# Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II Confirmed



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 15, 2018)

```
<p>We r<a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/a-new-ef-70-200mm-is-coming-in-2018-cr3/">eported a couple of months ago that a new EF 70-200mm</a> was coming some time in 2018. Unfortunately, it’s not a new EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III.</p>
<p>Instead it looks like <a href="http://www.nokishita-camera.com/2018/03/ef70-200mm-f4l-is-ii-usmef-m32mm-f14-stm.html">we’re getting an EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II</a>.</p>
<p>We are unsure of the exact announcement date for this new lens, but ahead of Photokina would make sense</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## chrysoberyl (Mar 15, 2018)

Thanks for the announcement. I really would like to read a rumor about a 400 f/5.6 update; I almost certainly would buy it.


----------



## Tyroop (Mar 15, 2018)

What will be new? Difficult to see how they could improve optically on this lens and the 4-stop IS is excellent. I have always found it to be a stunning performer.


----------



## tron (Mar 15, 2018)

Tyroop said:


> What will be new? Difficult to see how they could improve optically on this lens and the 4-stop IS is excellent. I have always found it to be a stunning performer.


+1 Same for its 2.8 big brother! Too good to be improved substantially!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 15, 2018)

Let me remind people about the 24-105mm f/4L IS II.....


----------



## IglooEater (Mar 15, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Let me remind people about the 24-105mm f/4L IS II.....



I’d like to hear your take on why they bothered with that lens.


----------



## tron (Mar 15, 2018)

They can make the IS more quiet. Apart from this they can also increase price and introduce a nice III in the place where a lowly II existed ;D ;D ;D 

(Just like the update of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy!)


----------



## manofiron (Mar 15, 2018)

Maybe the design flaw known as "slippery autofocus", where if you pointed the lens upwards and it won't focus, because of the inner mechanism in USM slipping. Happened to my friend. Bill for the repair at Canon CPS was around 2/3 price of the used lens on the market.


----------



## criscokkat (Mar 15, 2018)

Now that the cat's out of the bag with regards to IS on the M50, I expect a full line refresh of all of the older IS lenses. They need to be able to have updatable firmware to interface with internal IS systems for maximum effectiveness for future full frame mirrorless cameras.


----------



## docsmith (Mar 15, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Let me remind people about the 24-105mm f/4L IS II.....



;D 

Too true. And there was room for improvement there.

While I am always excited to see what "new and improved" looks like, I'd still call the 70-200 f/4 IS class leading:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/03/just-the-lenses-the-70-200mm-f4-comparison/

Maybe some improvement away from center?


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 15, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Let me remind people about the 24-105mm f/4L IS II.....



Spoilsport 

Seriously though, around 2013 Lens Rentals did a series of very interesting articles on the accuracy of phase detect AF in the latest ( at the time) Canon dslrs and how lenses produced around 2012 had to be used to achieve the same phase detect accuracy and precision as contrast detect. They concluded that it was due to a 'closed loop' communication system between camera and lens, and the USM lenses required a direction indicator to achieve this level of accuracy. So don't expect AF miracles with your new Canon 5DIII and your 1990 EF 85/1.8

So these seemingly minor upgrades of lenses like the 24-105, and possibly this 70-200 may be based upon more accurate phase detect AF. Of course we all know that this is a complete waste of time as mirrorless is the future and the dslr is dead, but Canon appears to have not realised this yet, and is still investing time and resources in giving those poor fools who still use dslrs better tools


----------



## slclick (Mar 15, 2018)

Coatings to reduce flare and CA, higher quality engineering plastic, quieter IS,better panning mode, ARCA foot plate....some or all of these would be welcome.


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 15, 2018)

criscokkat said:


> Now that the cat's out of the bag with regards to IS on the M50, I expect a full line refresh of all of the older IS lenses. They need to be able to have updatable firmware to interface with internal IS systems for maximum effectiveness for future full frame mirrorless cameras.



Which is why it won't be an EF mount.


----------



## lexaclarke (Mar 15, 2018)

I can't imagine it being much sharper, if at all. It could definitely have less vignette and quieter IS. Less distortion at 70mm would be nice but I would think there are limits to what you can really do a out that. Maybe better transmission? The last few Canon lenses have transmission almost match the f stop and the current 70-200 4 IS is about a half stop slower than it could be.

