New Version III (70-200 2.8) at $2099 vs Old Version II at $1799.....

So, who is on the same fence as me?

I've wanted a 70-200 2.8L for several years. I rented one (Version II) a few years back along with the 2X TC (version II) and loved them both. I just could not justify spending $2400 (the price at that time) for the lens for occasional use at that time. I have save for this 'toy' for a few years.

Now the new version III is about to ship and the difference in price is only $300.

1. Why do these things hold such value over time? Market forces? You can still get new copies of VERSION 1 without IS new mint in the box! And those are selling at $1250. I have seen the 28-70 2.8L (not 24) which I paid $1200 for in 1997 for $800 or more!! GREAT PRODUCTS no doubt. But is the demand that great that the price never falls? If so then how come there are new version 1 and the first with IS still available at sellers?

2. Does anyone think the price of the version II will drop more once the version III are on the shelves?

3. Yes, I would never see the difference in photos I take between Version I, II, or III. I admit that.

4. Hell, I'd probably be fine with the 2.8L version 1 without IS.....

5. Yes, I could just rent it again. I have done it twice.

What are your thoughts.

Mike

Aronis wrote in post #18683479
So, who is on the same fence as me?

I've wanted a 70-200 2.8L for several years. I rented one (Version II) a few years back along with the 2X TC (version II) and loved them both. I just could not justify spending $2400 (the price at that time) for the lens for occasional use at that time. I have save for this 'toy' for a few years.

Now the new version III is about to ship and the difference in price is only $300.

1. Why do these things hold such value over time? Market forces? You can still get new copies of VERSION 1 without IS new mint in the box! And those are selling at $1250. I have seen the 28-70 2.8L (not 24) which I paid $1200 for in 1997 for $800 or more!! GREAT PRODUCTS no doubt. But is the demand that great that the price never falls? If so then how come there are new version 1 and the first with IS still available at sellers?

2. Does anyone think the price of the version II will drop more once the version III are on the shelves?

3. Yes, I would never see the difference in photos I take between Version I, II, or III. I admit that.

4. Hell, I'd probably be fine with the 2.8L version 1 without IS.....

5. Yes, I could just rent it again. I have done it twice.

What are your thoughts.

Mike

The older one has been dropping for some time now, and will continue to do so.

V2 is wicked sharp, but sun stars are sort of lame. V3 seems to address this.

V2 is obviously the best buy

"3. Yes, I would never see the difference in photos I take between Version I, II, or III. I admit that."
youll easily notice the difference between v1 and v2

For what its worth...last month I used greentoe to purchase v2 through a Canon authorized dealer. I paid 1649 for a 70-200 f2.8 IS II.

"What are your thoughts."

exorcise the inner tightwad that prevents you from owning the lens you want

That isn't fair , most have some sort of budget to contend with.

ed rader wrote in post #18685067
"What are your thoughts."

exorcise the inner tightwad that prevents you from owning the lens you want

ed rader wrote in post #18685067
"What are your thoughts."

exorcise the inner tightwad that prevents you from owning the lens you want

THAT MADE MY DAY!

I did just that when I got my 2018 M5 a few months ago. LOL. It has several Lens's as it has many cameras! (photo from first week, now registered in NYS. I have to reshoot that)

Mike

Image hosted by forum (928003) © Aronis THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

chuckmiller wrote in post #18685258
That isn't fair , most have some sort of budget to contend with.

So true, we spend on things that we need first then save for the wants. I have held off on buying this lens for years simply because I don't use my camera enough to justify it! It's not a budget thing per say, but I try to limit my 'purchases' for me to a minimum. I spend my 'allowance' on my means of getting to work with a smile on my face! The rest is for the family and for retirement.

But I am buying the version III, I am just waiting for an email from B&H.

Mike

Don't forget to check out used lenses. I got lucky and found a mint (indistinguishable from new) Mark II for $1200.00. This included case, hood and filter all in virtually perfect condition.

I was lucky in that I was able to inspect personally before buying so I was able to confirm condition. Couldn't be happier.

