# Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II in Development [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 26, 2017)

```
We’re told that Canon is actively developing a new EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II and it will be incorporate new processes and technologies.</p>
<p>Some specifics were given, but we are unable to post them at this time. I can say that the source claimed the new lens would be the most advanced zoom lens in the Canon lineup.</p>
<p>This lens is slated to come before an update to its f/2.8 bigger brother. Though we have no release date and good sources are saying it’s likely in development, but there’s no evidence we’ll see the lens in 2017.</p>
<p>There are a few other rumoured lenses we’re trying to get more information on and will pass them on as we hear more.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 26, 2017)

Sweet 

The current one is already an excellent lens (although for a travel zoom I opted for the 70-300L instead, in large part becuase of the shorter collapsed length).


----------



## Jopa (Jan 26, 2017)

I thought I saw a rumor here about the "bigger brother" being in development and coming in 2017?


----------



## BeenThere (Jan 26, 2017)

Maybe it will be a DO zoom. Smaller, lighter, better IQ?


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 26, 2017)

Sounds nice. The existing lens is one of the best zooms you can get at a very reasonable price. Great Canon continues to try to improve on it.


----------



## slclick (Jan 26, 2017)

While some will find a way, I personally can't see any reason to complain about this possibility. I might even spring for one!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 26, 2017)

Maiaibing said:


> Sounds nice. The existing lens is one of the best zooms you can get at a very reasonable price. Great Canon continues to try to improve on it.



It's a sweet lens, really light, not too big, sharp, great contrast, great IS, fast AF and it's not too expensive. It's hard not to like it. Pop a 1.4x tc on it and it's every bit as good as 70-300 LIS, although not as compact. It was a shame to sell my copy and I wish I still had one, but one can't own every lens!


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 26, 2017)

Jopa said:


> I thought I saw a rumor here about the "bigger brother" being in development and coming in 2017?



You did here.

Sometimes people will assume the speed of a lens when sending in lens information. It happened with the 11-24 for example.

If you recall when the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS was released, it was a superior lens optically to the f/2.8L IS version 1, except at f/2.8 .


----------



## H. Jones (Jan 26, 2017)

Most advanced zoom in Canon's line up? Does that include the 200-400?

I'm interested to know that that means, I'm going to assume it will have the top LCD like the new 70-300, probably some new IS system, some real nice IQ, and maybe a new build.

It's tough to imagine what brand new tech could come with the replacement to a zoom that's already so great--but then again--that's why Canon makes lenses and I just make pictures.


----------



## vscd (Jan 26, 2017)

Why not make a new black one? The white lenses are very noticeable and the f4 lens is not that large to need a white threatment. Neither for heat nor for "goodloiking" 

I like the black 80-200 1.8L way more on weddings than the white pipes...


----------



## Handrews (Jan 26, 2017)

As mentioned above, the current version is an exceptional lens already.
I wonder why Canon insists on improving very good lenses (aka 70-200 F4 & F2.8) while releasing a 24-105L which is not optically superior to current version.
But maybe this is another topic..


----------



## Jopa (Jan 26, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > I thought I saw a rumor here about the "bigger brother" being in development and coming in 2017?
> ...



I see. Thank you for the clarification!


----------



## vscd (Jan 26, 2017)

Maybe the focallength of 24-105 is very difficult to optimizie. it's nealry 5x and it goes from very wide to a quite long focallenght. 70-200 is nuts with <3x


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 26, 2017)

Ooh, if it comes out before the f/2.8L IS III, it'll be just like the 16-35 situation:

1) The 16-35 f/4L IS comes out run circles around prior UWA zooms Canon has offered to date. Finally, a very sharp UWA lens is available.
2) People buy the reasonably priced 16-35 f/4L IS in a hurry.
3) The 16-35 f/2.8L III comes out. Turns out it's even better than the f/4L IS (for some needs).
4) People freak out a little. Some bought the 16-35 f/4L IS when they really needed f/2.8 but gave up on an f/2.8 replacement happening anytime soon. Others want to future proof their lineup and go f/2.8 just because they might start shooting sports or astro sometime down the road. In either case, Canon + GAS may end up seeing folks buy both lenses.

Now replace every 16-35 reference above with 70-200. They might try to do this again.

The only difference is that this is that 70-200s are the beating heart of Canon's lens dominance. Disregarding the safari-money 200-400, Canon's various 70-200s are the strongest and deepest part of Canon's zoom lens lineup. Surpassing the current offerings will be no small feat.

- A


----------



## Handrews (Jan 26, 2017)

vscd said:


> Maybe the focallength of 24-105 is very difficult to optimizie. it's nealry 5x and it goes from very wide to a quite long focallenght. 70-200 is nuts with <3x



You're probably right, it makes sense


----------



## H. Jones (Jan 26, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Ooh, if it comes out before the f/2.8L IS III, it'll be just like the 16-35 situation:
> 
> 1) The 16-35 f/4L IS comes out run circles around prior UWA zooms Canon has offered to date. Finally, a very sharp UWA lens is available.
> 2) People buy the reasonably priced 16-35 f/4L IS in a hurry.
> ...



This is kinda what happened to me with the 16-35mm F/4L IS, since I wanted f/2.8 but opted for higher image quality. Still considering if I'll swap the F/4L IS for the F/2.8L III, but right now it's not too big a priority.

In my opinion I think the current 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is still such a stunning lens that I don't really see that happening unless the new F/4L IS II is from another planet. 

The problem with the 16-35mm F/2.8L II was that it was extremely lacking IQ-wise, so there was a lot of people willing to sacrifice F/2.8 for F/4 thanks to the IQ. I can't say the same about the 70-200mm F/2.8L IS II because it's excellent even on a 5DS, though the majority of the users of it will be around 20-30 megapixels anyway between the 7D2, 5D IV, and 1DX2.

But then again, I'm a journalist that could hardly do my job without an f/2.8L 70-200, so who am I kidding! While working I see a lot more people with the ancient 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS than I do with the 70-200mm f/4L IS. Some even still use their 80-200 f/2.8 for remote cameras.


----------



## ethanz (Jan 26, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Ooh, if it comes out before the f/2.8L IS III, it'll be just like the 16-35 situation:
> 
> 1) The 16-35 f/4L IS comes out run circles around prior UWA zooms Canon has offered to date. Finally, a very sharp UWA lens is available.
> 2) People buy the reasonably priced 16-35 f/4L IS in a hurry.
> ...




Yeah, start out updating the lesser 70-200 lenses first. Then when they have the new methods ironed out, update the 70-200 2.8 and charge $3,000 this time. I've had my 2.8 since it came out years ago and it still seems new to me. Not sure I would upgrade.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 26, 2017)

I have to wonder if they aren't going to start putting DO in their zooms.

At least the non-telescoping 70-200 design could benefit from chopping an inch or two off.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 26, 2017)

vscd said:


> Why not make a new black one? The white lenses are very noticeable and the f4 lens is not that large to need a white threatment. Neither for heat nor for "goodloiking"
> 
> I like the black 80-200 1.8L way more on weddings than the white pipes...



The functional point of a white lens is mainly to reduce thermal stress on fluorite elements. The current 70-200/4L IS has a fluorite element, and assuming it's successor does, it should be white. The old 80-200/2.8L has no fluorite elements.

There are some Canon telezoom lenses, like the 70-300L, that are white but do not have a fluorite element - that's for 'looks'. But AFAIK, there aren't any current Canon lenses with fluorite elements that are not white. 

OTOH, Nikon recently started putting fluorite elements in their lenses (after years of bashing them as prone to cracking), and their lenses are black.


----------



## Act444 (Jan 26, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Ooh, if it comes out before the f/2.8L IS III, it'll be just like the 16-35 situation:
> 
> 1) The 16-35 f/4L IS comes out run circles around prior UWA zooms Canon has offered to date. Finally, a very sharp UWA lens is available.
> 2) People buy the reasonably priced 16-35 f/4L IS in a hurry.
> ...



70-200 to me is different though than 16-35. In the 70-200 range I actually _NEED_ f2.8, no way around it. F4 just won't cut it - I often need to stop action in low light. Sometimes even 2.8 can be restrictive...

For 16-35, the decision is much more nuanced...for scenes, f4 seems to get by and I'm often shooting narrower than that anyway. There are SOME instances where 2.8 would be better, but not sure if it's worth giving up IS for


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 26, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Ooh, if it comes out before the f/2.8L IS III, it'll be just like the 16-35 situation:
> 
> 1) The 16-35 f/4L IS comes out run circles around prior UWA zooms Canon has offered to date. Finally, a very sharp UWA lens is available.
