# A New EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III Still a Possibility in 2018? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 20, 2018)

```
We reported a couple of months ago that a <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/another-canon-ef-70-200mm-f-2-8l-is-iii-mention-cr2/">new EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III was coming</a>, and then we <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/a-new-ef-70-200mm-is-coming-in-2018-cr3/">scaled that back to just a new EF 70-200mm</a> was coming as we couldn’t confirm the speed of the lens. Last week it was confirmed from outside sources that an <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/another-canon-ef-70-200mm-f-2-8l-is-iii-mention-cr2/">EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II</a> was indeed on the horizon.</p>
<p>After all of that, we still believe that a new EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III is still a possibility in 2018. We’ve again received a few mentions that such a lens is currently in testing and that it is scheduled to be announced in 2018.</p>
<p>We haven’t confirmed this yet, but we hope to do so soon.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Foxdude (Mar 20, 2018)

How can you improve the mark 2 version? I don't have it, but I have understood it is nothing less than stellar piece of glass.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 20, 2018)

Foxdude said:


> How can you improve the mark 2 version?


If you compare it with the latest Nikon model you might find some advantages on the Nikon side - for a much higher price though.

If you now see the 24-70 and 70-200/2.8 zooms as the workhorse lenses for photo and sports journalists you might consider that it is a pride and important image point for a brand to have the top notch / best in class here. 
Also latest AF, IS and of course cost saving design or production methods could be a reason.

Nikon took over with the last version, so it's time for Canon to take the lead again. 
Maybe also on the sales price - which would be disappointing for users.

I can understand your opinion. I suppose I wouldn't see any difference in real life.
But you know: Some have a strong GAS if something is better - even just by a little bit.


----------



## amorse (Mar 20, 2018)

Foxdude said:


> How can you improve the mark 2 version? I don't have it, but I have understood it is nothing less than stellar piece of glass.



I have the Mark 2 and I love it, but as sharp as it is there is always room for improvement as camera bodies continue to increase resolution. If a 5D sR II is on the way with potentially even more resolution, there would likely be room for improvement in sharpness. With that said, on my 5D IV I have no complaints of soft images from that lens.

I also wonder if this could be an activity in just reducing the production costs for the lens (i.e. 24-105 f/4L ii) without considerable performance improvements.


----------



## criscokkat (Mar 20, 2018)

I know there are some on here who are absolutely convinced that EF-M will be the lens type for full frame mirrorless. But I still think they will keep the ef standard and are updating these IS lenses in the same way they released updates for the EF-M lenses for M50 IS compatibility. They need updatable firmware on the lens so that it can be updated to work with the internal sensor IS on mirrorless bodies. 

Eventually there might be a EF-M standard - but releasing a mirrorless body that instantly gives access to every EF L lens out there without an adapter is too good of an opportunity. 

And going out on a limb here - the added room without all of the removed hardware in the body there's also the opportunity to go to a larger than 35mm sensor while keeping compatibility with 95% of the current lens lineup - and that would not be something that Sony could match. That's a serious marketing opportunity. It would probably be a r type specialty camera, but having it in the lineup is a big marketing advantage. How many prosumers buy better lenses than they might normally purchase with the thought "I could use this with 'x' if I ever decide to upgrade". Knowing that you have an opportunity to improve your lens purchase down the road sells a decent amount of more expensive lenses to 80d prosumers, and more importantly it cements the perception of premium in people's eyes, even if that extended sensor camera is only 2% of sales.


----------



## NancyP (Mar 20, 2018)

I would expect that the Canon engineers might be working on a really good EF-M to EF adapter. Mirrorless offers some lens design opportunities not available to SLR lens designers, due to the shorter lens flange to sensor distance of mirrorless design. It might be a pity to give that up. However, a good adapter that would bring the lens flange to sensor distance to standard EF (44.5 mm, I think) would allow the owner to use both EF-M design lenses (without adapter) and old EF lenses (with adapter). Best of both worlds.


