# The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II is Coming in April [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 21, 2018)

```
We have confirmed that the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II will be announced in April. We have not confirmed if the Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM has moved up to April from the original Photokina announcement we were previously told about.</p>
<p>We also think there is a good chance that another 70-200mm lens will be coming for Photokina in September.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## slclick (Mar 21, 2018)

Depending on the specs and price, this might be a take my money Canon moment.

I think I figured it out, it's getting the new white L paint


----------



## naylor83 (Mar 21, 2018)

Does it come in E-mount?


----------



## hendrik-sg (Mar 21, 2018)

naylor83 said:


> Does it come in E-mount?



You mean in FE Mount? Or maybe in ******* EF Mode? or in Typo-mode? And damn, again without 50mm 1.4 IS mode.

But to be serious, the 50mm 1.2 and 1.4 would need a update more urgently than this already fantastic zoom lens, ok maybe except if it could be produced cheaper (which is maybee no more possible for the 50mm primes, which are all simple Double-Gauss Designs.


----------



## CanoKnight (Mar 21, 2018)

naylor83 said:


> Does it come in E-mount?



In a few years it might be Canon's only hope of selling these lenses !


----------



## Woody (Mar 21, 2018)

CanoKnight said:


> naylor83 said:
> 
> 
> > Does it come in E-mount?
> ...



You mean the Sony E mount 70-200 f/4 G OSS lens was so awfully designed (it weighed (840g) MORE than Canon EF 70-200 f/4 IS (760g) designed for full frame DSLRs) that E mount users are now green with envy?


----------



## kiwiengr (Mar 21, 2018)

hendrik-sg said:


> ....
> 
> But to be serious, the 50mm 1.2 and 1.4 would need a update more urgently than this already fantastic zoom lens, ok maybe except if it could be produced cheaper (which is maybee no more possible for the 50mm primes, which are all simple Double-Gauss Designs.



Or there is more dosh to made out of new 70~200, both versions?


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 21, 2018)

Any chance this new 70-200 f/4 reverts to an externally zooming (i.e. length-changing) design like the 70-300L?

I know the zero-length-change of the 70-200 L lenses is attractive for a host of a reasons, but so is a smaller lens that fits in smaller bags. I love my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, but a much smaller version of it for travel would be attractive. 

In general, I'm just curious why some L zooms get the compact/telescoping designs (100-400, 70-300, 24-something, surely the future 'inexpensive' -500 or -600 zoom) while others get the rigid fixed length treatment (70-200s, 200-400).

- A


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 21, 2018)

kiwiengr said:


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


When I see press conferences or when I just take a walk through my local zoo I am really amazed by the number of white tele zoom lenses I see there. And also at events and weddings where low light performance might be important, zooms rule over primes - at least by numbers not in IQ.
So these zooms, the two 70-200 and the 100-400, are surely the ones with the highest numbers at L lenses and therefore big cash cows. 
So even if I can understand (and also have) the desire to get new better primes I can also understand that Canon sees the priorities different than some enthusiasts and studio photogs that are outnumbered by the zoom buyers.


----------



## BillB (Mar 21, 2018)

kiwiengr said:


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



Bingo! I wonder how many new middle to high end 50mm primes Canon thinks it could sell in comparison to the two new 70-200's. For quite a long time now, Canon has been focussing on the zooms, especially the core trinity--the 16-35's, the 24-xxx's, and the 70-200's. It seems quite clear to me that Canon sees the zoom trinity as the foundation for its lens development strategy. Still, I wonder why Canon thinks it should put out a new 70-200 f4 and a new 70-200 f2.8.


----------



## traveller (Mar 21, 2018)

Woody said:


> CanoKnight said:
> 
> 
> > naylor83 said:
> ...



At least it breaks in two for transport: 

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4190160

Oh, wait... that isn’t a feature, it breaks in two _during_ transport! ;D


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 21, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Any chance this new 70-200 f/4 reverts to an externally zooming (i.e. length-changing) design like the 70-300L?


Zero Chance IMO. That "form factor" is settled.
