Canon Lens News

Firmware update coming to address Canon RF 70-200 focus issues at MFD

Canon has acknowledged focusing issues with the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM at its minimum focusing distance and is preparing a firmware update to address the issue, it looks like Canon will get this update out as soon as possible.

Canon News was the first to aggregate the issues some users have experienced with the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. If you don’t use the lens at MFD, you won’t notice the troubles.

YuengLinger

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 20, 2012
2,741
891
Southeastern USA
Great news.

And, just as a "Be open minded" reminder to all forum contributors, myself included, here is the dpreview link with one of the earliest and best demonstrated reports. Look at all the blowhard responses either questioning the OP's competence or claiming he is too picky. Here's one quote that sounds so sour and so familiar in tone:

"Gotta love pixel peepers. You didn't even notice this until you came across that thread. No one will ever notice that because no one but pixel peepers zoom into people’s pupils lol. Feel free to send me your lens if you don’t want it!"

Here's the link started by a smart, earnest, and persistent Canon customer:

 

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
441
408
118
Williamsport, PA
Great news.
Canon does step up once they figure out the problem.
Too many clowns accuse Canon of covering up, but they do not do knee jerk reactions. They wait, investigate and then find a solution.
I do not see this in other manufacturers.
Good for Canon stepping up when the matter was confirmed and a solution developed.
 

Tom W

EOS RP
Sep 5, 2012
233
169
I've been following this on the FM forums for a few days. Even did a couple of MFD tests for the forum with my 100-400 and my Siggy 150-600 Contemporary, just to prove that those 2 lenses didn't have the problem when used with the adapter on the R.

I think Canon will be quick to fix this issue.
 

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
144
186
Anyone have any good samples of shots at 200mm at MFD? We’re buying this lens sooner or later and wondering if it can replace our Sigma 105mm Macro for basic macro shots. Mostly creative wedding and engagement ring shots.

Just one less lens to own and bring to shoots and weddings. Currently have the RF 35 1.8 IS Macro but would like the compression of a long lens. I should really do some test shots with the 35 as well.
 

Larsskv

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 12, 2015
789
213
Anyone have any good samples of shots at 200mm at MFD? We’re buying this lens sooner or later and wondering if it can replace our Sigma 105mm Macro for basic macro shots. Mostly creative wedding and engagement ring shots.

Just one less lens to own and bring to shoots and weddings. Currently have the RF 35 1.8 IS Macro but would like the compression of a long lens. I should really do some test shots with the 35 as well.
Don’t expect the RF 70-200 to replace a macro lens. It’s maximum magnification ratio is 0,23, far from macro territory.
 

Drcampbellicu

EOS T7i
Jul 31, 2019
77
61
Great news.
Canon does step up once they figure out the problem.
Too many clowns accuse Canon of covering up, but they do not do knee jerk reactions. They wait, investigate and then find a solution.
I do not see this in other manufacturers.
Good for Canon stepping up when the matter was confirmed and a solution developed.
it was the customers that figured out the problem. It was a news forum that highlighted it.

there’s an important role for customer feedback. It will force a company to respond if we aren’t all corporate zombies
 

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
144
186
Don’t expect the RF 70-200 to replace a macro lens. It’s maximum magnification ratio is 0,23, far from macro territory.
Yeah I saw that but I’m curious how close it will be to just a similar look. I did the math weeks ago and tried to setup a test comparing 200mm from like 48” away vs 105mm 24” or so away from subject. I can’t remember the exact numbers but I’m looking for “good enough”. With 30mp and maybe more with the next R, I have no problem cropping in a lot too.

Cool wedding ring shots aren’t the focus of a wedding, it’s a nice creative opportunity and a necessity for our album designs for our clients. But we don’t exactly need show stopping Macro shots either.

I’ve also considered extension tubes and know the limitations. A friend of mine who’s a Sony shooter has good results with one of his setups. A nice quick and easy way to get some macro shots in run and gun situations and not having to carry another lens.
 
Last edited:
Dec 8, 2019
4
4
Anyone have any good samples of shots at 200mm at MFD? We’re buying this lens sooner or later and wondering if it can replace our Sigma 105mm Macro for basic macro shots. Mostly creative wedding and engagement ring shots.

