Updated EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II on the Horizon? [CR1]

[YuengLinger]

Significant difference in all aspects of IQ as the ISO goes above 640 on the 5DIV. Getting by with lower shutter speeds does help.

But in a low-light venue when the subject is gesturing, we just accept we're going to lose some IQ.

 

[RGF]

Well, the obvious answer is the 24-70 f/2.8L III will be the same as the II but with newer coatings.

Which I'm sure will make the forum crowd howl with anger

but if the lens is white, it will be a major improvement ;D

 

[Generalized Specialist]

Two professional lenses before Photokina, the most noise/chatter would indicate two of the following:

• 24-70 IS
• 135 f/2 II
• 800 f/5.6 II

That would be great.

Which means we will get an ef 50mm 1.2L II!

Haha, it's the Canon way of doing business - "you will buy what we make, we don't care what the market wants, you will be assimilated."

 

[Ladislav]

If Canon is saving this for Photokina, I hope it will not be just "refresh". My Tamron is slowly falling apart ...

 

[ken]

 

[ahsanford]

Well, if this lens is updated, it will be a pickle jar regardless of mount. And we expect EF will work perfectly on day one of any new mirrorless system.

So... I am reading your post to mean "I do not like adaptors".

Which seems a little OT. ;D

- A

 

[slclick]

EF is not going anywhere. Period.

 

[YuengLinger]

EF is not going anywhere. Period.

Bold. I hope you are right.

 

[ahsanford]

EF is not going anywhere. Period.

Bold. I hope you are right.

There are three possible outcomes with FF mirrorless:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Canon goes thin mount and offers an adaptor. All EF works perfectly.
[*]Canon goes full EF mount. All EF works perfectly.
[*]Canon severs its own leg: it goes thin mount and prevents EF from working -- either by design or by not offering an adaptor.
[/list]

The third option is beyond improbable, so EF will live on. Canon has no intention or incentive to 'A Mount' the EF portfolio into retirement unless they are putting something blindingly ahead-of-its-time in the new body -- like curved sensors or something. I don't see that happening.

Also, why on earth would Canon roll the dice (with option 3 above) that all existing users will buy new different lenses for a mirrorless system? I'm sure they'd much rather sell pricey FF body to every EF user than convince a few users to start a new mount's lens collection. Again: EF lives under that thinking.

- A

 

[ethanz]

EF is not going anywhere. Period.

Bold. I hope you are right.

There are three possible outcomes with FF mirrorless:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Canon goes thin mount and offers an adaptor. All EF works perfectly.
[*]Canon goes full EF mount. All EF works perfectly.
[*]Canon severs its own leg: it goes thin mount and prevents EF from working -- either by design or by not offering an adaptor.
[/list]

The third option is beyond improbable, so EF will live on. Canon has no intention or incentive to 'A Mount' the EF portfolio into retirement unless they are putting something blindingly ahead-of-its-time in the new body -- like curved sensors or something. I don't see that happening.

Also, why on earth would Canon roll the dice (with option 3 above) that all existing users will buy new different lenses for a mirrorless system? I'm sure they'd much rather sell pricey FF body to every EF user than convince a few users to start a new mount's lens collection. Again: EF lives under that thinking.

- A

If Canon goes with the third option, I have a prediction: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=35192.0

 

[fullstop]

There are three possible outcomes with FF mirrorless:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Canon goes thin mount and offers an adaptor. All EF works perfectly.
[*]Canon goes full EF mount. All EF works perfectly.
[/list]

Option 1: Canon goes thin mount and offers a simple little adaptor. All legacy EF works perfectly the same as it does in on a DSLR in Live View.
Both large and smaller size/lighter cameras as well as smaller lenses for most commonly used focal length range are possible.
Canon can compete with all competitive offers: smaller gear to people who want smaller/lighter gear for their main or secondary setup. Larger cameras to those who prefer DSLR-sized cameras.
Canon lens sales will take off for many years to come as new customers enter the new mount system and existing customers upgrade to fully mirrorless-optimized lenses over time.

Option 2: Canon goes full EF mount. All legacy EF works perfectly the same as it does in on a DSLR in Live View.
Significantly smaller/lighter gear is not possible.
Canon camera sales will be severely limited to a small minority of people who want "chunky" cameras.
Canon lens sales will be severly limited to those people willing to buy iterated Mark # updates and occasional new lens releases.

Now, what are the odds for Canon chosing option 1 or option 2 ?

 

[jd7]

Well, if this lens is updated, it will be a pickle jar regardless of mount. And we expect EF will work perfectly on day one of any new mirrorless system.

So... I am reading your post to mean "I do not like adaptors".

Which seems a little OT. ;D

- A

Or perhaps Ken's post means: I do not care about mirrorless?

As I have said before, I will wait and see what comes out but I expect to be a hard sell on mirrorless, and particularly full frame mirrorless. If I went mirrorless at this point it would only be because I wanted something really small and light (generally along the lines of Canon's existing M system). No idea how many other people think similarly, of course.

