Seriously, why does everyone want a new 70-200

[therealmr]

See title.

I've had mine for about two years. The IS works fine, and it's extremely sharp wide open.

Am I lucky, or something?

[Gibbo]

Does everyone want a new 70-200?

[cfibanez]

I got mine a few weeks ago. And I don't want a new one. And I don't know anyone who does.

[doubledragon]

I bought a non-IS, used when the live.com discount was 30% - saved about $450 from B&H new prices - I agree- WHY BUY NEW?

[pilsburypie]

I'd buy a new 70-200. A good f4is used one would cost me close to £700 on ebay. A brand new one £780...... The lenses hold their value really well so to me, why not just buy new? Warranty and no use for very little more money....

[cdifoto]

I bought a non-IS, used when the live.com discount was 30% - saved about $450 from B&H new prices - I agree- WHY BUY NEW?

I'd buy a new 70-200. A good f4is used one would cost me close to £700 on ebay. A brand new one £780...... The lenses hold their value really well so to me, why not just buy new? Warranty and no use for very little more money....
I don't think that's what OP meant by "new".

OP means "why are so many people clamoring for a Version II ie update to the already great 70-200mm f/2.8L IS?"

And to that I say: I've read a few people whining about it but it doesn't seem like enough people are disgusted by the current version to refer to them as "everyone."

[Tom W]

I don't think people are clamoring for a version II - it is already an excellent lens. The rumor is, however, that a version II may soon be out, and people are talking about it.

I've had my 70-200 f/2.8 IS for a few years now - it is an excellent lens. I see no need to replace it unless something truly awesome comes out.

[cdifoto]

It'll probably be $2199 anyway.

[nicksan]

Yeah, I thought the current version was good enough when I used to own one. Perhaps they could update the optics to be on par with the f4 IS version, but that's splitting hairs really...

[Marshal.F]

All a new 70-200 would do for me is make the "old" 70-200 even cheaper.;)

[F4 Cyborg]

Yeah, I thought the current version was good enough when I used to own one. Perhaps they could update the optics to be on par with the f4 IS version, but that's splitting hairs really...
you stop the 2.8 down to 4 and you can't tell the difference in a print.
Been there done that. Don't argue it with me do the same test and use a loop to look. One does not sell screen's to customers, one sells prints.

[therealmr]

One does not sell screen's to customers, one sells prints.

Yeah, that's kindof why I'm confused. Unless I'm blowing it up to over 24x30 I really don't think I could see a difference at a viewing distance. At that point, I feel like the potential difference in sharpness could be remedied with a slight sharpening pass. *shrug* I guess I'm just not into gear?

[F4 Cyborg]

I dun know, I ben print'n poster size at photograph quality from my 5D 70-200 2.8L IS combo fer years. You can get as close as ya want and all yer gona do is end up croXX eye'd. Its not how sharp it is most of the time, its how focused it is most of the time. When I want the background blown all to smithereens I simple twist and click wala its Kibble.When I need to make large photograph Quality prints I make sure its all where it needs to be. The run and gun poster size at events are so close you still can't tell a diff.
Course I judge that by my bank account ( and yes I know that's a crass statement)
But when all things are said and done, Yours, theres, everyone else's, may in deed be a better lens than mine but, I do like everyone else should. I use what works for me. Everyone else use what works for them and we will all be happy, I could care less if someone purchased a piece of equipment because of or if I steered them that way. I don't have a need for adulation from others. Fact is Fact as it is seen by who ever looks. All the who ever's all see things differently.
I'm Sargent Friday, this is Sargent (Kernel Potter) , Fact's Mam nothing but the Fact's

[NicolasRubio]

Because the new EF 70-200mm f/4L IS is stupidly sharp and has a crazy IS system. Imagine that... only 1 stop faster!

[airfrogusmc]

I don't want it.

[F4 Cyborg]

Stupidly sharp is no sharper than sharp and that's a honed truth.

[Karl Johnston]

I don't want it either, my 70-200 2.8L non IS is ownage. I got it for 1150$ back in december

[Tom W]

Stupidly sharp is no sharper than sharp and that's a honed truth.

Humor with an edge....

[Marshal.F]

Nikon Rumors is 99.99% sure that nikon will announce there new 70-200 this week, so canon's should soon follow.
http://nikonrumors.com/2009/07/27/confirmed-two-new-nikon-lenses-this-thursday.aspx

[cfibanez]

Nikon Rumors is 99.99% sure that nikon will announce there new 70-200 this week, so canon's should soon follow.
http://nikonrumors.com/2009/07/27/confirmed-two-new-nikon-lenses-this-thursday.aspx


Has it always been like this in the past, Canon following Nikon?

