Canon officially announces the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III & EF 600mm f/4L IS III. The worlds lightest lenses of their kind

[takesome1]

If it is FBW, I wonder if this is where some of the weight savings came from?
There is no need to have the manual focus system in the lens.

If the MF is electronic, why do you even need the ring? Your MF system can be handled from other locations.

I wonder if the FBW change is a preparatory move for a 1D style mirror less that is released some time in the distant future?
Possibly Canon is laying the groundwork now.

For all the naysayers and anti Canon posters who claimed there is no innovation at Canon, these lenses would have had to be put in production almost a year ago.
We are looking a year old innovation.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Note sure where you got the MTF plot for the mk II, but this is the plot I downloaded from Canon moments ago. The Mk II appears to be significantly better than the Mk III. And the same goes for the 400 Mk III.

From which Canon site did you download that image? Mine are linked from ‘the source’, Canon Japan:

https://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/super-tele/ef600-f4l-is-ii/spec.html
https://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/super-tele/ef600-f4l-is-iii/spec.html

 

[neuroanatomist]

Hmm. Is this a coincidence, convergent thinking, that Sony and Canon make the same radical change of lens design within months of each other? Or do we suspect industrial espionage?

My guess is the latter. Working in Pharma for years, I was at first surprised by (then later became accustomed to) the astoundingly high success rate the medicinal chemists had in ‘guessing’ the structures of competitors compounds and subsequently having their ‘guesses’ confirmed. In this case, I’d hazard a guess that some little 鳥 told Sony about a Canon design, and Sony came out with it first.

 

[JMZawodny]

From which Canon site did you download that image? Mine are linked from ‘the source’, Canon Japan:

https://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/super-tele/ef600-f4l-is-ii/spec.html
https://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/super-tele/ef600-f4l-is-iii/spec.html

I got it from here https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...s/ef/super-telephoto/ef-600mm-f-4l-is-iii-usm .
I would find it nearly impossible to end up with essentially identical MTF curves (at both apertures) when there is such a large increase in distance between the front optic and the next group. So I suspect "The Source" may be wrong. I guess we won't know for sure until actual samples go through thorough measurement and testing. I'll remain skeptical until then.

 

[takesome1]

From which Canon? Mine are linked from ‘the source’, Canon Japan:

https://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/super-tele/ef600-f4l-is-ii/spec.html
https://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/super-tele/ef600-f4l-is-iii/spec.html

Canon USA
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...es/ef/super-telephoto/ef-600mm-f-4l-is-ii-usm

Someone came in the office and I see JMZ posted it.

The MTF charts at Canon USA are the same as were posted when they first released.

 

[Lurker]

600/4L IS II:

600/4L IS III:

I’m not sure I’d call the MkIII worse, but based on MTF charts I’d conclude that the MkIII does not offer any meaningful improvement in sharpness or contrast. The new coatings are likely better at reducing flare (and of course, that affects contrast when present), but I haven’t found that to be an issue with the 600 II (unlike, for example, the 70-200/2.8L IS II, where despite the claims of no improvements, I expect that lens to have meaningfully better performance in backlit situations, where the MkII just washes out with veiling glare).[/QUOTE

Interesting. I did not find the MTF on Canon USA site so I looked at the MTF from The-Digital-Picture review.
TDP Review

 

[takesome1]

Edge to the old.

 

[takesome1]

And again, Edge to the old

 

[neuroanatomist]

Interesting. I did not find the MTF on Canon USA site so I looked at the MTF from The-Digital-Picture review.

They’re on the Canon USA site as well, but the MTF for the 600 II on Canon USA differs from that on Canon Japan. The MTFs for the MkIII match.

 

[takesome1]

And again, IQ going down on the III?

 

[takesome1]

FWIW all the ones I posted came from Canon USA.

 

[takesome1]

This is a major gut.
I would definitely wait for TDP's comparisons before ordering.
Maybe a few field reviews.
Sometimes things are better left alone.
$12 k is to much to be the guinea pig.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It seems Canon simplified their MTF charts recently, the ones on Canon USA for the MkII have all 8 lines (contrast and sharpness for both sagittal and meridional, wide open and at f/8). The new MTFs (MkII and MkIII on Canon Japan, just MkIII on Canon USA) have only 4 lines – it looks like they removed the contrast data (the thick lines on the older format) and swapped the colors. Given that, I’d be inclined to rely on comparing the Canon Japan MTFs as an apples-to-apples comparison, rather than comparing an new format to an old format as is seen on Canon USA.

 

[Lurker]

They’re on the Canon USA site as well, but the MTF for the 600 II on Canon USA differs from that on Canon Japan. The MTFs for the MkIII match.

So they are! I had to click on the tiny read "read more" text to see them.

 

[Del Paso]

Couldn't it be a different (more demanding) MTF testing procedure?
I would really be surprised if Canon opticians accepted a decrease in quality of such important lenses mostly used by pros.

 

[ethanz]

I would definitely wait for TDP's comparisons before ordering.

We need you Bryan!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Couldn't it be a different MTF testing procedure?
I would really be surprised if Canon opticians accepted a decrease in quality of such important lenses mostly used by pros.

No, in the sense that the MTFs don’t result from empirical testing (that’s true for most manufacturers, although Zeiss actually tests production copies of their lenses to generate MTFs). The plots from Canon, Nikon, Sigma, etc., are computer-generated from the lens design parameters, i.e. they are theoretical (perfect) MTFs. However, they may have changed the algorithm used to generate the MTFs.

I’d also be really surprised if Canon released MkIII lenses that were so noticeably worse (based on those theoretical MTFs, the differences would be noticeable). That’s another reason I’m inclined to believe the comparison using the MTFs on Canon Japan.

 

[takesome1]

It seems Canon simplified their MTF charts recently, the ones on Canon USA for the MkII have all 8 lines (contrast and sharpness for both sagittal and meridional, wide open and at f/8). The new MTFs (MkII and MkIII on Canon Japan, just MkIII on Canon USA) have only 4 lines – it looks like they removed the contrast data (the thick lines on the older format) and swapped the colors. Given that, I’d be inclined to rely on comparing the Canon Japan MTFs as an apples-to-apples comparison, rather than comparing an new format to an old format as is seen on Canon USA.

IMO if we can't rely on one we can't rely on the other. The 2x on Canon USA's website shows quit a bit of difference.

Looking at the changes they make I think we have to consider this an entirely new lens that as of yet not proven.
It is definitely more than just a minor revamp of an existing design.

 

[ethanz]

Looking at the changes they make I think we have to consider this an entirely new lens that as of yet not proven.
It is definitely more than just a minor revamp of an existing design.

In the video, Rudy says they are a complete optical redesign.

 

[takesome1]

In the video, Rudy says they are a complete optical redesign.

If the IQ of the III doesn't match the II it is a good thing. The II's used price will surely drop in price, while I do not see the need to spend $11 K on a new one I could be enticed with a substantial price drop in the used market.