Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by anders_carlsson, Jan 5, 2010.
It's here: http://www.dpreview.com/news/1001/10010508canon70200isii.asp
Wow, I must say I didn't see that coming. It's very slightly heavier, has slightly better IS, better maximum magnification (0.21x versus 0.17x). Presumably sharper as well, though the old one is pretty sharp. Any word on the price?
The good news is, this will probably drive down the price of the used Mk I. Lots of people have wanted that lens, and now it will be more affordable.
I would not count on it driving down the price of the MK I much if at all.
Yes, a surprise announcement. A better IS, presumably like the IS in the 70-200mm f4. More weight and more expense.
Surprise? I don't think so. This has been one of the most hotly tipped new releases from Canon that I can remember in a long while, and it's easy to see why they have given it priority over a number of other possibilities at this point. Remember that this is a mainstream professional lens, as well as being popular with many advanced amateurs. Specialist lenses (TS24II, TS17, 100/2.8IS) have had a lot of development effort recently, and Canon need to maintain a balance. Remember also that now that they can do FF bodies, Nikon have just upgraded their equivalent lens from a design apparently optimised for 1.5-factor, and known to be a bit iffy on FF (by comparison with the Canon lens, at least), to a new version that has been well received. Improved IS is no surprise at all on the new Canon lens, but it looks from the optical specification as if Canon have thrown everything they have got at this lens – one fluorite and no less than five UD elements is unprecedented – so they are obviously aiming for the same sort of positive reception that the optical performance of the 70~200/4L IS received. Won't be cheap, mark you!
Why doesn't it use the new hybrid IS (100M 2.8)? Or did miss that?
...and next the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS USM ?
Why doesn't it use the new hybrid IS (100M 2.8)? Or did miss that?Because, as Canon made abundantly clear in their initial announcement of the new hybrid IS system, it is relevant only for close-up/macro work. Expect to see hybrid IS in any replacement for the 180/3.5, and, if they take it through from a patent to an actual product, a 60/2.8 IS macro. Don't expect to see it in normal-focus lenses.
Nice, but really necessary? How about a 24-70 f/2.8 with IS ? Now THAT would be a step up...
Yes, I can see that anything that Canon can do to get the average professional to buy (for the nth) time a hoary old favorite and bread-and-butter lens like the 70-200mm is good (at $2000+) for their balance sheet, I'm not so sure it is really needed though.
I think Dpreview has it wrong- Canon states the lens hood is not included, and Dpreview says it is.
Focal Length & Maximum Aperture
23 elements in 19 groups (1 Fluorite and 5 UD elements)
Diagonal Angle of View
34° - 12°
Inner focusing system with USM. Full-time manual focus available
Closest Focusing Distance
1.2m/3.94 ft. (maximum close-up magnification: 0.21x)
Max. Diameter x Length, Weight
3.5 x 7.8 in./88.8 x 199mm; 52.6 oz./1490g
Lens Cap, Lens Hood & Pouch
Lens Hood ET-87 (not included)
The ET-87 Lens Hood comes standard with the lens.
As you can see, Marc it is not included.
The hood is included. Quote from the press release:
High quality L-series accessories
The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM is supplied with several accessories, including the new ET-87 Lens Hood and the Ring-Type Tripod Collar B (W).
Well why does it say on Canon's site that it isn't. Click the link and look for yourself
Probably cut-and-pasted from another lens? Looks like the official sources have conflicting info, but based on Canon's track record I'm guessing it comes with the hood.
Hardly cut and pasted since it is from Canon's own web site. It could come with the lens, but again- Canon states it does not.
Every L lens comes with the hood. No surprises here.
Canon knows how to cater to the people who really use their equipment: the 70-200/2.8 L IS is one of the most popular Canon zooms for sport/event shooters and since most lenses that size last only 2-3 years in pro's hands, the perpetual replacement cycle bodes well for the new model.
Because, as Canon made abundantly clear in their initial announcement of the new hybrid IS system, it is relevant only for close-up/macro work. Expect to see hybrid IS in any replacement for the 180/3.5, and, if they take it through from a patent to an actual product, a 60/2.8 IS macro. Don't expect to see it in normal-focus lenses.How is it not relevant? If you use this lens for sports handheld you are making more than just left to right panning movements. I do up and down and diagonal movements often. Isn't that what the hybrid system takes care of?
