# Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L Non-IS to Be Discontinued in 2013 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 17, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12346"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12346">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>Time’s up


</strong>The Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS is set to be discontinued officially some time in 2013. As much as I think there is still a market for this lens with sports & wedding photographers with pro bodies with great high ISO performance, there’s no information saying Canon will do a version II of this lens.</p>
<p>In case you were wondering, the EF 70-200 f/4L is remaining current with no plans for a discontinuation.</p>
<p><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"><strong>Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS at B&H $1299</strong></p>
<p></a></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## R1-7D (Dec 17, 2012)

Boo! I love this lens. It's superb for its price. Glad I picked one up last summer.


----------



## Pinchers of Peril (Dec 17, 2012)

RIP little buddy!


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 17, 2012)

so, what's the market's track record for pricing on end of life L lenses? This one has always been on my radar (to replace the f/4 model) but 1300 is too close to Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 SP Di VC. If it drops before the big adios I might go for it.


----------



## dhofmann (Dec 17, 2012)

I'm not surprised. An updated version of this lens would cost around $1600-1700. If you're paying that much, you might spend the extra few hundred for image stabilization.


----------



## Stewbyyy (Dec 17, 2012)

I adore this lens. I haven't seen the point of the IS version for my uses since I always need a shutter speed fast enough to freeze the action.

I bought the 70-200mm F/4 IS and sold it after 2 weeks to buy the 2.8 non-IS. It's sad to see this lens be discontinued.


----------



## JurijTurnsek (Dec 17, 2012)

canon is seriously blowing it. their lens choices really boggle me? I'd be willing to bet this lens was a very good seller


----------



## scrup (Dec 17, 2012)

The lens is not cheap and most prefer the IS version.

Maybe a new version will be released at a higher price.


----------



## preppyak (Dec 18, 2012)

JurijTurnsek said:


> canon is seriously blowing it. their lens choices really boggle me? I'd be willing to bet this lens was a very good seller


If it was a good seller they'd keep producing it...seeing as they already have all the infrastructure. in place to make it and it costs them nothing in R&D, etc to keep it going. My guess is that with a bunch of new super tele's ramping up, a new 24-70 to make, a bunch of new IS primes, etc, they need the production space from a lens that wasn't moving units. And discounting it by a few hundred bucks to move a bunch cuts margins too tight.

For someone who _needs_ f/2.8, they may well just get the 85mm f/1.8, the 135L or the 200 f/2.8 (or a collection of those). Or just go with the pricier IS version if its their work. For anyone who doesn't _need_ f/2.8, there's no reason to buy this lens over the f/4L IS, as that is cheaper, lighter, smaller filters...the list goes on.

It never really made sense to have 4 versions of the 70-200; I think the only reason the non-IS f/4 version is staying is because its cheap enough to sell well.


----------



## SJTstudios (Dec 18, 2012)

I guarantee canon will give the 70-200 f4 is the 24-70 f4 is treatment, shorter, smaller, and perhaps even sharper than the 2.8 is ii, just a thought. 
I really think canon was smart with discontinuing it, I loved it, but the justification between this and the is ii, was the sharpness, and if someone didn't want to pay for the is ii, they'd be happy with the tamron or sigma.

R.I.P.
Canon 70-200 f2.8


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Dec 18, 2012)

@Preppyak


> there's no reason to buy this lens over the f/4L IS, as that is cheaper, lighter, smaller filters...the list goes on.



The f4 is a stop slower at max aperture.

Thats a stop faster shutter with the f2.8, IS cannot do much about subject motion.

That's a stop lower ISO with the f2.8, IS cannot do much about image noise.

Thats shallower depth of field (if thats your thing) with the f2.8

Thats more versatility.

But most of all and best of all... with every EOS DSLR the AF has improved performance with f2.8 or faster lenses.

I don't want to slate the f4 IS as I gather if you shoot focus charts it's marginally sharper. But contrary to your assertion, there are a few reasons to buy the f2.8 over the f4 IS, that make sense to some users.

It's a broad church and I'm not saying you are wrong, just that your reasons aren't right for me.


----------



## preppyak (Dec 18, 2012)

paul13walnut5 said:


> It's a broad church and I'm not saying you are wrong, just that your reasons aren't right for me.


Fair enough, "need" was too strong, since there are a few reasons to go with the non-IS f/2.8. But, I would imagine it's a pretty limited user base, since we're only talking 1 stop of light, and the weight and size difference is pretty massive.

Which is more my point about it being niche and discontinued. Casual users who don't have a specific need for f/2.8 are going the f/4 route for size, weight and price reasons. Pros who need f/2.8 are probably justifying getting the IS II, because its the best there is. Leaves a small group left


----------



## AG (Dec 18, 2012)

preppyak said:


> It never really made sense to have 4 versions of the 70-200; I think the only reason the non-IS f/4 version is staying is because its cheap enough to sell well.