[F4 Cyborg]

Canon follow? Na. It has been the toehr way around for years, bout time Nik got off there chips and improved something. Like always battle tween the makers is good for us.
When one or the other makes a system you can throw at it and it will do it all right, then I'll be impressed, sadly I'll also need to look for work in another field when that happens, cause anyone will be able to do it.

[Mark1]

Seriously, why does everyone want a new 70-200?

Because I don't want a used one.

[F4 Cyborg]

Because I don't want a used one.

I don't care who you are, "That There Was Funny, I tell you what" get'errrrrrrrr-done. :lol:

[johnj2803]

All a new 70-200 would do for me is make the "old" 70-200 even cheaper.;)

+100 on this!! :D here here! :D

[timbop]

If true, it is frankly a waste of resources that could be better targeted elsewhere. Such as:
400/5.6IS
24-70/IS
135/IS
100-400 mk2

[timbop]

Stupidly sharp is no sharper than sharp and that's a honed truth.

precisely

[zaathrus]

If true, it is frankly a waste of resources that could be better targeted elsewhere. Such as:
400/5.6IS
24-70/IS
135/IS
100-400 mk2

Amen! Much rather a 100-400 mk2 than a new 70-200 F2.8 IS Mk 2 unless the new 70-200 was cheaper and lighter than the current version, with the same IQ.

[KayakPhotos]

If true, it is frankly a waste of resources that could be better targeted elsewhere. Such as:
400/5.6IS
24-70/IS
135/IS
100-400 mk2

I agree with all of these except for the 100-400. Why would you replace this lens with a new model if it was a "waste of resources" to replace the 70-200? This is a great lens and could only really be improved with a newer IS system, same as the 70-200. Some people don't like push/pull, but it seems like most people actually prefer it in a telephoto application because it makes it easier to track moving objects.

[Stealthy Ninja]

If true, it is frankly a waste of resources that could be better targeted elsewhere. Such as:
400/5.6IS
24-70/IS
135/IS
100-400 mk2

LOL says the dude who already has a 70-200 2.8L IS. :p

Myself, being in the market for the 70-200 2.8L IS, I think it would be a very good product for Canon to bring out. ;)

We all have our own needs and saying that's the way it should be because it would make ME feel good isn't too logical. :p (That said, I do the same thing LOL).

I said it before, but here it is again.

It actually makes a lot of sense to update the 70-200 2.8L IS, because people see the f/4L IS version as a sharper/cheaper/lighter alternative with a better IS system over the 2.8L IS (you can use it easy in low light). Making the only reason to get the more expensive version (especially with the improved high ISO in modern cameras) is if you need the DOF control (or possibly a slight speed improvement for sports as IS won't help too much with moving objects). I can see Canon putting a better IS system in and improving the sharpness to f/4 IS levels. The IS in the f/4 version is like magic IMHO.

BTW I am aware that the 70-200 2.8L IS is a very good lens, but it definitely could do with better IS at least. :)

[timbop]

LOL says the dude who already has a 70-200 2.8L IS. :p

Yes, which should make my comment hold more weight since I have ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with the thing!:D

Seriously, the copy I have is phenominal and I have absolutely no reason to upgrade, particularly since you KNOW canon will raise the price on the mk2. Yes I am asking them to do something that would benefit me by adding IS to the 24-70, but IMHO MANY people would benefit more from having another lens get IS rather than update what has been a fantastic workhorse from the day it hit the market. Heck, if Canon wants to play catch-up with nikon I'd much rather see them copy the d700's pro AF.

[Gibbo]

BTW I am aware that the 70-200 2.8L IS is a very good camera, but it definitely could do with better IS at least. :)

Enter hybrid IS (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0907/09072207canonhybridIS.asp)

[Stealthy Ninja]

^^ LOL you made me realise I said that a lens was a camera. :lol:

[Route246]

In answer to OP: I have an f/4L IS but I want an f/2.8L IS. With all of these rumors flying around I'd be an idiot to buy the current model, especially on my time horizon (I absolutely need it by 12 Jan 2010). If a new one is offered for a very high price I'd opt for the current model. If the new one is offered at a reasonable price the old one is going to have a price collapse. It makes no sense for me to buy one today if I don't have an urgent need for it.

Given the current state of the economy, etc., I have no problems waiting for something I really want now. I want the II version if the price is reasonable but I don't want to buy the current one and have a huge risk of buyer's remorse. I already have the f/4 so I'm doing fine the way I am.

