What makes a lens a mkII?

Hi all,
I was just looking at canon rumors, read this and was intrigued.

"*UPDATE* As pointed out by a reader, any 24-70 with IS wouldn’t be designated with a “II”. I hate missing the obvious. "

So what is it that determines a lens as a mkII? And why wouldn't IS be part of that? I assumed that after any enhancement to a lens it would be designated a subsequent MKxx. But not so it seems.

Anyone know the criteria?

Thanks

A newer version of the same lens is mkii. Look at other lenses with is and non is. They are not the same lens.

The Mk II is used when a lens is redesigned and all of the parameters in the naming convention are the same. So if a lens is the same focal length, same maximum aperture, same AF motor and same regarding the IS, it will be called a Mk II after a redesign.

If something changes like the addition of USM or IS, then the lens does not need a 'Mk II' to denote the difference.

Ahh, I see
Thanks.

When Canon says so. Sometimes lenses are updated but not given the "Mark II" designation. I'm not sure anybody knows what their actual criteria are.

Edwin Herdman wrote in post #13085947
When Canon says so. Sometimes lenses are updated but not given the "Mark II" designation. I'm not sure anybody knows what their actual criteria are.

I know the first version of the EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM got a mild update with change from a 5 blade aperture to a 7 blade aperture without a MK II designation. They later updated the cosmetics and called it a Mk II. http://reviews.ebay.co​m …0QQugidZ1000000​0000771280

That is the only lens I can think of where they made a change and didn't call it a MK II. Are there any others?

I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I am vaguely sure I've read about it happening with at least one other lens.

mk I

howiewu wrote in post #13086176
mk I

? ?

swoffa wrote in post #13085846
Hi all,
I was just looking at canon rumors, read this and was intrigued.

"*UPDATE* As pointed out by a reader, any 24-70 with IS wouldn’t be designated with a “II”. I hate missing the obvious. "

So what is it that determines a lens as a mkII? And why wouldn't IS be part of that? I assumed that after any enhancement to a lens it would be designated a subsequent MKxx. But not so it seems.

Anyone know the criteria?

Thanks

Canon's bank accounts, I think. I did succumb to it twice (85 and 70-200).
But I really think the new 400 2.8 would be a real upgrade, what with the drastic weight reduction. Hope fully the optical quality would be at least as good as the old one (which was phenomenal).

Because usually IS lenses are completely different from their non-IS cousins - they have different number of elements, groups, aspherical surfaces etc. They cover the same focal range, and have the same aperture, but they are different lenses.

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Canon_EF_28-80mm_lens
Now this was a strange lens take a peek

The 70-200/2.8 IS ("Mark I") got an update to it's IS after a one or two or three years production. It didn't make IS any better or more effective, mainly seemed to be to make the lens more easily serviced. It was a "silent upgrade", never announced and of course not labelled a Mark II.

That's a pretty astute reader who pointed out, if Canon were offering an IS version of the lens, they just call it a 24-70/2.8 IS. If they were offering a new version with significant changed, but no IS, they'd call it a Mark II. But it's not likely they'd combine both labels.

Probably some writer at Popular Photography was thinking of the 70-200/2.8 IS Mark II, but mistakenly called it a 24-70.

What I meant was a "mark I" makes a "mark II", and what that means is that if you write down both lenses on paper, they have the same "Specs", e.g.:

70-200 f/2.8 IS USM

then since the older version is a "mark I" by default, the newer version is dubbed as "mark II". This does not necessarily mean they have very similar designs (although usually they do), just that their "Specs" are identical. If, however, a major feature, such as IS or USM, is introduced, or the focal length range changes, then the newer release is no longer a "mark II" but a totally new line.

Makes sense?

msowsun wrote in post #13086197
? ?

Copperny wrote in post #13086426
http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Canon_EF_28-80mm_lens
Now this was a strange lens take a peek

Here is another look at the 8 different versions of the EF 28-80mm: http://www.canon.com …ens/ef/standard​_zoom.html