# Canon Announces the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III and EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 7, 2018)

```
<em><strong>Next Generation of EF 70-200mm Lenses Features a Variety of Updates Including Enhanced Optical Image Stabilization in the f/4 and the Inclusion of Air Sphere Coating in the f/2.8</strong></em></p>
<p><strong>MELVILLE, N.Y., June 7, 201</strong>8 – Canon U.S.A. Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, today introduced two new telephoto zoom lenses, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM and Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM. The new lenses serve advanced amateur and professional photographers in a variety of applications and solutions including wildlife, landscapes, portrait and sports photography. Canon EF 70-200mm focal-length lenses are a popular option for photographers in need of a long zoom range that maintains a relatively compact design. In addition, these updated lenses inherit the same overall build-quality and ruggedness photographers have come to expect from the Canon EF L-series line of lenses.</p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<p>“At the core of image capturing, Canon believes the lens is just as important as the camera. A seamless relationship between the two allows photographers to produce emotion-evoking and timeless images,” said Kazuto Ogawa, president and chief operating officer, Canon U.S.A., Inc. “Canon is excited to offer photographers two distinct options in the 70-200mm focal-length, continuing to further expand our optics heritage.”</p>
<p><strong>Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM

</strong>

The new Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM features numerous updates over its predecessor, making it an ideal lens for advanced amateur photographers using Canon DSLR cameras such as the EOS 6D Mark II or EOS 80D. Most notably, Optical Image Stabilization is upgraded from three stops to five shutter speed stops of correction over the original f/4 lens. The improved IS allows photographers to more easily capture crisp, in-focus images without the use of a tripod. The new lens also features three IS modes, each uniquely designed and suitable for a variety of shooting situations, such as the capture of still subjects, panning or fast moving objects2. Furthermore, the IS operational noise has been reduced, which proves ideal for photographers shooting in a concert hall or on-stage shooting at the theatre.</p>
<p>Additional noteworthy features of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM include:</p>
<ul>
<li>One fluorite lens and two UD lenses helps to provide high-image quality</li>
<li>Minimum focusing distance shortened from 1.2m to 1m (3.9ft to 3.3ft)</li>
<li>Super Spectra Coating technology and optimized lens element placement helps minimize ghosting and flaring</li>
<li>Circular nine blade aperture producing a beautiful bokeh quality, ideal for portrait shooting</li>
<li>Lens features 20 lens elements in 15 groups</li>
<li>Fluorine coating on front and rear elements helps to reduce smears and fingerprints</li>
<li>Inner focusing system with Ring Ultrasonic Motor</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Preorder the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III:</strong> <a href="https://bhpho.to/2LweEeK">B&H Photo</a> | Amazon | <a href="https://mpex.com/canon-ef-70-200mm-f2-8l-is-iii-usm-lens.html?acc=3">Midwest Photo*</a> | <a href="https://www.adorama.com/ca702003isu.html?kbid=64393">Adorama</a></p>
<p><strong>Preorder the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II:</strong> <a href="https://bhpho.to/2Jh1CoG">B&H Photo</a> | Amazon | <a href="https://mpex.com/canon-ef-70-20mm-f4-l-is-ii-usm-lens.html?acc=3">Midwest Photo*</a> | <a href="https://www.adorama.com/ca7020042.html?kbid=64393">Adorama</a></p>
<p><em>*Midwest Photo is offering two free years of CarePAK with all prorders.</em></p>
<p><strong>Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM

</strong>

The new Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM is an ideal lens for professional photographers who shoot with the Canon 1D and 5D series of DSLR cameras. The inclusion of Air Sphere Coating (ASC) technology helps to reduce flaring and ghosting, and suppresses the reflection of light.</p>
<p>Additional noteworthy features of the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM include:</p>
<ul>
<li>Optical Image Stabilizer up to 3.5 shutter speed stops of correction</li>
<li>Fluorine coating on front and rear elements helps to reduce smears and fingerprints</li>
<li>Inner focusing system with Ring Ultrasonic Motor</li>
<li>One fluorite lens and five UD lenses helps to provide high-image quality</li>
<li>Minimum focusing distance of 1.2m (3.9ft)</li>
<li>Lens features 23 elements in 19 groups</li>
<li>Circular eight blade aperture</li>
</ul>
<p>The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II is scheduled to begin shipping in late June 2018 with an estimated retail price of $1,299.00. The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III is scheduled to begin shipping in August 2018 for an estimated retail price of $2,099.00.</p>
<p>For additional information regarding the lenses improved performance over predecessors please visit, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFTBw7-8gdk&feature=youtu.be." target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFTBw7-8gdk&feature=youtu.be.</a></p>
<p><strong>Preorder the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III:</strong> <a href="https://bhpho.to/2LweEeK">B&H Photo</a> | Amazon | <a href="https://mpex.com/canon-ef-70-200mm-f2-8l-is-iii-usm-lens.html?acc=3">Midwest Photo*</a> | <a href="https://www.adorama.com/ca702003isu.html?kbid=64393">Adorama</a></p>
<p><strong>Preorder the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II:</strong> <a href="https://bhpho.to/2Jh1CoG">B&H Photo</a> | Amazon | <a href="https://mpex.com/canon-ef-70-20mm-f4-l-is-ii-usm-lens.html?acc=3">Midwest Photo*</a> | <a href="https://www.adorama.com/ca7020042.html?kbid=64393">Adorama</a></p>
<p><em>*Midwest Photo is offering two free years of CarePAK with all prorders.</em></p>

		<style type='text/css'>
			#gallery-1 {
				margin: auto;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-item {
				float: left;
				margin-top: 10px;
				text-align: center;
				width: 25%;
			}
			#gallery-1 img {
				border: 2px solid #cfcfcf;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-caption {
				margin-left: 0;
			}
			/* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */
		</style>
		<div id='gallery-1' class='gallery galleryid-35242 gallery-columns-4 gallery-size-thumbnail'><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/8526669256.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/8526669256-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/8526669256-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/8526669256-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/HR_EF70-200_4L_IS_II_USM_MOUNTRING_CL.jpeg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/HR_EF70-200_4L_IS_II_USM_MOUNTRING_CL-168x168.jpeg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/HR_EF70-200_4L_IS_II_USM_MOUNTRING_CL-168x168.jpeg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/HR_EF70-200_4L_IS_II_USM_MOUNTRING_CL-144x144.jpeg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/5465467509.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/5465467509-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/5465467509-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/5465467509-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/0352184691.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/0352184691-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/0352184691-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/0352184691-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><br style="clear: both" />
		</div>

<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 7, 2018)

Pricing is quite decent on both lenses. Also good to see improved min. focus distance on f4 lens.


----------



## Dvash7 (Jun 7, 2018)

That entire video was focused almost exclusively on the f/4 II, and barely showed anything about the new f/2.8 III. Something isn't adding up here.
It's like the f/4 II is an actual upgrade, while the f/2.8 III is just a rehash with whiter coating.

Edit - a word


----------



## ethanz (Jun 7, 2018)

Good job Craig, all the rumors this week were spot on. 

From Rudy in the video "the f2.8 lens elements remain unchanged" only the coatings have been updated.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 7, 2018)

Dvash7 said:


> ...It's like the f/4 II is an actual upgrade, while the f/2.8 III is just a rehash with whiter _lens_ coating...



That’s correct. I wasn’t expecting anything big, but I’m still surprised at just how little has been changed.


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 7, 2018)

I'm pretty surprised by the f/2.8 just being a rehash, but to be fair, theres very little I would have changed either if you asked me to update it.

Glad to see it at least matches other Canon white glass now, but not sure I'll be picking one up anytime soon. Seems more like this is for news orgs with deep pockets and for those who dont have a 70-200 yet. The reality is that it's not hard for Canon to sell a 70-200 f/2.8, they're gonna sell no matter what.


----------



## exige24 (Jun 7, 2018)

Disappointing Why even bother Oh well


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2018)

Ummm... _Is it the exact same optical design for the f/2.8L IS III?!_ That would be a shocking move for a flagship instrument like this. 

TDP implies yes: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=687&LensComp=1197 --> same elements count, same hood, same filter diameter

PB outright says yes: https://www.thephoblographer.com/2018/06/07/the-new-canon-70-200mm-lens-updates-are-very-perplexing/

- A


----------



## ethanz (Jun 7, 2018)

But this video claims both lenses have "increased resolution." Which is interesting to note. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP8aBZdXLJQ

The improved IS in the f4 for video looks really nice.

These lenses are certainly priced right.


----------



## sanj (Jun 7, 2018)

He should avoid saying 'slightly updated' if he wants lots to upgrade. IMHO.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2018)

Confirmed around 1:55 in the video. Same optics (in the f/2.8 ) but new coating. Same blade count, filter size, same IS, same AF speed, and the same hood as well (no CPL window in the hood for us :'().

WOW. I'm floored. No wonder the price is so low -- they only had to work on the outer structure / weight / handling.

- A


----------



## Refurb7 (Jun 7, 2018)

Chaitanya said:


> Pricing is quite decent on both lenses. Also good to see improved min. focus distance on f4 lens.


$500 cheaper than Sony's 70-200/2.8 lens.


----------



## melbournite (Jun 7, 2018)

ethanz said:


> But this video claims both lenses have "increased resolution." Which is interesting to note. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP8aBZdXLJQ
> 
> The improved IS in the f4 for video looks really nice.
> 
> These lenses are certainly priced right.



Considering Rudy didn't mention this, I'd say Shaun from Digi Direct may be wrong or only referring to the f4 version.

Nonetheless, having both the predecessors the f4 will be a certain upgrade for me. I think I will hold on to my 2.8 II IS for a while yet.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2018)

The new hood for the f/4L IS II does not appear to have a CPL window. 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1414600-REG/canon_2310c001_et_78b_lens_hood.html

It's pretty deep and would likely benefit from that feature, so I wonder if Canon got negative feedback on the 100-400L II hood design and abandoned it.

- A


----------



## ethanz (Jun 7, 2018)

melbournite said:


> ethanz said:
> 
> 
> > But this video claims both lenses have "increased resolution." Which is interesting to note. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP8aBZdXLJQ
> ...



The f4 seems like a no brainer for upgrading. Looks like a great lens update. Canon is tempting me with gas for a second 70-200, travel version with the new f4...


----------



## DrToast (Jun 7, 2018)

I'm a bit disappointed in this. Granted, the lenses were already spectacular, but these changes don't seem worthy of a "new" version.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jun 7, 2018)

I was going to complain with a "you call that an update for the 2.8?!" comment but I'll cut Canon some slack. The changes probably cost little to implement on the manufacturing side and there's a lot to be gained in customer perception/spending by having their top 70-200 appear fresh and modern. Still....it's a slippery slope to meaningless updates that happen every year just to move more units (COUGH***RX100 line***COUGH)...

Now can we please have a 135mm f/2 IS?


----------



## sanj (Jun 7, 2018)

f4 is a much older lens. So got more 'upgrades'.


----------



## exige24 (Jun 7, 2018)

sanj said:


> f4 is a much older lens. So got more 'upgrades'.



It got the only upgrades haha


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2018)

Someone please help me understand how Canon just phoned in the redesign of one of their legendary and most heavily used instruments. It is the same damn lens with (presumably) better flare control and a new coat of paint. That's it. 

I get the Mk II is a tough act to follow. So why not wait until you can follow it with something clearly better?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2018)

sanj said:


> f4 is a much older lens. So got more 'upgrades'.



One got a new optical design, more blades, Mode 3 IS, 5 stop IS, MFD reduction, etc.

And the other one got a sweet paint job. 

- A


----------



## MrFotoFool (Jun 7, 2018)

This has got to be the most anti-climactic announcement in the history of Canon Rumors (I mean the 2.8 of course, not the 4). I am shocked. Honestly why even bother changing to a version iii? If you watch the video he almost comes right out and tells 2.8 owners not to upgrade.

I wonder if the members of Nikon Rumors are having a good laugh at this non-announcement?


----------



## sanj (Jun 7, 2018)

I do thank Canon for upgrading. Even if the upgrade is not spectacular.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2018)

MrFotoFool said:


> This has got to be the most anti-climactic announcement in the history of Canon Rumors (I mean the 2.8 of course, not the 4). I am shocked. Honestly why even bother changing to a version iii? If you watch the video he almost comes right out and tells 2.8 owners not to upgrade.
> 
> I wonder if the members of Nikon Rumors are having a good laugh at this non-announcement?



+1. Please forgive my ranting as I process this in real time, but it's all shock and not anger. This would be like releasing a 5D5 with the same sensor and AF module and burst as the 5D4. There may be some redeeming other properties to it, but at it's core, a staple professional instrument the company has built it's stellar reputation on just got a paint job and was put back out in the field.

You do this with a kit zoom. You do this with a nifty fifty. You do this when you re-hash an EF-S into an EF-M. (or vice versa). 

You _don't_ do this with this very elite class of lens.

I'm quite simply flabbergasted. 

- A


----------



## padam (Jun 7, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Someone please help me understand how Canon just phoned in the redesign of one of their legendary and most heavily used instruments. It is the same damn lens with (presumably) better flare control and a new coat of paint. That's it.
> 
> I get the Mk II is a tough act to follow. So why not wait until you can follow it with something clearly better?
> 
> - A



They do have a 70-200/2.8 DO as a patent, they've probably abandoned that for cost reasons (too much to fully develop / too costly to produce)


----------



## jd7 (Jun 7, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > f4 is a much older lens. So got more 'upgrades'.
> ...



And, apparently, a _less_ effective IS system than its predecessor ... at a time when other lenses like the 100-400L IS II and the 85 1.4L IS seem have excellent IS systems. Curious! Will be interesting to find out of the new coatings make any significant difference to IQ, but despite the official announcement it still feels like we're missing something. Then again, maybe Canon sees value in the change even if we don't (lower production costs, some value in simply having a "new model" on the shelves?).

Oh well, the good news is so far I'm not feeling any temptation to buy a mk III


----------



## MikeD (Jun 7, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > f4 is a much older lens. So got more 'upgrades'.
> ...



I wonder how many 70-200mm f2.8 iis are now being pulled off craigslist and ebay 
I noticed a spike in ii sales on craigslist the past few weeks. Sure glad I didnt dump mine!


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2018)

jd7 said:


> And, apparently, a _less_ effective IS system than its predecessor ...



Don't get fooled by the 4 vs. 3.5 stops. Neuro recently posted that claims of IS performance are being standardized in the industry, and most prior claims overshoot the standard. I guess 3.5 is just a more conservative reporting of the performance. (Kind of sounds like what happened when every car manufacturer in the US starting touting mileage with lower figures, all using the units 'emm-pee-gee' instead of saying miles per gallon a few years back.)

Besides: Rudy in the video said it's the same optics, same AF, same IS, so it's not a step down. It's the same.

- A


----------



## weixing (Jun 7, 2018)

Hi,
I think the new 70-200 f2.8 III is a "manufacturing" update... reduce the number of different type of coating/paint they need to maintain and to improve the efficiency of their coating/paint chamber.

Have a nice day.


----------



## pwp (Jun 7, 2018)

70-200 f2.8 III? More of a II.1
Can't see an upgrade happening here unless my 70-200 f2.8 II breaks.

-pw


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 7, 2018)

What a show  : :-\

Of course the f/4 got a really good update and I am very interested in the optical performance compared to its predecessor and to the f/2.8 II/III (at f/4).

But the f/2.8 III? Almost same opinion as all others here. 


ahsanford said:


> WOW. I'm floored. No wonder the price is so low ...


Same here.

BUT
Of course after reading some information about coatings from Zeiss posted here some time ago I know what coatings can deliver. 
Plus maybe some cost saving internal design changes might make it necessary to give this one a Mark III labeling. 
But the spec sheet surely doesn't. 
AND
With such a good optical performance as the f/2.8 II already had and that price it might be a good market approach decision from Canon: 
Not to go the race for 99% (Nikon) over 97% (f/2.8 II) optical performance for more than 30% more price.
Interesting but also a choice.
Think about being a press or sports photog deciding between Nikon and Canon (and maybe Sony).
And now you can save almost one grand and get an optical performance, that is just slightly worse than the best and surely good enough for all news papers and press agencies around the world. 
I know which way I'd go...


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 7, 2018)

With regard to the f2.8 LIII, I actually do believe that the new coatings will have a pretty significant impact on the overall image quality, especially in terms of improving contrast and clarity. I’m not claiming significant enough that one need to upgrade from version II, but pixel peepers will see a difference. Given the quality of version II, only pixel peepers should crave for more sharpness. Some might therefore want to upgrade. 

I guess Canon has another thing in mind with this upgrade. They will get rid of some of the competition Canon face when selling new lenses, namely the competition they face from people buying used f2.8LIII lenses.


----------



## xps (Jun 7, 2018)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> I think the new 70-200 f2.8 III is a "manufacturing" update... reduce the number of different type of coating/paint they need to maintain and to improve the efficiency of their coating/paint chamber.
> 
> Have a nice day.



Indeed, also other companies do bring their products on the current manufacturing standard. Often the core components stay the same. This is much cheaper than having an older manufacturing "street" and an newer one parallel.


----------



## xps (Jun 7, 2018)

Let us see, if there is really no update inside. I´m sure in some weeks there are the first comparison shots between mk 0, I,II and III
And the testing procedures for the IS are now more standardized, so no Producer can claim 5 stops, if the lens is not able to do this.


----------



## mppix (Jun 7, 2018)

Wow, first the 24-105 now the 70-200 f2.8. I mean we are used to the "not quite" on the bodies but lenses ...
I understand tough that coatings may very well get the f2.8 ready for 50MP+ territory. Still, the f4 has gotten a lot more attractive. It will also (marginally) outperform the f2.8 in low light for reasonably static subjects, not to speak of panning


----------



## jd7 (Jun 7, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > And, apparently, a _less_ effective IS system than its predecessor ...
> ...



That sounds fair - just cannot imagine the IS system really is less effective.

Still, makes for interesting marketing when Canon is still claiming 4 stops on the mk II 
https://www.canon.com.au/camera-lenses/ef-70-200mm-f-2-8l-is-ii-usm


----------



## fullstop (Jun 7, 2018)

am quite surprised that Canon gave the f/4 "better specs" in some regards than f/2.8. Especially IS with 5 vs. 3.5 stops [I'd assume that both numbers are now stated based on the same new, "more realistic" standard?] and 3rd IS mode [not on 2.8 III, correct?] and also number of iris blades [9 vs. 8] - not that I would care very much about the latter, but it's still a "spec sheet spec". 

I expected Canon to come out with a "killer" f/2.8 Mk. III that optically bests Nikon and Sony GM - at least by some ever so small margin - but measurable in Lens Rentals OLAF tests. But, lets wait for those tests and see what "coating the airsphere"  really does for IQ. ;D


----------



## traveller (Jun 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> am quite surprised that Canon gave the f/4 "better specs" in some regards than f/2.8. Especially IS with 5 vs. 3.5 stops [I'd assume that both numbers are now stated based on the same new, "more realistic" standard?] and 3rd IS mode [not on 2.8 III, correct?] and also number of iris blades [9 vs. 8] - not that I would care very much about the latter, but it's still a "spec sheet spec".
> 
> I expected Canon to come out with a "killer" f/2.8 Mk. III that optically bests Nikon and Sony GM - at least by some ever so small margin - but measurable in Lens Rentals OLAF tests. But, lets wait for those tests and see what "coating the airsphere"  really does for IQ. ;D



Looks like they put their lens design resources into the f/4 version rather than the f/2.8. 

The Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 E will remain the lens to beat, though note that (despite his enthusiasm for the Nikkor’s mif graphs) Roger Cicala only thinks the difference would be noticeable at 135mm. 

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/nikon-70-200mm-f2-8e-fl-ed-af-s-vr-mtf-tests/

The Sony FE 70-200 f/2.8 GM on the other hand, just doesn’t seem to be that impressive optically: 

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/01/an-update-and-comparison-of-the-sony-fe-70-200mm-f2-8-gm-oss/

Perhaps Canon see Sony as the main threat.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 7, 2018)

I'd say a partial reason to upgrade the 70-200mm F2.8 was to say it was a new lens as its up against new Sony Lens.
It's probably good news for me as I didn't intend upgrading and now it looks like I won't have to. I'm sure the changes have made it slightly better but its hard to top the II lens.

The F4 I've always been tempted by for travel or street photography. It was always a good lens but now it has been improved.

When you have a lot of gear its harder to be tempted but I'd have to say Sigma are turning my head a bit. Their 14mm 1.8 is a great specialised lens which I've really enjoyed and now they are tempting me with a 105mm 1.4 another specialised lens.

Canon have to probably play to a broader audience. I'd say both these lens will sell well as newer photographers thinking of upgrading will buy the newest versions.


----------



## Rampuri (Jun 7, 2018)

At least the price of f2,8 II has gone 380 EUR down in 3 days . If they lowered it by another 100 or so and added some nice cashback I would most likely but one.


----------



## symmar22 (Jun 7, 2018)

I am surprised as well they didn't go for a complete redesign of the f2.8. Having both f4 IS and f2.8 IS II, the f4 is as sharp (if not sharper) on my 5DSr, but with a bit more chroma (cyan/red). So it might be that the new f4 IS is actually a sharper lens than the 2.8. Having more blades, a better IS, cheaper, much lighter, it seems to be a no brainer if you don't need the speed. Looks like the filter size is bigger as well, that should translate in less vignetting. But IMO they should have aimed higher for the 2.8.

Canon greed being Canon greed, it seems we'll have to shell out about 150€ more for the tripod collar of the f4, as usual.


