Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on June 07, 2018, 05:31:44 am
-
https://www.dpreview.com/news/8807947291/canon-unveils-canon-ef-70-200mm-f2-8l-is-iii-usm-for-professional-photographers
Looks like improved coating is the only aspect tuned on the 70-200 f2.8. I find that surprising since, although the Canon is very good in absolute terms, Nikon has taken a significant lead on this most critical lens for pros with the E FL version.
I find it surprising also that they didn't move the zoom ring to the front. It takes a bit of getting used to, but there is no way I would go back to the zoom ring close to the body. It help tremendously with lens stability since the hand is much farther away from the body.
Overall, the feeling is very much one of least possible investment.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm glad they didn't move the zoom ring to the front, it's a dumb idea. I almost never use manual focus on zoom lenses and I don't want to accidentally touch the focus ring while zooming and handling the lens. Also you might be the only person I know who thinks having the hand further away from the body is more stable.
-
I'm glad they didn't move the zoom ring to the front, it's a dumb idea. I almost never use manual focus on zoom lenses and I don't want to accidentally touch the focus ring while zooming and handling the lens. Also you might be the only person I know who thinks having the hand further away from the body is more stable.
Accidentally touching the focusing ring hasn’t happened to me once in hundreds of hours of usage but who knows, maybe some day. ;)
Well if you assume that your left hand is there to support the lens+body’s tendency to rotate around your right hand, then simple physics will tell you that a longer distance will give you more leverage, meaning more stability. And actual usage confirms the theory.
But anyways, great if the current Canon design works for you.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A few thoughts:
1. Sometimes a new coating goes a long way. Like the new blue-refingrent optics element in the 35 1.4L MKII that greatly reduces ghosting. Who knows?
2. I fail to see why Canon would change the location of the zoom and MF rings in a lens that has been a stable of pros.
3. The previous version was released in 2010, so it was bound to be upgraded.
-
It looks like Canon is keeping the price of the upgraded the same making this new version $700 cheaper than the Nikon version. That’s substantial.
-
It looks like Canon is keeping the price of the upgraded the same making this new version $700 cheaper than the Nikon version. That’s substantial.
True, but I thought Canon was aiming for the top spot in terms of lens performance? Wasn’t this what L lenses were supposed to be about? Or are they now happy with the top spot in price/performance ratio?
This is probably the first time an update of such an essential lens isn’t even trying to better its most significant rival that was released more than a year ago.
I’ll probably be called a Nikon fanboy again for writing this, but I find this a significant development in the history of the EOS mount, and in the history of DSLR lenses in general.
It doesn’t mean Canon didn’t have the ability to design a better lens of course, it means they decided not to.
My guess is that they couldn’t afford to in a context where they are directing resources towards mirrorless. This comes on top of their decision to remain the only manufacturer not offering a stabilized version of their 24-70 f2.8 years after everybody else did. So the 2 lenses most used by working pros are now “confirmed” not to be a top priority for Canon.
They also decided 10 years ago that their sensors were “good enough” and that video AF was the area to invest in. We’ve seen how that has worked for Sony.
What does that mean for the future of the EOS mount?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I’ll probably be called a Nikon fanboy again for writing this, but I find this a significant development in the history of the EOS mount, and in the history of DSLR lenses in general.
Cheers,
Bernard
You absolutely are a Nikon fanboy/shill but I like your content around here and it keeps discussions lively so power to you! They certainly are the most interesting camera company at the moment I'll give you that.
-
True, but I thought Canon was aiming for the top spot in terms of lens performance? Wasn’t this what L lenses were supposed to be about? Or are they now happy with the top spot in price/performance ratio?
This is probably the first time an update of such an essential lens isn’t even trying to better its most significant rival that was released more than a year ago.
I’ll probably be called a Nikon fanboy again for writing this, but I find this a significant development in the history of the EOS mount, and in the history of DSLR lenses in general.
It doesn’t mean Canon didn’t have the ability to design a better lens of course, it means they decided not to.
My guess is that they couldn’t afford to in a context where they are directing resources towards mirrorless. This comes on top of their decision to remain the only manufacturer not offering a stabilized version of their 24-70 f2.8 years after everybody else did. So the 2 lenses most used by working pros are now “confirmed” not to be a top priority for Canon.
