# An EF 70-200 f/4L IS II in Mid January? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 11, 2011)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/12/an-ef-70-200-f4l-is-ii-in-mid-january-cr1/"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/12/an-ef-70-200-f4l-is-ii-in-mid-january-cr1/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/12/an-ef-70-200-f4l-is-ii-in-mid-january-cr1/"></a></div>
<strong>The lenses keep on coming

</strong>I received some pretty good detail about a new EF 70-200 f/4L IS that may be announced in the next month.</p>
<p>The first version of this lens is terrific, and for a while outperformed the 2.8 IS counterpart (other than light gathering ability).</p>
<p><strong>Some points on the reported new lens.</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>It will include a newer version of the Canon fluorine coating reducing light scatter within the lens.</li>
<li>The new coating will drastically increase the scratch resistance on the front element.</li>
<li>The lens will be fully metal, besides the zoom and focus rings.</li>
<li>The image quality is supposed to be the best as far as Canon zooms go (like version 1 was).</li>
<li>Mid January announcement.</li>
</ul>
<div>We have been told that Canon will be updating a lot of current lenses in 2012.</div>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Canon-F1 (Dec 11, 2011)

im curious to see if they can really squench out a visible better IQ then with the older version.

btw: a bit off topic... but why does your negative karma goes back in numbers but ours not? 
i noticed you had more then 11 negative karmas but now your back to 10.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2011)

Interesting... Unlike the 24-70mm and the 35L, the 70-200/4 IS seems like it doesn't really need an upgrade at all - it's pretty close to the 70-300 L and the 70-200/2.8 IS II in terms of IQ, has sealing, etc. Fluorine coatings on exposed elements would be nice and all, but hardly worth an upgrade...


----------



## idigi (Dec 11, 2011)

Canon is in need to increase prices on their lenses in order to stay competitive and profitable. They cannot just bump up the price $500 on current lenses. So, they add a little "upgrade", call it MK II, and increase the price. That way people don't go wild saying that Canon went insane and increased the price of current lenses for no reason.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Dec 11, 2011)

idigi said:


> Canon is in need to increase prices on their lenses in order to stay competitive and profitable.




:....... :-X


----------



## traveller (Dec 11, 2011)

If ever there was a lens less in need of an upgrade it was this one... So I'm sure that this rumour will come true!


----------



## Viggo (Dec 11, 2011)

idigi said:


> Canon is in need to increase prices on their lenses in order to stay competitive and profitable. They cannot just bump up the price $500 on current lenses. So, they add a little "upgrade", call it MK II, and increase the price. That way people don't go wild saying that Canon went insane and increased the price of current lenses for no reason.



This might be meant ironic from your side, but if it's not I disagree that they won't increase prices, they've done it a few times before, and it IS for a reason, like the earthquake. For that reason alone I made crazy money on my 300 f2,8 IS, because I bought at low market price and sold it when it was bumped. Supply and demand, no secrets there. It's much better for Canon to say the world economy forces us to up the prices worldwide, than do a halfass attempt to squeeze more money out of customers by slight upgrades, then no one would by them either, and production costs, it just wouldn't make them any money....

Plenty of other lenses waaaay before the 4 L IS in the line for upgrade. 135, 35, 400 5,6, 300 4 IS, 100-400 for example...


----------



## Maui5150 (Dec 11, 2011)

Canon-F1 said:


> btw: a bit off topic... but why does your negative karma goes back in numbers but ours not?
> i noticed you had more then 11 negative karmas but now your back to 10.



Elementary... A person can hit Smite by mistake and it will go to say 11, then click on Applaud and the smite goes back to 10 and the applaud up


----------



## idigi (Dec 11, 2011)

Viggo said:


> ... they've done it a few times before, and it IS for a reason, like the earthquake. Supply and demand, no secrets there.


That's one of the reasons to increase prices, too - natural disaster; supply and demand. The same thing is happening with prices of hard drives due to flood in Thailand.



> It's much better for Canon to say the world economy forces us to up the prices worldwide, than do a halfass attempt to squeeze more money out of customers by slight upgrades, then no one would by them either, and production costs, it just wouldn't make them any money....


It won't be "halfass" - you'll get new coating that will reduce light scatter and increase scratch resistance; or in the case of 35L you may get weather sealing, too.
So, what price increase scenario is more likely to be accepted by the public?
1. World economy forces us to up the prices worldwide
or
2. We are "improving" the current close-to-perfect lens with new coating and/or weather sealing and that's why the price of new lens is higher now.

p.s. You have to look at this from Canon's, as a business, point of view rather than from customer's point of view: how to increase profit with minimal expenses.


