70-200 f/2.8 III Teardown by Roger Cicala

Started Aug 30, 2018 | Discussions
MarshallG
MarshallG Veteran Member • Posts: 8,305
70-200 f/2.8 III Teardown by Roger Cicala
6

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/08/lens-teardowns-and-comparisons-of-the-canon-70-200mm-f2-8-is-ii-and-iii/

Summary:
1) Construction of version II and III is identical
2) The only difference between versions II and III are a slightly different paint color and a change to a fluorine coating on version III. Roger believes the fluorine coating on the III lens is easily scratched or marred, requiring front element replacement. He recommends the version II over the III for this reason. He also recommends a lens filter if you have a Canon lens with the fluorine coatings, such as the 24-70 f/2.8 II.
3) This part was a little vague, but he seemed to say that transporting the lens with the IS turned OFF can potentially cause damage of some plastic posts within the stabilizer assembly.

Once again, Roger and Lens Rentals prove to be a valuable and wonderful resource to the photography community. Thank you, Roger!

 MarshallG's gear list:MarshallG's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM Canon Extender EF 1.4x II +3 more
BirdShooter7 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,804
Re: 70-200 f/2.8 III Teardown by Roger Cicala

Thanks for the heads up, sort of tempers my enthusiasm about the rumored 400 III and 600 III.

-- hide signature --

Some of my bird photos can be viewed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gregsbirds/

RCicala
RCicala Contributing Member • Posts: 796
Re: 70-200 f/2.8 III Teardown by Roger Cicala
4

MarshallG wrote:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/08/lens-teardowns-and-comparisons-of-the-canon-70-200mm-f2-8-is-ii-and-iii/

Summary:
1) Construction of version II and III is identical
2) The only difference between versions II and III are a slightly different paint color and a change to a fluorine coating on version III. Roger believes the fluorine coating on the III lens is easily scratched or marred, requiring front element replacement. He recommends the version II over the III for this reason. He also recommends a lens filter if you have a Canon lens with the fluorine coatings, such as the 24-70 f/2.8 II.
3) This part was a little vague, but he seemed to say that transporting the lens with the IS turned OFF can potentially cause damage of some plastic posts within the stabilizer assembly.

Once again, Roger and Lens Rentals prove to be a valuable and wonderful resource to the photography community. Thank you, Roger!

I wrote that poorly. You SHOULD transport with IS turned off - but you have to turn it off while mounted to a camera to lock the IS unit down.

hotdog321
hotdog321 Forum Pro • Posts: 21,090
Re: 70-200 f/2.8 III Teardown by Roger Cicala

RCicala wrote:

MarshallG wrote:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/08/lens-teardowns-and-comparisons-of-the-canon-70-200mm-f2-8-is-ii-and-iii/

Summary:
1) Construction of version II and III is identical
2) The only difference between versions II and III are a slightly different paint color and a change to a fluorine coating on version III. Roger believes the fluorine coating on the III lens is easily scratched or marred, requiring front element replacement. He recommends the version II over the III for this reason. He also recommends a lens filter if you have a Canon lens with the fluorine coatings, such as the 24-70 f/2.8 II.
3) This part was a little vague, but he seemed to say that transporting the lens with the IS turned OFF can potentially cause damage of some plastic posts within the stabilizer assembly.

Once again, Roger and Lens Rentals prove to be a valuable and wonderful resource to the photography community. Thank you, Roger!

I wrote that poorly. You SHOULD transport with IS turned off - but you have to turn it off while mounted to a camera to lock the IS unit down.

Should the IS on the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II also be turned off? This is the first time I've heard of this issue--I just leave mine on all the time and haven't had a problem.

It really sounds like the version III is kind of a dud. I saw the slight improvement in resistance to flare over the II, but if that is at the expense of a delicate front element, I'd take a hard pass on this new lens.

-- hide signature --
 hotdog321's gear list:hotdog321's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +3 more
MarshallG
OP MarshallG Veteran Member • Posts: 8,305
Re: 70-200 f/2.8 III Teardown by Roger Cicala

hotdog321 wrote:

RCicala wrote:

I wrote that poorly. You SHOULD transport with IS turned off - but you have to turn it off while mounted to a camera to lock the IS unit down.