Just one less lens to own and bring to shoots and weddings. Currently have the RF 35 1.8 IS Macro but would like the compression of a long lens. I should really do some test shots with the 35 as well.
yes, maybe I can show you mine. But this is only a home-made test. I sent it to Canon service Germany. No answer yet.
1. : tripod , Canon Eos r ,distance around 80 cm, 135mm f 2.8
2. tripod Canon eos r, distance around 1 80cm, 200mm f 2.8
 

Attachments

Lee Jay

EOS 7D Mark II
Sep 22, 2011
2,125
86
Don’t expect the RF 70-200 to replace a macro lens. It’s maximum magnification ratio is 0,23, far from macro territory.
My primary macro lens is my 70-200 + extension tubes.

I find the design of all macro lenses to be just nuts. 50/2.8? 100/2.8? Macro lenses need to be long (so you don't have to be practically touching your subject) and slow (DOF is vanishingly small even at f/16 at 1:1 so why do I need f/2.8?). To me, an ideal macro lens would be a compact 300mm f/8 or something like that. Because no one makes any rational macro lenses, I use my 70-200, often with teleconverters.
 

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
144
186
My primary macro lens is my 70-200 + extension tubes.

I find the design of all macro lenses to be just nuts. 50/2.8? 100/2.8? Macro lenses need to be long (so you don't have to be practically touching your subject) and slow (DOF is vanishingly small even at f/16 at 1:1 so why do I need f/2.8?). To me, an ideal macro lens would be a compact 300mm f/8 or something like that. Because no one makes any rational macro lenses, I use my 70-200, often with teleconverters.
It really depends on what you're shooting. Working distance is definitely a factor depending on the subject. Have you looked at the Laowa lenses? I'm really hoping 200mm with half the MFD as the previous version will get me in the ball park of our 105mm Macro. Yeah the 2.8 maximum aperture isn't really necessary as a setting to use, but it helps bring in more light for better focusing......if you're even using AF. But again, nice to have the option if you're tracking a slow moving subject.

Which extension tubes are you using?

 

scyrene

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 4, 2013
2,560
496
UK
www.flickr.com
My primary macro lens is my 70-200 + extension tubes.

I find the design of all macro lenses to be just nuts. 50/2.8? 100/2.8? Macro lenses need to be long (so you don't have to be practically touching your subject) and slow (DOF is vanishingly small even at f/16 at 1:1 so why do I need f/2.8?). To me, an ideal macro lens would be a compact 300mm f/8 or something like that. Because no one makes any rational macro lenses, I use my 70-200, often with teleconverters.
LOL. Okay :rolleyes:

Fwiw I tried using the 70-200 L IS II as a 'macro' lens after I returned a faulty 180mm true macro lens, but it wasn't at all suitable. Not only is the maximum magnification too low, it's less sharp wide open, and had more fringing. It depends what your're shooting of course, but I'd tend to use a long macro lens wide open - I don't want my flowers or insects on a busy background. f/8? I'd rather do a small focus stack. (There are exceptions, like moths on a plain surface, or extreme work with the MP-E).

I'm genuinely intrigued what you'd be shooting at 300mm f/8, or what kind of image you'd be hoping to achieve with that setup. As an aside, have you considered that things seem 'nuts' because you're an outlier?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Quirkz

Lee Jay

EOS 7D Mark II
Sep 22, 2011
2,125
86
I'm genuinely intrigued what you'd be shooting at 300mm f/8, or what kind of image you'd be hoping to achieve with that setup.
I'd like to achieve a high-magnification image that's sharp and with the deepest possible depth-of-field (diffraction-limited).

As an aside, have you considered that things seem 'nuts' because you're an outlier?
I seriously hope so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

Chaitanya

EOS 6D MK II
Jun 27, 2013
1,147
232
33
Pune
Don’t expect the RF 70-200 to replace a macro lens. It’s maximum magnification ratio is 0,23, far from macro territory.
Given the fact he said he will be using for wedding rings and other such shots, I think its possible to get away with .23x mag ratio. I have been using 100-400mm to photograph lizards(skinks and agamas) as they are too skittish even for 180mm macro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tron and Photo Hack