Agreed.

If anything this may lead to the demise of the f4 non IS and then reduction in price for the IS version. 
But from recent pricing i cant see that happening.


----------



## killswitch (Dec 18, 2012)

Do you think the used market price for this lens will drop a bit more sooner than later or will the price remain the same for some time? I was just about to pull the trigger on one 70-200 f2.8L and the used market seems to be hovering around the 930-1050 ish price point right now.


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 18, 2012)

I owned this lens for a few months... and I really liked it (I didn't love it for the price), but it is sad to see it go. Maybe I'll get another just until I pony up the money for an IS mk ii version.


----------



## Halfrack (Dec 18, 2012)

The big reason for the non-IS 2.8 is I can use a 1.4x tele + 2x tele and still have fun. I love mine and while it's not sealed as I would like, it's $1k less than the other option...


----------



## cayenne (Dec 18, 2012)

scrup said:


> The lens is not cheap and most prefer the IS version.
> 
> Maybe a new version will be released at a higher price.



You know, when I read this...my first thought was...why do they even have this anyway?

I just got a new 70-200 f/2.2 IS L.....I was looking at these various version of them. I've pretty much resigned myself t not buy ANY more lenses that are slower than 2.8...so, that left out the f/4 one.

Then, I was just trying to figure why I'd want the non-IS when the IS is available? That makes it the most flexible of them all, right? I can shoot fast as the situation warrants, but then I also have IS to help later..maybe shooting a concert, or a wedding or something...?


----------



## MrFotoFool (Dec 18, 2012)

There is a market for this lens - people like me. When the autofocus failed this summer on my Sigma 100-300 f4 and two repair places and Sigma all said it is too old to fix, I had to go for the Canon 70-200 2.8 as replacement. No way I could afford the IS version, so I got this one (which I really could not afford either, but I need it). I need the 2.8 for the shallower depth of field (often I combine with 1.4 extender which puts me back at f4). After my experience with Sigma, I would not feel comfortable replacing it with an aftermarket lens. But if this lens were not available, that would be my only choice. So Canon will lose a few sales to people like me, but I guess there are not enough of us to worry about.

As for used lens prices going down, I think not. Even the old original (black) 80-200 2.8 sells for 800 bucks, and that has the slow AFD autofocus and does not take extenders. These lenses hold their value and the discontinuation of the new option will make used versions even more sought after.


----------



## Harry Muff (Dec 18, 2012)

Well, it's been around for a while. I've had mine 17 years. 8)


----------



## azezal (Dec 18, 2012)

Great 
there goes another affordable lens


----------



## Pixelsign (Dec 18, 2012)

well done canon, well done! this lens is a great, cheap alternative to the very pricy IS II version. and now it is to be discontinued. what are they thinking? maybe "let's give tamron with their new 70-200 2.8 vc an even better chance to hit the market very successfully"?! well, i hope this will be the case.


----------



## ddashti (Dec 18, 2012)

With the big price difference between this lens and the IS II one, you'd think they'd keep it in the market.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Dec 18, 2012)

sad to see this, but --  happy that I have one already. I got mine (used) right before the released the ISvII. As I am really just getting rolling with my business, I don't quite have the equipment budget/cash flow (this was especially so when I bought that lens) so I am often making compromises. I thought long and hard about whether to go with the 2.8 IS, 2.8, or 4 IS. After lots of reading, I didn't see many saying that the v1 IS was much sharper than the non-IS, so it was really a question of how much do I want IS, is IS worth the extra $800. At that time, yeah the difference in $$$ made my decision for me - so I went with the non-IS version. I love that lens! But, now that the v2 IS is out there, and yes it is sharper than the non IS I have been thinking of how many more keepers I'd get/different ways to use the lens I'd have if i had IS. Here's to hoping the value of the non-IS doesn't plummet!


----------



## workpost (Dec 19, 2012)

This lens has been rumored to be discontinued before, it remains to be seen whether Canon will actually stop producing it. If so, it's a shame because it's an amazing lens that has still has a place between the relatively affordable L lenses and the upper-tier "unattainable" L lenses. I was able to buy one new for $1250 not so long ago -- a lot of money for a lens but much less than it would cost to get the IS II version. Maybe one day I'll spring for that but, until then, I am extremely impressed by the sharpness and quality of the images the 70-200 f2.8 L is capable of producing. I still believe there are lots of people who might hesitate to buy the IS II for more than 2k but would be willing to purchase the old version for (roughly) 1k. I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens but I would not worry about the value of the 70-200 f2.8 L plummeting, a lens this good may even rise in value once they are no longer being manufactured.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 19, 2012)

I suspect its a simple matter of the cost of production versus the number sold. I bought a nice used one from the original owner last summer, he had only used it a few times for film, then put it away for 7 years. $300! Thats pretty extreme, but most buyers (certainly not all) want IS.