I understand the thought but even third party suppliers think that changing the zoom range is the better differentiator than barrel design and size, see the Tamron 70-210 f/4
https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=34518.msg708288#msg708288


----------



## BillB (Mar 21, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Any chance this new 70-200 f/4 reverts to an externally zooming (i.e. length-changing) design like the 70-300L?
> 
> I know the zero-length-change of the 70-200 L lenses is attractive for a host of a reasons, but so is a smaller lens that fits in smaller bags. I love my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, but a much smaller version of it for travel would be attractive.
> 
> ...



Interesting. There are those among us who yearn for a new high quality 50mm prime, while others pine for compact f4 zooms (but not necessarily with an EF mount).


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 21, 2018)

Maximilian said:


> So these zooms, the two 70-200 and the 100-400, are surely the ones with the highest numbers at L lenses and therefore big cash cows.



Potentially profitable lenses, sure, but I'm not sure they are very high runners. At first glance, I'd guess 24-something f/4 L lenses and possibly the old 17-40 f/4L would be much higher runners than the shorter/slower white zooms you referenced.

I did a quick check of Amazon's best sellers of "Best Sellers in Digital Camera Lenses" and only one Canon L zoom cracked the Top 100 (against a sea of primes, non-L zooms and options for different sensor sizes, etc.):

It was the 24-105L IS (Mk I) at #60. 

- A


----------



## slclick (Mar 21, 2018)

I'm curious just how light they could make this. The Non IS f/4L is only 2 ounces lighter than the IS model. Have engineering plastics come so far that that could really be a factor for this? I for one am not considering it to be an extending version. So with the exceptional 12 year old optical formula, what other than weight and improved IS can be done? One other thing, what is the precedent for price drops on the older model in regards to 70-200's when the next Mark comes out?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 21, 2018)

slclick said:


> One other thing, what is the precedent for price drops on the older model in regards to 70-200's when the next Mark comes out?



Variable. In most cases, if the newer lens is more expensive, new copies of the previous lens hold a steady price. Used copies of the previous version usually fall, but in some cases they actially rise (a used market increase of $200-300 happened to 70-200/2.8 IS prices when the 70-200/2.8 IS II came out, although they eventually dropped back down below their pre-MkII levels, that took a couple of years).


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 21, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > So these zooms, the two 70-200 and the 100-400, are surely the ones with the highest numbers at L lenses and therefore big cash cows.
> ...


I admit I haven't done any research on sales numbers and other statistics. And I knew that my statement was easy to charge and difficult to prove, esp. in this forum. So I reduce it just to "cash cows" and withdraw the statement of sold numbers. 
But I wrote it because it seems that Canon has their focus here. And normally their focus is not just on being the summit of technology but to gain profit, don't they?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 21, 2018)

Both the Canon EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM and the Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L II IS USM are very good lenses. That doesn't mean they cannot be improved and as we move increasingly to cameras like the 5D MKIV or the 5DS/r the increased resolution shows flaws we may have not noticed before. 

My copy of the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM is a very sharp lens and generally provides superb results however it has one notable flaw and that's chromatic aberration and the 200mm end is particularly noticeable at close distance out of focus bokah. This also picks-up on things like black dresses in low key lighting on edges and if Canon can improve this then they will really have the benchmark back again because the Sony G Master 70-200mm f2.8 is currently a better zoom optically.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 21, 2018)

slclick said:


> So with the exceptional 12 year old optical formula, what other than weight and improved IS can be done?



The folks who say "the 135L is already so good, what is there to improve?" get the same answer from me: it can always be sharper. Since the 135L came out, a glut of sharper 135 primes have come out. (Ask Dustin Abbott, he's tested them all.) I'd also add the IS could always be improved.

Interestingly, here with the 70-200 f/4, no one has outdone Canon's offering yet. I believe this is less to do with it not being possible nearly so much as this specific FL / aperture combo being one of those 'only Canon would offer this extra price point' between the pro (70-200 2.8.) and enthusiast/travel (70-300 variable) versions. It's also stellar sharpness per dollar -- it's not a pricey lens -- so there is less opportunity for a Tamron or Sigma to swoop in with a much cheaper option.

