View Full Version : Canon announces EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
Xenedis
07-01-2010, 3:15am
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/1001/10010508canon70200isii.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.
I wonder what price they'll put on it? Not that I'm planning to upgrade at all, just curious.
DAdeGroot
07-01-2010, 12:32pm
Yeah saw that - quite happy with mine, so won't be "upgrading" it either.
Xenedis
07-01-2010, 12:45pm
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
07-01-2010, 12:55pm
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
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.
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 agrees with Accesser's reasoning and comment.
Xenedis
07-01-2010, 1:36pm
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
07-01-2010, 1:42pm
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
07-01-2010, 1:42pm
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
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 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=34158966&page=2).
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
07-01-2010, 1:46pm
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
07-01-2010, 1:47pm
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
07-01-2010, 1:53pm
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.
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
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
07-01-2010, 11:21pm
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
07-01-2010, 11:36pm
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
08-01-2010, 12:25am
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!
Tannin
08-01-2010, 12:37am
A 15-400/2.8 .....
Weight
Price
Image quality
Sacrifice any three of the above.
Clubmanmc
08-01-2010, 1:51am
A 15-400/2.8 .....
Weight
Price
Image quality
Sacrifice any three of the above.
id rather just carry a 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 and 100-400
each has their strengths and id use them accordingly...
15-400 is just a joke..
M
Yes. That's why they have released MTF charts (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=34158966&page=2).
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.
Yes, Nikkor seem to like keeping things pretty dark in that department. But I do know that Nikon once produced a lens that was all fluorite - yes, every single element, not just the front one (which is the conventional arrangement). A one-off for ultra violet work, apparently. Lord only knows what the price might have been. :)
Sleeper
08-01-2010, 9:46pm
what a dumb lens to bring out.
Canon is filled with bureaucratic idiots. :rolleyes:
Mate if it makes them money they'd release a new version every year, like some software makers do ;)
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 ;)
I cant wait for the price reductions!
msenior
14-01-2010, 3:39pm
Hey Guys
Canon announced this is the past few days.
Whats are peoples thoughts. I am looking at getting this but most likely near Sept.
Anyone drooling yet????
http://www.canon.com.au/en-AU/Pro-Photography/Camera-Lenses/Pro-Lenses/EF70-200mm-f28L-IS-II-USM-Lens
Mike
Xenedis
14-01-2010, 3:42pm
Already covered here:
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=47525
glenwood
26-02-2010, 4:39pm
Any one know about how much it is going to cost in Australia.
DAdeGroot
26-02-2010, 5:14pm
Any one know about how much it is going to cost in Australia.
I saw a quote today of $3199
I had heard to expect an extra $500 on the current model??
Wow that isn't friendly on the wallet. I think I'll still stick to the f/4 IS when it comes time to buy a 70-200mm.
Xenedis
26-02-2010, 5:46pm
I saw a quote today of $3199
I've read of higher prices.
I just cannot see very many owners of the original 70-200/2.8L IS "upgrading".
It's pretty hard to fault the original lens, and even if I had a spare $3-4K and had to get rid of it, I wouldn't upgrade.
DAdeGroot
26-02-2010, 6:08pm
Ah found it - PRA Imaging Perth:
http://www.praimaging.com.au/d156-56-canon-ef-70200mm-f28l-is-ii-usm-in-stock.html
kmcgreg
28-02-2010, 2:28pm
Price seems high - more like canon rrp. I will buy one when they hit the streets in numbers and can get a better price.
Xenedis
28-02-2010, 3:34pm
The first time I saw a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens in a store (in 2005 or so), the price was $3,999. Staggering.
Certainly the mark II is very expensive, but given the stellar performance and quality of the original 70-200/2.8L IS and the price for which it can be purchased, does the new version really justify the quite-significant difference?
glenwood
01-03-2010, 11:04am
Ah found it - PRA Imaging Perth:
http://www.praimaging.com.au/d156-56-canon-ef-70200mm-f28l-is-ii-usm-in-stock.html
It says in Stock. Is it true or they mean pre-order.
adilucca
01-03-2010, 11:20am
Hmm, I think my 70-200f/4 will keep me going for a while. I can't see too many version I's being sold to upgrade so the costs may not come down that much for a while.