They also decided 10 years ago that their sensors were “good enough” and that video AF was the area to invest in. We’ve seen how that has worked for Sony.
What does that mean for the future of the EOS mount?
Cheers,
Bernard
From a corporations viewpoint, the “BEST” is the one that generates the most revenue and right now Canon is kicking Nikon’s butt all over the place...and Sony is right on the heels of Nikon’s butt.
Nuff said.
-
A most useful improvement for pros would be in improving the range of the image stabilization another two stops. Beyond a certain point, better optical bench performance means squat to PJ and sports / action photographers. After all, they are shooting with 20ish MP 1DX II cameras.
-
From a corporations viewpoint, the “BEST” is the one that generates the most revenue and right now Canon is kicking Nikon’s butt all over the place...and Sony is right on the heels of Nikon’s butt.
Indeed, but I don’t think that this lens will contribute to the continuation of this trend.
In case you are using Canon FF DSLRs, what is your view about this announcement?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You absolutely are a Nikon fanboy/shill but I like your content around here and it keeps discussions lively so power to you! They certainly are the most interesting camera company at the moment I'll give you that.
He he he :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I think you are right Bernard about the 24 to 70 and the 70to 200 being the two lenses most used by working pros. However the pros I know are not as big users of very fast lenses as most people seem to think. A lot of pros take the f4 options as they are cheaper, lighter and commercially shallow depth of field is just not such a thing. The professional photographers under the most pressure financially in my neck of the woods are the most likely to use these fast lenses. By that I mean portrait and wedding photographers. This is where the cell phone has caused the most damage.
-
I think you are right Bernard about the 24 to 70 and the 70to 200 being the two lenses most used by working pros. However the pros I know are not as big users of very fast lenses as most people seem to think. A lot of pros take the f4 options as they are cheaper, lighter and commercially shallow depth of field is just not such a thing. The professional photographers under the most pressure financially in my neck of the woods are the most likely to use these fast lenses. By that I mean portrait and wedding photographers. This is where the cell phone has caused the most damage.
I believe that this is very geo specific. Here in Tokyo, leaving aside some young folks who just started maybe, the f2.8 version of these 2 lenses are in the bag of every pro, in press, wedding, sport,... and limited DoF is very frequently used as a creative tool. They haven't invented the word bokeh to shoot at f8. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I believe that this is very geo specific. Here in Tokyo, leaving aside some young folks who just started maybe, the f2.8 version of these 2 lenses are in the bag of every pro, in press, wedding, sport,... and limited DoF is very frequently used as a creative tool. They haven't invented the word bokeh to shoot at f8. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes. Press wedding and sport. All areas heavily impacted by the rise of cell phones. Most pros are not press wedding and sport. It’s not geo specific. It’s industry specific. What might be geo specific is how well or badly press wedding and sport is doing. Not at all well here. I won’t go near those areas of photography. I like to eat. Also if I choose not to purchase zooms with f2.8 doesn’t mean I have to shoot at f8. I can also shoot at f4 or f5.6 or I can move to a prime lens which is faster than 2.8 anyway. Personally I think shooting so much wide open is not a creative tool, it’s a boring formula.
One other thing. I own 15 lenses, don’t consider myself a equipment person but that’s what I need to survive and indulge my personal projects. Of the 15 lenses 10 are primes. All the primes have the focus ring at the end of the lens. When I pick up a zoom I want the focus ring to be in the same place on all lenses, at the end. I don’t want to be having to remember that when I pick up a zoom that the focus in now moved to another place. I will be trying to focus and instead will have the zoom ring at hand. Awkward.
Another thing though about
-
Indeed, but I don’t think that this lens will contribute to the continuation of this trend.
In case you are using Canon FF DSLRs, what is your view about this announcement?
Cheers,
Bernard
Personally I haven't heard any Canon folk complain at all about the quality of images the current 70-200 2.8 produces. It's a surprise a new version is being released...guess we'll see what the new coatings does to the images.
At the levels these pro lenses are at, I think the only people who peep at any differences in image quality between the lenses are Internet fan boys. People who use these lenses just to make great images whether it be Canon, Nikon or Sony are all happy with the results.