How is it not relevant? If you use this lens for sports handheld you are making more than just left to right panning movements. I do up and down and diagonal movements often. Isn't that what the hybrid system takes care of?In a word, no. Ordinary IS takes care of all of that, and indeed of any movement that involves pointing the camera in a slightly different direction. Hybrid IS also compensates for very small movements of the camera at right angles to the lens axis that do not involve any change of direction ("parallel movements" rather than "rotational movements"). Such movements have a negligible impact on image sharpness unless the camera-subject distance is small.
Well before you all get out of shape about hoods and IS variants, I for one won't be upgrading. My 70-200 f2.8 IS is frighteningly sharp across FF and if I want to shorten closest focus then I use my 12mm extension tube.
As Michael says, for buisness turnarounds/tax right offs it works well, for mere mortals the current lens is more than adequate.
As an extension, I have seen many people say my version is the softest of Canons four 70-200 zooms, I have never had anybody I know who owns one even mention how not sharp it is. But I make the mistake of taking pictures with it not images of test charts.
The info is up on Canon's site:
"I think Dpreview has it wrong- Canon states the lens hood is not included, and Dpreview says it is..."
All L lenses come with a lens hood. However, that's already been cleared up.
The CW (Conventional Wisdom) is that the 4L is sharper than the 2.8L; I believe part of this 2.8L IS lens update is to fix that error.
I know that is the conventional wisdom, what I am trying to say is that nobody can call the curent 2.8 IS soft, theoretically there are sharper lenses, but you get down to diminishing returns, just like megapixels, if it is not useful why have it and have to pay for it.
Is the new 100 IS macro sharper than the old one? Most say no but it has the added functionality of the IS, faster focus weatherproofing etc to warrant the upgrade. What does the new 70-200 have? Not enough to trade up for me, that is for sure.
Scott - While I have not tried the 70-200 F4 (non IS) I own both the 70-200 F2.8 (Non IS) and the 70-200 F4 IS and have shot the 70-200 F2.8 IS a few times. All of the three I have used are sharp and in real world use there is little to choose between them. When I bought the 70-200 F2.8 the IS versions I tested in the store were not as sharp but this was probably a batch variation issue. In theory the additional moving elements in the IS lens will reduce image quality but the extra attention Canon puts into the newer IS lenses appear to offset this. Indeed I feel my F4 IS is slightly sharper than my F2.8 non IS. The reason I have both lenses is simple - I need F2.8 for sports use (indoor hockey, ski racing etc...) but do not need IS as I have to use high shutter speeds (and in hockey usually shoot from the bench so I can rest on the boards). The F4 lens is half the weight of the F2.8 IS (and almost half the weight of the F2.8 non IS) and since I do a lot of climbing and hiking the F4 lens is not a big additional burden whereas you have to be certain you will use the F2.8. In terms of price you pay $600 more but get a lightweight IS lens and an F2.8 lens.
Yep understand all that, understand too that there is a good market for all four 70-200's. But if you could only have one, as a pro, most would choose the 2.8 IS. It is just comical the threads that relate to the sharpness of the four and the fact that mine always gets said to be the worst. How much higher than superb and well able to out resolve your sensor do you want to pay for? Once you can resolve diffraction it is all moot, at smaller f stops both lenses and sensors out resolve diffraction, this is just physics, this is not early digital bluster, how much more R&D do we want spent chasing our own tails on theoretical resolution advances when the 5D MkII could do with the 1V's AF. The 7D could do with the 5D MkII's sensor, the 1Ds MkIV should have a 36mm square sensor etc etc.
Maybe Canon are preparing for the inevitable 30mp FF Canons? Probably not unwise...
Gotta agree with Scott on this. I own both the 70-200 f/4L IS and the f/2.8L IS version (1Ds3 and 1D3 bodies). In real life application - prints up to A3 - there is no discernible difference in sharpness. Pixel peepers and res chart readers may disagree. Actually, I had the f/2.8 lens first, and the only reason I bought the f/4 was to save weight and space when traveling by air.
Still waiting for the 24-70 f/2.8L IS....
