Quote Originally Posted by JJphoto
I'm just curious about when will the price of the Canon 70-200 2.8II drop while the nikon's 70-200 2.8II is selling for about $300-$400 less.

True - but the Canon lens is better. [:P]


Don't expect the price to drop too much, or too fast. The EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS was released in November, 2009 at list price of $1050, and it's dropped about $100 since then. Most L lenses 'end up' at somewhere around $100-150 less than list price, though the superteles are discounted a bit more.


Quote Originally Posted by JJphoto
thinking about other Canon prime lenses,200mm 2.8L II, $700-$800,200mm 2.0L, $4500-5000,300mm 2.8 $4000-4500,135mm 2.0L $1000 -it's just about the balance of speed, IQ, versatility, IS,and price

Sure - it's always about the balance of speed,IQ, versatility, IS, and price. Always.


Quote Originally Posted by JJphoto
If I spend $2500 to buy this 70-200mm2.8L II, It will bother me every time I use it even though it gives you a lot of versatility and IS function. and then it's just my opinion.

If it will bother you, don't get it. Yes, it's expensive. But it can produce great images - it really is a first-class lens. You mentioned the200mm 2.8L II prime - the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II zoom @ 200mm is actually sharper than the prime (Bryan's ISO 12233 crops show that, and my real-world testing - I have both lenses - bears that out).





___________________


Quote Originally Posted by cxr
another thing is i'm confused whether just get a 24-70 to replace the 24-105 or get one of the 70-200, either the f4 IS or the f2.8 IS mark II.

First thing to do is determine the focal length(s) you require. Second thing to do is determine the aperture you need at that/those lengths. Third thing is to determine your budget, and there's a lens within that budget that meets the first two criteria, great. If not, I'd recommend to keep saving...


If you find the 24-105mm adequate and don't mind that it's 'a bit slow indoors' then I'd say you're set for that range. I can tell you that personally, I wouldn't find f/4 adequate indoors (thus, I use the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS indoors for the most part, if not the faster EF 85mm f/1.8). But, with a bounced flash, f/4 is just fine. But then again, I'm strongly considering the 24-105mm as an outdoor walkaround lens, for the longer focal length and weather sealing compared to the 17-55mm.


If you need longer than 105mm, then you're looking at a 70-200mm lens or a longer, fast prime. Personally, I prefer the flexibility of zooms, but supplement those with fast primes in the same range for specific purposes.


So, if you've decided that you do need 70-200mm, then use your shooting experience with the 24-105mm to determine if f/4 will be suitable. Will you be using the 70-200 zoom indoors (for tight portraits, or in event venues)? That would have me leaning towards the f/2.8 version. Likewise, if you want to combine it with a teleconverter/extender, the f/2.8 is a better choice. But, if you'll be ok with f/4 (shooting outdoors in daylight, mostly), then get the f/4 IS lens. Keep in mind that the 70-200mm f/4L IS + an excellent prime like the 135mm f/2L would still cost less than the f/2.8 IS II.


The f/2.8 vs. f/4 zoom debate is really about compromise - cost vs. aperture.