Canon Lens Rumors

70-200 f/2.8L IS II in Toronto?

Craig Blair
Craig Blair
102 Comments
0 Min Read

When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works.

Wowzers

Click for Larger

This image comes from Aden Camera in Toronto, Canada. Is that a new 70-200 f/2.8L IS II available for purchase?

Thanks Ed

cr

Share This Article
Avatar photo
ByCraig Blair
Craig is the founder and editorial director for Canon Rumors. He has been writing about all things Canon for more than 17 years. When he's not writing, you can find him shooting professional basketball and travelling the world looking for the next wildlife adventure. The Canon EOS R1 is his camera of choice.
Previous Article Canon USA Rebates
Next Article *UPDATE* “EOS 60D” Appears on Canon Taiwan Web Site
102 Comments

  • To paraphrase Homer Simpson:
    In Canada, first you get the Olympics, then you get the lenses, then you get the women..

  • I hear from a store that it will be available in Australia in the next week or so! :D

    From what I’ve seen online prices are between A$3000-3200.

    I haven’t seen an A$ RRP

  • It doesn’t surprise me – Aden Camera is the best gear store in Canada, hands down! The only store I’ll shop at … they get anything you want, any time you need it, and usually first … they’ll go thru more stock of any single item in a month than most stores will in a year.

  • Sounds like this is the only lens update from Canon… heavens knows when the 24-70 will be updated ‘__’

  • Ordered mine today from Adorama!! Soo excited!!! Thanks for keeping me up to date on all the canon news! I check this site 5+ times a day haha

  • Pshhh, for about 60% cheaper, I can get 100% more quality with the 135mm F2. I run fast to zoom.

  • This is great, but I am waiting impatiently for the updated 24-70 with IS. Is there no hope?

  • been to jessops on oxford street in london today and the manager told me they are expecting them next week.
    handled 1d mk4 a bit too, that would make a nice pair id think :D

  • What you have an 135 f2 IS? No of course you don’t. The 135 doesn’t have 100% more quality either, however you want to quantify that; maybe 100% more value though. But the two lenses are completely different, you can do anything the 135 can with the zoom, not the other way round though.

    However I won’t be trading my MkI for a MkII.

  • I have to agree. Aden is a great shop. Even mail order to Alberta is usually cheaper than shopping locally.

  • Not quite. The 135 is f2 and not f2.8. That stop makes a noticeable difference in bokeh and DOF. And while I don’t know how sharp the MkII is, it will have a hard time beating the 135. Zooms seldom outperform primes and the 135 is an exceptional prime. If you compare the MkI to the 135 at the same focal length, you will definitely see differences. They are subtle but important.

    I will buy the 70-200 MkII but there is no way I’m getting rid of my 135. You’ll have to pry it from my cold dead hands ;)

    No but seriously, I think that the 135mm f2L is probably the best lens Canon has ever made and one of the best pieces of glass available regardless of brand. I have high hopes for the 70-200 MkII but I don’t expect it to replace my 135.

  • I sold my original 70-200 2.8 IS and bought the 135/2 and have never regretted it. The lens is sharper – a full stop faster – focuses faster in my opinion – and is waaaaaaaayyyy lighter which means I always have it.
    IS? Yes the 70-200 has IS but I’d rather have the stop and more sharpness than the IS.

    And as we all know – real men shoot primes (tongue in cheek)

  • Aden Camera, from this photo, seems to be doing things a little strangely.

    Why would you have a display case FULL of lenses, and in the counter display in front put all the budget Point&Shoots? I’d think SLR bodies would fit here better.

    That being said, I spent a long time looking at this photo, drooling over that display case. I want a nice wide-angel L and they are all there… temptation!

  • Just shows how different we all are, I sold the 135 to get the 70-200 and I have never looked back. I’d far rather have the flexibility of the zoom and the IS over a nominally sharper and one stop faster lens. Your hand held technique needs to be perfect to detect the difference in sharpness between the two, even then it really is fractional, focus errors, DOF, subject movement etc all level the IQ 99% of the time.