----------



## Talys (Mar 20, 2018)

amorse said:


> Foxdude said:
> 
> 
> > How can you improve the mark 2 version? I don't have it, but I have understood it is nothing less than stellar piece of glass.
> ...



Me too. 

I have both the 70-200/2.8ISII and the 100-400LII, and you can see the improvements in the newer lens.

Ergonomically, the 70-200 could use a better tripod collar (the 100-400LII is outstanding). And there is the paint and hood 

For performance, the 70-200 could be very slightly sharper at telephoto, and CA could be cut the tiniest of bits in the corners. It could use the newer IS, and it would be great if it got mode 3. 

On the other hand the current 70-200 is, by a long shot, the best first party lens in value, it's superb and reliable, and frankly, all that tiny room for improvement makes no difference in real photos. No to say Canon shouldn't do an update, but I don't really see myself running out to buy one, even though I use this lens a lot.


----------



## Talys (Mar 20, 2018)

NancyP said:


> I would expect that the Canon engineers might be working on a really good EF-M to EF adapter. Mirrorless offers some lens design opportunities not available to SLR lens designers, due to the shorter lens flange to sensor distance of mirrorless design. It might be a pity to give that up. However, a good adapter that would bring the lens flange to sensor distance to standard EF (44.5 mm, I think) would allow the owner to use both EF-M design lenses (without adapter) and old EF lenses (with adapter). Best of both worlds.



Just keep that STM focus by wire stuff out of my high end glass.


----------



## wsmith96 (Mar 20, 2018)

amorse said:


> I also wonder if this could be an activity in just reducing the production costs for the lens (i.e. 24-105 f/4L ii) without considerable performance improvements.


 
The new TS lenses that came out are showing to be very sharp on 5DSR's. I'm thinking that Canon will improve it's optics here, not that the 70-200mkii is any slouch, to exploit their dense sensors.


----------



## jhpeterson (Mar 20, 2018)

Foxdude said:


> How can you improve the mark 2 version? I don't have it, but I have understood it is nothing less than stellar piece of glass.


Optically, there's certainly little that can be done, except perhaps to improve sharpness and falloff in the corners.
But, perhaps it would benefit from more rugged construction. The barrel on mine sometimes loosens. A little attention paid here would make a nice upgrade.


----------



## Cochese (Mar 20, 2018)

Foxdude said:


> How can you improve the mark 2 version? I don't have it, but I have understood it is nothing less than stellar piece of glass.


----------



## Cochese (Mar 20, 2018)

Foxdude said:


> How can you improve the mark 2 version? I don't have it, but I have understood it is nothing less than stellar piece of glass.



Better IS, less distortion, less CR, Perhaps better Light transmission, Lighter weight, shorter length, potentially upgraded focus motor, macro capability, etc... There is a lot they could do to make the lens better. Whether it is necessary or not can be debated. But it's not perfect. 
Hell, two of the copies I've used/ owned have an issue when paired with the t3i where it blurs the image out past the 125mm mark. Like the group that handles IS doesn't sit still or perhaps the camera can't transmit enough power to it to keep the IS group from shifting. Though, if you shake the lens a little, it corrects itself. 


Never experiencd that with any other body with this lens. Not the 7D or the 5dMIII/ 5DMIV. So I dunno. Must be the camera. 


Anybody else have any experience with that?


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 20, 2018)

Foxdude said:


> How can you improve the mark 2 version? I don't have it, but I have understood it is nothing less than stellar piece of glass.



Easy, revert to the MkI falloff and blur rendition. The MkII is so bad I never saw the utility in 'upgrading' to a lens that is far worse at rendering a scene empathetically. The MkII is great for sports etc where the emphasis is on subject sharpness and speed to acquire focus, but it was always too jarring in the background elements to do a better job then the MkI for portraits and event work in my personal opinion.

Sharpness is s severely over rated aspect of lens performance.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Mar 20, 2018)

What if they added a built-in 1.4x extender? Of course it would cost 3 or 4 grand, but people would still buy it!


