# Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L Non-IS Discontinued?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 13, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;clear:right; float:right; margin-left:10px; margin-top:10px;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/06/canon-ef-70-200-f2-8l-non-is-discontinued/"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float:right; margin-left:10px; margin-top:10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/06/canon-ef-70-200-f2-8l-non-is-discontinued/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div style="clear:right; float:right; margin-left:10px; margin-top:10px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/06/canon-ef-70-200-f2-8l-non-is-discontinued/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Various reports say it is

</strong>We’ve heard from a few people that the EF 70-200 f/2.8L is in the process of being discontinued.</p>
<p>A few people have said they have attempted to get broken lenses fixed and have been told by Canon USA that parts for the repair are no longer available and will not be in the future either.</p>
<p>Another report says an EF 70-200 f/2.8L that was in disrepair was replaced with a refurbished EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II at no extra cost. However, don’t go breaking your lenses, as this may have been a one off.</p>
<p>I would imagine the current stock of the lens at retailers will probably be the last of them. I’ve heard nothing about a replacement for the lens, even though I do think there is a place for Non-IS lenses such as this one.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/91680-USA/Canon_2569A004_70_200mm_f_2_8L_USM_Autofocus.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L at B&H Photo $1299</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 13, 2013)

sad...its a great lens...one day I will pony up and snag the v2IS. But still, sad face...when a great lens finishes its stay...


----------



## nolken (Jun 13, 2013)

Wait... so if I buy a 70-200 f/2.8 non is and break it they'll replace it with the IS version?


----------



## chris_w_digits (Jun 13, 2013)

I hope that's not true, since it's $1000 cheaper than the IS version, and I use my 70-200 f/2.8L all the time. Since I went full-frame, it's my most-used, most versatile lens. Shooting bands, I usually use 1/160 shutter speed and run it f/2.8 and get great close-ups of band members playing user stage lights with no flash, and it's a great indoor lens for a big venue (although not so useful in a tighter indoor venue like a house).


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 13, 2013)

I find this rather odd about parts not being available for repair.

I have a 20-35L that was discontinued about 20 years ago yet Canon still supply the parts to repair it. ( Central barrel section containing the AF/MF switch ).


----------



## RGF (Jun 13, 2013)

Not surprised that they discontinued the lens. Too many SKUs increases cost and this lens is similar to others in their line up. I am surprised that they will not repair it - actually I should say shocked as Canon CS is general great. Wonder if the incident was a one off or policy.


----------



## chris_w_digits (Jun 13, 2013)

My 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS isn't quite a year old yet. (July 18, 2012 is when I ordered it)


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 13, 2013)

chris_w_digits said:


> I hope that's not true, since it's $1000 cheaper than the IS version, and I use my 70-200 f/2.8L all the time. Since I went full-frame, it's my most-used, most versatile lens. Shooting bands, I usually use 1/160 shutter speed and run it f/2.8 and get great close-ups of band members playing user stage lights with no flash, and it's a great indoor lens for a big venue (although not so useful in a tighter indoor venue like a house).



hmmm...that's got me a'thinkin ...lol. 

I wonder if the value of it will go up now. Either way, I plan on using mine for at least another year!


----------



## chris_w_digits (Jun 13, 2013)

This is just a rumor so far. I'm eager to get confirmation by someone "in the know". I know that my lens probably won't disintegrate on me so this probably won't be an issue for me, but there's the small probability that it could.


----------



## bseitz234 (Jun 13, 2013)

A lot about this sounds odd. Why would they not repair a lens that they're still selling from canon direct? I understand retailer stock could last longer than their own, but still... I have a 70-200 with a UA date code that I damn well expect they'll at least be able to repair until the end of its warantee period (another 4 months). Also, I can see why they'd discontinue one of their 70-200s, given that there are 5 of them, but why they'd pick the non-is over the IS mkI is beyond me... bigger differentiation between it and the mk II, plus this one is sharper than the mk I...


----------



## jimenezphoto (Jun 13, 2013)

"I do think there is a place for Non-IS lenses such as this one."

I completely agree. There is a $1000 price difference between IS and non IS versions. I have owned the non IS version for several years now and have no complaints. If I was force to replace now there is no way I can justify a $2300 replacement for my $1300 lens. I would be shopping third party lenses..... Canon continues it's drive to outprice many of us out of it's lenses.....


----------



## jeff92k7 (Jun 13, 2013)

I'm a little disappointed, but not really surprised. I'm starting to seriously consider getting one of the 70-200's and have been leaning towards different ones depending on the day of the week. The 2.8 IS II is way too overpriced for my mainly hobbyist budget, so I've been looking at around the $1g mark. That leaves three options: the f4 at $650, the f4 IS at ~1000, and the f2.8 at ~1000. I tend to lean away from the f4 since I really want IS at that aperture, but have had a hard time deciding between the f4 IS or the f2.8. 