-
After reading more, I conclude that the main change in the f/2.8 v.3 is likely to be in manufacturing process improvements that benefit Canon's bottom line, and that they just threw in new coatings as an excuse to stop the older version's manufacture. My guess is that few current owners of v.2 lenses will bother to upgrade.
The f/4 v.2 does seem to have a big (2+ stops?) improvement in the IS system and better resolution at the edges than its predecessor. This does represent a big enough change that some current v.1 users may upgrade.
-
Personally I haven't heard any Canon folk complain at all about the quality of images the current 70-200 2.8 produces. It's a surprise a new version is being released...guess we'll see what the new coatings does to the images.
At the levels these pro lenses are at, I think the only people who peep at any differences in image quality between the lenses are Internet fan boys. People who use these lenses just to make great images whether it be Canon, Nikon or Sony are all happy with the results.
By that standard we would still be using the very same lenses we we were using 20 years ago.
Canon would not have released new T/S lenses, Nikon would not have released a new 180-400 f4,...
Sony would still be selling us a7r instead of a7r III,...
...the list is endless.
Another point of note is that many Canon users were happy about their 5D2 and 5D3. This hasn’t prevented a major shift towards Sony from all the guys who weren’t happy. Any way you look at it, not being able to match your competitor’s performance on highly critical products has impacts.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
By that standard we would still be using the very same lenses we we were using 20 years ago.
Canon would not have released new T/S lenses, Nikon would not have released a new 180-400 f4,...
Sony would still be selling us a7r instead of a7r III,...
...the list is endless.
Another point of note is that many Canon users were happy about their 5D2 and 5D3. This hasn’t prevented a major shift towards Sony from all the guys who weren’t happy. Any way you look at it, not being able to match your competitor’s performance on highly critical products has impacts.
Cheers,
Bernard
Well it seems like the marketing hypesters at Nikon have got you line hook and sinker. They’ll continue to release new versions, make you feel inadequate with your current version...wash, rinse...repeat. Sometimes one just needs to get off the treadmill and enjoy your gear rather than always feeling inadequate.
Sort of like the dumb dog always trying to catch his own tail.
-
Not sure why you bother commenting on equipment quality if you consider that irrelevant?
Expecting a significant upgrade of a core lens every 10 years is vastly different from being caught in an irresistible upgrade cycle. By the time this lens gets upgraded next we will be using 200 mp sensors and many houses will be equipped with wall sized screens.
Feel free to retire in a cave and rejoy at the sight of shadows on your ceiling.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard: Sometimes it can be nice to use technically imperfect lenses. Sometimes I use 50 year old manual lenses for the pleasing rendering: AIS Nikkors (50 f/1.2, 105 f/2.5), adapted to Canon. And sometimes people accept old lenses as "capable of doing the job" for the level of resolution that they need. I have a much-loved 7-element 400mm f/5.6L no-IS lens that I use for birding, especially freehand bird-in-flight work. I can afford it, the ergonomics are great (1.1 kg, well balanced for APS-C camera), and the image quality is excellent wide open. Yes, I could pay $10,000.00 more and have a better lens. But I am an amateur, and I have fun with the "toy lens" (bird photographer Art Morris' nickname for this Little White supertele lens).
-
Bernard: Sometimes it can be nice to use technically imperfect lenses. Sometimes I use 50 year old manual lenses for the pleasing rendering: AIS Nikkors (50 f/1.2, 105 f/2.5), adapted to Canon. And sometimes people accept old lenses as "capable of doing the job" for the level of resolution that they need. I have a much-loved 7-element 400mm f/5.6L no-IS lens that I use for birding, especially freehand bird-in-flight work. I can afford it, the ergonomics are great (1.1 kg, well balanced for APS-C camera), and the image quality is excellent wide open. Yes, I could pay $10,000.00 more and have a better lens. But I am an amateur, and I have fun with the "toy lens" (bird photographer Art Morris' nickname for this Little White supertele lens).
Yes, certainly.
But the Canon 70-200 f2.8 III cannot at the same time fall in the category of a great lens that hardly needs an update and that of an oldie with a special look, right? ;)
The reality is that it is a very good lens... that would have deserved a real update to stay at the top where it should be.
