Printable View
An update of one the most favorite lenses for most of us...
The new EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM lens features a revised optical design, incorporating a
fluorite element and no fewer than 5 UD elements for the correction of
chromatic aberrations. The minimum focus distance has been reduced to
1.2m, with a corresponding increase in maximum magnification to 0.21x.
The mechanical design has also been modified, with the most obvious
external change being a wider focusing ring.
I wonder how much damage it'll do to the wallet (especially considering its predecessor is $1600 refurbished)...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
When Nikon released theirnewer versionof the 70-200 f/2.8 I believe the price tag was about $2,400 up from something like $1,900. I would expect Canon's offering to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $2,000 or even higher :-(
Oh well, our Mark I is still pretty sweet!!!
EDIT
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S VR$1,949.95
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S VR II $2,399.95
LOL...I'm curious now as to what the 'used' market will do once generation II comes out!?
Maybe, I can sell my copy close to the retail price that I orginally paid for to upgrade to this one...just in time for my birthday!
I have a question, when Canon introduces a version II of a lens, do they still service the original version?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinh Nhut Nguyen
I believe so, at least for a period of time...
I suspect the original offering price will be $2500-$3000. Give it a year and it will settle down to around $2000-2500 range.
As suggested here already what will this do to the used market? How many will upgrade? Will the used market see a price close to $1000 as people upgrade?
If I was to just bought the EOS-1D Mark IV or EOS 7D Digital SLR (DSLR) cameras that can take advantage of the increased high-speed Auto Focus (AF) system of this new lens it would make sense. I doubt I would pay extra to be a little less soft at 200mm. The improvement are welcome and it should preform better on older cameras but should really shine on newer camera. So when I replace my Camera I am going to have budget for this lens.
thanks Sean for the answer.
the version two of this lens will be a sweet piece of glass, Canon will sell a lot of these, I hope they price it reasonably though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinh Nhut Nguyen
Yes. Five years after it has been discontinued. (If you're lucky, maybe longer.)
I doubt that the version I will be around $1000 used, I think it will be around $1400 to $1500 if the version II is $2000. The reason I say this is because the f/2.8 non-IS and the f/4 IS are sold around $1000-1150. If I were looking for a 70-200 and only had $1000, I would definitely look at a70-200 f/2.8L IS I used, because it is $1000, f/2.8 and has IS. This will kill the sale of the f/2.8 non-IS and f/4 IS, considered how many people own the f/2.8 IS I and will try to upgrade. Not sure if I make sense...what do you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimr
How about one more stop of IS plus an increase in maximum magnification from 0.17x to 0.21x? Ok, maybe not enough to justify selling a Mk I and buying a Mk II. But since the current EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is on my future purchase list and not in my bag, it's a tougher call. If street prices at release really are in the >$2500 range, it becomes a choice of the Mk II versus the Mk I plus some other lens, or even a pair of non-L primes - hmmmm...decisions, decisions.....
I doubt the used price of the 70-200 2.8 IS will go down to $1000 especially if the MKII is $2400 or so. I'd expect to stay somewhere where it is $1400 or so. The 24 1.4 mkI is still getting around $900 on ebay and that was a $1200 lens. It is the contrast of the options, $1700 or $900 for something that is still great, just not as great.
The price on this site has the lens listed as € 2969; which would convert to about $4 280 US. Mind you typically the $ is not the converted price of the € listed price. But the price will be high at the initial launch - close to $3000US if not more. That should keep the used price of the older version high for some time.
I guess I will just have to watch the canon site and see.
I sold my version I for $1800 ... because I had sold my Camera... but this year looks like the year I'll be blowing a mint, especially if the 24-70 IS comes out like predicted :)
I just hope the version II is not toooo much more than the I, as the I is still $2000+taxes new here.
I think this is great!
I'm probably hitting the 40D's sensor limit with the long-distance detail shots I enjoy taking so much - landscapes, cityscapes, etc. But I've never been blown away by the 70-200 2.8 IS sharpness, especially at 200mm. It's not "weak" per se it's just not "amazing." I assume it's the 40D and I simply need more resolution. But a better piece of glass can't hurt right? ;)
Having the latest gen of IS will be nice too, though most of my shots are on a tripod. But for the night matches at the US Open and other "tripod-verboten" events it will be noticeably better I think.
I can easily see this going for $2500 though. Canon's prices are up big-time, they've surged in the past year. When I bought my 2.8 IS two years ago it was ~$1500 and now it's closer to $2000. I think Canon gave everyone some time to absorb the new prices and now a new pro lens for $2500 won't seem out of line at all...
The FTM charts look pretty promising. I must see myself how much Canon actually improved on something which is already amazing. But for $2500? I think I'll first upgrade my 50D to a FF camera and be happy with my 70-200/4L IS. Wonder if I'm still gonna like film as much after I go FF digital.[:)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin
No.