----------



## ethanz (Mar 20, 2018)

Maximilian said:


> Foxdude said:
> 
> 
> > How can you improve the mark 2 version?
> ...



Are you sure about that with the Nikon? https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1089&CameraComp=1052&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Its a nice lens, but way over priced for how it performs compared to the Canon. Of course that test is just one dimension, it may be nicer in other areas. Have you seen it perform better in these other areas?


----------



## mppix (Mar 20, 2018)

20% lighter and 20% less min focus distance (at 20% higher price). Pretty please


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 20, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Foxdude said:
> 
> 
> > How can you improve the mark 2 version? I don't have it, but I have understood it is nothing less than stellar piece of glass.
> ...



I agree. While I love a razor sharp lens for some things, there can be too much sometimes. I've thrown away a lot of photos because when I peep them they aren't pin sharp. I think that was a mistake on my part so I've pulled back on the reins a little bit. My wife is 54 and is not a fan of ultra-sharp photos of herself. A little unsharpness that doesn't have to be added in post is nice in a situation like that. It's one of the reasons I've been experimenting with vintage glass. Also, proper composition covers a multitude of sins.


----------



## gmon750 (Mar 20, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Foxdude said:
> ...



Interesting. I would rather have a razor-sharp photo with all the detail possible, and remove it in post-processing, than to have a blurry/soft image to begin and be unable to bring out lost detail.


----------



## gmon750 (Mar 20, 2018)

As an very happy owner of the current f/2.8 70-200, the only thing I can think of to improve an already stellar lens is to make it lighter. That's all. 

The current lens is a thing of beauty. I love the sharpness and the "L" quality construction. Sure, it's heavy but it's built like a tank and meant to take a beating. I just love it and always enjoy any opportunity to use it.


----------



## Talys (Mar 20, 2018)

mppix said:


> 20% lighter and 20% less min focus distance (at 20% higher price). Pretty please



Cripes. I'd buy it in a heartbeat if it were 20% less MFD 



gmon750 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



For me, it depends a lot on the subject. If it's portraiture, razor sharp is not important to me. In fact, a little bit of softness on the edges isn't a bad thing at all, and makes the photo look more realistic. If I'm photographing a pet (cats & dogs), it is only important for capturing things like the eyes and the nose. Because of textures in the animal, you'd never know if the lens was razor sharp or not in a lot of places.

However, if I'm photographing birds (so, patio shots with 70-200), sharpness is super important, because some features (like eyes, or beak) are really tiny and crispness really contributes to an impressive photograph; conversely, softness often is mistaken for lack of focus. Chromatic aberration can also really make bird photos less attractive (like a magenta or green halo between a bald eagle's head and the sky). Part of the pickiness is that there are already bazillions of every bird photographed, so we're all trying to take shots that rise above the crowd.

In the extreme, if it's a high resolution product shot that someone's paying for, razor sharp is really important, because if it's not, that's work in post to remove any softness, and sometimes (like a fabric), that is hard or impossible to achieve, because expectation is that when you zoom in, you see the little curlies fibers of wool at the edge, not a blurry edge or a sharp, cleaned-up edge.




gmon750 said:


> As an very happy owner of the current f/2.8 70-200, the only thing I can think of to improve an already stellar lens is to make it lighter. That's all.
> 
> The current lens is a thing of beauty. I love the sharpness and the "L" quality construction. Sure, it's heavy but it's built like a tank and meant to take a beating. I just love it and always enjoy any opportunity to use it.



Yeah, the current lens is just amazing. I remember when it came out, I was just blown away. There are a lot of Canon-esque things that make it amazing, like the overall feel, the excellence of the manual focus ring, how little effort is required to take it from 70-200, and how durable it _feels_.

When I pick up a Canon 70-200, I think I could use it in a war zone. When I pick up the equivalent (but much more expensive) lens by Sony, it feels like delicate electronics.


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 20, 2018)

With the 2020 Tokyo olympics coming up expect Canon to refresh everything that they possibly can that is essential to the sports photog crowd, whether it needs updating or not.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 20, 2018)

ethanz said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Foxdude said:
> ...


