New Canon 70-200Ls announced....

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=OFTBw7-8gdk

prices and preorder....

https://www.cpricewatc​h.com …ef-70-200-f4l-is-ii-1299/

.
I find it very unusual that the new f2.8 has 3.5 stops if Image Stabilization, while the new f4 has 5 full stops of IS.

Why the difference?


.

well....it looks like the only upgrades to the f2.8 II are lens coatings. no change to elements or IS. my impression of the F2.8 is if I owned the II I probably would not upgrade or at least wait until it's been thoroughly reviewed. to be fair the lack of upgrades are reflected in the price.

the f4 II is the one that i'll be getting, and it has been optically improved and IS has been upgraded. looks like it takes the same tripod ring as the current f4 IS but the front element is now 72mm instead of 67mm.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18640647
.
I find it very unusual that the new f2.8 has 3.5 stops if Image Stabilization, while the new f4 has 5 full stops of IS.

Why the difference?


.

Probably because the IS cell in the faster lens has to be physically larger to let the extra light through. Larger objects tend to also have more mass, and more mass means more inertia. As someone who has studied electronic control engineering I know that inertia is one of your biggest enemies when it comes to making things change direction. More stops would mean a combination of both larger movements, and higher rates of change of direction.

Alan

For the GAS afflicted, the "lackluster" f/2.8 refresh is good news Seriously, the vII is so good anyways, it'd be a tough act to follow without dramatically increasing the cost. Heck, $2099 for the f/2.8III is LESS than what I paid for my II back in 2011. Not sure what that is in today's dollars, but on paper less = good.

Somewhat of a letdown is the lack of the Mode 3 IS that the f/4 vII gets (and the 100-400II has).

And I've heard people complain about the hoods not having the little CPL trap door. Take it from a 100-400II owner, that little door is worthless. It's just not all that functional for CPL use, and it always flopping about and opening when you don't want it to.

MatthewK wrote in post #18640698
For the GAS afflicted, the "lackluster" f/2.8 refresh is good news Seriously, the vII is so good anyways, it'd be a tough act to follow without dramatically increasing the cost. Heck, $2099 for the f/2.8III is LESS than what I paid for my II back in 2011. Not sure what that is in today's dollars, but on paper less = good.

Somewhat of a letdown is the lack of the Mode 3 IS that the f/4 vII gets (and the 100-400II has).

And I've heard people complain about the hoods not having the little CPL trap door. Take it from a 100-400II owner, that little door is worthless. It's just not all that functional for CPL use, and it always flopping about and opening when you don't want it to.

Agreed on the CPL door. Thing drives me nuts some days.

dkangel wrote in post #18640715
Agreed on the CPL door. Thing drives me nuts some days.

+1 on that.

I'm considering gluing mine shut.

Agree 100% with Ed

I dont get the upgrade on the F/2.8......version 2 is dam dam sharp.......and some people have versions 1's that are Dam sharp......and some people still have that darn drain pipe which is killer

The 2.8's are heavy, miserable to carry around all day and none of them are bad. They are all great. How sharp do they really have to be

But guarantee you 100% the gear junkies will continue to jump at anything Canon tosses out there

I will probably get the F/4...looks like a winner and now I can use all the 72mm ND filters that I have laying around

If you have a clean sensor on a 5D4 and/or a 1Dx2......save your $$$ and get the F/4.....telephoto compression at 200MM is virtually non distinguishable

Last point

just like the 24-105 upgrade fiasco, you will find the same situation with these 70-200F/2.8's.....version 2 and version 3 are going to be so close in optical performance that to me its not worth the upgrade.

The 2.8 zoom is a repackaged lens just like Canon did with the 24-105. Its going to be a useless upgrade for most of us

mcoren wrote in post #18626952
...maybe improve the coatings or make the IS half a stop better...

Well, I got the coatings part right, but I never imagined the IS would go the other way!

Mike

umphotography wrote in post #18640743
Agree 100% with Ed

I dont get the upgrade on the F/2.8......version 2 is dam dam sharp.......and some people have versions 1's that are Dam sharp......and some people still have that darn drain pipe which is killer

The 2.8's are heavy, miserable to carry around all day and none of them are bad. They are all great. How sharp do they really have to be

But guarantee you 100% the gear junkies will continue to jump at anything Canon tosses out there

I will probably get the F/4...looks like a winner and now I can use all the 72mm ND filters that I have laying around

If you have a clean sensor on a 5D4 and/or a 1Dx2......save your $$$ and get the F/4.....telephoto compression at 200MM is virtually non distinguishable

Last point

just like the 24-105 upgrade fiasco, you will find the same situation with these 70-200F/2.8's.....version 2 and version 3 are going to be so close in optical performance that to me its not worth the upgrade.

The 2.8 zoom is a repackaged lens just like Canon did with the 24-105. Its going to be a useless upgrade for most of us

Nikon got a lot of praise for their new 70-200 f2.8, but I care very little for such minor differences. To be frank, any version of the f4 was plenty good, and IMO, canon has plenty of other gear that would be better off with an upgrade. 20, 28, 50, 85, 100, 135 IS version, or even 135 soft focus. All of those could use a refresh, instead, they went after low hanging fruit I suppose, two really stellar lenses.

Charlie wrote in post #18640755
Nikon got a lot of praise for their new 70-200 f2.8, but I care very little for such minor differences. To be frank, any version of the f4 was plenty good, and IMO, canon has plenty of other gear that would be better off with an upgrade. 20, 28, 50, 85, 100, 135 IS version, or even 135 soft focus. All of those could use a refresh, instead, they went after low hanging fruit I suppose, two really stellar lenses.

Especially, IMO, the 24-70 2.8 with IS!

gossamer88 wrote in post #18640763
Especially, IMO, the 24-70 2.8 with IS!

Just curious...what's wanting with your Tamron 24-70 G2 with 5 stops of stabilization? I can't see getting rid of mine.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18640647
.
I find it very unusual that the new f2.8 has 3.5 stops if Image Stabilization, while the new f4 has 5 full stops of IS.

Why the difference?


.

What I find unusual is the f2.8 v3 is said to have up to 3.5 stops of IS, while v2 has 4 stops.

I guess an improvement is an improvement whichever way you look at it.

I assume it won't be long until the cheap knock off brands like sigma launch revamps.

Pre-orders on B&H

https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …f_70_200mm_f_2_​8l_is.html

https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …_ef_70_200mm_f_​4l_is.html