Canon has released firmware updates to 5 RF mount telephoto lenses.

Available Updates

Firmware Changes

  • Even with fast zoom operations, it is now easier to focus. (RF 100-300 f/2.8L IS USM Only)
  • In the electronic shutter system, the control of the panning assist after the second shot of continuous shooting has been improved.

Via: asobinet

Go to discussion...

59 comments

  1. The Canon RF 1200mm f/8 must be otherworldly, I currently use EQ of 1280mm f/18 and I absolutely love it, however depth of field must be extremely thin at f/8, as even I always struggle to have more than one part of the animal in it.
  2. The Canon RF 1200mm f/8 must be otherworldly
    150mm aperture, so it will have the DOF of 800/5.6, 600/4, or 400/2.8 basically. Or Nikon's 300/2--I have an old coworker who owns one of those.
  3. Haha I'm lucky enough to be downloading one of these and installing them lol
    What download links did you use? I need 2 of them but the pages linked from the article are in a language I don't understand.
  4. The Canon RF 1200mm f/8 must be otherworldly, I currently use EQ of 1280mm f/18 and I absolutely love it, however depth of field must be extremely thin at f/8, as even I always struggle to have more than one part of the animal in it.
    The RF 1200mm f8 is a pair of EF 600mm f4 LIS III's with a 2x TC and EF to RF adapter welded together. The block chart and MFT charts clearly describe this.
  5. What download links did you use? I need 2 of them but the pages linked from the article are in a language I don't understand.
    The site is Canon Japan, you can just translate the page (or wait for it to show up on Canon USA, it's not there yet.
  6. The RF 1200mm f8 is a pair of EF 600mm f4 LIS III's with a 2x TC and EF to RF adapter welded together. The block chart and MFT charts clearly describe this.

    It's a single EF 600/4L IS III with a 2x TC permanently attached, plus the flange adapter.

    The 800/5.6 is the same but based on the EF 400/2.8L IS III instead.

    It saddens me to see a company of Canon's (apparently former) caliber resort to this sort of hackery.
  7. What download links did you use? I need 2 of them but the pages linked from the article are in a language I don't understand.
    I havent downloaded them yet, but the US sites get the firmware usually 24h later or so, so im just gonna wait a couple of days
  8. It's a single EF 600/4L IS III with a 2x TC permanently attached, plus the flange adapter.

    The 800/5.6 is the same but based on the EF 400/2.8L IS III instead.

    It saddens me to see a company of Canon's (apparently former) caliber resort to this sort of hackery.

    Hackery? firstly, the EF 400/600 are a new design, they were released in 2018, in large aperture lenses that is considered pretty current tech. Both are the same weight as the Sony counterparts. And adding a flange to adapt to the new mirrorless has little to no adverse effect when it comes to telephoto lenses, so a redesign of these already resent designed lenses is sorta pointless. On the other hand, the wide angle lenses benefit from a shorter flange to the sensor and Canon did redesign all the non telephoto to take advantage of this.

    claiming its "hackery" is just a ignorant uneducated observation and if you don't like it move to a non-hackery company. stay sad for all anyone cares.

    The sharpness and detail and fast AF of my RF 600 blows me away every day I use it, and the best part is when someone asks to hold and is shocked how light it is compared to size has to be some pretty sweet hackery if you ask me.
  9. The RF 1200mm f8 is a pair of EF 600mm f4 LIS III's with a 2x TC and EF to RF adapter welded together.
    It's a single EF 600/4L IS III with a 2x TC permanently attached, plus the flange adapter.
    Do you honestly think @GMCPhotographics meant the RF 600/4 comprises two 600/4 III lenses either in series or in parallel?

    600.png

    Or are you just being pedantic? It seemed pretty clear that he meant the 600/4 III paired with the TC/adapter.
  10. Hackery? firstly, the EF 400/600 are a new design, they were released in 2018, in large aperture lenses that is considered pretty current tech. Both are the same weight as the Sony counterparts. And adding a flange to adapt to the new mirrorless has little to no adverse effect when it comes to telephoto lenses, so a redesign of these already resent designed lenses is sorta pointless. On the other hand, the wide angle lenses benefit from a shorter flange to the sensor and Canon did redesign all the non telephoto to take advantage of this.

    claiming its "hackery" is just a ignorant uneducated observation and if you don't like it move to a non-hackery company. stay sad for all anyone cares.

    The sharpness and detail and fast AF of my RF 600 blows me away every day I use it, and the best part is when someone asks to hold and is shocked how light it is compared to size has to be some pretty sweet hackery if you ask me.
    He didn't make any adverse comments about the sharpness of the native RF 400/2.8 or RF 600/4 but complained that the RF 800/5.6 and the RF 1200/8 are the native lenses with 2xTCs (albeit custom designed ones) welded on. Complaints that the RF 400 and RF 600 are the EF III versions with an adapter would be unfair as the EF IIIs are relatively new lenses. But, comments about the means of getting to 800 and 1200mm are fair. Even the normally very generous Bryan Carnathan complains that the "Image quality does not impress" for the RF 1200 https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-1200mm-F8-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx, and you can see from his charts it's not as good as the old EF 600mm f/4 II + 2xTC https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3
    And, he similarly makes claims about the IQ of the RF 800mm f/5.6 https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-800mm-F5-6-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx, and shows it's worse than the EF 400mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC https://www.the-digital-picture.com...LensComp=741&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0. They are nowhere nearly as sharp as your native RF 600mm f/4.
  11. I think it's fair to say the level of effort, or lack thereof, that Canon has put into the genre is what many wildlife shooters (myself included) are disappointed with from Canon. Canon used to be known as THE brand of choice for wildlife photography. Look at any of the NatGeo photographers I grew up admiring and they were mostly Canon shooters. Now, we have some of those legacy shooters still around and indeed some of their children have inherited their brand of choice, but for the most part Canon has de-prioritized and I'd say even neglected the pro wildlife photography community. The welded on adapters and TCs in these lenses for their new mount took about as little effort as possible from the company, which tells you where they've prioritized the genre. The lenses don't have all the little details that the other RF lenses have like the dedicated control ring because they were not designed for the new mount—they're older parts and welded on, and they're charging you more for the privilege.