But I have zero doubt a sharper 70-200 f/4 lens could be made. The question is whether *this* new Canon actually _will_ be sharper... or if they'll pull a 24-105L II with this one. :-[

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 21, 2018)

slclick said:


> So with the exceptional 12 year old optical formula, what other than weight and improved IS can be done?



In the last 12 years, there have been great advances in coatings, so it is a given that the new lens will benefit there....

This was one of the early IS systems, and particularly famous for the noise it made..... It is a safe bet that the new lens will have a better and quiter IS.

the quality of machining has gone up, and as a result, the alignment and consistancy of lenses has gone up.

the software simulation of new lens designs is constantly improving, and as a result, we can expect minor tweaking to the optical design....

Remember the 100-400F5.6? The version 2 was a significant improvement.... All those version 1 supertelephotos andthe better version 2's.... 

As to weight, I really doubt that we will see a change of more than a few grams, and who knows, it could even be a few grams heavier... the 100-400 grew by 190 grams.... it could happen again.....

It is a safe bet that it will be better, but the question is, by how much?


----------



## andrei1989 (Mar 21, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Any chance this new 70-200 f/4 reverts to an externally zooming (i.e. length-changing) design like the 70-300L?
> 
> - A



it will be the first collapsible L lens 
like the EF-M zooms


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 21, 2018)

Maximilian said:


> kiwiengr said:
> 
> 
> > hendrik-sg said:
> ...



I own the trinity of 16-35mm f/2.8L mkII + 24-70mm f/2.8L mk II + 70-200mm f/2.8 IS mkII, and I've also bought a 50mm f/1.4 & 35mm f/2 IS is events.

I will buy a 50mm f/1.4 IS USM (same upgrade as the 24-28-35 trio) for $550. If it's an L for $1,599, I'll pass - too rich for my blood.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 21, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> ...
> I will buy a 50mm f/1.4 IS USM (same upgrade as the 24-28-35 trio) for $550. If it's an L for $1,599, I'll pass - too rich for my blood.


Same here... Maybe even if it's f/1.8 and really good at 1.8. But I'd prefer the 1.4 over IS.
Now back on topic...


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 21, 2018)

andrei1989 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Any chance this new 70-200 f/4 reverts to an externally zooming (i.e. length-changing) design like the 70-300L?
> ...


Both 100-400mm L and 70-300mm L are "collapsible" tele zoom lenses from Canon. And there are a lot standard zooms that have changable dimension according to focal length. 

I guess I am the only one here waiting for modern updated version of 50mm Macro(hopefully a FF equivalent of Ef-s 35mm Macro)


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 21, 2018)

Chaitanya said:


> I guess I am the only one here waiting for modern updated version of 50mm Macro(hopefully a FF equivalent of Ef-s 35mm Macro)



Not just you, I do too. It's probably the sharpest 50mm lens that Canon do (not that it's saying much) - shame it sounds like a bag of angry bees when focusing.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 21, 2018)

It is amazing how much a desire for a new 50mm lens comes up in the new lens threads. There really must be pent up want for that by forum members. 

Could it be the zooms have gotten so good that the 50mm focal length just isn't generating the sales? Or maybe Canon is putting extra effort into the 50mm because it is a big seller.

f/2.8 might not be fast for some, but I find myself stopping down to that with my 35mm more often than not. Between a fast 35, fast 135, fast 24-70 and hopefully the 85 one day... I would find a 50 to be a hard sell fo me.


----------



## slclick (Mar 21, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> It is amazing how much a desire for a new 50mm lens comes up in the new lens threads. There really must be pent up want for that by forum members.
> 
> Could it be the zooms have gotten so good that the 50mm focal length just isn't generating the sales? Or maybe Canon is putting extra effort into the 50mm because it is a big seller.
> 
> f/2.8 might not be fast for some, but I find myself stopping down to that with my 35mm more often than not. Between a fast 35, fast 135, fast 24-70 and hopefully the 85 one day... I would find a 50 to be a hard sell fo me.



CFB,

Are you looking at the 85 1.4L IS or hoping for the 1.8 to get a refresh or a different pedestrian model like I am?


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 21, 2018)

slclick said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > It is amazing how much a desire for a new 50mm lens comes up in the new lens threads. There really must be pent up want for that by forum members.
