Canon 70-200 mk3

soupdragon

soupdragon

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,644
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
By all accounts canon are releasing a 70-200 2.8 L IS mk3 this year.
There goes my investment.
 
"By all accounts...."? Sources, please?
 
soupdragon said:
By all accounts canon are releasing a 70-200 2.8 L IS mk3 this year.
There goes my investment.
Click to expand...
And a new 70/200 f4 IS L mk 2 (there goes my investment too).
 
MatBin said:
And a new 70/200 f4 IS L mk 2 (there goes my investment too).
Click to expand...

Prices are already low on these. If new one (f4) is 1300 or more you do the maths. Also the current ones are already very very good unlike many recently replaced zooms (100-400 in particular)
 
What's up with the 100-400?
 
StewartR said:
"By all accounts...."? Sources, please?
Click to expand...

Canon Rumors appears to be the main source, though the story has been picked up and reported as credible by numerous other photography websites.
http://www.canonrumors.com/new-canon-70-200mm-lenses-coming-in-early-june-cr3/

Given that neither the 70-200 f2.8 or f4 version are in obvious need of urgent updating, the reason could be that Canon is preparing its key lenses for optimum performance with imminent new mirrorless launches.
 
HoppyUK said:
....... the reason could be that Canon is preparing its key lenses for optimum performance with imminent new mirrorless launches.
Click to expand...

A move to mirrorless would have been a good opportunity to go for in-body stabilisation but your theory about the new lenses would not fit that scenario, Richard.
 
If the MK 2 is not good enough for someone then a MK 3 is not going to help or improve things one bit lol
 
GTG said:
If the MK 2 is not good enough for someone then a MK 3 is not going to help or improve things one bit lol
Click to expand...
Well, 6 stop image stabilization would be nice.
Some weight loss wouldn't go amiss either.
Performance at the long end could still be better.

That said and in all truth, it would have to be a spectacular upgrade to make me trade mine.
 
I don't for a minute think it'll happen but modern batteries are capable enough that they make the reincarnation of the "power zoom" a realistic option.
 
Canon Bob said:
I don't for a minute think it'll happen but modern batteries are capable enough that they make the reincarnation of the "power zoom" a realistic option.
Click to expand...
They have, kind of, with the power zoom adapter.
I can only imagine the size of the thing though if they made it for a 70-200.
 
Canon Bob said:
A move to mirrorless would have been a good opportunity to go for in-body stabilisation but your theory about the new lenses would not fit that scenario, Richard.
Click to expand...

I don't see why not, even if it means disabling the in-lens IS, though they could be made to work in tandem.

StewartR said:
... in what circumstances?
Click to expand...

Let's just say 6-stops of image stabilisation would not be good news for tripod manufacturers.
 
Canon Bob said:
A move to mirrorless would have been a good opportunity to go for in-body stabilisation but your theory about the new lenses would not fit that scenario, Richard.
Click to expand...
Be an about turn for Canon wouldnt it, they have maintained they put IS in the lens body as no one solution for all lenses could be found hence no in-body stabilisation (on SLR at least).
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Prices are already low on these. If new one (f4) is 1300 or more you do the maths. Also the current ones are already very very good unlike many recently replaced zooms (100-400 in particular)
Click to expand...
Except Canon have repeatedly stopped support for "old" lenses after the intro of a new one, so a perfectly good lens effectively becomes a door stop if parts cant be found in other non working lenses or sourced direct from Canon.
This only seems to have become common recently (to my knowledge) and whilst lenses can carry on for many years without needing to be repaired some do break soon after the intro of a new one and owners find themselves with a door stop (unless the LensDoctor or others can fix them).
I would have seriously doubted making a large investment in an L lens if I had known that Canon withdraw support when a lens can be so young.
 
Last edited:
MatBin said:
Be an about turn for Canon wouldnt it, they have maintained they put IS in the lens body as no one solution for all lenses could be found hence no in-body stabilisation (on SLR at least).
Click to expand...

A stabilisation system tailored to a particular lens is better in theory, and probably true for longer lenses that can require bigger movements than sensor-shift allows, but there's no denying the benefits of sensor-shift (cost, size/weight, works with everything including some lenses where in-lens stabilisation isn't practical) so why not take the best of both worlds?
 
HoppyUK said:
A stabilisation system tailored to a particular lens is better in theory, and probably true for longer lenses that can require bigger movements than sensor-shift allows, but there's no denying the benefits of sensor-shift (cost, size/weight, works with everything including some lenses where in-lens stabilisation isn't practical) so why not take the best of both worlds?
Click to expand...
No doubt if they do that they will explain it away (possibly justifiable) that technology has moved on since the introduction of the EOS system, I dont have a problem with that at all.
 
MatBin said:
Be an about turn for Canon wouldnt it, they have maintained they put IS in the lens body as no one solution for all lenses could be found hence no in-body stabilisation (on SLR at least).
Click to expand...

But a mirrorless body moves the goalposts to some degree. In-body stabilisation on a regular DSLR would have no benefit through the viewfinder or for the AF sensors.
 