> 2) People buy the reasonably priced 16-35 f/4L IS in a hurry.
> ...



I don't think it's a cynical marketing decision, I think it's far easier to build and design an f4 zoom lens than an up scaled f2.8. So it makes sense to use the f4 development to get the technology right and then focus on equipping that tech to a new f2.8 design, spending your limited resources in getting the optics and build right.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 26, 2017)

H. Jones said:


> In my opinion I think the current 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is still such a stunning lens that I don't really see that happening unless the new F/4L IS II is from another planet.
> 
> The problem with the 16-35mm F/2.8L II was that it was extremely lacking IQ-wise, so there was a lot of people willing to sacrifice F/2.8 for F/4 thanks to the IQ. I can't say the same about the 70-200mm F/2.8L IS II because it's excellent even on a 5DS, though the majority of the users of it will be around 20-30 megapixels anyway between the 7D2, 5D IV, and 1DX2.



Agree, of course. Again, this is Canon's wheelhouse -- I can't recall the last EF something-200 that was not dynamite.

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is both optically stellar _and everyone already seems to own it_ (myself included). So I will 100% skip the 70-200 f/4L IS II and very skeptically await Canon to blow my mind with the new f/2.8.

Going out on a very short limb with a prediction here, it will get sharper but I won't see much of a sharpness improvement on my 22 MP 5D3, and the AF can't get much faster than it already is. So for me, the only upside would be a lighter weight, some 50 MP future-proofing and a lens hood with a CPL window. Such small improvements won't be worth the $2,500-3,000 Canon will charge for it (...for me and my circumstance). I'd likely wait for the day that I need a high res rig, rent the new one and shoot it alongside my current one, and make a decision.

- A


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 26, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Ooh, if it comes out before the f/2.8L IS III, it'll be just like the 16-35 situation:
> 
> 1) The 16-35 f/4L IS comes out run circles around prior UWA zooms Canon has offered to date. Finally, a very sharp UWA lens is available.
> 2) People buy the reasonably priced 16-35 f/4L IS in a hurry.
> ...



Except that the 70-200s are much better in IQ than the 16-35 f/2.8 II and the 17-40 are. The newer 70-200s will be better but the difference between generations will be smaller than the UWA zoom range. That and the fact that f/2.8 and f/4 70-200 zooms already have IS options. The penalty is cost and size and does not involve trading max aperture for IS like the 16-35 f/2.8 III and 16-35 f/4 IS.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 26, 2017)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I don't think it's a cynical marketing decision, I think it's far easier to build and design an f4 zoom lens than an up scaled f2.8. So it makes sense to use the f4 development to get the technology right and then focus on equipping that tech to a new f2.8 design, spending your limited resources in getting the optics and build right.



Sure. It's not solely a marketing move to sell more glass. 

Also, with everyone so obsessed with the 70-200 f/2.8 (I see it at virtually every wedding, it's on the 2nd body of every sideline sports photographer, everyone in this forum seems to own one, etc.), breathing new life into the f/4 makes sense: the f/2.8 is selling itself quite nicely right now.

I see the f/4 as being perfect for...


The IQ-obsessed traveler who wants to keep weight down but won't buy a 70-300L. (This is how you get a someone to buy a 2nd lens at the same FL range.)


Someone who needs a short tele for landscape work -- again, f/4 keeps the weight down if you need to hike to the location, and you'll largely be shooting around f/8 anyway.


Parents with a kid in sports / music / drama that might have either already made the plunge to FF or are strongly contemplating it. A 70-200 would give them reach, IS for video, and the peace of mind that the lens will still work in a FF future if their current rig is crop. (I recently offered up this sales pitch to my brother -- who is 100% in this demographic -- but he opted for an EF-S 55-250 instead due to the nontrivial price differential).

You can do so much more with a 70-200 f/4, of course. I recently saw an advert for a Peter Hurley workshop where he was shooting portraiture with it, for instance. The applications are wide, but above is a high-opportunity-target sort of list, IMHO.

- A


----------



## mnclayshooter (Jan 26, 2017)

ARGHH!!! This is my nemesis... IF you all want to know when Canon will announce (or we find a rumor of) a new lens, just wait until I purchase a lens... that will trigger it. 

I bought a 100-400 about 3 weeks before the new 100-400 was announced
I bought a 16-35 about 2 weeks before the new 16-35 was announced
I literally just bought (should be arriving today if I'm lucky) 70-200

Any takers? I am in the market for a new 300... so be on the lookout... we'll get a new one soon. 

hahahah. Its still better to have the gear now and wish you could upgrade it, than to have no gear and hope that a better version will come out soon.


----------



## rfdesigner (Jan 26, 2017)

and there was I wondering if I can scrape together enough for the 70-200 f4 IS

from what I can gather the lens is very nearly perfect.. which then begs the question, how do you improve on perfection?

lighter.. well that works, especially for the f4.

smaller.. yup good move, I'll take that.

sharper.. really?.. this is an action lens, sharper = faster shutter speeds = more light needed = I want f2.8

but then 90% of my shots have at least one person in them, and there's a limit to the pixels one needs for that.

One thought though, sure the 70-200s are great lenses, but I keep skipping between my 50 & 100mm occasionally wanting a bit more length but using every bit of my 50mm, my 28 spends most of it's life in my bag. I would love a 50-150mm zoom, just so long as it would take a 1.4x.


----------



## vscd (Jan 26, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > Why not make a new black one? The white lenses are very noticeable and the f4 lens is not that large to need a white threatment. Neither for heat nor for "goodloiking"
> ...



It may be true for the fluorite, although fluorite is not neccesary for good optics. The 70-200L IS II is way better than the 70-200L IS 4 without having fluorite, the 80-200L, too. I just meant that the white color is very eye-catching and sometimes not very nice to carry around "undercover". 

Old fluorite lenses are black, but yes, they are not common anymore (f.e. EF100-300mm f/5.6L or EF50-200mm f/3.5-4.5L). By the way, Nikon was true for breaking fluorite glass... for example that's a reason why they use Nikon in space, because they don't break at launch.

Greetings.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 26, 2017)

vscd said:


> It may be true for the fluorite, although fluorite is not neccesary for good optics. *The 70-200L IS II is way better than the 70-200L IS 4 without having fluorite,* the 80-200L, too. I just meant that the white color is very eye-catching and sometimes not very nice to carry around "undercover".



Well, _my_ 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II has a fluorite element, just as Canon designed it. I'm sorry to hear that your copy of the lens is optically incomplete, but glad that it has good IQ in spite of its missing element. You should probably call Canon and ask them to please give you the chunk of CaF2 they left out. 







As for your "undercover" problem, there's always neoprene...DIY or buy from LensCoat.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 26, 2017)

vscd said:


> By the way, Nikon was true for breaking fluorite glass... for example that's a reason why they use Nikon in space, because they don't break at launch.



That is an old wives tale with no basis in truth. It is easily disproved by the fact that NASA have several Canon lenses with fluorite elements in orbit!

Further, the notion that NASA couldn't launch anything less fragile than a camera lens into orbit is, frankly, comical.

The real reason NASA use Nikon for stills images in space is that they have a long history of working together and Nikon were prepared to do the very extensive work needed to manufacture cameras to the detailed specs NASA required. But NASA use Canon C Line products for video images in the Space Station, those lenses have fluorite elements.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 26, 2017)

Seems like *vscd* isn't having a very good day. Then again, maybe he's just keeping up with current events.


----------



## vscd (Jan 26, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Seems like *vscd* isn't having a very good day. Then again, maybe he's just keeping up with current events.



I just missed that Canon didn't list the L IS in it's second reincarnation @http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/fluorite_aspherical_and_ud_lenses.do. No need to get impolite. Sorry for that. (I assumed that the 70-200L IS is like the L IS II). This would explain why until the second 2.8L IS no lense came up to the old 80-200L. 8)


----------



## Ladislav (Jan 26, 2017)

Looks like great lenses which already exist get even greater update before new lenses are even introduced  
Yes, I'm talking about 24-70/2.8 L IS.


----------



## slclick (Jan 26, 2017)

I can easily see it being new coatings and more stops/modes of IS. Up to speed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 26, 2017)

slclick said:


> I can easily see it being new coatings and more stops/modes of IS. Up to speed.



But that doesn't seem like enough to make it, "_...the most advanced zoom lens in the Canon lineup._" Then again, if you take the view that 'most advanced' means 'newest', then that could be said of every lens upon release. #marketingspeak


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 26, 2017)

vscd said:


> It may be true for the fluorite, although fluorite is not neccesary for good optics. The 70-200L IS II is way better than the 70-200L IS 4 without having fluorite, the 80-200L, too. I just meant that the white color is very eye-catching and sometimes not very nice to carry around "undercover".