    Sony is just as bad, frankly, although at least they have newly designed lenses for their mount. But the lack of options for wildlife shooters with Sony is just as embarrassing. Clearly these two are seeing this new competitive relationship as the old Nikon vs. Canon of the 20th century, ignoring Nikon altogether. And yet Nikon is the only one who's actually putting effort into new, serious wildlife options for their mount. The built-in TCs for the large primes, combined with the PFs for the mid-tier, which retain professional quality, and they've even got the zooms to round out the lineup. It's not even close, frankly, and Canon should be ashamed of the fact that they've lost this much ground and respect from the wildlife community. Most wildlife shooters are going with Nikon if starting today, and that's going to catch up with Canon in the long run for this genre as people become invested in the system with these larger lens purchases.

    Just my two cents. I'm clearly frustrated with Canon's choices here and gave up waiting around for them to get it together. But I'm hopeful they'll eventually catch up, as they usually do at their own pace. If you like slow zooms then Canon is your choice right now, which is great for those starting out. Otherwise you're paying $10k for stop gaps with limited options and quality.
  12. I think it's fair to say the level of effort, or lack thereof, that Canon has put into the genre is what many wildlife shooters (myself included) are disappointed with from Canon.
    …you're paying $10k for stop gaps with limited options and quality.
    Worth noting that when they announced the RF supertele primes, Canon explicitly stated they had not planned to launch those lenses but developed them specifically in response to requests from photographers (presumably those with the clout to make such requests). In other words, they were intended as stopgaps.

    The RF 100-300/2.8 is the first ‘big white’ designed from the ground up for RF, and IMO it’s an excellent lens. Given the lack of optical Improvement over the EF 600/4 II (and the fact that I can carry and handhold it, making the weight/balance improvements less enticing), I will continue using the EF MkII until Canon replaces it with a true RF version. Meanwhile, it’s an excellent lens that doesn’t disappoint.

    You’re right that Canon has been focusing their long lens development on entry-level users. Seems smart – the RF 100-400, 600/11 and 800/11 are very good lenses for their price (especially the 100-400, which punches well above its price and weight class, optically), and are offerings that remain unmatched by other manufacturers.
  13. He didn't make any adverse comments about the sharpness of the native RF 400/2.8 or RF 600/4 but complained that the RF 800/5.6 and the RF 1200/8 are the native lenses with 2xTCs (albeit custom designed ones) welded on. Complaints that the RF 400 and RF 600 are the EF III versions with an adapter would be unfair as the EF IIIs are relatively new lenses. But, comments about the means of getting to 800 and 1200mm are fair. Even the normally very generous Bryan Carnathan complains that the "Image quality does not impress" for the RF 1200 https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-1200mm-F8-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx, and you can see from his charts it's not as good as the old EF 600mm f/4 II + 2xTC https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3
    And, he similarly makes claims about the IQ of the RF 800mm f/5.6 https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-800mm-F5-6-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx, and shows it's worse than the EF 400mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC https://www.the-digital-picture.com...LensComp=741&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0. They are nowhere nearly as sharp as your native RF 600mm f/4.
    I'm going to make myself really unpopular...but i would fall off my chair with laughter if the new RF 35mm f1.4 L turns out to be an EF 35mm f1.4 II L with a integrated EF to R adapter! Wouldn't that be aamazing if it had a rear filter slot built in....Weirdly...I would buy one of those!
  14. I'm going to make myself really unpopular...but i would fall off my chair with laughter if the new RF 35mm f1.4 L turns out to be an EF 35mm f1.4 II L with a integrated EF to R adapter! Wouldn't that be aamazing if it had a rear filter slot built in....Weirdly...I would buy one of those!
    I'm curious if Canon will continue to use the blue goo, it has only shown up in the EF35L II and RF85L. I only have first hand experience with the RF85 and the CA is very well controlled in that lens, the interwebs report similar experiences with the EF35L.
  15. Hackery? firstly, the EF 400/600 are a new design, they were released in 2018, in large aperture lenses that is considered pretty current tech. Both are the same weight as the Sony counterparts. And adding a flange to adapt to the new mirrorless has little to no adverse effect when it comes to telephoto lenses, so a redesign of these already resent designed lenses is sorta pointless. On the other hand, the wide angle lenses benefit from a shorter flange to the sensor and Canon did redesign all the non telephoto to take advantage of this.

    claiming its "hackery" is just a ignorant uneducated observation and if you don't like it move to a non-hackery company. stay sad for all anyone cares.

    The sharpness and detail and fast AF of my RF 600 blows me away every day I use it, and the best part is when someone asks to hold and is shocked how light it is compared to size has to be some pretty sweet hackery if you ask me.
    Yes, hackery. I was referring to the 800 and 1200 in particular which are absolutely hackery. The 400 and 600 are also a disappointment, especially when even tiny Nikon went to the effort of designing brand new 400/2.8 and 600/4 glass for Z mount.

Leave a comment

Please log in to your forum account to comment