Rumour - 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM mkII

[eos 10 fan]

I was over on DPReview.com and someone had posted a rumour of an

updated 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. The thinking of those in the follow

up posts was that Canon wanted to make the lens more compatible with

digi sensors. The 70-200/IS has a flat rear element and the highly

rated 17-40mm f/4L USM has a convex rear element - could this be the

answer? - Only time will tell. It could be that some one was looking

for a reason why Dell was selling the 70-200/IS for less than

USD$1200 and started this nonsense. Another possibility is that the

mkII has been in the works for a while now, but Canon was holding off

until the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8D G-AFS ED-IF VR hit the streets so

that Canon could be sure they were offering a better product. <p>

 

<a href=http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?

forum=1019&message=6187144>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?

forum=1019&message=6187144</a> <p>

 

In the interest of (un)fair play I should state that I am in the

market for a 70-200/IS at the 'right' price and I am definitely

hoping to drive down the used market price of this lens by posting

this rumour. [A rumour I did not start btw.]

Truth is I do not think I have the $$ for the IS, and I will have

to 'settle' for a used copy of the non IS version :( <p>

 

--

[eos 10 fan]

If the URL wrapped there may be a space after the "?". <br>

Try copying-&-pasting this: <p>

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=6187144 <p>

 

--

[mark u]

I think it is highly unlikely that Canon feels any need to modify this lens. It has their most up to date version of IS, and is widely recognised as being optically excellent, with fast AF. It might make slightly more sense to consider an IS version of the 70-200 f/4L,and even more for a 100-300 f/4L lens to replace the discontinued f/5.6 as Canon doesn't carry a quality xx-300 zoom in its current line-up.

[eos 10 fan]

The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM was announced on August 1, 2001. <br>

The lens was available to buy by about mid/late September 2001. <p>

 

The initial (September 24, 2001) B&H pricing (in USD$) was: <br>

70-200 f/2.8L IS USM - $2000.USA (no "Imported" price) <br>

70-200 f/2.8L USM - $1130.Imported / $1200.USA <p>

 

Today's (September 29, 2003) B&H prices (in USD$) are: <br>

70-200 f/2.8L IS USM - $1600.Imported / $1650.USA <br>

70-200 f/2.8L USM - $1060.Imported / $1130.USA <p>

 

--

[the_macman]

I really don't see what could be improved in the 70-200. The fact that the 17-

40 has a special kind of rear element is only a technicality which doesn't yield

to a product better than 70-200. The convex element is a engineer's tool. If the

70-200 doesn't have it, it doesn't mean it's inferior... and we all know it is not :-)

Nikon released the 70-200 VR, in order to compete with the Canon IS. Does

Canon have something to reply with? I doubt it... The 70-200 is already at the

pinnacle of high-quality optics.

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

I'm with mark....canon please 'IS' the 70-200/4!!

<br>I'd also agree big time about a quality X-300IS but i don't feel the need personally for one on a 1.6 crop digital

<br>Both would be peachy...

[jay_.]

Perhaps they plan on revising all their lenses so that the image circle of high quality performance just covers the 10D chip. It would allow them to make the lenses at a cheaper cost and therefore reap even more profits. After all, that's what digital's all about.

[yakim_peled1]

Seems highly unlikely to me.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[the_macman]

Oh please no. Don't put an IS into the 70-200/4. First off, it seems that the IS is

worth around $500, making an eventual 70-200/4 IS pass the $1000 mark. At

that price many will go for the 70-200/2.8. Larger aperture always sells. For

most customers the IS would be absolutely non necessary since you can

have a larger aperture. Besides, having a 4IS and a 2.8 at roughly the same

price is a marketing stupidity. Secondly, the reason why I love the 70-200/4

besides exquisite optical quality, it's the fact that it's so light and handles so

well. You basically double the weigh by adding IS.

 

The 70-200/4 IS is in the same category as the EOS 3-based DSLR. Pipe

dreams formulated by people who should really give a serious look into

Marketing for Dummies.

[valliesto]

Canon could very well sell a 4IS lens at around a $1000 and a non IS 2.8 lens at the same price.

 

Having a line up that looks like this:

~$550 70-200/4,

~$1000 70-200/2.8 & 70-200/4IS,

~$1600 70-200/2.8IS,

makes a lot of sense. There is something for every budget and every need. You pay your money and take your choice at the $1k mark. Each lens would be able to do something the other lens could not.

 

That said I am not sure that there would be a big enough market to justify the R&D costs of developing a 4IS version. But if Canon plans to discontinue the non-IS versions, an IS version of the F/4 is certain.

[whayne_padden]

I'm not sure IS adds $500. Look at a 28-135 IS, sure it's only mode 1 but the whole lens is only $370. Also do you think the 300 f4L IS would sell for $600 wo IS, it doesn't, it's more like $800-900. I think a 70-200 f/4L IS for $800 would be very feasible.

 

Can't really see them upgrading 70-200 f/2.8L IS so soon. Heck I want a 400 & 500 f/5.6L IS before that.

[digitmstr]

Regarding the 17-40L f/4 Canon specifically mentions a "special coating" designed for the DSRL sensor. Whatever that means I don't know.

 

I think it might be good for Canon to offer an IS version of the 70-200L f/4 if there's enough demand for it. HOwever, I think they figure that currently, the low price (along with the excellent quality of the lens) is the MAIN selling factor.