Unless you you are talking medium or large format.
AWESOME! [:D]
Boy, this is interesting news. the current v1 was already on my short list of drool-inducing glass, and this one looks to jump nearly to the top. A 24-70 f/2.8 IS might leapfrog it. Or maybe a 400mm f/5.6 IS. Hmmm........
Looking at the MTF charts, the numbers don't inspire too much confidence between the Mark I and Mark II. I mean comparing the two, to me, it seems that it may not be worth the extra added value in particular if one plans on upgrading to the Mark II.
Can someone have another look and ensure that I'm not 'seeing things'?
[*-)]
Interesting. Nice incremental changes, but nothing significant enough to make me want to give up my existing 70-200mm f/2.8 IS. I'll be following the reviews when it hits the streets though. So many lenses, so little time & cash.
I'm not really excited about spending another grand to get a marginal improvement. I'd rather have another lens, or a portion of a new body.
Seriously I have no reason to upgrade my 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS USM, now if they came up with 24-105 f/2.8L IS USM i'll be jumping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dj 7th
Yeah I think I'm going to be fine with mine too. I still get blown away with everyday.
I'm sure they are going to update the 35 1.4 any day now that I've finally bought the existing version. I'll be fine with that too if it is $1700 for the mkII.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
Then would you mind buying the existing version of the 400mm f/5.6 so they come out with an update (read: IS version) of that? :)
Providing that it was as sharp as the non-IS version this would seriously make people think twice when making the decision to purchase eitherthe 300 f/4 or the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
I probably would be upset, just because I would really want IS in a 400mm lens.
The 35 1.4 is already near perfect for my needs. I know they will update it but for my needs it doesn't justify an extra $400. If it was updated and it was the same price, I'd go nuts!
I might upgrade for the new lens hood design alone :P I really hate canon's current design, they always fall off!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin
Agreed.
For someone who doesn't already own a version 1, it might be time to get version 2. But, everyone knows that version 1 is an outstanding lens, and the marginal improvement at such a significant increase in cost? Not for me. Like you, I'd be considering another piece of glass or an additional camera body.
Edit: I should have also said this: it's going to be more than a grand for the new one, since we won't get the full price for selling the old one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Outstanding, yes. Without room for improvement, wrong. If you ever try the 200/2, you will understand how much better life can get. I have a 'favorite shot' of the Seattle Space Needle, taken from perhaps 1.25 miles away, handheld at night, ISO 1600; it's so incredibly crisp and detailed that you can tell which TVs are on, and where people are standing. The 70-200/2.8IS can definitely be improved a lot.
@Peety3...
LOL...but now you are comparing a fixed focal lens to a zoom lens which is a no-no!
I do agree that any lens can be approved upon, but for current owners of the Mark I, upgrading to the Mark II may not be necessary as the MTF charts show. An actual review of the Mark II should put everyones questions andconcerns hopefullyto rest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peety3
I never said "without room for improvement." I said marginal improvement with a significant increase in cost. There's always room for improvement, but at what cost?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I second that. Sure, you can have drool-worthy sharpness at f/2, at what cost? And at what loss of versitality? Many photographers cannot justify spending the extra $3000 for the 200 f/2 L, or prefer the versitilaty offered by a zoom like the EF 70-200 2.8L IS (II).
Quote:
Originally Posted by peety3
In all seriousness, will any zoom in the 70-200 f/2.8 range ever reach the level of sharpness of the 200 f/2? You can't compare apples to oranges - Or in this case, a highly corrected (and therefore highly expensive) prime lens to a zoom lens. It's not correct to say that the 70-200 2.8L IS II is a sub-par lens, solely due to your personal experience with the EF 200 f/2 L IS USM. For all we know, some may find that the EF 70-200 2.8L IS II has simply phenominal sharpness based on their experience with a lesser consumer lens.
Overall, I think the EF 70-200 2.8L IS II will be a very nice improvement over the hugely popular EF 70-200 2.8L IS. I found the 70-200 2.8L IS Mark I to have very good image quality, especially sharpness. But of course, sharpness is relative - I'm using the EF-S 55-250 as my primary telephoto lens. I think the EF 70-200 2.8L IS II will be a great successor to what is already a very high quality zoom lens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Whether it's marginal or not, it depends on your value.
[url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx]http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx[/url]
But to me, the Mk II's MTF looks great to me, especially higher resolving performance and sharpness in the center at both 70 and 200 ends.
This at least can easily compete with Nikon's equivalent version 1 in terms of the quality in the lens center.