[Stealthy Ninja]

^^ Almost the same here. I want the 2.8 IS version, I can borrow the f/4 IS version and I have the 200 2.8L. So no rush... I can wait a few months to see if the rumours are true (at least till the end of the year).

:)

[timbop]

3 problems with waiting-and-seeing:

1. the NEW model will ABSOLUTELY be more expensive
2. the stocks of the current model are being depleted already, so when the mk2 is announced at $2200 the current $1700 model will not be available.
3. canon has already significantly decreased production from the good old days when glass was plentiful, so expect a 6 month wait to be able to actually get a mk2, and then you'll pay list price

Seriously, the current model is excellent and somewhat available now. If I didn't already own one, I would not wait to buy the newer more expensive model.

[nphsbuckeye]

Because the new EF 70-200mm f/4L IS is stupidly sharp and has a crazy IS system. Imagine that... only 1 stop faster!
One stop is a huge different. I can shoot twice as fast.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Some comments in bold.

3 problems with waiting-and-seeing:

1. the NEW model will ABSOLUTELY be more expensive

(I understand that, I don't mind really as it will eventually start earning money. I also expect it to cost more, so it isn't a bit deal to me as I'm mentally ready)

2. the stocks of the current model are being depleted already, so when the mk2 is announced at $2200 the current $1700 model will not be available.

(Then you can always get a 2nd hand one ;) )

3. canon has already significantly decreased production from the good old days when glass was plentiful, so expect a 6 month wait to be able to actually get a mk2, and then you'll pay list price

(That might be a problem, but it's speculation really, also, that gives you a good 6 months to save the price difference :lol: )

Seriously, the current model is excellent and somewhat available now. If I didn't already own one, I would not wait to buy the newer more expensive model.

(That would be your choice. :) ).

[F4 Cyborg]

Kinda of why I waited till this June to purchase my 1D mkIII's, after the low stock shelf supplies and all the fix's and a much lower price.
Let em get the bugs out of them. Although if they do the 24-70 into an IS I'm a put me on the waiting list.

[NicolasRubio]

One stop is a huge different. I can shoot twice as fast.

That's what I meant! :D

[Clint3200]

I just bought my 2.8IS last week and don't regret it a bit. I'm fairly confident the value of mine won't drop much since the new version will cost more. In fact, it could be worth more for the same reason.
Won't know for sure until it happens, but I'm losing any sleep over it. This is a great lens.

[Route246]

Where did you find out that Canon significantly decreased production? Shortages can be created from excessive demand, like during the 5DMkII launch.

Additionally, I will pay more for more sharpness, better IS, faster autofocus, etc. $1700 or $2200 doesn't make much difference to me. Don't get me wrong, $1700 is a huge amount of money. It's just when I'm laying out a huge amount of money for something, 30% more is not so significant, it just means I have to save longer. Either number, $1700 or $2200 is a huge amount and neither is a deciding factor.

3 problems with waiting-and-seeing:

1. the NEW model will ABSOLUTELY be more expensive
2. the stocks of the current model are being depleted already, so when the mk2 is announced at $2200 the current $1700 model will not be available.
3. canon has already significantly decreased production from the good old days when glass was plentiful, so expect a 6 month wait to be able to actually get a mk2, and then you'll pay list price

Seriously, the current model is excellent and somewhat available now. If I didn't already own one, I would not wait to buy the newer more expensive model.

[dolina]

There are 6 primes Canon has to update first even before considering upgrading any of the zooms.

Namely the 35L, 135L, 180L Macro, 400L, 500L and 600L

[F4 Cyborg]

whats really funny is Canon is gona do what ever they want to and all our wistful dreaming not gona change there direction a bit.

[Gibbo]

There are 6 primes Canon has to update first even before considering upgrading any of the zooms.

Namely the 35L, 135L, 180L Macro, 400L, 500L and 600L

I think the Zooms have priority over primes when it comes to upgrade.

[F4 Cyborg]

zooms of the L and none L kind are canons best sellers.

[dolina]

I think the Zooms have priority over primes when it comes to upgrade.
Other than the 16-35L II what Canon L zoom do you know of has Canon upgraded?

The primes are decades old unlike the 70-200/2.8L IS which is barely 8 years old.

[zaathrus]

There are 6 primes Canon has to update first even before considering upgrading any of the zooms.

Namely the 35L, 135L, 180L Macro, 400L, 500L and 600L

Apparently canon laid off a large % of workforce* so they're going to upgrade any best sellers first - they aren't going to take our wishes into consideration!

* source - unsubstantiated post here (here being POTN!)