Should the IS on the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II also be turned off? This is the first time I've heard of this issue--I just leave mine on all the time and haven't had a problem.

It really sounds like the version III is kind of a dud. I saw the slight improvement in resistance to flare over the II, but if that is at the expense of a delicate front element, I'd take a hard pass on this new lens.

The answer to your first question is definitely YES. Roger said the IS mechanisms (and all internals) are identical. I never heard this before either, but Roger is definitely and expert at these things.

As to your second point, I woudn't call Version III a dud, but trading in a Version II for a Version III makes no sense. It's an extremely minor upgrade, and in some respects, Roger thinks it's a down-grade.

 MarshallG's gear list:MarshallG's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM Canon Extender EF 1.4x II +3 more
hotdog321
hotdog321 Forum Pro • Posts: 21,090
Re: 70-200 f/2.8 III Teardown by Roger Cicala

MarshallG wrote:

hotdog321 wrote:

RCicala wrote:

I wrote that poorly. You SHOULD transport with IS turned off - but you have to turn it off while mounted to a camera to lock the IS unit down.

Should the IS on the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II also be turned off? This is the first time I've heard of this issue--I just leave mine on all the time and haven't had a problem.

It really sounds like the version III is kind of a dud. I saw the slight improvement in resistance to flare over the II, but if that is at the expense of a delicate front element, I'd take a hard pass on this new lens.

The answer to your first question is definitely YES. Roger said the IS mechanisms (and all internals) are identical. I never heard this before either, but Roger is definitely and expert at these things.

As to your second point, I woudn't call Version III a dud, but trading in a Version II for a Version III makes no sense. It's an extremely minor upgrade, and in some respects, Roger thinks it's a down-grade.

Thanks for the input! Huh, I've been in the business forever and rarely does a day pass that I don't learn something new.

Oh, I never considered upgrading to the III from the II, but I wonder if a newcomer wouldn't be better off buying a II.

-- hide signature --
 hotdog321's gear list:hotdog321's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +3 more
dgumshu
dgumshu Veteran Member • Posts: 4,601
Re: 70-200 f/2.8 III Teardown by Roger Cicala

hotdog321 wrote:

MarshallG wrote:

hotdog321 wrote:

RCicala wrote:

I wrote that poorly. You SHOULD transport with IS turned off - but you have to turn it off while mounted to a camera to lock the IS unit down.

Should the IS on the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II also be turned off? This is the first time I've heard of this issue--I just leave mine on all the time and haven't had a problem.

It really sounds like the version III is kind of a dud. I saw the slight improvement in resistance to flare over the II, but if that is at the expense of a delicate front element, I'd take a hard pass on this new lens.

The answer to your first question is definitely YES. Roger said the IS mechanisms (and all internals) are identical. I never heard this before either, but Roger is definitely and expert at these things.

As to your second point, I woudn't call Version III a dud, but trading in a Version II for a Version III makes no sense. It's an extremely minor upgrade, and in some respects, Roger thinks it's a down-grade.

Thanks for the input! Huh, I've been in the business forever and rarely does a day pass that I don't learn something new.

Oh, I never considered upgrading to the III from the II, but I wonder if a newcomer wouldn't be better off buying a II.

That’s good to know.  Never even thought about it.

Looks like my ll is good until at least the next release.  I’m good with that.

 dgumshu's gear list:dgumshu's gear list
Canon EOS-1D X Canon EOS 5DS R Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Fujifilm X-T3 Canon EOS R5 +52 more
hotdog321
hotdog321 Forum Pro • Posts: 21,090
Re: 70-200 f/2.8 III Teardown by Roger Cicala
1

dgumshu wrote:

hotdog321 wrote:

MarshallG wrote:

hotdog321 wrote:

RCicala wrote:

I wrote that poorly. You SHOULD transport with IS turned off - but you have to turn it off while mounted to a camera to lock the IS unit down.

Should the IS on the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II also be turned off? This is the first time I've heard of this issue--I just leave mine on all the time and haven't had a problem.

It really sounds like the version III is kind of a dud. I saw the slight improvement in resistance to flare over the II, but if that is at the expense of a delicate front element, I'd take a hard pass on this new lens.

The answer to your first question is definitely YES. Roger said the IS mechanisms (and all internals) are identical. I never heard this before either, but Roger is definitely and expert at these things.