At the same price, it's tough to decide between a 3-stop IS system (steady shots at slower shutter), or a 1-stop faster aperture (faster moving subjects)

With the f2.8 being discontinued, that pretty much makes up my mind for me. Now to find the money....


----------



## smithcon (Jun 13, 2013)

Sad to see the choice go. In my shooting, I rarely come across the non-IS model in the hands of other photographers so I am guessing demand is just not high enough.

If it truly has been quietly removed from the lineup, I submit the lens fondly be remembered as the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L ISN'T.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 13, 2013)

I love mine. Disapointed to hear that if something breaks it may be a write-off.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Jun 13, 2013)

I think the 'We won't fix it' is coming from the seller. Not from Canon. They are still selling that lens everywhere.

At least according to DxO, that lens is about as good as my Zeiss 50mm.. And that's plenty good for me. On my other zoom, I always turn off IS. Doesn't make a difference for me.

If I could snag this at $800 or so, that would be awesome. Totally fine lens.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 13, 2013)

I had looked at the 70-200 F4, the F4IS, and the 2.8 non-IS. (can't really afford the 2.8 IS and had no source to borrow one from).

The F4IS is sharper than the F4 non IS and the price isn't really that bad... so I ruled out the F4 non-IS. The F4 IS and the 2.8 non-IS were about the same price... The F4 IS was a bit sharper.... but the 2.8 was faster... After lot's of humming and hawing I decided that 2 or 3 stops of IS was better than 2/3 stops of aperture, and went with the F4IS. It is my most often used lens and is usually on the camera body.

I wonder what sales have been like recently for the 2.8 non-IS? My bet is that of the 4 incarnations of the 70-200 that it is the one that sells the fewest copies now.....


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 13, 2013)

A stops difference in af performance.


----------



## risc32 (Jun 13, 2013)

i read this rumors somewhere else a while back. i own this lens, it's very good. I don't think they should remove it from the lineup, but i won't be surprised i they do. Now i can't see how they refused to repair one. they're still sitting on store shelves!


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 14, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> I had looked at the 70-200 F4, the F4IS, and the 2.8 non-IS. (can't really afford the 2.8 IS and had no source to borrow one from).
> 
> The F4IS is sharper than the F4 non IS and the price isn't really that bad... so I ruled out the F4 non-IS. The F4 IS and the 2.8 non-IS were about the same price... The F4 IS was a bit sharper.... but the 2.8 was faster... After lot's of humming and hawing I decided that 2 or 3 stops of IS was better than 2/3 stops of aperture, and went with the F4IS. It is my most often used lens and is usually on the camera body.





paul13walnut5 said:


> A stops difference in af performance.


My impression was the the AF of the 2.8 non-IS and the F4 IS was similar. It's probably because the F2.8 non-IS came out in 1995, while the F4 IS came out in 2006. I'd bet that if there was similarly aged design of the F2.8 non-IS that it would kick F4 butt for AF speed and image quality.... but in this case we are comparing lenses that are 11 years apart.

I think that it is more likely that the F2.8 non-IS will be replaced with a V2 of the lens, than for it to be dropped from the lineup. Canon has been going crazy in the last few years updating the quality of it's L glass, and this lens, fine as it may be, could be made much better now.


----------



## icepilot29 (Jun 14, 2013)

I own / use this lens for ice hockey. Its a great focal length for indoor sports in poor lighting, and, because action / sports drives shutter speed, IS becomes unnecessary for me. I would really be disappointed to see this lens removed from the lineup. They should kill off the f4L non-is variant first.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 14, 2013)

icepilot29 said:


> I own / use this lens for ice hockey. Its a great focal length for indoor sports in poor lighting, and, because action / sports drives shutter speed, IS becomes unnecessary for me. I would really be disappointed to see this lens removed from the lineup. They should kill off the f4L non-is variant first.



The F4 non-IS variant is the one that sells the best. No way will they get rid of it. I also think it is far more likely that the F2.8 non-is gets replaced with an updated version than to be dropped from the lineup


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 14, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> I had looked at the 70-200 F4, the F4IS, and the 2.8 non-IS. (can't really afford the 2.8 IS and had no source to borrow one from).
> 
> The F4IS is sharper than the F4 non IS and the price isn't really that bad... so I ruled out the F4 non-IS. The F4 IS and the 2.8 non-IS were about the same price... The F4 IS was a bit sharper.... but the 2.8 was faster... After lot's of humming and hawing I decided that 2 or 3 stops of IS was better than 2/3 stops of aperture, and went with the F4IS. It is my most often used lens and is usually on the camera body.
> 
> I wonder what sales have been like recently for the 2.8 non-IS? My bet is that of the 4 incarnations of the 70-200 that it is the one that sells the fewest copies now.....