And I have to confess that I find it hilarious to be called by some a fanboy for stating a fact that Canon users should be the first ones to agree with. ;D
And I don’t remember not wholeheartedly agreeing with the comments made until a few months ago that Nikon had a problem with being behind Canon in terms of 200-400 f4, although that lens is probably 100 times more niche than the 70-200 f2.8, and although the Nikon former lens was obviously already an amazing performer in absolute terms. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well it seems like the marketing hypesters at Nikon have got you line hook and sinker. They’ll continue to release new versions, make you feel inadequate with your current version...wash, rinse...repeat. Sometimes one just needs to get off the treadmill and enjoy your gear rather than always feeling inadequate.
Sort of like the dumb dog always trying to catch his own tail.
Avoid personal insults. They are unnecessary and unhelpful.
Jeremy
-
In the FF lens department Nikon should have made already:
a 50mm f1.4 standard lens that can stand up against Sigma's ( Sigma's lens is about twice the price of the nikon)
a new 24mm PCE lens- being the least of the PCE's and a very important one.
a follow up on the 14-24mm zoom- while still good surpassed by many now.
some very good 12- 18mm wideangles. the last one is from ...?
a 85mm 1.4 lens with stabilisation. (Canon and Tamron f1.8 just made one)
coming back to the new 70-200 from canon..
I think good coatings can make a difference... one of the reasons i like Zeiss lenses very much.
-
Pieter,
Agreed 100% on the Nikon lenses line up shortcomings.
The 14-24 f2.8 in particular occupies a similar positioning to the Canon 70-200 f2.8 II. Still very good but behind the more recent Canon.
If Nikon releases an update with only better coating we’ll know they also are significantly reducing investment in the F mount the same way Canon is reducing investment in the EOS mount.
At the moment they have not shown anything like that, but it could happen.
The other lenses you mention are more niche products and Canon and Nikon have picked different options that please different shooters. I prefer a 105mm f1.4 with great look than a neutral 85mm f1.4 with stabilisation, but I fully understand others may prefer the Canon option.
Coming back to Canon’s actions. It may make perfect sense for them to reduce investment in the EOS mount. They have proven in the past their ability to take bold decisions mount wise. I am just amused by the reaction displayed by some about the historical significance of this (non) release.
My posts in this thread are not saying “Nikon is better than Canon”, they are saying “the fact that Canon isn’t even trying to better Nikon for their 70-200 means they are past EOS”.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My posts in this thread are not saying “Nikon is better than Canon”, they are saying “the fact that Canon isn’t even trying to better Nikon for their 70-200 means they are past EOS”.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi Bernard,
I still think that is too big of a leap. Canon not trying to "better" Nikon on one lens, regardless of how prominent that lens is, does not mean they are "past EOS."
Companies manage a portfolio of products. One input to how individual products are managed is to "better" the competition in one specific aspect (perhaps resolution). But that is not the only one, and is certainly not the final goal. Each product development effort is viewed alone and in the context of other product development opportunities w/ existing practical and financial constraints. Maybe their (perhaps myopic) view is the lens is "good enough", and compared with other product development projects didn't rise to the top of the priority list for a complete redesign. They just completed several new T/S lenses which are EOS and certainly more "niche" than this one.
All it means is they did not deem it important enough to completely overhaul this lens in the context of other development within the EOS line of lenses. You can choose to interpret that as they are "past EOS." Looking at their EOS lens portfolio, the recent development projects completed, and the overall portfolio position, I cannot arrive at that same conclusion.
Dave
-
Hi David,
Canon is of course not going to throw away EOS, but I believe we have a clear sign that it isn’t their top priority any longer.
Until this release my view is that it would have been just unthinkable for them to release such a landmark lens (my bet many see it as one of the best Canon lenses) without it leapfrogging the equivalent Nikon. And a large majority of Canon hardcore followers have been telling us “Canon makes better lenses”. Only admitting a possible Nikon superiority on a given lens as a temporary thing “that’s because the Nikon is newer, Canon is going to better them at the next iteration”.
“Well, Canon is now focusing on their mirrorless line up” is IMHO the obvious message here for an objective observer. And, again, this is probably the right decision for them.
