warzone wrote:
...The newer version (III) costs less than the older version (II). The newer version boasts better coatings. Any ideas why it costs less?
Interesting...
But, notice that the refurbished III is out of stock, while the II is currently available refurbished.
Probably the price of the III is out of date. When stock runs out at Canon USA, often the old price continues to be shown until more stock comes in. If/when they get in a new supply of them, they will probably cost more than the price currently offered for the II. Pricing of refurbished seems to be largely independent of their new pricing and various sale prices or instant rebate programs throughout the year.
OTOH, maybe that's not it at all.... I just noticed at B&H even brand new the III is selling for less than the II! List price of the III is $1899 and it's currently on sale for $100 off that. The list price of the II is $2099, and it's not currently discounted!
Although it appears to offer some nice savings in this case, refurbished isn't always the best deal. When I bought my two 7D Mark IIs, I was all set to buy refurbished, but then noticed the sale price at retailers was only a few dollars more and that "bundles" offered by some stores made sense for me. I got a free printer with one (Canon Pro-100, net value after mail-in rebate around $150) and a free external hard drive with the other (3TB G-Drive, similar value at the time). I was soon going to be buying those things anyway, so this was ideal for me.
Gotta be careful though, some of the less reputable retailers bundle junk and/or sell you "international warranty" or "store warranty" items (which are just ways of disguising "gray market", which essentially means "no warranty at all").
Totally different subject... You mention using on an M50. Have you handled any of the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses? They are pretty hefty! Around 3.25 lb. You're probably aware, you'll need an adapter to fit them to an M-series camera. By the time you do that, the little camera will seem pretty unbalanced on the camera. You might want to consider the 70-200mm f/4 IS USM II, as a possible alternative. It is close to 1/3 smaller size and 1/2 the weight of the f/2.8 versions. The f/4 lens sells without a tripod ring, which is included with the f/2.8 lenses. If you buy the option ring for the f/4, it will end up about 2/3 the weight of the f/2.8 lenses.
I've got both 70-200mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/4. I used the f/2.8 lens a lot in the past. The focal length range was ideal for a lot of things. When I had chance to buy the f/4 lens at a good price, I jumped on it to have it as a backup. But I find I now use the f/4 lens more often, for its smaller size and lighter weight. Over the years I've also lent my f/2.8 to several people to try out, and at least a couple of them have decided to buy the f/4 version instead due to the size and weight of the f/2.8.
I'm not saying this to discourage you from getting the f/2.8... just to make sure you aren't unprepared for how hefty it is and how it might feel with a small camera like the M50. (I just recently got an M5 and don't plan to use it with any of my EF/EF-S lenses for now... But if I do in the future, I'm pretty sure I'd use the 70-200 f/4 instead of the f/2.8.)