# Are the latest "updates" intended to keep EF on life support?



## YuengLinger (Jul 18, 2018)

Look at the minimal improvements to some recent lenses, such as the version III of the already wonderful ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. Also, rumors regarding the new big whites. Seriously, except for weight, which would be minimal, and some "new" coatings, how much better could new versions of the big whites be?

Could this be Canon's attempt to keep the EF L series lenses selling through the transition to whatever the new mount that will be used for FF mirrorless? Keep EF relevant long enough (years more, yes) for the FF mirrorless market to be approaching maturity?


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 18, 2018)

NO!

A most emphatic NO!

It takes many years of sales of L lenses to recoup the development costs. If Canon was planning to abandon the EF mount, the would not be going through an update cycle, and particularly not an update cycle where the changes are more control and coatings oriented that optical formula....

Optically, these lenses are already as good as they are going to get. If they were planning to abandon the mount, they would be spending their effort on new lenses.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 18, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> NO!
> 
> A most emphatic NO!
> 
> ...



You might be right, but the very minimal improvements seen in the latest updates suggest that Canon is updating for show, to make a point--to make your point, in fact, that, despite the FF mirrorless chatter, EF is alive and well.

I think the updates being so minor strongly suggests that the FF mirrorless will not be native EF, though an adapter will be quickly available.


----------



## BillB (Jul 18, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Look at the minimal improvements to some recent lenses, such as the version III of the already wonderful ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. Also, rumors regarding the new big whites. Seriously, except for weight, which would be minimal, and some "new" coatings, how much better could new versions of the big whites be?
> 
> Could this be Canon's attempt to keep the EF L series lenses selling through the transition to whatever the new mount that will be used for FF mirrorless? Keep EF relevant long enough (years more, yes) for the FF mirrorless market to be approaching maturity?



Updates were likely for things like new coatings, faster AF communication with the camera and the iterative AF focussing that Canon has been using since 2012.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 18, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > NO!
> ...



Have you seen the MTF curves for the big whites? It’s just one big fat line at the top of the chart..... there really isn’t anywhere up left to go to. Just like the recent 70-200 upgrades, version 2 was essentially as optically good as you are going to get.... all that is left to improve is coatings, AF, and IS.... and that seems to be what the recent updates are all about....


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 18, 2018)

A lot of expense and prep time goes into updates. Which makes the very slight improvements puzzling in some respects. One way to explain them is to see Canon's desire to assure "L" customers that they can keep buying EF for the time being. For the time being.

Even as kids, we knew when we saw comic books add the "Still Only" to the price on the cover that a change was coming. These scant improvements, updates for the sake of reassurance says pretty clearly to me that we shouldn't get nervous when a new mount comes with the FF mirrorless.

I'm not saying EF will be discontinued immediately, but I think we are in the late autumn of its run as a mount standard. Updates for the sake of asserting relevancy are leaves turning brown. "Look around..."


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 18, 2018)

If you look at the MTF curves for high end lenses, they tend to be very high, near the possible limits of manufacturing techniques. When the optics are so good, its only possible to get incremental optical improvements, usually at the corners and edges since the center is near perfect already.
So, we will see smaller optical improvements, and improvements with coatings, IS, and AF.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 18, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If you look at the MTF curves for high end lenses, they tend to be very high, near the possible limits of manufacturing techniques. When the optics are so good, its only possible to get incremental optical improvements, usually at the corners and edges since the center is near perfect already.
> So, we will see smaller optical improvements, and improvements with coatings, IS, and AF.



Then why new versions? To incorporate slight improvements? Or do you think more for marketing?


----------



## unfocused (Jul 18, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > If you look at the MTF curves for high end lenses, they tend to be very high, near the possible limits of manufacturing techniques. When the optics are so good, its only possible to get incremental optical improvements, usually at the corners and edges since the center is near perfect already.
> ...



Could be manufacturing efficiencies. Incorporating new manufacturing processes that save time and money.


----------



## timmy_650 (Jul 18, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> A lot of expense and prep time goes into updates. Which makes the very slight improvements puzzling in some respects. One way to explain them is to see Canon's desire to assure "L" customers that they can keep buying EF for the time being. For the time being.



I have seen these upgrades to be the other way, theses upgrades are to save money. I joke about the new white on the 70-200 but that can be a big cost saving. My last job we did our own paint similar to lenses. It is annoying and waste time to switch colors. I believe they have been going to more machine built lenses which is projected to save them money and make higher quality lenses.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 18, 2018)

unfocused said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...


They do not need a new model number to implement a new manufacturing process as long as there is no major design change involved. 

They do update designs for a variety of reasons, and to be sure, Canon pinches every penny. Any new design will be saving money. 

Reasons for a new model can include:
Better lens coatings(Some coatings cost more but are less expensive to apply making them cost less overall)
Improved ISLighter constructionRedesign of common failure pointsReplace obsolete electronic componentsImproved optical formulaRobotic assemblyNew Technology that justifies the cost(usually that means costs less).Expensive new Technology like the newer Diffractive Optics where buyers pay more for the weight reduction.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 18, 2018)

Even those photographers who are exceedingly comfortable financially would feel some aggravation if they bought a Big White and found within a few years the lens mount is obsolete for new cameras (but can be kept alive with an adapter, granted). So, no surprise, there is defensive whistling in the dark. ;D


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 18, 2018)

No

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 18, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> No
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines



Because the great minds of journalism have done so much to maintain their profession's integrity and credibility.