If I could only have one I agree the F2.8 IS is the one I would have to have. In real world use you cannot see a difference between the shots I take on my 5DII with the F2.8 (non IS) and the F4 IS (except when using the F2.8 aperture (which is softer and has a very shallow DOF). I bought two lenses simply to avoid carrying the F2.8 lens up mountains ( if I am already carrying the 16-35 F2.8II and one other lens either an 85 or 135 prime or 24-70). When I tested the 70-200 F2.8 IS it was new out and I think there were some issues with some of the early ones - hence I bought the non IS and saved $500 since I was buying it for sports to replace a 200 F2.8. I liked the lens so much I treated myself to the F4 IS lens about 18 months ago as I got sick of carrying the F2.8 and regretted it when I left it behind. I did not buy the F4IS to improve on image quality - just to save my back. For me lens coice is simple for sports it is fast lenses and for travel etc... light(ish ones). I initially went to get the 70-300 DO lens but this was obviously not that great so I left the store with a second 70-200.
As you say the one lens that does it all is the 70-200 f2.8 IS -perhaps the most useful lens Canon makes (although I am a big fan of the 16-35 f2.8 II). Canon has a great legacy in this zoom range - I am still a big fan of the old FD 80-200 F4L - the first L series zoom in this range.
So what if they are, the diffraction limits are the same for a 30MP 24x36 camera as they are for a 22MP 24x36 camera. Look at the backlash from the Canon G10, the G11 is no worse for having many fewer pixels. 30MP 24x36 sensors will not do any more for us, except in very rare circumstances, than the 22MP ones can do now, apart from fill up hard drives faster, so who cares if the newest lenses can theoretically resolve the diffracted blur better?
Who is seriously lacking IQ from their 5D MkII or 1Ds MkIII? The current 70-200 f2.8 IS does not let the 24x36 format size down, Canon are so wrapped up in what Nikon are doing they are blinkered to what photographers would benefit from. Give us an ultrawide that compares to Nikons 12-24, give us the 24-70 2.8 IS, give us a better quality 100-400 variable f stop and a 200-400 fixed f4. I don't care about new lens hood fittings on my 300 f2.8 (the 3,4,5 and 600mm lenses are amongst the sharpest format lenses available why spend a penny on R&D for them?), give us a 5D MkII that focuses like a 10 year old film camera that always cost less!
It just goes on, it is absolutely no surprise that Canon came out with this update, after Nikon did, but Nikon needed to, Canon didn't.
It obvious to me that they want to maximize profit by getting pros to shell out for the latest and best for probably their most important high-price zoom. Some of the other things you mention are probably in the works. I think they are not wrapped up with Nikon myself. In reality I think the Nikon 70-200mm was a catch-up to the Canon mark 1, not this one being a catch up to their Mk2. I am not sure that the 14-24mm, for example, was such an obvious hit myself, a 16-35mm seems a much more useful lens to me. Perhaps they will improve that? Nikon don't have a 24-70IS either, nor a 100-400. Are you ready to pay $5000+ for a 200-400mm f4 IS. If so, good on you mate! Might you not prefer an updated 100-400mm?
I think an updated 100-400 is probably what Canon needs most. If this happens than I will switch from my 300 f4. I like the quality of the Nikon 12-24 but since buying the 7D I see how versitile the 16-35 is - when travelling light with an APS-C body the combination of 16-35 and 70-200 F4 IS is hard to beat. I wonder if Canon can revive their DO lenses - the 400 f4 is a great lens but the 70-300 is very disappointing. Perhaps a DO 200-400 F4.5 may be possible at a sub $2500 price point. I personally have never had a real need for IS on my 24-70 so just like Scott staying with the Mk 1 70-200 F2.8 IS I will stay with my 24-70 f2.8 if an IS version arrives.
I do think for marketing reasons Canon will do a 30MP sensor on the next 1Ds and 5DIII. Since they make thier own sensors they are able to better control the development cycle than Nikon (hence they went full frame earlier and went beyond 12 MP much earlier Nikon still has only one body over 12MP). The 5DII AF was clearly not their finest hour and I expect the next 5DII will have an AF system at least as good as the 7D (which in my opinion is still much slower than the 1 series in poor light).