----------



## riker (Jun 7, 2018)

Nooooooo! (((
The genius about f4 is the size and weight (and image quality). And now instead of making it lighter, they make it even a bit bigger and heavier. Why?!?!?

I'm so sure the same tragedy will happen with 50/1.4. Decades go by with fast evolving technologies everything getting a LOT smaller and lighter, but the most used dslr lenses just don't seem to follow


----------



## docsmith (Jun 7, 2018)

the 3

Don't believe nothin' until we see some testing.

Could the coatings help improve optics? Maybe, but why wasn't it hyped? I'll wait for the testing. Was ghosting an issue? I missed that one with this lens.

But, in the end, I feel relieved. I do not feel the need to upgrade a lens that I love. We get to stay together forever 

the new 2

Very intrigued. I went the 70-300 L for my lightweight alternative to the 70-200 f/2.8 II, but 5 stop IS, improved optics, lighter weight. Throw on a 1.4xTC....hmmm....


EDIT---TDP has a tool to compare the MTFs. Big jump in the f/4, at 70 mm....very slight at 200 mm
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 7, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Someone please help me understand how Canon just phoned in the redesign of one of their legendary and most heavily used instruments. It is the same damn lens with (presumably) better flare control and a new coat of paint. That's it.
> 
> I get the Mk II is a tough act to follow. So why not wait until you can follow it with something clearly better?
> 
> - A




You are also upset that the price is so low that "they are leaving money on the table."

When was the last time you ran a large corporation? Have you ever run a business at all? When was the last time you thought a company could be fair and profitable if not controlled by a bureaucracy? Do you have any concept of how difficult business is in our era of constant change? Not only does the market change radically, sometimes from quarter to quarter, but regulations and taxing also drastically change. And now any PR misstep by an employee, once broadcast by social media, can result in millions of dollars of "shame penalties." Yet even in these uniquely difficult times Canon and others, followng their own strategies which apparently exasperate you, manage to keep steering their corporate ships along profitable courses.

Stacking posts loaded with bizarrely detailed yet meaningless conjecture does not make for interesting, helpful, or informative reading.

Optically, and within the price range of Canon's overall market, there really wasn't much room for the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II to improve. It is one of the finest portrait lenses ever produced, and it's great for action too. 

If Canon's upgrade history led to unrealistic expectations at this point in a product line, maybe they need to tweak their marketing. 

In addition to changes to control production costs, the new 2.8 might also be slightly easier to service and even more reliable. Surely such a popular lens shows up often in Canon service centers, and hopefully Canon listens to reports from the frontline service techs.

Now, if we find a degradation of actual performance, say analogous to the now infamous 24-105 II, Canon sales will likely take a significant hit in the high-end body and lens lineup. But as of this morning, and certainly during the last couple of weeks filled with breathless nonsense speculation, there is no evidence that the new lenses will not be up to the standards of their predecessors.


----------



## weixing (Jun 7, 2018)

Hi,


symmar22 said:


> I am surprised as well they didn't go for a complete redesign of the f2.8. Having both f4 IS and f2.8 IS II, the f4 is as sharp (if not sharper) on my 5DSr, but with a bit more chroma (cyan/red). So it might be that the new f4 IS is actually a sharper lens than the 2.8. Having more blades, a better IS, cheaper, much lighter, it seems to be a no brainer if you don't need the speed. Looks like the filter size is bigger as well, that should translate in less vignetting. But IMO they should have aimed higher for the 2.8.


Hi,
I'm not surprise... F4 version will usually be better than the F2.8 version if both are the same generation. F4 lens is easier to design and manufacture compare to a F2.8, so everything should be better in the F4.



symmar22 said:


> Canon greed being Canon greed, it seems we'll have to shell out about 150€ more for the tripod collar of the f4, as usual.


 If they include the tripod collar, someone out there will said:"Canon greed being Canon greed, it seems we'll have to paid for the tripod collar *that we don't need*, as usual.".  Hard to make everyone happy.

Anyway, may be Canon research show them that most people don't use the tripod collar for the F4 lens especially with a good IS and lightweight, so they can reduce cost and more competitive/profit.

Have a nice day.


----------



## BeenThere (Jun 7, 2018)

Look at the upside of the new 2.8: Parts obsolescence is pushed out another 10 years if you ever need repair of your v II.


----------



## SV (Jun 7, 2018)

Well, on a positive note I feel zero need to upgrade my 2.8...


----------



## Sharlin (Jun 7, 2018)

This forum, before announcement: "The 70-200/2.8 II is already the best and sharpest thing ever, I can't see how they could make it even better"

This forum, after announcement: "Omg I can't believe they didn't do a real upgrade, the 70-200/2.8 II optics are no match for future 100MP sensors and anyway GREEDY CANON"

: : :


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 7, 2018)

Two points:

First, why does the F4 lens have 5 stops of IS and the F2.8 lens have only 3.5 stops? The answer is easy..... the faster lens has heavier elements and they can not be moved as quickly as the elements in the F4 lens....

Second: Why does it seem like there is no update to the F2.8 lens? What about coatings? What about accuracy of machining? Just because it has the same number of elements does not mean it is the same resolution, the optical design can still have been changed and the lens elements may also be more accurately polished...... Wait until you see the results from an optical test bench before you pronounce judgement.......


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 7, 2018)

For those complaining, just remember this is the same lens as before, at the same retail price, but with improved coatings.

It was a good idea for Canon to update this lens with the newer coatings.

It was a good idea to give it a new version number, so buyers can be clear about which version they are buying.

I am therefore officially calling the complaints to close. Good day


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 7, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Two points:
> 
> First, why does the F4 lens have 5 stops of IS and the F2.8 lens have only 3.5 stops? The answer is easy..... the faster lens has heavier elements and they can not be moved as quickly as the elements in the F4 lens....
> 
> Second: Why does it seem like there is no update to the F2.8 lens? What about coatings? What about accuracy of machining? Just because it has the same number of elements does not mean it is the same resolution, the optical design can still have been changed and the lens elements may also be more accurately polished...... Wait until you see the results from an optical test bench before you pronounce judgement.......



The clouds parted, the sunshine surrounded us, and, lo and behold, we heard the voice of reason. Nice for a change!


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 7, 2018)

traveller said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > am quite surprised that Canon gave the f/4 "better specs" in some regards than f/2.8. Especially IS with 5 vs. 3.5 stops [I'd assume that both numbers are now stated based on the same new, "more realistic" standard?] and 3rd IS mode [not on 2.8 III, correct?] and also number of iris blades [9 vs. 8] - not that I would care very much about the latter, but it's still a "spec sheet spec".
> ...



If it takes a machine to "see" the difference, then there is no practical difference.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 7, 2018)

symmar22 said:


> I am surprised as well they didn't go for a complete redesign of the f2.8. Having both f4 IS and f2.8 IS II, the f4 is as sharp (if not sharper) on my 5DSr, but with a bit more chroma (cyan/red). So it might be that the new f4 IS is actually a sharper lens than the 2.8. Having more blades, a better IS, cheaper, much lighter, it seems to be a no brainer if you don't need the speed. Looks like the filter size is bigger as well, that should translate in less vignetting. But IMO they should have aimed higher for the 2.8.
> 
> Canon greed being Canon greed, it seems we'll have to shell out about 150€ more for the tripod collar of the f4, as usual.



Yes, all about greed. That's it. Greed.

Greed: intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.

Canon could have included the collar and just raised the price to cover it, or people who don't want it don't have to pay for it. Greed? Not forcing someone to pay for a feature they don't want is greed? Wow. 

Do you really think the collar on the f/2.8 is free? : 

For those saying there is no change on the inside... new coatings. There might be something else in the way things are now done as opposed how they were done on the II that makes it better.

"Big deal, coatings." Then maybe Canon should scrap the coatings altogether.

This gave some of you the cramps? There are pills for that. Take one.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 7, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> symmar22 said:
> 
> 
> > I am surprised as well they didn't go for a complete redesign of the f2.8. Having both f4 IS and f2.8 IS II, the f4 is as sharp (if not sharper) on my 5DSr, but with a bit more chroma (cyan/red). So it might be that the new f4 IS is actually a sharper lens than the 2.8. Having more blades, a better IS, cheaper, much lighter, it seems to be a no brainer if you don't need the speed. Looks like the filter size is bigger as well, that should translate in less vignetting. But IMO they should have aimed higher for the 2.8.
> ...




There's a healthy aftermarket for 70-200mm f/4 and 100mm f/2.8 IS macro collars. Only GREED would make a decision that fosters opportunity like that! ;D


(And, on a personal note, I use the f/4 for family and other fun outings. A collar just gets in the way in those cases. And, in a pinch, with a good ballhead on a decent tripod, the f/4 is light enough for camera-body mounting anyway.)


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 7, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > symmar22 said:
> ...



Yup.

Any reason to jab ribs and "stick it to the man", I guess. People are nuts. At the very least, economic illiterates.


----------



## KirkD (Jun 7, 2018)

Improved coatings can increase contrast or "rendering"(as Dustin Abbot puts it) which can make a photograph "pop". That type of upgrade is more important to me than a minuscule increase in resolution at certain focal lengths in the zoom range (albeit both is even better). I can see that Canon would want to have a designation for this lens that sets it apart from the Mark II. What I am really waiting for are the two professional lens announcements rumoured for later this year. I would like to see an upgraded (resolution and contrast) 14 mm f2.8L and a 135 mm f2.0L IS or a 16-35mm f2.8L IS with the same optics but with IS. I'd gladly pay the extra.


----------



## Act444 (Jun 7, 2018)

Meh, I will wait for actual tests and samples before making a final judgment. Having said that, as a version II owner I’m not yet sold on a desire to upgrade. I consider that a good thing though! 

The optics in V.II are already quite good anyway, so it’s not a lens that really needed replacing in the first place. That said, I must say that updates of high-end Canon lenses typically mean major upgrades...so this makes me wonder why they didn’t just give it another year or two to really invest in a solid upgrade of the current version, given that the life cycles of these lenses are like 7-9 years...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 7, 2018)

I really can't abide that my 70-200/2.8 II is not a good color match with my other white lenses. It looks especially appalling with one of the MkIII TCs mounted behind it. Thank you, Canon, for finally releasing a 70-200/2.8 III that is the proper color. I'll be preordering one immediately. 

Well...maybe not.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 7, 2018)

speaking of "upgrades": lens collars and tripod foot - still no Arca-compatible grooves in the OEM Canon tripod foot? For both lenses f/2.8 and f/4? 

Now, playing devil's advocate *Canapologist*: 

Of course it is only to the benefit of the customer that Canon in their infinite corporate wisdom chose to "upgrade" the lenses' paint job instead, as this provides another 0,0001% better heat dissipation in desert environments, which is much better for customers compared to not having to buy and think about suitable tripod plates. 

And equally important: GENEROUS Canon is nice and caring enough to give a multitude of small aftermarket companies a *Really Right* business opportunity.   


did I get it right? ;D


----------



## stevelee (Jun 7, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> This forum, before announcement: "The 70-200/2.8 II is already the best and sharpest thing ever, I can't see how they could make it even better"
> 
> This forum, after announcement: "Omg I can't believe they didn't do a real upgrade, the 70-200/2.8 II optics are no match for future 100MP sensors and anyway GREEDY CANON"
> 
> : : :



;D


----------



## djack41 (Jun 7, 2018)

The competition is changing the market and this is what Canon rolls out?? GEEEZ!


----------



## JRPhotos (Jun 7, 2018)

They look like decent upgrades to me....

I'm just hoping for an upgrade to the 50mm 1.2; I'd like to see it get the same treatment that the 85 1.2 received.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 7, 2018)

Both these new lenses will undoubtably have the direction indicator feedback that Canon has been adding to its lenses since about 2012, and enables the phase detect from post 2012 cameras to be equal in accuracy and precision as contrast off the chip. As most of us value sharp in-focus images and have higher mp cameras than in the past I'd have thought that that in itself would be a useful upgrade for many. 

Hopefully the reviews will report greater AF accuracy.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> speaking of "upgrades": lens collars and tripod foot - still no Arca-compatible grooves in the OEM Canon tripod foot? For both lenses f/2.8 and f/4?
> 
> Now, playing devil's advocate *Canapologist*:
> 
> ...




Yes, corporations should be regulated so that they focus solely on being generous, nice, and caring. No need to produce profitable items so they can stay in business by meeting the needs of customers. 

I wonder how many of the snide posts are coming from photographers who own and use the current 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. Just wonder. 

I have no reason to upgrade mine, but if I were buying new, the updated lens coatings and electronics would be a sign that Canon is keeping a great portrait lens fresh--and will be supporting it with the industry's best service infrastructure for years to come.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 7, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> This forum, before announcement: "The 70-200/2.8 II is already the best and sharpest thing ever, I can't see how they could make it even better"
> 
> This forum, after announcement: "Omg I can't believe they didn't do a real upgrade, the 70-200/2.8 II optics are no match for future 100MP sensors and anyway GREEDY CANON"



Very true.

I would point out though that some of us were trying to tamp down expectations before the announcement, suggesting that the 2.8 III might not see much of a change. 

On the other hand, I really did expect some modest changes:


Newer IS
Third IS Mode
Closer Focusing Distance
New Lens Hood with Filter access slot 

Am I upset about any of this? Not really. The current IS is perfectly adequate for the work I do. I don't need IS when shooting indoor sports and when shooting other events, I'm more likely to be limited by the need to stop the movement of the subjects, not by the capacity of the IS.

I seldom use the lens for close focus work so the minimum focusing distance isn't a problem for me. 

And, I've never used either the third IS Mode or the filter window on my 100-400 (and I don't ever use the lens hood on my 70-200 because it's one more thing I don't need to carry in my bag), so I have to admit that for me personally, I won't miss any of these features the III could have had.

Still, I do wonder, just from a speculative/business sense, if we will wait another eight years for a version IV, or if we will see the III replaced in a relatively short time frame. To me, the III feels like a last-minute addition. We've been reading predictions about the f4 upgrade for months, and I wonder if the f2.8 upgrade was added rather late in the game.


----------



## ethanz (Jun 7, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> Both these new lenses will undoubtably have the direction indicator feedback that Canon has been adding to its lenses since about 2012, and enables the phase detect from post 2012 cameras to be equal in accuracy and precision as contrast off the chip. As most of us value sharp in-focus images and have higher mp cameras than in the past I'd have thought that that in itself would be a useful upgrade for many.
> 
> Hopefully the reviews will report greater AF accuracy.



The video review I posted on the first page seems to say "increased resolution" and increased AF accuracy for both lenses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP8aBZdXLJQ


----------



## gruhl28 (Jun 7, 2018)

$210 for the (not included) tripod ring for the f/4?! And then you still need to buy an arca-swiss compatible foot.


----------



## Act444 (Jun 7, 2018)

Actually, a boost in AF accuracy would be nice to see...again, let’s see what the reviews say. Field results and comparisons between the two lenses will be infinitely more insightful than looking at on-paper differences...


----------



## ethanz (Jun 7, 2018)

Act444 said:


> Actually, a boost in AF accuracy would be nice to see...again, let’s see what the reviews say. Field results and comparisons between the two lenses will be infinitely more insightful than looking at on-paper differences...



Yes, we aren't spec sheeters like Sony people, we like real world differences.


----------



## Cali Capture (Jun 7, 2018)

Very Surprised by the comments here. As pointed out by some, we don't know what the performance of the new 2.8 is yet, so why conjecture. We all agree the current version is very good. Most of us are looking for upgrades in other lenses anyways, all 50mm, 135 f/2 w/ is, 16-35 f/2.8 is and 24-70 f/2.8 is, perhaps a new DO in long lenses. So money saved for most of us with the current f/2.8 70-200mm, we made a great investment in a hard to beat lens. Furthermore, it seams obvious that we are in an era of diminishing returns on large aperture glass improvement. Look at the cost, size, lack of AF and IS of Zeiss Otus glass and ask yourself how Canon (or anyone else) is going to make huge leaps? The trend for f/4 improvements has been consistent (11-24, 16-34is, 100-400) and I would guess due to improved technology abilities on the tolerances of those smaller elements. I'm looking forward to more IS Lenses (and perhaps in Body is) as the MP count goes up. Off tripod, this is were you are going to gain better resolution, especially at longer focal lengths. I have the 70-200 f/4 non IS, I bag it when out doing landscape w a tripod, it's sharp & light. This new f/4 IS might have me upgrading it, as it could be great to carry mounted as I hike, for wildlife & macro shots ect.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 7, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I wonder how many of the snide posts are coming from photographers who own and use the current 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. Just wonder.



yes, here! I find the absence of Arca-grooves on the lens/tripod foot already annoying on the Mk. II. On Mk. III i find it ... insane. Even Tamron has finally seen the light on their 70-200 G2! Lack of such a simple feature that certainly would not break the bank on manufacturing cost of a 2000+ lens, but would be extremely useful to many user and does not hurt users who don't need it ... is simply "Canon-esque". And it certainly does not increase my desire for an "upgrade". 




ethanz said:


> Yes, we aren't spec sheeters like Sony people, we like real world differences.



yes. In my real world use, having Arca-compatible grooves right were they long - directly on the OEM Canon lens foot - would make a real, positive difference.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> You are also upset that the price is so low that "they are leaving money on the table."



That was clearly on the presumption that a proper/better new lens was coming. They took a different path. I still contend a _proper_ sequel to the f/2.8L IS II would have comfortably reeled in $2500.

I never thought Canon would rest on its laurels in this class of lens. I clearly was wrong. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> First, why does the F4 lens have 5 stops of IS and the F2.8 lens have only 3.5 stops? The answer is easy..... the faster lens has heavier elements and they can not be moved as quickly as the elements in the F4 lens....



Sure, Don, agree -- but one design is from 2018 and the other is from 2010. That certainly plays into the difference.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2018)

Act444 said:


> Actually, a boost in AF accuracy would be nice to see...again, let’s see what the reviews say. Field results and comparisons between the two lenses will be infinitely more insightful than looking at on-paper differences...



Rudy, around 2:00-2:05 in the video: AF speed and responsiveness are unchanged (for the f/2.8.).

I seem to recall something else said about better focusing on newer bodies, but that may have been the f/4.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2018)

Cali Capture said:


> Very Surprised by the comments here. As pointed out by some, we don't know what the performance of the new 2.8 is yet, so why conjecture.



1) It's not conjecture. The f/2.8 is the same optical design -- straight out Rudy's mouth in the video -- with new ASC coatings added (I don't know if it was on 1 or 2 elements). 

2) I just checked TDP, Canon, etc.: _Canon appears (so far) to have only published new MTF charts for the f/4L IS II_.  That's not a good sign.

I'm sure the coatings help, but an altogether new optical design could have stepped resolution, reduced MFD, improved IS, etc.



Cali Capture said:


> Furthermore, it seams obvious that we are in an era of diminishing returns on large aperture glass improvement. Look at the cost, size, lack of AF and IS of Zeiss Otus glass and ask yourself how Canon (or anyone else) is going to make huge leaps?



_Then don't release a III. _ Hold off on a III until it's truly better. Make a running change to the _current_ design to switch to the new paint if the business wants its lenses to match in the field.

Others here are on point that a newer model that modernized for lower cost of manufacture, easier servicing, etc. are likely the drivers here. Canon will make money on this. The business rationale for this model is sound.

But I think what's critically different here is Canon's reputation for performance in this top top top class of lens. This specific lens is both a workhorse _and a showhorse_ for Canon. You pull this sort of update with a nifty fifty, a kit L zoom going in boxes with FF bodies, etc. You just don't do this with a flagship instrument. Could you imagine what would happen if Canon did this with a superwhite?

- A


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jun 7, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> This forum, before announcement: "The 70-200/2.8 II is already the best and sharpest thing ever, I can't see how they could make it even better"
> 
> This forum, after announcement: "Omg I can't believe they didn't do a real upgrade, the 70-200/2.8 II optics are no match for future 100MP sensors and anyway GREEDY CANON"
> 
> : : :


 Well you have to understand that people dont expect canon to upgrade again for a long ass time. so when new cameras come out canon might still use this as a flagship for another 5 to 10 years. every camera and brand standards will surpass it by then. if this happens


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2018)

MTF still not posted at Canon USA for the f/2.8L IS III, but here it is from Japan:

http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/tele-zoom/ef70-200-f28l-iii/spec.html

Same site, Mk II:

http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/tele-zoom/ef70-200-f28l-is-ii/spec.html

...and a GIF, below, that I just made. Flare may improve, folks, but that's probably going to be it.

- A


----------



## dkangel (Jun 7, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> MTF still not posted at Canon USA for the f/2.8L IS III, but here it is from Japan:
> 
> http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/tele-zoom/ef70-200-f28l-iii/spec.html
> 
> ...



Wow. Just Wow. Good comparison - waste of an upgrade. Should have stuck with doing a new 50 1.4.


----------



## triggermike (Jun 7, 2018)

Was expecting to see the newer f2.8 shed a little weight as Canon has done with all the latest "white lens" upgrades but it seems they have only shed a mere 50g (1440g vs 1490g/3.17lbs vs 3.28lbs.)


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2018)

dkangel said:


> Wow. Just Wow. Good comparison - waste of an upgrade. Should have stuck with doing a new 50 1.4.



The coatings will help or they wouldn't have done it. I'm sure if portraits are your bread and butter you'll want to see how portraits look with a strong backlight. 

Perhaps -- given the surprisingly low asking price and common componentry, accessories, AF, IS, etc. -- we shouldn't call this a III. 

We should call it the 'Mk II 2018 edition' or 'Mk II White'. Mind you, it's not a rip off at all; it's a stellar piece of kit. But it's just this year's model in a new color.

