SoundHound wrote:
Canon says the Mk II has a Flourite element. That alone would justify the price. Many spotting scopes are available in Flourite and non-Flourite versions with approx the same objective size (60-85mm).
It costs at least $600+ more with Flourite. I am unaware of any other, 200mm and under zoom lens, that has a Flourite lens. Canon seems to be the biggest user of Flourite lenses especially for their Great Whites. The dark side doesn\'t use much (any?) Flourite elements.
And yes, those flower shots will not prompt me to turn in my Mk I for a Mk II.
M Vers wrote:
Nikon uses similar elements over fluorite--\'ED\' elements.
\"...However, fluorite easily cracks and is sensitive to temperature changes that can adversely affect focusing by altering the lens\' refractive index. So Nikon designers and engineers put their heads together and came up with ED glass, which offers all the benefits and none of the drawbacks of calcium fluorite-based glass.\"
So then why does Nikon use seven ED elements in their new 70-200 (five in the old one) yet the new Canon uses one fluorite and five UD elements (\'only\' 4 UD in the MkI IS)? I think it\'s a bunch of marketing. What counts is image quality, and it looks like both deliver at a similar price.
Mar 11, 2010 at 09:50 PM
Previous versions of rscheffler's message #8230814 « 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II Master thread »
