70-200 f2.8 MKII

[PNF]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1001/10...isii.asp#press

MK2 has just been announced!! I wonder how much MK1 is gonna be right now.. might jump on the MK1 if the price drop is significant!!

[Dan in PA]

Originally Posted by PNF

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1001/10...isii.asp#press
might jump on the MK1 if the price drop is significant!!

+1. Apparently this lens and several others disappeared from the Canon site a few days ago (I forget where I read this), I wonder if more updates are in the works.

[Vudoo4u2]

considering selling my MKI....

[oneintheory]

mmmmmmmmmhhh.

[BMW F22]

That lens has been rumored for almost a year now. They've finally announced it. It's probably gonna run around $2k. I'll just keep my MKI.

[Mahhvinn]

Can't wait to see how much the price will drop on the MKI.

[PNF]

if someone is selling their MK1, PM me your price!

yea, cant wait, I am pretty sure B&H will drop at least a couple hundreds on the MK1 to clear their inventory! brand new for about $1300-1350 on a f2.8 70-200? sounds good to me.

[FStop7]

I used to have a 70-200 F2.8L without IS. It was actually sharper than the same lens with IS.

[BMW F22]

Originally Posted by PNF

if someone is selling their MK1, PM me your price!

yea, cant wait, I am pretty sure B&H will drop at least a couple hundreds on the MK1 to clear their inventory! brand new for about $1300-1350 on a f2.8 70-200? sounds good to me.

I don't know about that- lenses in general tend to hold their values very well. Look at the 50mm 1.8 MKI. It's fetching more money than the MKII. Although it's a somewhat different story here with the 70-200mm MKII being improved, I doubt that the MKI would drop that significantly. If the MKII is being priced at $2k+, the MKI will most likely stay where it is (around $1600-1700). People will have to decide if they're willing to spend more for the newest model or just stick with an older model which is already pretty good.

A few things to keep in mind:

1. demand might exceed supply
2. because of 1 prices will be marked up
3. depending on the retail price, it might be a while before the price actually drops (current MKI's MSRP is $1999 so the new one will likely be a few hundreds more)

[BMW F22]

Originally Posted by FStop7

I used to have a 70-200 F2.8L without IS. It was actually sharper than the same lens with IS.

Yeah- the non-IS lenses are a bit sharper than the IS versions. Thus the F4 non-IS is the best one out there. The differences are marginal though.

[FStop7]

The F2.8 is better glass than the F4, that's why the F2.8 is so much larger and costs twice as much.

[ichiban]

a lot ppl say the f4 is sharper compared to the 2.8, and lighter. So there are advantages to both. If you don't need 2.8, then don't get it.

[BMW F22]

Originally Posted by ichiban

a lot ppl say the f4 is sharper compared to the 2.8, and lighter. So there are advantages to both. If you don't need 2.8, then don't get it.

For sure. Some people are comfortable with F4 non-IS cus they only use it during the day time. I went to for the 2.8 IS because I like the ability to shoot in low light conditions and with a lens that heavy IS definitely helps. Like you said, the lens is offered in 4 versions because different people have different needs.

[PNF]

Well, Amazon at one time was selling the brand new 70-200 f2.8 IS for $1599 shipped and on ebay (also brand new from reputatble shop) selling $1599 with free shipping + 12% Bing.com cashback.

So, a 70-200mm, when I was in the market, can be had for just over $1400 shipped after everything is said and done. (yes, and I didnt get that... )

But I have to say, I have the 70-200 f4 IS and I think it is just as sharp, if not sharper than the 2.8 IS at every aspect and focal length. I did not do a close side-by-side comparison at every aperture/length, but generally speaking, I am more than happy to get the f4 IS. and plus, it is $400 cheaper. (I got it for around $1050 shipped from ebay brand new).

I even think the F4 IS is sharper than my 16-35 in day light. f4 produces excellent color and DOF IMO.

So, its up to you on what you shoot I guess.

Then again, if the 70-200 f2.8 IS dropps to $1300-1400 again (after ebay/cashback) or less, I might be considering selling my f4 and get the MK1.. (I was shooting in Vegas just last weekend and I found that on night street, f4 is not fast enough, unless I turn up my ISO). But other than that, I think f4 Is is more than enough for me.

[UdubBadger]

of course it will drop to what I just paid 4 months ago for my 70-200 f4 IS...

[FStop7]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

of course it will drop to what I just paid 4 months ago for my 70-200 f4 IS...

L lenses never lose that much value. They are an awesome investment if you buy used - I've actually bought used lenses, used them heavily, and then sold them for a small profit. If you treat them well they will always hold their value.

[gary88]

Originally Posted by FStop7

L lenses never lose that much value. They are an awesome investment if you buy used - I've actually bought used lenses, used them heavily, and then sold them for a small profit. If you treat them well they will always hold their value.

True. I once had a 70-200 f/4L non-IS that I bought used (seller only used it for a couple hours, brand new in the box basically). I used it for a year, then ended up selling it for $5 more than I paid for it.

I have the f/4L IS version now and absolutely love it. I tried out the 2.8L IS and realized I don't really need f/2.8 and the additional bulk that comes with it. If I shot something like indoor sports a lot then I would have definitely gotten it though.

Should be interesting to see the shots coming out of the new version. On the original I noticed it was pretty soft wide open, but still usable.

[spectrumphoto]

I may have to sell my MKI version to get the new one. From experience though, the lenses are GREAT workhorses as mine is 4 years old, looks like crap (relatively) yet still produces incredible images. Though I do have my lenses serviced by Canon CPS Irvine once a year most recently 2 weeks ago.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone but the most discerning pro will be able to tell the difference between the MKI and the MKII lens.

[clubspec330i]

I have F2.8 but I tried F4 IS before I bought it and found to be shaper than F2.8. However, I bought F2.8 because I like the wide open aperture. Mates that with my 5D, F2.8 is good enough for me.

[scollins]

For the guys comparing the f2.8 to the f4 and saying the f4 is sharper: Are you comparing at the same aperture? In other words, is the f4 sharper at f4 than the f2.8 at f4? I don't shoot Canon, but I am curious about these qualitative statements.....

[BMW F22]

Originally Posted by scollins

For the guys comparing the f2.8 to the f4 and saying the f4 is sharper: Are you comparing at the same aperture? In other words, is the f4 sharper at f4 than the f2.8 at f4? I don't shoot Canon, but I am curious about these qualitative statements.....

Yeah it's pretty much proven that at F4, the F4 version is still a bit sharper. It's agreed upon that the F4 is sharper than the 2.8 but the difference is very marginal. So for those that need the 2.8, do not hesitate in getting it. You can always sharpen it in post processing.