Jump to content

Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS II USM


anders_carlsson

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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!</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Why doesn't it use the new hybrid IS (100M 2.8)? Or did miss that?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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.</p>
Robin Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think Dpreview has it wrong- Canon states the lens hood is not included, and Dpreview says it is.</p>

<p><strong>SPECIFICATIONS</strong><br>

Lens<br /> <br /> Focal Length & Maximum Aperture<br /> 70-200mm 1:2.8<br /> <br /> Lens Construction<br /> <br /> 23 elements in 19 groups (1 Fluorite and 5 UD elements)<br /> <br /> Diagonal Angle of View<br /> <br /> 34° - 12°<br /> <br /> Focus Adjustment<br /> <br /> Inner focusing system with USM. Full-time manual focus available<br /> <br /> Closest Focusing Distance<br /> <br /> 1.2m/3.94 ft. (maximum close-up magnification: 0.21x)<br /> <br /> Filter Size<br /> <br /> 77mm<br /> <br /> Max. Diameter x Length, Weight<br /> <br /> 3.5 x 7.8 in./88.8 x 199mm; 52.6 oz./1490g<br /> <br /> Lens Cap, Lens Hood & Pouch<br /> <br /> <strong>Lens Hood ET-87 (not included)</strong></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The hood is included. Quote from the press release:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>High quality L-series accessories</strong><br>

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).</p>

</blockquote>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Every L lens comes with the hood. No surprises here.<br>

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.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>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?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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 <strong>also</strong> 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.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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.</p>

<p>As Michael says, for buisness turnarounds/tax right offs it works well, for mere mortals the current lens is more than adequate.</p>

<p>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.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>"I think Dpreview has it wrong- Canon states the lens hood is not included, and Dpreview says it is..."</em></p>

<p>All L lenses come with a lens hood. However, that's already been cleared up.</p>

<p>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.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ken,</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...