Seriously, why does everyone want a new 70-200

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

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

F4 Cyborg wrote in post #8353162
Stupidly sharp is no sharper than sharp and that's a honed truth.

Humor with an edge....

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 …lenses-this-thursday.aspx

Marshal.F wrote in post #8354479
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 …lenses-this-thursday.aspx

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

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.

therealmr wrote in post #8346650
Seriously, why does everyone want a new 70-200?

Because I don't want a used one.

Mark1 wrote in post #8356618
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.

Marshal.F wrote in post #8350921
All a new 70-200 would do for me is make the "old" 70-200 even cheaper.

+100 on this!! here here!

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

F4 Cyborg wrote in post #8353162
Stupidly sharp is no sharper than sharp and that's a honed truth.

precisely

timbop wrote in post #8360474
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.

timbop wrote in post #8360474
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.

timbop wrote in post #8360474
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.

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. (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/lighte​r 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.

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #8367216
LOL says the dude who already has a 70-200 2.8L IS.

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

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.