I know that is the conventional wisdom, what I am trying to say is that nobody can call the curent 2.8 IS soft, theoretically there are sharper lenses, but you get down to diminishing returns, just like megapixels, if it is not useful why have it and have to pay for it.I agree 100 pct.
I personally think the non-IS version 2.8L is sharper than the 4L.
Going back to thinking out loud, I wonder when I'll buy my first IS lens...
These top priced zooms are not where the money is, the money is made in the Kiss's and Rebels that people buy, for amongst other reasons, because the pros (or Ashton Kutcher in Nikons case) use them.
I am not the only one that thinks Canon is looking too closely at Nikon http://www.bythom.com/2010predictions.htm a lot of his observations are spot on and the Economist article he links to is very interesting reading.
Whilst I might or might not be in the market for a +$5,000 lens isn't the point, but if it was the tool for the job my chequebook would take the hit, however the Nikon 200-400 caught Canon with their pants down and is a major contributing factor to the decay of the impenetrable wall of white lenses at the Olympics (the 1D III focus issue/non-issue was the other), if either company makes money in the high priced low volume end photography market then Nikon are doing a much better job than Canon in the last 18 months.
As for an updated 100-400, if it stays at 5.6 at 400, no, I wouldn't touch one. The 24-70 2.8 IS I would buy tomorrow. The 14-24 was a big hit with the pixel peeping landscapers, and most of them are, bless them . I find 16-35 invaluable on the 1.3 sensor (Canon do have that anomaly sewn up but how do you go wider?) but FF the 24-70 ruled in film days and rules still, obviously the 16-35 is a great tool on the 1.6 cameras too but I don't own one of them. I and many others can shoot a really good wedding or event with one FF body and a 24-70, give us the IS and we can use flash less too (just like the EF-S 17-55 IS really).
For sure the 1Ds MkIV will have 30+ MP, processing speed is the limiting factor, with twin DIGIC 4's the 1D MkIV can do 10x16MP or 160MP a second, if they keep the 1Ds frame rate similar you get 5fps at 32MP, even today, in a few months time maybe even 6fps at 33 or 34MP. But I really really don't need or want that theoretical resolution increase.
Ken, you will get your first IS lens when you start pushing your limits of handholdability, as we have already discussed, or when you get fired from your first photo job for not producing when other photographers did. As for my thinking out loud, when will my spell checker recognise I want to write handholdability?
Take care all, Scott.
I am not the only one that thinks Canon is looking too closely at Nikon http://www.bythom.com/2010predictions.htmPleeeeez..."Thom" is a well known Nikon fanboϊ and his assessment of Canon is as unbiased as what Dick Cheney says about Mr. Obama. Find better sources, perhaps among the poeple who actually use Canon equipment...
This release makes no sense to me at all. Why make minimal improvements on a lens that has absolutely stellar performance, when there is a real need for IS on the 24-70 2.8L that people have been complaining about forever. I'm sure they have reasons, but what their customers want apparently isn't one of them. I suppose some one is excited about this, but they'd sell a hell of a lot more 24-70's with IS than they will these. Perhaps I'm over reacting but I actually find this insulting.
a 24-70 with IS will be a KILLER. It's a matter of time . . . im sure both Nikon and Canon have this lens ready.
Fanboy or not the sales figures he relates to are not fiction, also he has a pretty good head, certainly not a Ken Shockwell. I use Canon equipment and so do you. Do you need 30+MP in a 24x36 sensor? Do you need an improved IQ 70-200 2.8IS? Would you rather have the option of an EF 200-400 f4 IS instead of having to buy a Nikon to do that one job? Would you rather a 100-400 that wasn't antiquated? So many 100-400 users love it, image it with a constant 4.5 modern IS and a normal zoom, Canon could clear Japans national debt! They are tools, spread the toolkit, don't "improve" the very capable tools you have already. Snap-On are not the best tool company because they make the best wrenches, they are the best tool company because they make the best screwdrivers, hammers, sockets, ratchets etc etc.
