EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM

[neuroanatomist]

I suspect the original offering price will be $2500-$3000....I doubt I would pay extra to be a little less soft at 200mm.

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.....

[Keith B]

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.

[jimr]

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.

[hotsecretary]

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.

[canoli]

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...

[Benjamin]

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.[]

[Keith B]

Wonder if I'm still gonna like film as much after I go FF digital.[img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img]

No.





Unless you you are talking medium or large format.

[alexniedra]

AWESOME! []

[HiFiGuy1]

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........

[elmo_2006]

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'?


[*-)]