[quote=[url="http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_c16/page6.asp]http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_c16/page6.asp[/url]]A comparison to Nikon's AF-S VR 70-200mm F2.8G is particularly interesting. The two lenses are near-identical in
specification and price, but their characteristics are substantially
different. The Nikon lens clearly outperforms the Canon for sharpness
on the smaller DX/APS-C format, however this comes at the cost of
rather compromised performance on full frame, with significantly higher
distortion, vignetting and chromatic aberration, plus extremely soft
corners. This leads us to conclude that the two lenses were optimized
differently, the Canon for full frame and the Nikon for DX, and
illustrates how the different demands of the two formats appear
difficult to reconcile in a single lens design.[/quote]
[quote=alexniedra]
[quote=Alan]I said marginal improvement with a significant
increase in cost. There's always room for improvement, but at what
cost?[/quote]
I second that. Sure, you can have drool-worthy sharpness at f/2, [i]at[/i]
what cost? And at what loss of versitality? Many photographers cannot
justify spending the extra $3000 for the 200 f/2 L, or prefer the
versitilaty offered by a zoom like the EF 70-200 2.8L IS (II)...
[quote=peety3]
Outstanding, yes. Without room for improvement, wrong. If you ever try the 200/2, you will understand how much better life can get. I have a 'favorite shot' of the Seattle Space Needle, taken from perhaps 1.25 miles away, handheld at night, ISO 1600; it's so incredibly crisp and detailed that you can tell which TVs are on, and where people are standing. The 70-200/2.8IS can definitely be improved a lot.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
[/quote]
In all seriousness, will any zoom in the 70-200 f/2.8 range ever reach the level of sharpness of the 200 f/2? You can't compare apples to oranges...
[/quote]
I third that I don't want at all to see 70-200 f/2 simply because of the bulk and weight. F/2 takes a lot of glasses that will defeat the purpose of these 70-200 zooms' versatility.
Not sure if there are prices listed in other countries but in the UK Warehouse Express has the MkIIlisted at£2,799 compared to the MkI for £1,568.
I don't know if this just an RRP price or what but that just put a complete and utter stop to any thought I had of upgrading from the F2.8 non-IS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmo_2006
[^o)]
Shall we take a poll? [:P]
First of all, I want to say MTF is just one of many factors (e.g. n-stop IS/VR, AF, etc) to quantitatively compare lenses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShutterbugJohan
But the good thing is MTF is objective so it's easy to compare.
The MTF's of Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS Mk I, Mk II, and Nikon's Mk II
You can safely ignore all blue lines on Canon's MTF as they are at f/8 and Nikon's MTF doesn't provide that data. So just compare:
- S10 (contrast): Canon's thick black (f/2.8) solid vs Nikon's red solid
- M10 (contrast): Canon's thick black (f/2.8) dash vs Nikon's red dash
- S30 (resolution): Canon's thin black (f/2.8) solid vs Nikon's blue solid
- M30 (resolution): Canon's thin black (f/2.8) dash vs Nikon's blue dash
Some observations (may have some oversights):
- At 70, Canon's I & II are inferior to Nikon's II in terms of all factors -- contrast, resolution, at S and M directions [:(][:(][:(][:(][:(]
- At 70, Canon's I is inferior to Canon's II in terms of all factors [:)][:)][:)]
- At 200, Canon's I is inferior to Canon's II in terms of resolution [:)][:)]
- At 200, Canon's I is slightly inferior to Canon's II in terms of contrast at the corner [:)][:)]
- At 200, Canon's II is very competitive to Nikon's II in terms of all factors (almost) [:)][:)]
- Both Canon's are way steadier generally from center to 15mm (near sensor's corner) whereas Nikon drops exponentially from center to corner (21.5mm) [:)][:)][:)]
- BTW, the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200MM F/2.8G ED VR II sells at $2400 at B&H so maybe we can expect really similar price on Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (Mk I):
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/...0_28ismtf1.gifhttp://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/...0_28ismtf2.gif
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM:
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/...u_wide_mtf.gifhttp://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/...u_tele_mtf.gif
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200MM F/2.8G ED VR II:
http://a.img-dpreview.com/news/0907/...II_MTF_W_i.jpghttp://a.img-dpreview.com/news/0907/...II_MTF_T_i.jpg
[:(][:(][:(][:(]Quote:
Originally Posted by waving_odd
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the extra stop of IS will make the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II canon's most hand holdable lens for still objects. (When used at the 70mm end, the extra stop of IS moves it ahead of the 200 f/2 and the 24-105 f/4). Kind of neat, if true.
Personally, I'll have to see the price and read reviews (Bryan's review, anyway) before I can decide if I should upgrade. It will take a significant IQ increase to move me.
I guess I need to get a II and a 200 f2, just to cover the bases...
yeah... [<:o)]