- A


----------



## ethanz (Jun 7, 2018)

triggermike said:


> Was expecting to see the newer f2.8 shed a little weight as Canon has done with all the latest "white lens" upgrades but it seems they have only shed a mere 50g (1440g vs 1490g/3.17lbs vs 3.28lbs.)



The 2.8 weighs less now? How is that possible if nothing changed?

The f4 got 20g heavier.


----------



## ethanz (Jun 7, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> MTF still not posted at Canon USA for the f/2.8L IS III, but here it is from Japan:
> 
> http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/tele-zoom/ef70-200-f28l-iii/spec.html
> 
> ...



Great gif Adam.


----------



## Talys (Jun 7, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> MTF still not posted at Canon USA for the f/2.8L IS III, but here it is from Japan:
> 
> http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/tele-zoom/ef70-200-f28l-iii/spec.html
> 
> ...



Wow, I guess I get to remain perfectly happy with my Mk II 

I'm glad for the people who are f/4 users; that lens looks like a great upgrade for them. White paint and little bit of flare doesn't give me a reason to upgrade unless mine dies from damage or wear and tear. I wonder if the tripod collar rotation is better on the new one.


----------



## kirispupis (Jun 7, 2018)

The upgrade for the 2.8 is a professional upgrade, not a fanboy one. If all you're interested in are MTF charts that "prove" your photos are awesome because you're using the best equipment in the industry, then you'll want to move on. There's nothing to see here.

My biggest gripe with my 2.8 is that flare is horrible. Since most of my landscape photography incorporates the sun, that means the lens is of limited use. This upgrade changes all that. The sharpness and everything else are already there. Why monkey with it?

What Canon has done is fix the one major flaw on an otherwise awesome lens, then release it for $400 below what the original II cost.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2018)

triggermike said:


> Was expecting to see the newer f2.8 shed a little weight as Canon has done with all the latest "white lens" upgrades but it seems they have only shed a mere 50g (1440g vs 1490g/3.17lbs vs 3.28lbs.)



Yep, same optical design, but they could have tweaked the outer housing more, gone with more engineering plastic than metal, etc. Hard to tell from the overlay what really changed here, but I'm guessing a host of really small cosmetic touches (surface finish, blend radii at transitions, etc.) in line with the 100-400L II were done.

That said, the Mk II is a tank and perhaps Canon got strong guidance from it's pros that weight reduction should only be pursued if durability/sealing wasn't compromised. It's possible that they couldn't do that without a really major/expensive/risky transformation to the barrel/housing -- using carbon fiber for instance.

Or maybe they said 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' and put all their chips on reducing production costs and kept most of it the same. That's what the photos would imply.

- A


----------



## scyrene (Jun 7, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> This forum, before announcement: "The 70-200/2.8 II is already the best and sharpest thing ever, I can't see how they could make it even better"
> 
> This forum, after announcement: "Omg I can't believe they didn't do a real upgrade, the 70-200/2.8 II optics are no match for future 100MP sensors and anyway GREEDY CANON"
> 
> : : :



Heh, pretty much!


----------



## scyrene (Jun 7, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Two points:
> ...



+1

Also why is it whenever a new version of something comes out, people assume that the target market is owners of the previous version? Just cos there's a mark III doesn't mean you should upgrade from your mark II. But if you're starting out, you get the newer one if you can afford it/want brand new. It's not complicated.


----------



## ethanz (Jun 7, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> triggermike said:
> 
> 
> > Was expecting to see the newer f2.8 shed a little weight as Canon has done with all the latest "white lens" upgrades but it seems they have only shed a mere 50g (1440g vs 1490g/3.17lbs vs 3.28lbs.)
> ...



I've got it figured out. The gold "Image Stabilizer" on the II weighed and cost extra because it was real gold so they skipped it on the new III, hence the slightly reduced weight and cost.


----------



## timmy_650 (Jun 7, 2018)

I wonder if this is a way to deal with Tamron and sigma 70-200. The Tamron G2 is $1300 which is a lot cheaper than $2100 which the canon 70-200 2.8 mIII cost. Now the price of the mII could drop to 1400-1500 which makes the G2 less appealing.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2018)

ethanz said:


> The 2.8 weighs less now? How is that possible if nothing changed?



The optical components are the same and the outer housing (see above) sure _seems_ the same, but there are obviously things between the two that are onboard. Internal components could be hollowed out, made thinner, etc., some metal internals could be replaced with plastic, etc.

You can always put a part on a diet if you look hard enough.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2018)

Talys said:


> I wonder if the tripod collar rotation is better on the new one.



Hard to tell -- it's in the box with the lens, unlike the f/4 ring. So I think they name that part but they don't inventory it with solo marketing shots. (I just tried to find my Mk II ring at B&H and it doesn't come up as a standalone item.)

But surely it's a new subcomponent due to the paint, I would guess.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Jun 7, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> Well you have to understand that people don't expect canon to upgrade again for a long ass time. so when new cameras come out canon might still use this as a flagship for another 5 to 10 years. every camera and brand standards will surpass it by then. if this happens



There is no law that says Canon has to wait five to 10 years to issue a Mk IV. This was a minor update and once Canon rolls the Mk III into its rebate program and the street price settles in, it will be about the same price as the Mk II, which is significantly less than the competition.

If, in a couple of years, Canon comes out with a Mk IV that is a more significant upgrade at a higher price point, what's the harm? I could understand the complaining if they were asking $2,500 for the Mk III. But they are not.

As far as "every camera and brand standards will surpass it," it all depends on what you mean by "surpass it." If you mean imperceptible test chart differences, maybe. If you mean differences that will impact actual photography, maybe not. 

People whine about the 24-105 "L," but I have yet to find any examples of any manufacturer producing a better lens in that same range. Just as with the 24-105, Canon may have taken a look at the 70-200 2.8 and said, "we can make a marginally better lens for 50% more, or we can keep the same lens design for the time being until we can produce a noticeably better lens at a price point the market will accept." 

Since no one anywhere is complaining about the quality of the MkII, what sense would it make to produce a significantly more costly lens just to win a test chart contest?


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2018)

timmy_650 said:


> I wonder if this is a way to deal with Tamron and sigma 70-200. The Tamron G2 is $1300 which is a lot cheaper than $2100 which the canon 70-200 2.8 mIII cost. Now the price of the mII could drop to 1400-1500 which makes the G2 less appealing.



That's a move you do in the budget superzoom space where Canon hasn't historically played before, or possibly in the f/4 zoom pricing (where cost is clearly a bigger consideration).

But here, in this class of lens, Canon are the king of the hill in both reputation and in the product's performance. I just don't see them given two hoots about Sigma or Tamron here. 

- A


----------



## unfocused (Jun 7, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> ...I just tried to find my Mk II ring at B&H and it doesn't come up as a standalone item...



You can have mine. Worthless accessory for me on a lens that never sees a tripod. Just gets in the way when zooming. I keep mine rotated 180 degrees so I can grasp the zoom ring from below.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Since no one anywhere is complaining about the quality of the MkII, what sense would it make to produce a significantly more costly lens just to win a test chart contest?



Why do high end car manufacturers -- even ones with high quality standards (Mercedes, Audi, etc.) -- have race teams? :

There needs to be some 'best' to what they do that isn't just best at sales. Some products are undeniably sexy performers that other companies cannot match. This particular lens (along with the superwhites, the exotic f/1.2 primes, etc.) is one of those products.

This lens is a workhorse and a showhorse. I would have left the Mk II as is and come out with a Mk III when it was truly better. But as we all have said here: Canon is here to make money and they ran the numbers. This lens is happening.

I'm one of the bigger Canon apologists here -- I'm a happy, happy customer despite a few OCD whinges I have. But I think this move was a mistake for the EF brand. Where there was energy and excitement for new lens releases, a small amount of skepticism creeps in with each of these overtly commercial moves. It's a shame.

Still with Canon, still happily so. But I wouldn't have made this call.

- A


----------



## Act444 (Jun 7, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, a boost in AF accuracy would be nice to see...again, let’s see what the reviews say. Field results and comparisons between the two lenses will be infinitely more insightful than looking at on-paper differences...
> ...



Hmm. So according to that video, flare is better controlled and there are minor cosmetic updates, but other than that it’s the same. Ok, fair enough. 

Would be interesting to compare the new f4 with the 2.8 optically.



> Worthless accessory for me on a lens that never sees a tripod. Just gets in the way when zooming. I keep mine rotated 180 degrees so I can grasp the zoom ring from below.



I remove it altogether...I have no use for it, personally. But - I’m still glad it’s included.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2018)

unfocused said:


> You can have mine. Worthless accessory for me on a lens that never sees a tripod. Just gets in the way when zooming. I keep mine rotated 180 degrees so I can grasp the zoom ring from below.



Mine comes out for the odd tripod landscapes or once-in-never monopod sports use. 

We have a pretty great view of the LA area from the back of our house, and it's actually fun to 'telescope tourist' little things -- the Hollywood sign, the Oscars, and the 4th of July out here is absolute insanity. 

It's tough to shoot well as early shooting has a not pitch black horizon, and later the sky is too smoky from so much getting set off. But it's a great lazy evening with a few beers and our one dog that doesn't go into the armageddon bunker while it's all going off (the other most certainly does).

- A


----------



## unfocused (Jun 7, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Since no one anywhere is complaining about the quality of the MkII, what sense would it make to produce a significantly more costly lens just to win a test chart contest?
> ...



Workhorse, yes. Show horse? Not so much.

This is a lens that is always in my working bag. I use it so frequently that I bought a second body so I could keep this lens on one body and put a 24-105 on the other body and not have to lose time changing lenses. I use it for portraits, indoor sports, meetings, performances, etc. It gets banged around a lot and keeps functioning.

For me, this isn't some finely tuned racing machine, it's a pickup truck. 

Will I buy the MkIII? Not until my MkII has come to the end of its useful life and then, only if a MkIV isn't out by then. But, as I said at the start of the whole discussion/debate when this lens was just a rumor: There are enough MKIIs out there nearing the end of their life and enough new buyers to justify a refresh, without ever selling a single lens to people who have newer or pristine copies of the Mk II.


----------



## Tony Bennett (Jun 7, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> Look at the upside of the new 2.8: Parts obsolescence is pushed out another 10 years if you ever need repair of your v II.



That’s one of the reasons I waited for this Version 3 update. My 70-200 2.8L version one is 12 years this year and is no longer "supported" by Canon. By supported, I mean until they stop making/run out of parts for it.


----------



## Talys (Jun 7, 2018)

unfocused said:


> RayValdez360 said:
> 
> 
> > Well you have to understand that people don't expect canon to upgrade again for a long ass time. so when new cameras come out canon might still use this as a flagship for another 5 to 10 years. every camera and brand standards will surpass it by then. if this happens
> ...



To be honest, I'm slightly relieved that the Mk3 isn't so awesome that I feel the urge to run out and buy it 

I am _very_ happy with photos from my Mk2; it's one of my favourite lenses, period. When I take a photo from it, I'm always pleased with the results, and it's a super-reliable, trusty lens. It's almost inconceivable that Canon could produce something that would make me feel, "wow, that's $2,000 well spent!". On the other hand, if I were to be forced to buy one due to wear or damage or whatever, sure, I'd rather get it in a little whiter paint and with some minor upgrade 

Now that the f/4 Mk2 has IS3 and more stabilization stops, I'd like to see it in the f/2.8 -- especially IS mode 3 -- but that's mostly for backyard patio birding. It's not a reason I would go and run out to buy the lens, but it would be great to see it there. I'm genuinely happy for f/4 shooters; the 70-200/4L2 sounds just awesome.

I think the verdict is not in yet as to image quality, right? It could have slightly better characteristics in terms of corner sharpness and such -- on a tripod, under a microscope, and in a scenario that never actually happens in daily photography, some of the newer lenses appear slightly sharper, so there's that, I guess. And I would really like a smooth-gliding tripod collar.

But these are such minor things, and since I've used the Sony and Sigma lenses and far prefer the Canon MkII (for different reasons), Canon is still ahead in my book.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> Look at the upside of the new 2.8: Parts obsolescence is pushed out another 10 years if you ever need repair of your v II.



+1. If I shatter my hood or need some critical subcomponent, my Mk II just got another 10 year lease on life.

- A


----------



## scyrene (Jun 7, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Since no one anywhere is complaining about the quality of the MkII, what sense would it make to produce a significantly more costly lens just to win a test chart contest?
> ...



Do you really think that is the model to follow? Flashy, maybe headline-grabbing stuff that makes no practical difference to customers' experiences?



ahsanford said:


> these overtly commercial moves.



LOL! You do remember they're a commercial enterprise? Everything they do is commercial, whether you interpret it that way or not. Nobody is making you buy this lens. How is it a problem that a minor upgrade gets a new model number (which seems to be the nub of the criticism)? The lineup is not worse than it was a week ago, in some small ways it may be better. I genuinely don't understand your problem with this.


----------



## Talys (Jun 7, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Workhorse, yes. Show horse? Not so much.



That's what the white paint is for 




unfocused said:


> This is a lens that is always in my working bag. I use it so frequently that I bought a second body so I could keep this lens on one body and put a 24-105 on the other body and not have to lose time changing lenses. I use it for portraits, indoor sports, meetings, performances, etc. It gets banged around a lot and keeps functioning.
> 
> For me, this isn't some finely tuned racing machine, it's a pickup truck.
> 
> Will I buy the MkIII? Not until my MkII has come to the end of its useful life and then, only if a MkIV isn't out by then. But, as I said at the start of the whole discussion/debate when this lens was just a rumor: There are enough MKIIs out there nearing the end of their life and enough new buyers to justify a refresh, without ever selling a single lens to people who have newer or pristine copies of the Mk II.



Couldn't agree more!


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 7, 2018)

Yesterday I posted that the biggest issue with the current EF 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM II lens is CAs especially at the 70mm end and close focus. I said overall the lens was great and maybe coating improvements could improve the CAs issue. The coating changes may well be to address this issue (and to address fingerprints some of which attack old coatings). 
Before condemming the minimal changes I think we need to wait and see production models that have been tested fully, independently. Everyone seems to have stated the MKII would be a hard act to follow and it only fall behind the Sony FE 70-200mm f2.8 G Master because of the CA issue. Be patient and wait for real world testing.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2018)

scyrene said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Why do high end car manufacturers -- even ones with high quality standards (Mercedes, Audi, etc.) -- have race teams? :
> ...



My bad: I should have specified. I meant the much less flashy rally/road racing, where bleeding edge tech leads to high performance and winning. I'm not a big racing aficionado, but a friend is, and I would hear stories to no end how Audi was mopping the floor with folks with some turbodiesel fancypants design. That built a reputation around the brand of what _the rest of company's offerings_ could do. 

One could argue Canon's best glass is serving that exact same sort of role for the EF portfolio at large: showy, super expensive, but _man_, it delivers. Not every Canon lens is a value/reliability-obsessed Honda -- some are supercars with spectacular engineering.



scyrene said:


> LOL! You do remember they're a commercial enterprise? Everything they do is commercial, whether you interpret it that way or not. Nobody is making you buy this lens. How is it a problem that a minor upgrade gets a new model number (which seems to be the nub of the criticism)? The lineup is not worse than it was a week ago, in some small ways it may be better. I genuinely don't understand your problem with this.



My beef is that they are hooking up the cash wagon to a lens that serves an additional role to the business than just earning cash. Some elements of EF tent up the reputation of the system -- this is absolutely one of them.

Help me understand how this offering increases folks' esteem or perceived value of the brand. I don't believe it does (unless colors matching is a must for you). It's an overtly/strictly commercial move to me because *all* it's going to do is make money -- not improve the system, unlock new functionality, improve the reputation of the brand, etc. 

I like the fact that Canon has a few very special lenses no one else can match. Slapping white paint on one of those special lenses and having the audacity to call it new and improved tarnishes the brand, IMHO. That's all.

- A


----------



## Talys (Jun 7, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I like the fact that Canon has a few very special lenses no one else can match. Slapping white paint on one of those special lenses and having the audacity to call it new and improved tarnishes the brand, IMHO. That's all.
> 
> - A



Technically, I agree with you, and I totally understand where you're coming from -- but practically, I don't care, because the II was just fine yesterday, and remains just fine today.

For all my jokes about white paint, it isn't really important to me one way or the other, though I suppose if I were buying a new lens and they were side by side, I'd pick the one with matching paint (to the extenders), lol. Still, what would you have them call a repainted II with ASC coatings and maybe some other minor stuff? II.1?


----------



## ethanz (Jun 7, 2018)

I think we've pretty much said everything that can be said until we see real world results from the lenses. So I'll just be


----------



## Talys (Jun 7, 2018)

jeffa4444 said:


> Yesterday I posted that the biggest issue with the current EF 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM II lens is CAs especially at the 70mm end and close focus. I said overall the lens was great and maybe coating improvements could improve the CAs issue. The coating changes may well be to address this issue (and to address fingerprints some of which attack old coatings).
> Before condemming the minimal changes I think we need to wait and see production models that have been tested fully, independently. Everyone seems to have stated the MKII would be a hard act to follow and it only fall behind the Sony FE 70-200mm f2.8 G Master because of the CA issue. Be patient and wait for real world testing.



Right. Uncorrectable CA is one of the banes of my existence when it comes to product photography. 

On the bright side, I never use this lens for product photography


----------



## ethanz (Jun 7, 2018)

Talys said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Yesterday I posted that the biggest issue with the current EF 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM II lens is CAs especially at the 70mm end and close focus. I said overall the lens was great and maybe coating improvements could improve the CAs issue. The coating changes may well be to address this issue (and to address fingerprints some of which attack old coatings).
> ...



Maybe I'm forgetful but I've never really had issues with CA on copy. And if there has been, CA correction in ACR has fixed it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how many of the snide posts are coming from photographers who own and use the current 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. Just wonder.
> ...



Fine. What specification should Canon use for the dovetail?

[quote author=RRS]
*A Note About Compatibility*
There are a number of companies that sell gear based on the Arca-Swiss dovetail rail. In addition to Really Right Stuff, companies such as Wimberley, Markins, AcraTech, Foba, Novoflex, and Kirk sell gear that is commonly marketed as "Arca-Swiss style" or "Arca-type" or "Arca-Swiss compatible." Arcs-Swiss has never published a standard, so we developed our own and distributed it within the industry. In general, most of this gear is cross-compatible (but many Novoflex plates do not fit our screw-knob style clamps). For example, a Really Right Stuff L-plate will work just fine with the quick-release clamp on your Markins ballhead. And your Wimberley lens plates will work great with any Really Right Stuff clamp and ballhead. An exception to this is our lever-release clamp. 


*WARNING ABOUT OUR LEVER-RELEASE CLAMPS* 
Due to wide variations in other brands of Arca-Swiss compatible plates, we recommend using our lever-release clamps only with Really Right Stuff or Wimberley brand quick-release plates. If you own other brand plates, see this note about our plate exchange policy. 

Our lever-release clamps are not user adjustable, so the plate that you use in our lever-release clamp has to be EXACTLY the right width. Only Really Right Stuff and Wimberley build plates to the same exacting tolerances. But screw-knob style clamps are much more forgiving of slight differences in plate width since you control the clamp jaws by turning the screw. So most Arca-Swiss style quick-release plates will work in most screw-knob versions of Arca-Swiss style clamps. Warning: many Novoflex plates do not work even in our screw-knob style plates.
[/quote]

These are issues that designers and engineers need to be concerned with, whereas armchair experts with zero practical expertise or knowledge don't even consider them. Arca-Swiss is Arca-Swiss, right? Sure...in the AvTvM Universe, at any rate. 

Maybe you should just tell Canon what clamps you use, so they can use those exact measurements. Then at least the tripod collar feet will fit in the clamps used by you and your millions of imaginary friends. :


----------



## Quackator (Jun 7, 2018)

I place my bet on the easter egg. Have you seen the patent about the switch
to asynchronous data transfer? This lens certainly can do that, and while it
is a fine lens now, it's AF speed will be stellar on the new mirrorless to come.


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 7, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Fine. What specification should Canon use for the dovetail?
> 
> These are issues that designers and engineers need to be concerned with, whereas armchair experts with zero practical expertise or knowledge don't even consider them. Arca-Swiss is Arca-Swiss, right? Sure...in the AvTvM Universe, at any rate.
> 
> Maybe you should just tell Canon what clamps you use, so they can use those exact measurements. Then at least the tripod collar feet will fit in the clamps used by you and your millions of imaginary friends. :



As someone who uses the tripod foot as a handhold, I'm glad Canon didn't change the foot on the III to a clamp plate. The grooves would start getting uncomfortable on my hands pretty quickly. I despise shooting handheld with my white glass whenever I have a tripod foot on for this reason.


----------



## gmon750 (Jun 7, 2018)

I'm not sure what people were expecting here for the f/2.8. V2.0 (which I have) is about as perfect as a lens can get so unless you had visions of grandeur and expected them to include some kind of alien technology, it's a subtle, evolutionary update. Get over it. 

If I had one wish, it would be to make it lighter, but at the same time I love the durability of the lens. Perhaps using a carbon-fiber barrel would help, but those glass lenses sure have a lot of weight I'm sure and nothing can't be done with that as far as I know.

It's a solid update. Owners of V2 have no real need for V3, but new buyers will certainly love it.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2018)

gmon750 said:


> I'm not sure what people were expecting here for the f/2.8. V2.0 (which I have) is about as perfect as a lens can get so unless you had visions of grandeur and expected them to include some kind of alien technology, it's a subtle, evolutionary update. Get over it.
