Another Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III Mention [CR2]

[hne]

Is the prime trinity 35, 50, 85? I guess that probably varies by user too.

More likely 24, 50, 135 or 35, 85, 200.
Having less than 2x the focal length makes little sense. 85 to 135 is definitely on the boarder.

I'm holding on to my first generation 70-200/2.8 IS for as long as it lasts. It isn't worse than when it was introduced and is perfectly fine for A3/SuperB prints. A mkIII would be interesting to me... if it pushes down the price of the mkII and my first generation breaks down.

 

[MrFotoFool]

The first thing I thought of was how it will affect Mk2 prices but I bet it won't Canon holds steady which is a good thing and a bad thing. Anywho, I'm interested in the G2. Black is beautiful.

I agree with you black is beautiful. I really don't like white on Canon telephoto lenses. I have the original (non IS) 70-200 f2.8 and I recently covered it with black VividVynil. I even bought off ebay a black tripod collar to go with it. Still it would be nice to have IS and I am tempted like you to get the Tamron G2.

 

[slclick]

The first thing I thought of was how it will affect Mk2 prices but I bet it won't Canon holds steady which is a good thing and a bad thing. Anywho, I'm interested in the G2. Black is beautiful.

I agree with you black is beautiful. I really don't like white on Canon telephoto lenses. I have the original (non IS) 70-200 f2.8 and I recently covered it with black VividVynil. I even bought off ebay a black tripod collar to go with it. Still it would be nice to have IS and I am tempted like you to get the Tamron G2.

I need to use one firsthand, I've been through the online reviews thoroughly and it seems to be the only one out there that matches the Mk2 IS until you get to 200. My intention is for it to replace 3 lenses, the 85 (non L) and 135L Mk 2 I keep waiting for Canon to make and a 70-200 in itself.

 

[Talys]

I think it's worth noting that of all the first party full frame 70-200/2.8 lenses with image stabilization (and I hope we can all agree that this is a super-popular focal length and aperture), Canon's EF 70-200 f2.8 IS II is by far the best priced, and it's an excellent lens, with great image and build quality.

These are non-rebate/non-sale prices from Amazon.com:

Canon - $1950
Nikon - $2590
Sony - $2600

Keep in mind that Canon rebate prices are significantly less than that -- I think I bought mine brand new at CAD $2,100 from a camera store, which is about US$1,680. That's nearly the price of the Sony 70-200/f4, at $1,500.

If there is a new premium 70-200/2.8, I hope they keep the Mark II, as I think it is an invaluable, super-useful part of any Canon shooter's kit, at a really decent price -- comparatively speaking, of course. There is the added benefit that these list used at less than 10% off of Boxing Day prices, and they sell pretty quickly. In fact, the reason that I bought mine new was that used asking prices were so close (and higher than refurb prices) that it really didn't make any sense, for me.

 

[ahsanford]

These are non-rebate/non-sale prices from Amazon.com:

Canon - $1950
Nikon - $2590
Sony - $2600

There's the rub. In those prices above, Canon is leaving a lot of money on the table. The upcharge to market parity at $2500 would easily underwrite the costs to develop a new lens. That's why we get these 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 lenses get updated so often: they are vital professional tools in a staple focal length range, and folks pay very good money for them.

- A

 

[slclick]

These are non-rebate/non-sale prices from Amazon.com:

Canon - $1950
Nikon - $2590
Sony - $2600

There's the rub. In those prices above, Canon is leaving a lot of money on the table. The upcharge to market parity at $2500 would easily underwrite the costs to develop a new lens. That's why we get these 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 lenses get updated so often: they are vital professional tools in a staple focal length range, and folks pay very good money for them.

- A

One more price, Tamron G2 -$1299

 

[Talys]

These are non-rebate/non-sale prices from Amazon.com:

Canon - $1950
Nikon - $2590
Sony - $2600

There's the rub. In those prices above, Canon is leaving a lot of money on the table. The upcharge to market parity at $2500 would easily underwrite the costs to develop a new lens. That's why we get these 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 lenses get updated so often: they are vital professional tools in a staple focal length range, and folks pay very good money for them.

- A

One more price, Tamron G2 -$1299

@ahsanford - I totally agree with you, and even if I don't need it I'd spring the $2,500 because this is a FR and a lens that I love (besides, I'd sell my old one and recover some decent portion of that). I have gotten way more than $2.5k out of my existing lens.

However, it'd be wonderful if the IS II stayed on the market for $2k for a while, because $500 - 600 is quite a bit of money for some people (or the price of a good f4 zoom or f2.8 prime), and the much cheaper lenses in many popular FL's is not a bad reason to choose Canon over Sony if you're choosing systems and starting from scratch.

@slclick - Yup there are Sigma/Tamron, which was why I was hypothesizing the (unlikely) possibility of a cheaper 70-200/2.8. When I was listing them, though, I was only including first-party full frame lenses.

 

[tron]

Is the prime trinity 35, 50, 85? I guess that probably varies by user too.

More likely 24, 50, 135 or 35, 85, 200.
Having less than 2x the focal length makes little sense. 85 to 135 is definitely on the boarder.

I'm holding on to my first generation 70-200/2.8 IS for as long as it lasts. It isn't worse than when it was introduced and is perfectly fine for A3/SuperB prints. A mkIII would be interesting to me... if it pushes down the price of the mkII and my first generation breaks down.

The originally mentioned trinity was 35, 85, 135. But of course anyone can declare their own lens trinity.

 

[Ozarker]

These are non-rebate/non-sale prices from Amazon.com:

Canon - $1950
Nikon - $2590
Sony - $2600

There's the rub. In those prices above, Canon is leaving a lot of money on the table. The upcharge to market parity at $2500 would easily underwrite the costs to develop a new lens. That's why we get these 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 lenses get updated so often: they are vital professional tools in a staple focal length range, and folks pay very good money for them.

- A

Just don't forget the effect of volume on profit margins. Raising the price doesn't always result in higher profits. We have no idea what the per unit profits are of each of these manufacturer's lenses are. The fact that these "get updated so often" (your words) tells me Canon probably has it right.

 

[Talys]

These are non-rebate/non-sale prices from Amazon.com:

Canon - $1950
Nikon - $2590
Sony - $2600

There's the rub. In those prices above, Canon is leaving a lot of money on the table. The upcharge to market parity at $2500 would easily underwrite the costs to develop a new lens. That's why we get these 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 lenses get updated so often: they are vital professional tools in a staple focal length range, and folks pay very good money for them.

- A

Just don't forget the effect of volume on profit margins. Raising the price doesn't always result in higher profits. We have no idea what the per unit profits are of each of these manufacturer's lenses are. The fact that these "get updated so often" (your words) tells me Canon probably has it right.

There's also sale prices. Canon aggressively marks down those prices at sale events.

I upgraded mine about 4 or so years ago when it was on sale for about 15%+ lower than it's priced on Amazon today. And during Black Friday/Boxing Day/Best in Glass event and other sales, it's recently been as low as around USD$1,650 from an authorized retail dealer (and obviously less than that for grey market).