But Canon has a trend of putting the prices way up on every revision and part of the strength of the 70-200 4 IS is it's good value. I'd like an upgrade but I doubt they can improve it enough to justify the inevitable price rise. Especially after they already put their prices up by like £300 on the current version in this country.


----------



## RGF (Mar 15, 2018)

tron said:


> Tyroop said:
> 
> 
> > What will be new? Difficult to see how they could improve optically on this lens and the 4-stop IS is excellent. I have always found it to be a stunning performer.
> ...



maybe they will make it an ounce lighter

Or like the 24-105 Mark II just a new SKU and price jump


----------



## Talys (Mar 15, 2018)

Neat. Not a lens I would buy, but I'm happy for all the f/4 people


----------



## michi (Mar 15, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> So don't expect AF miracles with your new Canon 5DIII and your 1990 EF 85/1.8



Funny you mention that. I have had my EF 85mm 1.8 since the 90's. Always hit and miss with AF. From a Canon A2e to Digital Rebel to 30D to 70D to 5DII. I now have a 5DIV and guess what, suddenly the AF is right on the money. From maybe 40% of all pictures being tack sharp, the rate went to probably 90% with the 5DIV. Unfortunately it's a little late as I just got a EF 85MM 1.4....

I also don't see much they could improve on the 70-200 L 4. Maybe quieter IS, that's about it. I wish they would put more effort into a 24-70 2.8 L IS. I want one and am willing to pay for it...now...


----------



## riker (Mar 15, 2018)

What do you mean unfortunately?!?! Finally!!!
Who the hell needs 2.8 III? Since when is the II not good enough?

The /4 is the best travel lens ever but it is outdated. Had better IQ than the 2.8 IS back in the days, but the 2.8II surpassed it. Time to catch up.

Quieter IS?!? Now where did that come from? Why not simply a more efficient IS?!
Less weight/size, closer focusing distance, AF speed, AF accuracy, many attributes can be improved.

I have the 2.8 but I'm always taking the 4 for travels, which is often.

(EF-M 70-200/2.8 would be nice tho, but since we never had en EF-S version, we are not going to have an EF-M version either)


----------



## kiwiengr (Mar 15, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Let me remind people about the 24-105mm f/4L IS II.....



;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 15, 2018)

IglooEater said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Let me remind people about the 24-105mm f/4L IS II.....
> ...



My guess is reduced production costs. It's a kit lens (albeit for FF), and they've revised the 18-55mm kit lenses with essentially cosmetic-only changes, presumably to reduce production cost.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 15, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> My guess is reduced production costs.



exactly. my "non-existing business acumen" tells me the same. 

some Canon controller found out that some cheap parts inside can be made even cheaper by 5 cents ... sourcing them from somewhere 5 miles deeper into China ... and at the same time some Canon marketing genius said, "we can easily slap 20% onto the sales price of an *ALL NEW Mk. III* ...

and voila! :


----------



## lexaclarke (Mar 15, 2018)

riker said:


> Who the hell needs 2.8 III? Since when is the II not good enough?


Just because something is "good enough" doesn't mean you shouldn't want to see it improve further.

But also...


> The /4 is the best travel lens ever but it is outdated. Had better IQ than the 2.8 IS back in the days, but the 2.8II surpassed it. Time to catch up.


You're contradicting yourself here. You're saying one lens is "good enough" and doesn't need to be updated while another lens is no longer "good enough" because a more expensive version manged to be better? It's not like the f/2.8 IS mark II existing suddenly stops the f/4 IS from working.

I'd like the f/4 IS to be improved, but it is also still more than good enough.



> Quieter IS?!? Now where did that come from? Why not simply a more efficient IS?!


The answer is both. All new IS lenses are both more effective and quieter than the f/4 IS. The noise of the f/4 IS is pretty famous and it's a problem for video, and generally annoying.



> Less weight/size, closer focusing distance, AF speed, AF accuracy, many attributes can be improved.


There's a lot of contradictions here. You can't really get faster AF but also expand the close focusing. The longer focus throw means the focus will take longer to rack through its range, right? And lenses which focus closer without compromising on AF speed usually end up being bigger and heavier. I assume because they need a more powerful motor to get through that extra range quicker. AF accuracy and speed also seem to be opposed because high accuracy requires higher gear ratios and speed is best achieved with lower gear ratios.