> ...



The 1.4L, but I would forego that in favor of a new 135L with IS. I just really like the focal length. Have several lenses in that range (vintage), a 105 and 4 135s.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 21, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > So with the exceptional 12 year old optical formula, what other than weight and improved IS can be done?
> ...



The f4 version of Canon's 70-200 range has been the leader of the pack. Canon puts it's R&D into the f4 version first and markets it first, then turns their attention to the f2.8 version, which comes out later and brings the f2.8 up to the new f4 version's spec and IQ. It's been like that for a long time. 

So I suspect that the new f4 lens will have improved AF, IS and sharpness. Maybe even a new feature like super light weight elements...who knows?


----------



## andrei1989 (Mar 21, 2018)

Chaitanya said:


> andrei1989 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



collapsible as the EF-M 15-45 or 11-22, which cannot be used without pushing a switch to extend them. the 100-400 and 70-300 are at their minimum length when also at their minimum respective focal lengths. the ones i mentioned cannot be used when in the fully retracted position...but i guess you know what i meant and wanted to kill my attempt at a joke..


----------



## lidocaineus (Mar 21, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Any chance this new 70-200 f/4 reverts to an externally zooming (i.e. length-changing) design like the 70-300L?



Every time I go to this site and look at the comments, this guy makes the most inane comments in *every single thread*. I wish CR had a block users options, because this is literally the one and only reason I do not come here.

Oh and you don't have to sign your posts. We can literally see your username right there next to it.


----------



## slclick (Mar 21, 2018)

lidocaineus said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Any chance this new 70-200 f/4 reverts to an externally zooming (i.e. length-changing) design like the 70-300L?
> ...



I take it you guys know each other IRL and this is some sort of forum jab. I get it. You two...This place is the best!


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 22, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Any chance this new 70-200 f/4 reverts to an externally zooming (i.e. length-changing) design like the 70-300L?
> 
> I know the zero-length-change of the 70-200 L lenses is attractive for a host of a reasons, but so is a smaller lens that fits in smaller bags. I love my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, but a much smaller version of it for travel would be attractive.
> - A



No idea.....

It would be nice to have it more compact, but it is also nice to not be sucking in moist, dirty, or salty air.

I think that most of the zooms are variable length, so that would make variable more probable, but there is also momentum... I would not be surprised either way, but I bet it will be a great lens whichever path they pick....


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 22, 2018)

andrei1989 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Any chance this new 70-200 f/4 reverts to an externally zooming (i.e. length-changing) design like the 70-300L?
> ...



No chance, the M lenses are consumer lenses.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 22, 2018)

slclick said:


> lidocaineus said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



No. The opposite of that.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 22, 2018)

lidocaineus said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Any chance this new 70-200 f/4 reverts to an externally zooming (i.e. length-changing) design like the 70-300L?
> ...



So let me get this straight: a troll just informed me that me _just being me_ keeps that very same troll away.

I really don't see a problem here.

- A

- A


----------



## slclick (Mar 22, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > lidocaineus said:
> ...



I was kidding, his post was one of the top 5 lamest things I have read here. 

-B


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 22, 2018)

lidocaineus said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Any chance this new 70-200 f/4 reverts to an externally zooming (i.e. length-changing) design like the 70-300L?
> ...



I thought it was a good question, but then again, what would I know.....I’m one of those delusional people waiting for a Canon 50mm with IS.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 22, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> lidocaineus said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Gee, ahsanford, you just quoted my first wife!


----------



## LeeBabySimms (Mar 22, 2018)

Yikes - do we need better 70-200's? I've owned the 70-200 ƒ4 IS since it came out and it's awesome.

Dear Canon, what we need is a great 50mm lens. A 50 that equals the 35L II and the 85L 1.4 IS.


----------



## Andreos (Mar 22, 2018)

LeeBabySimms said:


> Yikes - do we need better 70-200's? I've owned the 70-200 ƒ4 IS since it came out and it's awesome.



The lens is very good in terms of sharpness, but resistance to flare, esp. flaring between the rear of the lens and the sensor, is a problematic weakness. An improvement on this regard is at the top of my list. It would also be nice to incorporate an integrated telescoping lens hood in lieu of the clunky detachable hood.