Nikon released the best film camera ever, the F6, years after Canon stopped investing in film. It shouldn’t come as a major surprise that they continue to invest in DSLR lenses after Canon diverted their efforts towards mirrorless. Canon is probably right and Nikon probably wrong.
One doubt this introduces though is whether Canon can catch up or not. The Nikon version of the 70-200 is the best zoom lens ever released, getting incredibly close to the Otus at f2.8 on the D850, meaning that it is a 100mp ready design. My belief is that Canon could do better still, but by deciding not to, they are putting themselves in a slightly uncomfortable position.
Now they have been serving their customers with second tier sensors for years, it seems that they may consider them as being unable to tell apart very good from great and/or that their long term profitability is more important than making sure their users get the best lens money can buy in front of the best sensor driven by the best AF.
Future will tell but I am 99% sure to be right on this one. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Or maybe they figured to maximize profits it would be better to simply adjust the lens coating, get a boost in image quality and continue to sell a ton at the $2,000 mark than spend a bunch of R&D, need to raise the price of the lens to say $2,700 and not sell as much, leaving profit on the table.
Sometimes it’s not a race to see who can out do who...but who can financially thrive. Now tell me who between Canon and Nikon are financially thriving?
-
Or maybe they figured to maximize profits it would be better to simply adjust the lens coating, get a boost in image quality and continue to sell a ton at the $2,000 mark than spend a bunch of R&D, need to raise the price of the lens to say $2,700 and not sell as much, leaving profit on the table.
Sometimes it’s not a race to see who can out do who...but who can financially thrive. Now tell me who between Canon and Nikon are financially thriving?
We agree 100% my friend.
Now, the question that is relevant for me as a photographer is “what brand releases the better photographic tools”, but as an investor I would certainly be a lot more interested in their financial KPIs (although a recent Harvard report praised Nikon too).
This is the first time Canon favors finance over performance on the EOS line.
The reading is all over the wall isn’t it?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
We agree 100% my friend.
Now, the question that is relevant for me as a photographer is “what brand releases the better photographic tools”, but as an investor I would certainly be a lot more interested in their financial KPIs (although a recent Harvard report praised Nikon too).
This is the first time Canon favors finance over performance on the EOS line.
The reading is all over the wall isn’t it?
Cheers,
Bernard
Do you have a shot taken by the Nikon lens which could not have been taken by the Canon lens when printed to say 18x24? After all, that is what counts...not images of test targets pixel peeped at 100%.
-
Do you have a shot taken by the Nikon lens which could not have been taken by the Canon lens when printed to say 18x24? After all, that is what counts...not images of test targets pixel peeped at 100%.
Again, has Canon built it’s fame on good enough?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Too much is being made of the release of the two 70-200 lenses.
Canon's problem area is the sensor, not the lenses. Canon has been producing specialty lenses recently - the three upgrades of tilt-shift 50, 90, 120 mm; 11-24 mm.
I will worry about a lens' performance on 100MP sensors when I buy a 100MP camera. Now, I have no intention of buying any of these lenses, but if I were to buy a 70-200 f/2.8, possibly the $700.00 difference in price might be a consideration? There's always a trade-off, cost vs units sold, cost vs amount of incremental improvement (and photographers' desire for said incremental improvement). Who buys 70-200 f/2.8 lenses? PJ / action photographers come to mind.
-
Who buys 70-200 f/2.8 lenses? PJ / action photographers come to mind.
Wedding, event,...
This lens belongs to the bag of 100% of the pro photographers I know.
There is a reason why it is the most often updated pro lens in the line ups of both Canon and Nikon.
Nikon is at the 7th iteration of this lens since AF started (https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/80-200mm-history.htm), spanning over 30 years, which is nearly one update every 4 years.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Wedding, event,...
This lens belongs to the bag of 100% of the pro photographers I know.
There is a reason why it is the most often updated pro lens in the line ups of both Canon and Nikon.
Nikon is at the 7th iteration of this lens since AF started (https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/80-200mm-history.htm), spanning over 30 years, which is nearly one update every 4 years.
