OK. You got me on a technicality.I wasn’t talking about the MkII I was talking about the MkIII, it was released in June 2018 for $2,100 But now retails for $1,799 but can be had for $1,550 on deals and even less refurb from Canon Direct with warranty.
I am looking at the price I have to pay to get what I need now, not what I might have to pay in ten years, THAT is just good comedy.
Is the RF system really 50% ‘better’? If so I haven’t seen any evidence of that.
Founder & CEO
So we took one of these apart to determine all of the things that separated the III from the II. To start with, there is a new shade of white paint on the barrels, which we think definitely gives a cleaner look. And there are some supposedly better antireflective coatings, because, oh, wait, no reflections really weren’t a problem with the Mk II. And those are the same coatings Canon started putting on all their other lenses a few years back. And there are fluorine coatings on the front and back elements that are easier to clean. Like the 24-70mm Mk II has, that, well, never mind, those aren’t really easier to clean. As to the rest, not one single screw is different. Nada.
Sooo, here’s my editorial advice: if this is more expensive than the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS Mk II lens, then get the Mk II lens. Cause it’s the same lens. Unless you really like the new paint color.