|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
Woo
Get them while they last!
Buy From B&H Here: EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II @ $2499
Buy From Adorama Here: EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II @ 2499
*Note: Free shipping from Adorama
thanks Yozi
cr
First!
Got one already. :P
I dont use or like my 70-200 2.8 L IS, I wanna just fast primes… ypu all think I should wait to sell it or try now…it seems like there would be a market for it once the newer one is everywhere and it is a lot more expensive then previous one..no?
And the ironic thing here is I’m pretty sure Jesus was a carpenter, not a shepherd…
I think selling it now would be more beneficial to you than selling it later.
This is just based on my assumption that value goes down as the availability of the “replacement” increases.
Too rich for my blood. I hope Canon doesn’t start pulling a Nikon with their prices.
> I think selling it now would be
> more beneficial to you than selling it later.
this is usually what $tupid people do
It’s an awfully good lens. Well worth the cash.
See my Amazon review on the old model (MKI)and my discussion
about the new MKII 70-200L 2.8 Is II.
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-2-8L-Telephoto-Cameras/product-reviews/B00006I53X/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R2ZE71ZZLLZQMN
Had the opportunity to try out one of these briefly at the Focus show. Impressively sharp, handles well for such a big lens, but it seems to suffer quite badly from flare and ghost images, as did the earlier version.
I’ve been thinking about my next photography purchase, and this lens was very tempting. I went for the “limited edition” coffee version, however.
The difference in price will probably be put towards a Canon IPF6350, doing printing in-house is far more cost-effective.
Have mine on pre-order with Amazon. Anyone have any idea when they will be getting their stock in? You would think with B&H getting theirs Amazon should also have stock.
Soooo expensive :(
I think it’s time to update the Price Watch on lenses to include this lens.
Dang, that’s pricey! I guess with Canon & Nikon, it’s a race to the bottom with regards to who can screw the most $$$ out of folks.
Looks like Canon is one upping Nikon on lens prices. Not only on the 70-200 but also the 200mm f2.
Shouldnt they be kinda the same price as the last lens? I mean inflation hits the prior version, but canon seems to like to add 500 bucks per iteration…
Not for me. It would take me a long time to make the money back to pay for this lens. I could stomach the price for the Mk. I version, but not $2500. I should have bought the original when they were going for $1300 a few years back. Dang my over-analyzing!
got the 70-200 2.8 non-IS and it works well for me…so…nay sir.
Canon must be using the first six-months shipment of this new lens to recoup ALL R&D costs associated with it.
For all the photographers in Southern Cali, I found one at MelPierceCamera.com
http://www.melpiercecamera.com/proddetail.php?prod=013803092776
Man, I dread seeing what the new big white glass is going to run. Ouch.
Been hearing this whole debate over the IS and IS 2 and have to agree with what Peter said. Not bragging but I have a few nice lenses from 15mm fisheye to a 600 f4L IS and my old 70-200 non IS is my best, sharpest and most used lens. I personally think its silly selling the old IS to get the new one. If you have a dud, fair enough but if its doing an excellent job now, why change?
I agree, but he’ll still fetch more money now than later.
I’m keeping my current stuff because they get the job done.
WOW Reply:
“It’s an awfully good lens. Well worth the cash.”
you mean the Noikon one?, yes it is, but not the canon one, as far as the soft samples (they removed it on canon´s request)i´ve seen. if canon want to beat nikon on price, then they should start with quality and sharpness as well.:-))
soft as butter
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/03/ef-mount-pro-camcorder-cr1/
and sooooo sooooft http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/03/ef-mount-pro-camcorder-cr1/
“We apologize for removing the gallery with sample images from Canon EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS II USM lens. The lens was the pre-production sample and did not have final quality. We promise to do a new test with final lens sample as soon as possible.”
if you see the prices on older models of lenses, those have actually risen..
the 70-200 2.8 IS could be bought in 2009 brandnew for $1599, but now it sells for $1799.. mere months just before the version 2 was announced..
IMHO, newer versions doesn’t always mean depreciation for older models, especially not on lenses.. if there would be price drops, it would be because of use / normal wear, and not because of MSRP..
