fullstop said:The way Canon did it, they opened themselves up for criticism. the "lower tier, cheaper" f/4 gets a "full upgrade" whereas the more expensive, "flagship f/2.8" only gets new coatings and a new paint job.
The f/2.8 IS II was was already updated in 2010 compared to the 2006 f/4 IS. It was, and remains, a spectacular lens.
Canon had no real need to update the 2.8 IS II, as it is regarded as one of the better L series lenses anyway. Production of lenses invariably means having tools, parts and processes in place for production, so you generally don't switch to a new model until the old model isn't selling well and you don't have a huge inventory of parts left unsold or machinery that can't be repurposed. You also don't want to retrain staff unnecessarily.
So, adding all the enhancements that the forum fans wanted would inevitably add several hundred dollars to the cost of a new lens. And I think most of us realise it just wasn't worthwhile.
So, by doing a minor update to the lens to improve coatings Canon can continue their existing production with relatively minor interruption and every new buyer gets the benefit of the excellent lens with the latest coatings.
This is an important lens for Canon. Once the Mark III starts to appear significantly lower in ratings that rival lenses then I'm sure a Mark IV will appear. But for now I suspect those who are complaining are either those who haven't used the Mark II and don't understand how good it is, or those who OWN the Mark II and are secretly fuming that the new model has reduced the resale value of their lenses.
Neither of which are Canon's problem.
ps. I own the Mark II and I am delighted that Canon are improving it for those who are buying it today because I have no intention of selling this superb lens.