Looks like it came out early, now if I can justify the $2500 bucks.....

Canon | EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens | 2751B002 | B&H Photo

now I would like to see a price drop on the Mark I...

The original is such a nice lens. The new one must really have some detail.

As I understand it, the AF and IS are the big improvements. Also, it has a closer minimum focus distance. That's what the reps told me at CES anyway. They didn't say anything about improved sharpness.

Considering how good my original one is, I couldn't justify the upgrade. Now if they updated the 24-70 2.8 with IS, I'd be all over that like a cheap suit. A 100-400L would have been a better upgrade for Canon imo.

I've had a 70-200mm 2.8 non IS for about six years. It's the best lens I have. I can't imagine anything sharper or faster. I'll be eager to read the hands on reviews of this new one from regular shooters.

I agree the 100-400 (which I also have but never use) is long overdue for an upgrade. They probably upgraded the 70-200 first because it's such a huge seller, especially among those getting their first "real" lens.

I agree. Maybe the sport shooters had some requests over the years as this lens can be seen at every sporting event ever.

The 100-400 is the lens everybody wants upgraded but it will be at a price, sort of like the 70-200IS which gained about $900.

Ths lens is sort of a value long "L" lens. I bet it will cost $2500 when they update it as well.

I own the IS version I, and it is an incredible lens, I can't imagine how the new one could be much better... Maybe incrementally, but not enough for me to upgrade that's for sure. The minimum focus distance is the one thing that intrigues me, but not enough to swap out.

I own the IS version I, and it is an incredible lens, I can't imagine how the new one could be much better...

Also I got the IS version and I agree -- it's my best L lens. I'm a bit surprised that Canon chose to go this route (i.e., just adding some minor features and jack up the price) rather than introduce a new lens altogether.

-- peer

I believe that the new lens is a nod to sports shooters. The 1D Mark III was not well received due to auto focus issues. Canon has mended fences with the 1D Mark IV. (At CES I asked the rep about the 1D4 vs. 1D3 for sports and the look on his face said it all.) I believe that the new 70-200 is intended to help place Canon firmly back at the top of the sports photography hill.

Also I got the IS version and I agree -- it's my best L lens. I'm a bit surprised that Canon chose to go this route (i.e., just adding some minor features and jack up the price) rather than introduce a new lens altogether.

-- peer

On the topic of "my best L lens," for me without question, it's the 135mm f2.0. That thing was sent from GOD, lol.

On the topic of "my best L lens," for me without question, it's the 135mm f2.0.

Well, not at 70mm ;^)

-- peer

Image Stabilizer provides up to 4 stops of correction at all focal lengths.
Sounds impressive for taking photos! 4 stops is a crazy good stabilizer. For video this is not worth much since the camera is on a tripod to begin with you don't need IS.

Sounds impressive for taking photos! 4 stops is a crazy good stabilizer. For video this is not worth much since the camera is on a tripod to begin with you don't need IS.

Just remember that 4 stops can't "stabilize" a moving subject, an important point for anyone shooting people in critical low ambient light environments where shutter is down below 1/60 or worse (e.g., weddings, jazz, etc.) -- faster lenses come into their own in those environments. Not to say that 4-stops isn't awesome or anything, just saying it doesn't fully make up for a moving subject.

On the topic of "my best L lens," for me without question, it's the 135mm f2.0. That thing was sent from GOD, lol.

This is the lens I always hear talked about as "the lens". Since I have always been happy with the 70-200 2.8, it is tough for me to buy the 135mm as it is a little too long (even with the 5D) for indoor portaits unless you are shooting tight headshots.

The output I have seen from the 135mm does have a special quality to it.

I'm not surprised. Just as the 85/1.8 and 100/2 are like siblings, the 135/2L and 200/2.8L share the same DNA. I own the 200L and it's wonderful. If the 135L is better, it must be freaking amazing.

The 70-200 f/2.8 I is gorgeous but a tad soft wide open (not as sharp as the f/4.0 at equal apertures). Apparently this is one of the things addressed in the Mark II, according to a Canon rep Kevin Shahinian spoke to. That's exciting. Up against primes even the best zooms look soft.

Anyone expect the price to drop a couple hundred in the coming months?

"Up against primes even the best zooms look soft."



Not this zoom according to this review. Check it out:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS Lens Review (http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/70_200/index.htm)

I concur with Erik. I have the 70-200 2.8 L IS and my mate has the 70-200 4.0 We've shot the same stuff together with both 5D2s set up identically, and his footage is definitely sharper.

I was surprised at this at first, but have seen it mentioned here a couple of times before.

Maybe the new 2.8 is actually sharper but at that price, I still wouldn't bother to trade 'up'.

Incidentally, while we're talking favourite lenses, I am blown away every time by my 85mm 1.8. Can't put my finger on it, but there's just something about it… luvverlee…

Avey

Yes the 85mm 1.8 is a awesome bargain for the price. The image quality it takes is phenomenal.

@ 1.8

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3018/2465057379_ec5f400907_o.jpg

I concur with Erik. I have the 70-200 2.8 L IS and my mate has the 70-200 4.0 We've shot the same stuff together with both 5D2s set up identically, and his footage is definitely sharper.



Is it the new IS version of the 70-200mm f4? I'm considering that lens for video on the 7D. I'd like something lighter than the 2.8.

Maybe you don't have a good copy of the 70-200 2.8IS?



Incidentally, while we're talking favourite lenses, I am blown away every time by my 85mm 1.8. Can't put my finger on it, but there's just something about it… luvverlee…

Avey

I have an 85mm 1.8 too and I really like it but mine is not a good copy. It's never been quite right on any DSLR I've owned, including the 1DMII.

Just on the topic of "bad copies," this is a very interesting read. It's usually not the glass itself but rather other aspects of manufacture that causes flaws in lenses. Sometimes it's the camera.

LensRentals.com - "This lens is soft" and other FACTS (http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2010.03.06/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-facts)

It was an interesting read. This statement sums it up for me:

From:

LensRentals.com - "This lens is soft" and other FACTS (http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2010.03.06/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-facts)

"I believe we now have camera sensors and optical designs that are simply too good for the current standards of mass-production."

With all of the pixel peeping, there is not much room for error.

If I am buying a lens, I will pay more to go to a local shop with my camera and a laptop to find a good copy (or at least that goes well with my camera(s)).

The micro adjustment feature helps compared to past models.

Been reading posts about the 70-200 II. It is supposed to be better wide open but $2,500 is a fair amount to pay.

This level of image quality is kind of on the cusp of "normal" people ever even noticing compared to the 70-200 I.