As to your second point, I woudn't call Version III a dud, but trading in a Version II for a Version III makes no sense. It's an extremely minor upgrade, and in some respects, Roger thinks it's a down-grade.

Thanks for the input! Huh, I've been in the business forever and rarely does a day pass that I don't learn something new.

Oh, I never considered upgrading to the III from the II, but I wonder if a newcomer wouldn't be better off buying a II.

That’s good to know. Never even thought about it.

Looks like my ll is good until at least the next release. I’m good with that.

As I said when Canon announced a new, improved 70-200 f/2.8L IS II--I really didn't see how this lens could be realistically improved. It's just that good. Unless Canon can somehow make this beast lighter, I'll probably be buried with mine.

-- hide signature --
 hotdog321's gear list:hotdog321's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +3 more
herion
herion Contributing Member • Posts: 755
Re: 70-200 f/2.8 III Teardown by Roger Cicala
1

RCicala wrote:

MarshallG wrote:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/08/lens-teardowns-and-comparisons-of-the-canon-70-200mm-f2-8-is-ii-and-iii/

Summary:
1) Construction of version II and III is identical
2) The only difference between versions II and III are a slightly different paint color and a change to a fluorine coating on version III. Roger believes the fluorine coating on the III lens is easily scratched or marred, requiring front element replacement. He recommends the version II over the III for this reason. He also recommends a lens filter if you have a Canon lens with the fluorine coatings, such as the 24-70 f/2.8 II.
3) This part was a little vague, but he seemed to say that transporting the lens with the IS turned OFF can potentially cause damage of some plastic posts within the stabilizer assembly.

Once again, Roger and Lens Rentals prove to be a valuable and wonderful resource to the photography community. Thank you, Roger!

I wrote that poorly. You SHOULD transport with IS turned off - but you have to turn it off while mounted to a camera to lock the IS unit down.

Roger - would that be the best practice for *ANY* Canon lens with IS? Turn off IS, then remove from camera?

 herion's gear list:herion's gear list
Canon EOS 30D Canon EOS 40D Canon EF-S 10-18mm F4.5–5.6 IS STM Tamron SP 45mm F1.8 Di VC USD Tamron SP 85mm F1.8 Di VC USD +2 more
robert614 Senior Member • Posts: 1,744
Version III mainly for upcoming mirrorless?

BirdShooter7 wrote:

Thanks for the heads up, sort of tempers my enthusiasm about the rumored 400 III and 600 III.

Although I have no hard evidence, I’m starting to believe the 70-200mm f/2.8 III was released mainly to work better with the upcoming Canon mirrorless camera. Perhaps the AF algorithms were updated to work better with a mirrorless camera’s AF system.

The reason I say this is because a very similar thing happened when Sony released it’s own SAL70200g2 in A-mount.Looking at the specs, the optical formula was identical to the older version. The only difference was new AR coatings and faster AF.

This was the same time Sony was releasing the Sony A7. The first full frame mirrorless camera. And of course, Sony faced the same problem Nikon is facing now, lack of native lenses at launch.

So what did Sony do? They dropped the NEX name and reorganized both A-mount and E-mount under the same umbrella name: Sony Alpha. This unabled them to have big glossy brochures showing the A7 with all the A-mount lenses saying, look at all the lenses you can use with this camera. With an asterisk next to it (via adapter).

Basically a stop gap measure until Sony could fill out it’s native E-mount lens line.

I believe Canon may be doing the same thing with the 70-200mm f/2.8 III. Unfortunately, I am starting to think the rumored 600mm f/4 III might be just like the 70-200mm f/2.8 III.

It’s doubtful either of these lenses will be in an initial Canon mirrorless launch. These two lenses are staples for photogs shooting the upcoming Olympics. I think the version III’s will act as a stop gap until Canon can come out with native mirrorless versions.

Of course this is all speculation on my part. But it makes sense to me on why the version III is so similar to the version II.