I will also mention, the IS version of the lens is not as sharp as the older non-IS version! Not by a lot; but more than a little. So, there is room for improvement, even in sharpness.


----------



## traveller (Mar 22, 2018)

I notice that the street price of the 70-200 f/4 L IS USM in the UK has now gone up to £1208. This is quite a price hike, considering that I bought one in May 2017 for £877.55 _and_ Canon was offering a £100 mail-in rebate at the time! [To be fair, it was a _very_ good price even then: Amazon trying to get me to sign up to Prime; unfortunately, I had to return the lens as it was defective and the offer finished before I could get a replacement]. 

This could be Canon trying to soften the shock of a new 70-200 f/4 IS USM II by making the price rise seem smaller. Don’t be too surprised at a launch price of £1500+


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 22, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> lidocaineus said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



He's wound way too tight.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 22, 2018)

Andreos said:


> I will also mention, the IS version of the lens is not as sharp as the older non-IS version! Not by a lot; but more than a little. So, there is room for improvement, even in sharpness.



no. 70-200/4 L IS is optically somewhat better (and sharper) than the older non -IS version of the lens. In my own experience (owned both) and in all halfway credible reviews I've seen. 

I really consider it a waste of development efforts on Canon's side to work on (presumably) marginal improvements for the last few years of their mirrorslapper lenses, rather than spending the time, effort and money on finally getting a "really right", superior mirrorless FF lens lineup [ + camery bodies] to market.


----------



## hne (Mar 22, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> f/2.8 might not be fast for some, but I find myself stopping down to that with my 35mm more often than not. Between a fast 35, fast 135, fast 24-70 and hopefully the 85 one day... I would find a 50 to be a hard sell fo me.



I guess a new 50/1.whatever isn't for people walking around with a 35/1.4 and an 85/1.4 but rather for people with either a 24/2.8IS or 16-35/something, and a 100/2.8 macro


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 22, 2018)

Oh for the days we could read reviews declaring, "A significant improvement, in all aspects, to an already fine lens."


----------



## LeeBabySimms (Mar 22, 2018)

Andreos said:


> LeeBabySimms said:
> 
> 
> > Yikes - do we need better 70-200's? I've owned the 70-200 ƒ4 IS since it came out and it's awesome.
> ...



I only shoot 100 weddings a year, but I've never encountered any noticeable weakness with "Little White" (what we internally call the 70-200 ƒ4 IS). And with the 5DmkIV, you can actually focus in reception-lighting. 

We do have flaring issues with the 135L, but if you want to start talking about weaknesses, you could write a book about the 50L. IMO, Canon should be attacking the biggest problems with their glass portfolio first. Sony has two great 50's (the small 55ZA and the newer god smack 50 1.4), Nikon has the 58, Sigma has the 50Art, and even Fuji has two awesome small 35's (50 equiv). Canon's the only brand without a no-excuses 50 at the moment. I would love a mate to our 35L II and 85L 1.4

Whatever. We're making great images in the meanwhile with the Tamron 45. Awesome for the dough.


----------



## AJ (Mar 22, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > So with the exceptional 12 year old optical formula, what other than weight and improved IS can be done?
> ...



There is a rumor about a Sigma 70-200/4 OS contemporary being in the works. 
http://www.canonrumors.com/sigma-70-200-f-2-8-os-sport-sigma-70-200-f-4-os-contemporary-coming-cr1/
So it looks like we'll get duelling 70-200/2.8 lenses from Canon and Sigma, as well as duelling 70-200/4 lenses. Competition is good!


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 22, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> I really consider it a waste of development efforts on Canon's side to work on (presumably) marginal improvements for the last few years of their mirrorslapper lenses, rather than spending the time, effort and money on finally getting a "really right", superior mirrorless FF lens lineup [ + camery bodies] to market.



