| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
New Canon EF 70-200MM f/2.8L IS II USM LENS
Jeff Kowalsky, Photographer
 |
West Bloomfield | MI | United States | Posted: 10:49 AM on 01.05.10 |
->> http://ow.ly/SY7t
I wish they updated their 24-70 |
|
Mark Watkins, Photographer
|
Acworth | GA | USA | Posted: 7:06 PM on 01.05.10 |
| ->> ditto |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 7:19 PM on 01.05.10 |
| ->> Any bets on Price? I am guessing around 1,800. |
|
Scott Schupbach, Photographer
|
Fenton | MI | U.S.A. | Posted: 7:21 PM on 01.05.10 |
| ->> $2500.00 |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Michael Ip, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 7:54 PM on 01.05.10 |
->> Whatever the price on the new Nikon 70-200 is, Canon will match it or beat it by $100.
It's a shame they will discontinue the non-IS one. It is a hell of a lens. Let's hope they continue to support it. |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 7:56 PM on 01.05.10 |
| ->> I thought non-IS was gone a while ago? I liked it a lot better than the IS version 1... |
|
Anantachai Brown, Photographer
|
Jacksonville | FL | | Posted: 8:11 PM on 01.05.10 |
| ->> after Jan 7, i'll be selling mine....MINT condition. 70-200 non IS. |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 8:18 PM on 01.05.10 |
->> I loved the non IS version, the IS version was to heavy to deal with while shooting for long periods.
Plus I never ever used the IS on camera I have owned. |
|
Richard Heathcote, Photographer
|
London | . | UK | Posted: 7:41 PM on 02.09.10 |
->> Started shooting with this lens today.... MEGA... size/weight is the same as the current IS version, but the feel is much better. Build quality is good especially around the troublesome front element section and the lens hood locks into place with a button like the Nikon 70-200.
I amoungst others was one of the biggest complainers about the old 70-200 2.8 IS because to be frank it was a very poor lens in build and sharpness was awful, but this new mk2 version is like a compleatly different piece of kit. |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
|
Bloomington/Normal | IL | United States | Posted: 10:20 PM on 02.09.10 |
| ->> Guess I'm old, I like my non-is. IS isn't something I need more than I need the $700 or more in price difference. |
|
Nik Habicht, Photographer
|
Levittown | PA | USA | Posted: 10:33 PM on 02.09.10 |
| ->> Ugh! Button-releasing lens hoods are back? Who thought that was a good idea? |
|
Anantachai Brown, Photographer
|
Jacksonville | FL | | Posted: 10:11 AM on 02.10.10 |
| ->> Richard, can you tell the difference in image quality, sharpness? |
|
Jeff Brehm, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Charlotte | NC | USA | Posted: 10:19 AM on 02.10.10 |
| ->> I love the line in the press release Jeff linked to, about how "Canon's core has always been its optics." Good thing they reminded us, because after shooting with the Mark III and the 5D, the photos were so out of focus that it was hard to tell if there even WERE any optics. |
|
Jay Adeff, Photographer
|
Salinas | CA | USA | Posted: 12:55 PM on 02.10.10 |
| ->> I don't get it. I've been complaining for years about how bad the 70-200 2.8L IS is. It's soft at f/2.8 and really soft at 200mm. I've owned, rented, and borrowed several copies over the last seven years, and never found one that was acceptable. So, I use the 200mm 2.8L II instead, or a shorter prime if needed. But now that the new version is out, people are finally starting to talk about what a bad lens the old version was. Go figure. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|