I had the dumb luck to be the first in Sweden to get this lens. The first one to get it in stock (just a few) was Kungsholms Foto, a shop very close to my apartment. They got it yesterday evening and I was waiting at the door when they opened. So I ended up being the first in the country to buy one.
Lens + 3 years complete insurance = 29,000 SEK = $4,100.. ouch, that hurt even typing.
Anyway, it’s mid day now and I’m waiting for the sun to go down a bit to do a full test. I did take some shots from my balcony and the results are impressive. On a 7D the 70-200 @ f/2.8 is no less sharp than a 135mm f/2.0L @ f/2.8. The quality is indistinguishable, at least on a crop sensor. It may be different on a FF camera. And I’m talking about both ends of the zoom. The MkI was soft at 200mm. Not this one.
The IS is very good but I’m not blown away by it. When sitting down or leaning my body or arm against something, I can take sharp 200mm pictures with 1/10 s. Unsupported I need to go up to 1/25 to get consistently good results. Alright, so 1/25 for 200mm is not bad at all – between 3 and 4 stops, but somehow I expected a bit more. Had it been 1/5, I would have been seriously impressed. At 1/10, I’d be pleased..but 1/25.. The IS seems to be a bit better than the MkI but the difference isn’t dramatic.
Finally, apart from the price there is only really one big disadvantage of this lens – it’s big, heavy and anybody within a mile of you will notice you taking pictures. So it’s not well suited for street photography or any other situation where you want to take candids. While it weighs the same as the MkI, it is bigger, looks bigger and feels bigger.
I really look forward to do some proper testing.
Sounds to me like the MKI is a terrific by right now!
On digital scale the EF 70-200/2.8 non-IS occupies late Cretaceous era, EF 70-200/2.8 IS represents early Tertiary. Contemporary 70-200/2.8 IS II is state of the art lens. You can shoot with a shoes box if you are professional enough, but your opinion is as much worth as mine, i.e. null.
If improved IS is what makes you consider an MkII, then forget about it – it’s not worth it. Image quality on the other hand..it is certainly noticeably better on the MkII. You’ll have to decide if you think it is worth the extra cash.
I can say this much:
-If I did not have the MkI version and was in the market for a 70-200 zoom, I’d buy the new one (as in fact I did)
-If I already had the MkI version, I would probably no buy the MkII
But that’s just me. There should be plenty of reviews soon to help you decide.
Here’s a first impression writeup with two sample shots and a comparison with a good prime and a cheap zoom:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=34776029
Man i shop at Cameta Camera, usually they have a lower price, but they never get high end lenses like this
See my recent Amazon review of the MK I lens.
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-2-8L-Telephoto-Cameras/product-reviews/B00006I53X/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R2ZE71ZZLLZQMN
Well, your speculations in the review are wrong, even if your conclusions may be valid. There is a big difference between the MkI and MkII when wide open and at 70mm and 200mm. You don’t have to be a professional to notice it – the difference is striking, especially at 200mm and f/2.8.
As for IS, they’ve added an extra stop of stabilization according to the specifications. How much that will mean to you depends on what kind of pictures you take.
Having said that I do agree that it doesn’t mean that you must upgrade the old version. There is a significant price difference which one must consider.
24 1.4 vs the Mark II?
Conclusions based on a few sloppy sample images on a rumors page.
Totally credible :/
Yes, I do speculate and I make it clear that that is what I am doing in the review. My point is that we know that the old model was a winner and we know nothing yet about the new one yet. Until there are a number of actual lab test results out there to look at I wonder how you can make the comments you made in your first paragraph. Even if you own both lenses right now and made your own subjective comparisons, the true results will come from respected labs. That’s because some lens samples may differ. Given the known quality of the old model, do you really believe the new model is $800 better??
I doubt it. That was the WHOLE point of my review period!
“Image quality on the other hand..it is certainly noticeably better on the MkII. You’ll have to decide if you think it is worth the extra cash.”