If you want sneaky + reach, you have plenty of options already:


Crop + 55-250
FF + non-L 70-300
FF + the 200m f/2.8L II (the longest black L Canon sells)
FF + 3rd party glass

I'd have a hard look at that 200 f/2.8 L II. Compact, sharp and relatively discreet (for that FL) and a steal at $749 new / $599 refurb. It lacks IS, however.

- A


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 26, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Ooh, if it comes out before the f/2.8L IS III, it'll be just like the 16-35 situation:
> 
> 1) The 16-35 f/4L IS comes out run circles around prior UWA zooms Canon has offered to date. Finally, a very sharp UWA lens is available.
> 2) People buy the reasonably priced 16-35 f/4L IS in a hurry.
> ...



Your assuming everyone needs / wants f2.8. I have the 16-35mm f4L IS USM lens and as I'm using the lens as much as possible at f8-11 for landscape the different is almost unperceivable. I don't have the 70-200mm f4L IS USM lens but I have the non-IS version which mainly gets used on a tripod again for my usage its perfectly sharp & its definitely lightweight. Canon segments its products and at the most popular focal lengths gives multiple choices which is very smart why have more weight if you don't require f2.8 

Their is a issue with the new Canon 16-35mm f2.8L IS USM III lens when using 100mm filter holders because of the design at the front at 16mm it vignettes which necessitates considering larger filters for landscape that larger size is a pain in the a....


----------



## slclick (Jan 26, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > I can easily see it being new coatings and more stops/modes of IS. Up to speed.
> ...



Could be ...BR ll, BR-X (just to please our mirrorless and unhappy friend) 


Then there's the possibility of it being 70-200 f/4L IS ll USM-Nano BR-X+ 1.4TC Macro TS


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 26, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> Your assuming everyone needs / wants f2.8.



Agree. Some of us know what we need, f/2.8 isn't it, and we just move on when the f/2.8 is announced. I am in this boat with you, love my 16-35 f/4L IS and have no need to upgrade presently.

So I agree with you but I am not assuming _everyone_ needs/wants it. I am referring to others in my prior comments -- folks who want the 'best' lens for all-purpose use, folks who want to future proof, folks with GAS, etc.



jeffa4444 said:


> Their is a issue with the new Canon 16-35mm f2.8L IS USM III lens when using 100mm filter holders because of the design at the front at 16mm it vignettes which necessitates considering larger filters for landscape that larger size is a pain in the a....



We all know about the 16mm f/2.8 _lens_ vignetting, but it appears you are talking about mechanical vignetting from 100mm holders. That's news to me -- is this better/worse than the 16-35 f/4L IS? (Which is pretty damn good on this front, but 16mm FF is still 16mm and it is mortal with 100mm filtering.) 

(We're getting OT, so pls msg me privately about the 16-35 f/2.8L III with holder systems. I'd like to read that!)

- A


----------



## NancyP (Jan 26, 2017)

The existing one is lovely. Maybe they are adding the latest IS?


----------



## Sabaki (Jan 26, 2017)

I used to own the f/4.0 version, which I felt was walready excellent but upgraded to the better f/4.0 IS version because of a great deal I got. I absolutely love the lens as it produces excellent images. 

I kinda think the 70-200 range is blessed by some of Canon's best engineering but if I had to nitpick a few things on the f/4 IS L, here goes!

• Quieter IS motor
• Shorter minimum focusing distance (dragonflies!)
• Elimination of slight CA on full frame images
• 9th aperture blade
• Built in 1.4 TC
• Future proofing resolution for 50mp+ bodies

PS the grindy sound of the IS really had me worried the first time I heard it! ;D


----------



## Jopa (Jan 26, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> OTOH, Nikon recently started putting fluorite elements in their lenses (after years of bashing them as prone to cracking), and their lenses are black.



Interesting fact. Does it mean Nikon just assumes their lenses will never overheat?


----------



## goldenhusky (Jan 26, 2017)

mnclayshooter said:


> ARGHH!!! This is my nemesis... IF you all want to know when Canon will announce (or we find a rumor of) a new lens, just wait until I purchase a lens... that will trigger it.
> 
> I bought a 100-400 about 3 weeks before the new 100-400 was announced
> I bought a 16-35 about 2 weeks before the new 16-35 was announced
> ...



was that a 70-200 f/4 or f/2.8. That would make it clear which one Canon will release first


----------



## Cochese (Jan 27, 2017)

"Some specifics were given, but we are unable to post them at this time. I can say that the source claimed the new lens would be the most advanced zoom lens in the Canon lineup."

"Some specifics were given, but we are unable to zoom in on them at this time..."

This is a camera site, get the puns right.


----------



## goldenhusky (Jan 27, 2017)

I wonder why almost all manufactures are stuck with 70-200 why not a 70-300 f/4L or 50-200 f/4L,.... some different focal length. I understand the front element size, overall lens size and weight might go up. The same goes for the f/2.8 why not try to make them f/2. Looking at history 80-200mm f/2.8L was replaced with a 70-200 f/2.8L why not do something like that?


----------



## Agent XE-5 (Jan 27, 2017)

I've owned the original 70-200 f2.8 non-IS for a dozen years now. I needed the speed for shooting a lot in low light, and my highest clean ISO was around 1600. (The 5D Mk I topped out at a noisy 3200.) With ISOs so high these days, I can't imagine why I'd still need an f2.8 lens.


----------



## Alex_M (Jan 27, 2017)

why? for a better and more pronounced bokeh at F2.8 vs F4, for starters?




Agent XE-5 said:


> I've owned the original 70-200 f2.8 non-IS for a dozen years now. I needed the speed for shooting a lot in low light, and my highest clean ISO was around 1600. (The 5D Mk I topped out at a noisy 3200.) With ISOs so high these days, I can't imagine why I'd still need an f2.8 lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 27, 2017)

goldenhusky said:


> I wonder why almost all manufactures are stuck with 70-200 why not a 70-300 f/4L or 50-200 f/4L,.... some different focal length. I understand the front element size, overall lens size and weight might go up. The same goes for the f/2.8 why not try to make them f/2. Looking at history 80-200mm f/2.8L was replaced with a 70-200 f/2.8L why not do something like that?



They would get bigger and heavier, yes. But front element size for the ones you listed would stay under the 'reasonableness diameter' of 82mm or less. That wouldn't be an issue.

High FL multiple lenses... 

1) Are not as sharp as lower FL multiple lenses. A 70-200 f/4 made with the same tech / tolerances / precision would be markedly sharper than a 70-300 f/4.

2) Start making people think they don't need as many lenses. Canon doesn't want everyone buying a 24-105 and a 100-400 and saying "I'm good. I'm all set."

I think that's why they have these 'protected buckets' of lenses: 16-35 / 24-something / 70-something ...so that folks will buy three instead of two lenses. (I own one of each of those -- how about you?)

For that reason, I strongly doubt Canon will ever make (say) a bucket-straddling 16-50 f/4, a 50-200 f/4, a 24-135 f/4, etc. It's not just size. It's about sharpness and dollars.

- A


----------



## vjlex (Jan 27, 2017)

vscd said:


> Why not make a new black one? The white lenses are very noticeable and the f4 lens is not that large to need a white threatment. Neither for heat nor for "goodloiking"
> 
> I like the black 80-200 1.8L way more on weddings than the white pipes...



This! This is exactly what I came here to say and wonder if I was crazy? I love my 80-200L, but I would love something a bit more up to date. But a big white lens is just not my idea of practical for my purpose of trying to stay as lowkey as possible and capture the best image I can. I don't understand why a black version of the current 70-200L lineup isn't offered. I can't see a black version not selling well or even better than the white. Am I in the minority here?


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 27, 2017)

Agent XE-5 said:


> I've owned the original 70-200 f2.8 non-IS for a dozen years now. I needed the speed for shooting a lot in low light, and my highest clean ISO was around 1600. (The 5D Mk I topped out at a noisy 3200.) With ISOs so high these days, I can't imagine why I'd still need an f2.8 lens.



This is more of an IS argument, but is applies to an f/2.8 vs. f/4 as well.

Just because our sensors do well with noise doesn't mean we should just blast the ISO and slap f/4 lenses on everything. 