Well, the 70-200 and 24-70/24-105 are the only zooms I use with any consistency and although I'd like a version of the 24-70 with IS most shooters I know just shrug it off as a "nice to have" feature (hint - we tend to use flashes with 24-70...) As for the 200-400 it is another nice to have thing but to me a higher (way higher!) priority would be a new 400/2.8 L IS: make that damn thing 3-4 lbs lighter, please! At friggin' 13 lbs (17 lbs with the camera) it is a monster which makes me very, very tired after a few hours of schlepping it around, monopod or not. As for the "trombone" design of the 100-400 - I like it very much and wish for more zooms like that (we are all different...) And making the 100-400 a constant f/4 would mean a dramatic price (and size and heft) increase - not good for the target market. As for the new 70-200 I hope that Canon addresses the softness/contrast at the long end and makes focusing faster across its focal range: it has issues keeping up with the 1D3 @ high frame rate.
Interesting that we have slightly different priorities but are in broad agreement. My 70-200 has great sharpness and contrast on my 1Ds MkIII images and has no problem keeping up with my 1Vhs at 10fps or my 1D at 8fps.
Whilst most shooters might shrug it, the 24-70 IS, off now, when it comes they'll buy it, and love it, I use mine with flash at events but without when traveling, I will be first in line for one.
More nice to haves, many of your Nikon friends will own the 200-400, I know two that jumped because of it and the 1D MkIII bad press. I am sure you will get some weight savings on your new 400, they will probably make sections of it out of engineering plastic a la the new 100 macro, or they will go the route of the new 70-200 and overengineer it and call it progress then the MkIII can become light again! But the main improvement that Canon seem to have been working on is hoods and how they attach across the range, now that is going to help! When did you last have a catastrophic hood failure?
My last trombone zoom was an FD 70-210, wouldn't buy another one after my first two ringer, the FD 35-105, little gem it was, but like you say horses for courses, but a constant f4.5 for the 100-400 should be doable. That would give it a much smaller front element than the 400 f4 DO and that is very usable, apart from the DO bit!
So along with the missing 24-70 IS where is the 35mm f1.4 MkII? Or for that matter the proper implementation of AF on the 85mm f1.2? A wide angle for our 1.3 crop cameras? Etc etc. Without trying I can think of ten better improvements than upgrading the 70-200 f2.8IS.
Anyway, take care, Scott.
i had 2 different copies of the 70-200mm, IS & non IS, both were like having an f4.0 to me.
i could never really gat a super sharp image at 2.8 or even 3.5. maybe my primes like the 85 1.2 and the 135 f2.0 spoiled me? i know its a zoom lens and all but to me it had to be stopped down to get great results. maybe the II version will be sharper close to wide open.
Richie- most lenses are soft at wide open aperture. Even primes can be soft wide open. Typically, when stopped down, lenses are much sharper.
In the last 2-3 years, Canon have been upgrading/introducing some of their L lenses: the TSE 17 and 24; the 24 1.4 MKII; the 16-35 MKII; the 50 1.2; the 85 1.2 MKII; the 100 Macro. These are all top quality lenses, to use with cameras with top quality and resolution hungry sensors. And it means a really big upgrade effort from Canon's side.
Now is the time for the bread and butter PJ zooms. First one is the 70-200 2.8. No doubt the 24-70 will be next, or very soon. However, I think that those requiring IS on a standard zoom can already make do with the 24-105? In this regard, it was more "urgent" to upgrade the 70-200 2.8.
Of course there are many personal preferences regarding lenses we would (also) like to see an upgrade, or even new ones. Personally, I would like to see the 24 2.8 and 35 2.0 upgraded, these are very useful lenses both for FF and APS-C formats, very light and capable. Then we would have really good alternatives for the 24 and 35 L lenses.
These top priced zooms are not where the money is, the money is made in the Kiss's and Rebels that people buy, for amongst other reasons, because the pros (or Ashton Kutcher in Nikons case) use them.Well if that is the case, then you will probably be out of luck with your requests!
Any thoughts/details on price?
This article (http://www.petapixel.com/2010/01/05...taPixel+(PetaPixel)&utm_content=Google+Reader) has the price listed at around $4500... that seems awfully high.
According to a Dutch press release I read earlier today, the price in the Netherlands would be €2969. According to Google, that would be somewhere around $4250.
In some stores, you can get a new mk1 for ± €1500 over here, while the Canon list price is €2400.
