# Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II Coming Very Soon



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 27, 2018)

```
We originally reported that the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II was coming this month (April), but it looks like it may have been bumped.</p>
<p>We’re now told that the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II will be coming “very soon”. <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/is-the-ef-70-200mm-f-4l-is-ii-still-being-announced-this-month/">As I mentioned in a previous post</a>, lens announcement dates moving isn’t unusual.</p>
<p>I am very confident that we will indeed see the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II very soon.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Diko (Apr 27, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> I am very confident that we will indeed see the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II very soon.


I tend to share your opinion

However how long has passed since the first version of this lense? According to your own article *11 and a half years* or *4264* days.

The *perceptual resolution of this lens is higher (24MP) then the first version of its famous f2.8 IS brother (18MP)*. I had the opportunity to test it for myself and I'm keen to agree with that comparison.

However I keep asking myself:


Why compared to other lenses this one is delayed so much?
Why do we hear already for 3rd version of its big brother?
Why there was *no* second version of *F/4* along the *F/2.8*?

What do you think?

Having in mind the perceptual resolution measured by *DxO* and I am beginning to think that the release of a new lense is of course based on the volumes of sold bodies and their capabilities. Which is quite logical: on the market all Canon bodies sold at that time were lower or the same resolution as the *F/4 IS* so there was no need to release a new one.

However on the other hand we have the 5DS body which is around for good three years already which again makes me wonder Canon knew long before the release that they will have such HiRes capable body and yet we still don't have even one lens that can support with its perceptual resolution the resolution of the sensor of that body. _Which brings some hope in me that the new F/4 IS II would be at least 45 or at least 40MPs perceptual resolution._

I also looked for photos that I shot back two years ago with *that* specific combination and I can say that on *5DS* this already ancient glass looks great even with its sharpness that is _*half*_ the resolution of the body. This shot is taken at the furthest side of the lense about 30m (100 feet) away from the subjects. The images of course are processed with Lightroom applying the required lens corrections and yet downsizing to 500pxs actually makes the image look really worse. Nevertheless notice for such an old lense on such a new body what great results one can produce. Of course I took all possible precautions with high-speed and the aperture's sweet spot of the .

1/1000 sec at | f/5.6 | ISO 800 | 200 mm | (EF70-200mm f/4L IS USM)

Original dimensions *1383x922*






Original dimensions *8688 x 5792*


----------



## Chris Jankowski (Apr 27, 2018)

I think that 70-200 zooms are bought mostly for portraits and close range sport.
For the former you need 2.8 to get shallow depth of field.
For the latter you need 2.8 to freeze action.
For the general purpose zoom you probably prefer 70-300.

I believe that 70-400 F4 L zoom does not have a well defined area of applications where it is really a sweet spot.


----------



## FramerMCB (Apr 27, 2018)

Chris Jankowski said:


> I think that 70-200 zooms are bought mostly for portraits and close range sport.
> For the former you need 2.8 to get shallow depth of field.
> For the latter you need 2.8 to freeze action.
> For the general purpose zoom you probably prefer 70-300.
> ...



Excepting a few things here. 1) When the F4L IS was introduced it was sharper (better resolving power) than the F2.8L IS (Gen I); 2) Smaller (more compact) and lighter than the F2.8L IS. 3) Significantly cheaper. So, for people travelling and/or packing into the outdoors, the F4L IS definitely had/has some advantages, and those on tighter budgets.


----------



## Chris Jankowski (Apr 27, 2018)

>>>> Excepting a few things here. 1) When the F4L IS was introduced it was sharper (better resolving power) than the F2.8L IS (Gen I); 2) Smaller (more compact) and lighter than the F2.8L IS. 3) Significantly cheaper. So, for people travelling and/or packing into the outdoors, the F4L IS definitely had/has some advantages, and those on tighter budgets. 

ad 1) This is no longer the case for 70-200 F.2.8 Gen II. So, today it is no longer an advantage for 70-200 F4.

ad 3) I would posit that for travelers EF 70-300 F4-5.6 IS USM either the L or the non-L Gen II would be a better, more universal option. The latter of the two is cheaper than 70-200 F4 and weighs the same - 700g. 

