Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L Officially Discontinued?

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/05/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8-officially-discontinued/"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/05/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8-officially-discontinued/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/05/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8-officially-discontinued/"></a></div>
<strong>Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L


</strong>A few reports around the globe about the EF 24-70 f/2.8L being officially discontinued. This was an inevitable event.</p>
<p>I’ve had at least 2 suggestions that have said the version II delay has been to dump excess stock of the version 1. How plausible is that? I don’t know.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/264304-GREY/Canon_8014A002_Zoom_Wide_Angle_Telephoto_EF.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L @ B&H for $1579</a></p>
<p>There has been no mention of another delay for the version II. It’s still slated to start shipping in July. You can still <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/843008-USA/Canon_5175B002_EF_24_70mm_f_2_8L_II.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">preorder it at B&H for $2299</a>. Do not expect any sort of price drop on the version II for quite some time.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[Z]

In the UK at least, the 24-70 original seems to be steadily climbing in price as stocks dwindle. Glad I picked mine up when v. II was announced - it would now cost £200 more.

 

[Dylan777]

I bought 3 copies(mrk I) in the past, none of them gave me the sharpness I'm looking for.

Am I sad to see this news?.....

Mrk II seems very promising, can't wait to attach mrk II on my 5d III.

 

[chabotc]

There's entirely to much waiting for new products for my comfort level - I've had the 24-70 II and 1DX on pre-order from the moment they were open for them, and while I'm sure CR appreciates the views they get from me neurotically checking on news about them daily, I would much prefer actually using them

I do know that the next lens announcement I'll be a whole lot more skeptical and careful about wanting it

 

[Axilrod]

Is that why the price is insanely high right now? $1579 at B&H and the MSRP is still listed as $1399 on Canon's site....

 

[dstppy]

Crap - I was hoping the Tamron was going to come down in price; can't help having no current competitors

 

[Robert Welch]

Well, at least with this announcement, maybe I can get more for my 24-70 if I decide to sell it and buy the vII, but still not sure if I will. Mine is at least as good IQ as my 24-105, which IMO is acceptable, and I've probably got other things I need more than to replace a lens that doesn't really need replacing. Just good to know I might be able to get a little more for it than I could have just a few months ago, probably. I was thinking about it when they announced vII, and looked at what the used prices were on mine, looked like it was one of the most depreciated lenses in the Canon lineup, at least for an L lens.

 

[llcanon]

The 70-200 2.8L IS II was on the Canon rebate list by the end of 2010 (the lens was announced in January 2010). So if you can wait, expect $200 - $400 off (with purchase of a camera body) in early 2013. I am still shooting with the legendary 28-70 2.8L which is as good as 24-70 Mk I except for loss of 4mm on the wide end.

 

[elusive1]

The 24-70 II is a lot of money and a huge increase over the Mark 1, and it has no IS. I have a feeling Tamron is going to sell a lot of their lenses.

 

[VASH1291]

I was going to buy this lens in another 4 months, oh well

 

[awinphoto]

I guess that's one way to force you to buy the more expensive of the 2 lenses... but it was inevitable.

 

[h4ldol]

I'm debating whether or not to buy the Mk1 for $1600 at Adorama/B&H, which is $700 less than the $2300 Mk2 but it feels lame since a couple months ago the Mk1 was $100-200 cheaper. With IS, $2300 would have been a no-brainer for me, or even $2400. But without it I'm less enthusiastic. Or maybe I'll buy the Mk1 to use this summer and just sell it in a few months and get the the Mk2 to replace it if it turns out to be significantly better than the Mk1.

Decisions, decisions...

 

[Loswr]

I recall several threads from a while back with people saying they were waiting to buy the current 24-70mm because the release of the Mk II would drive the prices of the original down. I repeatedly pointed out that the exact opposite occurred with the 70-200mm II. Hate to say I told you so.....

 

[KyleSTL]

I guess that's one way to force you to buy the more expensive of the 2 lenses... but it was inevitable.

Isn't this exactly what happened when Canon transitioned from 70-200 IS I to 70-200 IS II for $500 more? A short period of time where both were available, then suddenly v. I went out of stock, never to return.

 

[h4ldol]

I recall several threads from a while back with people saying they were waiting to buy the current 24-70mm because the release of the Mk II would drive the prices of the original down. I repeatedly pointed out that the exact opposite occurred with the 70-200mm II. Hate to say I told you so.....

Didn't the 70-200mm II have improved IS (one stop?) compared to the I? I think the issue with the 24-70mm II is that the main improvements are IQ, which have to be seen to be judged worth the huge price increase, whereas adding/improving IS or some other physical characteristic of the lens would be more tangible and result in larger demand for a much more expensive lens, thus decreasing rather than increasing demand/price of the previous version of the lens. If the 24-70mm II had been announced to have IS, I would guess that the prices of the 24-70mm I would be below MSRP right now, instead of $200 higher.

