A new RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is coming

[kaihp]

When was the 300/2.8 II priced at under $3200? IIRC, used copies of the MkI were selling for that amount after the MkII launched. Or maybe you meant a 1/3 lower price than the 100-300/2.8, not 1/3 of the price.

I'm comparing against to the 98.000DKK* pricepoint here in DK, and I bought the 300/2.8 in HK, no tax. I no longer recall the actual price, but as I recall it was in the low 30.000DKK bracket, which is why I said "around". Even 35.000DKK would be "around" 1/3rd of 98.000DKK.

*) OK ok ok: 97.995DKK. Not sure you can even buy an icecream for the 5DKK change though,

 

[dirtyvu]

What do you mean?

My 28-70 is my set-it-and-forget-it lens. Meaning I put that on for the entire shoot or the entire day without having to change lenses. Normally I shoot with primes which means I'm constantly switching lenses. But when I travel and am in environments where I don't want to be changing, I use the 28-70 only. It's flexible enough to get most shots I would want.

 

[EricN]

My 28-70 is my set-it-and-forget-it lens. Meaning I put that on for the entire shoot or the entire day without having to change lenses. Normally I shoot with primes which means I'm constantly switching lenses. But when I travel and am in environments where I don't want to be changing, I use the 28-70 only. It's flexible enough to get most shots I would want.

I understand, I often took mine and one other lens, but might have not even used the second lens. Of course, sometimes I really wished I had taken a third lens that I hadn't expected to want at all...
Other than macros or needing wider or longer focal lengths, the only other times I wanted a deferent lens was in near total darkness (which I should have planned for, but that's my fault).
I've been happy enough with it that even if there is a mk ii, I doubt I would sell it.

 

[EricN]

I do not think Canon should replace it but I do think it would be a good idea to make a second lens that can take extenders and has an internal zoom.
Just make it a 70-210 or something like that.
Although, a 70-250 would be better since compactness would no longer be the goal.

it's good idea, but probably to pricy for many and the ones who can afford it, might have already decided on the 100-300. I don't see Canon wanting to risk limiting sales, but I have definitely been wrong before.

 

[EricN]

When was the 300/2.8 II priced at under $3200? IIRC, used copies of the MkI were selling for that amount after the MkII launched. Or maybe you meant a 1/3 lower price than the 100-300/2.8, not 1/3 of the price.

If I remember, mk i is usually between $1,000 and 2,000. The weight increase for the zoom seems worth the extra money (if I had it laying under my mattress), but the extra weight isn't worth saving a such a small amount. YMMV

 

[john1970]

My guess is that the 70-200 mm f2.8 will be a Z-series lens similar to the recently announced 24-105 mm f2.8. I will keep my compact 70-200 mm f2.8 and not buy an internal zooming version. I do own the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 and for me that is a better overall lens although much more costly.