----------



## smirkypants (Dec 11, 2011)

I really have to echo what others have said. This lens is already extremely good and an upgrade would take it from 4.5 stars to 4.7 stars. How many different versions of a 70-200 are needed? Meanwhile there are lenses in other focal ranges that are in desperate need of help. Many people would love something in the 100-300 f4 range. The 200-400 is vapor. The 100-400 *desperately* needs some lovin'. Don't all of us already own at least one 70-200?


----------



## Fleetie (Dec 11, 2011)

I have to say, my first thought when I saw this was the same as that of many others, judging from the comments here. I just traded my 70-200 f/4 L IS in for the f/2.8 version, BUT not because of poor performance.

The lens already has stellar image quality (sharpness (Oh yes!), and bokeh) and IS.

The 24-70 L, although I've never even used one, from what I've read about it, could really use the attention, and to be honest, although I do love my 24-105L IS as a walk-around, it does suffer from CA at the edges, and it could use an upgrade to fix the edge/corner performance and sharpness generally.


----------



## Wahoowa (Dec 11, 2011)

Like many others, I think this is the lens that needs to be updated the least.

Besides 24-70L and 35L, I would think these lenses need to be updated first:

- 17-40L
- 24-105L
- 50/1.4
- 135L


----------



## Isaac (Dec 11, 2011)

The f/4 is a superb lens, I think the II will sell even better. However I still think the f/2.8 is a far better option generally speaking.


----------



## RC (Dec 11, 2011)

Upgrading the 70-200 F4 IS?  Naaa, got to be just a rumor.

Canon, work on upgrading lens that actually need to be upgraded! The 50mm family for example.


----------



## distant.star (Dec 11, 2011)

First, this is a [CR1] so discussion is wildly speculative. To the extent it proves out, I suspect it's more marketing than anything technical or performance oriented. If you add $10 to unit cost at manufacturer level on the back end, the marketing devils can turn that into $100 more revenue on the front end.

From a discussion standpoint, I'm more interested in other lenses named as needing upgrade. I wonder why the 135L is in that group. I can understand there hasn't been much, if any, change to this lens for a long time, but otherwise I wonder what an upgrade would look like.

If you had carte blanche to upgrade this lens, what would you do? What specs would it have after your upgrades?

I'm especially interested in Big Brain's take on this since he has pro optics credentials. But I'm interested in everyone's dream list for making the 135 better than it already is.

Thanks, everyone.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 11, 2011)

idigi said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > ... they've done it a few times before, and it IS for a reason, like the earthquake. Supply and demand, no secrets there.
> ...



First off the 4 L IS isn|t THAT old, and scratch resistance is a big upgrade? I think not, buy a filter, which you needed for it to be fully weathersealed anyway, done.

Second, I mentioned the 35 as much more probable candidate to be upgraded because it lacks behind in every way, comparing, of course, to the 24 1,4 II. So for Canon to upgrade the 35 to match the 24, and yes, also with the weathersealing, less ca, better color contrast and corner performance and the new AF and it would be a solid upgrade, but that's very far from upgrading the 70-200 with new coating.

Canon spend quite a lot of time and money to find out what the customers want, we see that again and again, so looking at it from a customers perspective is also what they do. 

Small adjustments , upgrades if you will, is done with camerabodies at entrylevel, and some of the cheapest lenses, but not to L-grade lenses. There isn't a single mkIII lens, which means the ones that are upgraded have been around for along time and needs a SOLID workover.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 11, 2011)

Semi-random thoughts:

I know I'm an optimist, but I don't see much room here for a big price jump. The f2.8 II version with rebates has been available for around $2,000. Unless they really jack up prices on existing lenses, there just doesn't appear to be a lot of room to raise the price of the f4 version significantly. Then again, I would have never thought they'd have the audacity to paint a 70-300 f5.6 lens white, stick a red ring on it and list it for $1,600. (I know...I know...that an exaggeration...but is it that much of an exaggeration?)

I too wonder about this scratch resistant coating on front elements. It's still not going to convince me to take off the skylight filter. I'm more concerned about dropping it or banging it against a rock, than I am about anything that scratch resistant filters will protect against. Besides, I've seen and read several test reports that show it takes some pretty severe scratches to affect image quality. I wonder if this isn't a lens version of automobile undercoating.