It's still the best option when considering cost for sports though (2.8 IS II when not considering cost). f/4 IS has a fancier AF motor (it times out faster than the f/2.8 non-IS in simple tests) and yet the non-IS, real world, on field, tended to handle it just a little better and wouldn't freeze or get confused at odd times here and there, etc. and of course the f/2.8 is the big though anyway, just a bit more background blur and less noise for indoors without strobes and night games outdoors.


----------



## bykes (Jun 14, 2013)

I have this lens. Bought it because of the price. I do like it, but seldom use it. Been thinking about selling it. A shame if they discontinue it. It's a great lens.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 14, 2013)

Wouldn't the AF work better because it AF's at f/2.8 whereas the other lens would AF at f/4? I know that's simplistic, but that's a lot more light to use.


----------



## cfcis99 (Jun 14, 2013)

I inquire directly to Canon Marketing Philippines Inc. they said that the lens is already phase out and they can only offer me IS 2.

By the way, our club is directly associated with CMPI, so we normally get canon products directly to them and not via retail store.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 14, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Wouldn't the AF work better because it AF's at f/2.8 whereas the other lens would AF at f/4? I know that's simplistic, but that's a lot more light to use.


Normally you would be right, but with the F4 IS it's comparing a 7 year old design to an 18 year old design.. one of those apples and oranges things... the F4 IS is SLIGHTLY better in IQ and as far as I could tell the AF was the same.

The F4 non-IS is about the same vintage as the F2.8 non-IS. The F2.8 non-IS beats the F4 non-IS handily for focus speed and image quality.


----------



## Harry Muff (Jun 14, 2013)

Oh, goody. Now I've got to try and get my 18 year old copy serviced before it's too late… :'(


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 14, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't the AF work better because it AF's at f/2.8 whereas the other lens would AF at f/4? I know that's simplistic, but that's a lot more light to use.
> ...



As I said, f/4 IS tests faster, but for field sports, the 2.8 non-IS actually works a bit more reliably, mostly about the same, but the f/2.8 non-IS has less of particular type of miss.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 14, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



When I did my comparison tests I was alternating between a licence plate about 5 meters away and a sign about 100 meters away, and tested at 70mm and at 200mm. Both were fairly high contrast objects in good daylight. I found AF to be slowest on the F4 non-IS and about a tie between the F4 IS and the F2.8 non-IS. I could see the F2.8 non-IS performing better in lower light and I have no idea what the difference would be for moving objects.. If you say the 2.8 non-IS works better in field sports then I shall defer to your experience.

By the way... what is the "particular type of miss" that you have observed with the F4 IS?


----------



## AG (Jun 14, 2013)

This could just be the case of Canon deciding to clean up its lineup, in a way.

As much as people don't like the idea IS is something that by the sounds of it Canon believe that you need in your lenses. (if market demand increases prices may fall for the IS models, so the price issues may be lessened)

Not everyone uses the AF in their camera but every DSLR body has some form of AF because the majority want it and a few don't know how to shoot without it. Doesn't mean that its for everyone, but if you don't want it you can always toggle that switch to turn it off. 

It could explain why they are trying to put IS into all their lenses that are being updated. Yes i know the 24-70 f2.8 II doesn't have IS but it may receive an update sooner rather than later.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 14, 2013)

If Canon sacrificed IS in the new 24-70 to make it what it is, (pretty insane) then, -- My God, can you imagine the IQ of a NON-IS 70-200?? Wow, you would have to print on metal only, the images would shread paper...


----------



## ewg963 (Jun 14, 2013)

Wow what a great piece glass it's one my favorites in my collection!!! I hope there's plans for a II...maybe I'm dreaming.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 14, 2013)

Not surprised by the discontinuation, but if the rumor of no spare parts is true, THAT would be disgraceful.

I loved my 70-200mm 2.8, which I had for about eight years, but sold it and went with the 2.8 IS II when the wedding jobs picked up.

Can't believe Canon wouldn't repair a lens bought within the past couple of years. Hope its a FALSE rumor.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 14, 2013)

Is it a fact that all discontinued lenses will also be discontinued for repair? If not, how long does it usually take? I know there are a few 24-70 mk1's out there :


----------



## Scott911 (Jun 14, 2013)

Overall, I like the decision. BUT, and it's a big BUT - the IS tech should be included for no more than $200 extra.

Canon puts IS into a kit lenses that might cost them $75 to make - so let's pretend the IS stuff in there costs canon $10.

Let them upscale it all because it's going into an "L" lens. So they spend TWENTY times more on the IS for the "L" lens. 