Cheers,
Bernard
Canon is a bit more conservative/paused regarding lens upgrades. The MKII is from 2010, as I mentioned earlier. I think that they chose not to "best" the latest Nikon release simply because of market price concerns: perhaps to "best" Nikon's latest and greatest, the lens would come out at nearly EUR 3,000 (similar to latest Sony FE 70-200 GM); the latter is supposed to cater for 100 mp sensors (as all GM lenses do).
The truth is, over the last c. 40 years, the 2 companies have tracked each other, sometimes one is up in a particular product, sometimes not. Nikon had to release a really good 70-200 f2.8 lens because Canon's release from 2017 was the one to beat.
-
Canon is a bit more conservative/paused regarding lens upgrades. The MKII is from 2010, as I mentioned earlier. I think that they chose not to "best" the latest Nikon release simply because of market price concerns: perhaps to "best" Nikon's latest and greatest, the lens would come out at nearly EUR 3,000 (similar to latest Sony FE 70-200 GM); the latter is supposed to cater for 100 mp sensors (as all GM lenses do).
The truth is, over the last c. 40 years, the 2 companies have tracked each other, sometimes one is up in a particular product, sometimes not. Nikon had to release a really good 70-200 f2.8 lens because Canon's release from 2017 was the one to beat.
Indeed. Doesn’t all that make the lack of progress of the III after 8 years all the more telling?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard, you keep posting about the new lenses not being better than Nikon’s... how do you know? Were they tested already?
-
Bernard, you keep posting about the new lenses not being better than Nikon’s... how do you know? Were they tested already?
No, they were not tested, but Canon is telling us that they didn't change a thing beside coating... and the II was clearly behind.
Considering the usual abilities of Canon to boast about the strengths of their equipment, do you seriously expect them not to tell us that they have improved the optical quality of the lens although they secretly did?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... the II clearly behind...
Show me.
(Asking kindly, in a friendly manner)
-
Show me.
(Asking kindly, in a friendly manner)
Hi Slobodan,
I remember several articles clearly mentioning the superiority of the E FL lens. I believe one was at DPreview.
I am sure you'll be able to find them if you are interested in these.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Isn't which lens is best really relative to what you shoot ?
I shoot people with the original Canon 70-200 2.8 and I've never had a client comment that their images weren't sharp. It's perfect for the standard model head shot, full length or anywhere in between when the model (not what they're wearing) is the subject. As a reference when testing the newer version (the II) Roger Cicala at lensrentals commented that the original was a lens that would never disappoint anyone.
I'll buy the Sony FE 70-200 GM soon to pair with the A7RIII in the studio with one of my Broncolor Paras / Mola Seti /Mola Rayo on a 19 year old with flawless skin who's make up artist is standing just outside the shot ready to correct the most minor flaw in her makeup. We'll be selling the clothes, jewelry etc.
Nikon's got a great lens I'm sure but it has to be right for what you are shooting and it's exceptional test numbers simply do not mean it's the best for everyone or every thing.
Canon's update to the new coatings is in my opinion a reasonable update that has nothing to do with the EOS mount being dated or other developments being ignored or deemed unneeded. It' an incremental update that will be right for someone.
-
I owned the 70-200mm Canon for many years and it was great - for people photography. Some years ago we bought the Mk11 and it was a great improvement - a fantastic lens (though my wife uses it more than me as I prefer lighter lenses). I cannot even be bothered to try the new Mk111 version. Why would I - the Mk11 is fine for my work as a full-time professional photographer. If I needed a new one - fine, I would buy the latest and I'm sure it would be great too.
I really have no interest as a professional in what Nikon or Sony are doing - unless they were offering something that would make me change the way I work.
If I was starting from scratch it might be different, but the way things are I could carry on with professional photography using my equipment for many years yet without a need to upgrade anything. Newest and latest gear is a luxury for most professional photographers.
Jim
-
With the greatest respect to all there is an extraordinary amount of misinformation in this thread about these two new lenses.
See:
DPReview Canon launches updated EF 70-200mm F4L IS II (https://www.dpreview.com/news/7158989865/canon-launches-updated-ef-70-200mm-f4l-is-ii) and
DPReview Canon unveils Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS III USM for professional photographers (https://www.dpreview.com/news/8807947291/canon-unveils-canon-ef-70-200mm-f2-8l-is-iii-usm-for-professional-photographers)
It's probably better to be aware of all the facts before making comment !
