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

[kmcgreg]

A quick search around shows that most grey importers and hong kong suppliers have this lens now for about $2050 to $2100.

I think I am ready to buy.

[Xenedis]

A quick search around shows that most grey importers and hong kong suppliers have this lens now for about $2050 to $2100.

Eeek. That seems ridiculously cheap.

What would the final cost be when import duty and currency conversion are factored into the price?

[pollen]

The 70-200 Mark I was priced at $3200 in 2007, then in early 2008 went down to about $2300 when the AUD went up very high. Then the GFC occurred and it bounced back to about 2600/2700

[acko]

It will be interesting to see if there is some sort of 'run out' sale of the Mk 1.

[glenwood]

A quick search around shows that most grey importers and hong kong suppliers have this lens now for about $2050 to $2100.

I think I am ready to buy.

It must be mk I

Is it possible to provide link to page.

[James Axford]

here are the latest prices, just over 3000. you'll be lucky to get up under the 3000 mark i think
https://www.camerasdirect.com.au/ind...eking-eta.html

http://www.digidirect.com.au/camera_...28l_is_ii_lens

[kmcgreg]

Bummer I think I screwed up! Its the old version I saw! Sorry

[andrask]

I had a quick hands on at the recent Digital Life Expo in Melbourne and was quite impressed by the IS performance getting reasonably sharp images around 1/30 s. Having only used the non-IS f/4L for some 3 years, it felt heavy - I can't see it fitting into my Lowepro backpack. It at least comes complete with the tripod collar (not having to dish out for an outrageous $200+ for one for the f/4L).

[Ploddy]

I am considering this at the moment and have read a lot of reviews on the old model. Seems it is drastically soft compared with the f4 equivalent, on the higer specced bodies. I can fully understand why Canon cant afford to let that continue. By all accounts, the new model fixes this anomaly.

But at twice the price of the f4, I know which one I am going to be forced to buy...

[Xenedis]

I am considering this at the moment and have read a lot of reviews on the old model. Seems it is drastically soft compared with the f4 equivalent, on the higer specced bodies.

I cannot say I've ever heard anyone use the word "soft" in reference to any of Canon's 70-200mm L zooms.

They are all very sharp.

Which reviews have indicated it's soft?

[Ploddy]

I'll try and get together a list of sites that I read this, but in the meantime, check it out for yourself...

Comparison Charts

It's important to note that the critical comments are reserved for the IS version - the non-IS seems to be very sharp.

Another comparison you can do with these charts is the new 2.8 is against the old 2.8 is. Chalk and cheese if you ask me.

[dche5390]

I cannot say I've ever heard anyone use the word "soft" in reference to any of Canon's 70-200mm L zooms.

They are all very sharp.

Which reviews have indicated it's soft?

Only if one peeps at corners!

[Ploddy]

I disagree if you refer to the charts linked in my post. Of course, this is just one sample with some pretty nasty CA when wide open, but it does make you wonder. There must be a reason why they replaced the model.

[Xenedis]

I still don't know why Canon chose to replace the 70-200/2.8L IS. It's not the oldest of the 70-200s, and having owned two of the five 70-200s, I don't know what could be considered wrong with them.

On the other hand, I don't pixel-peep or measurebate.

My images are of real-world people, places, animals, events and things, not newspapers, rulers and brick walls.