Canon 70-200 L IS USM @

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by joe_s.|2, Feb 5, 2008.

  1. Has anyone heard of or even bought from it?
    I stumbled onto this site from a sponsored link in Amazon when I was researching
    on prices of this 70-200 lens.

    Amazon is pricing it at ~USD1500+, but this site only selling it for USD1129
    which is like way, way cheaper than normal.

    I'm not sure if it's trustworthy.
  2. Check before buying anything from a site advertising prices way below what known reputable dealers are giving you.
  3. run, fast........

    A lifetime rating of 0.76 out of a possible 10?

    I agree with Juergen! RUN! And save to purchase from B&H or Adorama! (or another RELIABLE source)
  6. Thanks Rob. I checked and there was seriously a long list of "bad experiences" and the rating is only 0.45/10

    Glad I asked here first before getting it. (I'm here in the US for only 1 month thinking of getting a good deal and not getting fleeced)

    Many Thanks...
  7. They'll tell you it comes at that price without the zooming mechanism, which you can order for and extra thousand dollars. :)

    Come on man, if it's too good to be true...etc...etc...
  8. FWIW, I believe Amazon's price factors in an instant rebate from Canon that expires February 17.
  9. Wow, talk about bad feedback on resellerratings, that's astounding.
  10. Some dealers can only be described as gutter scum. These (well known) crooks even make gutter scum look good in comparison.
    This link will take you to valid coupons for Canon products at B&H.
    I recently purchased a 70-200 2.8 IS lens for less than $1500. I just checked the site and see the 24-70 2.8 has a coupon for $984 - very tempting.
  12. I just recently gotten the 580 EX II flash using the above coupon (receiving the item tomorrow! Can't hardly wait!)

    It's between a 70-200L IS vs 24-70 2.8 debate for me as well. Only thing is, I doubt I'll be so dilligent to take the 70-200 1.4kg lens everywhere just to do some simple snapping. That's the headache but I do like the 2.8 for low light weddings etc.
  13. "It's between a 70-200L IS vs 24-70 2.8 debate for me as well."

    There's no debate to be had Joe - you need both :)

    Seriously though, I'm sure that most who have both will tell you that the 24-70 spends far more time on the camera.


  14. You can take the tripod mount off of the 70-200 for some weight savings. Also, I agree with Colin. I used to use my 70-200 more, then my 24-70 more than my 70-200, and now my 16-35 more than my 24-70.
  15. depends on what you shoot then. the 2.8 is largely for weddings, (but I just got a flash, so I'll see how it holds up) the 17-55 2.8 is another one but at a max focal length of 55mm, it seems a tad short even on a cropped body.

Share This Page