and peel off. I've had very good experiences with other refurbished gear, so I think this is a one-off case.
Generally speaking, this has been a well-performing lens, otherwise I would have dumped it long ago. It's almost always delivered crisp images and, when it didn't, all I needed to do was tighten a few screws. (I seldom keep the lens collar on these days in case I need to make a quick fix.) But, Canon could do well if it were to improve the build quality, say to the level of the new 35 and 85 1.4 models. And, optically, a little more evenness of illumination would be nice. I hope somebody at Canon is listening.


----------



## mppix (Mar 12, 2018)

jhpeterson said:


> I, too, am hoping that a new EF 70-200 is coming soon. Not that my current f:2.8 IS II is all that bad, but it could improvement.
> It's plenty sharp in most all cases, though it could still use more work in the corners. But, I think what bothers me the most is there's still a good bit of falloff in mine, at almost all focal lengths even without a hood or filter. Sure, it's not as bad as the original version, which I sent back three times to get corrected, but it's noticeable just the same.
> Another problem I've had is it gets loose, not all that often, but maybe every few months. I've had to tighten screws on the barrel just to make it sharp enough to use, even on one short trip running to a hardware store for a screwdriver.
> I not sure my experience is typical or whether I have a bad copy. I bought mine as a refurb from the Canon Factory Store just a few months before the price dropped. Had I waited until then, I could have bought new for the same price - or less. By that time, my lens was starting to show problems with the paint near the mount and around the lens collar starting to bubble and peel off. I've had very good experiences with other refurbished gear, so I think this is a one-off case.
> Generally speaking, this has been a well-performing lens, otherwise I would have dumped it long ago. It's almost always delivered crisp images and, when it didn't, all I needed to do was tighten a few screws. (I seldom keep the lens collar on these days in case I need to make a quick fix.) But, Canon could do well if it were to improve the build quality, say to the level of the new 35 and 85 1.4 models. And, optically, a little more evenness of illumination would be nice. I hope somebody at Canon is listening.



I carry that lens almost daily since 5+ years and didn't experience anything like it. It may be worth to invest in a revision at CPS that should solve the issues.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2018)

jhpeterson said:


> But, I think what bothers me the most is there's still a good bit of falloff in mine, at almost all focal lengths even without a hood or filter. Sure, it's not as bad as the original version, which I sent back three times to get corrected, but it's noticeable just the same.
> Another problem I've had is it gets loose, not all that often, but maybe every few months. I've had to tighten screws on the barrel just to make it sharp enough to use, even on one short trip running to a hardware store for a screwdriver.
> I not sure my experience is typical or whether I have a bad copy.



The screws coming loose seems atypical. The vignetting is certainly noticeable, although it’s pretty easy to correct effectively. One thing to point out is that a standard filter will actually increase vignetting with the 70-200/2.8 II, so if you typically use a UV/protection filter, consider switching to a thinner one (e.g. B+W XS-Pro) or don’t use one. Personally, I think Canon cut the design a bit close on that lens – the other f/2.8 zooms (16-35, 24-70) went from 77mm to 82mm diameter filters with their MkII updates, but the 70-200/2.8 IS remained at 77mm. 




jhpeterson said:


> I hope somebody at Canon is listening.



Not here. Contact them directly, or at least try posting on their own forum.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 18, 2018)

hne said:


> Michael Clark said:
> 
> 
> > At 70mm with a FF camera _maybe_ there's a reason for the very middle of the very forward parts of those cutouts.
> ...



Color of applicable sentence changed to red so that the practically blind can see it.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 18, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> jhpeterson said:
> 
> 
> > But, I think what bothers me the most is there's still a good bit of falloff in mine, at almost all focal lengths even without a hood or filter. Sure, it's not as bad as the original version, which I sent back three times to get corrected, but it's noticeable just the same.
> ...



I bought my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II new in August 2010. The screws on the bayonet mount and the screws under the tripod collar flush with the lens barrel were constantly working their way out and I tightened them often. 

In 2014 I sent it to CPS for a minor tilt issue (possibly related to a minor drop a few months earlier). I got it back with only a little improvement in the optical alignment, but the screws suddenly miraculously stopped working themselves out. 

I worked around the minor tilt issue until another drop definitely caused a major tilt issue in 2017. This time I sent a CD with test shots demonstrating the problem and a letter describing it in much more detail. I got the lens back in perfect optical alignment. The screws are *tight* this time.

My guess is that the earliest production runs either did not torque the screws tightly enough or didn't use any type of loctite type compound. Apparently by 2014 they had increased the torque or started using 'loctite'.


----------

