SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Reply 7, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4148 times:
Dvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1719 posts, RR: 12 Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4135 times:
I imagine it would be in the ballpark of the new Nikon 70-200 VR II lens, which is decidedly not cheap.
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Reply 12, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4128 times:
I think there's something fishy here. I know prices in Europe are higher, but that's over twice the current US price of version I. And, as our Scottish friend said, that's the current price of the 300mm 2.8 (a highly regarded lens).
Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
Conoramoia From Ireland, joined Oct 2007, 498 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4126 times:
Quoting Fergulmcc (Reply 11): Not really, Canon lenses are holding their own right now. There will be a slight due to the MII version being out but you will have to wait a bit.
I'm thinking towards june/july?...What about then?
NZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 5672 posts, RR: 40 Reply 14, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4091 times:
I start to wonder whether they'll do a mk II version of the 100-400mm sometime.. But this new 70-200 looks good!
Quoting Conoramoia (Reply 13): I'm thinking towards june/july?...What about then?
I reckon it'd take a bit longer than that. L lenses retain their value very well compared with other lenses and I wouldn't be surprised if it takes a little while for the price to drop on the 2.8 L. My little anecdote from my friend: he bought a 70-200 f/4 L IS USM last Dec/Jan and three months later, the lens had appreciated in value by a few hundred dollars.
The quality of this new lens has to be tested out by people first.
Vishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 440 posts, RR: 5 Reply 15, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4071 times:
Weight is down from 1570 grams to 1490g - what a relief
Quote: A high-speed Auto Focus (AF) system perfectly matches the abilities of the recently-launched EOS-1D Mark IV and EOS 7D Digital SLR (DSLR) cameras. The new model also features a ring-type USM AF motor, which combines with a new high-speed CPU and an optimised AF algorithm to make auto focusing both faster and quieter.
This is gonna be super for Military & F1 shooters, not sure 200mm would be enough though.
Cvervais From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 600 posts, RR: 3 Reply 16, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4052 times:
Quoting NZ107 (Reply 14): I start to wonder whether they'll do a mk II version of the 100-400mm sometime..
I can only wish. Hopefully if they do another version it'll be less of a dust pump.
Cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 44 Reply 17, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4035 times:
Quoting McG1967 (Reply 8): If that price is right - wow, that's around what I paid for my 300 2.8.
Quoting SNATH (Reply 7):
Ah! I was not expecting prices to be announced yet... 28k SEK is almost $4,000, right?
And they reckon Nikon is costly. Â This makes our equivalent lens seem cheap. Â That's very costly. That isn't with some extra duties/taxes applied in Sweden is it?
That thing should be good with the extender as well - especially with the 2nd generation image-stabiliser system.
Trackcharlie From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2008, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3878 times:
My word. I bought my mk I 18 months ago for less than half that price. I know the prices have risen in the last 6 months (due to exchange rates I think) but blimey.
The MK I is a fine lens, I use it for weddings and portraits as well as aviation. What jutifies this increase in price? I guess just suckering people who have to have the latest of everything.
Apologies for ranting but I think I'm probably saying what others are thinking, this is a pi$$take.
JohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1340 posts, RR: 5 Reply 21, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3680 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
Quoting Othic (Reply 3): I saw it for 28k SEK overhere in sweden
Canon Sweden has a recommended retail price of 39.900SEK ($5700), wonder what planet they are from. They also claim that the IS is 4 steps better than the old version..4 steps???
I love my MKI and it performs beautifully on the 7D! Think this will actually raise the 2nd hand value of the MKI's in the future.
7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
I'm quite amazed and glad that I made the move from Canon to Nikon 12 months back!
You can pick up a 'Mk1' version for £1000 whilst the IS II is £2800 .... a difference of + 180%!
Yet the recently launched Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II is available at £1750 now compared to its predecessor at circa £1400, a difference of only +25%.
I wonder is the difference in quality of the Canon is worth the hugely inflated price?
"The World is a book, and those who do not travel read only a page"
Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 21): Canon Sweden has a recommended retail price of 39.900SEK ($5700)
My goodness - that's absurd. I can't imagine people will pay that much for a 70-200 F/2.8, regardless of how good it is. The old one obviously wasn't too bad - the new one would have to be stellar for that price, and I still wonder if people will upgrade.
Stevemchey From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 338 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3539 times:
Are they going to discontinue the Mk I? Because if that's the case and the prices for the Mk II mentioned above are correct, I will start ordering some Mk I's.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jun 2007, 168 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Apr 2006, 491 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 5672 posts, 
From India, joined Aug 2006, 440 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, 
This makes our equivalent lens seem cheap. Â 
That's very costly. That isn't with some extra duties/taxes applied in Sweden is it?
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 610 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
