New Canon 70-200Ls announced....

Some day I'll upgrade my vanilla 70-200 2.8 to a stabilized lens. Not sure I expect the III to significantly push down prices of the II

Had fun reading some comments. I admit, when I first heard the rumor about the 2.8 mkIII I thought "How the hell do you make that lens better than it is?" of course I forgot about the paint.

Canon Price Watch says they currently have the lowest street price for the 2.8 II. Now is the time to buy if you don't care for the III.

I'm surprised Canon did not put the BR Optics into these.

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.

Not to worry! According to Canon there is NO difference in the optics OR the IS systems in the two versions of the F2.8 lenses. They are just more 'comfortable' specking the new lens at 3.5 stops rather then 4.

true. I think the language they've used in the past is "up to" four stops. what they are saying about the F4 IS II is "up to" five stops.

The f/4 is a good option for those who want to upgrade.
It seems the new models are whiter and similar to Sony's white....

Meanwhile, I shall stick to my Vanilla f/2,8 mark II

CEITam wrote in post #18640956
Canon Price Watch says they currently have the lowest street price for the 2.8 II. Now is the time to buy if you don't care for the III.

I checked, not as low as I'd have liked, I wasn't compelled to upgrade. My 70-200 2.8 no-IS still works.

Canon has upgraded their venerable 70-200mm f/4L IS lens which I have been using since it was introduced. I am very satisfied with the overall performance of this lens...

https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com/explora...35423​645394537

The Mark-I version of the 70-200mm f/4L IS has been my favorite lens which I have carried all over the world in tandem with an EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens on a pair of crop cameras. I can carry these two lenses and a pair of bodies at about the same weight as the 70-200mm f/2.8L (series) lens and the 17-55mm lens and a single body. I haven't checked the weight differences between the f/4L Mark-I and the Mark-II but, it stands to reason that the Mark-II might be heavier since the front element is larger than the Mark-I at 67mm. Just checked it 1.4 ounces is negligible.


The f/4L IS Mark-I is also my favorite portrait lens for people and the hundreds of rescue dogs I photograph each year. I really don't think that any major improvements are needed for the f/4L IS Mark-I lens. My philosophy is, "IF SOMETHING AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT". I get great imagery from my present lens. However, the MFD decrease from 4-feet to 3.3-feet would be nice.

I went the "el-cheapo" route when I purchased my first tripod ring for the Mark-I lens and bought a third party offering from Bay. It was an absolute piece of crap and I got rid of it and found a used OEM ring on eBay for a fraction of the new price. On the other hand, this lens is light enough to use with the camera mounted to the tripod. The tripod ring is nice but not a necessity. BTW: IMO, Canon has really dropped the ball with their tripod rings (for all their lenses) by not milling a pair of groves at the bottom which would allow the rings to mount directly to an Arca Compatible clamp. I have recently begun using a third party Kiwiphotos Arca Compatible quick release plate on my f/4L IS lens. https://www.ebay.com/i​tm/Kiwifotos-L...53.m2749.l2649 This plate seems to work fine. Anyway, I use my 70-200mm f/4L IS Mark-I lens hand-held most of the time...

I certainly won't trade in my f/4L IS Mark-I lens for the middling improvements of the Mark-II model but, I would recommend a person purchase the Mark-II as their first 70-200mm f/4L lens. Unless (and this is a big unless) they can get the 70-200mm f/4L IS Mark-I at a much better price than the Mark-II...

for me the tripod ring is a necessity -- I shoot long exposures and it does make a huge difference. and I agree the OEM ring is by far the best.

another thing with the 9 aperture blades you're going to get the fantastic 18-point L lens star when you stop down. the star produced by the current f4 IS is nothing special. the current f4 IS is long in the tooth and I welcome the upgrades -- e.g., closer MFD -- and while I won't pre-order I will upgrade before my fall trip to the Tetons and Yellowstone.

I was an early adopter of the F4 IS and it has served me well for over a decade but i'm ready to upgrade!

Ah-keong wrote in post #18641144
The f/4 is a good option for those who want to upgrade.
It seems the new models are whiter and similar to Sony's white....

Meanwhile, I shall stick to my Vanilla f/2,8 mark II

We don't get Vanilla in the UK, we have boring mushroom.
I might upgrade to the mk3 just so it matches my 100-400.

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.

I read somewhere that the IS on v2 and v3 are exactly the same. At some point, the standard that IS claims are based on was tightened up, hence the difference in specs listed.

ed rader wrote in post #18641199
for me the tripod ring is a necessity -- I shoot long exposures and it does make a huge difference. and I agree the OEM ring is by far the best.

another thing with the 9 aperture blades you're going to get the fantastic 18-point L lens star when you stop down. the star produced by the current f4 IS is nothing special. the current f4 IS is long in the tooth and I welcome the upgrades -- e.g., closer MFD -- and while I won't pre-order I will upgrade before my fall trip to the Tetons and Yellowstone.

I was an early adopter of the F4 IS and it has served me well for over a decade but i'm ready to upgrade!

Same for me

I Have the Non IS F/4L...fantastic lens

The F/2.8 is just too darn heavy.....However...I virtually positive some of the gear head junkies are going to jump all over the new paint job and I will bet that you can P/u a very clean F/2.8 V2 for about the same price as you can buy the new F/4 that was announced----that will give people something else to think about

KaosImagery wrote in post #18641389
I read somewhere that the IS on v2 and v3 are exactly the same. At some point, the standard that IS claims are based on was tightened up, hence the difference in specs listed.

Right on. In Rudy Winston's video he says there is no difference in OIS between f2.8 v2 and v3.

And this is what Canon says about the OIS...

For consistently sharp results, the EF 70–200mm f/2.8L IS III USM lens features an Optical Image Stabilizer system that provides shake reduction for up to 3.5 shutter speed stops*. This helps provide reliable handheld performance and clear image detail in low-light situations or at lower ISOs.

* Based on CIPA (Camera & Imaging Products Association) standards. Testing performed at a focal length of 200mm using the EOS-1D X Mark II digital SLR camera.

Perhaps CIPA testing standards have changed since f2.8 v2. Or maybe the camera used has an effect on test results. I can only guess.

Anyway, I'm not gonna let my underwear get tied up in knots over 3.5 vs 4 stops. I'm keeping my v2 lens and not buying the new version.

But I do have a keen interest in the new f4.

Everyone agrees the MkII is really good but this is for the new buyers or replacement buyers,I mean if my MKII broke or was stolen I wouldn't buy another MKII I'd get the MKIII.It is cheaper/better.I don't get all the criticism, if Canon didn't upgrade people would say that they are behind,blah,blah.I welcome the upgrade.