;D
-
This thread has only been about the f2.8 version, focusing on the fact that Canon has only improved the coatings without changing the optical formula, AF or IS.
I think it is a sign that Canon is focusing their engineering resouces on upcoming mirrorless products, others don’t and some wonder why Canon needs to improve a very good lens that is serving well pros.
Could you please indicate was wasn’t factual?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
.. there is an extraordinary amount of misinformation in this thread about these two new lenses...
No, there isn’t.
(Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur)
-
By the way, Bernard, I found a perfect t-shirt for you, the famous Nikon warrior you: :)
-
(Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur)
I'd not come across that quotation before, Slobodan. It's pithily put. Thank you.
Jeremy
-
By the way, Bernard, I found a perfect t-shirt for you, the famous Nikon warrior: :)
As long as he uses his camera anything works for me. ;)
Btw, what do you think about the rather pathetic announcement by Nikon of a 500mm f5.6 PF? My view is that they may be late with their mirrorless solution and decided to occupy some media space with a non announcement of a lens nobody expected them to release anyway...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As long as he uses his camera anything works for me. ;)
Btw, what do you think about the rather pathetic announcement by Nikon of a 500mm f5.6 PF? My view is that they may be late with their mirrorless solution and decided to occupy some media space with a non announcement of a lens nobody expected them to release anyway...
Cheers,
Bernard
Sure sign Nikon is abondoning their existing DSLR system and focusing on their mirror less offering.
-
Sure sign Nikon is abondoning their existing DSLR system and focusing on their mirror less offering.
Funny, I was expecting you to write the exact opposite. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Funny, I was expecting you to write the exact opposite. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Same logic...tables turned.
-
This (the f/2.8) is more an update of an existing lens than a new model - same lens, new coating. They may also have retooled the manufacturing process for greater precision and better final performance - we don't know one way or the other, yet it's one of the things that manufacturers are constantly doing, and, in lenses, can greatly increase the optical quality (bringing it closer to the 'ideal' calculated performance) without changing the on-paper design one bit. Kind of like a 'stealth' upgrade - don't change the underlying design, but tweak the manufacturing so that it more closely follows that ideal design (smoothness of elements, grind accuracy, tolerances, etc.) And you end up with a much better final product, with little design work needed. Also note the lack of a new-model price associated with it. Just that Canon needs to call it the Mk III, rather than continuing to call it the Mk II, otherwise there would be major confusion out there regarding warranties, replacement/repair, not to mention the second-hand market (although the last one is obviously of little concern to Canon).
Likely Canon's next original 70-200 f/2.8 design will be for mirrorless - that's where their optical and electro-mechanical design work is going, and there's every chance the new coatings and other processes being added to the Mk III will also show up in the new lens. Canon knows that mirrorless is coming, is preparing for it sensor-wise (with emphasis on development of dual-pixel AF and the like) and that, for a successful launch, they'll need to have a high-end f/2.8 zoom trinity ready from the start, with the core primes not far behind - unlike Sony several years ago, they won't have the luxury of launching it into empty space, but will be in contested territory from the get-go and won't be able to launch the core lenses, one at a time, over several years, like Sony did. If it comes to that and the sensor and body are ready before the lenses, they may even have to delay launching the body until the lenses are ready - better to launch a fully-capable system from the start than to launch a half-ready system and gradually add the basic, core capabilities over the next few years.
-
Same logic...tables turned.
Great, so you do agree with my hypothesis that Canon is desinvesting from EOS then? Because I do agree with yours that Nikon is desinvesting from F mount.
Not only do I agree, I am going further and stating that on top of that I think they are late with their mirrorless progress.
That’s the reason why I was a bit surprised by your comment. It seems to be 180 deg away from your previous ones.
Now, Nikon is at least managing to expand the enveloppe here though, as I am sure you will agree also. We don’t know when it’s going to be released, but judging from the outstanding image quality of my 300mm f4 PF, this lens on the D500 will do a killing among bird shooters, plane spotters,...
They are likely to sell a ton of these.