 

[Kit.]

Option 1: Canon goes thin mount and offers a simple little adaptor. All legacy EF works perfectly the same as it does in on a DSLR in Live View.
Both large and smaller size/lighter cameras as well as smaller lenses for most commonly used focal length range are possible.

I don't think it is true. Sufficiently smaller FF "mirrorless" lenses require tilted sensor microlenses, which are unlikely to work well with DPAF using "legacy" EF lenses for off-center subjects.

 

[fullstop]

innovative Canon will sort it out. But one thing is clear: whichever way Canon goes with FF mirrorless, existing EF-lenses will be "legacy" and will perform within the limitations of phase-AF-optimized lenses in "live view mode".

Legacy EF glass [with the possible exception of the few recent STM and Nano-USM EF lenses and maybe the latest updates of some USM lenses] will not be on par with new, mirrorless-DPAF-optimized lenses in terms of AF functionality and performance. btw. nothing to do with mount adapter, but with AF drive and lens-protocol implementation in existing DSLR/Phase-AF-optimized EF glass.

Of course it also helps Canon sell (more) new lenses.

 

[Kit.]

innovative Canon will sort it out. But one thing is clear: whichever way Canon goes with FF mirrorless, existing EF-lenses will be "legacy" and will perform within the limitations of phase-AF-optimized lenses in "live view mode".

No, it is not "clear", you are begging the question here. There is a better alternative: Canon continues with the EF mount as its main mount, until the problems that are presented by microlenses are solved, and then Canon can make an even thinner mount without compromising the AF quality of its fast telephoto lenses.

Legacy EF glass [with the possible exception of the few recent STM and Nano-USM EF lenses and maybe the latest updates of some USM lenses] will not be on par with new, mirrorless-DPAF-optimized lenses in terms of AF functionality and performance. btw. nothing to do with mount adapter, but with AF drive and lens-protocol implementation in existing DSLR/Phase-AF-optimized EF glass.

You seem to be confused.

DPAF is a phase-detect AF. It just tries to use the same sensor for both image recording and phase detection. By the nature of such compromise, it cannot be better than a dedicated phase-detect sensor. If lenses need special "DPAF optimization" for it, that means that it is the DPAF that is not on par with the dedicated sensor approach.

 

[fullstop]

i am not confused. Maybe i was not clear enough re the 2 types of Phase-AF:

A) detached, separate AF sensor [in the bottom of the mirrorbox, getting light via mirror/submirror/lens system] in DSLRs

B) in-sensor-plane phase-AF systems in mirrorless cameras, currently implemented in two sub-types: B1) dedicated AF pixels strewn across the sensor, not used for image and B2) DP-AF where each "pixel" is split in 2 half-"pixels" used to determine phase difference as well as in image capture itself.


ALL existing Canon EF glass is designed for use with type A) "detached, separate" Phase AF sensor. Especially all older design EF glass before LiveView was used in Canon. EF lenses have [different] sorts of AF drives and controlling electronics [presumably hardwired in older lenses and hard- plus firmware in newer, chipped lenses] optimized to focus best, fastest and precisest with DSLR-style Phase AF. Those lenses with micro-motor or Ring-/USM AF drive are *NOT* optimized for use in "LiveView"/mirrorless mode, not for type B1) nor for B2) DP-AF

Therefore existing EF lenses will be legacy on all future Canon FF mirrorless cameras, irrespective whether Canon uses EF mount or a new mount. These legacy EF lenses may and likely will be subject to various limitations in AF performance and functionality compared to new, "optimized for mirrorless/DP-AF" lenses. Most people seem to observe however, that even these lenses are not as fast-focussing in LiveView mode vs. regular DSLR-mode on eg an 80D.

Possible exception are the very few recent EF lenses with STM [eg. 40/2.8, 50/1.8, 24-105 non-L] or Nano-USM [70-300 IS II] which - hopefully - are better / fully prepared for use with on-sensor/DP-AF autofocus cameras.

I find it quite interesting and rather funny, how many folks who want to "keep EF-mount" on mirrorless cameras are solely focused on the "no adapter needed", the "mechanical mounting" aspect. Hardly any of them seems to have realized, that even without any need for an adaptor all their [expensive] EF lenses will be "legacy" and not as fast/well-performing in DP-AF "live view/mirrorless" mode as new, native lenses undoubtedly will. I have the feeling it will take another 100 posts and 20 pages of discussions until this start to sink in. LOL


See also following quote from Canon's own words. Of course they won't (yet!) say that EF lenses without STM or Nano-USM will be "legacy shards" when used in [DP-AF or any other] liveview/mirrorless mode. But if one reads a litle bit "between the lines", it is quite clear. ;D

