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

Canon Rumors Guy

Canon EOS 40D
CR Pro
Jul 20, 2010
10,765
3,149
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
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.

Continue reading...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

YuengLinger

Print the ones you love.
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,739
2,255
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:

 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users
Upvote 0

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
583
571
122
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
145
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.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 12, 2015
852
298
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
145
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:
Upvote 0
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

  • 20191211-135mmTest 1- 135mm 2.8.jpg
    20191211-135mmTest 1- 135mm 2.8.jpg
    388.5 KB · Views: 528
  • 20191211- 200mm 2.8.jpg
    20191211- 200mm 2.8.jpg
    405.3 KB · Views: 538
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Lee Jay

EOS 7D Mark II
Sep 22, 2011
2,250
175
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
145
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?

 
Upvote 0
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: 1 user
Upvote 0

Lee Jay

EOS 7D Mark II
Sep 22, 2011
2,250
175
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: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jun 27, 2013
1,861
1,099
37
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: 1 users
Upvote 0