Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L Non-IS Discontinued?

[tnargs]

Surely the discontinuation of a lens doesn't coincide with the cessation of repair or parts availability? That would be insane -- imagine if car makers did that!

Yet that is the basis of this rumour.

 

[tron]

I consider it a legendary lens. It was the first zoom I got with fixed lens quality. Plus, its price is reasonable.
I had one until it was stolen

Now I have a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II but I will feel sorry if this lens is discontinued.

 

[SPG]

I'm one of the people, or maybe the only one, who had their 2.8 non IS replaced with a IS II model back in April.
Here's how it went down... As a CPS member I decided I'd take advantage of the repair discount and clean and check coupons and sent in a couple things. My 70-200 f2.8 had developed a slight haze after 17 years of use in some harsh conditions...this was a lens I used shooting snowboarding for a few years so not surprised that it took more abuse than any of my current gear.
Canon gave me a reasonable quote of about $250, but said it would be a few days to get parts so since I'm a CPS member they sent me a loaner 2.8IS v1 to cover me on my shoot. A few days later they called and told me it was more damage and it would be $350, then the next day called and said it couldn't be repaired. I was told that I could get a replacement lens instead for the same cost as repair, which was fine by me. I was a little surprised though that they then sent me a 70-200 f2.8 IS II, happily surprised of course since it's a wonderful lens and one that I was hoping to buy some day after selling my repaired 2.8 nonIS.
Maybe this was a one off event, maybe this is SOP now, maybe it's just a perk of CPS and shooting Canon for 20 years, but I'm a very happy customer and will stick with Canon and CPS for the foreseeable future.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

In honor of this fabulous lens, here's a shot taken with it from this saturday...

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

It would indeed be sad to see it disappear. Its a fine lens, and affordable.

 

[iaind]

It would indeed be sad to see it disappear. Its a fine lens, and affordable.

And so say all of us!

Got mine before ISII was launched. Choice was between 2.8 and 4IS and eventually decided on 2.8.
Wouldn't mind swopping for ISII if Canon offer.
,

 

[chris_w_digits]

Canon still has this lens (as of June 19 at 09:37 CDT) on their web site under EF Lenses under telephoto zooms. I'm surprised that we are now 4 pages into comments on this "rumor" and nobody has been able to say for sure if it's been discontinued or not. I have the lens and it's my most used one ever since I went full-frame (5D3) since I shoot close-up types of photos or shoot from a distance in a larger venue. If Canon still has it listed in their product line, I would imagine that parts would have to be available to cover it during its warranty period for any new lens sold.

 

[paul13walnut5]

Overall, I like the decision. BUT, and it's a big BUT - the IS tech should be included for no more than $200 extra.

Canon puts IS into a kit lenses that might cost them $75 to make - so let's pretend the IS stuff in there costs canon $10.

Let them upscale it all because it's going into an "L" lens. So they spend TWENTY times more on the IS for the "L" lens.

And then price the L's IS at $200 more than the non IS version.

Yeah, ok, but you assume that there is no difference in the elements within the IS group, are the IS elements not larger than the non IS, so as to permit a full image circle even with a moved group? Would these larger elements not require to be sharp accross the whole field as they potentially could be used much closer to the edge once shifted in an IS movement? Are these elements not made of better quality glass than the £75 lenses? Would there not be a significant R&D spend to recoup from the L lenses, which may sell in the thousands rather than the £75 kit lenses that sell in their 100's of thousands, if not millions?

I'm just asking because if it was as simple as bolting an IS motor on, I'm sure Canon would have thought of that already.

I think that if all you did was bolt on a motor, you would decrease the iq of the lens....

I think that was kind of my point.