When you consider that a camera body is meant to recap development costs and turn a profit in a few years, and that lenses are meant to do the same over a decade, the recent, and continuing, introduction of new FF L glass by Canon is an indicator that they expect the EF mount to be around for the immediate future.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 22, 2018)

LeeBabySimms said:


> We do have flaring issues with the 135L, but if you want to start talking about weaknesses, you could write a book about the 50L. IMO, Canon should be attacking the biggest problems with their glass portfolio first. Sony has two great 50's (the small 55ZA and the newer god smack 50 1.4), Nikon has the 58, Sigma has the 50Art, and even Fuji has two awesome small 35's (50 equiv). Canon's the only brand without a no-excuses 50 at the moment. I would love a mate to our 35L II and 85L 1.4



This is totally off-topic, but the above passage is poetry to me. +1

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 22, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> I really consider it a waste of development efforts on Canon's side to work on (presumably) marginal improvements for the last few years of their mirrorslapper lenses, rather than spending the time, effort and money on finally getting a "really right", superior mirrorless FF lens lineup [ + camery bodies] to market.



Of course you consider it a waste, but that’s merely because you don’t understand the market. Canon does.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 22, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I really consider it a waste of development efforts on Canon's side to work on (presumably) marginal improvements for the last few years of their mirrorslapper lenses, rather than spending the time, effort and money on finally getting a "really right", superior mirrorless FF lens lineup [ + camery bodies] to market.
> ...



Remind me, AvTvM: how did A-mount do when Sony was dialing in its "really right, superior mirrorless FF lens lineup"? :

Canon cannot similarly do that because _it's_ A-mount is actually quite profitable, it's much more comprehensive, and _it is not going away once FF mirrorless is launched._

- A


----------



## criscokkat (Mar 22, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



I've always wondered if they could keep the same EF mount currently used and later release a lens that actually protruded inside the body to bring the rear element closer to the sensor for lens setups that would benefit from that. You could have a pancake lens they that actually has an extra 26 mm of room to play with...


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 22, 2018)

criscokkat said:


> I've always wondered if they could keep the same EF mount currently used and later release a lens that actually protruded inside the body to bring the rear element closer to the sensor for lens setups that would benefit from that. You could have a pancake lens they that actually has an extra 26 mm of room to play with...



A jillion things might be on offer with a new mount -- if that's what they choose to do. I still think we'll get a skinny mount with an EF adaptor, but _FF mirrorless could be EF_, people.

But Canon has shown a great patience to take the weight of a new mount before abandoning an existing one. Canon is actively putting out new glass in three stills mounts right now. So if they go new and plan to exit EF, we'll see the heart of EF re-made in the small mount before EF goes away. They absolutely will not 'pull a Sony' here.

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 22, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> LeeBabySimms said:
> 
> 
> > We do have flaring issues with the 135L, but if you want to start talking about weaknesses, you could write a book about the 50L. IMO, Canon should be attacking the biggest problems with their glass portfolio first. Sony has two great 50's (the small 55ZA and the newer god smack 50 1.4), Nikon has the 58, Sigma has the 50Art, and even Fuji has two awesome small 35's (50 equiv). Canon's the only brand without a no-excuses 50 at the moment. I would love a mate to our 35L II and 85L 1.4
> ...



I think 2020 will be your year. Canon, in hindsight, will wonder itself what took Canon so long.


----------



## Famateur (Mar 22, 2018)

LeeBabySimms said:


> Canon's the only brand without a no-excuses 50 at the moment. I would love a mate to our 35L II and 85L 1.4



I know that's not how you meant it, but now all I can see is a 35LII and an 85L 1.4 IS...mating...and producing a 50L 1.4 IS as their offspring.  :-X


----------



## Famateur (Mar 22, 2018)

lidocaineus said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Any chance this new 70-200 f/4 reverts to an externally zooming (i.e. length-changing) design like the 70-300L?
> ...



[spanish_accent] You keep using that word...inane. I do not think it means what you think it means. [/spanish_accent] 

Seriously, though, ahsanford's posts are one of the reasons I *do* come to the forum and enjoy the discussions. They've always seemed thoughtful and well-put. He's not a push-over when someone rebuts his opinions (nor should he or anyone be), but he's not hostile, either -- quite polite, actually. We tease him about new 50L IS lenses, but if/when Canon produces it, I'm sure he'll still be a frequent and positive contributor to the forum.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 22, 2018)

Famateur said:


> Seriously, though, ahsanford's posts are one of the reasons I *do* come to the forum and enjoy the discussions. They've always seemed thoughtful and well-put. He's not a push-over when someone rebuts his opinions (nor should he or anyone be), but he's not hostile, either -- quite polite, actually. We tease him about new 50L IS lenses, but if/when Canon produces it, I'm sure he'll still be a frequent and positive contributor to the forum.