I'm not saying any of those individual parts can't be improved but I don't think _all_ of them can be improved together all at once. You'd have to give up size or weight at the least. You'd probably end up with a much more expensive lens at the same time. I think you're writing off the realistic upgrades and expecting too much.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Mar 15, 2018)

chrysoberyl said:


> Thanks for the announcement. I really would like to read a rumor about a 400 f/5.6 update; I almost certainly would buy it.


Me too.


----------



## Joe M (Mar 15, 2018)

manofiron said:


> Maybe the design flaw known as "slippery autofocus", where if you pointed the lens upwards and it won't focus, because of the inner mechanism in USM slipping. Happened to my friend. Bill for the repair at Canon CPS was around 2/3 price of the used lens on the market.



I was thinking the same thing. I don't see how the optics can be improved but I guess anything is possible. Maybe even the IS can be improved. But that slipping autofocus is the one thing that needs to be addressed if nothing else.


----------



## NancyP (Mar 15, 2018)

Cue AHSanford, 3, 2, 1..... WANNA 50 1.4 IS!!!! 

I finally broke down and got a 100-400 f/variable L IS II. I could easily have bought a 400 f/5.6L *IS* II instead, if it had been offered. Now, the zoom does offer some useful features, including 1:3 magnification for larger butterflies and dragonflies, but I don't expect to use the 100-400 much in the 100-300 range - mostly use in the 300 - 400 range, probably 90%+ at 400. 

It's burning a hole in my camera bag. I bought it about 10 days ago, then promptly got too sick to feel like going outdoors to inaugurate it. Come Saturday...

I do like the 70-200 f/4 L IS. For non-birding travel use, it is perfect.


----------



## AJ (Mar 15, 2018)

riker said:


> The /4 is the best travel lens ever but it is outdated. Had better IQ than the 2.8 IS back in the days, but the 2.8II surpassed it. Time to catch up.


^^^ this

Canon did a good job updating the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and the 100-400. Now it's the 70-200/4 IS' turn.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Mar 15, 2018)

NancyP said:


> I finally broke down and got a 100-400 f/variable L IS II. I could easily have bought a 400 f/5.6L *IS* II instead, if it had been offered.



OK, that makes three of us - how many are needed to make it worthwhile to Canon?



NancyP said:


> Cue AHSanford, 3, 2, 1..... WANNA 50 1.4 IS!!!!



Ha! I'm waiting for that, too. Poor guy! I really don't understand why no 50mm update.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Mar 15, 2018)

The 70-200 f4's balance very nicely on a light weight body. Would be a perfect companion to a lighter weight EF mount mirror-less assuming that will be offered at some point. As others have mentioned, the AF and IS could probably use some updating to conform to modern specs and PDAF only focusing. 

IMO, one more indicator that when canon makes it's next big move in morroriless it will be with an EF mount.

Naturally, i just bought a new one of these a few months ago. Its a personal favorite of mine as a travel lens. Not without it's flaws but it sure checks a lot of boxes for me. Quieter IS, better IS for panning, a little sharper in the corners for landscape and detail shots, new coatings to reduce flare sans hood, maybe a little quieter bokeh wide open and I'll bite. Offer it in black and I promise I'll buy two.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 15, 2018)

chrysoberyl said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > I finally broke down and got a 100-400 f/variable L IS II. I could easily have bought a 400 f/5.6L *IS* II instead, if it had been offered.
> ...


I make it 4......


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 15, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



It was the only Canon lens I gave up on. After selling my 5DIII with its kit lens, an excellent copy of the 24-105mm, sigh, I thought surely version II would be at least as good. Tried 3 copies, which is something I've never done either. All had either IQ or IS problems--or both!

Sad. But now I realize I never actually needed one AND the 24-70mm f/2.8L II, though the original did come in handy for family travel, paired with my 80D. I didn't mind it not being quite wide enough on cropped, and liked the reach of 105mm.

Surely version II of the 70-200mm f/4 IS will be as good or better? But not for me! I'm too happy with the version one that I nabbed during one of those refurbished double-discount holiday deals a couple years back. I don't care if the new one is advertised as having a 10 stop rated IS! My copy is great, and it is so light and fun on the 80D.