So far, my f/4 IS is the lens I am keeping, but it is restricted to outdoor use or with supplemental lighting indoors. I was having too much difficulty holding a 1 series body with the f/2.8 zoom and sold both. Then I found the reason, and had carpal tunnel surgery. It will be 6-12 months to totally heal. I am going to be reluctant to get another heavy setup.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Dec 19, 2012)

IS is great for some folk, I prefer to use a monopod. It wasn't worth an extra £500 for the IS or £900 for the IS II for me. It reaches a point of the law of diminishing returns. I needed f2.8 for video (I have less flexibility with shutter speed) so that ruled out the f4's for the very reason you describe: low light.

It's a shame Canon are killing it. That lens, the 200mm f2.8 and the non-IS primes were great value lenses that let folk with moderate spending power get nice glass. I hope canon aren't pricing themselves out of the market, especially with Nikon bringing out decent modestly priced G lenses.

There are a lot more folk who could afford the 24 f2.8, 28 f2.8 and 35 f2 than will be able to afford the new IS versions. The death of the 70-200 f2.8 is part of a worrying trend.


----------



## iaind (Dec 19, 2012)

Its a great lens though now dated. Sorry to see it disappear. Got mine 2 years ago at half the price of V1IS. 

It will end the cost comparison with f4IS. In round figures prices are now £500,£900 or £1800 for different versions 

Get one now while you can.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 20, 2012)

Quite a shame. Now for pure sports they are going to force you to be gouged big time. Seems like a dumb move. Perhaps the lens was barely selling and they know what they are doing and it's not just a way to prop up 2.8 IS II sales and margins more.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 20, 2012)

cayenne said:


> scrup said:
> 
> 
> > The lens is not cheap and most prefer the IS version.
> ...



Why the 2.8 non-IS?
Both performs better wide open AND costs less than the 2.8 IS.
Costs wayyy less than the 2.8 IS II.

It was a gateway sports lens that performed well and cost less than the Nikon and had been a good way to ensnare new users into the Canon system.


----------



## tron (Dec 20, 2012)

I used to have this lens since 1996! Unfortunately it was stolen 3 years ago.

I was printing B&W and I realized that it was the first zoom I had with a prime lens IQ.

When it was stolen I got the 70-200 f/4L IS which to tell the truth was much lighter and smaller (an ideal travel lens).

However I could not forget it completely. A year ago I also got the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. 

Although I got the IS version, I will feel sorry to see it discontinued.


----------



## tron (Dec 20, 2012)

scrup said:


> The lens is not cheap and most prefer the IS version.
> 
> Maybe a new version will be released at a higher price.


Very interesting. A higher price would make everyone to prefer the IS version.


----------



## Tarjei99 (Dec 23, 2012)

As far as I can see there are two reasons for discontinuing the lens.

1. It is no longer selling well.
2. The new version is about to come down in price.

I doubt that it is selling so well that it impacts the sales of the new lens.

The reason for the price difference between the F/4 versions is that the old IS technology is expensive.

The new IS technology is basically free. That why it is used on the EF-S 18-55mm F3,5-5,6 IS II lens. It makes no sense to produce two versions of a lens with a price difference of a few dollars.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Dec 23, 2012)

@tarei99


> The new IS technology is basically free. That why it is used on the EF-S 18-55mm F3,5-5,6 IS II lens. It makes no sense to produce two versions of a lens with a price difference of a few dollars.



Ok, that makes no sense.

1st reason why not.. 

Current EF-s 18-55 IS vs 18-55 III non-IS

2nd reason why not..
Old 24, 28, 35 primes vs new versions with IS costing 3x, 4x the price.

To my mind it makes no sense to stop producing a lens for which the R&D and tooling etc has been done, unless it's not selling enough to make it viable.

I have the 70-200 f2.8L and it was a perfect fit for me (don't need IS but want f2.8 for video) and am sad to see it go, but there are plenty kicking about used if any body is dead keen.

It was a good value lens in canons line up, whilst not cheap, the current range equivalent is essentially double the price in the UK. Yes it's a better lens, for all sorts of reasons, but if I didn't already have my canon 70-200 f2.8L I would be looking at a sigma or tokina equivalent instead.

And that is the choice Canon are giving folk these days...

They have done wonders at the entry end. The 1100D and 600D are brilliant value well specified cameras capable of great images, the 18-55 IS and IS II and the 55-250 IS & IS II are all the lens a lot of folk are really seriously likely to need, they are very very good for the money, and for the most part the upgrades are operational rather than vastly improved IQ. For folk who don't need f2.8s they are great.

For folk who do need f2.8's. Well you are going to need a lot lot more money in the future.


----------

