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

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;clear:right; float:right; margin-left:10px; margin-top:10px;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/06/canon-ef-70-200-f2-8l-non-is-discontinued/"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float:right; margin-left:10px; margin-top:10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/06/canon-ef-70-200-f2-8l-non-is-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 style="clear:right; float:right; margin-left:10px; margin-top:10px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/06/canon-ef-70-200-f2-8l-non-is-discontinued/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Various reports say it is

</strong>We’ve heard from a few people that the EF 70-200 f/2.8L is in the process of being discontinued.</p>
<p>A few people have said they have attempted to get broken lenses fixed and have been told by Canon USA that parts for the repair are no longer available and will not be in the future either.</p>
<p>Another report says an EF 70-200 f/2.8L that was in disrepair was replaced with a refurbished EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II at no extra cost. However, don’t go breaking your lenses, as this may have been a one off.</p>
<p>I would imagine the current stock of the lens at retailers will probably be the last of them. I’ve heard nothing about a replacement for the lens, even though I do think there is a place for Non-IS lenses such as this one.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/91680-USA/Canon_2569A004_70_200mm_f_2_8L_USM_Autofocus.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L at B&H Photo $1299</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

sad...its a great lens...one day I will pony up and snag the v2IS. But still, sad face...when a great lens finishes its stay...

 

[nolken]

Wait... so if I buy a 70-200 f/2.8 non is and break it they'll replace it with the IS version?

 

[chris_w_digits]

I hope that's not true, since it's $1000 cheaper than the IS version, and I use my 70-200 f/2.8L all the time. Since I went full-frame, it's my most-used, most versatile lens. Shooting bands, I usually use 1/160 shutter speed and run it f/2.8 and get great close-ups of band members playing user stage lights with no flash, and it's a great indoor lens for a big venue (although not so useful in a tighter indoor venue like a house).

 

[Sporgon]

I find this rather odd about parts not being available for repair.

I have a 20-35L that was discontinued about 20 years ago yet Canon still supply the parts to repair it. ( Central barrel section containing the AF/MF switch ).

 

[RGF]

Not surprised that they discontinued the lens. Too many SKUs increases cost and this lens is similar to others in their line up. I am surprised that they will not repair it - actually I should say shocked as Canon CS is general great. Wonder if the incident was a one off or policy.

 

[chris_w_digits]

My 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS isn't quite a year old yet. (July 18, 2012 is when I ordered it)

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I hope that's not true, since it's $1000 cheaper than the IS version, and I use my 70-200 f/2.8L all the time. Since I went full-frame, it's my most-used, most versatile lens. Shooting bands, I usually use 1/160 shutter speed and run it f/2.8 and get great close-ups of band members playing user stage lights with no flash, and it's a great indoor lens for a big venue (although not so useful in a tighter indoor venue like a house).

hmmm...that's got me a'thinkin ...lol.

I wonder if the value of it will go up now. Either way, I plan on using mine for at least another year!

 

[chris_w_digits]

This is just a rumor so far. I'm eager to get confirmation by someone "in the know". I know that my lens probably won't disintegrate on me so this probably won't be an issue for me, but there's the small probability that it could.

 

[bseitz234]

A lot about this sounds odd. Why would they not repair a lens that they're still selling from canon direct? I understand retailer stock could last longer than their own, but still... I have a 70-200 with a UA date code that I damn well expect they'll at least be able to repair until the end of its warantee period (another 4 months). Also, I can see why they'd discontinue one of their 70-200s, given that there are 5 of them, but why they'd pick the non-is over the IS mkI is beyond me... bigger differentiation between it and the mk II, plus this one is sharper than the mk I...

 

[jimenezphoto]

"I do think there is a place for Non-IS lenses such as this one."

I completely agree. There is a $1000 price difference between IS and non IS versions. I have owned the non IS version for several years now and have no complaints. If I was force to replace now there is no way I can justify a $2300 replacement for my $1300 lens. I would be shopping third party lenses..... Canon continues it's drive to outprice many of us out of it's lenses.....

 

[jeff92k7]

I'm a little disappointed, but not really surprised. I'm starting to seriously consider getting one of the 70-200's and have been leaning towards different ones depending on the day of the week. The 2.8 IS II is way too overpriced for my mainly hobbyist budget, so I've been looking at around the $1g mark. That leaves three options: the f4 at $650, the f4 IS at ~1000, and the f2.8 at ~1000. I tend to lean away from the f4 since I really want IS at that aperture, but have had a hard time deciding between the f4 IS or the f2.8.

At the same price, it's tough to decide between a 3-stop IS system (steady shots at slower shutter), or a 1-stop faster aperture (faster moving subjects)

With the f2.8 being discontinued, that pretty much makes up my mind for me. Now to find the money....

 

[smithcon]

Sad to see the choice go. In my shooting, I rarely come across the non-IS model in the hands of other photographers so I am guessing demand is just not high enough.

If it truly has been quietly removed from the lineup, I submit the lens fondly be remembered as the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L ISN'T.

 

[paul13walnut5]

I love mine. Disapointed to hear that if something breaks it may be a write-off.

 

[RGomezPhotos]

I think the 'We won't fix it' is coming from the seller. Not from Canon. They are still selling that lens everywhere.

At least according to DxO, that lens is about as good as my Zeiss 50mm.. And that's plenty good for me. On my other zoom, I always turn off IS. Doesn't make a difference for me.

If I could snag this at $800 or so, that would be awesome. Totally fine lens.

 

[Don Haines]

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.....

 

[paul13walnut5]

A stops difference in af performance.

 

[risc32]

i read this rumors somewhere else a while back. i own this lens, it's very good. I don't think they should remove it from the lineup, but i won't be surprised i they do. Now i can't see how they refused to repair one. they're still sitting on store shelves!

 

[Don Haines]

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.

A stops difference in af performance.

My impression was the the AF of the 2.8 non-IS and the F4 IS was similar. It's probably because the F2.8 non-IS came out in 1995, while the F4 IS came out in 2006. I'd bet that if there was similarly aged design of the F2.8 non-IS that it would kick F4 butt for AF speed and image quality.... but in this case we are comparing lenses that are 11 years apart.

I think that it is more likely that the F2.8 non-IS will be replaced with a V2 of the lens, than for it to be dropped from the lineup. Canon has been going crazy in the last few years updating the quality of it's L glass, and this lens, fine as it may be, could be made much better now.

 

[icepilot29]

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.