----------



## AuroraChaserDoug (Mar 15, 2018)

I like the size and f/4 is usually fast enough. This lens makes me wonder if I need a 24-70 f/2.8. (Well, OTOH, who doesn't need a 24-70 f/2.8!) The 70-200 f/4 IS is compatible with extenders. What if they modified it to no longer be extender compatible but more compatible with a mirrorless FF? The smaller form factor of mirrorless would mate well with the 70-200 f/4 IS.


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 16, 2018)

chrysoberyl said:


> Thanks for the announcement. I really would like to read a rumor about a 400 f/5.6 update; I almost certainly would buy it.


How about a little longer 500mm f5.6 IS L lens? Even though I rarely need telephoto lenses I wouldnt mind buying a 500mm f5.6 for mammals and raptors.


----------



## Alexlin (Mar 16, 2018)

Pretty sad....I thought it was F/2.8...disappointing news


----------



## Talys (Mar 16, 2018)

Alexlin said:


> Pretty sad....I thought it was F/2.8...disappointing news



A slight sigh of relief, to be honest. I'm very happy with my 2.8, but I know that it's slightly dated. But because it's a lens I use a lot, I'd almost certainly upgrade it, if not immediately, as soon as there's a telephoto MIR.

Frankly, all they need to do to sell me is to make it more 100-400-ish (ergonomically) and give me some minor excuse to pull the trigger, like the tiniest of IQ bumps.

So, this way, I won't run out and buy a new lens I KNOW that I really don't need, but would love to have, hahaha.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 16, 2018)

AuroraChaserDoug said:


> I like the size and f/4 is usually fast enough. This lens makes me wonder if I need a 24-70 f/2.8. (Well, OTOH, who doesn't need a 24-70 f/2.8!) The 70-200 f/4 IS is compatible with extenders. What if they modified it to no longer be extender compatible but more compatible with a mirrorless FF? The smaller form factor of mirrorless would mate well with the 70-200 f/4 IS.



Compatible with a mirrorless FF what? Why would the lens have to be less extender friendly to compensate for mirrorless? Mounting an extender on the DSLR doesn't cause the sensor to be moved forward or back. Why would it be different for mirrorless? 

I think we assume a FF mirrorless Canon will have to be the ergonomic disappointment that is Sony. Also, once a native Sony lens is mounted on a Sony, there is no size advantage over Canon DSLRs. The Sony lenses are longer, so the total footprint is the same or larger.

I think the assumption some make that Canon will have to give up superior ergonomics and the EF mount is wrong. There won't be a mirror box, but that doesn't mean the camera will be thinner or that the sensor will have to be moved forward as a result.

Maybe there will be a new mount and thinner body, but I doubt it.

Hmmmm... maybe removing the mirror box and prism will make room for a bigger cooling system for 4K? 4K might be another reason to keep the larger body for better cooling and room for more processing power.

I'd like to see a SSD instead of a memory card too. Maybe it will spool the 100 fps onto the slower memory cards.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Mar 16, 2018)

This is a great contribution to the mirrorless discussion. It's nice how the smaller Sony camera sacrifies the top plate display (which i always use on my Canon) for having a larger lens. It looks like, as if the lens is similar in rear design as the mirror versions, just with included adapter (or call it rear extention more politely).
We will get FF mirrorless when they can produce it cheaper than a DSLR, we will pay a premium for "innovation" and if their marketing compartment is very innovative they will bring a new mount to obsolete our lenses. But maybe we will get a cool and innovative blue ring . Remind they just brought 2.5k$ TS-e lenses to market, i am sure the buyers will be very happy if they get obsolete in near future.

For me this strategy would not work, i will not buy new lenses, if they obsolet my existing ones. I will use a last generation DSLR (bought used for cheap, no sale for canon) until exiting my hobby. And yes, i have more than 10k$ lenses. if keeping the lens mount, i will of course fail my fight against GAS occationally and get Canon some more money.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 16, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> AuroraChaserDoug said:
> 
> 
> > I like the size and f/4 is usually fast enough. This lens makes me wonder if I need a 24-70 f/2.8. (Well, OTOH, who doesn't need a 24-70 f/2.8!) The 70-200 f/4 IS is compatible with extenders. What if they modified it to no longer be extender compatible but more compatible with a mirrorless FF? The smaller form factor of mirrorless would mate well with the 70-200 f/4 IS.
> ...



I agree!

