Canon announces EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM

[Xenedis]

Canon has announced the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM lens, which replaces the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM.

More details here:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1001/10...n70200isii.asp

This is sure to come as welcome news to many.

I personally have no plans to upgrade my existing 70-200/2.8L IS, but this new lens looks very promising, with five ultra-low-dispersion elements.

[Jules]

I wonder what price they'll put on it? Not that I'm planning to upgrade at all, just curious.

[DAdeGroot]

Yeah saw that - quite happy with mine, so won't be "upgrading" it either.

[Xenedis]

I wonder what price they'll put on it?

Not sure, but I expect it will be more expensive than the original.

Not that I'm planning to upgrade at all, just curious.

Ditto; my 70-200/2.8L IS certainly doesn't leave me wanting more.

Yeah saw that - quite happy with mine, so won't be "upgrading" it either.

Aye; but it'll be fun to watch people salivate over this new announcement. :-)

[accesser]

Can't say I'll upgrade I love mine way to much but possibly good news for people who don't yet have the old model, I want Canon to release a non DO 400mm f/4 IS

[Xenedis]

I want Canon to release a non DO 400mm f/4 IS

A 400/4 (non-DO) might be appealing to quite a few; it'll be considerably larger and heavier, but not in the same league as the 400/2.8.

Canon seems to have all but abandoned DO technology. Only two lenses were ever released with it; one is an expensive super-tele and the other is a slow 70-300mm zoom.

[accesser]

A 400/4 (non-DO) might be appealing to quite a few; it'll be considerably larger and heavier, but not in the same league as the 400/2.8.

Canon seems to have all but abandoned DO technology. Only two lenses were ever released with it; one is an expensive super-tele and the other is a slow 70-300mm zoom.

I think it would be a good seller the f/2.8 is a bit heavy & the f/5.6 a bit slow I'd like to see something between or a better 100-400

[Xenedis]

I think it would be a good seller the f/2.8 is a bit heavy & the f/5.6 a bit slow I'd like to see something between or a better 100-400

One lens Nikon has for which Canon has no equivalent is the 200-400/4 VR.

The closest Canon has is the 100-400, but it's slower than f/4 and has a variable aperture.

[swifty]

One lens Nikon has for which Canon has no equivalent is the 200-400/4 VR.

The closest Canon has is the 100-400, but it's slower than f/4 and has a variable aperture.

14-24mm 2.8? But I hear Canon's version in the rumour mills so might see that soon if they are updating their workhorse zooms.

[mongo]

Even though different people think differently about the value of MTF charts, Mongo still would have liked to see one. If it is as good as the manufacturer says, they should not hesitate to include a chart. Handling, compatibility, cosmetics etc aside, the chart can be a reasonable “apples with apples” comparison with its predecessor if done correctly as well as a gauge with other brand lenses.

The use of fluorite is interesting. It is well known for its excellent properties for this purpose but has always suffered from instability; particularly with temperature changes. Perhaps canon may feel they have overcome that problem.

In any event, it appears to pack some technical clout that should produce truly outstanding images. How much better it is than the existing version (if at all) is yet to be seen.

All this from a Nikon user. Mongo is more interested in the engineering of fine optics (from whatever source) than arguments over brand names.

[Xenedis]

The use of fluorite is interesting. It is well known for its excellent properties for this purpose but has always suffered from instability; particularly with temperature changes. Perhaps canon may feel they have overcome that problem.

Canon has been using fluorite elements for well over a decade.

All of the super-teles contain a fluorite element (or two in the case of the 800/5.6L IS). Both of the 70-200mm f/4L zooms contain a fluorite element, as does the 100-400.

Yes, fluorite is sensitive to heat, and unsurprisingly only white-barrelled lenses contain fluorite elements.

[Tannin]

Even though different people think differently about the value of MTF charts, Mongo still would have liked to see one. If it is as good as the manufacturer says, they should not hesitate to include a chart. Handling, compatibility, cosmetics etc aside, the chart can be a reasonable “apples with apples” comparison with its predecessor if done correctly as well as a gauge with other brand lenses.

Yes. That's why they have released MTF charts.

The use of fluorite is interesting. It is well known for its excellent properties for this purpose but has always suffered from instability; particularly with temperature changes. Perhaps canon may feel they have overcome that problem.

Bahh. Fluorite has been used for the finest quality optics for many, many years now. No other material provides the same optical qualities. For long glass of any sort (be it used in camera lenses, spotting scopes, or in binoculars), a fluorite component is nearly always part of the recipe. Not just camera lenses - all three top scope and binocular manufacturers use fluorite as routine in their premium products. Whether you buy Swarovski, Zeiss, or Leica, if you buy top of the line, you get fluorite. These are products that get rough and tumble use for years and decades on end - far rougher use than most camera lenses ever see. Problems? There aren't any problems. Hell, how else could Swarovski provide their extraordinary 30 year warranty? And yes, that's a real warranty - their service is legendary. 30 years.

