Canon 70-200 2.8 II in stock at B&H
 

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

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/680103-USA/Canon_2751B002_EF_70_200mm_f_2_8L_IS.html

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.

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.

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.

Well, not at 70mm ;^)

-- peer

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.

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.