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

[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.

[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.

[mongo]

Mongo agrees with Accesser's reasoning and comment.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[Clubmanmc]

i dont have the IS version... and i still wont upgrade...

PS i was told Beige was used on L glass to stop heat build up when being used in out door areas...
and it matches my eyes..

M

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[Tannin]

Well, OK shoot me, I'm off-topic again, but I actually do not want Canon to make a 14-24/2.8, certainly not if it turns out the same as the Nikkor one. No, I'm not bagging the 14-24/2.8 Nikkor, I'm sure it is every bit as wonderful as people say it is, but it's a great bulbous thing that you can't use a filter on, and I hate lenses like that. I'd much rather a smaller zoom range (if needed) or (by far the best solution) that they made it in a constant f/4 - apart from avoiding the popeye problem, it would be half the size, half the weight, and half the cost. Well, maybe not half the cost.

[swifty]

Well, OK shoot me, I'm off-topic again, but I actually do not want Canon to make a 14-24/2.8, certainly not if it turns out the same as the Nikkor one. No, I'm not bagging the 14-24/2.8 Nikkor, I'm sure it is every bit as wonderful as people say it is, but it's a great bulbous thing that you can't use a filter on, and I hate lenses like that. I'd much rather a smaller zoom range (if needed) or (by far the best solution) that they made it in a constant f/4 - apart from avoiding the popeye problem, it would be half the size, half the weight, and half the cost. Well, maybe not half the cost.

Could both not co-exist? Personally I'd prefer what u suggested too but there will certainly be others who prefer the current nikon version.

[Star Catcher]

That lens is a pussy compared to a 28-300/3.5LIS USM. Anything that will create a cash-flow is what digital photography is all about. Sure this new 70-200/2.8 it may have some niffty glass and coatings, but in 12 months time, another lens will overtake it. Soon, we will see DSLR's with back-lit chips....faster reading, higher ISO with less noise and CF cards that can read 120-200 m/sec. but not as fast a film. What I would like to see is lens from Canon is a 15 - 400/2.8. Now THAT would be a beast and to hell with the price!