[Stealthy Ninja]

Other than the 16-35L II what Canon L zoom do you know of has Canon upgraded?

The primes are decades old unlike the 70-200/2.8L IS which is barely 8 years old.


Not decades old (if you mean current releases), even the oldest one is 16 years old.
The primes you mentioned: "35L, 135L, 180L Macro, 400L, 500L and 600L" are all about 10 years old. Making them within 2-3 years of the 70-200 2.8L IS which was released in 2001 (which is the lens people say might be upgraded). I do agree that the 35L, 180 macro and the rest probably are due for an update. The 135L probably doesn't need it, but it couldn't hurt I suppose.

AKAIK this is ALL the current L primes and their release years:

1993
400mm f/5.6L

1996
200mm f/2.8L II (I own this lens and it's awesome :) )
EF180mm f/3.5L Macro
135L

1997
300 f/4L IS

1998
35L

1999
300 2.8L IS
400mm 2.8L IS
500 4L IS
600mm 4L IS

2006
85 1.2L II
50mm 1.2L

2007
14L II

2008
24L II
800 5.6L IS
200 f/2L IS

2009
TS-E 17 f/4L
TS-E 24L

[dolina]

Apparently canon laid off a large % of workforce* so they're going to upgrade any best sellers first - they aren't going to take our wishes into consideration!

* source - unsubstantiated post here (here being POTN!)

Has Canon in the past demonstrated this behavior of updating best sellers first and not follow FIFO?

The 70-200 upgrade is wishful thinking and the only time this got minutely credible was when Nikon upgraded their 70-200.

I meant to say over a decade old. ;) The L zooms could stand a few more years before upgrades.

The only line Canon has yet to touch in years are the non-L EF lenses for obvious reasons and their film-based 1v series.

[zaathrus]

Mmm, but this after all one of the worst economic climates (globally) since the '30s.

TBH, I can see canon updating the 70-200, just to keep sales up and keep ahead of N*kon (marketing!)

The zoom which really does need updating is the 100-400 - I can't see that one waiting for upgrade much longer.

Isn't the speculation fun...!

[dolina]

I would like to see the 100-400 be supplanted by a 200-400/4L IS... Then again would I get one?

[F4 Cyborg]

70 - 400 2L IS II USM @ 54.oz's under $3,000.00

[zaathrus]

I would like to see the 100-400 be supplanted by a 200-400/4L IS... Then again would I get one?

I don't know :) I would though! And with it being a a lower magnification, they could possibly increase the maximum aperture?

TBH, I'd rather it was a 150-400 but that would then be directly competing with the Sigma offering. *shrugs* How about 200-450? :lol:

[_aravena]

What have you been reading? Everyone wants a 100-400L update, not 70-200.

[F4 Cyborg]

oh geezs a 150-400 with 2.8 or better, I'd have to carry it mounted, along with the 70-200 and the 24-70. Hmmm then again I wouldnt need to 24-70 cause I wouldn't carry a 150-400 at weddings, then again you never know whats gona happen at an event.
shesh more to lug around. ( I never change mounts once I start an event ) gona have to invent more Cyborg weight bearing armor.
Someone call "ThinkTank" and get them started on it.

[dolina]

I don't know :) I would though! And with it being a a lower magnification, they could possibly increase the maximum aperture?

TBH, I'd rather it was a 150-400 but that would then be directly competing with the Sigma offering. *shrugs* How about 200-450? :lol:
Nikon makes a Nikkor 200-400/4 VR. ;)

[olelovold]

Everyone wants a new 70-200L because then the old ones will go into the used market in heaps with dropping prices.

[zaathrus]

Nikon makes a Nikkor 200-400/4 VR. ;)

Bonus if Canon could give it a bigger aperture :D Heh, just have to wait & see! (Patience is not one of my vices!)

[F4 Cyborg]

canon makes a 100-400 IS thou it is 4.5-5.6
at about 4 grand less :rolleyes: ;)

[zaathrus]

canon makes a 100-400 IS thou it is 4.5-5.6
at about 4 grand less :rolleyes: ;)

200-400/4 VR ;)

so how workable would a 200-450 be? (theoretically!)

[F4 Cyborg]

Would remain to be seen, as it would have to be sharper than what is out there or, it would only sell to a very few.
Wanting and Working is beast's of a different color.
There is the 400 already and you can switch frames from it to a zoom.
Heck Sigma has a 100-500 2.8 fixed with a separate computer to keep it stable and it's own battery supply, whopp'n in at 28 grand, makes ya think why you don't see many if any of the large 33 pound green beasts around.

[zaathrus]

Ugh, good point!