Overall, this sound a bit like something just a notch or two above the upgrades to the recent version II of the 55-250 EF-S lens. A little more than the cosmetic changes to that lens, but not a true upgrade, just some minor tweaks. 

I know this is all CR-1 so I'm taking it with a pretty huge grain of salt. But, I also know that every time I think I know what Canon will do, they do something totally different, so who knows?


----------



## t.linn (Dec 11, 2011)

This shouldn't even be CR1. There's NO chance that Canon is going to upgrade a relatively new lens that is one of its best optically. There's no reason.


----------



## mathino (Dec 11, 2011)

I would rather see improved 70-200 f/2.8 without IS than 70-200 f/4 IS (which is already excellent).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 11, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Interesting... Unlike the 24-70mm and the 35L, the 70-200/4 IS seems like it doesn't really need an upgrade at all - it's pretty close to the 70-300 L and the 70-200/2.8 IS II in terms of IQ, has sealing, etc. Fluorine coatings on exposed elements would be nice and all, but hardly worth an upgrade...



It does seem to be a rather strange usage of design resources at this point!
I'm doubting this. Almost every lens rumor not at least CR2 (and even some of those) proves to be false.
Body rumors are more reliable.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 11, 2011)

Its very possible that they might update the lens coatings and tweak minor things. I am in doubt of anything major. The 18-55 was updated to a ver II, with only minor changes, which no one could detect except for the paint job. 

It does make sense that canon would update the coatings on all their "L" lenses, having different coatings on different lens elements is a waste of factory space and money. Keeping two very high tech processes going is going to be expensive and may even slow production down.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2011)

idigi said:


> They cannot just bump up the price $500 on current lenses.



They can't? Say...are you by any chance interested in purchasing a bridge, or some prime swampland?



idigi said:


> You have to look at this from Canon's, as a business, point of view rather than from customer's point of view: how to increase profit with minimal expenses.



What better way to do that than to increase the price of a product and not change anything else about it? If they do their research properly, it's possible to do just that without impacting sales negatively enough to offset the increaed profit...


----------



## torger (Dec 11, 2011)

It depends a bit on which test one looks at if the 70-200/4 IS or the 70-200/2.8 IS II provides higher resolution, so they're pretty close I guess, it depends on which sample one gets.

I'm very satisfied with my 70-200/2.8 II, but for my landscape hikes when it would be nice with a lighter lens, for landscape shots I use it around f/8 anyway. So a 70-200/4 II with further resolution bump so it is guaranteed even sharper than the 70-200/2.8 II would be a nice alternative.


----------



## te4o (Dec 11, 2011)

The way it goes looks like Canon engineers have a mad new FF DSLR with all blowe and whistles right and they put the current lens line on it and ooops, not workable: so they phone the lens department and let them know in advance...


----------



## candyman (Dec 11, 2011)

te4o said:


> The way it goes looks like Canon engineers have a mad new FF DSLR with all blowe and whistles right and they put the current lens line on it and ooops, not workable: so they phone the lens department and let them know in advance...



Sure, it wouldn't be the first company where two departments working on products that must work together have different roadmaps (timeframe and specs) ;D


----------



## Cornershot (Dec 11, 2011)

I have this lens and the 2.8 and I find that I carry the f/4 IS more often when I can get away with it because it's so much lighter and compact. I can carry a full range without killing myself. Although a metal body would be more durable, it also would make it a bit heavier. I'd definitely not upgrade.


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 11, 2011)

There's about 60 different models of lens that need to be updated before this one (like all of them, except maybe the TS-E 24).

I have to be cynical and call shenanigans. Either it's:
- Bogus.
- Meant to be the 70-200 f/4L non-IS (getting weather-sealed maybe?).
- An excuse to raise the price as some have said (and i'll be there to buy a second-hand mk1 from all the chumps who sell theirs for the "upgrade").
- Maybe maybe maybe (although i very much doubt it) maybe they've figured out how to make it auto-focus with a 2x T/C on the 1DX but they need to release a new model to do it (hey, we can dream can't we?).
- An EF-s version, to make it smaller and lighter (yeah right).

Everyone grab a broom.


----------



## Enrico (Dec 11, 2011)

I dunno much about how to produce a lens... But couldn't some Mk II changes be due to new production plants ? Streamlining production using the same elements/part as in other lenses and hence lowering the costs?