Being able to gather more light with the lens -- either with a quicker lens or with IS -- lets us use a lower ISO to get that same exposure. Lower ISO gives you shots with better color and better DR, and I find those to be good things. (I know, I know -- I'm weird like that.)

Plot below presumes a three stop IS setup. Obviously the delta in DR and color is less with just one stop on a lens, but the idea is the same.

- A


----------



## Woody (Jan 27, 2017)

BeenThere said:


> Maybe it will be a DO zoom. Smaller, lighter, better IQ?



My suspicion too. The entire Canon 70-200 series is already amazing. I am not sure how much better they can get with new iterations. ;D

Edit: Another thought just struck me. If they can improve on the macro capability of the 70-200 f/4 IS, it'll be greatly welcome by some. I remember I was disappointed by the image quality of the 70-200 f/4 IS when I introduced a lens tube in my set-up.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 27, 2017)

mnclayshooter said:


> Any takers? I am in the market for a new 300... so be on the lookout... we'll get a new one soon.



There was a rumor for that a short time ago, refresh of all the big whites.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 27, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> H. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion I think the current 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is still such a stunning lens that I don't really see that happening unless the new F/4L IS II is from another planet.
> ...



Future proofing would be a whole lot less expensive if I'd just put a couple of extra 5D Mark III away in the closet.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 27, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > It may be true for the fluorite, although fluorite is not neccesary for good optics. *The 70-200L IS II is way better than the 70-200L IS 4 without having fluorite,* the 80-200L, too. I just meant that the white color is very eye-catching and sometimes not very nice to carry around "undercover".
> ...



Compromise: Light pink with a save the Ta-Tas logo. 

I'll never understand the "gets noticed" or "draws too much attention" mental twisting. Spray paint it black or lens coat it.

A lens that size is going to get noticed no matter what color it is.


----------



## vjlex (Jan 27, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Compromise: Light pink with a save the Ta-Tas logo.
> 
> I'll never understand the "gets noticed" or "draws too much attention" mental twisting. Spray paint it black or lens coat it.
> 
> A lens that size is going to get noticed no matter what color it is.



Really? A standard-colored, light-absorbing black lens being less noticeable than a bright, light-reflecting white lens is mental twisting? 

Also, less noticeable =/= noticeable. And I do I find it hard to imagine that many people willing to invest in lenses upward of $2000 really want to spray paint it. The lens coat is an interesting option, but adding more bulk to generally already bulky lenses seems counter-intuitive. Maybe a good stopgap measure, but it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to ask that the lens be offered in the standard color that the majority of all lenses are offered in. I didn't think anyone would find the idea of wanting a standard color such as black for a lens would constitute mental gymnastics. ???

The fluorite tidbit is interesting, but ultimately I find it hard to believe that one internal element is the primary reason that the "great whites" are white. I'm actually more prone to believe it's because Canon WANTS the white lenses to be more noticeable (ie. brand distinction). I'm just curious if there are others who have held off on "great whites" due to their being greatly and noticeably... white. Perhaps not many; afterall, if you need it, you need it. But I am curious who else would prefer black 70-200mm L-lenses.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 27, 2017)

Sabaki said:


> I used to own the f/4.0 version, which I felt was walready excellent but upgraded to the better f/4.0 IS version because of a great deal I got. I absolutely love the lens as it produces excellent images.
> 
> I kinda think the 70-200 range is blessed by some of Canon's best engineering but if I had to nitpick a few things on the f/4 IS L, here goes!


Several good suggestions here.

• Quieter IS motor
• Shorter minimum focusing distance (dragonflies!)
• Elimination of slight CA on full frame images
• 9th aperture blade
• Built in 1.4 TC
• Future proofing resolution for 50mp+ bodies

[/quote]

Grindy sound of the IS is certainly "old-style" if you do video.


----------



## hne (Jan 27, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> goldenhusky said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder why almost all manufactures are stuck with 70-200 why not a 70-300 f/4L or 50-200 f/4L,.... some different focal length. I understand the front element size, overall lens size and weight might go up. The same goes for the f/2.8 why not try to make them f/2. Looking at history 80-200mm f/2.8L was replaced with a 70-200 f/2.8L why not do something like that?
> ...



Well, they're making the 17-40/4L and 28-135 IS.
Can we compromise and hope for an EF 50-150/2.5 DO IS the same size/weight as the current 70-200/4L IS?


----------



## photojoern.de (Jan 27, 2017)

I own both, the 70-200 L f4 and f2.8 II and they are both excellent lenses. So crystal clear sharp. I will not replace any of them. At least for now I cannot imagine what should be really better. In the end what makes the difference is the tool behind the camera.


----------



## N2itiv (Jan 27, 2017)

vscd said:


> Why not make a new black one? The white lenses are very noticeable and the f4 lens is not that large to need a white threatment. Neither for heat nor for "goodloiking"
> 
> I like the black 80-200 1.8L way more on weddings than the white pipes...



I've only seen one person w/an 80-200 f/2.8L. Was(is) a good/nice looking lens. With the newer whites, Canon gets seen/recognition. Other brands are trying to mimic that success. Always lens coat.


----------



## N2itiv (Jan 27, 2017)

vscd said:


> Maybe the focallength of 24-105 is very difficult to optimizie. it's nealry 5x and it goes from very wide to a quite long focallenght. 70-200 is nuts with <3x



The 24-105L is an gateway L lens. Certainly, it could have been greatly improved on. We Canon users have proved we'd pay the price for higher quality, mostly. Your comment reminded me of the 28-300L and the older 35-350L. That was some X.


----------



## N2itiv (Jan 27, 2017)

It's a sweet lens, really light, not too big, sharp, great contrast, great IS, fast AF and it's not too expensive. It's hard not to like it. Pop a 1.4x tc on it and it's every bit as good as 70-300 LIS, although not as compact. It was a shame to sell my copy and I wish I still had one, but one can't own every lens!
[/quote]

Considering this as a portrait lens over the 24-105L. Your description nails it. No balance issues on a 6d.


----------



## riker (Jan 27, 2017)

OMG YEEEEESSS FINALYYYY. The news I have been waiting for so long. I have always owned the 70-200/4 even when I had the 2.8. Best travel lens ever.
You always see in these promotional videos people travelling with the 2.8 but that is such a bsht.

Let's pray for small size and light weight compared with excellent IQ!


----------



## arbitrage (Jan 27, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > Why not make a new black one? The white lenses are very noticeable and the f4 lens is not that large to need a white threatment. Neither for heat nor for "goodloiking"
> ...



Yes disregarding Nikon's sudden turn of face with the inclusion of fluorite which they used to bash openly on their website, I think Nikon has called Canon's bluff about the white paint. We all know the white paint is for marketing and nothing else. Sure in theory keeping the fluorite cooler is probably a good thing but unless we see Nikon's new FL lenses start cracking the elements I think it is safe to say that Canon never really "needed" the white paint as much as they claimed to need it for that reason.

It has been an amazing marketing tool and probably the smartest marketing tool of any camera company ever.


----------



## mnclayshooter (Jan 27, 2017)

I realize the rumor is all about an "L" presumably for an EF mount - but is there possibility of updating the EF-M 55-200 STM to offer a more "pro-level" lens? .. My reasoning is there's presumably a mirrorless 6DII guts camera coming per other rumors. It would pair well.


----------



## Zv (Jan 27, 2017)

The 70-200 f/4L IS was my first L lens and it started my love affair with L lenses! Such a great lens but it could still use a little updating. The IS could be quieter and it could be sharper at 200mm. Contrast is spot on though. Files hardly need any contrast added in post. This and my 16-35 f/4L IS are about the only lens I really use nowadays. 

Curious about this update and what it will bring!


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 27, 2017)

arbitrage said:


> I think it is safe to say that Canon never really "needed" the white paint as much as they claimed to need it for that reason.
> 
> It has been an amazing marketing tool and probably the smartest marketing tool of any camera company ever.



It was Minolta that started with the big white lenses. Just say'in.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 27, 2017)

arbitrage said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > vscd said:
> ...



Maybee the coolest one ... I really like the behaviour of my 70-200 in direct sunlight. While cameras get hot if not shadowed the white parts of the lens stay cool. The only thing I need is a 6d mkii in white. Will never happen but would be "cool".


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 27, 2017)

shunsai said:


> The fluorite tidbit is interesting, but ultimately I find it hard to believe that one internal element is the primary reason that the "great whites" are white.



Reason...or excuse. 