Meanwhile, over in camera land, Canon have been happily using Fluorite elements in long lenses for ... what ... 20 years now? Fluorite is the best available material, there is no question of that. Although it is very difficult to work with in a manufacturing environment, once embedded in a properly designed and constructed lens barrel, it is perfectly practical and very durable. Really, the only question you should be asking with long lenses is (assuming we are talking top-drawer quality here) why doesn't this lens have it?

[mongo]

Yes. That's why they have released MTF charts.

thanks Tony . There does seem some improvement but whether it's enough to notice or warrant selling a perfectly good current version is very unlikely.

Also , thanks for the general info re fluorite use. Mongo knows Nikon allegedly tried it once or twice in the 70's or early 80's on possibly a 400mm f5.6 but this is hard to verify it seems. Either way, it seems they never have since as far as Mongo knows - at least in their camera lenses. If they do, they do not seem to advertise that point well or at all.

[Tannin]

But why?

1: The old 70-200/2.8 IS was already excellent.
2: The 100-400 badly needs replacing.
3: The old 400/5.6 desperately needs an IS version
4: There is no 400/4 option (prime or zoom) this side of a crazy $10,000
5: There is still no 500/5.6 or 600/5.6 available.

Long and the short of it, what a dumb lens to bring out.

On the other hand ....

a: 70-200/2.8 is a cruically important lens for PJs, especially sport shooters. They like to keep their most importantant customers happy, even if that means screwing other people over.
b: Nikkor just released a new 70-200/2.7 VR that was even better than the existing Canon 70-200/2.8 IS. They don't like having a Nikkor lens that's better than the euivalent Canon one.

Looks as though (a) and (b) trump (1) and (2) and (3) and (4) and (5) at Canon HQ.

[Xenedis]

But why?

I'm really not sure. As far as I'm concerned, the 70-200/2.8L IS didn't need replacing.

1: The old 70-200/2.8 IS was already excellent.
2: The 100-400 badly needs replacing.
3: The old 400/5.6 desperately needs an IS version
4: There is no 400/4 option (prime or zoom) this side of a crazy $10,000
5: There is still no 500/5.6 or 600/5.6 available.

I absolutely agree with each of those points.

The reason for a new 70-200/2.8L IS seems elusive.

a: 70-200/2.8 is a cruically important lens for PJs, especially sport shooters. They like to keep their most importantant customers happy, even if that means screwing other people over.

It stands to reason that the 24-70/2.8L would also be replaced within the near future, as this is a PJ's staple.

The 16-35/2.8L was replaced with a mark II version a few years ago (I have this, and it's excellent), so that leaves the 24-70 and the 70-200/2.8 (non-IS).

Granted, Canon has introduced newer optical technologies (such as SWC) since the 16-35/2.8L II was released.

b: Nikkor just released a new 70-200/2.7 VR that was even better than the existing Canon 70-200/2.8 IS. They don't like having a Nikkor lens that's better than the euivalent Canon one.

It could be a case of leap-frogging, but Canon would want to make a ROI on it. Such a lens is likely to sell in large quantities, though, unlike a 600/5.6 which would have a much narrower market.

[pollen]

But why?

1: The old 70-200/2.8 IS was already excellent.
2: The 100-400 badly needs replacing.
3: The old 400/5.6 desperately needs an IS version
4: There is no 400/4 option (prime or zoom) this side of a crazy $10,000
5: There is still no 500/5.6 or 600/5.6 available.

Long and the short of it, what a dumb lens to bring out.

On the other hand ....

a: 70-200/2.8 is a cruically important lens for PJs, especially sport shooters. They like to keep their most importantant customers happy, even if that means screwing other people over.
b: Nikkor just released a new 70-200/2.7 VR that was even better than the existing Canon 70-200/2.8 IS. They don't like having a Nikkor lens that's better than the euivalent Canon one.

Looks as though (a) and (b) trump (1) and (2) and (3) and (4) and (5) at Canon HQ.

It was suggested that the upcoming Winter Olympics is a reason for the timing of this release.

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS is a fine lens, but on newer cameras that are higher pixel density, like the 7D, it is beginning to show its age. It's resolving ability at f/2.8 is seriously compromised by these newer generation of crazy pixel density DSLRs.

The use of fluorite is interesting. It is well known for its excellent properties for this purpose but has always suffered from instability; particularly with temperature changes. Perhaps canon may feel they have overcome that problem.

This is a primary reason why Canon uses an off white colour to paint their lens barrels. All lenses that contain a CaF2 element are white

[Sleeper]

what a dumb lens to bring out.

Canon is filled with bureaucratic idiots.

[nexus]

Mate if it makes them money they'd release a new version every year, like some software makers do

[NGP]

But why?
1: The old 70-200/2.8 IS was already excellent.
2: The 100-400 badly needs replacing.
3: The old 400/5.6 desperately needs an IS version
4: There is no 400/4 option (prime or zoom) this side of a crazy $10,000
5: There is still no 500/5.6 or 600/5.6 available.

the main reason is the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS is the least sharp of the 4x 70-200L family.. so an upgrade is welcome.. sure the current version does the job well but the improved optics and an extra stop of the image stabiliser is always welcome

[mongo]

Mongo agrees with Accesser's reasoning and comment.