Cheers
Alan
kmcgreg
01-03-2010, 8:38pm
A quick search around shows that most grey importers and hong kong suppliers have this lens now for about $2050 to $2100.
I think I am ready to buy.
Xenedis
01-03-2010, 9:28pm
A quick search around shows that most grey importers and hong kong suppliers have this lens now for about $2050 to $2100.
Eeek. That seems ridiculously cheap.
What would the final cost be when import duty and currency conversion are factored into the price?
pollen
01-03-2010, 11:05pm
The 70-200 Mark I was priced at $3200 in 2007, then in early 2008 went down to about $2300 when the AUD went up very high. Then the GFC occurred and it bounced back to about 2600/2700
It will be interesting to see if there is some sort of 'run out' sale of the Mk 1.
glenwood
02-03-2010, 1:03pm
A quick search around shows that most grey importers and hong kong suppliers have this lens now for about $2050 to $2100.
I think I am ready to buy.
It must be mk I
Is it possible to provide link to page.
James Axford
02-03-2010, 8:02pm
here are the latest prices, just over 3000. you'll be lucky to get up under the 3000 mark i think
https://www.camerasdirect.com.au/index.php/lenses/for-canon/zoom-lenses/high-powered/canon-ef-70-200mm-f2.8l-is-ii-usm-lens-seeking-eta.html
http://www.digidirect.com.au/camera_lenses/canon/telephoto/canon_ef_70-200mm_f28l_is_ii_lens
kmcgreg
02-03-2010, 8:48pm
Bummer I think I screwed up! Its the old version I saw! Sorry:o
andrask
15-06-2010, 4:47pm
I had a quick hands on at the recent Digital Life Expo in Melbourne and was quite impressed by the IS performance getting reasonably sharp images around 1/30 s. Having only used the non-IS f/4L for some 3 years, it felt heavy - I can't see it fitting into my Lowepro backpack. It at least comes complete with the tripod collar (not having to dish out for an outrageous $200+ for one for the f/4L).
Ploddy
19-06-2010, 11:18am
I am considering this at the moment and have read a lot of reviews on the old model. Seems it is drastically soft compared with the f4 equivalent, on the higer specced bodies. I can fully understand why Canon cant afford to let that continue. By all accounts, the new model fixes this anomaly.
But at twice the price of the f4, I know which one I am going to be forced to buy...
Xenedis
19-06-2010, 11:27am
I am considering this at the moment and have read a lot of reviews on the old model. Seems it is drastically soft compared with the f4 equivalent, on the higer specced bodies.
I cannot say I've ever heard anyone use the word "soft" in reference to any of Canon's 70-200mm L zooms.
They are all very sharp.
Which reviews have indicated it's soft?
I'll try and get together a list of sites that I read this, but in the meantime, check it out for yourself...
Comparison Charts (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=9&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=103&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2)
It's important to note that the critical comments are reserved for the IS version - the non-IS seems to be very sharp.
Another comparison you can do with these charts is the new 2.8 is against the old 2.8 is. Chalk and cheese if you ask me.
dche5390
19-06-2010, 7:49pm
I cannot say I've ever heard anyone use the word "soft" in reference to any of Canon's 70-200mm L zooms.
They are all very sharp.
Which reviews have indicated it's soft?
Only if one peeps at corners!
I disagree if you refer to the charts linked in my post. Of course, this is just one sample with some pretty nasty CA when wide open, but it does make you wonder. There must be a reason why they replaced the model.
Xenedis
19-06-2010, 8:47pm
I still don't know why Canon chose to replace the 70-200/2.8L IS. It's not the oldest of the 70-200s, and having owned two of the five 70-200s, I don't know what could be considered wrong with them.
On the other hand, I don't pixel-peep or measurebate.
My images are of real-world people, places, animals, events and things, not newspapers, rulers and brick walls.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.