No an f4 won't do, particularly if you have to "make do" with a 2.8 zoom, I would pay $3,000 for an f2 24-70 with IS, not an f2.8 mind you.
They have to keep going with the top end gear though, the whole thrust of SLR ownership since the late 60's has been that you buy into a system, that system has to include top flight pro gear. I am not suggesting they make a loss on these lenses, but the cheaper models with much higher turnover is where the cash is really generated.
I would pay $3,000 for an f2 24-70 with IS, not an f2.8 mind you.\Even if it weighed 3 lbs and looked like the proverbial brick? I certainly wouldn't. I suspect this is why Canon have been slow to put IS into the 24-70mm. That lens is big and heavy enough already and it's only f2.8.
Robin if it weighed 50% more than the current lens (still less than the current 70-200 2,8 and the new one is even heavier) and had a front element not much bigger than the 135 f2 (which it should) then yes, but the 135 has a 72mm filter thread the 24-70 a 77mm filter thread, go figure. Nobody complains about the size of the 135 f2, but it is moot, Canon won't make my 24-70 f2 IS. No they have been slow to put IS in the current 24-70 because they have to make the optics better to overcome the fractional loss in IQ due to the extra elements and because Nikon haven't done it yet, when either of them do the other will. Which brings me back to my Canon watching Nikon too much comment from earlier.
Take care, Scott.
there is a real need for IS on the 24-70 2.8LThere is the 24-105/4L IS, which you can _almost_ tell apart from the 24-70/2.8L in lens charts at same aperture. I wonder if it's even worth the time to scrape the photo catalogs to see how often I shoot wide open.
I will stick with the Canon EF 70-200 F4 (non IS). An excellent lens.
When I need a faster lens in the 70-200 range I used the Canon EF 85mm F1.8
Just because you don't doesn't mean some of us don't. The real beauty of the 2.8 is that you can use it there. Now I have posted this shot often so sorry to those I bore, but this is a perfect example of what IS on my 24-70 could have done, I didn't have it so this shot is lost.
Robin, you generally don't need IS in lenses shorter than 100mm so 24-70 would not benefit from IS.
Yeah, those are maddening. It was some time before I swallowed the pill and shot a second one at higher ISO for insurance. Of course, you can't always do that, grab shots being what they are.
If it matters for anything, LR says I shoot at widest aperture a far bit more than I imagined I did. Not so much for available light but there were some of those as well.
Pentax and Sony's entry level dslr have in built IS. The IS unit probably adds less the $50 to the cost of the body. Seems like the perfect solution to those wanting a 24-70 IS without having to pay an extra $500, not to mention people like me that would like a bit of IS in primes, macros and wideangles without have to fork out/replace for each and every lens.
Pity Canon won't give this to us. I suspect it would actually be a game changer breaking Canon away from its stale mindset that has seen it lose a lot of ground to its competitors.
I wouldn't even compare "pentax" and "sony" to Canon- like comparing a Volkswagen to a Rolls Royce.
Indeed, and how many cars do Rolls Royce sell compared to Volkswagen?
U cant use a rolls royce to go to work everyday. VWs are perfect for it....VW will do the same thing better for much less for longer and u will still get to keep the house.
now I think I can afford the MK I
I had the 70-200 f/4 is I up graded to the 2.8 IS, I haven't noticed any difference in IQ between the two, the only thing I missed was the size,weight and the cash from my pocket.
I will not be upgrading to the 2.8 MKII the price in the UK is £2700, there is nothing I can't do with my MK1 that I will be able to do with the MKII.
The only difference in IQ that I have noticed is at 200mm at 2.8 the IQ is slightly worse.
I also will not be getting the 24-70 IS if they make one,as you can see the price difference between all the 70-200 lenses can be quite dramatic, so if I had to guess a 24-70 2.8 IS would be around £1500, I think I payed enough at £900. I agree with what has been said here before that below 100mm IS is not a must have, especially with the improvements of high ISO. Unless you are already always using a tripod with a 24-70 lens, and I don't mean landscapes because IS would not stop me using a tripod for this, then maybe a upgrade might be worth it, but for me I would not part with my money for " just in case I might need it" thinking.
I think IS is more important for slow lenses below 100mm then fast ones
Separate names with a comma.