Myself, I tried ordering the 24-70mm I from several sources recently and still waiting on the companies' buyers to see if they can get some more stock or not... probably not, in which case I may just get it for above MSRP ($100 or $200 is really not a big deal in the scope of things).

 

[DB]

I'm debating whether or not to buy the Mk1 for $1600 at Adorama/B&H, which is $700 less than the $2300 Mk2 but it feels lame since a couple months ago the Mk1 was $100-200 cheaper. With IS, $2300 would have been a no-brainer for me, or even $2400. But without it I'm less enthusiastic. Or maybe I'll buy the Mk1 to use this summer and just sell it in a few months and get the the Mk2 to replace it if it turns out to be significantly better than the Mk1.

Decisions, decisions...

I bought the 24-70 Mk I last December from an online discount retailer based in Luxembourg for 1,029 euros and the price has been rising since January of this year, up to 1,160 euros (close to US$1500) now on eBay:

http://www.ebay.ie/itm/f-CANON-24-70mm-EF-USM-F-2-8L-GARANTIE-EUROPE-4-ANS-60D-600D-7D-5D-MII-1D-/180880818544?pt=FR_IQ_PhotoVideo_Photbjectifs_Zooms&hash=item2a1d564170#ht_5571wt_1396

The date code on my lens is UZ1119 (so November 2011), so quite recent, but the really strange thing is that I had to wait more than 3 weeks for delivery as they were out of stock and were awaiting a fresh delivery batch. The recent lens date code suggests that end-2011 demand was still very high, I especially was aware of this as I also tried to buy 'used' on eBay and elsewhere, but 7-year old 'well-used' copies were still fetching prices of 950 to 1,000 euros.

Still today, there are not many for sale in Ireland or the UK, and when they do come up for sale or auction, they invariably achieve almost new prices???

 

[Loswr]

Didn't the 70-200mm II have improved IS (one stop?) compared to the I? I think the issue with the 24-70mm II is that the main improvements are IQ, which have to be seen to be judged worth the huge price increase, whereas adding/improving IS or some other physical characteristic of the lens would be more tangible and result in larger demand for a much more expensive lens, thus decreasing rather than increasing demand/price of the previous version of the lens.

Probably irrelevant. 'Street price' is heavily influenced by supply and demand. Supply for the MkI has been tight lately (true for many lenses). It's evident that the Mk I will be discontinued at some point soon. The replacement is several hundred dollars more expensive, even compared to MSRP. But soon, you won't be able to get a new 24-70/2.8 cheaper than the street price of the MkII. Ergo, low supply + increasing demand = rising price. Even if the the changes to the MkII were basically nothing except the dramatically increased price, the impending unavailability of the MkI would drive up demand for the MkI, completely independent of the features of the MkII.

 

[h4ldol]

But soon, you won't be able to get a new 24-70/2.8 cheaper than the street price of the MkII.

Um, are you really suggesting that at some point the Mk1 will cost the same, or even more, than the $2300 Mk2, purely based on supply-demand economics? That is so unlikely as to actually be preposterous. ???

No matter how low the supply gets, it would only get close to the price of the Mk2 if the Mk1 were considered a 'collector's item' (and Canon L lenses, great as they are, are not exactly collectibles... or at least when there is a newer version with the same basic specs) or superior in some way to the Mk2, which also seems rather unlikely. I doubt the Mk1, new, will ever get past $1800 because around that price point it is only $500 more to buy the newer, likely superior, Mk2 which also will have a higher resale value than the Mk1.

I'm assuming you didn't really mean quite what you wrote...

 

[Forceflow]

But soon, you won't be able to get a new 24-70/2.8 cheaper than the street price of the MkII.

Um, are you really suggesting that at some point the Mk1 will cost the same, or even more, than the $2300 Mk2, purely based on supply-demand economics? That is so unlikely as to actually be preposterous. ???

No matter how low the supply gets, it would only get close to the price of the Mk2 if the Mk1 were considered a 'collector's item' (and Canon L lenses, great as they are, are not exactly collectibles... or at least when there is a newer version with the same basic specs) or superior in some way to the Mk2, which also seems rather unlikely. I doubt the Mk1, new, will ever get past $1800 because around that price point it is only $500 more to buy the newer, likely superior, Mk2 which also will have a higher resale value than the Mk1.

I'm assuming you didn't really mean quite what you wrote...

Actually with the discontinuation of the Mark I and the delay of the Mark II this might really happen. If one NEEDS a 24-70 and the only few to be had are Mark I the price might indeed skyrocket up to (and in theory even higher than) the Mark II. It's the same reason why there is such a big market for black market ticket sales. If the tickets are sold out but you really, really want one you'll better be prepared to pay much more than the regular price.

 

[gleb86]

It looks like the prices for used ones are coming down since I've been eyeing them. I've seen some that are almost mint for a little under $1000 on some forums. I sometimes scratch my head when I see some of the prices on ebay which can go to $1800. I really hope no one pays that much :-\