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

[Tannin]

A 15-400/2.8 .....

Weight
Price
Image quality

Sacrifice any three of the above.

[Clubmanmc]

A 15-400/2.8 .....

Weight
Price
Image quality

Sacrifice any three of the above.

id rather just carry a 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 and 100-400

each has their strengths and id use them accordingly...

15-400 is just a joke..

M

[mongo]

Yes. That's why they have released MTF charts.

thanks Tony . There does seem some improvement but whether it's enough to notice or warrant selling a perfectly good current version is very unlikely.

Also , thanks for the general info re fluorite use. Mongo knows Nikon allegedly tried it once or twice in the 70's or early 80's on possibly a 400mm f5.6 but this is hard to verify it seems. Either way, it seems they never have since as far as Mongo knows - at least in their camera lenses. If they do, they do not seem to advertise that point well or at all.

[Tannin]

Yes, Nikkor seem to like keeping things pretty dark in that department. But I do know that Nikon once produced a lens that was all fluorite - yes, every single element, not just the front one (which is the conventional arrangement). A one-off for ultra violet work, apparently. Lord only knows what the price might have been.

[Sleeper]

what a dumb lens to bring out.

Canon is filled with bureaucratic idiots.

[nexus]

Mate if it makes them money they'd release a new version every year, like some software makers do

[NGP]

But why?
1: The old 70-200/2.8 IS was already excellent.
2: The 100-400 badly needs replacing.
3: The old 400/5.6 desperately needs an IS version
4: There is no 400/4 option (prime or zoom) this side of a crazy $10,000
5: There is still no 500/5.6 or 600/5.6 available.

the main reason is the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS is the least sharp of the 4x 70-200L family.. so an upgrade is welcome.. sure the current version does the job well but the improved optics and an extra stop of the image stabiliser is always welcome

[schc]

I cant wait for the price reductions!

[msenior]

Hey Guys
Canon announced this is the past few days.

Whats are peoples thoughts. I am looking at getting this but most likely near Sept.

Anyone drooling yet????

http://www.canon.com.au/en-AU/Pro-Ph...IS-II-USM-Lens

Mike

[Xenedis]

Already covered here:

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...ad.php?t=47525

[glenwood]

Any one know about how much it is going to cost in Australia.

[DAdeGroot]

Any one know about how much it is going to cost in Australia.

I saw a quote today of $3199

[Satine]

I had heard to expect an extra $500 on the current model??

[mikec]

Wow that isn't friendly on the wallet. I think I'll still stick to the f/4 IS when it comes time to buy a 70-200mm.

[Xenedis]

I saw a quote today of $3199

I've read of higher prices.

I just cannot see very many owners of the original 70-200/2.8L IS "upgrading".

It's pretty hard to fault the original lens, and even if I had a spare $3-4K and had to get rid of it, I wouldn't upgrade.

[DAdeGroot]

Ah found it - PRA Imaging Perth:

http://www.praimaging.com.au/d156-56...-in-stock.html

[kmcgreg]

Price seems high - more like canon rrp. I will buy one when they hit the streets in numbers and can get a better price.

[Xenedis]

The first time I saw a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens in a store (in 2005 or so), the price was $3,999. Staggering.

Certainly the mark II is very expensive, but given the stellar performance and quality of the original 70-200/2.8L IS and the price for which it can be purchased, does the new version really justify the quite-significant difference?

[glenwood]

Ah found it - PRA Imaging Perth:

http://www.praimaging.com.au/d156-56...-in-stock.html

It says in Stock. Is it true or they mean pre-order.

[adilucca]

Hmm, I think my 70-200f/4 will keep me going for a while. I can't see too many version I's being sold to upgrade so the costs may not come down that much for a while.

Cheers
Alan