So, again, I do not see a niche where the 70-200 F4 would have a clear advantage.


----------



## Diko (Apr 28, 2018)

As I said most probably F/4 will be sharper than the current second-generation of the past F/2.8.

The question is how long after that the third-generation of the F2.8 will come out which definitely of course would be sharper probably than they use second-generation of F/4.

As for usability and which lens is better for what:
First of all I do not share your opinion for portraits in close up sports only. And second there obviously are other people that think that there is a necessity of a second generation of F/4.


----------



## hollybush (Apr 28, 2018)

Diko said:


> However on the other hand we have the 5DS body which is around for good three years already which again makes me wonder Canon knew long before the release that they will have such HiRes capable body and yet we still don't have even one lens that can support with its perceptual resolution the resolution of the sensor of that body.



You assume DxO's "perceptual resolution" is a) a useful measure, and b) directly comparable to the sensor resolution. It doesn't work that way. You multiply the MTF of the lens by that of the sensor; however much better the lens is than some other lens, that will be reflected in the sharpness of the final image.


----------



## vscd (Apr 28, 2018)

FramerMCB said:


> Chris Jankowski said:
> 
> 
> > I think that 70-200 zooms are bought mostly for portraits and close range sport.
> ...



The Magic Drain Pipe (80-200L) was sharper than the 70-200F4, too. The first lens in this range which was better was the 70-200 L IS II. I think a f4-Lens is ok for some people, let's say hobbyists, but most want the 70-200, simply to get a better depth of field and especially to use teleconverters like 1.4x or 2.0x.


----------



## hollybush (Apr 29, 2018)

vscd said:


> I think a f4-Lens is ok for some people, let's say hobbyists, but most want the 70-200, simply to get a better depth of field and especially to use teleconverters like 1.4x or 2.0x.



Let's not say "hobbyists", because the lens is used by landscape photographers, including one I know of who does actually earn his living from landscape photography. As has already been said, it's a lighter lens to carry than an f/2.8. Landscape photographers usually shoot stopped down, many or most of them all the time.


----------



## slclick (Apr 30, 2018)

hollybush said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > I think a f4-Lens is ok for some people, let's say hobbyists, but most want the 70-200, simply to get a better depth of field and especially to use teleconverters like 1.4x or 2.0x.
> ...



I'm with you as there are many folks whom act as if all lenses should be fast, never used at narrower apertures and all that jazz. It's not all portraits and shallow DoF guys.


----------



## Maiaibing (May 1, 2018)

Great news. If Canon's new 70-200mm f/4 IS III is as good or beats the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II I may even return to the f/4 which is far handier.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 1, 2018)

slclick said:


> hollybush said:
> 
> 
> > vscd said:
> ...



*It's not all about hiking for miles to shoot landscapes from tripods at narrow apertures, either. For many of us, it is about some combination of both.*

The thing is, though, you can always stop down an f/2.8 lens to f/4, f/8, or f/11. You can't open up an f/4 lens to f/2.8 when you want/need to. That makes the f/2.8 lens more versatile.

The price you pay for that versatility is in size, weight, and cost.

It's up to each shooter to decide if the extra functionality of an f/2.8 lens versus an f/4 lens is worth those things.

It's up to each shooter to decide if adding a 70-200/4 for use when size/weight may be more important than maximum aperture to a kit that already contains a 70-200/2.8 is worth the cost.


----------



## slclick (May 2, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > hollybush said:
> ...



Yes, a very obvious counterpoint to my post. I am aware you can do more with more, it's just some can do very wonderful things with less. Although contrary to the ever popular GAS, 'Less is More' is also a very common although outdated photography axiom. Furthermore, I would never suggest that an f/4 version for an f/2.8 owner would be have a place in very many shooters kits, only a select few.


----------



## brad-man (May 2, 2018)

slclick said:


> Michael Clark said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...




Why can't we agree to agree? I had the f/4L IS and then picked up the f/2.8L IS ll with the intention of selling the f/4. I didn't and I'm not going to. The f/4 gets brought along 75% of the time, but when you need 2.8, you need 2.8. I have the 100-200mm focal length _very_ well covered...


----------