RCicala
RCicala Contributing Member • Posts: 796
Re: 70-200 f/2.8 III Teardown by Roger Cicala
2

herion wrote:

RCicala wrote:

MarshallG wrote:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/08/lens-teardowns-and-comparisons-of-the-canon-70-200mm-f2-8-is-ii-and-iii/

Summary:
1) Construction of version II and III is identical
2) The only difference between versions II and III are a slightly different paint color and a change to a fluorine coating on version III. Roger believes the fluorine coating on the III lens is easily scratched or marred, requiring front element replacement. He recommends the version II over the III for this reason. He also recommends a lens filter if you have a Canon lens with the fluorine coatings, such as the 24-70 f/2.8 II.
3) This part was a little vague, but he seemed to say that transporting the lens with the IS turned OFF can potentially cause damage of some plastic posts within the stabilizer assembly.

Once again, Roger and Lens Rentals prove to be a valuable and wonderful resource to the photography community. Thank you, Roger!

I wrote that poorly. You SHOULD transport with IS turned off - but you have to turn it off while mounted to a camera to lock the IS unit down.

Roger - would that be the best practice for *ANY* Canon lens with IS? Turn off IS, then remove from camera?

Yes. We do it with every one. The most obvious 'rattlers' are the 70-200 f/2.8 and 100mm f/2.8 IS, but it's good practice. We think it's so important that it's checked twice: once when it returns from rental, and as the last check again before it's packed for it's next shipping.

That being said, damage to the IS isn't frequent even if it's left off (for example, most customers ship them back unlocked), perhaps 1 in 1,000 shipments, maybe less. But for us that can mean several broken IS units a month.

dgumshu
dgumshu Veteran Member • Posts: 4,601
Re: 70-200 f/2.8 III Teardown by Roger Cicala

Roger,

There  is a comment about the Flourine Coating.  Does the ease of marring and scratching  pertain to any Flourine Coating (as in 500 F 4 ll) or is the coating on the 70-200 lll more susceptible for some reason... as in softer?

 dgumshu's gear list:dgumshu's gear list
Canon EOS-1D X Canon EOS 5DS R Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Fujifilm X-T3 Canon EOS R5 +52 more
pauljames34 Regular Member • Posts: 407
Re: 70-200 f/2.8 III Teardown by Roger Cicala

Thanks for doing this Roger.

The kid in me has a VERY VERY strong urge to take my II to pieces to see the reality behind the magic that this lens can produce, but is thankfully sated now!

 pauljames34's gear list:pauljames34's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM +5 more
TyphoonTW
TyphoonTW Senior Member • Posts: 1,484
Best upgrade ever

I've owned the 70-200 mkII for a bit less than one year. When the mkIII showed up, I was a bit worried; what if the 70-200 f2.8 III compared to the mkII in the same way the 35 f1.4 II compares to its mkI ? In the case of those primes the difference in image quality is huge and the second hand prices of the mkI took a massive hit.

Luckily the new mkIII zoom is basically identical to the old one, dodged a bullet there.

-- hide signature --

This is where I write stuff: http://randomibis.wordpress.com/
This is where I upload stuff: http://www.flickr.com/photos/107755637@N06/

 TyphoonTW's gear list:TyphoonTW's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM +2 more
Dave
Dave Veteran Member • Posts: 6,035
Re: 70-200 f/2.8 III Teardown by Roger Cicala

RCicala wrote:

herion wrote:

RCicala wrote:

MarshallG wrote:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/08/lens-teardowns-and-comparisons-of-the-canon-70-200mm-f2-8-is-ii-and-iii/

Summary:
1) Construction of version II and III is identical
2) The only difference between versions II and III are a slightly different paint color and a change to a fluorine coating on version III. Roger believes the fluorine coating on the III lens is easily scratched or marred, requiring front element replacement. He recommends the version II over the III for this reason. He also recommends a lens filter if you have a Canon lens with the fluorine coatings, such as the 24-70 f/2.8 II.
3) This part was a little vague, but he seemed to say that transporting the lens with the IS turned OFF can potentially cause damage of some plastic posts within the stabilizer assembly.

Once again, Roger and Lens Rentals prove to be a valuable and wonderful resource to the photography community. Thank you, Roger!

I wrote that poorly. You SHOULD transport with IS turned off - but you have to turn it off while mounted to a camera to lock the IS unit down.

Roger - would that be the best practice for *ANY* Canon lens with IS? Turn off IS, then remove from camera?