  • I would have to agree on this one. 135F2 probably the best lens from Canon. Not only it is fast, light, good built and very sharp, but also very cheap by “L” standard. I actually want to have it with IS because sometime shallow DOF is not always desired, but I don’t want to see a $500 hike.

    It is time to upgrade my 70-200 2.8non-IS, but I just can’t justify the extra $1200 for probably slight better IQ and IS.

  • Most of the time people can’t tell the difference between f2 and f4, try it some time with some prints. Telling the difference between f2.8 at 200mm with a subject distance of 10ft and f2 at 135mm with a subject distance of 8ft is impossible, because it is the same. Bokeh differences are fractional too. Now comparing f1.2’s with f4 zooms is easier, but seriously comparing actual images between 70-200 f2.8’s and 135 f2’s is more about lens build variations and technique. Any additional sharpness the 135 might have on paper does not often translate to prints, the differences are just too small.

  • Most of the local shops around where I live are hardcore Nikon biased. I’d be like a kid in a candy store if I went into this shop. LOL @ the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x in the case :P

  • I also agree with the 135 f/2 being the best lens from Canon (though I do love my 100L IS Macro). I sold my 70-200 2.8 non-IS for the 70-200 f/4 IS. The 2.8 f-stop is occasionally missed, but I upgraded to a 5DII from a 20D so I just bump up the ISO if need be and I get SHARP results every time with no noise. I’m glad they’re finally updating the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, but I’d be more excited about them updating the 16-35 f/2.8 or redoing the 15mm fisheye with L glass and the ability to somehow attach a filter. I’m always freaked out that it’s going to get scratched if it makes it’s way out of the soft Canon pouch.

  • GREAT! Mine should come next week then, I hardly can wait, shaking all over my body in anticipation now…!

    YES, YES, YES, I WANT IT KNOW! ;-)

  • 135mm f/2L FTW! Incredible lens on all fronts, no true shutter bug should be without one.

  • That looks like heaven… All those nice things together in one store… I would ruin myself!

  • Just received my 70-200 2.8 IS this week. Got it for £1240 which seemed really great value. The 2 would be nice to own but for £2.5k? Just a but out of my price range. I wait to see the comparison shots

  • Unless you’re on some sort of list at a shop, don’t expect to walk in and buy one.

    The shop I ordered in got allocated ONE lens.

    Supplies are very limited for now.

    BTW I was first on the list, so I got it! :P

  • None of you obviously work in the rain or water.

    I’ve brought my 70-200 2.8 IS hiking on my camera slung over my shoulder through waterfall mist, in unexpected rain showers, and intentionally in the rain.

    Canon sealing works.

    Let’s see your sharp 135 do that.

    Moreover, try working an event where you’re confined to a single spot the whole time. “Zoom with your feet” indeed.

    I own both for the record, and the zoom gets more action due to its versatility. I only pull the 135 out when it’s dark and I’m not allowed to use my lights.

  • The difference between f2 and f2.8 is the same as the difference between f2.8 and f4. If that makes no difference, why do you think professionals keep lugging their 70-200/f2.8’s when they could use the cheaper, lighter and sharper f4 version? It definitely makes a difference. As for the difference between 135 and 200, unless you are taking photos of a flat wall, the compression will make it obvious. Bokeh difference is certainly not fractional – it is one thing you’ll notice at once. This is due to the fact that the lenses have completely different constructions so the OOF areas have very different characteristics. Which you like better is of course a question of taste but the general consensus among Canon shooters seem to be to the 135’s advantage. (Although the 70-200/f2.8’s bokeh is also has a great reputation.)

    As for sharpness on paper, I don’t know. I haven’t made any high quality print comparisons. I tend to do a lot of the composition of a photo by cropping and at 100%, especially with a crop sensor camera there is a noticeable difference. I also shoot video and Canon downsamples the full sensor image by simply dropping lines – so the IQ is equivalent of looking at a photo at 100%. So it makes a difference there as well. Not to say that the 70-200 isn’t sharp – on the contrary, for a zoom lens it’s very sharp. It is in fact the only zoom that I know that comes close to prime quality.

    If you are happy with it and don’t think that the 135 would give you any more benefit – hey, more power to you. They are your photos and you choose your toolkit.

  • Yes, very subjective, I’ll freely admit that. There are both sharper and faster primes than the 135 and there are lenses with creamier bokeh. Still, unlike with other lenses I fall in love with it every time after I’ve used it and looked at the pictures it helped produce. I’m guessing that it’s a combination of a lot of things that makes the results so great in my eyes. It’s difficult to quantify.

    The only general thing I can say is that apparently I’m far from being the only one that feels that way about it.

  • True – the 135 isn’t weather sealed but handles rain fairly well. I was shooting with it just the other week in a downpour, using a 7D body (which is weather sealed). The lens was really soaked but kept working for 3 hours in an extremely wet state. In the end it succumbed to condensation – something the 70-200 would not. So yes, they are not in the same league when it comes to weather sealing, but I was still surprised how much water it could take before it started becoming foggy.

    A friend of mine recently dropped his 7D/70-200 combination into a lake where it remained submerged for almost 5 minutes before he managed to fish it out. This was in mid-winter in Sweden. The lake was frozen but the ice was very weak near the shore. He dropped the camera and it went through the ice. When he finally manged to fish it out, it worked flawlessly. So yes, Canon sealing works.

  • I agree as well, everything I buy in Canada regarding Canon or Apple gear is coming from them. Awesome service all the time. Glad for Ed that he got first availability in Canada.

  • Seriously what’s the deal with folks posting on here claiming they have this new tool; and never, ever, ever produce any photos for review and analysis?!?

  • I just wish that I was pretty enough for a guy to buy this for me. Alas, I’m not.

  • I seem to be the only photographer thats not fussed by this new lens! Im watching every one else get bent out of shape in anticipation! Its quite amusing!
    For what I shoot, a 70-200/2.8 is just too big, heavy and conspicuous. But im sure that the mkII will be a fabulous lens, have fun when it rolls out on the shelves!

  • Props to the seers of light that is 135 users. We all know that the 135 shatters the 70-200 zooms, not saying said zooms are bad, but they are simply outclassed by the best lens made, of ANY COMPANY. I don’t know why they took offense, and they started bringing up other lenses, and harsh conditions that would harm a lens…what evil people. Maybe they are mad because, like I said, it’s a lot cheaper and better in every way than the zoom they spent on. It might not have as great weather sealing, but then again, it isn’t called the Legendary Super Sayian Lens for its water resistance…

    PS: If Jesus was a photographer, he would shoot with primes only.

  • You aren’t the only one. Read my earlier comments on the 135 being the best choice since the 90’s. *cyber knuckle bump* 70-200’s are overrated.

  • I didn’t say I didn’t think it made a difference, I said most people can’t tell the difference in images shot at f4 and f2.8.

    The professionals schlepping f2.8 zooms%

  • How about posting with a little more intellect? For some the 135 is a viable alternative, for others, its not. You claim it is ‘the best’, but really, it’s the best FOR SOME. This does not mean it’s the best for everyone else.

    It all depends on what you shoot and how you do it.

  • If Jesus was a photographer, he could switch his primes instantly, instead of missing the shot while switching his 135mm for a wider lens.

  • I’m also a fan of the 135L, it’s not Canon’s best lens. But it’s a fine performer, certainly better IQ than any zoom in that range, wide open. For my needs it’s a lot sweeter to use than an of the 70-200 zoom offerings.

    I can also understand some people’s need for the zoom. It’s very versatile.

  • Where is the 2.8 24-70L IS lens???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? That’s the one that is really critical for the wedding/portrait peeps.

    Is this lens ever coming, is it real or just a figment of everyones imagination????

  • While we’re all dreaming. In the AF department nothing I shoot touches my 200mm F2. I’d love to see any of the best primes, 35 1.2, 50mm 1.2 or 85mm 1.2 appear in “white” with IS and killer AF.

    I just got back from shooting a job (some low speed kid’s cycling) and the difference in AF between my 200mm F2 and 85mm 1.2 II never fails to disappoint.

    One white prime below 200mm Canon, please.

  • biggest problem with all 70-200 lenses for photographers who have to carry their gear and be very moveable and don’t use ASSISTANTS (i.e. documentary and probably wedding photojournalists) is the LENGTH of the lens. It really gets in the way when your trying to use two cameras at the same time. Reason why you use 135 or 200 primes, much better size.

    Why don’t you guys at Canon try and make a 70-200 the same size as the 24-70. While your at it make the auto WB a whole lot better on all you cameras: alot more accurate and not as wildly spasmodic (same subject, two different auto WB results): why don’t you guys at Canon improve this instead of trying to turn all your cameras in HD video cameras.

  • I sold my 70-200 for a 135 and I have never looked back. I can now shoot comfortably longer without using a monopod at events and getting arm fatigue like I did with my 70-200 after a hour.

    Cosmetically I like the stealth factor of a black lens over a long barrel white one too.

  • Thanks for the link…I think i’m sold…still would like to see some formal reviews sooner than later.

  • This is just a question out of curiosity, but why would you be in a hurry to upgrade your 70-200 f/2.8 non is? I mean in my experience the non is has as good if not slightly better IQ over the IS variant… i’ve always proffered the non IS version although I guess IS does offers a little flexibility for hand held slower shutter exposures…

    I might be alone here, but does anyone else find IS a little over rated?

    Not that it isn’t a life saver in some cases… but it’s also more weight, and complexity that not all lenses need.

  • The 85mm f/1.2L II (the current one is the II btw) is perhaps one of the most disappointingly slow focusing lenses. But you have to remember 2 things, it’s AF speed is partially limited by it’s optical design, and it’s more orientated at portraitists then sports photos.

    I guess you could pick up the 85mm f/1.8 which is just as sharp if you stop down to f2 or so? the 1.8 focuses about 50% faster then the 1.2.

  • Both the 1D and the 7D have weather sealing. The 1D being of better build quality in general, the sealing is better as well. As far as Canon goes and what they say about how the weather seals depends on the country they are saying it. In Sweden it is explicitly marketed as “weather sealed” (“vädertätad”).

    The 1D in the US is marketed as “dust and weather resistant”:
    http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=19584#ModelFeaturesAct

    Now a lot of that is just BS so that they can reduce their liability. The lowest operating temperature for both the 1D and 7D is according to the specs 0°C (32°F) which is ridiculous. I’ve used both houses in -30°C (-22°F) without a hitch.

    Should you repeat the stunt my friend did – and your camera breaks, you can expect very little sympathy from Canon, regardless if it’s a 1D or a 7D.

  • I don’t believe that the Canadian price isn’t higher! It’s pretty much the first lens I’ve come across that isn’t THAT much more expensive than the States. Guess I can finally buy something in Canada now…

  • I’m trying to think which focal length could benefit from the super tele treatment at below 200mm. A white 135 f/1.4? A White 150 f/1.4? I just don’t see any reason to make these mammoth lenses. Bring it down to earth at $2500 and I’d buy.

  • WHAT THE HELL is going on with this site??? The last PHOTO related rumor is posted about 3 weeks ago and even those were the FILTERED rumors.

  • I agree. It seems a little odd that the only recent photo rumor has to too with a big expensive white. But as you can tell from the new firmware features of the 5D Mark II unfortunaly still pictures are not trendy right now.

  • Nope,

    Both terrific, but until the 300mm is updated with the same IS etc, I’d give the edge to the 200 (provided you didn’t need the reach of the 300).

    50/50,
    I understand the limitations of the 85mm f1.2 II but as you say it’s just so disappointing focusing on anything moving at or close to wide open. Like closing one eye and chasing flies with chopsticks.

    Justin,
    85mm would be my choice of focal length for Canon to give the “white” treatment. The 70-200 IS II certainly passes by that neighborhood in its travels, but I’d love a dedicated prime with the optical qualities of the 85 and the AF/IS of the 200F2. I think Canon are missing a product that many pros and serious shooters would happily add to the arsenal whether their wallets liked it or not.

  • Yep, I’ve used my 1D in -45degC, and even my 50D in -40. Ice fog and decreased battery life have been the only consequences I’ve noticed.

  • +1 There, AWB is inclined to balance each shot differently even in the same color temperature a little differently.

    Just set it from a reference shot, use Kalvin or even a manual preset, or better yet shoot RAW.

  • Michael, I agree with you actually on the 85. I don’t know if it would be possible for Canon engineers to make, but a combination of the 85 1.2II for shallow DOF and wide aperture shooting and the speed of the 85, or as you dream up, the 200 f/2 would be an amazing lens indeed.

  • It has been awhile since we got a real rumor. I think everything is quiet. Wasn’t there talk of a March 8 or 9 launch?

  • Hey guys,

    Just received notice that my 70-200mm II is shipping TODAY.

    Not BH or Adorama – smaller US company, but don’t want everyone contacting them. So the rest of these great new lenses can’t be far behind.

  • Congrats mate! Hope Amazon isn’t too too far behind. Sometimes they lag by a few weeks. Want mine soon, spring is very near…

  • Hmm…it seems that the MII looks very identical to the MI.

    I thought they made some subtle changes to the exterior?

    And has no one noticed that this lens is sitting on the narrow end of the ‘tube’? If my wallet was on a 2500 diet, there is no way in hell I would have that lens sitting upright as it is in the photo.

    What gives????

  • No, I am not in a hurry:) and I can wait more. I was thinking exactly like you. I have been using my 70-200 2.8 Non-IS for a long time and didn’t feel the need for upgrade. Then I had this low light dinner to shoot. Even with 5d2 the light was so low that I can’t hand hold for decent pictures, while my buddy with his IS version got pretty good result. So I think I need to upgrade to at least one low light IS lens for such occasion.

    First of all, for low light, I want it to be at least a 2.8lens. Secondly, it has to have IS. My ideal lens is a new 50mm 1.4 IS, but no such thing; and there is no 24-70 2.8L IS either. The closest thing will be EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS, but I only have 40D and high ISO is not as good as 5d2. So the choice is really between 100 2.8L IS or 70-200 2.8L IS. Since I have 135 F2, it doesn’t make much sense to buy 100 2.8L, so 70-200 IS seems to me is the only choice.

  • Just found out that my friends at MelPierceCamera have one in stock!!! Had to see it for myself….

  • nah Jesus would make it possible to take the best quality pictures at any focal length without any camera… just because He can XD

  • Put this on the Mark IV yesterday, and thought I went to heaven. Remarkable lens and sharp as tack at all focal lengths.

Leave a Reply

LATEST POSTS

Canon Officially Announces Two New Ultra-Wide Angle Lens Options
Preorder: Canon RF 7-14MM F2.8-3.5 L STM & RF 14MM F1.4 L VCM
Canon Lens News
Canon Announces the Canon RF 14mm f/1.4L VCM
Canon Lens News
Canon Announces the Canon RF 7-14mm f/2.8-3.5 Fisheye Zoom lens
Canon Lens News
Manfrotto Aluminum XPRO Video Monopod+ $164 (Reg $264)
Manfrotto Aluminum XPRO Video Monopod+ $164 (Reg $264)
Deal Zone
Canon Announcements Tonight & a Price Correction
Canon EOS Rumors
Is The Canon EOS R7 Mark II Coming in May?
Canon EOS R