Aw shucks. Appreciated. I don't mind the inane tag and 'block users' nonsense -- it's more that I made a post that he or she (who are we kidding) simply presumed was nonsense and didn't speak to why. But... that's why we're here. _To discuss!_

So, troll or not, I'm still curious why my original question was dismissed. I asked if Canon might move to a telescoping/length changing design. Totally fair question to ask. But apparently the Terminator-style dialogue options from Lidocaineus were as follows:

1) No, I doubt they'd do that. They make the best 70-200 f/4 today, so why mess with a good thing?

2) No, I doubt they'd do that. More robust design + fewer pathways for particulate/moisture ingress > smaller footprint in your bag.

3) No, I doubt they'd do that. _Because 'pro' gear doesn't telescope, yo._ (Unless it's a 24-something lens.)

4) Maybe. Might be nice for travel but don't we already have that in the 70-300L? Also, some current users who love their current 70-200 f/4 might complain of this as a step in the wrong direction.

5) That's an idiotic post that I won't speak to. But while I'm here not responding to your obviously stupid question, I _would_ like to take the time to express that I dislike you, both publicly and without remorse.

How #5 even makes the top 10 of potential responses to my question is simply bizarre.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 22, 2018)

criscokkat said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



A very good question, and the answer is yes.....

But it’s even better..... do you know why you can’t see EF-S lenses with a FF camera? Yes, the vignetting would be terrible, but the big reason is that the FF mirror will not clear the back of the lens, because (just as you suggested) the lens protrudes into the camera body.


----------



## greger (Mar 22, 2018)

I bought the 70-200 f4 IS USM lens in November 2008 during a $200.00 instant Canon Rebate. I have not seen it priced that low since. I took a picture of an Osprey flying over a river and when I got home and zoomed in on the computer I saw it had a fish in it’s talons. Both the Osprey and fish were in perfect focus. It was tack sharp with the 1.4 Extender mounted to it. Not so good with the 2x Extender using manual focus. If Canon can improve this lens it will be perfect.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 22, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Oh for the days we could read reviews declaring, "A significant improvement, in all aspects, to an already fine lens."



Disagree somewhat. (I actually feel that way much more about sensors these days.)

The L lens sequels (Mk II, III, etc.) of the last 5 years have been largely a clear step forward:

100-400L II = that's a fine upgrade over the Mk I
35L II = stellar, that one's a mic drop accomplishment
16-35 f/2.8L III = much sharper than the II version, though 16mm / 2.8 vignetting was a step backwards
24-105 f/4L IS II = a big disappointment in comparison to the others above (it's fine, but it's not a meaningful step forward over the original)

And over that same time period, let's not forget some not-technically-sequels that are pretty damn awesome: 200-400L, 85 f/1.4L IS, 16-35 f/4L IS, 24-70 f/4L IS, 11-24L, all the tilt-shifts, etc.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 22, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Oh for the days we could read reviews declaring, "A significant improvement, in all aspects, to an already fine lens."
> ...



When I started shooting, lenses were typically 7 elements in 5 groups..... double that now.

Todays zooms (the non-L ones) are as good as primes were back then.....

The L zooms of today assassinate the old primes....

And the series II or III primes of today are unbelievable!

Every new L lens that comes out seems to push the boundaries somewhere. We are riding high on 50+ years of steady improvements. Those days are not over yet.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 23, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> [snip]
> 
> When I started shooting, lenses were typically 7 elements in 5 groups..... double that now.
> 
> ...


100% confirm that. 
Coming from the 70ies and 80ies photog, I started playing the vintage game with adaptor for just two tries and then stopped it. The old lenses are small, but the IQ... meh. I didn't have access to old L or similar glass, these were the consumer lenses. They made good pictures, but compared to today (consumer zooms and primes) they feel like using bottle bottoms for lenses.