If the rumor is true it will be frustrating.
In real terms the mk2 version is a baby compared to the 135 f/2.

In my wildest lens dreams canon will come up with a 135 f/1.8 IS lens with weather sealing.
 
soupdragon said:
In my wildest lens dreams canon will come up with a 135 f/1.8 IS lens with weather sealing.
Click to expand...

History shows us that adding IS to sub-f/2.8 lens results in the new one being 1/3 stop slower, not faster.
 
MatBin said:
Except Canon have repeatedly stopped support for "old" lenses after the intro of a new one, so a perfectly good lens effectively becomes a door stop if parts cant be found in other non working lenses or sourced direct from Canon.
This only seems to have become common recently (to my knowledge) and whilst lenses can carry on for many years without needing to be repaired some do break soon after the intro of a new one and owners find themselves with a door stop (unless the LensDoctor or others can fix them).
I would have seriously doubted making a large investment in an L lens if I had known that Canon withdraw support when a lens can be so young.
Click to expand...

They will keep supporting mk2 for a few more years. They have to by law. And after that lots of places will still carry spare parts since that is a very popular lens and they are well stocked up now.

70-200 f/4 IS was my last lens to suddenly go very wrong last year but thankfully I got away with it fairly cheaply - broken collar. IS unit apparently would mean a new lens may be more economic anyway.
 
soupdragon said:
If the rumor is true it will be frustrating.
In real terms the mk2 version is a baby compared to the 135 f/2.

In my wildest lens dreams canon will come up with a 135 f/1.8 IS lens with weather sealing.
Click to expand...

You more or less could have one today.

Sigma on Sony A7RIII body :P
 
My 70-200 mkII is pin sharp throughout at 2.8 ... can't for the life of me see how they could improve it.. I wouldn't pay out thats for sure..
 
Well I think for professional photogs and amateurs with big pockets will be the target customers. The 2.8 version will probably cost around £3000 at release. It would have to be pretty spectacular for me to upgrade.
 
Pretty sure the rumoured new 70-200s have more to do with mirrorless than as an upgrade appealing to existing users. Basically ensuring that all Canon's key lenses are not just compatible with mirrorless but 100% optimised from the start, an important gesture of commitment etc.
 
KIPAX said:
My 70-200 mkII is pin sharp throughout at 2.8 ... can't for the life of me see how they could improve it.. I wouldn't pay out thats for sure..
Click to expand...

probably weight, new fancy coatings to cut the flare even more, new updated IS, or perhaps some cheeky price cutting measures...

If it means cut price used mkIIs I may be finally to pick one up. I've lived with f/4 IS to date which is plenty nice and light but on the other hand f/2.8 does look nice.
 
Could be an f/2?
 
admirable said:
Could be an f/2?
Click to expand...
No. That would be stupidly big and heavy, and even more stupidly expensive.

I'm guessing you've never handled a 200mm f/2 prime? Wonderful lenses, but really a big lump to carry around. A 70-200mm f/2 would be much worse.
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
No. That would be stupidly big and heavy, and even more stupidly expensive.

I'm guessing you've never handled a 200mm f/2 prime? Wonderful lenses, but really a big lump to carry around. A 70-200mm f/2 would be much worse.
Click to expand...

Yes I have experience of a 200mm f/2 albeit an old model and they are very heavy. I also have a 135mm f/2 and it is very light so I’m thinking the new lens does not have to be a metal body? I’m quite familiar with lens construction and obviously f/2 glass is heavier than f/2.8 glass but things have moved on and it is now possible the body could be carbon fibre with increased strength thus reducing the weight. I’m guessing you have never held a 200mm f/2 prime with a carbon body?

In all honesty, I doubt it too but just thought I’d throw something into the thought process :0
 
I would be well in the que for a 70-200 f2 .... aaaaargh stoppit :)
 
I hope they keep making a non IS 70-200 F4
I still use mine that I bought in 1996 it's an excellent really lightweight lens that's always on my second body
I think I'm right with the date I bought it just after the 350 D body came out
 
Last edited:
Canon Bob said:
If it was, it wouldn't be a MkIII....or cheap!
Click to expand...

And the focal length and aperture translation would equate to something pretty much like the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 - which is a monster weighing 3.4kg and needing 105mm filters...
 
admirable said:
Yes I have experience of a 200mm f/2 albeit an old model and they are very heavy. I also have a 135mm f/2 and it is very light so I’m thinking the new lens does not have to be a metal body? I’m quite familiar with lens construction and obviously f/2 glass is heavier than f/2.8 glass but things have moved on and it is now possible the body could be carbon fibre with increased strength thus reducing the weight. I’m guessing you have never held a 200mm f/2 prime with a carbon body?

In all honesty, I doubt it too but just thought I’d throw something into the thought process :0
Click to expand...

You'd need a lot more than just carbon fibre shell. Fresnel lenses, made out of novel materials would be a reasonable starting point to get the weight under control. I fear the cost would be the least of the considerations designing such a thing.

So I am perfectly happy to consider f/2.8 lens. More than happy actually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top