Hi ethanz!

See my statement bold above. And I know the TDP results. There I see obvious advantages on the wide end for the Nikon while the Canon seems to win at 200 mm. 

When you believe in uncle Roger and his "Olaf" optical bench 
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/nikon-70-200mm-f2-8e-fl-ed-af-s-vr-mtf-tests/


Roger Cicala said:


> I think the Nikon is clearly a bit better at 200mm. As always, let me emphasize this is ‘lab better.’ Actual photographs with all of the variables that introduce, I doubt the difference at 70mm or 200mm would be of any visible significance


These results fit to the German fotomagazin with similar advantages for the Nikon in lab results over the whole zoom range. 

So in summary of several tests I see the Nikon slightly ahead and maybe Canon feels compelled to act. 



> Its a nice lens, but way over priced


I think you can obviously read the same opinion out of my original post, so ... ?



> Have you seen it perform better in these other areas?


Question answered well enough?


----------



## ethanz (Mar 20, 2018)

Maximilian said:


> > Have you seen it perform better in these other areas?
> 
> 
> Question answered well enough?



Yes, well enough. Thanks for the reply with information.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 20, 2018)

gmon750 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



A thing for every place and a place for every thing.  There are probably 100 different opinions on this. I love my sharp lenses. I love my not so sharp lenses. I love the ones that faithfully render colors, and the ones that don't. I love the ones where flair is very well controlled, and others that flair like mad. They each have their place, and purpose, for what I do. ;D


----------



## ethanz (Mar 20, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> A thing for every place and a place for every thing.  There are probably 100 different opinions on this. I love my sharp lenses. I love my not so sharp lenses. I love the ones that faithfully render colors, and the ones that don't. I love the ones where flair is very well controlled, and others that flair like mad. They each have their place, and purpose, for what I do. ;D



So what you are really saying is you love spending money and making Canon wealthier.


----------



## filipe.ngra (Mar 20, 2018)

I will not upgrade! I will not upgrade! I will not upgrade! I will not upgrade!


----------



## ScottyP (Mar 20, 2018)

Hard to believe they would upgrade a lens as much-loved as this one before upgrading their much less universally satisfying 50mm offerings.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 20, 2018)

ethanz said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > A thing for every place and a place for every thing.  There are probably 100 different opinions on this. I love my sharp lenses. I love my not so sharp lenses. I love the ones that faithfully render colors, and the ones that don't. I love the ones where flair is very well controlled, and others that flair like mad. They each have their place, and purpose, for what I do. ;D
> ...



Yup!


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 20, 2018)

It won't actually be a III. It will be an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L S with a native Sony mount.  Canon is going to kill off Metabones and Sony's lens business at the same time.


----------



## kaptainkatsu (Mar 20, 2018)

I'd want to see a shorter MFD and Mode 3 IS. 

However I am very pleased with my MKII and doubt I would upgrade. I have a few other things to purchase prior to upgrading an already superb lens.


----------



## Talys (Mar 20, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> It won't actually be a III. It will be an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L S with a native Sony mount.  Canon is going to kill off Metabones.



LOL

;D 8) ;D


----------



## gsw1 (Mar 21, 2018)

the model II is awesome, what else to expect in the III?


----------



## RGF (Mar 21, 2018)

gsw1 said:


> the model II is awesome, what else to expect in the III?



Higher price tag - like the 24-105.

I agree that the 70-200F2.8 IS II is a great lens. The can improve it a bit, but not sure if they can make substantial improvement.


----------



## Talys (Mar 21, 2018)

RGF said:


> gsw1 said:
> 
> 
> > the model II is awesome, what else to expect in the III?
> ...



To me, the EF 70-200L/2.8 IS II is representative of the entire high-end Canon DSLR field.