arbitrage said:


> Yes disregarding Nikon's sudden turn of face with the inclusion of fluorite *which they used to bash openly on their website*, I think Nikon has called Canon's bluff about the white paint. We all know the white paint is for marketing and nothing else. Sure in theory keeping the fluorite cooler is probably a good thing but unless we see Nikon's new FL lenses start cracking the elements I think it is safe to say that Canon never really "needed" the white paint as much as they claimed to need it for that reason.
> 
> It has been an amazing marketing tool and probably the smartest marketing tool of any camera company ever.



In fact, they still bash it. Their glossary still states:

[quote author=Nikon]Put simply, chromatic aberration is a type of image and color dispersion that occurs when light rays of varying wavelengths pass through optical glass. In the past, correcting this problem for telephoto lenses required special optical elements that offer anomalous dispersion characteristics - specifically calcium fluoride crystals. However, fluorite easily cracks and is sensitive to temperature changes that can adversely affect focusing by altering the lens' refractive index.
[/quote]

Elsewhere on the page, they extoll the virtues of fluorite. : 

However, there is a technical rationale for painting lenses with fluorite white. It may be that the black Nikkor FL lenses won't hold up as well over time...after all, they only started using fluorite with the 800/5.6 a mere four years ago, whereas there are Canon fluorite-containing superteles that have been in use for decades. 

But independent of the rationale, it's very clear that it's a marketing tactic, since there are multiple white lenses that do not have fluorite elements (e.g. 70-200/2.8L non IS, 28-300L, 70-300L).


----------



## cnc (Jan 27, 2017)

The only reason of white coating on the large L lenses is for a sun heating absorption , Black lenses get hot on the sun and loosing sharpness. Longer lens = more distortions !!! So the white coating has nothing to do with Show off. Just low of physics


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 27, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Ooh, if it comes out before the f/2.8L IS III, it'll be just like the 16-35 situation:
> 
> 1) The 16-35 f/4L IS comes out run circles around prior UWA zooms Canon has offered to date. Finally, a very sharp UWA lens is available.
> 2) People buy the reasonably priced 16-35 f/4L IS in a hurry.
> ...



Alan, the f4 lenses have always preceded the f2.8 lenses. It goes way way back to the 17-40L


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 27, 2017)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Alan Adam, the f4 lenses have always preceded the f2.8 lenses. It goes way way back to the 17-40L



It's awfully hard to line them all up in order as f/4L zooms don't get updated as quickly as f/2.8L zooms, some focal length discrepancies are in there, and IS vs. non-IS monkeys with this as well.

But that said, are you sure about that trend?

Green = GMC's trend holds
Red = GMC's trend doesn't hold

*UWA (leaving out the U-UWA lenses):*

2001: 16-35 f/2.8L 
2003: 17-40 f/4L
2007: 16-35 f/2.8L II (it would appear the 17-40 just plugged away without replacement)
2014: 16-35 f/4L IS
2016: 16-35 f/2.8L III

*Standard (leaving out the -105s):*

2002: 24-70 f/2.8L 
Early 2012: 24-70 f/2.8L II
Late 2012: 24-70 f/4L IS

*Short Tele (leaving out the -300s):*

1995: 70-200 f/2.8L 
1999: 70-200 f/4L

2001: 70-200 f/2.8L IS 
2006: 70-200 f/4L IS

2010: 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

So I'd say your statement is a real mixed bag as far as 'always' is concerned. Am I forgetting a lens on this list?

- A


----------



## Luds34 (Jan 27, 2017)

photojoern.de said:


> I own both, the 70-200 L f4 and f2.8 II and they are both excellent lenses. So crystal clear sharp. I will not replace any of them. At least for now I cannot imagine what should be really better. In the end what makes the difference is the tool behind the camera.



I couldn't imagine upgrading to the IS versions as I own or have owned both the non-IS f/4 and f/2.8 70-200s and have never found those lenses lacking either optically or focusing performance wise. I'm sure the corners are much much better on the newer (IS) versions but I just never find myself shooting say brick walls wide open with this style lens (wide open shots are almost always subject isolation).

I will say though that IS would help a bit in those times where I'm shooting static subjects in a theater or something and that IS would save me a stop or two on the old ISO. Aka, allow me to shoot 1/125 or 1/80 and be comfortable the shot will be sharp.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 27, 2017)

shunsai said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Compromise: Light pink with a save the Ta-Tas logo.
> ...



Who says black is the standard? 

Not trying to argue, just wondering. If light absorption were the reason for the black color then Canon has been messing up the white lenses for a long time (from a technical standpoint).

I think the lens coat is the best option.

As far as my reference to "noticeable"... I've seen many posts from people with white lenses saying they draw unwanted attention and bring questions from people. One poster even went as far as to say his wife told him not to bring his white lens to the kid's basketball practice because it draws too much attention. It embarrassed her. :

My point being that large lenses will always draw attention. Always.

Either way, there are choices from other manufacturers who don't produce the lenses in white, but if you are like me, only Canon will do most of the time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 27, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Alan Adam, the f4 lenses have always preceded the f2.8 lenses. It goes way way back to the 17-40L
> ...



On the UWA zoom list, you left off the predecessors to the 16-35/2.8L, the 20-35/2.8L (1989) and the 17-35/2.8L (1996), that's a lot of f/2.8 lenses before the f/4 version. 

I would include the 24-105 lenses in the standard zooms, but the trend is still f/2.8 first:

28-70/2.8 (1993)
24-70/2.8 (2002)
24-105/4 (2005)
24-70/2.8 II (Feb 2012)
24-70/4 (Nov 2012)
24-105/4 II (2016)

To sum up, this:



GMCPhotographics said:


> ...the f4 lenses have always preceded the f2.8 lenses. It goes way way back to the 17-40L



is just flat out wrong.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 27, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> On the UWA zoom list, you left off the predecessors to the 16-35/2.8L, the 20-35/2.8L (1989) and the 17-35/2.8L (1996), that's a lot of f/2.8 lenses before the f/4 version.



I left those out as he said 'since the 17-40L'.

In fact, before the 17-40L was released, there was also a cheaper/slower non-L 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 (sounds familiar to the EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5)... and it too came out after the 20-35 f/2.8L.

But I don't think any trending on this is revelatory or bankable as a hard pattern, as f/2.8L zoom products seem to either get refreshed more quickly for the pros or f/4L zoom products skip a generation because of relatively lower market appeal.

- A


----------



## H. Jones (Jan 27, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Who says black is the standard?
> 
> Not trying to argue, just wondering. If light absorption were the reason for the black color then Canon has been messing up the white lenses for a long time (from a technical standpoint).
> 
> ...



Totally agree honestly. Work around a lot of Nikon shooters in my area. People are constantly saying things about their 70-200s being so big, and in a single day of renting a 120-300 from Sigma I had many more comments on the huge black lens than in several years of owning my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. 

People are going to notice a huge camera lens no matter what. A former coworker of mine, who used Nikon, would often use a small 35mm lens instead of Nikon's 24-70mm because he felt people were too intimidated by that lens-- and that's a black normal zoom. 

Sure, at night a Canon lens will stand out a little more and be slightly more reflective.. But if you're trying to hide that badly, put some camouflage lens coats on the lens anyway.


----------



## RGF (Jan 27, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’re told that Canon is actively developing a new EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II and it will be incorporate new processes and technologies.</p>
> <p>Some specifics were given, but we are unable to post them at this time. I can say that the source claimed the new lens would be the most advanced zoom lens in the Canon lineup.</p>
> <p>This lens is slated to come before an update to its f/2.8 bigger brother. Though we have no release date and good sources are saying it’s likely in development, but there’s no evidence we’ll see the lens in 2017.</p>
> <p>There are a few other rumoured lenses we’re trying to get more information on and will pass them on as we hear more.</p>
> ...



wonder what an "advanced zoom" will be / how will it be different from other lenses?


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 27, 2017)

RGF said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > We’re told that Canon is actively developing a new EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II and it will be incorporate new processes and technologies.</p>
> ...



They might dream of something...

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 27, 2017)

H. Jones said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Who says black is the standard?
> ...



Tried a camouflage lens coat on my 70-200 once. Put it down and couldn't find it for a week.


----------



## ethanz (Jan 27, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Tried a camouflage lens coat on my 70-200 once. Put it down and couldn't find it for a week.




;D lol


----------



## midluk (Jan 28, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> They might dream of something...


I think your images are fake. 8)
I'm sure the new lens will have the "enable and forget" IS mode 3.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 28, 2017)

I was told by a photojourno who did work in Iraq after the Iraq war that he much prefered the White long lenses to the Nikon black ones as it looked less like a gun to jumpy US soldiers at a distance. But he also said that at other times he'd keep it well wrapped to conceal the camera.