You can miniaturize cameras and lenses all you want but we humans remain the same size. In particular, our hands remained the same size. If we want buttons, displays, and other controls, the camera needs the real estate to hold them. Canon’s current crop of full-size cameras is the size and shape that they are for reason, and this is where good ergonomics has taken them.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 16, 2018)

Getting back to subject..... this is an update that is long overdue and welcome.

The previous lens is great. A wonderful example of a balance between quality and price.... very sharp, reasonably light, and (unfortunately), the loudest IS in the Canon ecosystem. As video has increased in popularity, this has become more of a problem.

The new lens will probably be a bit sharper and a lot quieter. I hope that they keep it as a constant length lens, that is a fantastic feature to have when shooting in nasty conditions and you do not want to pump dust or moisture through the camera.


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 16, 2018)

hendrik-sg said:


> This is a great contribution to the mirrorless discussion. It's nice how the smaller Sony camera sacrifies the top plate display (which i always use on my Canon) for having a larger lens.



I honestly don't miss this on my A7RII as I shoot mostly straight through the viewfinder. 

But I also don't get those who claim the ergonomics on the Sony are significantly worse than on the Canon. I love my 5DSR, but there are plenty of things that that Sony does better. For example having a dedicated exposure +/- wheel.


----------



## BillB (Mar 16, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > AuroraChaserDoug said:
> ...



I find myself using the QC button and touchscreen controls on my 5DIV more and more as the days go by.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Mar 16, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> hendrik-sg said:
> 
> 
> > This is a great contribution to the mirrorless discussion. It's nice how the smaller Sony camera sacrifies the top plate display (which i always use on my Canon) for having a larger lens.
> ...



I am not a fanboy and no hater. I do not know sony ergonomics, so i can not judge about it. What the size comparision clearly shows is, that with usual FF lenses the combination doesn't get smaller. So just from this point there is no benefit. Therefor a system change must give other benefit than a usually false promise of size reduction. 

For any system change the costs are so high, (i get no discount on new gear for the reason that i sold old gear) so after selling the gear, i can decide if i keep the money or buy new gear. If Canon abandonnes the EF mount, EF gear will loose value drastically. Sony did the same, it's maybe no pleasure to sell sony alpha gear.

Conclusion is, if Canon gives me the "pleasure" of having to sell obsolete gear, i will have to accept the loss, but i will abandon this hobby and not buy new ILC gear, from no supplier. I will buy a better phone or a high end compact.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 16, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> ...but there are plenty of things that that Sony does better. For example having a dedicated exposure +/- wheel.



My Canon M6 has one of those.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 16, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Getting back to subject..... this is an update that is long overdue and welcome.



EF 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2.0 and (maybe) 135/2.0 are "long overdue" for a decent update with IS ... but not the 70-200/4 L IS. 

Video shooters shall just go away and buy themselves decent video cameras and decent video lenses if they are phased by the "incredibly loud noise" of the IS system.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Mar 16, 2018)

The original is a fantastic lens, within ist specifications. I replaced it (and a 300 2.8) by a 100-400ii which i did not regret.

From build quality perspecive, this is a expensive lens, with magnesium housing, complicated optical formula, weather sealing etc. So they may want to replace it by a "engineering plastic" Version, to be lighter officially, but more likely to be cheaper in production. 

And maybe they can introduce the actual, more bright white as breathtaking innovation


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 16, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Getting back to subject..... this is an update that is long overdue and welcome.
> ...



From the update patterns of lenses over time, it's apparent that zooms >> primes, in the minds of most consumers.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 16, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > ...but there are plenty of things that that Sony does better. For example having a dedicated exposure +/- wheel.
> ...



hehe ... physical control points I don't need on a digital camera 
1. dedicated monofunctional EV compensation dial [when +/- can be so easily accessed via big thumb wheel in back of camera)
2. top LCD 
3. lens stop down button 
4. any sort "Record video" button 
5. monofunctional, hard-coded aperture ring 
6. monofunctional, hard-coded shutter speed dial 

would happily forego all of them for
1. Back-Button AF key ... in addition to AE-lock key ... both re-programmable of course
2. fully articulated main LCD (not flip-flop up down only) 
3. excellent touch screen [happy with Canon on that one] 
4. less buttons and wheels, but bigger/more tactile [glove useable; slightly better with nikon] 
5. buttons and wheels showing status and lit in the dark 

something along these lines: 







but with LESS information displayed ... only what is necessary in line with context-sensitive function of the respective dial.