It's beautifully engineered, one of the most reliable performers on the field, and always works flawlessly -- but it shows a little bit of signs of age, in an era where Internet gurus all want things rapidly refreshed.

From a practical perspective, anyone with a 5DMk3 and 70-200L/2.8 IS II can absolutely take absolutely stunning professional-quality photographs for that focal range, competitive with any camera and lens combination made more recently. The incremental difference going to any of the flagships (including 5DMk4) and any newer 70-200 is going to be so small that nobody looking at the actual photograph will see it or care.

But that's a very old kit based on release dates, and unhelpful for reviewers that are looking for page views and for "buy your shiny new gear through this link".


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 22, 2018)

I would like to see Canon incorporate DO technology into more lenses. Hopefully, at some point, it'd drop the green ring and it would be an "ordinary" design tradeoff like any other.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 25, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> I would like to see Canon incorporate DO technology into more lenses. Hopefully, at some point, it'd drop the green ring and it would be an "ordinary" design tradeoff like any other.



I think DO lenses are where the size /weight savings will be for those who want it, not in a scrawny mirrorless camera. The mirrorless cameras will be the same body shape, etc. as what we have now.


----------



## Talys (Mar 25, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to see Canon incorporate DO technology into more lenses. Hopefully, at some point, it'd drop the green ring and it would be an "ordinary" design tradeoff like any other.
> ...



I have always wondered if DO is something that could be made more inexpensively, or if it's one of these technologies that will always be expensive to implement.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 25, 2018)

Talys said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



From Canon News:

"_Japan Patent Application 2018-45238 
Diffractive Optics is still ongoing research in Canon, and there's several patent applications dealing with DO elements this week.
This first patent application is looking to improve the yield of manufacturing the diffractive optical element.
Any improvement in the yields and efficiency in manufacturing may lead us to see DO elements in cheaper lenses.


Japan Patent Application 2018-044063
More Diffractive Optics goodness. This patent application looks at a different chemical composition for the DO element to improve the ease of creating the diffractive element in a mold."
_

They are working on it. Good tech for all lenses, particularly very large and very small lenses...


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 27, 2018)

Cochese said:


> Foxdude said:
> 
> 
> > How can you improve the mark 2 version? I don't have it, but I have understood it is nothing less than stellar piece of glass.
> ...



Several years ago Canon released firmware updates for several bodies to correct that glitch at 125mm.


----------



## RGF (Mar 30, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> I would like to see Canon incorporate DO technology into more lenses. Hopefully, at some point, it'd drop the green ring and it would be an "ordinary" design tradeoff like any other.



Bring on the 600 F4 DO. Hold it, that is delays for another 1-2 years (perhaps more).

how about a 600 F4 with a drop in 1.4 like the 200-400?


----------



## Talys (Mar 30, 2018)

RGF said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to see Canon incorporate DO technology into more lenses. Hopefully, at some point, it'd drop the green ring and it would be an "ordinary" design tradeoff like any other.
> ...



It would be, like, $17,000


----------



## BillB (Mar 30, 2018)

Talys said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > gsw1 said:
> ...



I wonder how many 70-200 F2.8II owners Canon is going to convince to upgrade.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 30, 2018)

BillB said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



Probably not much...at some time, it just becomes right to do an upgrade.... it was a great selling lens and will probably continue to be one. The market remains the same, those who want a faster 70-200..... those who already have one are not part of the target audience, but I am sure that there will be some who upgrade....


----------



## ethanz (Mar 31, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



You may get some version I owners to update. I know people that still rock that lens.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 31, 2018)

If canon is getting ready for that eventual 120 MP sensor, the first thing to do is update their main lenses. They do plan things out and have at least their main lenses ready before a big jump in MP.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 31, 2018)

ethanz said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > BillB said:
> ...



1,357 will upgrade from version II.


----------



## Alexlin (Apr 1, 2018)

Hope the possibility is a real possibility!

Not another 70-200mm


----------