----------



## Act444 (Jan 28, 2017)

> As far as my reference to "noticeable"... I've seen many posts from people with white lenses saying they draw unwanted attention and bring questions from people.



This has been my experience historically...but on recent trips, a funny thing has happened...

I was out shooting a weekend festival. Two days. First day I took the 5DIV +70-200 2.8, a big white lens. No one said a word. Now, of course I wasn't flying under the radar, but I didn't get stopped either. 

The next day, I decided to travel light and took my M10 and 55-200. This time, I was stopped - TWICE - by folks that were curious about my camera.

If people are curious, they will ask...

Anyway, the lens that takes the record for most unwanted attention - a few years ago I was out at a festival with a 6D, with the 28-300L attached (I no longer have either). Virtually EVERYONE I spoke to commented on how "big" the lens was. I've never had this happen with any other lens - the 70-200 included.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 28, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> I was told by a photojourno who did work in Iraq after the Iraq war that he much prefered the White long lenses to the Nikon black ones as it looked less like a gun to jumpy US soldiers at a distance. But he also said that at other times he'd keep it well wrapped to conceal the camera.



I have a pretty consistent zero tolerance policy with / zero interest in discussing:


Camera / lens manufacturers who offer the same product in more than one color
People who care enough about how a camera or lens looks _attractiveness-wise_ to have it affect their buying decisions
LensCoat-ing gear for strictly cosmetic purposes

That said, if the appearance element of things ties to functionality (elements overheating in the sun, for instance) or _increasing the likelihood of something you don't want to happen_ (scaring away a varmint, drawing attention and getting mugged, etc.), then I care pretty quickly. So I find all this white v black discussion fascinating -- I never considered the photojournalist's need to not look like a combatant.

For me, I do not pine for a black lens just so it will match, so the rig won't stand out, etc.... So on this issue I'm comfortable trusting Canon to do the right thing. I admit my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II looks a bit 'pro' / intimidating for the occasional gun-shy subjects on a portraiture request from friends or family, but they get over it.

- A


----------



## goldenhusky (Jan 28, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> goldenhusky said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder why almost all manufactures are stuck with 70-200 why not a 70-300 f/4L or 50-200 f/4L,.... some different focal length. I understand the front element size, overall lens size and weight might go up. The same goes for the f/2.8 why not try to make them f/2. Looking at history 80-200mm f/2.8L was replaced with a 70-200 f/2.8L why not do something like that?
> ...



Thanks and I agree that comes at the high price tag. While by no means I am an expert on this but I guess the sharpness can be maintained or improved with the compromise of size, weight and dollars.

Like you said it might be a business decision to make people by multiple lenses. When I bought my first DSLR (7D) I thought I am good with EF-S 18-200 and 70-300L. Three years down the line I got the 6D with that my lens craze started. I now own 16-35 f/4L, 24-70 f/2.8L II, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, still holding on to my 70-300L for travel. I recently started to shoot wildlife and I got the 100-400L II. I also have the 35 f/2 IS, sigma Art 50, and 85 f/1.8 and the 135 f/2L (my favorite portrait lens)


----------



## slclick (Jan 28, 2017)

The standing out thing seems to go hand in hand with the creepy photographer (male) image many conjure when they see you with a dslr. Funny thing though is that the real creeps would use a phone for uploading to anywhere for anyone and to blend in with every living sole who has their phones out at all times. It's so damn backwards it blows my mind.


----------



## retroreflection (Jan 28, 2017)

Canon's "Big Whites" is a good example of a technical requirement becoming a marketing feature. The commenters in this thread seem to think that marketing is just something that is done to customers, but please consider how customers may end up demanding that feature.
Despite the rancor gun stuff recently elicited in these pages, I will provide the example of the belted magnum rifle cartridges. Way back when Holland and Holland wanted to produce a cartridge that fed smoothly from a stacked magazine (i.e. rimless cartridge) and gave good headspace control without a significant case shoulder. (Pretty obscure stuff, gun tech-wise). The .300 and .375 H&H magnums resulted, then Winchester did their .458 Win Mag. All hits that legitimately needed a belt. That was followed by a series of magnums with shoulders and no need for a belt, that were actually degraded by a belt. But for about 50 years no significant volume of customers believed a manly magnum rifle could work without a belt. Then there was a sweep of marketing success with unbelted super magnums. I rate that last step as mostly nonsense in the face of a stagnant product development cycle.
Another example. As fuel economy standards become more stringent, the design of engines has been changing. High pressure when the exhaust valves opens represents lost energy (and is responsible for the sound), so designs have been drifting towards lower exhaust pressure. Customers have been resisting this shift, especially in performance cars, because it doesn't sound right. There is a large group which will never appreciate the acceleration of an electric sports car because they are so darn quiet. I have been led to believe that rule changes limiting engine rpms in Formula 1 have resulted in a reduction in popularity, because it doesn't sound right. Isn't the speed the critical issue in owning a performance car, or in watching a race? 
Well, established expectations in ancillary aspects of a product are critical (surprisingly so) for customer satisfaction. These expectations can lead to apparently stupid product offerings, but a sales disaster is a sales disaster, no matter the illogic surrounding the cause. I think the x-24, 24-70, and 70-200 pattern in zooms is a similar thing. Too many customers just expect that sequence.
Now, back to the technical requirement for white. A Seattle wedding shooter may never use their 70-200 out in the dessert sun, but Canon cannot distribute some of their lenses just to customers who will never use them in the dessert sun. There can be only one. They seem to have a design standard which says fluoride elements will only be installed in lenses with all overheating protections employed. I find that admirable, if true. Has Nikon developed an alternative protective technology, or are they so dedicated to not looking like Canon, that they will forgo the best design principles?
I also think, of course without any direct evidence, that Canon has an electronics design standard which does not allow the thermal protection circuits to trip when the camera is used in the specified capability range. One of their competitors clearly does not have that same design standard. I think, again without any direct evidence, that this is why Canon lags in full frame 4K video. And I think Canon is doing right by their customers.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 28, 2017)

retroreflection said:


> Canon's "Big Whites" is a good example of a technical requirement becoming a marketing feature.
> 
> [truncated]



Appreciate the perspective. I'm sure Canon could have engineered another way to allow the lenses to be colored black and not go to hell in the sun. But they didn't, and we got white lenses.

Years pass and they are still white. 

We can dissect why Canon would ever aim to switch to black and require a new engineering project just to get back to where they were performance-wise with the white design, what is the value proposition of such a project, how would the brand suffer if they _walked towards Nikon's approach_ in any way, etc.

Or we can just keep snapping and enjoy the best lens portfolio out there. In the meantime, I'm guessing Canon might be devoting its considerable lens expertise in areas _other_ than the color of the outer housing:


Expand Nano USM's functionality or find a way to have USM/STM AF switchability on the fly
Offer it's users a modern 50mm lens that is sharp, lacks focus shift and focuses quickly (IS would also be welcomed)
Give us a way to shoot > 400mm on FF without needing a teleconverter or spending $9,000.
Develop a built-in-the-lens fast UV / CPL changeout method (rare-earth magnets or some similar witchcraft) that doesn't degrade weather sealing
Make an astro lens that is wider than 24mm, faster than f/2 and well coma controlled.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 28, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> In the meantime, I'm guessing Canon might be devoting its considerable lens expertise in areas _other_ than the color of the outer housing



Then again, they changed the 'white' color in 2010. The 70-200/2.8L IS II launched in the 1st half of that year is the 'old' white, the 70-300L launched in the second half of that year is the 'new' white, as are the MkII superteles and the MkIII TCs. They even released W II versions of all the 52mm drop-ins to match the new white.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 28, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Then again, they changed the 'white' color in 2010. The 70-200/2.8L IS II launched in the 1st half of that year is the 'old' white, the 70-300L launched in the second half of that year is the 'new' white, as are the MkII superteles and the MkIII TCs. They even released W II versions of all the 52mm drop-ins to match the new white.



Whaaaaaaaaat -- they do not match?! 

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 28, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > In the meantime, I'm guessing Canon might be devoting its considerable lens expertise in areas _other_ than the color of the outer housing
> ...



I wish you hadn't posted this. That bothers me as much as having focal length overlap. Had the EF 11-24mm f/4L USM not been so darned expensive (just a few hundred less expensive would have been great) I wouldn't have the overlap with my Tamron 15-30 and my Canon 24-70 (Which still bugs me.).

Now I'll have to get a new model 70-200 when I buy a Great White so the colors will match. Crap!

All my black lenses match my black lenses except there's no red ring on the Tamron... which bugs me too. The Tamron is going to have to go sooner or later.