----------



## Talys (Mar 16, 2018)

@AvTvM - I'm a fan of the DSLR style top displays over a fancy one in the rendering because of power. The simple display on a xxD/xD gives me all the information I need and uses practically no battery power. I've liked these displays ever since film cameras, and they come in really handy when the camera is on a tripod at waist level.

Even with EVF, I miss that top display. I know that it takes up more space, but I'm one of the folks that would like to see the FF mirrorless not really be much smaller than a FF DSLR, simply because all the lens I mount are relatively large -- and so, I'd have all that top space anyways.

I don't really like the EV compensation dial because I hit it by accident sometimes (usually putting the camera in the bag or taking it out), and if WYSIWYG is turned off (for example because I'm using a flash), I might miss it completely.

On the other hand, the EV compensation dial is kind of important on the Sony I'm playing with at the moment (a7r3), because its equivalent to evaluative metering is so often off


----------



## NancyP (Mar 16, 2018)

Why sell "obsolete" gear if it works for you? 

I really bought the 100-400 not to "replace" the 400 f/5.6L no-IS for dedicated birding use, but to have a versatile wildlife lens *with IS* (woo hoo - I don't have any other IS lenses except for the EF-S 15-85 - I am a tripod devotee for landscape) for upcoming travel and visits in Belize (family member is retiring there shortly, and I have an open invitation), and for more versatility, though to date I have swapped out the 400, 70-200 f/4, and various macro lenses on ordinary local bird / insect / wildlife / plants and mushrooms photo walks.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 16, 2018)

A fair number of pro landscape photographers have the EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM lens mainly because it is lighter than its f2.8 cousin and they don't need f2.8. All of them I know like the current lens so unless its a marked improvement its difficult to see why they would trade-up. 

The 2.8 lens is equally a very good lens but at the longer end and close-focus does suffer from colour fringing in out of focus areas, quite a bit is some situations so I can see why that has areas of improvement.


----------



## AJ (Mar 16, 2018)

I wonder about the future of the 70-200/4 non-IS
Will they update it, discontinue it, or keep selling it as is?


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 16, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



I agree, zooms definitely have a shorter update cycle, probably because they outsell the primes...

AvTvM is also right, there are some primes that are longer overdue for an update. If they ever updated the 50F1.4, there are several very vocal CR members who would love to get one. Also, there is the 400F5.6, which if they updated it would find a home in my camera bag...


----------



## degos (Mar 16, 2018)

Oh, still a 70-200. Shame they couldn't wide the short-end to 50mm and it'd be a perfect gap-filler in the bag. Lovely for walkaround when the 70mm is just too much.

But when was the last time Canon introduced a new zoom range? 200-400?


----------



## slclick (Mar 16, 2018)

I bet this will be an amazing lens. Canon surely won't repeat the 24-105 mistake and prior to the 70-200 2.8L IS ll coming out there was quite a bit of folks who had no idea what was coming and others who wondered why an update was needed. One things is for sure, Canon knows this zoom focal length like no one else and most likely will produce a near perfect f/4 lens. I agree with the landscape sentiment, it's the perfect compliment to a wide lens for weight and IQ. Aperture be damned.


----------



## degos (Mar 16, 2018)

I had forgotten that Canon made a pair of 50-200 zooms, back in the late 1980s. Both f3.5 - 4.0, one an L and one for the paupers.

So the 70-200 f4 'replacement' was actually a step backwards in several regards. 

At least Tamron will have us paupers covered with the 70-210 f4 this time whilst Canon pricing wanders off into the L stratosphere.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 16, 2018)

degos said:


> I had forgotten that Canon made a pair of 50-200 zooms, back in the late 1980s. Both f3.5 - 4.0, one an L and one for the paupers.
> 
> So the 70-200 f4 'replacement' was actually a step backwards in several regards.



The more the range, the lower the quality. You can design a better 3X zoom range lens than a 4X zoom range, plus it is easier to keep it constant aperture. This was a step forward.


----------



## degos (Mar 16, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> The more the range, the lower the quality. You can design a better 3X zoom range lens than a 4X zoom range, plus it is easier to keep it constant aperture. This was a step forward.