> 
> If I had one wish, it would be to make it lighter, but at the same time I love the durability of the lens. Perhaps using a carbon-fiber barrel would help, but those glass lenses sure have a lot of weight I'm sure and nothing can't be done with that as far as I know.
> 
> It's a solid update. Owners of V2 have no real need for V3, but new buyers will certainly love it.



Respectfully disagree on this being neither an evolutionary nor a solid update. _It is quite literally a coat of paint and a coating._ Unless Canon has underreported something special here, it appears that we have:

Optical design = same (yes, coating will help flare)
AF = same
IS = same
MFD = same
Form factor = same
Weight = same (more or less, within what, 50g?)
Hood = same
Tripod ring = same (other than paint; presumed, we don't have details yet)
Weather sealing = unknown (could be better, but we lack standardized testing for that)

Yes, we need testing. Yes, we need reviews. I'm certain it will be a fine instrument. But at face value, we should expect much more "subtle" than "evolutionary" here.

For context -- the now infamous 24-105L II got more over its predecessor than this did: the IS at least improved on that one, and it adopted a nicer push-button hood (albeit recycled from the 24-105 STM). 

- A


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 7, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> For context -- the now infamous 24-105L II got more over its predecessor than this did: the IS at least improved on that one, and it adopted a nicer push-button hood (albeit recycled from the 24-105 STM).


Don't forget the very important zoom lock


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 7, 2018)

If anybody posted this before: sorry for reading over it.

Prices are out for Germany (MRSP incl. VAT):

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM: 2299,- €
EF 70-200mm f/4.0L IS II USM: 1399,- €


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 7, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



These are issues that designers and engineers need to be concerned with, whereas armchair experts with zero practical expertise or knowledge don't even consider them. Arca-Swiss is Arca-Swiss, right? Sure...in the AvTvM Universe, at any rate. 

Maybe you should just tell Canon what clamps you use, so they can use those exact measurements. Then at least the tripod collar feet will fit in the clamps used by you and your millions of imaginary friends. :
[/quote]

Not to mention that there are two entirely different Arca-Swiss dovetails that are totally incompatible made by Arca-Swiss themselves!

Oh and are we going to make 'the standard' the standard for stills, most of which work around the RRS implementation of the old Arca-Swiss mount or are we going to use the video shooters 'standard' which is the Manfrotto clamp plate?


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 7, 2018)

scyrene said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



^^^
This.

Then again, you see his example photos. He really was hoping that Canon would up his game. :


----------



## FramerMCB (Jun 7, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Confirmed around 1:55 in the video. Same optics (in the f/2.8 ) but new coating. Same blade count, filter size, same IS, same AF speed, and the same hood as well (no CPL window in the hood for us :'().
> 
> WOW. I'm floored. No wonder the price is so low -- they only had to work on the outer structure / weight / handling.
> 
> - A



From my reading of the announcement, it would seem lens coatings have been updated and the placement of lens elements/groups was optimized (i.e. changed). Both of these should improve ghosting/flaring and probably CA/color-fringing, while at the same time, perhaps because of better control of the former, resolution gets an incremental bump...


----------



## Aaron D (Jun 7, 2018)

I'm curious what's the overlap between those who last week said "Why are they updating the 2.8? it's a great lens!" and the ones who today are saying, "You call that an update?!"

Why not give it new paint and better coatings? If you like the one you've got, keep it. But if you NEED to buy one isn't it nice to have an improved one?


----------



## AdamBotond (Jun 7, 2018)

This 2.8 Mark III is just an insult to fellow photographers. All they could achieve in 8 years is a flare reducing coating and new painting in a flagship telephoto zoom? That is blasphemous.
With the 4.0 mark II having 5 stops stabilisation, IS mode 3, shorter MFD etc... am I asking too much by putting just these tech, nothing more into a flagship 70-200 workhorse from Canon? Again, they clearly have the tech to do so, they just decided to cripple it once again. Much like they did with the 24-105 successor. Shame.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 7, 2018)

I would prefer that Canon did not improve the coatings and keep the lens the same price.... said nobody.....

The original was as good as it could be for that price range..... there really was not much room for improvement, so out comes a minor update....

Nobody is forcing you to upgrade, and that's not the target market.... it is new buyers. Should they be denied the latest advancements because some people have bought the previous version?


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 7, 2018)

Difficult to imagine that one day the 70-200 mm f/2.8 IS L shooter should envy a 70-200 mm f/4 IS L companion... 


Oh well, at least the price is right for the two of them and the 70-200 mm f/4 IS L II seems like a solid upgrade.

The biggest let down to me is that the smaller lens gets mode III IS - which is the IS to have - but the larger one does not ??!!??


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 7, 2018)

AdamBotond said:


> This 2.8 Mark III is just an insult to fellow photographers. All they could achieve in 8 years is a flare reducing coating and new painting in a flagship telephoto zoom? That is blasphemous.
> With the 4.0 mark II having 5 stops stabilisation, IS mode 3, shorter MFD etc... am I asking too much by putting just these tech, nothing more into a flagship 70-200 workhorse from Canon? Again, they clearly have the tech to do so, they just decided to cripple it once again. Much like they did with the 24-105 successor. Shame.



ok...

The F4 lens has smaller elements and the IS can move them faster than the F2.8 version. Both are the same IS tech, it is the laws of physics that make the IS on the F2.8 slower.... Remember, you only have so much power available to move the elements....

The previous optical design was fantastic. There is very little room to improve on it, short of adding a lot more fluorite elements, and that blows the cost out of the water! Making the minimum focus distance shorter has a negative impact on the image quality... what would people be saying if they did that?


----------



## fullstop (Jun 7, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Fine. What specification should Canon use for the dovetail?



easy. Exactly the same one Tamron uses on its 70-200 G2. 8) 

Canon should ofc also keep one (or 2) 1/4" hole/s in the bottom of the foot. So if grooves don't fit your very special lever clamps, you can always attach a matching super-special plate.


----------



## lexptr (Jun 7, 2018)

Aaron D said:


> Why not give it new paint and better coatings? If you like the one you've got, keep it. But if you NEED to buy one isn't it nice to have an improved one?


Right, they do it sometimes. E.g. they updated lens cap with new design for all lenses. So even if you buy an old lens, you get it with new cap. All are happy, everything is ok. This time they gone further: updated color and labels on the lens and even added new coatings. Everything would be fine, BUT they marked it with a new release number. We all know lenses are updated a bit slower, than bodies. For this lens it was 8 years since the last update. And we probably going to wait another 8 years for the next. Now think again, is this lens good enough for another 8 years? Currently it is a great lens. But it is already not the best in class. And it could get all the same improvements, the f4 version got.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 7, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> ...and a GIF, below, that I just made. Flare may improve, folks, but that's probably going to be it.
> 
> - A



Great joke with the GIF if it was not actually sad... :'(


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 7, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> I would prefer that Canon did not improve the coatings and keep the lens the same price.... said nobody.....
> 
> The original was as good as it could be for that price range..... there really was not much room for improvement, so out comes a minor update....
> 
> Nobody is forcing you to upgrade, and that's not the target market.... it is new buyers. Should they be denied the latest advancements because some people have bought the previous version?



Well said! 

To those who wanted more from this upgrade, remember that the asking price is fair and not pumped up. 

Further, if you move outside the canonrumors world and into the “real world” where people care more about the pictures they get, than which lens they use, I guess that most people appreciate that Canon puts their best coatings on the lenses they have for sale, and that they don’t blame Canon for the lack of redesigning one of their most popular lenses.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 7, 2018)

Larsskv said:


> Further, if you move outside the canonrumors world and into the “real world” where people care more about the pictures they get, than which lens they use, I guess that most people appreciate that Canon puts their best coatings on the lenses they have for sale, and that they don’t blame Canon for the lack of redesigning one of their most popular lenses.



wow! You just qualified for a "*Can-Apologist Merit Award 2nd class*"! ;D


----------



## Isaacheus (Jun 7, 2018)

This reminds me a lot of the 24-105 f4 replacement and to a lesser degree the 6dmk2 release; it just seems like they aren't aiming for the top of what they could do, pushing the envelope so to speak. Decent options yes, but it feels like they're only competing with themselves rather than the other manufacturers 

I wonder what people would have said if they had just released the f4 though, and called the new 2.8 the 'facelift 2.8 mk2' rather than marketing it as a full new release?


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Then again, you see his example photos. He really was hoping that Canon would up his game. :



It would appear your personal Mk III phase of your life is a looking a lot like your Mk II phase: classy as always. 

- A


----------



## ken (Jun 7, 2018)

AdamBotond said:


> This 2.8 Mark III is just an insult to fellow photographers. All they could achieve in 8 years is a flare reducing coating and new painting in a flagship telephoto zoom? That is blasphemous.
> With the 4.0 mark II having 5 stops stabilisation, IS mode 3, shorter MFD etc... am I asking too much by putting just these tech, nothing more into a flagship 70-200 workhorse from Canon? Again, they clearly have the tech to do so, they just decided to cripple it once again. Much like they did with the 24-105 successor. Shame.



They are updating their manufacturing processes to increase automation. This has been well documented. So maybe an internal screw or bracket has to be modified to support robotic assembly vs human assembly. This will make the lens cheaper to manufacturer AND should decrease deviations from one lens to the other. But it also means it's ever so slightly different from a mark ii, and requires a new name. So they did a small coating upgrade and plan to sell it at the same price.

If you were a manufacturer, updating your manufacturing lines, which lines would you address first? The ones with the highest return-on-investment. Which is to say, it's a function of the lines with highest throughput and the cost savings expected from the automation. Hence... the kit lens was first because you produce more of them than anything else. And now the popular "high-dollar" EF lens, which is likely costly to manually assemble due to its complexity. Expect a 24-70 refresh soon. 

They're a business. They're not crippling things to piss off their customers. They're focussed on increasing margins. Those margins will eventually flow back into R&D to keep them competitive. The mark ii already compares very well to it's competition. I don't see how anyone can see delivering a slightly improved product for about the same price as some kind of scheme to rip them off. No offense intended to you, but it's actually mind-boggling to me the way people across this forum are reacting.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> This reminds me a lot of the 24-105 f4 replacement and to a lesser degree the 6dmk2 release; it just seems like they aren't aiming for the top of what they could do, pushing the envelope so to speak. Decent options yes, but it feels like they're only competing with themselves rather than the other manufacturers
> 
> I wonder what people would have said if they had just released the f4 though, and called the new 2.8 the 'facelift 2.8 mk2' rather than marketing it as a full new release?



+1. To their credit, Canon is really wise at leaving stuff out of new products that are not essential for you to get the sale. This maximizes profits for them. In the 6D2, it clearly appears to have been to leave out the on-chip ADC sensor. And now some financially shrewd market analyst ran the numbers and showed Canon management that a paint job and a coating and a $2099 price point will make the company more money than say a new design like the f/4L IS at a higher production cost, $2500 price and lower unit sales.

_All of this is to Canon's credit._ This is what they do better than the rest of the industry. 

I just thought this class of lens warranted better treatment than a paint job and some coatings. This feels like an EF-S 18-55 or 24-105L refresh, folks, honestly -- the product is worlds better, of course, but the changes are equally small. One wonders why they couldn't have just soldiered on with the Mk II as is.

With that, what's done is done. I've vented. All is well. 

- A


----------



## Talys (Jun 7, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> This reminds me a lot of the 24-105 f4 replacement and to a lesser degree the 6dmk2 release; it just seems like they aren't aiming for the top of what they could do, pushing the envelope so to speak. Decent options yes, but it feels like they're only competing with themselves rather than the other manufacturers
> 
> I wonder what people would have said if they had just released the f4 though, and called the new 2.8 the 'facelift 2.8 mk2' rather than marketing it as a full new release?



Wouldn't matter to me. I'm happy for the f/4 folks, and frankly, I'm happy that I won't feel the urge to go run out and buy a new $2500 lens that, no matter what they did, wouldn't really improve my photography one bit 

The real question is, if I didn't already own a 70-200/2.8IS2, would I be tempted to look at the f/4?

With the benefit of experience, probably not; 2.8 is too important for portraiture, probably autofocuses faster, and gives nice isolation for patio bird shots. But I'd likely think about it if I weren't already a 2.8 user. The MFD on the new 4 is nice, too.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2018)

Talys said:


> The real question is, if I didn't already own a 70-200/2.8IS2, would I be tempted to look at the f/4?
> 
> With the benefit of experience, probably not; 2.8 is too important for portraiture, probably autofocuses faster, and gives nice isolation for patio bird shots. But I'd likely think about it if I weren't already a 2.8 user. The MFD on the new 4 is nice, too.



Always an interesting exercise, this. My personal take:

Standard zoom: 24-70 f/4L IS > f/2.8L all day. I migrated from the f/2.8L (I) to the f/4L IS and it was a no-brainer for what I shoot at those FLs. It was also better for hiking, travel, low-light indoors, the macro mode, etc. In short, I've been delighted with the decision. The f/2.8L II is a beast of an optic, of course, but the value of f/2.8 for a standard zoom is not worth the cost and weight to me.

Tele zoom: Different story. I rented both the f/4L IS and f/2.8L IS II about 6-7 years ago and both were terrific. At the time, I knew it would be the longest thing I'd own and (at that time) f/8 AF points for 2x T/C use were not widespread. So I went with the f/2.8L IS II. Over time, I realize how much at those FLs I loved the output on the wide open end -- much more so than with my standard zoom. So, in this comparison, I made the right call for the wrong reason. With today's bodies I would have chosen the f/4L IS and missed out on some lights-out f/2.8, f/3.2 @ 200mm shots I've reeled in with the f/2.8 version.

I would guess we all have our own take on this.

- A


----------



## Talys (Jun 7, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > The real question is, if I didn't already own a 70-200/2.8IS2, would I be tempted to look at the f/4?
> ...



Wow. That mirrors my experience. I also went from 2.8 Mk1 to 4IS for 24-70, and went straight to the 2.8 Mk2 after briefly borrowing a f4. 

I'm very happy with that mix as I was always stopping down on my 24-70 anyways, and the size/weight in the f4 is very nice, particularly if I'm hiking, using it as a second body or if it's on a capture clip.


----------



## HarryFilm (Jun 7, 2018)

These discussion are kinda a waste of time. The new F4 will do ABSOLUTE FINE for most people. For simple portraiture at 85mm and your Sunday morning birdwalks at 135mm on the local nature trail it will work out GREAT!

You only need the F2.8 when you're in a Hockey Rink or Soccer (Football) Stadium shooting your favourite player coming at you blazing-quick near the boards or sidelines at 1/500 shutter speed under those crazy flickering flouro lights! For everyone else the F2.8 is WAAAAY OVERKILL !!! Just get a decent 135mm prime lens instead and save yourself $800 !!! i.e. try the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art Lens for Canon EF mount at only $1299 US

----

Otherwise, if you REALLY want some super-duper-lensing, do what we do at my work...we usually put a 135mm Arri/Zeiss Master Prime LDS PL-to-EF-adapted T1.3 cinema lens on the 1Dmk2. NOW THAT is a TRULY FAST lens! Great for indoor action sports such as soccer, lacrosse, hockey or U.S.-style arena football !!! It's a tad more expensive than the new and old Canon 70-to-200 F2.8 and you DO have to do a centre crop, ...BUT...I did notice the centre-cropped shots were MOST DEFINITELY sharper and had much better colours than almost any other Canon L-series lens!


----------



## lexptr (Jun 7, 2018)

Talys said:


> The real question is, if I didn't already own a 70-200/2.8IS2, would I be tempted to look at the f/4?
> 
> With the benefit of experience, probably not; 2.8 is too important for portraiture, probably autofocuses faster, and gives nice isolation for patio bird shots. But I'd likely think about it if I weren't already a 2.8 user. The MFD on the new 4 is nice, too.


I think, there is no way from faster lens to slower. No matter how cool the slower one is 
The update of f4 looks very-very nice. So nice, that I also started to consider. But no. No way. Will ether wait and by the "fake-upgraded" f2.8 mark III or get by with my 100-400L II for tele and buy even faster primes for portraits and such. Almost decided on the new 85 f1.4.


----------



## Etienne (Jun 7, 2018)

Talys said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



I have a 24-105 f/4L IS that came with the 5D2 years ago, but I rarely use it. My workhorses on the 5D3 were the 16-35 f/2.8 mk II and the 70-200 f/2.8L IS mk II. The only change I would do is replace the 16-35 with the 16-35 f/4L IS. I never liked the standard zoom range, even with the 2.8 versions: it's never wide enough, never tight enough, and the bokeh never really impresses. If I want a "normal" focal length I'll use a 35 or 50mm prime.


----------



## PureClassA (Jun 7, 2018)

Thank you Canon for giving me no reason whatsoever to upgrade! Now I can fully dedicate my attention and dollars to the new 135L, whenever we see it


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 8, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Then again, you see his example photos. He really was hoping that Canon would up his game. :
> ...



Yes, always. Immature children constantly whine and complain. Adults know they can't always get what they want, as much as they want, or get it how they want it. 

Earlier you said, I believe, that this is not evolutionary. Well, that's exactly what it is. Evolution takes small steps. maybe the word you were looking for was "revolutionary". At any rate, while you have the freedom to do so and by all means go ahead, making up 50 posts about how disappointed you are is a little unhinged.

Changing up the coatings and whatever else they did that makes this lens different, warrants a change from Mark II to Mark III. Maybe you live in the Microsoft world and would have been satisfied with Mark 2.1?

You see, it isn't what you are saying, it's that you drone on and on and on. We all get it already. You ain't happy. You'd have done it differently if you were the one in charge. :'(


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 8, 2018)

ken said:


> AdamBotond said:
> 
> 
> > This 2.8 Mark III is just an insult to fellow photographers. All they could achieve in 8 years is a flare reducing coating and new painting in a flagship telephoto zoom? That is blasphemous.
> ...



A voice of reason in an unreasonably hissy fitted world.


----------



## infared (Jun 8, 2018)

Hey....I have the 2.8L IS II. I like my flare, just the way it is ....I am not upgrading! ???
If the bokeh was softer, I would think about it..but I just don't see a need. My current lens is AMAZING!!!!!!
;D


----------



## ken (Jun 8, 2018)

infared said:


> Hey....I have the 2.8L IS II. I like my flare, just the way it is ....<snip>



I thought I was the only one! Sometimes a little lens flare is quite elegant. I certainly wouldn't want it to be virtually impossible to get when actually wanted. I guess most people Photoshop it in as needed these days.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 8, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Fair enough, thanks for clarifying. I don't think the analogy holds though.



ahsanford said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > LOL! You do remember they're a commercial enterprise? Everything they do is commercial, whether you interpret it that way or not. Nobody is making you buy this lens. How is it a problem that a minor upgrade gets a new model number (which seems to be the nub of the criticism)? The lineup is not worse than it was a week ago, in some small ways it may be better. I genuinely don't understand your problem with this.
> ...



Well first of all, you're being a little unfair to say it's just 'slapping white paint on'. It sounds like a fairly modest change*, for sure, but how is it worse than not refreshing the thing at all? If these changes were made but the numbering wasn't changed (and I think I've heard that some long-standing products do have minor updates over the years, 'under the hood' so to speak), you'd be fine with it, right? So it *is* about the naming, essentially. Second, I still don't see why making money is to be condemned in this context - they aren't doing anything malign, nobody is being stiffed. As for reputation, or 'perceived value', I doubt the vast majority will notice or care. It pisses you off, that's absolutely fine. But let's not dress this up as anything approaching objective criticism. It seems they touched a nerve for some reason.

*I recall one or two Canon releases of the last couple of years being praised on the Lens Rentals blog (when they tore them down) for the updates to internal construction and design - stuff that will almost certainly not affect us normal users, but is still considered and positive. These things aren't ever mentioned in marketing materials or on spec sheets though.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 8, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > Further, if you move outside the canonrumors world and into the “real world” where people care more about the pictures they get, than which lens they use, I guess that most people appreciate that Canon puts their best coatings on the lenses they have for sale, and that they don’t blame Canon for the lack of redesigning one of their most popular lenses.
> ...



And you qualify for vacuous critic bronze award, congratulations.


----------



## Tangent (Jun 8, 2018)

*Filter Size*

Not much to gripe about with the 70-200 f4L IS II update except filter size -- if 67mm wouldn't cut it any more I'd really rather they had gone with 77mm for filter commonality with the 24-105 and the 16-35 f4L's. :


----------



## Isaacheus (Jun 8, 2018)

scyrene said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



Just to your last point, my take is that there is disappointment due to the unlikelihood of having a true replacement anytime soon, due to having this released. 
The changes here, but without the announcement of it being a new lens would have gone down better I suspect, as there would be the chance of a true upgrade in the possible short term also


----------



## scyrene (Jun 8, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> Just to your last point, my take is that there is disappointment due to the unlikelihood of having a true replacement anytime soon, due to having this released.
> The changes here, but without the announcement of it being a new lens would have gone down better I suspect, as there would be the chance of a true upgrade in the possible short term also



Okay. But when this new version was rumoured, most owners of the mark II seemed to say 'there's no need for a new version'. If the II was near perfect (according to them), then a long wait for a mark IV is no big deal, right?


----------



## justawriter (Jun 8, 2018)

Canon: We understand that you have a significant investment in one of the finest lenses ever made, and we only had incremental improvements that, while significant, shouldn't make you feel like you need to shell out more money sooner than you have to.

INTERNET: CANON Y U NO WANT OUR MONEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## unfocused (Jun 8, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> ...my take is that there is disappointment due to the unlikelihood of having a true replacement anytime soon, due to having this released...



Here we go again. 

[list type=decimal]
[*]Since there was no need to improve the 70-200 f2.8 in the first place why should anyone be disappointed? 