Putting up with two different shades of white is inconceivable.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 28, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > Why not make a new black one? The white lenses are very noticeable and the f4 lens is not that large to need a white threatment. Neither for heat nor for "goodloiking"
> ...



Another fascinating titbit.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 28, 2017)

rfdesigner said:


> sharper.. really?.. this is an action lens, sharper = faster shutter speeds = more light needed = I want f2.8



I see what you're saying here but faster bursts can partly mitigate that, as you get more shots from which to pick the sharpest.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 28, 2017)

goldenhusky said:


> I wonder why almost all manufactures are stuck with 70-200 why not a 70-300 f/4L or 50-200 f/4L,.... some different focal length. I understand the front element size, overall lens size and weight might go up. The same goes for the f/2.8 *why not try to make them f/2*. Looking at history 80-200mm f/2.8L was replaced with a 70-200 f/2.8L why not do something like that?



Have you *seen* the 200mm f/2L? Its size, and more importantly price suggest why a 70-200mm f/2 zoom is unlikely to appear - far too niche.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 28, 2017)

Woody said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe it will be a DO zoom. Smaller, lighter, better IQ?
> ...



I agree; it's possible they might introduce a zoom macro, I believe Nikon used to make one. Even half macro would be useful for larger subjects like butterflies.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 28, 2017)

shunsai said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Compromise: Light pink with a save the Ta-Tas logo.
> ...



I agree with the beginning part, less noticeable is not unnoticed. But the part I've highlighted is special pleading. A lens coat weights very little, and is hardly bulky - it's just neoprene, after all.

I'm afraid accepting that big lenses are (off-)white is the price you pay for using Canon long lenses. There are third party offerings, and Nikon's are black. They're not going to start producing them in multiple colours, so come to peace with it.



arbitrage said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > vscd said:
> ...



I don't know; all I can say is that when I use my 500L in sunshine/warm weather, it is noticeably cool to the touch long after the black camera body is warm; and that when it finally does get hot, the image quality deteriorates markedly (and I'm not talking about distant subjects through heat haze - the hot lens/camera seems to be the cause). I dread to think what it would be like in a hot climate!

I suspect marketing is a big driver for the colour, but I also think these top products are produced after long and detailed consultation with pros, and if the lenses being white were a problem for most, they wouldn't be white.



ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Then again, they changed the 'white' color in 2010. The 70-200/2.8L IS II launched in the 1st half of that year is the 'old' white, the 70-300L launched in the second half of that year is the 'new' white, as are the MkII superteles and the MkIII TCs. They even released W II versions of all the 52mm drop-ins to match the new white.
> ...



I thought this was common knowledge! But I had the mark II 2x TC on my 500L (which itself being a mark II is the newer white, to match the mark III TCs), and it wasn't glaringly obvious, and depended on the lighting. However, if you are a perfectionist, it might be annoying. Best to upgrade everything!


----------



## scyrene (Jan 28, 2017)

mnclayshooter said:


> I realize the rumor is all about an "L" presumably for an EF mount - but is there possibility of updating the EF-M 55-200 STM to offer a more "pro-level" lens? .. My reasoning is there's presumably a mirrorless 6DII guts camera coming per other rumors. It would pair well.



Surely the assumption is any FF mirrorless camera would use the EF mount, not EF-M?


----------



## rwvaughn (Jan 28, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> All my black lenses match my black lenses except there's no red ring on the Tamron... which bugs me too.



LOL You do know that placing a 1/8 inch wide strip of gloss red auto decal pin striping tape over the gold ring on your Tamron lens magically turns it into an L lens right? just kidding pardon my humor


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 29, 2017)

scyrene said:


> Surely the assumption is any FF mirrorless camera would use the EF mount, not EF-M?



It has been rumoured that the Canon could launch a mirrorless camera with the EF mount rather than using the EF-M mount, but I don't really see what benefit that would bring over a DSLR. I think it's inevitable that a FF EF-M mount camera will be launched. Maybe not in 2017 but in the future for sure.

The EF-M mount is full-frame capable already.


----------



## goldenhusky (Jan 29, 2017)

scyrene said:


> goldenhusky said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder why almost all manufactures are stuck with 70-200 why not a 70-300 f/4L or 50-200 f/4L,.... some different focal length. I understand the front element size, overall lens size and weight might go up. The same goes for the f/2.8 *why not try to make them f/2*. Looking at history 80-200mm f/2.8L was replaced with a 70-200 f/2.8L why not do something like that?
> ...



I have seen 200 f/2L only in pictures and videos  Good point though. I definitely don't want to pay in the order of 5.7k.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 29, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Surely the assumption is any FF mirrorless camera would use the EF mount, not EF-M?
> ...



This remains (IMHO) the single most important/impactful decision Canon will need to make for many years: what mount will FF mirrorless use?

This forum -- full of SLR enthusiasts and pros -- generally (about 2/3 of us) say that a full EF mount mirrorless is best for seamlessly useable 2nd body, best for seamless integration of existing glass, etc.... _but we are not the entire market by a long shot._ They may be gunning for day 1 early adopter spec sheet lunatic enthusiasts or the trust fund photography crowd (think Leica SL), which would imply the product isn't immediately aimed at us. Canon very well may 'go thin' and force EF users to use an adaptor.

Other than the Sigma mirrorless rigs that came our recently (the SD quattro rigs), which had the 'lens tube' like integral projection that maintained effectively a full lens mount without a mirror, no one else to my knowledge has gone the pragmatic route and kept a full mount for mirroless. That's been true in m43, APS-C, and FF so far. 

So I would personally prefer a full mounted FF mirrorless setup, but everyone in the market thusfar has 'gone skinny' to chase a rather fleeting illusion of making things smaller and (in fairness) the neat trick of adapting other mounts' lenses.

- A


----------



## scyrene (Jan 29, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Surely the assumption is any FF mirrorless camera would use the EF mount, not EF-M?
> ...



Well there are benefits to mirrorless, in principle, especially with regard to seeing a preview of the exposure in the EVF, in low light etc, and it can display more things, like focus peaking. Of course many still claim (I have no experience so can't say) that EVFs are still inferior in other ways. Mirrorless autofocus has some advantages, I believe, though again it cuts both ways. Also there are no moving parts. Many in these forums have said that if they switch to mirrorless in the distant future, they want to retain the DSLR form factor for ergonomics, so using a smaller mount wouldn't be such an issue.

The major disadvantage I see with them using the EF-M mount for a FF mirrorless camera is the lack of lenses. And why design and release a load of new more exotic EF-M lenses rather than making use of the excellent stable of EF lenses already available? Especially if there is no significant size/weight saving in those categories, like telephoto. EF-M makes sense for a small size system, but using it to replace EF is unnecessary in my view.



ahsanford said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > This remains (IMHO) the single most important/impactful decision Canon will need to make for many years: what mount will FF mirrorless use?
> ...



It does rather depend what this imagined future Canon FF mirrorless camera is meant to do. The skinny route is well trod, as you say. Whether that is profitable is the deciding factor of course, but there is still a hole in all the lineups - if mirrorless is meant to be the future, someone is going to have to release a DSLR-style mirrorless body for improved ergonomics in some circumstances (even handholding with a 100L is unpleasant on the EOS-M, let alone a 70-200 or larger), not to mention battery power and life.


----------



## slclick (Jan 29, 2017)

Great, now a new 70-200 f/4 is all I can think of and it won't probably be available until 2018. It's the zoom gap in my lineup...funny, it's the one most have and it's the one I haven't since I bought my first L lens (the f/4 non IS) in 2001.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 30, 2017)

slclick said:


> Great, now a new 70-200 f/4 is all I can think of and it won't probably be available until 2018. It's the zoom gap in my lineup...funny, it's the one most have and it's the one I haven't since I bought my first L lens (the f/4 non IS) in 2001.



Nearly the same here: My first L lens was the f/4 70 200 non-IS too (in 2005 joining the 20D with the EF-S 60mm). 

A little difference: After 10 years availability I bought the IS version 4 weeks ago. Seems to have really improved contrast/sharpness and better flare resistancy compared to the older version - improvements seem to be much better than the test shots show and after TDP it is much better with older bodies (5D should profit from this). IS works great. I see ~3 stops @200mm and ~2 stops @70mm - a strong gain in lower iso or smaller aperture without lugging a tripod around.

So I have some improvement for my "standard zoom" range and I will wait (more or less) patiently for the things to come. If the new lens has some 1:2 macro capability with good IQ wide open ... patience would fly away instantanously!


