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

Sep 5, 2018
8
1
So eight pins on mount or twelve?

And are the big white filters interchangeable with EOS R adaptor filters?
And this is what I have been asking everywhere since the launch, nobody has given any answer.

Have a look at the R adaptor - their line of drop-ins will include a variable ND an if it is compatible the other way, used in big white ones could be quite sexy and I do not mind it being black.
 

jrista

EOL
Dec 3, 2011
5,341
21
jonrista.com
;
My quess will be that launch of new EF lenses will only be to maintain the system, as long as needed. Future is R-series and RF mount. Personally I would only by new EF lenses if I was pro, that see it as a 3-5 year production item. For enthusiast like me with an lifetime on equipment on +10 years, I will stick with my 6D and current EF line up as long a possible and then go for a 6D like R-series and a fast 2.8 / 2.0 kit zoom and then converter for my current EF lenses. I hold my money in the pocket for the next 3 years and then look around the Canon landscape.
I think this is rather premature. Canon has just barely introduced their full frame mirrorless line. We still need to see how it stands up against the competition, how it is adopted, who it is adopted by, in what volume, etc. Everyone loves to call the death and doom of EOS and the EF line, but the introduction of brand new Mark III great white lenses right now indicates EF is alive and well and unlikely to go anywhere any time soon. You don't release new naturally low-volume lenses unless there is a large enough and strong enough market over a long enough term to actually sell enough to make the R&D worth the cost.
 
Reactions: tron

takesome1

EOS 5Ds R II
Aug 23, 2013
1,448
80
I think this is rather premature. Canon has just barely introduced their full frame mirrorless line. We still need to see how it stands up against the competition, how it is adopted, who it is adopted by, in what volume, etc. Everyone loves to call the death and doom of EOS and the EF line, but the introduction of brand new Mark III great white lenses right now indicates EF is alive and well and unlikely to go anywhere any time soon. You don't release new naturally low-volume lenses unless there is a large enough and strong enough market over a long enough term to actually sell enough to make the R&D worth the cost.
OR

You make the lens so it is easily adapted to the new mount.
Realizing of course the body could be adapted to be RF.
With one of the three adapters it is RF now.
 
Reactions: nitram

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
482
157
The hope they screwed these up expressed by me at the beginning of this thread gets more real every minute this thread grows in size.
I really don't get the complaining about MTF charts.
Probably the most pointless thing to complain about in photography - as opposed to real test results (which are still done at a specific distance etc. so it might be different to using it in real life, focusing at infinity, etc.).

Canon MTF charts are theoretical.
As far as I am aware, Leica MTF charts are measured with 'real' lenses.

It is quite possible, that they have simply changed their measurement standards, where it matches real-world measurements more closely...
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Keith_Reeder

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,832
183
Very good technological progress, but where is the 600mm F4 DO that we have been promised for years and has not arrived on the market ?

An EF 600mm f / 4L IS III of 3.1 Kg is too heavy for use without a tripod...

So, for now, I keep my EF 400mm f / 4 DO IS II USM, despite a diaphragm at F5.6 and F8 with Extender EF 1.4x III and Extender EF 2x III..

I hope a 600mm F4 DO will soon come out on the market with a maximum weight of 2.5 Kg.
When the 600DO prototype had been presented it weighted 3.2Kg! So they have to improve this too...
 
Reactions: nitram

takesome1

EOS 5Ds R II
Aug 23, 2013
1,448
80
I really don't get the complaining about MTF charts.
Who is complaining?

In Canon's book EF Lens Work III they give a very short description of their MTF's. In the past reviewing lenses I have found their MTF chart to be fairly accurate at what to expect.

Although they are theoretical, wouldn't you think Canon would compare actual against theoretical after they make the lens? Of course they do, it would take a very irrisponsible company to not.

Any line over 0.8 Canon considers a superior lens.
In this MTF for some reason Canon did not show the 30 lines/mm.

The heavy black lines are wide open and the blue lines at f/8.

I doubt Canon changed the way they do the MTF's. It would be bad salesmanship to show something that actually looks worse.

From the MTF Canon would consider this lens superior.
In real world situations I doubt you will ever be able to tell the difference. Both lenses will give you superior sharp results. It will only be the pixel peepers that will ever notice if the IQ is better or worse.
 
Who is complaining?

In Canon's book EF Lens Work III they give a very short description of their MTF's. In the past reviewing lenses I have found their MTF chart to be fairly accurate at what to expect.

Although they are theoretical, wouldn't you think Canon would compare actual against theoretical after they make the lens? Of course they do, it would take a very irrisponsible company to not.

Any line over 0.8 Canon considers a superior lens.
In this MTF for some reason Canon did not show the 30 lines/mm.

The heavy black lines are wide open and the blue lines at f/8.

I doubt Canon changed the way they do the MTF's. It would be bad salesmanship to show something that actually looks worse.