I have shot jets with my D5+400f2.8 and TC 1.4 and it is a serious challenge to track accurately at close range while maintaining proper framing. This lens will make a huge difference and allow a much higher success ratio thanks to a much lower weight.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Great, so you do agree with my hypothesis that Canon is desinvesting from EOS then? Because I do agree with yours that Nikon is desinvesting from F mount.
Not only do I agree, I am going further and stating that on top of that I think they are late with their mirrorless progress.
That’s the reason why I was a bit surprised by your comment. It seems to be 180 deg away from your previous ones.
Now, Nikon is at least managing to expand the enveloppe here though, as I am sure you will agree also. We don’t know when it’s going to be released, but judging from the outstanding image quality of my 300mm f4 PF, this lens on the D500 will do a killing among bird shooters, plane spotters,...
They are likely to sell a ton of these.
I have shot jets with my D5+400f2.8 and TC 1.4 and it is a serious challenge to track accurately at close range while maintaining proper framing. This lens will make a huge difference and allow a much higher success ratio thanks to a much lower weight.
Cheers,
Bernard
No I don't agree with you...the tables that I talk about are turned on you...
Canon has released I believe 5 lenses in 2017...that is far from dead in my opinion. Yes mirror less is the future, but both Canon and Nikon are smart enough to know where their bread and butter come from and I don't believe will alienate their DSLR base.
Now Nikon is in a different position as they see their market share dropping every year, being eaten up by Canon so Nikon might be in a more desperate situation as staying status quo is a losing game. I'm sure Canon is salivating at the thought of Nikon abandoning their DSLR system and welcoming the flock of Nikon DSLR shooters over to Canon. ;D
-
Canon has released I believe 5 lenses in 2017...that is far from dead in my opinion. Yes mirror less is the future, but both Canon and Nikon are smart enough to know where their bread and butter come from and I don't believe will alienate their DSLR base.
True, but 3 of these are T/S lenses that will still be usable on mirrorless, right?
The point has never been to drop their DSLR mount, but whether they continue to invest in it massively or not.
Now Nikon is in a different position as they see their market share dropping every year, being eaten up by Canon so Nikon might be in a more desperate situation as staying status quo is a losing game. I'm sure Canon is salivating at the thought of Nikon abandoning their DSLR system and welcoming the flock of Nikon DSLR shooters over to Canon. ;D
I think it is the opposite in the high end we are talking about here.
Nikon has mostly been losing in the lower end and gaining in the high end. Or at least losing less than Canon.
But if a desperate Nikon means better lenses for photographers, I am all for it!
I think we are pretty much done here.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am curious to see the rumored EF 600 f/4 "DO" (the Canon term for their fresnel elements, = "PF"). The EF 400 f/4 DO v. II is very sharp, has sold well, highly popular among birders in the market for expensive (> 2K USD) lenses - I think it costs between 4.5 to 5K USD. Youbetcha birders would be all over a 600 f/4 DO/PF. Of course, the rumors started around 2015, so who knows. Sometimes things that work decently in prototype are too expensive to manufacture at the desired price point.
All this about mirrorless - I don't believe that mirrorless will replace DSLR - I think that both will thrive.
-
Ok, wanna-be MBAs, let’s go back to some technical aspects. The new f/4 apparently has a third IS mode, for moving subjects!? How does that work?
-
... The new f/4 apparently has a third IS mode, for moving subjects!? How does that work?
Anyone!?
-
No direct experience but you can read about IS mode 3 used in previous Canon lenses in this article
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx
-
No direct experience but you can read about IS mode 3 used in previous Canon lenses in this article
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx
Got it, thanks!
-
No direct experience but you can read about IS mode 3 used in previous Canon lenses in this article
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx
This has to be one of the best lens reviews I have ever read.
-
When the new MkIII was announced I was thinking that this is a lens I don't need to buy, and at that point I didn't know that it was just a upgrade of the coating. I thought it was a full new lens that was going to be the best thing ever in the world. The MarkII is so good, even on a 50M body, that in real images I suspected the main difference I would se was in my bank account and on the MTF charts on the web. ;)
So as a Canon customer I'm happy that they did't invest to much in a new 70-200, but instead have used their resources on new lenses like the TS-E 50, 90 and 135.
Ronny