The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM III Has Been Discontinued

[Canon Rumors]

The end has come for another classic Canon EF lens. According to asobinet and various retailers, Canon has discontinued the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM III. While it may still be available new in a box from retailers, production has ended and whatever is left in stock in Canon warehouses and at dealers is it. […]

See full article...

 

[Kiton]

My first 80-200 2.8 was a Tokina, I guess the early 1980s.
It was not great (it could not deal with any sort of bad weather) but it was the first affordable 80-200 2.8 and was great for news photography and sports.

Today's 70-200 Z is unbelievably good and fits in the hand perfectly!
We are lucky today, albeit too expensive, but the level of the gear is shocking.

 

[bwh1248]

Maybe you wouldn’t count this since it wasn’t an L, but I still have my original EF 70-210 F4 circa 1987.

Canon EF 70–210mm lens - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Canon Rumors]

Maybe you wouldn’t count this since it wasn’t an L, but I still have my original EF 70-210 F4 circa 1987.

Canon EF 70–210mm lens - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We just kept it to the 2.8 L's.

 

[amorse]

I can certainly say that aside from some chipping paint, my EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II is still going strong and certainly has some new life on my R5 ii. Hard to justify replacing that with a newer model to be honest.

 

[Robi Naitsirhc]

A true classic, a refined, battle-tested tool that defined an era.

 

[DocInfoSci]

I still have my EF 70-200 f/4 original! Works great; takes a 1.4x fantastically; takes a 2x when necessity strikes; and slips into a travel pack quite well for what it is. DLO keeps it modern for large and small farm game. But, I do look at the 2.8 side and wonder whether I should get one for the collection. There's an article from Grant Atkinson on the quality of the 2.x combo with the EF 2.8 II (and I presume III) that keeps nudging me. Other priorities first, however.

In my opinion, the extra-compact 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8 RF editions make these long-term road apples or collector curiosities: very innovative for their compactness, yes, but not useful for general bag inclusion at the prosumer level with the lack of extender support (it means more lenses, or swapping for lenses that are aperture compromised in the 70-200 range). I think moreso that they showed off what can be done with the then-new mount, more than anything — while also letting Canon say "me too" for the range. My f/4 remains an excellent 70-200 f/4, a great 98-280 f/5.6, and good 140-400 f/8 (f/9 to milk it). Yes, solid alternatives exist that cover that range, but none of them are f/4 at 70-200. The f/4 EF nicely balances IQ with extendability, weight, size, and cost. If the lens is making money, then I think that the 2.8 achieves the same thing in spades with some nice weekend flexibility thrown in. Unless it's the compact 2.8, that is — then it's somewhat boring.

Nice article, thanks! It's neat to see the EF -> RF evolution in one place.

 

[scyrene]

I had two EF 70-200s, and they sort of bookend my trajectory from ignorance to experience. The f/4 non-IS was my first L lens (in 2012) and it wowed me with the image quality, every shot I took with it seemed so much better than what I was used to. However I wanted more reach so swapped it for the EF 400 f/5.6. I got the f/2.8 IS II a few years later, maybe 2016, after returning a faulty Sigma 180 f/2.8 macro lens, to see if the zoom would provide similar quality with extra flexibility, but I was so unimpressed with the images around MFD that I quickly got rid of it (later I got a second copy of the Sigma which I still have).

I never did much event/portrait work so these zooms never quite fitted me - and 200mm was never enough for me (I also had the EF 200 2.8 cheap L prime and the colour fringing was too much for me). But they were certainly fine pieces of kit.

 

[Old Man FL/FD]

At one time, there were f/2.8 and f/4 versions with and without IS, so four options for everyone.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Amazing Canon exchange rate in action. $3200 = £3500

 

[Primo1911]

I can certainly say that aside from some chipping paint, my EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II is still going strong and certainly has some new life on my R5 ii. Hard to justify replacing that with a newer model to be honest.

I have this one too and I agree, I really struggle to justify getting the new one, no of my clients will be able to tell the difference in sharpness. The Mark II sells for just over $1K while the new one brand new is $4K.... The math doesn't add up... AUD btw.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I can certainly say that aside from some chipping paint, my EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II is still going strong and certainly has some new life on my R5 ii. Hard to justify replacing that with a newer model to be honest.

I’m with you there, I’ve also been rocking a mkII for a long time. Mine has a few battle scars, but still works great. I don’t think the new RF L lenses are as robust as the later EF lenses. Most of my lenses are over 15 years old and look pretty descent. Most RF casings look a bit shabby after 5 years of heavy pro use.
The new RF Z lens is certainly lighter, sharper and generally slightly better in every metric, although eye watering expensive!
The RF L is a great lens, optically comparable to my EF mkII, but a lot lighter and easier to carry in a camera bag. Loosing teleconverter usage is a bit naff though.
My issue with upgrading to the RF version is that I already have a EF mkII and it’s a focal range / aperture choice that I don’t use as much as I used too. These days I prefer a EF 135L or a EF 100-400mm f4.5 LiS II.