And then price the L's IS at $200 more than the non IS version.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Jun 14, 2013)

When my Sigma 100-300 f4 died and was too old to repair, I replaced it with the Canon 70-200 2.8 (non IS) a little less than a year ago. It is my only telephoto, often used with 1.4 extender, and it is fantastic. There is no way I could have afforded the IS2, so if this lens was not available they would have driven me to Tamron. I am sure there are people like me whose business they will lose by discontinuing this lens, but I guess there are not enough of us to justify continued production.

I would be surprised if they came out with a new version, as the price would be so much higher (based on their other L upgrades) that no one would buy it - the IS2 would be just a few hundred bucks more so people would upgrade to that. The marketers at Tamron and Sigma must be jumping with joy at this decision!


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 14, 2013)

Scott911 said:


> Overall, I like the decision. BUT, and it's a big BUT - the IS tech should be included for no more than $200 extra.
> 
> Canon puts IS into a kit lenses that might cost them $75 to make - so let's pretend the IS stuff in there costs canon $10.
> 
> ...



Yeah, ok, but you assume that there is no difference in the elements within the IS group, are the IS elements not larger than the non IS, so as to permit a full image circle even with a moved group? Would these larger elements not require to be sharp accross the whole field as they potentially could be used much closer to the edge once shifted in an IS movement? Are these elements not made of better quality glass than the £75 lenses? Would there not be a significant R&D spend to recoup from the L lenses, which may sell in the thousands rather than the £75 kit lenses that sell in their 100's of thousands, if not millions?

I'm just asking because if it was as simple as bolting an IS motor on, I'm sure Canon would have thought of that already.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jun 14, 2013)

For the sake of all those who invested in that lens I hope it's not true.


----------



## Harry Muff (Jun 14, 2013)

I called my local professional service centre today and they said that it's the first they've heard and that they can get parts.


I was planning on a panic service but the price put me off.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 15, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Scott911 said:
> 
> 
> > Overall, I like the decision. BUT, and it's a big BUT - the IS tech should be included for no more than $200 extra.
> ...


I think that if all you did was bolt on a motor, you would decrease the iq of the lens....


----------



## tnargs (Jun 15, 2013)

Surely the discontinuation of a lens doesn't coincide with the cessation of repair or parts availability? That would be insane -- imagine if car makers did that!

Yet that is the basis of this rumour.


----------



## tron (Jun 15, 2013)

I consider it a legendary lens. It was the first zoom I got with fixed lens quality. Plus, its price is reasonable.
I had one until it was stolen 

Now I have a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II but I will feel sorry if this lens is discontinued.


----------



## SPG (Jun 17, 2013)

I'm one of the people, or maybe the only one, who had their 2.8 non IS replaced with a IS II model back in April. 
Here's how it went down... As a CPS member I decided I'd take advantage of the repair discount and clean and check coupons and sent in a couple things. My 70-200 f2.8 had developed a slight haze after 17 years of use in some harsh conditions...this was a lens I used shooting snowboarding for a few years so not surprised that it took more abuse than any of my current gear. 
Canon gave me a reasonable quote of about $250, but said it would be a few days to get parts so since I'm a CPS member they sent me a loaner 2.8IS v1 to cover me on my shoot. A few days later they called and told me it was more damage and it would be $350, then the next day called and said it couldn't be repaired. I was told that I could get a replacement lens instead for the same cost as repair, which was fine by me. I was a little surprised though that they then sent me a 70-200 f2.8 IS II, happily surprised of course since it's a wonderful lens and one that I was hoping to buy some day after selling my repaired 2.8 nonIS.
Maybe this was a one off event, maybe this is SOP now, maybe it's just a perk of CPS and shooting Canon for 20 years, but I'm a very happy customer and will stick with Canon and CPS for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 17, 2013)

In honor of this fabulous lens, here's a shot taken with it from this saturday...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 18, 2013)

It would indeed be sad to see it disappear. Its a fine lens, and affordable.


----------



## iaind (Jun 18, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> It would indeed be sad to see it disappear. Its a fine lens, and affordable.



And so say all of us!

Got mine before ISII was launched. Choice was between 2.8 and 4IS and eventually decided on 2.8.
Wouldn't mind swopping for ISII if Canon offer.
,


----------



## chris_w_digits (Jun 19, 2013)

Canon still has this lens (as of June 19 at 09:37 CDT) on their web site under EF Lenses under telephoto zooms. I'm surprised that we are now 4 pages into comments on this "rumor" and nobody has been able to say for sure if it's been discontinued or not. I have the lens and it's my most used one ever since I went full-frame (5D3) since I shoot close-up types of photos or shoot from a distance in a larger venue. If Canon still has it listed in their product line, I would imagine that parts would have to be available to cover it during its warranty period for any new lens sold.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 20, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > Scott911 said:
> ...



I think that was kind of my point.


----------

