New Canon 70-200Ls announced....

It's not like Canon to do a "non upgrade" but i guess they have jumped on the band wagon.

With the f/2.8 version, It looks like this is simply like a car manufacturers 2019 model,. it doesn't mean you trade in your 2018, it's not an upgrade. It's the same underneath with some new paint options and L.E.D. headlights. Note in the Canon USA Video, it's a "refresh" etc.
But this is the same lens.

I love that the only visible change is a new paint job It really is a Car Sales pitch.


The f/4 is an actual update. Not the least of which, with the new AF electronics it should behave like a modern vII IS telephoto with t-cons and the latest bodies. (hypothesis)

Having both the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II and the 70-200 f/4 L IS, I would certainly like to do the "human test" on these two new offerings.
Like others have said, and I can agree, that the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II still sooooooooo good. Really tough to beat. But still Heavy...........
Regarding the f/4 L IS Mark II, that would be the one I would like to try. Improved IS, sharpness and colors that compare to my newer 16-35 f/4 L IS and 24-70 f/4 IS. Not that my f/4 L IS Version 1 sticks out like a sore thumb. What really has my interest or concern would be the over all weight and how this new Shape, 72 mm, feels on the camera body compared to my 67mm f/4 L IS Version 1.
Again the old "Human Test" would answer that.
The new f/4 L IS Mark II just may have me in the market. As I leave my f/2.8 L IS Mark II "state side" in favor of my smaller lighter, f/4 L IS, my "Greek Trilogy of the Canon f/4 L IS, (16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/4 L IS) for Euroean travel, may get a new addition to the family.
We shall see............

Perfectly Frank wrote in post #18640787
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.

The lens is so much better, it actually makes the photographer steadier so it doesn’t need four stops of IS.

Mike

Nick5 wrote in post #18640818
Having both the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II and the 70-200 f/4 L IS, I would certainly like to do the "human test" on these two new offerings.
Like others have said, and I can agree, that the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II still sooooooooo good. Really tough to beat. But still Heavy...........
Regarding the f/4 L IS Mark II, that would be the one I would like to try. Improved IS, sharpness and colors that compare to my newer 16-35 f/4 L IS and 24-70 f/4 IS. Not that my f/4 L IS Version 1 sticks out like a sore thumb. What really has my interest or concern would be the over all weight and how this new Shape, 72 mm, feels on the camera body compared to my 67mm f/4 L IS Version 1.
Again the old "Human Test" would answer that.
The new f/4 L IS Mark II just may have me in the market. As I leave my f/2.8 L IS Mark II "state side" in favor of my smaller lighter, f/4 L IS, my "Greek Trilogy of the Canon f/4 L IS, (16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/4 L IS) for Euroean travel, may get a new addition to the family.
We shall see............

And Nick you have made my point about the 24-105 V2 upgrade

16-35, 24-70 and now this 70-200 F/4--- all substantial upgrades and stellar glass

Canon just never bothered to try to improve the 24-105....worst upgrade in canons history and im betting the 70-200F/2.8 will be #2

canon really needs to wake up

Jake I fully agree. It feels like a car upgrade game anymore with Canon with some of these decisions.....I watched Jarods video...he nailed it. A coated piece of glass and a new paint job.....what a joke

FYI to everyone. Couple people i know on CPS programs sent the version 1 70-200 F/2.8's in for repairs.......CPS said they no longer repair.....which is total BS....same parts....Canon is playing games and trying to force people now to buy upgrades now

this update on the 70-200 111 F/2.8 is a joke

SixDeeFan wrote in post #18640786
Just curious...what's wanting with your Tamron 24-70 G2 with 5 stops of stabilization? I can't see getting rid of mine.

Me neither. Just for those who've been wanting it and are on the fence because of no IS.

I guess Canon ran out of the old paint and had to upgrade the stellar f2.8 II. I'll be passing on this yawner of a refresh.

The f4 IS II might require a look when the reviews roll in.

yep, never use a hood with a CPL.

the f4 IS is 12 years old. it was due for a refresh. so I disagree. the lenses that guys ask for on the internet are not that popular in the real world and canon is in business to make money.

it didn't go the other way. it stayed the same.

have you seen how big and expensive the Nikon 24-70 VR is? not interested personally. I like IS but I don't "need" it.

Just unpackaged my version II as I'm reading this thread. I had heard rumors of the vIII, just thought I
would bring it to fruition by ordering the II. Not the first time this has happened to me ( once on a camera body),
but I'm sure I won't be disappointed in the vII. I've heard so many good things about it, got a good deal too.
Now I know why.

Joemt.

mcoren wrote in post #18640822
The lens is so much better, it actually makes the photographer steadier so it doesn’t need four stops of IS.

Mike

Oh, good to know. I feel better now.

I'm still puzzled why we have two numbers. In use I doubt there's a perceptible difference between 3.5 & 4 stops of IS. But still...

To me, the 2.8 III seems reasonable as they're offering a slightly improved product (coating) for essentially the same price. It's not meant to entice V2 owners to upgrade, but new buyers will get a small benefit. And the intro of V3 will slightly push down the price of V2 on the secondary market so that for people who don't care about the coating, they get a better deal. There are no big winners, some small winners, and no losers here.

I have the f/4 and am interested enough to consider an upgrade to the f/4 II depending on reviews.

Remember the 600-RTii was not much of an upgrade either.

Two things are good. The new iii price and now the resale value of the mk2 will fit nicely in the 12-1400 range.

CEITam wrote in post #18640889
To me, the 2.8 III seems reasonable as they're offering a slightly improved product (coating) for essentially the same price. ....

Not without precedent in Canon camera bodies,.
Maybe they just should have called it the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM IIn ?

On the other hand, they could have called it the 30D.