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

efmshark

EOS M50
Jan 19, 2018
34
17
This weight reduction is just fantastic. I had the 400 2.8 IS (original version for rent, it was not handholdable, and the IS quite bad. In Comparision, just recently I could use a 400 2.8 IS ii, which is a fantastic improvement.

Now, 1 kg less (as the 300 2.8 IS) and 1.5 stops better IS, there is nothing to add, except that I don't have 12k$ of pocket money to be burned. And the big concern, what about RF (beside the possibility of using adapters) ???

Now, comparing the weight differences between 300/400 or 600/500 lenses at the same opening, a 500mm 2.8 or a 700 4.0 at below 5kg comes into sight. for a bargain of 20k bucks maybe
A 400mm RF lens would be the same size as a 400mm EF lens with EF-to-RF adapter. The dimensions of a super telephoto lens is dictated by aperture (diameter of the front element) and focal length (roughly the length of the lens). There is room for minor amount of weight reduction by eliminating the mount adaptor, but it's probably not worth for Canon to make native RF mount telephoto lenses for a long time.
 

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,816
35
600 III is lighter than the 200-400 !! Now that is nice

Now bring on the 600 DO !
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,634
2,140
So seems like the difference in sharpness will be towards the edges and at 600mm? (am I reading it right).
Yes, slight improvement at the edges/corners (everything is at 600mm, since these are prime lenses). The MTF for the 400 MkIII should be on Canon Japan’s website (that’s where I got the MTF for the 600 III), although they don’t generally publish MTFs for lenses with TCs (with the exception of the 200-400 with it’s built-in TC).

Agree that the big differences are weight and IS.

I like what i'm seeing and hopefully they will have a new extender pair that comes with these lens. Since the EOS R can now autofocus at f/11 that's huge for those who use TC's.
AF at f/11 matters only for an f/5.6 lens with a 2x TC, so not really relevant for these f/4 lenses. A 100-400 with a 2x would AF on the EOS R (but that combo also can AF in live view on current DSLRs).
 
Sep 5, 2018
8
1
What does that mean for the lens and do you guys think that had anything to do with the weight reduction?
One will lose the feeling of direct contact with the focusing group. It is going to behave like the white ring (which I have never used) in previous versions.
 

scyrene

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 4, 2013
2,561
504
UK
www.flickr.com

Starting from 3:00. There is even an additional switch to control the sensitivity or as they say “speed” of manual focus.
Thanks. I did wonder when I saw those switches. I've only used focus by wire on the 85L II and I've no doubt the implementation will be better here, but I dislike it, and it would put me off upgrading even if I could afford to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mireaux

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,634
2,140
Starting from 3:00. There is even an additional switch to control the sensitivity or as they say “speed” of manual focus.
Thanks! And ugh. I saw the line in the feature list, “Improved, flexible focus control with a customizable electronic-focus ring,” but was hoping that referred to the focus preset ring which also drives Power Focus on the MkII lenses.

The hard case is now optional– they’re including a soft case which is likely more useful for most people (I bought a LowePro Lens Trekker 600 II AW for my 600 II), but more importantly for Canon saves them money (more profit) and allows them to sell a high markup accessory (even more profit). Should one ever need to ship the lens to Canon for service (or for a firmware upgrade as was needed for the earliest versions of the MkII lenses), the hard case would be the way to go. Also an ‘optional accessory’ is the smaller for lens foot for use with a monopod. It was included with my 600 II. More profit for Canon, but IMO a pretty crappy way to cheap out on a $13K lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mireaux

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,634
2,140
Thanks. I did wonder when I saw those switches. I've only used focus by wire on the 85L II and I've no doubt the implementation will be better here, but I dislike it, and it would put me off upgrading even if I could afford to.
Agreed. I had no plans to upgrade anyway, but this makes that even less likely. I manually focus my 600 II quite frequently, and I’m not a fan of FBW (having owned the 85/1.2L II and many EF-M lenses which are al FBW).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mireaux

JMZawodny

1Dx2, 7D2 and lots of wonderful glass!
Sep 19, 2014
381
10
Virginia
Joe.Zawodny.com
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).
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.
 

Attachments

NorskHest

EOS T7i
Jan 11, 2018
69
81
Minnesota - US
Visit site
I'm not in the market to upgrade anything but FBW has confirmed that I will do no such thing, sure 2 pounds lighter is nice but I will gladly stay with my 600ii for years to come and probably my 300 as well. I'm sure there is some alegeded benefits but I couldn't image any, I've used their 50 and 85 and and because of the issues with fbw I never purchased them.