----------



## rstoddard11 (Feb 1, 2017)

It could theoretically get better. Could a shorter/fatter version similar to the 70-300L work? I would imagine updated glass, marginally better IS and some other things may give it a solid "update". I'm still using the original non-L version and was wanting to update this year as I use it for a lot of landscapes, but may wait and see where this goes first.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 1, 2017)

rstoddard11 said:


> It could theoretically get better. Could a shorter/fatter version similar to the 70-300L work? I would imagine updated glass, marginally better IS and some other things may give it a solid "update". I'm still using the original non-L version and was wanting to update this year as I use it for a lot of landscapes, but may wait and see where this goes first.



I don't believe it can be much shorter at 200mm, but at 70mm it certainly could... _but that would make it an externally zooming_ (telescoping inner barrel) sort of lens like all the 24-something zooms are, which would be quite unpopular with the weather sealing crowd. Not sure they would do that.

Canon used to have telescoping (external zooming) something-200 EF lenses back in the day (50-200, 80-200, etc.) but they seem to have coalesced around:

70-200 f/2.8 = internal focusing --> the big beefy sucker

70-200 f/4 = internal focusing --> light, but well built and sealed

70-300 f/variable = external focusing --> built for travel --> compact and extra reach at the cost of not being one contiguous outer body and losing some max aperture

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 4, 2017)

rwvaughn said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > All my black lenses match my black lenses except there's no red ring on the Tamron... which bugs me too.
> ...



LOL!!! ;D ;D ;D


----------



## GP.Masserano (Feb 6, 2017)

[size=12pt]But is it really necessary, in this moment, to improve the... *best* 70-200 F4 on the market ?

Perhaps Canon would do better to think to a *150- 600 5.6 (also not L)* to compete with Sigma and Tamron who are selling to dozens !!!!


----------



## scyrene (Feb 6, 2017)

GP.Masserano said:


> [size=12pt]But is it really necessary, in this moment, to improve the... *best* 70-200 F4 on the market ?
> 
> Perhaps Canon would do better to think to a *150- 600 5.6 (also not L)* to compete with Sigma and Tamron who are selling to dozens !!!!



To repeat what has been said elsewhere: a zoom going to 600mm f/5.6 would be very expensive, large, and heavy. The third party ones are in reality something like 560-580mm f/6.3 (~T/6.5?). An X-600mm f/5.6 lens would have the same size front element as the Canon 300mm f/2.8, and would therefore be similar in many respects to that lens, which is hardly cheap, light, or small. There is little reason to believe such a lens would not be L-quality; there is also little reason to believe Canon would produce a native f/6.3 EF lens instead.

Besides, if those other lenses are only selling 'dozens', is it worth Canon's while developing one themselves? I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Better to buy third party or get the 100-400 II and a 1.4x extender if that is the focal range you need.


----------



## GP.Masserano (Feb 7, 2017)

scyrene said:


> GP.Masserano said:
> 
> 
> > [size=12pt]But is it really necessary, in this moment, to improve the... *best* 70-200 F4 on the market ?
> ...




I am sorry but I am not agree. 
Produce a good x-600 (0r better* x - 500 f5,6* always *not L* ) for Canon is not too expensive.
A x-500 (also to "f" is not constant, such as for example 4 - 5.6) would have the frontal lens less than 10 cm.

_"Sold by the dozen"_ is a way of saying that means that (at least in Italy) a big number of nature photographers use the Tamron and Sigma with satisfaction, despite the considerable weight. 
I attend in many Natural Parks and everywhere you can see 150-600 in a number which is much greater than the expensive "whites" of Canon. 
The price of these lenses is convenient, the quality is good.
Does not mean that have sold _"only one dozen"..._ ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2017)

GP.Masserano said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > GP.Masserano said:
> ...



Sorry, but it sounds like you _do_ agree. The point was that a 600mm f/5.6 (prime or variable aperture zoom with that as the long end) is not going to be an inexpensive lens. A 500mm f/5.6 is a different matter, as Nikon has shown.


----------



## Labdoc (Feb 7, 2017)

I was going to buy the MK2 f2.8 version but another thread rumored this lens was due for revision sometime in 2017. This thread kind of insinuates that was a mistake and it's the f4 version getting an update. Can't keep my rumors straight anymore. So what's the deal, new f2.8 or not? I need the lens for an event in June, buy or not?


----------



## mnclayshooter (Feb 7, 2017)

Labdoc said:


> I was going to buy the MK2 f2.8 version but another thread rumored this lens was due for revision sometime in 2017. This thread kind of insinuates that was a mistake and it's the f4 version getting an update. Can't keep my rumors straight anymore. So what's the deal, new f2.8 or not? I need the lens for an event in June, buy or not?



You have 3 real choices:

1) Buy the lens you know you need and want now because it is available and because it is a great lens, and try to time it right price-wise, have ample time to return it if it isn't exactly what you wanted and give yourself some learning-curve time with it. 

2) Wait until a rumored lens is available, or not. 

3) Wait until the last minute and buy whatever is available at that time, hope that you get a good functioning copy (no need to return/warranty it), hope that you get a good price, hope you haven't waited too long on the upgrade curve and now will have even greater buyer remorse about a new lens that MIGHT come out soon.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 7, 2017)

Labdoc said:


> I was going to buy the MK2 f2.8 version but another thread rumored this lens was due for revision sometime in 2017. This thread kind of insinuates that was a mistake and it's the f4 version getting an update. Can't keep my rumors straight anymore. So what's the deal, new f2.8 or not? I need the lens for an event in June, buy or not?



Understatement of the year, I know, but Canon isn't Apple.

With bodies, we have a general read on things based on prior product lifecycles. For instance, a 6D2 seems a certainty for 'sometime this year'. That's about all we can do -- roughly peg a launch window.

With lenses, though, good luck to you. CR's great at hearing what's in development but launches are very very hard to nail down unless we know that they'll be bundled with a body. 

But the silver lining with photographers is a less buyers' remorse with Canon lenses than with Apple products as it's a near-certainty any L lens replacement will go up considerably in price, so you tend to get what you pay for, i.e. if you snap up a refurb 70-200 f/4L IS today for $959, would you really be that butthurt if a $1599 Mk II was released?

- A


----------



## Labdoc (Feb 7, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Labdoc said:
> 
> 
> > I was going to buy the MK2 f2.8 version but another thread rumored this lens was due for revision sometime in 2017. This thread kind of insinuates that was a mistake and it's the f4 version getting an update. Can't keep my rumors straight anymore. So what's the deal, new f2.8 or not? I need the lens for an event in June, buy or not?
> ...


I guess that's why they call it rumors. I figure wait until May and see what is happening. Then buy the MK2 for the event and try to get it refurb from Canon to save some bucks. Then I'll sell it and buy the new version if it appears. Just the way it goes, thanks for the input.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 7, 2017)

GP.Masserano said:


> _"Sold by the dozen"_ is a way of saying that means that (at least in Italy) a big number
> 
> ...
> 
> Does not mean that have sold _"only one dozen"..._ ;D



I've learned something!


----------



## Zv (Feb 9, 2017)

scyrene said:


> GP.Masserano said:
> 
> 
> > _"Sold by the dozen"_ is a way of saying that means that (at least in Italy) a big number
> ...



I guess it means "people buy a dozen at a time" kinda like hot cakes or something. Not that a dozen people bought one. 

Though I guess some people might actually buy a dozen of a particular lens just to find the best one and then return the rest!


----------



## GP.Masserano (Feb 9, 2017)

Zv said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > GP.Masserano said:
> ...




No no !!! 
"Sold by the dozens" means "in great number"!!! : and here we are not talking about cakes... ;D

Jokes aside, in the huts and photo-hunting, I saw in these last months many Sigma (and less Tamron, in truth).
Maybe because we are in economic crisis and therefore we do not have too much money to spend for our hobby... :'(
Blessed are you who paid in $ and with* much less taxs* (in Italy *over 21%* respect to the list price) !!!


----------



## Zv (Feb 10, 2017)

GP.Masserano said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



Just to clarify - 

In the U.S and U.K (and other English speaking countries) we have an expression "selling like hot cakes" which has the same meaning as "sold by the dozen" meaning - sold in large quantities. 

Things that commonly sell like hot cakes include - new iPhones, new PlayStation and cheap lenses like the 50 1.8 ;D


----------



## GP.Masserano (Feb 13, 2017)

Zv said:


> GP.Masserano said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...





Oh well !!! Now I understand... 
But let us *"return to bomb" *(another Italian expression to say "we return to speak of Main topic"). 

For Canon, is this the moment to improve the* best* 70-200 F4 on the market?


----------