Did you test this lens? Did you test the old lens? How can you say that? It sounds like you are trying to justify paying up big time
for the new model. Just accept the fact that Canon made you a sucker.
I have never seen a new model of the same lens come out with such a huge price disparity to the old model. Maybe you should buy some Canon stock and hope there are lots more suckers like you out there so you could make up the price difference using the stock price. LOL
Had mine two days now,,, LOVE IT!!!
Yes, I have. I own the new one and have used the old one extensively. The old one was a great zoom but nowhere near prime quality wide open. The new one is virtually indistinguishable from a good prime. Is the price difference justifiable? Well, it obviously was for me as I chose to buy it instead of the old version.
Whatever the price is doesn’t change the physical reality of the lens and the type of pictures it can produce.
Lab tests are fine, but you don’t have to wait for them. There are plenty of samples out there now. Look at any of the 200mm f/2.8 shots and you’d have to be blind not to see a significant difference compared to what the old version could achieve. When full tests come we’ll see the full extent of the improvements across a number of variables but for now it is relatively easy to spot the improvements from the samples that exist.
There is no “$800 better” when it comes to the comparison of the technical attributes. It could have cost $100,000 or $1 and it would not change the image quality that you get with the lens. The question of price is the question of budget and needs. Is an MkI worth five times the price of a consumer super zoom? For you it was apparently as you bought it but for some it will seem ridiculous.
As for me, well, can you say “tax deductible”? It’s a business expense. The price I paid ($3600) ends up being about $1200 in net cost (we have very high tax levels in Sweden). That’s a price that I don’t object to. Had it been a private rather than business expense, I may have thought differently.
If you think the price difference is too steep to chance it, by all means, wait for full and proper tests. It’s the safe way to do it. I did risk a bit by buying at the earliest possible opportunity but I had my reasons for that. I need a 70-200 next week and I gambled that like in 90% of past cases, the new version would be an improvement. From my experience with the old version and now the new, I’m pretty sure I did the right thing. As for the price difference it was less important to me than maximizing IQ wide open at all focal lengths.
The real question is if the new 2.8 70-200 is better at f/4 and f/4.5 and f/5.6 than the “old”, smaller f/4 IS lens of the 70-200?
Everyone (except for people who dropped a bundle on the old 2.8) agreed that the f/4 had better image quality. So now, that’s the comparison needed.
I think it’s great that you can look at samples on the web
and just know from them that the new version is better. Who needs tests and hi tech laboratories when we have you? You are da man!
If you cant tell from original size samples, and your own pictures, why do you bother buying any lenses at all? You’re not the brightest crayon in the box intheknow, are you?
(For those that haven’t been following, ‘thetoolman’ and ‘intheknow’ are the same person, the latter being his rude alter ego.)
Perhaps they are the same but they are correct.
No, I am not that other guy. You should read your own
posts because they have a rude slant. I think you must
work for Canon. Who else would post nonsense trying to justify
and nine hundred dollar price increase for basically the same lens with only minor improvements?
Acc. to my knowledge the EF 70-200/4 is optically excellent but its IS is bit too noisy for videofilming. I think that this lens should be reworked and letter “S” should be added like SIS meaning ‘Silent’.
As I said, not the brightest crayon in the box. Do you think that introducing a third sockpuppet will add to your credibility?
Ah, well, I should know better than to feed the trolls. Good luck with your anti-MkII campaign.
Norman check this out http://www.flickr.com/photos/canonmonster/
check out the 70-200 f2.8 @200mm vs the 200 f2.
soooooo suuuuckit
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2
Similar center sharpness, better corners.
I am not the one posting here trying to justify my
ridiculously overpriced lens purchase. You obviously need
some shopping advice. Talk about brightest crayons………..
LOL
and those few sloppy samples came from the new sloppy lens, which should´nt have left the factory in that condition, so much for the QC , aint it fanboy?
