Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L Non-IS to Be Discontinued in 2013 [CR2]

[Halfrack]

The big reason for the non-IS 2.8 is I can use a 1.4x tele + 2x tele and still have fun.  I love mine and while it's not sealed as I would like, it's $1k less than the other option... 

[cayenne]

The lens is not cheap and most prefer the IS version.

Maybe a new version will be released at a higher price.

You know, when I read this...my first thought was...why do they even have this anyway?

I just got a new 70-200 f/2.2 IS L.....I was looking at these various version of them. I've pretty much resigned myself t not buy ANY more lenses that are slower than 2.8...so, that left out the f/4 one.

Then, I was just trying to figure why I'd want the non-IS when the IS is available?  That makes it the most flexible of them all, right?  I can shoot fast as the situation warrants, but then I also have IS to help later..maybe shooting a concert, or a wedding or something...?

[MrFotoFool]

There is a market for this lens - people like me.  When the autofocus failed this summer on my Sigma 100-300 f4 and two repair places and Sigma all said it is too old to fix, I had to go for the Canon 70-200 2.8 as replacement.  No way I could afford the IS version, so I got this one (which I really could not afford either, but I need it).  I need the 2.8 for the shallower depth of field (often I combine with 1.4 extender which puts me back at f4).  After my experience with Sigma, I would not feel comfortable replacing it with an aftermarket lens.  But if this lens were not available, that would be my only choice.  So Canon will lose a few sales to people like me, but I guess there are not enough of us to worry about.

As for used lens prices going down, I think not.  Even the old original (black) 80-200 2.8 sells for 800 bucks, and that has the slow AFD autofocus and does not take extenders.  These lenses hold their value and the discontinuation of the new option will make used versions even more sought after.

[Harry Muff]

Well, it's been around for a while. I've had mine 17 years. 

[azezal]

Great
there goes another affordable lens

[Pixelsign]

well done canon, well done! this lens is a great, cheap alternative to the very pricy IS II version. and now it is to be discontinued. what are they thinking? maybe "let's give tamron with their new 70-200 2.8 vc an even better chance to hit the market very successfully"?! well, i hope this will be the case.

[ddashti]

With the big price difference between this lens and the IS II one, you'd think they'd keep it in the market.

[Chuck Alaimo]

sad to see this, but -- happy that I have one already.  I got mine (used) right before the released the ISvII.  As I am really just getting rolling with my business, I don't quite have the equipment budget/cash flow (this was especially so when I bought that lens) so I am often making compromises.  I thought long and hard about whether  to go with the 2.8 IS, 2.8, or 4 IS.  After lots of reading, I didn't see many saying that the v1 IS was much sharper than the non-IS, so it was really a question of how much do I want IS, is IS worth the extra $800.  At that time, yeah the difference in $$$ made my decision for me - so I went with the non-IS version.  I love that lens!  But, now that the v2 IS is out there, and yes it is sharper than the non IS I have been thinking of how many more keepers I'd get/different ways to use the lens I'd have if i had IS.  Here's to hoping the value of the non-IS doesn't plummet!

[workpost]

This lens has been rumored to be discontinued before, it remains to be seen whether Canon will actually stop producing it. If so, it's a shame because it's an amazing lens that has still has a place between the relatively affordable L lenses and the upper-tier "unattainable" L lenses. I was able to buy one new for $1250 not so long ago -- a lot of money for a lens but much less than it would cost to get the IS II version. Maybe one day I'll spring for that but, until then, I am extremely impressed by the sharpness and quality of the images the 70-200 f2.8 L is capable of producing. I still believe there are lots of people who might hesitate to buy the IS II for more than 2k but would be willing to purchase the old version for (roughly) 1k. I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens but I would not worry about the value of the 70-200 f2.8 L plummeting, a lens this good may even rise in value once they are no longer being manufactured.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I suspect its a simple matter of the cost of production versus the number sold.  I bought a nice used one from the original owner last summer, he had only used it a few times for film, then put it away for 7 years.  $300!  Thats pretty extreme, but most buyers (certainly not all) want IS.
 
So far, my f/4 IS is the lens I am keeping, but it is restricted to outdoor use or with supplemental lighting indoors.  I was having too much difficulty holding a 1 series body with the f/2.8 zoom and sold both.  Then I found the reason, and had carpal tunnel surgery.  It will be 6-12 months to totally heal.  I am going to be reluctant to get another heavy setup.

[paul13walnut5]

IS is great for some folk, I prefer to use a monopod.  It wasn't worth an extra £500 for the IS or £900 for the IS II for me.  It reaches a point of the law of diminishing returns.  I needed f2.8 for video (I have less flexibility with shutter speed) so that ruled out the f4's for the very reason you describe: low light.

It's a shame Canon are killing it.  That lens, the 200mm f2.8 and the non-IS primes were great value lenses that let folk with moderate spending power get nice glass.  I hope canon aren't pricing themselves out of the market, especially with Nikon bringing out decent modestly priced G lenses.

There are a lot more folk who could afford the 24 f2.8, 28 f2.8 and 35 f2 than will be able to afford the new IS versions.  The death of the 70-200 f2.8 is part of a worrying trend.

[iaind]

Its a great lens though now dated. Sorry to see it disappear.  Got mine 2 years ago at half the price of V1IS.

It will end the cost comparison with f4IS.  In round figures prices are now £500,£900 or £1800 for different versions

Get one now while you can. 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Quite a shame. Now for pure sports they are going to force you to be gouged big time. Seems like a dumb move. Perhaps the lens was barely selling and they know what they are doing and it's not just a way to prop up 2.8 IS II sales and margins more.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The lens is not cheap and most prefer the IS version.

Maybe a new version will be released at a higher price.

You know, when I read this...my first thought was...why do they even have this anyway?

I just got a new 70-200 f/2.2 IS L.....I was looking at these various version of them. I've pretty much resigned myself t not buy ANY more lenses that are slower than 2.8...so, that left out the f/4 one.

Then, I was just trying to figure why I'd want the non-IS when the IS is available?  That makes it the most flexible of them all, right?  I can shoot fast as the situation warrants, but then I also have IS to help later..maybe shooting a concert, or a wedding or something...?

Why the 2.8 non-IS?
Both performs better wide open AND costs less than the 2.8 IS.
Costs wayyy less than the 2.8 IS II.

It was a gateway sports lens that performed well and cost less than the Nikon and had been a good way to ensnare new users into the Canon system.

[tron]

I used to have this lens since 1996! Unfortunately it was stolen 3 years ago.

I was printing B&W and I realized that it was the first zoom I had with a prime lens IQ.

When it was stolen I got the 70-200 f/4L IS which to tell the truth was much lighter and smaller (an ideal travel lens).

However I could not forget it completely. A year ago I also got the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.

Although I got the IS version, I will feel sorry to see it discontinued.