Most (all?) lens improvements are most likelt to be made to increase profit or decrease cost. Not bringing us better pictures (as long as your competitors doesn't run ahead of you which seems not to be the case this time...)


----------



## samueljay (Dec 12, 2011)

Is it possible at all for Canon to add the coating and not make it a Mk. II, so it would stay at the same price point, and eventually as stock moves, it would replace the older model without the coating since it's only a minor change? Or is that something that doesn't happen in the camera world?


----------



## JR (Dec 12, 2011)

It does sound a bit weird to have this lens updated (would have preferred an updated 135 with IS ) but if it is better than the current version, it will make an interesting choice for a walkaround lens (my 70-200 2.8 II IS is a bit heavy for long walk or simply going to the park!).


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 12, 2011)

samueljay said:


> Is it possible at all for Canon to add the coating and not make it a Mk. II, so it would stay at the same price point, and eventually as stock moves, it would replace the older model without the coating since it's only a minor change? Or is that something that doesn't happen in the camera world?



Can, quite easily, yes.
But doesn't. They'll take any excuse to put a 'II' next to even the slightest change if it helps them increase the profit margins (either by cheaper materials or higher pricetag or both). Case in point, the 18-55IS and 55-250 both got 'upgraded' to exactly the same lens.
But then, I suppose if they'd just silently brought out the newer versions of those without a 'II', people all over the net would have called shenanigans and hounded them for silently changing the design (even if it turned out to be a change for the better), so I suppose they can't win either way....


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Dec 12, 2011)

This might seem as a dumb question but when you say better image quality for the mkII will/does that mean it'll have better image quality than the 70-200 2.8 IS II?


----------



## unfocused (Dec 12, 2011)

Cornershot said:


> I have this lens and the 2.8 and I find that I carry the f/4 IS more often when I can get away with it because it's so much lighter and compact. I can carry a full range without killing myself. Although a metal body would be more durable, it also would make it a bit heavier. I'd definitely not upgrade.



I don't own this lens. Does it not have a metal body now? That seems like a pretty major change if they are going from a composite to metal. Also seems kind of unusual, since it seems like most of the new lenses are going in the other direction. Also wondering how you effectively weather seal a metal body. 

Can anyone shed more light on this?


----------



## AJ (Dec 12, 2011)

distant.star said:


> If you had carte blanche to upgrade this lens, what would you do? What specs would it have after your upgrades?



Paint it black


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 12, 2011)

AJ said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > If you had carte blanche to upgrade this lens, what would you do? What specs would it have after your upgrades?
> ...




 ?


----------



## whatta (Dec 12, 2011)

70-200 F4 IS is the lens I've been considering (efs 2.8 version would be better though). I hope it is not becoming metal and would like it in black too


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2011)

whatta said:


> 70-200 F4 IS is the lens I've been considering (efs 2.8 version would be better though). I hope it is not becoming metal



It's already metal. An EF-S f/2.8 version would not be substantially lighter than the EF version - that's the way it works with telephoto lenses.


----------



## whatta (Dec 12, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's already metal.


I thought the outside of the 70-200 f4 is was plastic..


----------



## tron (Dec 12, 2011)

There are so many lenses to upgrade instead:

24mm f/1.4L II (yes, version II vignets too much!)
28mm f/1.8 (better performance at the large appertures)
35mm f/1.4L (better edges...)
50mm f/1.4 (better performance at the large appertures)
135mm f/2.0 (Can you put IS without sacrificing quality? If not please leave it alone...)
400mm f/5.6L (IS please...)
400mm f/4 DO (better contrast please)

16-35mm f/2.8L II (yes version II needs better edges and corners)

to name but a few...
(feel free to complement the list...)


----------



## distant.star (Dec 12, 2011)

Apparently you have a different 135L than the rest of us.




AJ said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > If you had carte blanche to upgrade this lens, what would you do? What specs would it have after your upgrades?
> ...


----------



## whatta (Dec 13, 2011)

tron said:


> 24mm f/1.4L II (yes, version II vignets too much!)


isn't it very easy to fix (already in camera jpg)?



> 28mm f/1.8 (better performance at the large appertures)


a good apsc normal is missing from canon, make it 1.4



> 50mm f/1.4 (better performance at the large appertures)


change it to ring usm


----------



## Cornershot (Dec 13, 2011)

Actually, it's not. Most of the body is plastic. It does have some metal parts like the zoom ring, the mount, the front ring that has the markings. Most of the rest of the outer body is white plastic.