Stoneking please stop SUCKING yourself so others can suck :-)))
even the centre label part is softer compared to the superb 200 f2. so you keep suckin you fanboy
$2500 for a 70-200mm… you have got to be kidding me. For IS that most people don’t need. If you keep you current 70-200mm you can just buy a 5D Mark II for $2499 and get the luxury of shooting at ISO 3200, three stops higher than the ISO 400 ceiling that you get with a crop sensor camera. I just don’t get this IS thing, spending $600 more for a lens that will klunk and whirr and delay your shot by a half second. For moving subjects it’s useless, and the MTF charts C-L-E-A-R-L-Y show that the non-IS f/2.8 model is sharper. Mine is like a razor. $2500 for this new lens is absurd.
Lucas’s comments are the best on this thread and you are not a crayon, you are simply a sledge hammer, and this is the end of the story.
Sounds like a bunch of cry babies
Anyone ever think that prices may reflect the US dollar?
The lens Rocks, and the IS works great, then again some people still like model T’s and film cameras.
You sound like Lucus himself! Oh yea, your comments are the
“best on this thread!” I guess there’s no law that says you
can’t vote for yourself. LOL
The dollar has been strong lately and is actually worth much more than it was just a few years ago against the Euro and British pound. In any case, retailers were happy to sell the MKI for $1600-$1700 just a few months ago. There is no way you can put lipstick on what is really a ridiculous price increase for a new model that has just minimal improvements over the old one.
Minimal? Have you seen the tests? I’m selling my Mk1 and 100L (never use the macro anyway) to buy one. The Mk2 with a 1.4x teleconverter is still significantly sharper than the Mk1 at all focal lengths.
Do you have a link to the tests? I can’t find any and I would love to read them.
Thanks.
What tests? I don’t think anyone has formally tested it yet. No matter, I am quite confident that it will be a terrific performer in any test — it better for $2500. I doubt it’s performance improvements over the MK1 will be all that noticeable to most photographers anyway unless they really blow up their photos. Most don’t. The MK1 is an excellent lens and it’s replacement is not worth $800 unless it can wash my dishes and clean my house in addition to taking super sharp photos.
next time remove your head from your ass before you look at the pictures.
im not saying the 70-200 is better than the 200 f2, but i am saying that there isnt much room between them. the 200 is twice as much money so it better be better.
http://bit.ly/cKHPNl (The Digital Image). The best lab tests as far as sharpness and CA goes that you’ll get.
If you notice the difference between prime and zoom quality, you will notice this difference as well.
Thanks! I expected to see improvement over the MKI which is an excellent lens too. That Digital Image site is really neat. I am still interested, however, in reading lab reviews — especially the one from dpreview.com. Too bad Canon got real greedy and priced the new model ridiculously higher than the old model.
It’s also in stock by J&R
Stoneking,
first of all i apologize to you for waking you up from your sleep in your own Ass.i thought you sleep under a STONE ,i really didnt know you put your brainless head in your stinky big ass before sleeping.Ha ha ha.
well,you think that´s the only reason why 200 mm is costly ? ha ha ha. then you dont know much about the reason why it´s even built.go drink your milk and put back you head in your own ass and sleep.good dreams KID
Norman,please dont make this a non camera discussion.i have seen that link and the pics, they really looked like it was taken with a kit lens,but it might have been a faulty lens.
Stone king you havent seen those pics so please stop being rude with your answers.
or shall i say Stone king is a typical fanboy, who i cant write anything civil nor take criticism about his brand eventhough he might be using only the XTi with a kit lens.
so norman ,please ignore him, it´s not worth it.uncivilized creatures are all over the place specially under the stones, they wont come out into the light and engage in a logical discussion.
peace to all.
Dear Justin and dear Norman,
i apologize to you both for being rude,maybe it´s just my nature,maybe it´s fanboyism but you are right whatever it is,i should be civil to people. i´ll try my best.
sorry again for the troubles.please accept my apologies.
kind regards,
Stoneking.
Stoneking,atlast a sane message from you.your apology is accepted,dont wory ,no hardfeelings mate :-).
thanks stoneking impersonator. I feel so good inside now that Norman likes me. If you can get Justin to like me too my world will be complete.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesstoneking/
the pictures of the white statue? or the house with the clay tiles? or are you talking about something else?