Yes. We do it with every one. The most obvious 'rattlers' are the 70-200 f/2.8 and 100mm f/2.8 IS, but it's good practice. We think it's so important that it's checked twice: once when it returns from rental, and as the last check again before it's packed for it's next shipping.

That being said, damage to the IS isn't frequent even if it's left off (for example, most customers ship them back unlocked), perhaps 1 in 1,000 shipments, maybe less. But for us that can mean several broken IS units a month.

I have the 100mm and have noticed it rattling.  It's easy for me to forget to deactivate the IS (and to turn it back on again).  I may need to apply a reminder label to its hood.

 Dave's gear list:Dave's gear list
Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM +10 more
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 1,388
Re: 70-200 f/2.8 III Teardown by Roger Cicala
1

MarshallG wrote:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/08/lens-teardowns-and-comparisons-of-the-canon-70-200mm-f2-8-is-ii-and-iii/

Summary:
1) Construction of version II and III is identical
2) The only difference between versions II and III are a slightly different paint color and a change to a fluorine coating on version III. Roger believes the fluorine coating on the III lens is easily scratched or marred, requiring front element replacement. He recommends the version II over the III for this reason. He also recommends a lens filter if you have a Canon lens with the fluorine coatings, such as the 24-70 f/2.8 II.
3) This part was a little vague, but he seemed to say that transporting the lens with the IS turned OFF can potentially cause damage of some plastic posts within the stabilizer assembly.

Once again, Roger and Lens Rentals prove to be a valuable and wonderful resource to the photography community. Thank you, Roger!

Canon claims it has this ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QybABne4HO8

That might not be Tennessee Beach-front property ?

Mike Aronis New Member • Posts: 6
Re: 70-200 f/2.8 III Teardown by Roger Cicala

That is a very interesting question.

Tell me is having the CAMERA turned off enough?

My understanding is the IS switch is just an electrical switch and not a mechanical inner mechanism moving switch. So if power is OFF at the camera is the IS also OFF on the lens? Thus just turning off the camera should do the same thing?

Mike

 Mike Aronis's gear list:Mike Aronis's gear list
Canon EOS 10D Canon EOS 500D Canon EOS-1D X Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM +8 more
MarshallG
OP MarshallG Veteran Member • Posts: 8,305
Re: 70-200 f/2.8 III Teardown by Roger Cicala

Mike Aronis wrote:

That is a very interesting question.

Tell me is having the CAMERA turned off enough?

My understanding is the IS switch is just an electrical switch and not a mechanical inner mechanism moving switch. So if power is OFF at the camera is the IS also OFF on the lens? Thus just turning off the camera should do the same thing?

Mike

Roger’s company, LensRentals.com, owns over a thousand 70-200 f/2.8 lenses and ships them constantly. Shipping with IS ON has occasionally lead to damage in shipping. What Roger says is that turning IS OFF while the lens is attached to a powered camera will “park” or lock the IS assembly, making an already highly-durable lens even less susceptible to shipping damage.

We own one or two such lenses, and rarely ship them. So does this matter? Probably not, but it’s nice to know.

 MarshallG's gear list:MarshallG's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM Canon Extender EF 1.4x II +3 more
pauljames34 Regular Member • Posts: 407
Re: 70-200 f/2.8 III Teardown by Roger Cicala

MarshallG wrote:

We own one or two such lenses, and rarely ship them. So does this matter? Probably not, but it’s nice to know.

I am questioning now if I shouldn't switch the IS off before I switch off the camera as a matter of course, given that the camera and lens are bumping around on my back when I'm not using them...

Be interesting to know what G force would cause the plastic posts to snap and if that could come from a hard knock.

 pauljames34's gear list:pauljames34's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM +5 more
MarshallG
OP MarshallG Veteran Member • Posts: 8,305
Re: 70-200 f/2.8 III Teardown by Roger Cicala

pauljames34 wrote:

MarshallG wrote:

We own one or two such lenses, and rarely ship them. So does this matter? Probably not, but it’s nice to know.

I am questioning now if I shouldn't switch the IS off before I switch off the camera as a matter of course, given that the camera and lens are bumping around on my back when I'm not using them...

Be interesting to know what G force would cause the plastic posts to snap and if that could come from a hard knock.

No need to be obsessive, that’s what I think.

 MarshallG's gear list:MarshallG's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM Canon Extender EF 1.4x II +3 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads