EF 24-70 f/2.8L II [CR2]

[JR]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the II designation has anything to do with whether a lens had IS previously, but what generation of IS technology Canon is using for the lens. You wouldn't call the DIGIC 5 processor a DIGIC 1 just because it's going in an all new camera body, the same holds true for for the IS, it's Canon's 2nd generation IS system... even if it's the first appearance in this particular lens.

Actually it does.  If a lens becomes IS it is in itself a new lens and will not carry the mk II label.  A recent example of this is the 100mm f2.8L Macro which became IS in the new version but did not receive the mk II label.  If you want more example also refer to the evolution of the 70-200 f2.8L zoom.  Before we got to the current version with the IS mkII label, an IS mkI version was out.

mkII represent a designation for a new lens in its current "configuration" which includes IS.  So for the 24-70, if it does not have IS, it will be called 24-70 f2.8L II.  If it does have IS it will be called 24-70mm f2.8L IS.

Hope this helps...Jacques

[Wrathwilde]

mkII represent a designation for a new lens in its current "configuration" which includes IS.  So for the 24-70, if it does not have IS, it will be called 24-70 f2.8L II.  If it does have IS it will be called 24-70mm f2.8L IS.
Hope this helps...Jacques

I see, I was under the impression that if the II was after the IS on Canon lenses referred to the IS generation instead of the a combined IS/Lens generation. Probably from an article I read on a IS II lens where they mentioned it was a second generation IS system and I (erroneously) equated that the II after the IS was a reference to the 2nd generation IS system.


 Still confusing on Canons part from a end users perspective, in that if they were up to an IS IV lens and they then produced a lens that had never had IS before and marked it as just an IS, the average consumer will likely think it's an obsolete design - (IS) vs (IS IV), as canon doesn't exactly go out of their way to let you know the original release dates on their lenses.

(Hell, I've been Canon Only since 1985 and I had it wrong, chances are the average consumer will too.)

[JR]

I agree it can get confusing for sure.  I believe Nikon has the same convention for their lens nomenclature as well.  But you are right that especially with different generation of IS it is confusing.  The way to think about it though is any lens getting IS now will get which ever latest IS system Canon has.  So for example the IS in the 100mm f2.8L IS Macro is not the same as in the 24-105L IS lens because the Macro lens is newer and has the the new Hybride IS system...

Unfortunately unless one reads the details it is hard to figure out you are right!

[AJ]

I would easily pay $6000 for this lens with IS ...

Don't say that too loud ... Canon Marketing might be reading this ...