From the MTF Canon would consider this lens superior.
In real world situations I doubt you will ever be able to tell the difference. Both lenses will give you superior sharp results. It will only be the pixel peepers that will ever notice if the IQ is better or worse.
That was the old format. They no longer show f/8, all lines are wide open and the thin blue lines are 30 l/mm. You can see the details of their new charts in the whitepaper they released for the RF mount.

Old charts and new charts likely aren't comparable. My best guess as to what happened is they are now showing the toleranced designs instead of the nominal designs. Could be something else as well. Either way they clearly thought these were clearer and more accurate, we should know more once Roger gets his hands on some.
 

takesome1

EOS 5Ds R II
Aug 23, 2013
1,448
80
That was the old format. They no longer show f/8, all lines are wide open and the thin blue lines are 30 l/mm. You can see the details of their new charts in the whitepaper they released for the RF mount.

Old charts and new charts likely aren't comparable. My best guess as to what happened is they are now showing the toleranced designs instead of the nominal designs. Could be something else as well. Either way they clearly thought these were clearer and more accurate, we should know more once Roger gets his hands on some.
In that description the light black lines on the old lens would match the blue on the new.
Still not good match up.

Canon provided us a description in the RF whitepapers on how to read an MTF on a just released EF mount. :confused:
Does that mean the RF is the new standard? Oh no, is EF doomed.

If they indeed made changes and it is showing charts that are not as good as previous models, that is defiantly a marketing mistake.

I think we will find the lens to be just as the charts indicate. The addition of the new coating is most likely the culprit. In the real world few if any will notice.
 

takesome1

EOS 5Ds R II
Aug 23, 2013
1,448
80
Which charts? Why do the Canon USA and Canon Japan charts for the same lens not match?
Why do they not match? Poor Canon marketing?
Where did the III MTF come from that Canon USA posted?
I look at them with the assumption Canon USA had it right, then again Canon is a Japanese company.

Quote from Canon "An MTF characteristic of 0.8 or more at 10 lines/mm indicates a superior lens."
Sounds like that is what we will see no matter which MTF is correct.

One of the other items that changed is the paint / coating. That one I question because it seemed like an odd add. I have never seen a thread or a complaint about heat build up being a problem with the 600mm II.

So I have an unsupported hypothesis.
Did moving and rearranging the structure of the shell and lenses actually weaken the structure of the lens to a point that it is now weaker and susceptible to heat build up? Possibly the large area between the front and next lens creates a heat sink?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
23,660
731
Why do they not match? Poor Canon marketing?
Where did the III MTF come from that Canon USA posted?
I look at them with the assumption Canon USA had it right, then again Canon is a Japanese company.
Canon Japan and USA match
for the 600 III, they differ for the MkII. I think Canon Japan updated the MkII MTF to the new format, and the two versions are nearly identical. Canon USA still has the old version of the MkII MTF, which looks noticeably better than the MkIII because of that.
 

takesome1

EOS 5Ds R II
Aug 23, 2013
1,448
80
Canon Japan and USA match
for the 600 III, they differ for the MkII. I think Canon Japan updated the MkII MTF to the new format, and the two versions are nearly identical. Canon USA still has the old version of the MkII MTF, which looks noticeably better than the MkIII because of that.
OK, but,,,

What does this comment underneath of the MTF on the Japanese site for the II and III:

"[apology]
There was an error in the legend of the spatial frequency when updating the site on September 5, 2018 at 16 o'clock. I apologize and I will correct it."
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
23,660
731
OK, but,,,

What does this comment underneath of the MTF on the Japanese site for the II and III:

"[apology]
There was an error in the legend of the spatial frequency when updating the site on September 5, 2018 at 16 o'clock. I apologize and I will correct it."
Error in the legend not the data. I noticed that initially – the colors are reversed (performance at f/8 should be better than wide open, not the opposite).
 

takesome1

EOS 5Ds R II
Aug 23, 2013
1,448
80
Error in the legend not the data. I noticed that initially – the colors are reversed (performance at f/8 should be better than wide open, not the opposite).
Unless they made a mistake also on the RF Whitepaper, there is no F8 lines.
They changed the 30 line from light grey to blue and deleted the F8 lines.
Black lines stay the same, 10 line.
All lines indicate wide open.

I find the release of the RF interesting to watch unfold. At first it makes one wonder why they would choose to change the MTF charts of existing lenses that are being replaced. But it may be because going forward Canon sees this necessary to bring EF folks to RF.
 

takesome1

EOS 5Ds R II
Aug 23, 2013
1,448
80
One other thing to notice. The corresponding lines from the II's MTF closely match on both the Japanese and Old American.

The difference is that they are .05 lower on the new Japanese chart.
 

hendrik-sg

EOS RP
Apr 21, 2011
244
19
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.
Is it possible, that the worse MTF's are from the Original IS versions by mistake?