Roger Cicala at Lensrentals (who IMHO does the best lens sharpness, variance and repairability testing out there) made an interesting point I hadn't heard before in his comparison of the 70-200 f2.8 II and III build quality (short version - they're the same). He specifically says (and remember he sees hundreds of lenses that get used a lot):
As an aside, we despise the new fluorine front and rear coatings and consider them a significant step backward in durability.
Canon claims the new fluorine coating makes it easier to wipe off oil and smudges. I think the new fluorine coating is easier to wipe off.
Then in the comments:
Roger Cicala
According to Canon fluorine coating makes it much easier to clean the front and rear elements, so dirt and oil can be easily wiped away. With at least some of the lenses Canon has released with this coating, our opinion is the coating is very fragile. We started putting filters on all of our lenses a year after Canon started putting fluorine coating on their front elements; the incidence of lenses needing front element replacements for coating scratches and peeling skyrocketed. Canon says it's not so, so perhaps it's just us.
DrJon
Which begs the question - which other Canon lenses have the fragile coating? The 100-400 II for example? (I actually have a front filter for mine arriving any second though. My 70-200 is a II so not an issue.)
Also which filters did you choose for the 70-200s?
Roger Cicala
The 24-70 f/2.8 II is by far the worst, 100-400 IIs were frequent flyers too. We went with B&W clear filters.
DrJon
Thanks. The filters I prefer are the B+W MRC Nano clear ones, but of course they have a similar coating!??!
As an aside as of about 30 minutes ago my 100-400 II has a B+W MRC Nano filter attached to its front.
As an aside, we despise the new fluorine front and rear coatings and consider them a significant step backward in durability.
Canon claims the new fluorine coating makes it easier to wipe off oil and smudges. I think the new fluorine coating is easier to wipe off.
Then in the comments:
Roger Cicala
According to Canon fluorine coating makes it much easier to clean the front and rear elements, so dirt and oil can be easily wiped away. With at least some of the lenses Canon has released with this coating, our opinion is the coating is very fragile. We started putting filters on all of our lenses a year after Canon started putting fluorine coating on their front elements; the incidence of lenses needing front element replacements for coating scratches and peeling skyrocketed. Canon says it's not so, so perhaps it's just us.
DrJon
Which begs the question - which other Canon lenses have the fragile coating? The 100-400 II for example? (I actually have a front filter for mine arriving any second though. My 70-200 is a II so not an issue.)
Also which filters did you choose for the 70-200s?
Roger Cicala
The 24-70 f/2.8 II is by far the worst, 100-400 IIs were frequent flyers too. We went with B&W clear filters.
DrJon
Thanks. The filters I prefer are the B+W MRC Nano clear ones, but of course they have a similar coating!??!
As an aside as of about 30 minutes ago my 100-400 II has a B+W MRC Nano filter attached to its front.
Comment