It's already metal. An EF-S f/2.8 version would not be substantially lighter than the EF version - that's the way it works with telephoto lenses.
[/quote]


----------



## nightbreath (Dec 13, 2011)

Cornershot said:


> Actually, it's not. Most of the body is plastic. It does have some metal parts like the zoom ring, the mount, the front ring that has the markings. Most of the rest of the outer body is white plastic.


Are we speaking about the same lens? The EF 70-200 f/4.0L IS is metal, focusing/zooming rings are made of rubber (sorry if the word isn't chosen properly, this is what translator gave me). Here's an article about the lens: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## Cornershot (Dec 14, 2011)

@Nightbreath, I own the lens and use it for work so know that it has a plastic body. That story you link to doesn't mention it but Ken Rockwell does. Plastic barrel with metal zoom and focus rings. The rings are not made of rubber. The rubber grip is added over the metal rings. 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-200mm-f4-is.htm



Are we speaking about the same lens? The EF 70-200 f/4.0L IS is metal, focusing/zooming rings are made of rubber (sorry if the word isn't chosen properly, this is what translator gave me). Here's an article about the lens: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## Jedifarce (Dec 14, 2011)

Canon Rumors said:


> <li>It will include a newer version of the Canon fluorine coating reducing light scatter within the lens.</li>
> <li>The new coating will drastically increase the scratch resistance on the front element.</li>
> <li>The lens will be fully metal, besides the zoom and focus rings.</li>
> <li>The image quality is supposed to be the best as far as Canon zooms go (like version 1 was).</li>
> <li>Mid January announcement.</li>



I think as long as you're careful and use an uv filter scratches can be minimized. However, I do like the 'fully metal' part, reminds me of my old Nikon AIS lenses. 

Where the hell is the 200-400mm F/4 ?


----------



## Jedifarce (Dec 14, 2011)

?


People might mistaken it for a sigma or nikon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 15, 2011)

Cornershot said:


> @Nightbreath, I own the lens and use it for work so know that it has a plastic body. That story you link to doesn't mention it but Ken Rockwell does. Plastic barrel with metal zoom and focus rings. The rings are not made of rubber. The rubber grip is added over the metal rings.
> 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-200mm-f4-is.htm



Sorry, but KR wouldn't know a fact if it bit him on the ass. While I don't have a 70-200mm f/4L IS, I do have a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and KR indicates that the parts of the barrel of that lens are plastic as well - they certainly don't seem to be, based on thermal transfer compared to lenses with known plastic barrels, such as the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS. 

DPReview indicates that the barrel is metal, as does PhotoNotes.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 15, 2011)

If all the relentlessly anal gadget freaks on this site can't tell whether or not the lens is plastic or metal I have to wonder if it matters.


----------



## Cornershot (Dec 16, 2011)

It's not about being anal. The lighter weight and smaller size is something that I actually find useful for work. If the new lens were all metal and heavier, it would make a difference to me since my regular load is four lenses and two bodies. I take the 2.8 if I have to. And the f4 lens is a mix of plastic and metal. I'm sure the many 70-200mm F4 and F4/is owners can chime in. 


Sorry, but KR wouldn't know a fact if it bit him on the ass. While I don't have a 70-200mm f/4L IS, I do have a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and KR indicates that the parts of the barrel of that lens are plastic as well - they certainly don't seem to be, based on thermal transfer compared to lenses with known plastic barrels, such as the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS. 

DPReview indicates that the barrel is metal, as does PhotoNotes. 
[/quote]


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2011)

Cornershot said:


> It's not about being anal. The lighter weight and smaller size is something that I actually find useful for work. If the new lens were all metal and heavier, it would make a difference to me since my regular load is four lenses and two bodies. I take the 2.8 if I have to. And the f4 lens is a mix of plastic and metal. I'm sure the many 70-200mm F4 and F4/is owners can chime in.



Cornershot, I owe you an apology - I checked out my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II this morning, and the center part of the barrel (between the zoom and focus rings) does seem to be plastic, even on the f/2.8 lens. The rest of the barrel is metal.


----------



## Cornershot (Dec 16, 2011)

Neuro, Canon does a pretty good job of hiding the fact. The stippled texture on the metal and plastic parts look pretty close. I tried to jab it with a multimeter to get a resistance reading but the coating insulates the surface pretty well.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 17, 2011)

@Cornershot, thanks, yes - I noticed the similarity of the finish. What I did notice was differential transmission of vibration, which the plastic seemed to do more efficiently.


----------

