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

[Don Haines]

I own / use this lens for ice hockey. Its a great focal length for indoor sports in poor lighting, and, because action / sports drives shutter speed, IS becomes unnecessary for me. I would really be disappointed to see this lens removed from the lineup. They should kill off the f4L non-is variant first.

The F4 non-IS variant is the one that sells the best. No way will they get rid of it. I also think it is far more likely that the F2.8 non-is gets replaced with an updated version than to be dropped from the lineup

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I had looked at the 70-200 F4, the F4IS, and the 2.8 non-IS. (can't really afford the 2.8 IS and had no source to borrow one from).

The F4IS is sharper than the F4 non IS and the price isn't really that bad... so I ruled out the F4 non-IS. The F4 IS and the 2.8 non-IS were about the same price... The F4 IS was a bit sharper.... but the 2.8 was faster... After lot's of humming and hawing I decided that 2 or 3 stops of IS was better than 2/3 stops of aperture, and went with the F4IS. It is my most often used lens and is usually on the camera body.

I wonder what sales have been like recently for the 2.8 non-IS? My bet is that of the 4 incarnations of the 70-200 that it is the one that sells the fewest copies now.....

It's still the best option when considering cost for sports though (2.8 IS II when not considering cost). f/4 IS has a fancier AF motor (it times out faster than the f/2.8 non-IS in simple tests) and yet the non-IS, real world, on field, tended to handle it just a little better and wouldn't freeze or get confused at odd times here and there, etc. and of course the f/2.8 is the big though anyway, just a bit more background blur and less noise for indoors without strobes and night games outdoors.

 

[bykes]

I have this lens. Bought it because of the price. I do like it, but seldom use it. Been thinking about selling it. A shame if they discontinue it. It's a great lens.

 

[bdunbar79]

Wouldn't the AF work better because it AF's at f/2.8 whereas the other lens would AF at f/4? I know that's simplistic, but that's a lot more light to use.

 

[cfcis99]

I inquire directly to Canon Marketing Philippines Inc. they said that the lens is already phase out and they can only offer me IS 2.

By the way, our club is directly associated with CMPI, so we normally get canon products directly to them and not via retail store.

 

[Don Haines]

Wouldn't the AF work better because it AF's at f/2.8 whereas the other lens would AF at f/4? I know that's simplistic, but that's a lot more light to use.

Normally you would be right, but with the F4 IS it's comparing a 7 year old design to an 18 year old design.. one of those apples and oranges things... the F4 IS is SLIGHTLY better in IQ and as far as I could tell the AF was the same.

The F4 non-IS is about the same vintage as the F2.8 non-IS. The F2.8 non-IS beats the F4 non-IS handily for focus speed and image quality.

 

[Harry Muff]

Oh, goody. Now I've got to try and get my 18 year old copy serviced before it's too late… :'(

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Wouldn't the AF work better because it AF's at f/2.8 whereas the other lens would AF at f/4? I know that's simplistic, but that's a lot more light to use.

Normally you would be right, but with the F4 IS it's comparing a 7 year old design to an 18 year old design.. one of those apples and oranges things... the F4 IS is SLIGHTLY better in IQ and as far as I could tell the AF was the same.

The F4 non-IS is about the same vintage as the F2.8 non-IS. The F2.8 non-IS beats the F4 non-IS handily for focus speed and image quality.

As I said, f/4 IS tests faster, but for field sports, the 2.8 non-IS actually works a bit more reliably, mostly about the same, but the f/2.8 non-IS has less of particular type of miss.

 

[Don Haines]

Wouldn't the AF work better because it AF's at f/2.8 whereas the other lens would AF at f/4? I know that's simplistic, but that's a lot more light to use.

Normally you would be right, but with the F4 IS it's comparing a 7 year old design to an 18 year old design.. one of those apples and oranges things... the F4 IS is SLIGHTLY better in IQ and as far as I could tell the AF was the same.

The F4 non-IS is about the same vintage as the F2.8 non-IS. The F2.8 non-IS beats the F4 non-IS handily for focus speed and image quality.

As I said, f/4 IS tests faster, but for field sports, the 2.8 non-IS actually works a bit more reliably, mostly about the same, but the f/2.8 non-IS has less of particular type of miss.

When I did my comparison tests I was alternating between a licence plate about 5 meters away and a sign about 100 meters away, and tested at 70mm and at 200mm. Both were fairly high contrast objects in good daylight. I found AF to be slowest on the F4 non-IS and about a tie between the F4 IS and the F2.8 non-IS. I could see the F2.8 non-IS performing better in lower light and I have no idea what the difference would be for moving objects.. If you say the 2.8 non-IS works better in field sports then I shall defer to your experience.

By the way... what is the "particular type of miss" that you have observed with the F4 IS?

 

[AG]

This could just be the case of Canon deciding to clean up its lineup, in a way.

As much as people don't like the idea IS is something that by the sounds of it Canon believe that you need in your lenses. (if market demand increases prices may fall for the IS models, so the price issues may be lessened)

Not everyone uses the AF in their camera but every DSLR body has some form of AF because the majority want it and a few don't know how to shoot without it. Doesn't mean that its for everyone, but if you don't want it you can always toggle that switch to turn it off.

It could explain why they are trying to put IS into all their lenses that are being updated. Yes i know the 24-70 f2.8 II doesn't have IS but it may receive an update sooner rather than later.

 

[Viggo]

If Canon sacrificed IS in the new 24-70 to make it what it is, (pretty insane) then, -- My God, can you imagine the IQ of a NON-IS 70-200?? Wow, you would have to print on metal only, the images would shread paper...

 

[ewg963]

Wow what a great piece glass it's one my favorites in my collection!!! I hope there's plans for a II...maybe I'm dreaming.

 

[YuengLinger]

Not surprised by the discontinuation, but if the rumor of no spare parts is true, THAT would be disgraceful.

I loved my 70-200mm 2.8, which I had for about eight years, but sold it and went with the 2.8 IS II when the wedding jobs picked up.

Can't believe Canon wouldn't repair a lens bought within the past couple of years. Hope its a FALSE rumor.

 

[Viggo]

Is it a fact that all discontinued lenses will also be discontinued for repair? If not, how long does it usually take? I know there are a few 24-70 mk1's out there :

 

[Scott911]

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.

 

[MrFotoFool]

When my Sigma 100-300 f4 died and was too old to repair, I replaced it with the Canon 70-200 2.8 (non IS) a little less than a year ago. It is my only telephoto, often used with 1.4 extender, and it is fantastic. There is no way I could have afforded the IS2, so if this lens was not available they would have driven me to Tamron. I am sure there are people like me whose business they will lose by discontinuing this lens, but I guess there are not enough of us to justify continued production.

I would be surprised if they came out with a new version, as the price would be so much higher (based on their other L upgrades) that no one would buy it - the IS2 would be just a few hundred bucks more so people would upgrade to that. The marketers at Tamron and Sigma must be jumping with joy at this decision!

 

[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.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

For the sake of all those who invested in that lens I hope it's not true.

 

[Harry Muff]

I called my local professional service centre today and they said that it's the first they've heard and that they can get parts.


I was planning on a panic service but the price put me off.

 

[Don Haines]

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....