The 100-400 II is regarded as probably the best zoom ever made... at 4x

And there's the 24-105 which is tolerably good.

And the third-party 150-600s.

Sorry, I am not buying the "4x is too hard" excuse. Canon like 70mm because it forces sales of the 24-70 standard zooms to cover useful prime lengths, not because it is a useful focal length itself.


----------



## slclick (Mar 16, 2018)

degos said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > The more the range, the lower the quality. You can design a better 3X zoom range lens than a 4X zoom range, plus it is easier to keep it constant aperture. This was a step forward.
> ...



Four parts to your post. 1-3, sure, I'm with you. #4, Totally ricockulous. Conspiratorial marketing...uh yeah.


----------



## Alexlin (Mar 16, 2018)

Talys said:


> Alexlin said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty sad....I thought it was F/2.8...disappointing news
> ...



Totally understand your feeling, especially to those who have the generation II...lol

When this confirmation was out, I couldn’t focus on my work in office and get insomnia at the nite. “The brightest colours fill my head. A million dreams keep me awake...I think of what the world could be (without III)”

Well...I’m not an occupational photographer..I just love photographing and enjoy in photography contests. Ironically, I have one lens only (16-35 F/2.8 III) with my mark IV. I did win in some contests...but it’s not enough... ahhh...it sounds so stupid to buy a II for 24-70 or 70-200 F/2.8 now...although the comments are pretty good on them


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 16, 2018)

degos said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > The more the range, the lower the quality. You can design a better 3X zoom range lens than a 4X zoom range, plus it is easier to keep it constant aperture. This was a step forward.
> ...



Given the same technology, a 3X zoom will be better than a 4X zoom. You can not compare across different manufacturers, different materials, and different accuracies of machining.

This is the same as why, given the same materials and technology, a prime is always better than a zoom.

In a zoom lens, you have to make compromises as to which focal length(s) will perform best. The wider the zoom range, the greater the compromises.

Nowhere did I say that 4X is too hard. There are several very good 4X zooms out there, and yes, the 100-400II is a very good example..... but you can not fairly compare the brand new design, modern materials, new coatings, and far more precise machining of a 2017 lens to an older lens. It is those factors that make it better than the version 1 lens that it replaces. 

Similarly, you can expect to see the same range of improvement in the new 70-200F4, and I expect it to be a sharper lens than the 100-400, because it is less range, and partly because it in newer.... and if they ever come out with another 400F5.6, it will spank them both for sharpness.


----------



## DanM (Mar 16, 2018)

Typical, I bought a used 70-200mm F4 IS last year! But it is a stunning lens and my favourite lens that I own, it's hard to see it being a big improvement, though the IS could be much quieter! Going to have to be seriously good to make me think about upgrading.


----------



## traveller (Mar 17, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> degos said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Pardon me for butting in or your argument friendly debate 

I think that there is another factor at work in addition to zoom ratio and that is the number of lens designs that a zoom encompasses over its range. For example, a 100-400mm lens (all examples on 35mm format, before the pedantic cut in!) is a pure telephoto design, whereas a 24-105mm must change from a retro-focal optical layout at the wide end to a telephoto at the long end of its zoom range (other lens designs are possible, but I don’t know of any DSLR zooms that use them -I await correction...). This leads me to suspect that it is somewhat easier to design a high performance, 4x zoom ratio pure telephoto design than a 4x “normal zoom” (e.g. a 24-105), which would explain why there are now quite a few decent 100-400mm zooms on the market, but no one has yet “hit a home run”1 with a 24-105mm. 

[1N.B. Being British, it pains me to use this analogy, but I though it would be more widely understood around here]


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 17, 2018)

traveller said:


> [1N.B. Being British, it pains me to use this analogy, but I though it would be more widely understood around here]



You may be gratified to know that "own goal" has started to work its way into American vernacular, particularly in politics.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 17, 2018)

traveller said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > degos said:
> ...



You are correct, telephoto is easier than wide.

A typical telephoto design has easy angles and does not bend the light sharply, that makes CA consirably asier to correct, while wide angle lenses, and in particular ultra-wide lenses, bend the light very sharply and are a nightmare to design.

I thought it was implied earlier that in saying 3X or 4X zooms, thatthe 4X zoom was an extension of the range and not a completely different range. My bad!