----------



## snoke (Mar 26, 2018)

BillB said:


> Still, I wonder why Canon thinks it should put out a new 70-200 f4 and a new 70-200 f2.8.



Noisey IS cannot use for video.

Look at MTF, Tamron 70-210 better.


----------



## Andreos (Mar 27, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Andreos said:
> 
> 
> > I will also mention, the IS version of the lens is not as sharp as the older non-IS version! Not by a lot; but more than a little. So, there is room for improvement, even in sharpness.
> ...



Yes, actually.

I proved to myself (when I owned both lenses) that the non-IS version is somewhat sharper than the new. 

I don't have to prove it to you.


----------



## Andreos (Mar 27, 2018)

LeeBabySimms said:


> Andreos said:
> 
> 
> > LeeBabySimms said:
> ...



I only shoot 100 (sellable) landscapes a year. But, yes, there are flare problems with the lens that need improvements. Maybe something you don't see doing wedding photography! But I surely do.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 27, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> criscokkat said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



In actuality only a few of the ultrawide EF-S lenses take advantage of the possibility. Most of the EF-S lens lineup do not protrude any further into the mirror box than EF lenses safely can. As far as I am aware, no third party APS-C only lenses for Canon EF do it.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 27, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> In actuality only a few of the ultrawide EF-S lenses take advantage of the possibility. Most of the EF-S lens lineup do not protrude any further into the mirror box than EF lenses safely can. As far as I am aware, no third party APS-C only lenses for Canon EF do it.



I seem to recall some folks put the Sigma EF-S mount 18-35 f/1.8 onto a FF camera and got usable results from it. The corners are mess on the wide end, of course, but otherwise it was serviceable. No idea if the AF works, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0IESO-mrQ4

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 28, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> In actuality only a few of the ultrawide EF-S lenses take advantage of the possibility. Most of the EF-S lens lineup do not protrude any further into the mirror box than EF lenses safely can. As far as I am aware, no third party APS-C only lenses for Canon EF do it.



exactly! And even with EF-S 10-22 and EF-S 10-18 the rear lens element itself does not move behind flange plane ... only the protective rubber/plastics around it will protrude a bit inside mirror box ... so FF mirror would hit it at ultra-wide settings.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 4, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Michael Clark said:
> 
> 
> > In actuality only a few of the ultrawide EF-S lenses take advantage of the possibility. Most of the EF-S lens lineup do not protrude any further into the mirror box than EF lenses safely can. As far as I am aware, no third party APS-C only lenses for Canon EF do it.
> ...



When manipulated to the right focal length and focus distance, rear elements of some EF-S lenses do protrude past the flange. I don't have a list of which ones handy at the moment, but several years ago .I played around with several to see which ones would.


----------



## padam (Apr 5, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Disagree somewhat. (I actually feel that way much more about sensors these days.)
> 
> 24-105 f/4L IS II = a big disappointment in comparison to the others above (it's fine, but it's not a meaningful step forward over the original)
> 
> - A


That's true, but to be fair, it also costs almost the same as the old one (new) - unlike the others, which became much more expensive as well.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 11, 2018)

Andreos said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Andreos said:
> ...



So basically you're building your entire assessment of the relative merits of the EF 70-200mm f/4 L vs. EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS on a singular copy of each lens and how they perform on a very limited (one?) number of bodies?

What could possibly be wrong with any conclusions you drew?


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 11, 2018)

nothing wrong with our firsthand observations. 70-200/4 L IS does not only offer image stabilization but also slightly better sharpness than the older 70-200/4 non IS - which is no slouch either.

if you dont believe or personal findings you'll have to google for reviews to get confirmation of the fact. 

you may want to start at TDP and Bryan Carnahan's findings:



> The non-IS 70-200 f/4 is similarly sharp in the center over the mid and long portion of the focal length range, but the f/4 IS is sharper in the center through 85mm or so and is noticeably sharper in the corners over most of the focal length range. These two lenses are most similar at 200mm. These differences are reduced as the subject distance is increased (the non-IS lens performs more similarly to the IS lens).


----------



## Canondude2018 (Apr 23, 2018)

April is almost over and still no sign of this lens. What happened?


----------