Dan

bergmen wrote in post #18686970
Don't forget to check out used lenses. I got lucky and found a mint (indistinguishable from new) Mark II for $1200.00. This included case, hood and filter all in virtually perfect condition.

I was lucky in that I was able to inspect personally before buying so I was able to confirm condition. Couldn't be happier.

Dan

Dan,

Thanks for the input. This is certainly a route I have considered. Something about 'new' that just makes me smile more! I'd worry that there may be a defect that I could not detect and then be left with an expensive repair!

Mike

Aronis wrote in post #18687514
Dan,

Thanks for the input. This is certainly a route I have considered. Something about 'new' that just makes me smile more! I'd worry that there may be a defect that I could not detect and then be left with an expensive repair!

Mike

Oh I totally agree. Rarely do I consider used equipment and have only acted when I confirmed condition personally. I think one of my best scores was a mint Canon F-1n (second version of the original F-1 prior to New F-1 introduction). It was in a display case, in all places, a downtown restaurant. One of the hobbies of the owner was finding rare (and perfect) condition Canon cameras. I offered him $200.00 + my well used and dinged up early F-1 in exchange. I think he took pity on me when he saw my enthusiasm of seeing his pristine F-1n and we made a deal. The Canon pro cameras back in the day were almost always roughed up by active professionals and it was near impossible to find any of the equipment of the era in "like new" condition. I still have it in my treasured collection.

Dan

That was a good deal, if I recall the F1n was expensive! We had an F1 at my high school photography club. I shot mostly with my AE1 since I had my own equipment, but getting the F1 once in a while was fun. I think we had a Vivitar Series 1 70 to 210 zoom if I recall correctly. I ended up buying the Canon a few years later, but the Vivitar was very nice. I still have all my film cameras and they are all in great shape AE1, T90, EOS1, multiple lens. Nothing exotic.

Mike

Aronis wrote in post #18687731
That was a good deal, if I recall the F1n was expensive! We had an F1 at my high school photography club. I shot mostly with my AE1 since I had my own equipment, but getting the F1 once in a while was fun. I think we had a Vivitar Series 1 70 to 210 zoom if I recall correctly. I ended up buying the Canon a few years later, but the Vivitar was very nice. I still have all my film cameras and they are all in great shape AE1, T90, EOS1, multiple lens. Nothing exotic.

Mike

I apologize for dragging this OT, but I should clarify that I found the F-1n in the late 1990s after I had been using my New F-1 (that I bought new in 1984) for many years. When the original F-1 was announced back in the late 60s I believe it listed for $500.00. Great cameras all, I still have my F-1n, New F-1 and T-90 (plus a good collection of New FD lenses as well).

It's funny (since we are talking about early pro Canon cameras), my F-1n is about 98% mechanical with the only "electronics" being the button battery powered TTL light meter. Today's cameras are just the opposite.

Dan

Aronis wrote in post #18683479
So, who is on the same fence as me?

I've wanted a 70-200 2.8L for several years. I rented one (Version II) a few years back along with the 2X TC (version II) and loved them both. I just could not justify spending $2400 (the price at that time) for the lens for occasional use at that time. I have save for this 'toy' for a few years.

Now the new version III is about to ship and the difference in price is only $300.

1. Why do these things hold such value over time? Market forces? You can still get new copies of VERSION 1 without IS new mint in the box! And those are selling at $1250. I have seen the 28-70 2.8L (not 24) which I paid $1200 for in 1997 for $800 or more!! GREAT PRODUCTS no doubt. But is the demand that great that the price never falls? If so then how come there are new version 1 and the first with IS still available at sellers?

2. Does anyone think the price of the version II will drop more once the version III are on the shelves?

3. Yes, I would never see the difference in photos I take between Version I, II, or III. I admit that.

4. Hell, I'd probably be fine with the 2.8L version 1 without IS.....

5. Yes, I could just rent it again. I have done it twice.

What are your thoughts.

Mike

https://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Buy the old version. Unless you are into spending$400.00 for a paint job. Roger at lens rental says no difference in how its built. New front element and a paint job ?? Put the $400.oo into new cards, filters, something that matters....this paint job does not