[*]What law says that Canon has to wait some arbitrary amount of time to upgrade the MkIII? If the lens eventually needs updating, Canon is free to update it at any time. Whether that is in eight years or one year will not be impacted by the release of the Mk III.It will be done when the technology and market demand an upgrade. 
[/list]


----------



## sanj (Jun 8, 2018)

lexptr said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > The real question is, if I didn't already own a 70-200/2.8IS2, would I be tempted to look at the f/4?
> ...



Yes way for me. I prefer the lighter weight. Thank you.


----------



## sanj (Jun 8, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > ...my take is that there is disappointment due to the unlikelihood of having a true replacement anytime soon, due to having this released...
> ...



Yes


----------



## sanj (Jun 8, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> I would prefer that Canon did not improve the coatings and keep the lens the same price.... said nobody.....
> 
> The original was as good as it could be for that price range..... there really was not much room for improvement, so out comes a minor update....
> 
> Nobody is forcing you to upgrade, and that's not the target market.... it is new buyers. Should they be denied the latest advancements because some people have bought the previous version?



Well said. They just made a better lens. Be happy. Upgrade only if you want....


----------



## sanj (Jun 8, 2018)

I know it is just me but him reading a teleprompter does not work for me. To mechanical.


----------



## Isaacheus (Jun 8, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > ...my take is that there is disappointment due to the unlikelihood of having a true replacement anytime soon, due to having this released...
> ...



Looking at the comments, I get the feeling there are some that feel the mk2 could have been updated for a few things, is mode 3 etc. While I understand that it's a high performing lens, I believe the latest Nikon is considered very slightly sharper, and this is considered one of the staple offerings - others might want to know that they have the best instrument possible?

For the second point, Canon seems to be very conservative about releases, I can't see Canon rushing one out again soon. Take the current 50mm 1.4, seems to have been a bit of market demand for an upgrade on that for a while now.

Not saying that I felt it needed upgrading myself, but I can see why others would be disappointed in the update.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 8, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > ...my take is that there is disappointment due to the unlikelihood of having a true replacement anytime soon, due to having this released...
> ...



Haters gonna hate, no matter what.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 8, 2018)

please CFB, spare us those truisms. ahsanford certainly is no (Canon) hater. really uncalled for.

all of the comments on the f/4 update are (rightfully) positive. it looks as if Canon has come up with some good improvements to an already excellent lens. 

critical comments re. f/2.8 III express the disappointment that Canon was not able (or did not want?) to deliver a similar level of improvements. while nobody complains about new, better lens coatings or the new paint job per se, it is not what Canon lovers (!) would have hoped for: canon goong all out to offer its customers the all-around "best in class" 70-200 lens on the market, bith in terms of image quality and in terms of features and functionality, like for example a 5 stop IS with mide 3, a 9 blade iris, arca-dovetails in the tripod foot, or a new, amazingly good "lens collar solution". implementing some of these items on the lower scale f/4 lens, but not any of them on the "top tier" f/2.8 lens is what caused quite understandable disappointment - especially amongst "the Canon faithful". 

i am fully with ahsanford that from a brand recognition/marketing perspective canon should really have invested more effort when upgrading one of its top "brand ambassador" flagship products. Canon should not do updates to such a product that only cause a "well, why bother" response in the market. it should really be "wow, Canon has again knocked one out of the park!".


----------



## DSP121 (Jun 8, 2018)

There is literally no point to upgrade from the 2.8 version 2 to the 2.8 version 3. If the only difference is the coating.﻿


----------



## colinsanford (Jun 8, 2018)

Hi everyone,

I am interested in buying a 70-200mm lens. However I can not choose between the f4 II or the f2.8 II

I am mostly interested in portraits, street photography, photojournalism and sometimes sport.

Thanks in advance


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 8, 2018)

colinsanford said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I am interested in buying a 70-200mm lens. However I can not choose between the f4 II or the f2.8 II
> 
> ...


For (indoor) sports and portrait you'll need the f/2.8 to gather light an get shallow DOF.
For street and photojournalism light weight and easy handling/carrying. (Of course variation in DOF is nice, too)

The f/2.8 is much bigger an almost double the weight. 

So if portrait is your main goal, and if you can afford it, go for the f/2.8 II. 
If street and travel is more important, get the f/4 II.

If you have the time and possibilities, go and rent an f/2.8 and try it out.


----------



## Talys (Jun 8, 2018)

colinsanford said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I am interested in buying a 70-200mm lens. However I can not choose between the f4 II or the f2.8 II
> 
> ...



Personally, I would get a 2.8 from someone with a shiny II who absolutely wants the new paintjob.

It's a marvelous lens that does beautiful portraiture and takes fantastic fast-action telephoto with lightning fast autofocus.

My suspicion is that even with the new f/4, AF is constrainted to... well, f/4 aperture, which means, less light and slower, especially if it's indoor sports, or less than ideal light (like afternoon/evening soccer). Even if you stop the 2.8 down to f/4 or f/5.6, it will AF super-fast.

There are some reasons to go f/4 though -- primarily, if you like the size/weight, and of course, price. The only way you'll be able to tell if the weight is a difference maker is if you actually try one out. The new 3ft minimum focus distance is pretty awesome too. But like someone said above, once you use f/2.8 on the 70-200 range, it's really, really hard to imagine going back to a f/4, despite any other features that may be there.


----------



## sanj (Jun 8, 2018)

colinsanford said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I am interested in buying a 70-200mm lens. However I can not choose between the f4 II or the f2.8 II
> 
> ...



If you have any of the latest cameras 5d4, 6d2, 1dx2 then I would go with the f4. Lighter. Better IS. Cheaper.

The quality in IQ is very good now at higher ISO. The subject isolation between 2.8 and 4 is minimal. 

Unless you will shoot EVERYTHING in low light, f4 is the way to go in my opinion.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 8, 2018)

have not followed current Canon DSLRs like 5D4, 6D2 much - but are there not some AF fields with "extra precision mode" in many/all (?) Canon EOS DSLRs when used with f/2.8 lenses? When using slower lenses that "extra AF precision" does not kick in. Not sure about exact terminology, but I dimly recall something to that effect.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 8, 2018)

You should consider your budget first.
Buy only what you can afford.
Is there a difference in the image shot at F4 and F2.8?
Sanj may consider it small but that difference is vital. It’s what makes your images stand out and the ability to capture images at a lower ISO. A wedding photographer would go for a 2.8
Yes newer cameras have got good ISO abilities but having 2.8 ensures a better quality images as you can use a stop lower ISO in poor lighting. That’s vital at times.
But you pay a price for that stop.
The lens is heavy and expensive. Prolonged use will give you repetitive strain.
The F4 is a great lens. Super light and portable.
As said above ideal for street and travel photography.
Either way you won’t be disappointed


----------



## Talys (Jun 8, 2018)

fullstop said:


> have not followed current Canon DSLRs like 5D4, 6D2 much - but are there not some AF fields with "extra precision mode" in many/all (?) Canon EOS DSLRs when used with f/2.8 lenses? When using slower lenses that "extra AF precision" does not kick in. Not sure about exact terminology, but I dimly recall something to that effect.



If you mean Spot AF (square with dot), it's not lens- or maximum aperture dependent. Spot AF works with any lens in any non-liveview mode where autofocus works at all.


----------



## sanj (Jun 8, 2018)

Talys said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > have not followed current Canon DSLRs like 5D4, 6D2 much - but are there not some AF fields with "extra precision mode" in many/all (?) Canon EOS DSLRs when used with f/2.8 lenses? When using slower lenses that "extra AF precision" does not kick in. Not sure about exact terminology, but I dimly recall something to that effect.
> ...



No. There are more points available with wider aperture lenses. But as far as I know, there is no difference between 2.8 and 4. I COULD BE WRONG HERE. Pls check.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 8, 2018)

Talys said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > have not followed current Canon DSLRs like 5D4, 6D2 much - but are there not some AF fields with "extra precision mode" in many/all (?) Canon EOS DSLRs when used with f/2.8 lenses? When using slower lenses that "extra AF precision" does not kick in. Not sure about exact terminology, but I dimly recall something to that effect.
> ...



no, not Spot-AF. 

I mean this here:


> Some camera models have additional sensors that provide extra high-precision AF capability for lenses with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 or faster.


https://www.learn.usa.canon.com/app/pdfs/quickguides/CDLC_Accurate_EOS_AF_QuickGuide.pdf

only works with lenses f/2.8 or faster. Not with f/4 lenses. 
It was one of the reasons why i got 70-200 II and 24-70 II in f/2.8 version.


----------



## sanj (Jun 8, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



Thank you for this! So yeah focus points will be less. But will that affect your photography? You decide. It will not affect mine...


----------



## sanj (Jun 8, 2018)

100 percent agree that 2.8 has advantages. But how much is the advantage? Is it worth the weight and the money? Not to me. It would have been if I did not have primes with wider apertures or if I shot only at low light.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 8, 2018)

f/2.8 or faster lenses bring very real benefits on Canon EOS DSLR AF systems. 

Finally found the article i was after ... Neuro ftw ... thx, excellent write-up! 
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Photography-Tips/canon-eos-dslr-autofocus-explained.aspx



> As mentioned above with the precision discussion, there's a modified type of AF point called a 'high-precision' point, which focuses within 1/3 of the depth of focus of the lens at max aperture, vs. the normal precision spec of within 1 depth of focus.


Read the full article, it is well worth it! 8)

On more recent Canon EOS models there are more of those "extra precision AF points" - so the advantage of f/2.8 over f/4 lenses is likely even greater now. Furthermore, 7D II, 1DX II and other current EOS models have central AF field sensitivity down to -3EV ... but again, only when using f/2.8 (or faster) lenses. 

Here is info for 1DX II https://snapshot.canon-asia.com/article/en/interview-with-developers-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-part-2-improved-af-functions

In short: if you have a higher-end Canon EOS DSLR and really want to get everything out of its AF system, you have to use f/2.8 or faster lenses.


----------



## infared (Jun 8, 2018)

Gee...do you think that there will be a lot of comparison reviews?


----------



## Memirsbrunnr (Jun 8, 2018)

+1. Please forgive my ranting as I process this in real time, but it's all shock and not anger. This would be like releasing a 5D5 with the same sensor and AF module and burst as the 5D4. There may be some redeeming other properties to it, but at it's core, a staple professional instrument the company has built it's stellar reputation on just got a paint job and was put back out in the field.


I'm quite simply flabbergasted. 

- A
[/quote]
Don't give them ideas.. thy seem to be on this path anyways.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Jun 8, 2018)

Maiaibing said:


> Difficult to imagine that one day the 70-200 mm f/2.8 IS L shooter should envy a 70-200 mm f/4 IS L companion...
> 
> 
> Oh well, at least the price is right for the two of them and the 70-200 mm f/4 IS L II seems like a solid upgrade.
> ...



Huh? That was the case with the f/4 IS Mark I when it was released in 2006: it was sharper, both in laboratory & real-world testing, than the f/2.8 IS Mark I.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 8, 2018)

Terrible Canon for updating their 70-200 with better coatings and selling it for the same price. Bad Canon!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 8, 2018)

Hell hath no fury like a forum dweller scorned.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 8, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> gmon750 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure what people were expecting here for the f/2.8. V2.0 (which I have) is about as perfect as a lens can get so unless you had visions of grandeur and expected them to include some kind of alien technology, it's a subtle, evolutionary update. Get over it.
> ...


Coatings are not simply for mitigating flares they are now integral to lens design and specific coatings do different things so to dismiss this glibly is a “mistake”.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 8, 2018)

For me, yes the mk2 is nice, but the bokeh and weight could be approved on, especially the bokeh... at least an update to AF algorithms....

Point being, why even release a mk3, instead of waiting until it could actually be better. Think if they did THIS sort update to a 10 year old camera body, yipes!


----------



## amorse (Jun 8, 2018)

The two lenses are different products with different purposes - I own the V2 f/2.8, but I'd consider the new f/4 as not a replacement, but a better suited option for specific situations. That 2.8 is heavy has hell - the f/4 is just over half the weight. When weight really counts and you're not shooting action/don't need bokeh, the f/4 may be better suited. 

Plenty of people noted how good the current 2.8 was and that it would take a miracle for them to upgrade. Obviously Canon agreed and felt that the current optical formula could go another round without a major upgrade other than coatings. I'm fine with that - if Canon has finite R&D resources, would any of you really want them dumping that into upgrading what many of us have agreed to be a great 70-200 f/2.8, or would you rather that investment go into any of the laundry list of other things people here have been asking for? I'm more curious about what they worked on instead of completely rehashing the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.


----------



## Cali Capture (Jun 8, 2018)

I think a lot of the frustration on this post comes from the simple fact that Canon has rereleased a 70-200 f/2.8 that most of who own a version II didn't need and have still not released a 50mm 1.4L IS, that we ALL want! Some more so the 135mm f/2.0 IS (that would be me). Of coarse, there always the dreamt of 24-70mm f/2.8 IS also! 
As owners of the Canon system, these would be the smack down lenses that could give us an advantage in the field, or at least higher % of keepers w/ AF on higher MP bodies. Anyone else willing to admit this? I thinks it's part of a twelve step program


----------



## scyrene (Jun 8, 2018)

Viggo said:


> For me, yes the mk2 is nice, but the bokeh and weight could be approved on, especially the bokeh... at least an update to AF algorithms....
> 
> Point being, why even release a mk3, instead of waiting until it could actually be better. Think if they did THIS sort update to a 10 year old camera body, yipes!



Lens and body technologies move at different paces. I would argue there's far more difference between a 2018 camera body and a 2003 camera body and two lenses of the same dates. The analogy simply doesn't work, but even if it did - let's say there was a camera body that most of its owners described as 'near perfect', would a minor update be a problem then?

For the record, I thought the 2.8 II could be improved in a few ways - I've mentioned this in the last few months in this forum. I owned one (yes, copy variation might account for a lot of it) and found the image quality at 200mm and MFD a little disappointing. It could be lighter, with better AF, IS, etc, but the point is people seem to be contradicting themselves, because before it was announced most people were saying 'it's fine as it is', and now they're saying 'how dare they not upgrade it massively'. Perhaps it's different people, but more likely folks just like to moan. If they'd increased the price massively, I'd understand their point, but as it stands...


----------



## unfocused (Jun 8, 2018)

Just a quick reminder. Some of us were trying to tamp down expectations well before this lens was introduced. 



unfocused said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ...So I agree the sharpness must improve to draw folks to this new design over the Mk II...
> ...



Looking back on it now, it's easy to say that some folks had unrealistic expectations and those expectations ran up against hard realities this week. 

Note, this is not a personal dig at ahsanford. I think you are a great contributor to this site. I just think in this case you let your hopes get in the way of realistic expectations.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 8, 2018)

Cali Capture said:


> I think a lot of the frustration on this post comes from the simple fact that Canon has rereleased a 70-200 f/2.8 that most of who own a version II didn't need and have still not released a 50mm 1.4L IS, that we ALL want!



Not all of us. I couldn't care less about 50mm anything. 



> Some more so the 135mm f/2.0 IS (that would be me).



Nope 



> Of coarse, there always the dreamt of 24-70mm f/2.8 IS also!



And another nope.



> As owners of the Canon system, these would be the smack down lenses that could give us an advantage in the field, or at least higher % of keepers w/ AF on higher MP bodies. Anyone else willing to admit this? I thinks it's part of a twelve step program



I'm not at all sure what you mean by a "smack down lens that would give you an advantage in the field," since I don't generally participate in competitive shoot outs with other photographers. 

I think your post was meant to be light-hearted, so not going to make too much of it, just trying to illustrate that needs/wants aren't universal.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 8, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > For me, yes the mk2 is nice, but the bokeh and weight could be approved on, especially the bokeh... at least an update to AF algorithms....
> ...



I have never said it was fine as it is, I sold mines because of the boring 2.8 aperture and the gritty bokeh. I don’t really care about 70-200’s, but they decided to make a mk3, so why? They should’ve just kept it with the mk2.

And that analogy works, because people said the old mk1 70-200 was great, but then we were godsmacked when we saw how sharp and nice the mk2 was. Lots of products were like “what can they improve?” And then they did in a big way...

Pont stil is; Why release something that isn’t better than what already was...


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 8, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Just a quick reminder. Some of us were trying to tamp down expectations well before this lens was introduced.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No dig taken -- fair post. But I didn't consider my expectations _unrealistic_ per se, but yes, I was bullish on a new optical design being the decision for sure. Why? I was expecting Canon to do what it does based on past track record, and offer a '10% better all around' sort of instrument:


New optical design: I expected the lens to get sharper (ever so slightly)
New IS was thought to be a shoe-in if a new optical design materialized
A bit lighter
A CPL window in the hood

...stuff like that. That's not unreasonable at all, IMHO -- that's what you'd expect of a good L lens getting a next version. In fact, I went back and itemized every better-than-kit L 'sequel' for a number of years and could not identify a single one in which Canon phoned it in like this. I don't recall the last time this has ever happened.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 8, 2018)

Cali Capture said:


> I think a lot of the frustration on this post comes from the simple fact that Canon has rereleased a 70-200 f/2.8 that most of who own a version II didn't need and have still not released a 50mm 1.4L IS, that we ALL want! Some more so the 135mm f/2.0 IS (that would be me). Of coarse, there always the dreamt of 24-70mm f/2.8 IS also!



+1, but I think that's just part of life in the EF pecking order. Fast zooms always get the love -- that's just where the business is.

In fairness, a coat of paint and some coating implementation is a fraction of the work needed to design and build a new lens. So as someone else correctly mentioned in my catch-up this morning (can't find it, forgive me), this decision not only saved Canon some R&D costs, it freed up a team to work on something else. 

- A


----------



## sanj (Jun 8, 2018)

How come no one is discussing the implication of this regarding mirrorless? So no new mount? 8)


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 8, 2018)

sanj said:


> How come no one is discussing the implication of this regarding mirrorless? So no new mount? 8)



^^^ Every EF mount lens that comes out from here until FF mirrorless announcement will come with posts like this. ^^^ 

A comment on another site said that this 70-200 2.8 was Canon's farewell gift to EF users, as if the mount would shrivel up and die the moment mirrorless is announed. :

Unless we were expecting Canon to... 


Tip it's hand with comments about mount communication, electrical contacts, etc. 


Release a thin mount lens and adaptor _now_ prior to FF mirrorless being announced

an EF release... _is an EF release_. This tells us precisely nothing more than we knew before about Canon's mirrorless intentions.

- A


----------



## fullstop (Jun 8, 2018)

sanj said:


> How come no one is discussing the implication of this regarding mirrorless? So no new mount? 8)



Based on information publicly available I see no implications. EF lenses will work on Canon FF mirrorless bodies. With a simple adapter. And there seem to be enough people out there who will continue to buy EOS DSLRs for enough years to come. 

Maybe Canon also took the opportunity to quietly upgrade chips/electronics inside these 2 lenses to be fully prepared for future FF mirrorless lens mount protocol requiring higher data speed and more bandwidth [see recent discussion around lens mount protocol patent in another thread].


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 8, 2018)

fullstop said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > How come no one is discussing the implication of this regarding mirrorless? So no new mount? 8)
> ...



Yep. I'm not saying it's happening with this lens, but Canon _might_ be dropping some future-looking communications information into new EF lenses and not tell us when the lens is released. 

A teardown from Uncle Rog might find something on that front, but even in the unlikely event that they did find something, I don't think it will read one bit on the pending mirrorless mount decision. The mount's thin vs. EF decision will be a mystery until the week it drops, unless someone is very sloppy with new product information getting keyed into their inventory lists.

- A


----------



## scyrene (Jun 8, 2018)

Viggo said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



Well there are reasons for doing so - internal company reasons that don't affect us. Let's say that they changed the architecture inside, so it takes different repair parts, it might be useful for them to have different model numbers.

But I don't accept your premise that it hasn't changed. It's not changed substantially as far as the specifications are concerned, but so what? It's entirely subjective how much change warrants a new model number, but more than that, why does anyone really care? How does this impact us in any way? Older lenses still work, you don't have to buy the new one. All this 'reputational damage' stuff is just people trying to justify feeling personally let down.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 8, 2018)

scyrene said:


> All this 'reputational damage' stuff is just people trying to justify feeling personally let down.



I'm not personally let down. I wasn't going to buy this lens -- my f/2.8L IS II doesn't get enough use as it is, and even a stellar Mk III wouldn't have gotten me to reach for the CC.

Everyone has a different take on this. Mine is less about this announcement _as a product_ and more about how this reads on Canon's ambitions to maintain (IMHO) it's #1 advantage over the competition. Canon has many strengths for photographers, but at the top of that list it's not sensors, ergonomics, handling, the sea of bodies they offer, video, etc. It's lenses.

I think the EF portfolio needs a mix of value / mid-level / high end options, and some of those high end options need to be lights out smash hits. The 70-200 space is the last of those three, and it has earned a stellar reputation for the system as a whole. That reputation keeps folks in the fold.

So I'm not butthurt my predictions were wrong (it happens!). I'm also not sad about my Mk II no longer being the latest greatest. I am concerned that Canon thought a pillar of it's great reputation warranted quite literally a paint job (and coatings). In my mind, the pillar is either strong or the pillar is replaced. I would have waited to replace this special class of lens with a bigger step forward.

Consider: what happens if they try an update like this for the superwhites? For the 24-70 f/2.8L III? For the 135 f/2L II?