----------



## Sabaki (Mar 19, 2018)

If memory serves, this lens was not on the approved for the 5DSR body so will the new body bring the required resolution bump to make said list?


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 19, 2018)

Sabaki said:


> If memory serves, this lens was not on the approved for the 5DSR body so will the new body bring the required resolution bump to make said list?



Probably due to some simple typo/s the 70-200/4 L IS was not on the first version of that list, published by some of the internet portals. 
http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-releases-recommended-lenses-for-eos-5ds-eos-5ds-r/

The list on Canon's own 5DS R product site does include the 70-200/4 L IS (but not the non IS version). 
https://www.canon-europe.com/for_home/product_finder/cameras/digital_slr/eos_5ds_r/
scroll down halfway and select "zoom lenses"

Zoom lenses
EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM
EF 11-24mm f/4L USM
EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM
EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
*EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM
*EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM
EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x

also: list includes EF 50/1.8 STM instead of EF 50/1.8 II on first published version of that list 

So the current version 70-200/4 L IS definitely can handle a 50 MP Canon sensor (at least) as well as the very cheapest of all Canon EF lenses.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 19, 2018)

degos said:


> Oh, still a 70-200. Shame they couldn't wide the short-end to 50mm and it'd be a perfect gap-filler in the bag. Lovely for walkaround when the 70mm is just too much.
> 
> But when was the last time Canon introduced a new zoom range? 200-400?



The 11-24 is newer.



degos said:


> Sorry, I am not buying the "4x is too hard" excuse.



Of course, they can and do make top notch zooms with massive ratios, but they tend to cost a lot more - there's a 50-1000mm lens that costs $70k, for example.


----------



## pgeezer (Mar 23, 2018)

Please offer it in black!


----------



## Sabaki (Mar 23, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > If memory serves, this lens was not on the approved for the 5DSR body so will the new body bring the required resolution bump to make said list?
> ...



Thank you AvTvM! Much appreciated


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 23, 2018)

Sabaki said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...



And anybody that believes that clearly buys into the marketing pitch of buying lenses rather than has even a modicum of understanding of how system resolution works.



> _Cut and pasted from a similarly misinformed thread in.. (So many times)_.
> 
> System resolution can be broadly shorthanded down to this equation, it isn't perfect but pretty close.
> 
> ...


http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=34095.msg699410#msg699410
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26938.msg595108#msg595108
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27616.msg545641#msg545641


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 25, 2018)

pgeezer said:


> Please offer it in black!



Red plaid is the only other option besides white.


----------



## geekpower (Mar 25, 2018)

anyone care to speculate on whether this version will jump from 67mm filters to 72mm?


----------



## slclick (Mar 25, 2018)

geekpower said:


> anyone care to speculate on whether this version will jump from 67mm filters to 72mm?



That's a given


----------



## Talys (Mar 25, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> pgeezer said:
> 
> 
> > Please offer it in black!
> ...



Polished Chrome. 

There are some great selling features: First, it reflects light even better than white to keep your lens cool, in the California heat! Second, it employs patent-pending, InstaGlance technology, which will make your subjects look straight at your lens when they see the sun reflect off of it, allowing you to capture perfect eye contact angles.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 26, 2018)

Talys said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > pgeezer said:
> ...



Backlighting won't be a problem anymore. True. Well, as long as I can get flames painted on... I hear there might be a special Harley-Davidson edition. I'd certainly pay an extra $250 to haul that logo around.

Seriously... I'm going to print out a Sony logo to tape on my 5D Mark III. I can't afford the best anymore and the neighbors are starting to stare. From what I understand, just having the logo on my camera will make me double plus good! Maybe even as good as Peter Lik! Now that I think about it, that is an unfortunate name. Should have named him Sue.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 2, 2018)

michi said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > So don't expect AF miracles with your new Canon 5DIII and your 1990 EF 85/1.8
> ...



Actually I have had a similar experience with the 85/1.8 since moving from the 5DII also, but I got the 5DS rather than 5DIV. The reliability of the AF is greatly improved, and I'd agree with you, maybe 90% so it is useable whereas before the risk of OOF was just too great. However it is not as 100% on the nail as the 35/2 IS, 40/2.8 and also the 28/2.8 IS though I appreciate that it's not really a fair comparison in required accuracy.


----------