This steady performance during continuous focusing is especially true with Canon lenses that are optimized for smoothest Live View and video AF:
• Canon lenses with STM (Stepping Motor) focus technology
• Canon lenses with Nano USM focus motor technology
Whether you’re using an EF, EF-S, or EF-M lens, if you see either of these technologies identified on the exterior of the lens, you know you’ll get the ultimate in smooth, positive AF performance when combined with Canon EOS cameras offering Dual Pixel CMOS AF.

http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2018/canon-dual-pixel-af.shtml

 

[Kit.]

i am not confused. Maybe i was not clear enough re the 2 types of Phase-AF:

A) detached, separate AF sensor [in the bottom of the mirrorbox, getting light via mirror/submirror/lens system] in DSLRs

B) in-sensor-plane phase-AF systems in mirrorless cameras, currently implemented in two sub-types: B1) dedicated AF pixels strewn across the sensor, not used for image and B2) DP-AF where each "pixel" is split in 2 half-"pixels" used to determine phase difference as well as in image capture itself.

Do you realize that (B) is just a crippled implementation of (A)?

ALL existing Canon EF glass is designed for use with type A) "detached, separate" Phase AF sensor.

The lens doesn't care if the sensor is detached or not. The optical distance from the lens to the sensor is exactly the same.

Especially all older design EF glass before LiveView was used in Canon. EF lenses have [different] sorts of AF drives and controlling electronics [presumably hardwired in older lenses and hard- plus firmware in newer, chipped lenses] optimized to focus best, fastest and precisest with DSLR-style Phase AF. Those lenses with micro-motor or Ring-/USM AF drive are *NOT* optimized for use in "LiveView"/mirrorless mode, not for type B1) nor for B2) DP-AF

What you are saying here is that ring USM lenses are optimized for fast precise focusing that (B) cannot deliver.

Therefore existing EF lenses will be legacy on all future Canon FF mirrorless cameras, irrespective whether Canon uses EF mount or a new mount.

This assumes that Canon will never be able to reach the same autofocusing capabilities on its mirrorless cameras that it already achieves with its SLRs.

Which is quite a bleak view on the future of Canon mirrorless, I need to say.

I find it quite interesting and rather funny, how many folks who want to "keep EF-mount" on mirrorless cameras are solely focused on the "no adapter needed", the "mechanical mounting" aspect. Hardly any of them seems to have realized, that even without any need for an adaptor all their [expensive] EF lenses will be "legacy" and not as fast/well-performing in DP-AF "live view/mirrorless" mode as new, native lenses undoubtedly will.

If you really care about autofocus performance in a stills camera, you will use a non-crippled autofocus sensor and whatever lenses it is good with.

If it means "don't use mirrorless", then it means "don't use mirrorless".

See also following quote from Canon's own words. Of course they won't (yet!) say that EF lenses without STM or Nano-USM will be "legacy shards" when used in [DP-AF or any other] liveview/mirrorless mode. But if one reads a litle bit "between the lines", it is quite clear. ;D

"Our DPAF is imprecise, so it is better to be used with slower-focusing lenses"?

 

[fullstop]

exactly the opposite. Even the most expensive EF L glass will not match future "native" FF mirrorless lenses AF performance.

EF glass will be "legacy" and "limited AF performance" [not IQ] the minute Canon launches its FF mirrorless camera. Irrespective of whether they go with old EF mount or new native mirrorless mount (and EF adaptor].

That's what many folks seem to have difficulty understanding. All they care worry about is the "(in)convenience factor" of an adaptor needed to bridge the "FFD gap".

 

[Talys]

exactly the opposite. Even the most expensive EF L glass will not match future "native" FF mirrorless lenses AF performance.

EF glass will be "legacy" and "limited AF performance" [not IQ] the minute Canon launches its FF mirrorless camera. Irrespective of whether they go with old EF mount or new native mirrorless mount (and EF adaptor].

That's what many folks seem to have difficulty understanding. All they care worry about is the "(in)convenience factor" of an adaptor needed to bridge the "FFD gap".

When the future arrives, and autofocus on mirrorless systems is faster than autofocus on DSLRs, and optical viewfinders are indistinguishable from electronic ones, and battery issues are insignificant for people who look down the viewfinder a lot, optical viewfinders will probably be a lot less common.

The difference is, you seem to think it will happen in the next year or two, and I don't -- because nobody has demonstrated such a thing yet. The other difference is, you are (or seem to be) happy to embrace the technology in advance of that, while I'm in no rush to get there... if it happens, it happens, and in the meantime, I'm quite satisfied with what I'm using.

The fastest and best on-sensor autofocus experience is Canon's dual pixel af. When they develop a professional stills product that uses it as its only AF mechanism, we'll see how that matches up to their professional dedicated af sensors.

 

[fullstop]

I don't need *faster AF*. I want *more intelligent AF"*.
* Face/Eye Tracking
* Eye Control AF v2.0
* AF field markings in VF/on LCD *not smaller* than actual AF fields
* reliable AI AUTO tracking of moving subjects
* no back/front-focus / no need for AFMA

mirrorless is my ticket to get there. Soon. Very soon.