- A


----------



## unfocused (Jun 8, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> ...I was expecting Canon to do what it does based on past track record, and offer a '10% better all around' sort of instrument:
> 
> 
> New optical design: I expected the lens to get sharper (ever so slightly)
> ...



Yeah, I was surprised as well. Not as much as you were, but then my expectations were pretty low. There is some precedent for this though not from Canon. I recall several years ago when Tokina released a II version of their excellent 11-16 f2.8 zoom and the only change was new coatings. 

To me, this does have the feel of a last-minute decision: "We really need to update the coating on our 70-200, do we tell people about it or do we just quietly do it? What the heck, we are updating the f4 anyway and if we start making changes to lenses without any announcement, it's gonna bite us, so let's just call it a III and leave the MSRP the same. We'll take a little grief from the fans, but in a few months it will be over and they'll be on to something else."


----------



## Viggo (Jun 8, 2018)

I’m not “let down” either, because I was never in the market for it. When was the last time they released a new L with just new paint and coating?


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 8, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Yeah, I was surprised as well. Not as much as you were, but then my expectations were pretty low. There is some precedent for this though not from Canon.



Yep. I'll ask again: when's the last time Canon pulled something like this on a staple pro / top of the line instrument? I have yet to hear one from a _really_ bright and knowledgeable group of folks here.

Have they done this before, and how was it received? Did they course-correct afterwards or just take their lumps from us and move on?



unfocused said:


> To me, this does have the feel of a last-minute decision: "We really need to update the coating on our 70-200, do we tell people about it or do we just quietly do it? What the heck, we are updating the f4 anyway and if we start making changes to lenses without any announcement, it's gonna bite us, so let's just call it a III and leave the MSRP the same. We'll take a little grief from the fans, but in a few months it will be over and they'll be on to something else."



+1. Absolutely plausible -- that feels like new product design discussions I've had in my line of work. 

But as simple as their final call was, I don't see them blowing past the hard work in the run-up to that call. Surely they vetted more ambitious options. This was one of many proposals alongside a proposal for a very slight optical change to get in better IS, a proposal for a bigger optical change to shoot for better IQ, etc. Canon ran the numbers on all of them and paint/coatings approach was deemed the most profitable.

- A


----------



## Cali Capture (Jun 8, 2018)

Consider: what happens if they try an update like this for the superwhites? For the 24-70 f/2.8L III? For the 135 f/2L II?

Ahansford, You make a good point. The 24-105mm f/4 is II, is another example of not great precident setting. No large increase in performance, so why update. I guess the only defense would be nomenclature. Canon updated, probably for economics over technology, so they had to rename the lens. They don't ever use Mark 2.5 or anything else beyond the next progression. So we get a mark III so the parts and inventory folks know what's what. 

Sure hope we get another prime with Blue Goo and IS ! The future is bright w/ less CA in the day and less shaking in the night!


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 8, 2018)

Cali Capture said:


> Consider: what happens if they try an update like this for the superwhites? For the 24-70 f/2.8L III? For the 135 f/2L II?
> 
> Ahansford, You make a good point. The 24-105mm f/4 is II, is another example of not great precident setting.



The 24-105 doesn't count to me in that it's a kit lens -- an L lens, but a kit lens nonetheless. It simply has to hit a cost target or it won't fly. It's not the same as a flagship top-spec'd instrument like the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.

I do not know of a time something Canon considered best in portfolio (for a given slot) ever getting this treatment, but I've only been buying better than kit glass for about 10 years now. I await someone to tell me that Canon has just knocked out a refresh like this for such a high-end instrument before.

And the lack of that example is not me puffing up my chest that I'm right -- I don't want to be 'right' here. I concern myself with the trajectory of the EF system. This may be a legitimate first for Canon that heralds more refreshes like this.

- A


----------



## amorse (Jun 8, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > How come no one is discussing the implication of this regarding mirrorless? So no new mount? 8)
> ...



OR Canon just updated the 2.8 in such a minor way to keep to their pre-determined EF release timeline, while instead investing more R&D on lenses and equipment for their upcoming full frame mirrorless body. For all we know, Canon may announce a mirrorless body with a new mount and a "trifecta" of lenses (16-35, 24-70, 70-200) all at once. If they're going all in on a new mount, they're going to need lenses to go with it. If they have to develop a load of in demand lenses all at once to support early sales, it makes sense that they would siphon R&D resources from other places to support that investment. 

To wildly speculate even further, if Canon were to take a shortcut on a planned update in order to save resources for development elsewhere, why wouldn't they take a shortcut on a lens which is already great and many users being unsure if they would upgrade anyway? That seems like the right place to take a shortcut if you have another priority on the books at the same time.

But yes, this announcement gives us no conclusive clues about the future of the EF mount.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jun 8, 2018)

anyone notice that Canon is disappointing long time users and professionals constantly and consistently in the last few years. Have they even released anything great since the mark 3. the last few good things I noticed was the c100/c300 and the 35mm II. Everything else seems to be barely anything worthly of upgrading or featuring a huge flaw in features but way higher prices compared to the nearest competition. It's like most of us stick with Canon for convenience and maybe reliability right now praying that one day they will give us a great new product that makes our lives easier. And also how they release these over a good 50mm is insane. At least they could update the dusty busty 17-55mm for us cinema users. This has been said a million times but As a hybrid shooter( i believe it is not only the future but the best way to make money easily for us middle class people) the competition is closing every single gap.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 8, 2018)

amorse said:


> OR Canon just updated the 2.8 in such a minor way to keep to their pre-determined EF release timeline, while instead investing more R&D on lenses and equipment for their upcoming full frame mirrorless body. For all we know, Canon may announce a mirrorless body with a new mount and a "trifecta" of lenses (16-35, 24-70, 70-200) all at once. If they're going all in on a new mount, they're going to need lenses to go with it.



This presumes thin mount FF mirrorless happens (certainly a good chance) + Canon goes all in on that mount because of... _why, exactly?_ Pros having an aversion to adaptors? Consider: they won't save a lick of space with f/2.8 zooms!

So if [thin mount is happening] + [there's no size savings for pro lenses] + [pros hate adaptors], you'd have three choices:

1) Offer the thin FF mirrorless platform and remake EF in the thin mount.

2) Offer the thin FF mirrorless platform, keep the new thin mount lens portfolio to 4-5 smaller/shorter/wider lenses and offer an EF mount mirrorless line of bodies.

3) Option 1 but watered down. Perhaps remake the sexiest bits of EF in the thin mount and use the adaptor for the oddities and niche gear.

I'll be brave and say that the blue costs just a wee bit less and is much faster implement to do than the red.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 8, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> anyone notice that Canon is disappointing long time users and professionals constantly and consistently in the last few years. Have they even released anything great since the mark 3.



(Which Mark 3? 16-35? 5D3? What do you mean?)

There are some fits and starts, sure, but no, I disagree. Last 5 years, we've gotten:

200-400L + 1.4x = great
100-400L II = great
35 f/1.4L II = off the charts
85 f/1.4L IS = excellent
_Three_ L tilt-shifts = jury still out, but reviews I've seen so far look great
70-200 f.4L IS = strength on strength; looks a worthy step forward
Expansion of the FF line with the 6D and 5DS lines
Crop mirrorless finally looking comprehensively useful (DPAF + integral VF, etc.)

Plus all sorts of useful tech: DPAF, anti-flicker, On-chip ADC sensors, One pancake for each mount, Nano USM as a step up from STM, digital multi-readout panels on lens barrels, illuminated macro, motorized auto-bounce for speedlites.

It's been a great few years, actually. Unless you like body spec sheets and high body spec-per-dollar, which Canon does not have to give us if we keep buying their gear.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Jun 8, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Surely they vetted more ambitious options...



I have no idea, but I think it may have something to do with a reasonable cost-benefit ratio given current design and manufacturing limitations.

Again, I refer to the much maligned 24-105 (which I happily upgraded to and do consider it an improvement over the previous model).

There simply is no competitor in the market today that offers a better zoom in that range. That leads me to think that with the current state of the art, it is simply not possible to produce an affordable 24-105mm that performs significantly better. I've said before that I think if they could have produced a stellar 24-105 at $1,600 they would have done so. But, if the price point was closer to $2,000 they may have determined it wasn't viable. 

With the 70-200mm we *know* that neither Nikon nor Sony can produce a 70-200 2.8 that matches Canon's price point. I believe it is entirely possible that Canon ran the numbers and determined that the incremental cost to achieve a noticeable improvement in optical performance was too great given the current state of lens design. Now, admittedly, that doesn't explain their lack of interest in other, more modest changes like IS and close focusing distance.


----------



## amorse (Jun 8, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> amorse said:
> 
> 
> > OR Canon just updated the 2.8 in such a minor way to keep to their pre-determined EF release timeline, while instead investing more R&D on lenses and equipment for their upcoming full frame mirrorless body. For all we know, Canon may announce a mirrorless body with a new mount and a "trifecta" of lenses (16-35, 24-70, 70-200) all at once. If they're going all in on a new mount, they're going to need lenses to go with it.
> ...


Yes, 2.8 zooms on a thin mount will be the same length as cameras with a mirror box, but slower lenses will allow for a smaller and lighter over all package: with the great low light performance of modern full frame sensors, not having a 2.8 may be less limiting than in the past. If you need to shrink a competent camera kit in both weight and size, Canon has few options in full frame. Crop sensors have the SL2, but a mirrorless equivalent may be the way to achieve the smaller package for a full frame. That's just one option - certainly everyone here has their own priorities for a mirrorless camera.

I was being partly facetious in suggesting that Canon go "all in" on the mount (not trying to insinuate EF is dead) - I instead mean that if there is indeed a new mount, and regardless of whether there is or is not continuing compatibility with EF (whether by adapter or by hybrid mount or by other "clever" solution) it makes absolutely no sense to release a new mount unless there will be new lenses to go with it. Why come up with any solution at all if it just has an EF mount? We've heard several indications of a possible new mount - patent for a full frame 16-35 mirrorless lens, new communication protocol patent for a mount to accept more than one type of lens, indication that some sort of eloquent solution exists for the mount paradox. If a new mount is coming, new lenses are not likely far behind. I have a hard time envisioning Canon releasing a mirrorless body with a new mount and suggesting that all users adapt lenses rather than releasing native lenses with the camera on day one. If that is a fair assessment, then yes, Canon would likely have some unusual R&D burden in the short term to release a new mirrorless body with a new mount, and at least a few lenses designed specifically for that body all at once. If that is happening, then yes that could be partly why the 70-200 2.8 wasn't re-hashed more fully (that and it may not really need it). Again - lots of grains of salt and wild speculation.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 8, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> RayValdez360 said:
> 
> 
> > anyone notice that Canon is disappointing long time users and professionals constantly and consistently in the last few years. Have they even released anything great since the mark 3.
> ...



I double-disagree. 

Assuming we are talking cameras, let's examine that statement.

5D III: Great camera, but the main "innovation" was an improved autofocus system. Noise and dynamic range were good for the time, but not headline material.

Since then:

6D: Most affordable full-frame camera. Released at a price point that was slightly high and criticized for same, but quickly dropped in price and became the top selling full frame camera on Amazon's list. It performed well above its specs and made full frame possible for the mass of enthusiasts. 

5Ds: Highest resolution full frame camera ever. 

7DII: Mini 1Dx. Canon spared almost nothing in loading this APS-C camera up with incredible pro-level performance features. Singlehandedly revived the high-end APS-C market, forcing Nikon to return to the market with a very competitive body that was released more than a year later and still is only marginally improved over the Canon.

1Dx II/80D: First Canons with on-chip ADC. Suddenly the whole debate over dynamic range became largely irrelevant in real world use. 

5DIV: On-chip ADC and 30 mp. The whole presumption that you must choose between resolution and noise seems irrelevant now. Little to no difference in noise performance with its much lower resolution big brother the 1Dx II.

So, no, I don't "notice that Canon is disappointing long time users and professionals." Disappointing forum whiners? Yes.


----------



## ethanz (Jun 8, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> RayValdez360 said:
> 
> 
> > anyone notice that Canon is disappointing long time users and professionals constantly and consistently in the last few years. Have they even released anything great since the mark 3.
> ...



+ 16-35f4 + 1dx2
Canon has released great stuff in the last few years.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 8, 2018)

unfocused said:


> 5D III I felt was a great camera. It was a great improvement over the 5DII. It was a significant upgrade that kept it competitive against any camera in that range
> 
> 5D III: Great camera, but the main "innovation" was an improved autofocus system. Noise and dynamic range were good for the time, but not headline material.
> 
> ...


To disappoint whiners who whine about whiners who whine about Canon I do find long time users and professionals are not so determined as they were in the past to stay with Canon. There is a big inertia when you are heavily invested in Canon glass. Sigma have become very mainstream. Sony have yet to crack the pro market at the World Cup etc but if they could make great big whites they might yet. Canon have traded on the image of being the best for sports. They are potentially vulnerable to Sony in this category by the sheer frame rate potential of mirrorless


----------



## x-vision (Jun 8, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Well there are reasons for doing so - internal company reasons that don't affect us. Let's say that they changed the architecture inside, so it takes different repair parts, it might be useful for them to have different model numbers.
> 
> But I don't accept your premise that it hasn't changed. It's not changed substantially as far as the specifications are concerned, but so what? It's entirely subjective how much change warrants a new model number, but more than that, why does anyone really care? How does this impact us in any way? Older lenses still work, you don't have to buy the new one. All this 'reputational damage' stuff is just people trying to justify feeling personally let down.



+1000

Canon likely changed the internal "mechanics" of these lenses, while keeping the optical formulas the same.

The 70-200/4L is obviously getting a more capable IS system.
Both lenses are likely getting better AF modules and other "mechanical" improvements.

People should definitely not feel let down by this announcement.


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 8, 2018)

ethanz said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > RayValdez360 said:
> ...



The 11-24 f4 L and 16-35 f2.8LIII deserves a mention as well. Both are stellar lenses, unmatched by the competition.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 8, 2018)

x-vision said:


> +1000
> 
> Canon likely changed the internal "mechanics" of these lenses, while keeping the optical formulas the same.
> 
> ...



Disagree somewhat. As I understand it, we've got a case of two _very_ different new products here:

f/4L IS II = new optical design, new MTF, shorter MFD, new IS setup, can't speak to AF routines (presume new), hood is new. No promises on performance or handling here, but we should expect a shiny new modern lens in the vein of the 100-400 II here.

f/2.8L IS III = existing optical design (+ new coating), MTF unchanged, MFD unchanged, IS unchanged, AF unchanged, hood is existing. Rudy Winston at 2:02 in the video: "AF speed and responsiveness... are unchanged" _could_ mean Canon put some new modules in there that perform identically compared to before, in fairness, but it also might mean that they used the same damn stuff.

I do agree that you can have the same optical design packaged in a design that is much easier to produce/repair. That said, look at the attached. The biggest areas of variability between the two lenses comes from the slight projection differences in photographs of those lenses -- they are very very close. So yes, it might be easier to take apart but the internal (at least mechanical) architecture can't be _that_ different. But Uncle Rog will tell us if plastic item X is now metal, if three screws now do the job of 5 so it's easier to come apart, etc. Time will tell.

- A


----------



## lightthief (Jun 8, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> ... I await someone to tell me that Canon has just knocked out a refresh like this for such a high-end instrument before.
> ..



Correct me when i'm wrong, but isn't the 85 1.2 L II very similar to the 85 1.2 L. It got only a faster AF and some coatings???

Lightthief


----------



## filipe.ngra (Jun 8, 2018)

well... it is almost impossible to improve the perfect lens...

I think the weight is the main issue. (talking about 2.8 II/III).

my mkII will endure 15+ years and survive 4 camera bodies...


----------



## RGF (Jun 8, 2018)

better coatings on the F2.8 III. Slight improvement on an already great lens. It would be hard for me to justify an upgrade but if I had to buy a replacement lens I would opt for the Mark III


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 8, 2018)

lightthief said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ... I await someone to tell me that Canon has just knocked out a refresh like this for such a high-end instrument before.
> ...



Someone on TDP just poked me with the same tidbit. 

Okay, we have an historical reference: the last time they did a (relatively) superficial refresh to a top notch lens was 12 years ago. Noted -- thx.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 8, 2018)

RGF said:


> better coatings on the F2.8 III. Slight improvement on an already great lens. It would be hard for me to justify an upgrade but if I had to buy a replacement lens I would opt for the Mark III



Yep. We've heard exact sentiment a few times on this thread. 

I agree. At relatively the same price, I probably would replace a worn out Mk II with a Mk III as well.

- A


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 9, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> 5Ds: Highest resolution full frame camera ever.
> 5DS a pure race to 50mp. A very good camera on a tripod at ISO 100 - good with studio lights but I think with a horrible high ISO performance


You clearly do not have any clue what you are talking about.

No need to use with tripod - its actually better to hand hold than other Canon models, because you can choose to electronically reduce the mirror slap. And high iso is great - fully on par with 5DIV > iso 400.


----------



## djack41 (Jun 9, 2018)

Canon fiddles as Rome burns!


----------



## deleteme (Jun 9, 2018)

I used my 70-200 2.8L IS v1 on a business portrait project two days ago.
60 portraits of staff at a large firm. I brought the lens in addition to my 24-70 f4 as I did not know what sort of space I might have available. I prefer shooting in the 100-135 range for portraits and fortunately I had enough room to use the longer lens.
When examining the files I was struck by the eye watering sharpness and contrast of the files. 
While I have heard of the improvements in the v2 I can hardly imagine that I could even see any meaningful improvement in real world photography.

I bought the lens used in 2003 and have used it with some vigor these many years and it seems it is good for another 15 years at least.


----------



## ethanz (Jun 9, 2018)

Normalnorm said:


> I used my 70-200 2.8L IS v1 on a business portrait project two days ago.
> 60 portraits of staff at a large firm. I brought the lens in addition to my 24-70 f4 as I did not know what sort of space I might have available. I prefer shooting in the 100-135 range for portraits and fortunately I had enough room to use the longer lens.
> When examining the files I was struck by the eye watering sharpness and contrast of the files.
> While I have heard of the improvements in the v2 I can hardly imagine that I could even see any meaningful improvement in real world photography.
> ...



Nice, still rocking the v1! You must be taking lots of Beano. You give all of us hope for a better day from our disease.


----------



## sanj (Jun 9, 2018)

RGF said:


> better coatings on the F2.8 III. Slight improvement on an already great lens. It would be hard for me to justify an upgrade but if I had to buy a replacement lens I would opt for the Mark III



But obviously. No?


----------



## Talys (Jun 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > better coatings on the F2.8 III. Slight improvement on an already great lens. It would be hard for me to justify an upgrade but if I had to buy a replacement lens I would opt for the Mark III
> ...



It would be much more of an issue if either of these were true:

(a) the MkII wasn't a great lens that I wasn't considering upgrading
(b) there was a new body where the MkII couldn't "keep up" (resolution, autofocus, image quality, whatever)

But at the moment, neither is true, so a MkII upgrade (as opposed to a minor refresh) is mostly a solution in search of a problem, also known as a price hike reaching for my wallet. I guess I'm happy that if I have to replace my MkII, at least it will have a new paint job.

The biggest "worry" as some others have noted is that at some point in the next 5 years, there will be a great reason to upgrade the MkIII, and we'll have to wait another 5 years before that happens. But then again, maybe not, who knows. Some of the stuff, like more IS stops, sounds great, but just isn't worth spending money on. I mean, how many people who own a Mk2 get blurry camera shake pictures? Again, it turns into fixing a problem that doesn't exist. I would have loved IS mode 3 for birding, though.

Oh well, I won't worry about it, because what I really want is to roll my pennies for a lens I don't have, not a tiny improvement to something that I own and am happy with.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 9, 2018)

Give it a rest, people. Canon do a decent thing by re-engineering one of their best lenses to use the latest developments with coatings and still people complain.

Aren't there better things to waste your time on?


----------



## Viggo (Jun 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> lightthief said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Well, if you’re using a 1-series body it wouldn’t call the AF speed of 85 II “slightly” faster, it went from useless to very capable. The 85 L II also got updated to support the ETTL mode, which was absolutely needed. So it wasn’t a big improvement in image quality, but the usefulness was taken up a few levels.

The 70-200 with the same AF improvement alone, would have been a huge reason to upgrade


----------



## djack41 (Jun 9, 2018)

Baby steps. Zzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Give it a rest, people. Canon do a decent thing by re-engineering one of their best lenses to use the latest developments with coatings and still people complain.
> 
> Aren't there better things to waste your time on?



Plus they launched it at a lower price. But whiners gonna whine.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 9, 2018)

yes, BUT ... for a Mark III update the f/2.8 looks "underwhelming". 

In addition to new coatings, why not include some or all of the "feature improvements" as on f/4 II? 
* improved IS with mode 3 and 5 stops 
* and/or 9-blade iris? 
* some very low-cost, but "useful to many" little details - like arca-style dovetail/grooves in lens tripod foot? [see Tamron 70-200 G2]? 
* or an "easy on-off" lens collar that is "really right, not just white?   

And is the CPL slot in lens hood now there or not?


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 9, 2018)

Maiaibing said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > 5Ds: Highest resolution full frame camera ever.
> ...


Completely on par with a 5D IV above 400 ISO?
Maybe you should borrow both and try them out rather than making things up


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 9, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > Give it a rest, people. Canon do a decent thing by re-engineering one of their best lenses to use the latest developments with coatings and still people complain.
> ...



Yes.... what many may not have considered is that this is, for all practical purposes, as good as you can make a zoom lens in that range..... it just may not be possible to improve noticeably on the current design. 

Just wait until the 600F4 mark III comes out.... people will be demanding that the lens is significantly sharper and that the MTF curves be above 1.......


----------



## scyrene (Jun 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Consider: what happens if they try an update like this for the superwhites? For the 24-70 f/2.8L III? For the 135 f/2L II?



Rather like the 70-200 II, the supertelephoto lenses are already excellent, class-leading, and we can't expect much in the way of substantial improvements until and unless there's some big shift in technology. Even the mark I - mark II update just added a bit better IS (with a new mode), shaved a bit of weight (largely down to removing the clear front element), and one or two othe tweaks. Optically, they weren't much different from their predecessors. And if the mark IIIs come out with very little change, I don't see what difference it makes. The 135L is a little different, I think a lot of people are hoping it'll get IS added, which is not an unrealistic expectation, but then I guess it won't be named mark II, but just EF 135mm f/2(or 1.8)L IS?.



ahsanford said:


> Yep. I'll ask again: when's the last time Canon pulled something like this on a staple pro / top of the line instrument? I have yet to hear one from a _really_ bright and knowledgeable group of folks here.



The extenders come to mind. The mark III extenders didn't improve on image quality very much if at all, but just worked a bit better with the mark II supertelephotos in terms of AF (there were a few other tweaks including *paint colour*!). I don't know if that counts though.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 9, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> anyone notice that Canon is disappointing long time users and professionals constantly and consistently in the last few years.



Nope. Just a minority of vocal forum-dwellers, mostly.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 9, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> 5DS a pure race to 50mp. A very good camera on a tripod at ISO 100 - good with studio lights but I think with a horrible high ISO performance



I strongly disagree. I've used the 5Ds as a replacement for the 5D3 and it is as capable in 90+% of situations. The 5Ds's high ISO is no worse than the 5D3's on an image level, and may be better as the noise characteristics are easier to deal with (less magenta cast for instance).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> anyone notice that Canon is disappointing long time users and professionals constantly and consistently in the last few years.



Thanks, I just knew there had to be an explanation for their consistently and consistently falling market share in the last few years. :


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 9, 2018)

fullstop said:


> And is the CPL slot in lens hood now there or not?



Same hood as the Mk II.

- A


----------



## AprilForever (Jun 9, 2018)

Something I noticed reading it: why do they recommend the f4 lens for crop sensors, and the f2.8 lens for full frame? Why not recommend them more situationally, like, use the f4 lens when distance hiking and climbing or when you want a lighter set up, and the f2.8 lens when low light or out of focus back grounds are desired? 

I have a 7d mkii and a 5d mk iv. I use my 70-200 2.8 on them both. On the 7d, the 70-200 lens serves admirably for bird photography if the birds are close. The extra stop helps a lot. I would feel deeply the loss of the stop on the edge of day and dark, or during big storms, the sort of times when birds often come out (like those elusive rails......). Anyways....

Also, what is the new coating? 

In general, I am rather excited about this, I will totally get the new f2.8 lens, in likely 7 years, when I can justify and afford the upgrade expense...


----------



## fullstop (Jun 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > And is the CPL slot in lens hood now there or not?
> ...



thx for info/confirmation! 

"Innovative, customer-oriented, generous Canon". ;D


----------



## FTb-n (Jun 9, 2018)

I don't get the complaints about the 70-200 f2.8 Mark III.

The Mark II was best in it's class and there was no collective demand for an upgrade. There was also no hype from Canon promising a major upgrade. So, Canon found a way to reduce flare and make exposed elements easier to clean. Should they have sat on these improvements until they do find a way to make this great lens significantly better?

Perhaps we have grown so accustomed to Canon upgrades being significant technological improvements that a simple refresh becomes a dissapointment.

I'm actually releaved that the Mark III was a simple refresh, because it won't be feeding my G.A.S. affliction.


----------



## ethanz (Jun 9, 2018)

FTb-n said:


> because it won't be feeding my G.A.S. affliction.



Yes, I think Canon did us a solid, by helping to not feed our affliction.


----------



## FTb-n (Jun 9, 2018)

AprilForever said:


> Something I noticed reading it: why do they recommend the f4 lens for crop sensors, and the f2.8 lens for full frame? Why not recommend them more situationally, like, use the f4 lens when distance hiking and climbing or when you want a lighter set up, and the f2.8 lens when low light or out of focus back grounds are desired?



I wondered the same thing. The faster 2.8 is better for crop if low light is a concern, plus it's depth of field is similar to the 4.0 on full frame.

I'm guessing that price and size is the main reason that the f4 version is recommended for crop bodies with the assumption that a $2,000 lens is too spendy for most crop owners. Plus, this is a nice upgrade for the various "consumer grade" f3.5-5.6 zoom lenses typically targeted for crop bodies.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 9, 2018)

FTb-n said:


> I don't get the complaints about the 70-200 f2.8 Mark III.
> The Mark II was best in it's class



this is disputed. Most recent Nikon as well as Sony GM came out slightly ahead in various reviews.

Nobody is unhappy about improved coatings, but many would have liked to see Canon do "a bit more", when they re-launch one of their flagship lenses as Mark III. Some of the feature improvements Canon did on the f/4 [5 stop IS with mode 3, iris blades, ] would have been welcomed also on the f/2.8. And an all-out improvement on IQ to make it clearly "king of the hill" - at least until Nikon/Sony bring their next iterations.


----------



## applecider (Jun 9, 2018)

Say for those of us who are deciding between the f4 and the f2.8 how about going to Flickr or your searchable photo database of choice and searching for canon EF 70-200L . Look at the images you like and decide if you’d be happy with the result.

That in combination with a little hands on should make a choice easy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2018)

I wonder which of the following the market would prefer? Note that 'the market' is not represented by members of this forum, nor does it comprise any one member in particular (no matter how delusionally self-important they think they are, for example, one who believes their views represent those of millions). 

1) The 70-200/2.8 III as announced *and priced* 

or

2) A 70-200/2.8 III with Mode 3 IS and significant optical improvements (probably requiring an 82mm filter), priced at $2800 or higher

Certainly, this is not a lens intended to tempt owners of the MkII to upgrade.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 9, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > Hector1970 said:
> ...



To be fair when the 5Ds image is reduced in size to that of the 5DIV it's not that bad.


----------



## ethanz (Jun 9, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I wonder which of the following the market would prefer? Note that 'the market' is not represented by members of this forum, nor does it comprise any one member in particular (no matter how delusionally self-important they think they are, for example, one who believes their views represent those of millions).
> 
> 1) The 70-200/2.8 III as announced *and priced*
> 
> ...



Good question John. I think you should add to #2 additional weight. I'm no expert when it comes to lenses, but I don't think they could improve the IS and optics without adding weight.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 9, 2018)

ethanz said:


> Good question John. I think you should add to #2 additional weight. I'm no expert when it comes to lenses, but I don't think they could improve the IS and optics without adding weight.



IS vs. non-IS in a lens = absolutely results in a weight difference.

But Older IS vs. newer IS in a lens (without a major optical redesign)? Not nearly as much.

70-200 f/2.8 IS I --> II only gained 20g

70-200 f/4L IS I --> II only gained 40g (and that optical design actually changed from I to II)

But I am not an expert either. I want to say it's more than just IS modes, it also has to do with how much glass you are moving during the stabilization. A recent Canon developer interview stated that the one in the recent 85 f/1.4L IS is nearly the size of the one in the 400 f/2.8L IS II!

- A


----------



## whothafunk (Jun 9, 2018)

I personally would jump to III if faster AF and IS Mode 3 would be presented with this lens at 2500 EUR. But as it is, no way.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 9, 2018)

whothafunk said:


> I personally would jump to III if faster AF and IS Mode 3 would be presented with this lens at 2500 EUR. But as it is, no way.



You're not alone. But Canon surely ran the numbers on that, and retreading the Mk II into the Mk III they've offered probably nets larger margins and larger units than a pricier higher-performing instrument.

Again, as a business, I rarely can fault Canon. What they leave out of new offerings doesn't seem to send people to the other team.

- A


----------



## scottkinfw (Jun 9, 2018)

I have both the 2.8II and 4 predecessors and am very happy with both. I therefore wouldn't be tempted to upgrade (would rather get a 5DSRII for the money). I am very interested however in seeing objective reviews and comparisons. 

Scott


----------



## Talys (Jun 9, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I wonder which of the following the market would prefer? Note that 'the market' is not represented by members of this forum, nor does it comprise any one member in particular (no matter how delusionally self-important they think they are, for example, one who believes their views represent those of millions).
> 
> 1) The 70-200/2.8 III as announced *and priced*
> 
> ...



I'd be equally fine with either 

The reality is that I probably wouldn't have upgraded in Scenario 2 right away, and perhaps not for a very long time if it required 82mm filters. Putting aside the obvious (cost), I don't really want to pack around 77's and 82's.

Obviously, I won't upgrade in Scenario 1, unless there's something wrong with my lens. I'm happy with my copy, and I get attached to lenses that produce good results for me. It's like a lucky rabbit's foot.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 9, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...



+1, and even more positive about the 5DSR. I have both the 5DSR and 5DIV and use them routinely at high iso. The 5DSR is excellent at high iso when you clean up the noise with DxO prime. I can use it at iso6400, my maximum setting, and push it a couple of stops.
Here are two shots taken in the near dark under a green canopy in a wood in New Zealand of a male bellbird. Top is by me using a 5DIV + 400mm DO II at 1/250s and iso 12800. Bottom us by my wife using a 5DSR + 100-400mm II 1/200s iso 6400 pushed 1.6ev. It is advisable to use a camera before making comments about its performance.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 9, 2018)

i dont think it would be a big problem if Canon also were to move the last of the 3 lenses in their f/2.8 trifecta to 82mm filter threads. i think many/most? purchasers of a 70-200/2.8 III already have or plan to also buy a 24-70 ii and/or 16-35 III. 

and many of those users will likely also use lee-type filters 100/150mm - all they need is an 82 mount ring. no big deal. http://www.thefilterdude.com/ and others sell them in decent quality for little money. 

even i got 77 and 82 and i am far from "pro" or "entusiast gear collector". but of course, that's only me, and millions of other users may find it very difficult to use filters on lenses with different diameter filter threads ...


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 9, 2018)

AlanF said:


> +1, and even more positive about the 5DSR. I have both the 5DSR and 5DIV and use them routinely at high iso. The 5DSR is excellent at high iso when you clean up the noise with DxO prime. I can use it at iso6400, my maximum setting, and push it a couple of stops.



Lovely shots. I simply lack the acumen in post to clean up high ISO pushed shots and they always pose a challenge capture-wise to me:

Option A: Nailing the exposure requires an ISO I don't want to use. Besides NR and loss of detail it brings, the lack of DR and color at that high ISO level forces me to do some crude adjustments -- big negative slides on blacks and usually more saturation than I ought to add. 

Option B: Underexpose and push just feels... different, or 'off' somehow. It leads to flat output on my 5D3 -- for me it almost looks like HDR output from my phone (not at the pixel level of course, but you know what I mean). And then, again, I'm aggressively chasing it in post to stretch out the files in unpleasant ways.

I've settled on getting the exposure right and relying on downsampling to manage noise a bit. I imagine that's a much more powerful NR move when you are starting from 50 MP on your 5DS.

- A


----------



## scyrene (Jun 10, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Hector1970 said:
> ...



+1

People talking about the 5Ds(R) as 'tripod only, low ISO only' cameras sound like people who haven't used them, or at least, haven't pushed them. They are capable bodies.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jun 10, 2018)

To end all the discussion. Canon shouldnt have called it the III. They could have been like "the updated II with better coatings and a new color to match current white lens for sale in late 2018 forward." With the level of complaints and bashing, i dont know if calling a III is wise and the only people that care it is called a III are people with a II.


----------



## Isaacheus (Jun 10, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > +1, and even more positive about the 5DSR. I have both the 5DSR and 5DIV and use them routinely at high iso. The 5DSR is excellent at high iso when you clean up the noise with DxO prime. I can use it at iso6400, my maximum setting, and push it a couple of stops.
> ...



I found doing the same thing on the 5dmk3 too, while the 6d seemed to hold up a little better (not great but didn't have quite the same deterioration?). The mk3 seems to lose all the contrast/colour in an odd way. The 5dmk4 seems to be a considerable step up over both, for the little playing around I've seen of that


----------



## AprilForever (Jun 10, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I wonder which of the following the market would prefer? Note that 'the market' is not represented by members of this forum, nor does it comprise any one member in particular (no matter how delusionally self-important they think they are, for example, one who believes their views represent those of millions).
> 
> 1) The 70-200/2.8 III as announced *and priced*
> 
> ...



Maybe there could be a market for the major upgrade lens. I am guessing not much of one size wise, but, maybe they could sell both and differentiate the higher priced one by making it a bit longer. Maybe make the front element 88mm, extend it to 70-250 2.8.... This might get heavy though. 
Maybe make a 70-200 and a 70-200 HR (A new abbreviation!!!! Markwtting gold!!! HR is high res.), kind of like the 5d line and the 5dc?


----------



## Talys (Jun 10, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Bleh. Point a profoto at your subject 

I lack the patience to use multiple pieces of software to muck with my photos, generally; certainly multiple suites by different vendors. Bearing in mind that I used a 5DIV nearly a year before I purchased a 6D2, I found the 6D2 easier to perform high ISO noise reduction on. Many photos just look astonishingly great even with minimal effort.

At the end of the day, it's why I love the 6D2 -- and the 70-200Mk2. I really don't care what MTFs or pixel exploded studio shots show, because I'm very pleased both with the quality and consistency of the photos that I'm able to shoot.


----------



## Isaacheus (Jun 10, 2018)

Talys said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Haha, find me a profoto that works on milkyway photography and I'll give it a go.
(The other application I usually try is wildlife, which don't take kindly to lights in their eyes)


----------



## Talys (Jun 10, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > At the end of the day, it's why I love the 6D2 -- and the 70-200Mk2. I really don't care what MTFs or pixel exploded studio shots show, because I'm very pleased both with the quality and consistency of the photos that I'm able to shoot.
> ...



* tugs out supernova * 8)

Remarkably, most of my feathered friends don't mind flashes/strobes, and they're by far the best way to stop action. For example, it's nearly impossible to freeze a hovering hummingbird's wings without, and trivial to do, with a cheap flash.

Raccoons, squirrels, bunnies, and my cat (which doesn't qualify as wildlife...) don't seem to mind either, but then, they are pretty used to me. Also, very curiously, light in general doesn't seem to bother raccoons -- for instance, shining a flood light or studio-bright light panels onto them won't alarm them. 

I wouldn't try with anything bigger, though, lol. I don't want to find out what a black bear or cougar would think of a profoto, hahaha  And I would feel really bad if a doe got scared off by one.


----------



## -1 (Jun 10, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Ummm... _Is it the exact same optical design for the f/2.8L IS III?!_ That would be a shocking move for a flagship instrument like this.
> 
> TDP implies yes: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=687&LensComp=1197 --> same elements count, same hood, same filter diameter
> 
> PB outright says yes: https://www.thephoblographer.com/2018/06/07/the-new-canon-70-200mm-lens-updates-are-very-perplexing/



There could be some differences in the firmware that then would show in a near future:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=35129.msg722340#msg722340


----------



## snoke (Jun 10, 2018)

Canon say 70-200/2.8L IS USM II need internal reflection/flare improvement. Now 70-200/2.8L IS USM III exist. New coatings. Lens rentals say new coatings make front element expensive. Is answer for more $$.

If 70-200/2.8L IS USM II perfect every other way, then Canon right make no more change.

Never have problem with flare/internal reflection? Keep 70-200/2.8L IS USM II.
If have problem then buy new lens.
Simple.

Canon fix 70-300/f4-5.6L IS USM too? Same problem as 70-200/2.8L IS USM II.


----------



## transpo1 (Jun 10, 2018)

I like how the guy's shirt EXACTLY matches the color of the lenses. They were very precise with that choice


----------



## stevelee (Jun 10, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> To end all the discussion. Canon shouldnt have called it the III. They could have been like "the updated II with better coatings and a new color to match current white lens for sale in late 2018 forward."



How expensive would the filters be to fit on the front of a lens that had room for that whole name?


----------



## stevelee (Jun 10, 2018)

Talys said:


> And I would feel really bad if a doe got scared off by one.



Like deer in the headlights?


----------



## Talys (Jun 10, 2018)

stevelee said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > And I would feel really bad if a doe got scared off by one.
> ...



;D


----------



## JoseB (Jun 10, 2018)

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.I
Is that ok?


----------



## slclick (Jun 10, 2018)

18 pages....There should be a thread for just the f/4. No need to chat about the 2.8 any longer...it's the little brother that has the biggest changes, the most to chat about.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 10, 2018)

slclick said:


> 18 pages....There should be a thread for just the f/4. No need to chat about the 2.8 any longer...it's the little brother that has the biggest changes, the most to chat about.



yes. Canon should just have launched the f/4. And waited with f/2.8 III until they are able to give it an update as good as the f/4 one.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> yes. Canon should just have launched the f/4. And waited with f/2.8 III until they are able to give it an update as good as the f/4 one.



Then they'd still be selling the 2.8 II with the older coatings. I don't get people. Canon update one of their most highly-regarded lenses to make it even better, sell it for the same price as before, yet still people complain.


----------



## ethanz (Jun 10, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > yes. Canon should just have launched the f/4. And waited with f/2.8 III until they are able to give it an update as good as the f/4 one.
> ...



¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## fullstop (Jun 10, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > yes. Canon should just have launched the f/4. And waited with f/2.8 III until they are able to give it an update as good as the f/4 one.
> ...



MSRP stays the same. Not equal to actual street price. 

The way Canon did it, they opened themselves up for criticism. the "lower tier, cheaper" f/4 gets a "full upgrade" whereas the more expensive, "flagship f/2.8" only gets new coatings and a new paint job. 

Maybe those coatings really prove to increase IQ noticably [e.g. signifcant flare reduction]. But if not, Canon would have been better off to wait a bit until they would have been able to also give the f/2.8 a full upgrade. With 5 stop + mode 3 IS and umpteen iris blades etc. ... "the full Mark III works".


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



Only Canon know what their expectations are of the lens so only they could possibly say, and only then after time has passed and sales and savings targets have been hit or not, if they have made a mistake.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 11, 2018)

"only Canon knows". sure. Only they know how many of their lenses they sell and how many they wanted to sell. 

But it is evident that from a marketing/brand image point of view this "micro-update" of the "flagship" f/2.8 has not gone down well. And I maintain, that Canon could have spared themselbves most of it, had they waited until they are able to release a full Mk. III-upgrade.

But lets see how much if any improvements in IQ [flare resistance etc.] the new coatings bring. The new paint job sure does not bring functional value.


----------



## hunbalu (Jun 11, 2018)

Hey guys,

As most of you most probably know the price of Canon 70-200mm 2.8 mk ii has dropped not too long ago, 2- weeks ago in the case of authorized retailers (B&H, Adorama, Amazon, etc.). Do you guys think there will be further price drops or that's it for now (the next 6-12 months or so).

Thanks!


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 11, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > jolyonralph said:
> ...



I'll go one further.....

We people on the user groups are noise. What we say does not matter because we do not represent the typical user.....

Canon had two scenarios... a minor update on the F2.8, or no update. If they did not do the refresh, then they would be still producing a lens with older components, some of which may be getting harder to supply. Since there was no refresh, obviously, nobody would be doing an update. They would still be selling one of the finest 70-200 lenses ever made at a reasonable price and there would be no change in it's attractiveness to new buyers.


The second scenario is that they do an update. The coatings are better, the electronics are newer, but because there is so little optical difference, existing users do not update and new buyers continue as they would have without the upgrade...

In other words, NO DIFFERENCE IN SALES! and new buyers get a slightly better lens.

On a more fundamental level, why is there no increase in resolution? Is it because the design is as good as it can get? You have a freaking sharp lens with 23 elements in it? Do you have any concept as to the insane level of design work that went into such a lens? Once you get so good, there is nowhere to improve to.

To those who are complaining about why the F4 lens has more stops of IS, the answer is physics. The F2.8 lens has larger (read heavier) elements to move in the IS system, and with the same power availiable to drive them, they must move slower..... and as a result, the smaller F4 elements move faster and you get an extra 1.5 stops of IS....

And finally, wait till it hits the shelves to pass judgement. Just how much better are those coatings? Is 3.5 stops of IS according to the new rating standard better than 4 stops of the old standard? What happens with the AF speed?


----------



## justawriter (Jun 11, 2018)

CANON'S SOOPER SEEKRIT PLAN ...
Develop new 70-200 but realize it will have to sell at $2,800 to meet profit goals, which will hurt total sales numbers. Release version with significant but low cost updates to sell for $2,100. Wait a year and announce Mark IV that will sell alongside Mark III for foreseeable future ... priced at $3,500. Canon users wanting 98% of the best will continue to buy the Mark III in large, profitable numbers while those users wanting the very best will make up for their lack of numbers by contributing a $700 premium.

It's so evil it just might work! 8)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> But it is evident that from a marketing/brand image point of view this "micro-update" of the "flagship" f/2.8 has not gone down well.



Evident how? 

Oh, that's right...you don't like it. : : :


----------



## slclick (Jun 11, 2018)

Meanwhile, the f/4 update looks amazing......


----------



## sanj (Jun 11, 2018)

I do not see the anger. We have a better lens for the same price. That is wonderful.


----------



## jhpeterson (Jun 11, 2018)

I feel I'm about the only one in the room who thinks the 70-200 2.8 IS II could use improvement. Sure sharpness and contrast in my copy are overall very good, except in the corners at both short and long ends. I could also do with less vignetting.
But, where I find the lens fails for me is in its construction. I've had to tighten screws in it many times and I've taped the manual focus ring because the barrel is loose otherwise. To make matters worse, the paint near the lens mount started flaking off within eight weeks. 
In the last 25 years, I've owned at least ten Canon L mid-range zooms, at least one of every model, from the 80-200/2.8 "Magic Drainpipe" through the latest 70-200 IS varieties, in both the 2.8 and 4 flavors. While it may be sharpest of the lot, it has also been the most disappointing in terms of build and finish.
Maybe my problems stem from the fact that I bought a refurbished lens from the Canon store, but I've purchased several others before and since without issues. And, it might have been less annoyed had I not spent so much for it, as I must have been one of the last to buy this lens when it listed of $2499. After factoring in the sales tax, I wound up paying $50 more than what the new Version III sells for. 
So I, for one, am certainly looking forward to see if this one has solved these issues.


----------



## Quirkz (Jun 11, 2018)

Canon: ‘Hey everyone! We released it was pretty easy and cheap for us to update the lens to use the latest coatings, so were doing it every new lens we make from now. Best of all, we’re not changing the price! Basically a no brainer, since you get something for free, and we love our happy customers! Oh, and to avoid confusion between the older lens without these new coatings, we’re going to change the version number.
You’re welcome!`

Internet: `STFU`


----------



## fullstop (Jun 11, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > But it is evident that from a marketing/brand image point of view this "micro-update" of the "flagship" f/2.8 has not gone down well.
> ...



it is evident just by looking at the comments on any portal/forum covering the f/2.8 and f/4 lens version updates. overwhelmingly positive reactions on f/4 improvements vs. majority of disappointed votes on f/2.8. quite evidently not what Canon marketing was hoping for. 

maybe it would have gone down better had Canon used a line of communication as suggested a few postings earlier. they did not and so the impression will linger that the f/4 got a full update and the f/ 2.8 only a half(-assed) one.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> The way Canon did it, they opened themselves up for criticism. the "lower tier, cheaper" f/4 gets a "full upgrade" whereas the more expensive, "flagship f/2.8" only gets new coatings and a new paint job.



The f/2.8 IS II was was already updated in 2010 compared to the 2006 f/4 IS. It was, and remains, a spectacular lens. 

Canon had no real need to update the 2.8 IS II, as it is regarded as one of the better L series lenses anyway. Production of lenses invariably means having tools, parts and processes in place for production, so you generally don't switch to a new model until the old model isn't selling well and you don't have a huge inventory of parts left unsold or machinery that can't be repurposed. You also don't want to retrain staff unnecessarily. 

So, adding all the enhancements that the forum fans wanted would inevitably add several hundred dollars to the cost of a new lens. And I think most of us realise it just wasn't worthwhile.

So, by doing a minor update to the lens to improve coatings Canon can continue their existing production with relatively minor interruption and every new buyer gets the benefit of the excellent lens with the latest coatings.


This is an important lens for Canon. Once the Mark III starts to appear significantly lower in ratings that rival lenses then I'm sure a Mark IV will appear. But for now I suspect those who are complaining are either those who haven't used the Mark II and don't understand how good it is, or those who OWN the Mark II and are secretly fuming that the new model has reduced the resale value of their lenses. 

Neither of which are Canon's problem.

ps. I own the Mark II and I am delighted that Canon are improving it for those who are buying it today because I have no intention of selling this superb lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



Oh, so you and a few disgruntled Internet forum posters don't like it. And that represents the market. : : :


----------



## fullstop (Jun 11, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



No, that's not what i said - if you would read what i wrote rather than launching your usual blind attacks.


----------



## sanj (Jun 11, 2018)

jhpeterson said:


> I feel I'm about the only one in the room who thinks the 70-200 2.8 IS II could use improvement. Sure sharpness and contrast in my copy are overall very good, except in the corners at both short and long ends. I could also do with less vignetting.
> But, where I find the lens fails for me is in its construction. I've had to tighten screws in it many times and I've taped the manual focus ring because the barrel is loose otherwise. To make matters worse, the paint near the lens mount started flaking off within eight weeks.
> In the last 25 years, I've owned at least ten Canon L mid-range zooms, at least one of every model, from the 80-200/2.8 "Magic Drainpipe" through the latest 70-200 IS varieties, in both the 2.8 and 4 flavors. While it may be sharpest of the lot, it has also been the most disappointing in terms of build and finish.
> Maybe my problems stem from the fact that I bought a refurbished lens from the Canon store, but I've purchased several others before and since without issues. And, it might have been less annoyed had I not spent so much for it, as I must have been one of the last to buy this lens when it listed of $2499. After factoring in the sales tax, I wound up paying $50 more than what the new Version III sells for.
> So I, for one, am certainly looking forward to see if this one has solved these issues.



Sir please do not forget this is a zoom lens and evaluate it accordingly. Having said that, this lens does not belong to my collection. I prefer the lighter version and use primes for other needs.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 11, 2018)

I work for a company that makes some of the best lenses in the world. I know that during the design process the choice of coatings is critical to the final performance of the lens and coatings have been improving over the last decade. 
The improvement Canon has made to the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM III flare control will have other benefits in maximizing light transmission and hopefully controlling CAs. The EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II optically is a very good lens, yes it has slight vignetting at 70mm and 200mm but this is easily fixed in Lightroom / Photoshop. What cannot be easily fixed in Lightroom or Photoshop is the mild chromatic aberrations this lens has particularly used close focus at 70mm end. My hope is the new coating will improve this its one area where coating improvements can help. 

Either way the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II I don't feel will drop in value, its still an outstanding lens given what we ask of it and any small improvement in the MKIII version is a success not a failure of what is a classic Canon design.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



I really shouldn't have to say this, and I know you won't listen but: forum comments are intrinsically biased. Forum commenters are a self-selected group, and people only comment when they feel strongly enough about something (the topic, or someone else's comment) to make the effort to do so. You will always get a more extreme view of people's opinions in places like that. Reputable opinion polling attempts to correct for all sorts of sampling biases, and even then it's often a poor predictor of what people really think (compare political polls with election results, for instance). You can choose to believe that the chatter in places like this is important, but it is not representative because most people (who might be in the market for this lens, say) aren't commenting at all.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



That's exactly what you said. Your metacognition is very poor. 

Incidentally, the comments in this thread are about 50/50 supporting/denigrating the f/2.8 update. If we ignore _your_ plethora of denigrating posts, the balance tips toward supporting it.


----------



## snoke (Jun 11, 2018)

_The new Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM is an ideal lens for professional photographers who shoot with the Canon 1D and 5D series of DSLR cameras. The inclusion of Air Sphere Coating (ASC) technology helps to reduce flaring and ghosting, and suppresses the reflection of light._

I research problem in 70-200/2.8L IS ISM II.

dpreview talk about it here:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-70-200-2p8-is-usm-ii-c16/5

Conslusion:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-70-200-2p8-is-usm-ii-c16/6
Canon 70-200/2.8L IS USM III fix "Cons" #2?

TDP review kinder:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

DxO review:
https://www.dxomark.com/canon-ef-70-200mm-f-2-8l-is-ii-usm-measurements-and-review/
bad review.

photozone bad review.

https://improvephotography.com/29731/canon-70-200mm-f2-8l-ii-lens-review/
say bad flare.

http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/canonef70200f28lisi/
show bad flare. but bad flare better.

Now wait new review!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2018)

snoke said:


> DxO review:
> https://www.dxomark.com/canon-ef-70-200mm-f-2-8l-is-ii-usm-measurements-and-review/
> bad review.



They concluded the MkI was better. When challenged on their results for this lens, DxO defended them. Then, a year later, they quietly updated their measurement database with significantly higher numbers for it. They never acknowledged their screwup, nor did they go back and edit the review.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 11, 2018)

I am not saying the minor update on the f/2.8 is "bad" or "marketing nerfed". All I am saying is: in my opinion it would have been smarter for Canon to launch f/4 II now and f/2.8 III at some later point in time, with a more comprehensive update ... similar in scope to the f/4 update to avoid negative feedback. Comments "in internet fora" may or may not be biased. For every critical comment here there are 2 apologist ones ... so overall ...  
but irrespective of that, "internet noise" is highly relevant to any consumer brand, its perception, the brand image. 

All of that said, I believe the III will sell fairly well, but would expect numbers to be lower than in the past. Many potential buyers already have the the Mk. II and some are also waiting until reliable information on Canon's mirrorless FF plans becomes available. Plus DSLR and interchangeable lens sales are still slowing (see CIPA numbers).


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> I am not saying the minor update on the f/2.8 is "bad" or "marketing nerfed". All I am saying is: in my opinion it would have been smarter for Canon to launch f/4 II now and f/2.8 III at some later point in time, with a more comprehensive update ... similar in scope to the f/4 update to avoid negative feedback. Comments "in internet fora" may or may not be biased. For every critical comment here there are 2 apologist ones ... so overall ...
> but irrespective of that, "internet noise" is highly relevant to any consumer brand, its perception, the brand image.
> 
> All of that said, I believe the III will sell fairly well, but would expect numbers to be lower than in the past. Many potential buyers already have the the Mk. II and some are also waiting until reliable information on Canon's mirrorless FF plans becomes available. Plus DSLR and interchangeable lens sales are still slowing (see CIPA numbers).



But what if they can’t make the F2.8 lens sharper, and coatings, electronics, and machining are the reasons for the update!


----------



## snoke (Jun 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> All I am saying is: in my opinion it would have been smarter for Canon to launch f/4 II now and f/2.8 III at some later point in time, with a more comprehensive update ... similar in scope to the f/4 update to avoid negative feedback



70-200/f4L IS USM II fix:
* IS. 3 stop, now 5 stop
* IS have 3 mode
* IS less noisy

70-200/f2.8L IS USM III not have problem for noise. No update.
Use f/2.8, 3.5 stop IS, half stop different to f/4L 5 stop IS. Why update?

Negative feedback from poster not understand improvements.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 11, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> But what if they can’t make the F2.8 lens sharper, and coatings, electronics, and machining are the reasons for the update!



That is not even remotely imaginable for innovative Canon and it's cutting edge lens design prowess. Or is it? ;D ;D ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> For every critical comment here there are 2 apologist ones ... so overall ...



I see. Critical comments are just that, supportive comments are apologies. That bit of self-serving sophistry is pathetic, even for you. 

But thanks for confirming that the overall Internet opinion on this update is actually positive (and in the process, showing yourself to be as incapable of telling the truth as ever).


----------



## scyrene (Jun 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Comments "in internet fora" may or may not be biased. For every critical comment here there are 2 apologist ones ... so overall ...



Let me be clearer: internet comments taken as a whole are not representative for the self-selecting reason I stated above. Each individual comment may be more or less biased in different ways. You were talking about the aggregate opinion across comments - that cannot be taken as unbiased. That different people have opposing views and express them in comments threads is irrelevant - because they don't cancel each other out in some imagined mathematical way, but more importantly because they tell us nothing about how the people *not* commenting think. A thought experiment: imagine if 90% of people were indifferent to something, 8% anti- and 2% pro - but only the pro- and anti- groups commented. You'd conclude that people were generally anti-, where in fact the vast majority were indifferent. Comments are unreliable because they tell us nothing beyond what the commenters think.



fullstop said:


> but irrespective of that, "internet noise" is highly relevant to any consumer brand, its perception, the brand image.



That is a matter of opinion. It may be relevant but it is rarely "highly relevant" for a product that doesn't entirely exist online, because many people do not seek the opinions of internet commenters when making a purchase decision - they may ask a shop assistant, or a friend, or family member, etc. And let's face it, given how extreme and nonsensical a lot of internet chatter is, they would be well advised not to listen too much to it. Additionally a brand may have different images in different contexts, to different people. Reading only comments on Dpreview, say, would give a very different brand image for Canon to reading national newspapers, for example.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 11, 2018)

Incidentally there is something deeply suspect about the circular reasoning where someone makes repeated negative comments, then says 'look at all the negative comments! The chatter supports my position'. An echo chamber of the worst kind.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 11, 2018)

1. i'd say "the entire market" or "the aggregate of all potential purchasers of a specific lens" is also not "unbiased". ;D

2. well, I find apologists' incessant attempts trying to discredit people's opinion/statement, that the f/2.8 III update appears to be rather miniscule - compared to the f/4 update and other Canon lenses "Mark updates" - by constantly claiming "it is only the internets, only some incessantly whining freaks, they are biased, and worse, the whole internets are biased" ... at least as ridiculous and "circular logic". ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > But what if they can’t make the F2.8 lens sharper, and coatings, electronics, and machining are the reasons for the update!
> ...



Look at the 600F4.... for all practical purposes the MTF curve is flat at .99.... where do you go from there? For a zoom with 23 elements, the 70-200F2.8 may well be at the practical limit and I suspect the F4 version is there too now... yes, we would all like them to be even better, but what if that involves making all the elements fluorite and raising the price to $6000 for that slight improvement? We may well be at the practical limit.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 11, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Well, Roger Cicala at lensrentals has shown that *in MTF tests* the current Nikon 70-200 is ahead of the Canon 70.200/2.8 II. https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/nikon-70-200mm-f2-8e-fl-ed-af-s-vr-mtf-tests/ -> scroll down all the way to end of article.

So there seems to be at least some room for IQ improvement. And btw, the Nikon does not cost 6000 either. And in real life differences may be very small to not even noticeable. 

Me/some/many?  folks expected that if Canon does an upgrade of their "flagship" 70-200/2.8 II they would also see to it that it optically comes out on top of the competition. Maybe the new lens coating will do just that. We don't know yet. However, what we do know is, that the f/4 also got an upgraded IS system and aperture iris. And other small, but potentially very useful improvements were also not implemented: no CPL slot in lens hood, no arca-style/dovetail grooves in lens foot. But a new paint job. And now - surprise! - not everybody is jubilant. Oh well.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Me/some/many?  folks expected that if Canon does an upgrade of their "flagship" 70-200/2.8 II they would also see to it that it optically comes out on top of the competition.



Pump the brakes there, kiddo. My throwing a multi-page rant on why such an underwhelming sequel for a lens this important was a bad move is not _remotely_ the same thing as the launch "has not gone down well".

Say it again with me: _We are not the market._ We're a very small/specific/gearheaded slice of it.

So I'll blow your mind here: Canon knows what it's doing. I disagree with its call on the 70-200 f/2.8L IS III to no end, but Canon is still going to make its money on it. Why? Because they ran the flipping numbers and this is likely the most profitable outcome. So, on this product, I am simultaneously a stern critic _and_ apologist for Canon. 

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> well, I find apologists' incessant attempts trying to discredit people's opinion/statement, that the f/2.8 III update appears to be rather miniscule - compared to the f/4 update...



Who is claiming that? Really, you should try reading what people post instead of just making stuff up in your head. The argument is not about the 70-200/2.8 III being a minor upgrade – the argument is about you characterizing public perception of that update as it’s a fail, with no evidence to back that up and your own admission that the opposite is true, at least here in this thread. 

The only fail here is you.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 11, 2018)

the reception the f/2.8 upgrade has received in public is definitely not jubilant but "rather mixed". I did not say it is a total fail. I said, in my opinion it would have been smarter for Canon to avoid that "mixed reception" by coming out with the f/4 now and the f/2.8 later with an update similar to the one the f/4 got. Even if IQ improvements on f/2.8 might not have been as significant as (they may be) on the (older design) f/4. 

That's what I said.


----------



## Talys (Jun 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> the reception the f/2.8 upgrade has received in public is definitely not jubilant but "rather mixed". I did not say it is a total fail. I said, in my opinion it would have been smarter for Canon to avoid that "mixed reception" by coming out with the f/4 now and the f/2.8 later with an update similar to the one the f/4 got. Even if IQ improvements on f/2.8 might not have been as significant as (they may be) on the (older design) f/4.
> 
> That's what I said.



I think the biggest problem that I have with your perspective is that you're constantly looking for gear that impresses you, rather than gear you want to buy. 

The reason that Canon has gotten a lot of my dollars is because they hit the mark with gear that works the way I want it to, not because they are awesome because charts say they are.


----------



## Quirkz (Jun 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> the reception the f/2.8 upgrade has received in public is definitely not jubilant but "rather mixed". I did not say it is a total fail. I said, in my opinion it would have been smarter for Canon to avoid that "mixed reception" by coming out with the f/4 now and the f/2.8 later with an update similar to the one the f/4 got. Even if IQ improvements on f/2.8 might not have been as significant as (they may be) on the (older design) f/4.
> 
> That's what I said.



So you’re saying that right now, if you were in the market to buy the 70-200, you would rather have the v2 than the v3 with the new coatings?
Interesting.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> the reception the f/2.8 upgrade has received in public is definitely not jubilant but "rather mixed". I did not say it is a total fail...
> 
> That's what I said.



Is it?



fullstop said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



So 'has not gone down well' and 'majority of disappointed votes' has now become a 'rather mixed' reception. 

The thing is, you can rewrite history in your head to your heart's content...but the Internet remembers what you actually said, so posting your revisionist history merely makes you look foolish.


----------



## FTb-n (Jun 11, 2018)

The 70-200 f2.8 Mark III came out of the blue. I don't recall any noise from the masses asking Canon to upgrade this lens. Arguably. most of think there are other lenses in greater need of an upgrade. So, a simple refresh that is reasonably priced seems fine to me.

Some have argued that the designation Mark III should be reserved for a major upgrade. I can see this point. Maybe Mark IIb would have been more appropriate. But, neither really matters to me.

Now, if there is a 50 1.4 IS introduced that isn't tact sharp wide-open, then Canon would deserve the criticism that filled many of these 20+ pages in this thread.

Meanwhile, I have some images to capture...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 12, 2018)

FTb-n said:


> The 70-200 f2.8 Mark III came out of the blue. I don't recall any noise from the masses asking Canon to upgrade this lens. Arguably. most of think there are other lenses in greater need of an upgrade. So, a simple refresh that is reasonably priced seems fine to me.



You do realize that makes you a Canon apologist and paid shill, right?


----------



## FTb-n (Jun 12, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> FTb-n said:
> 
> 
> > The 70-200 f2.8 Mark III came out of the blue. I don't recall any noise from the masses asking Canon to upgrade this lens. Arguably. most of think there are other lenses in greater need of an upgrade. So, a simple refresh that is reasonably priced seems fine to me.
> ...


Was it that obvious?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 12, 2018)

FTb-n said:


> Was it that obvious?



Actually, it was quite subtle. You mentioned capturing images and didn't even mention that you'd be storing them on Irista. You _will_ be using Irista, won't you??


----------



## fentiger (Jun 12, 2018)

I use irista. nothing wrong with it i presume??
also store images on flicker, and some on Facebook


----------



## tpatana (Jun 12, 2018)

Really thinking upgrading my v2 into v3. V2 is by far my most used lens, probably 300k-400k clicks already. I wonder how low the used prices will go when v3 is out... if not too low, I think it's worth the upgrade.


----------



## slclick (Jun 13, 2018)

I haven't had a 70-200 in quite some time as I've been a prime shooter for the most part but the f/4 II has me interested again. I cannot wait for Bryan and other reputable reviewers to chime in. Not too mention I could be holding my breath for a long time waiting for an update to the 200 2.8L.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 13, 2018)

FTb-n said:


> The 70-200 f2.8 Mark III came out of the blue. I don't recall any noise from the masses asking Canon to upgrade this lens. Arguably. most of think there are other lenses in greater need of an upgrade. So, a simple refresh that is reasonably priced seems fine to me.




Th F4 seems like a solid upgrade and it was to be expected.... but you are right about the F2.8.... it is "out of the blue" Makes me wonder if there is another reason for it, and that makes me wonder about the electronics.... I wonder how the AF speed will be, and could this lens be compatible with a new high speed communications protocol that may appear on newer bodies? There has to be a reason.....


----------



## Durf (Jun 13, 2018)

I've been using the EF 70–300mm f/4–5.6 IS II USM Lens since it was released and am happy with the image quality and sharpness for most of the things I use this type of lens for. It's actually a surprisingly great lens that is seldom talked about. 

Every time I start to think about upgrading to the better white colored 70-300mm or even a 70-200mm L lens I immediately think about how it would make my pack even heavier and if I could even make it fit.....and then there's the high cost factor involved in upgrading too.

So I instead just keep shooting with my EF 70–300mm f/4–5.6 IS II USM Lens and look at the results and see there's really no reason I really need to upgrade after all


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 13, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > Hector1970 said:
> ...



I have used both a lot - and written reviews for both. And your experience is based on what exactly...?


----------



## Trigger (Jul 3, 2018)

It was quite exciting to initially hear of the new 70-200 f/2.8, and I thought that I would sell my Tamron version for the Canon if there were enough improvements, but it looks like I will be keeping the Tamron.


----------



## slclick (Jul 3, 2018)

Trigger said:


> It was quite exciting to initially hear of the new 70-200 f/2.8, and I thought that I would sell my Tamron version for the Canon if there were enough improvements, but it looks like I will be keeping the Tamron.



The G2 is a great lens. imho the next best thing to the Canon Mk2, with a huge savings to boot.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 8, 2018)

RE: Your signature.

It seems you've had a lot of time to... reflect.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Jul 16, 2018)

I just pre-ordered the 2.8 version iii (using the CR link to Adorama to help this site). Since I have the non-IS version of the lens it makes sense for me (will now have IS and closer focus, both of which are equally important to me). For people with the current version ii it would make little sense to change.


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Jul 17, 2018)

Because many hit on canon because of "lack" of improvements, I recommend to watch dustins review where he mentiones a few interessting points.


----------