So you are saying a rumors forum is no place to ask questions or speculate?


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 18, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > No
> ...



I said nothing of the sort - merely highlighting a truism about headlines with a question mark in them.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 18, 2018)

You accept bromides as facts that apply to all situations? That can lead to many difficulties.

And you have dodged the question, but were made anxious enough about its implications to reply with nonsense.

If the new FF mirrorless mount is EF, why doesn't Canon simply say so and reassure customers? Are they using a little suspense as buzz? I'd say they are working on various strategies to ease the transition for their sake and ours.

If a working professional needs a new lens, he/she will buy what is needed. We don't get many such types here on CR, as they are generally too busy to be obsessing over gear. Hobbyists might have some concerns about the end of the EF mount, at least enough to wait for Canon to give some guidance regarding the future of FF mounts--and dSLR's.


And eventually the internal combustion engine will be obsolete. But, if you need a car now, alternatives are limited.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 18, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> You accept bromides as facts that apply to all situations? That can lead to many difficulties.
> 
> And you have dodged the question, but were made anxious enough about its implications to reply with nonsense.


Random word generator....



YuengLinger said:


> If the new FF mirrorless mount is EF, why doesn't Canon simply say so and reassure customers? Are they using a little suspense as buzz? I'd say they are working on various strategies to ease the transition for their sake and ours.


This 'buzz' has only happened in the last 2-3 weeks yet you seem to suggest it has reached a point where people are really worried and need to be reassured? I know that some say people now need instant gratification but that is going some.



YuengLinger said:


> If a working professional needs a new lens, he/she will buy what is needed.


Probably how Canon sees it. Which is why they have not said anything.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 18, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > You accept bromides as facts that apply to all situations? That can lead to many difficulties.
> ...



Perhaps anxiety has clouded your usual thought processes--and memory. Two to three weeks of buzz? Wow, you've taken a break from being online:

http://www.canonrumors.com/more-than-one-active-full-frame-mirrorless-project-at-canon-cr1/


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 18, 2018)

I know reports have been back a few months, but only recently have they reached this intensity. The fact that link is 9 months old does not seem to have hurt Canon sales, which brings us back to the question of whether there is any concern that Canon needs to address by announcing its plans. It seems not.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 18, 2018)

Actually, Canon might be more worried about "concerns" when the new FF mirrorless is revealed to have a new mount.

I'm simply explaining why I believe strongly that something big is afoot. Canon has nothing to lose by telling us ahead of time EF will continue in the mirrorless lines. But if they announce otherwise, there may be a significant hit to purchases until the missing spaces on their new map are filled in.

Canon isn't ******* or any of that nonsense. But we might very well be looking at a world with EF on the way out, starting as soon as this fall.


----------



## dak723 (Jul 18, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Canon isn't ******* or any of that nonsense. But we might very well be looking at a world with EF on the way out, starting as soon as this fall.



It will depend on the market. If they come out with a new mount and it is a failure (in terms of sales) than you can bet that an EF mount FF will be available at some point. I would imagine that they have made prototypes of various alternatives. What people buy over the next decade will decide the fate of EF lenses. Since an adapter alternative is certainly in the works, even if new EF lenses are no longer made 10 years from now, the ones you have can still be used for your lifetime.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 19, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Could this be Canon's attempt to keep the EF L series lenses selling through the transition to whatever the new mount that will be used for FF mirrorless? Keep EF relevant long enough (years more, yes) for the FF mirrorless market to be approaching maturity?


Doesn't make any sense to me.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Jul 19, 2018)

there are several reasons to "update" lenses - 1, dramatic improvements in optical design (not likely since the big
whites are already nearly optimized), 2, minor improvements such as better coatings, weight reduction or cosmetic changes, 3, manufacturing cost reduction such as substituting plastic for metal, more automated internal lens components, plastic for glass replacements, easier assembly routines, 4, packaging changes or 5, additional functions (usb update, dock compatibility). 
I don't remember Canon doing anything to prolong the life of FD lenses (even the short lived FD to EF adapter) when it embraced autofocus. If the new mirrorless requires a new mount and if Canon is truly committed to a mirrorless future, why would they bother to "protect" EF lenses when they can keep manufacturing and selling a more limited line of "legacy" cameras. It's taken them nearly 20 years to finally discontinue offering a film solution, why would full frame DSLR's be any different?


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 19, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I'm simply explaining why I believe strongly that something big is afoot. Canon has nothing to lose by telling us ahead of time EF will continue in the mirrorless lines.



Nobody gave any reason why the electronic interface would not be backward compatible with EF. There are some valid reasons to think Canon might change the flange distance & throat diameter. So there's no reason to think anything more than an extension tube would be needed to mount EF lenses on new FF MILC, same as on EOS-M.

So why would Canon need to tell that any more than governments need to announce the sun will rise tomorrow morning?


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 20, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > I'm simply explaining why I believe strongly that something big is afoot. Canon has nothing to lose by telling us ahead of time EF will continue in the mirrorless lines.
> ...



A basic adapter that impacts AF performance only slightly would probably put some customers at ease, but I think many would hesitate to keep buying EF lenses.

To continue heavily investing in EF lenses, especially Big Whites and tilt-shifts, doesn't seem quite as much a no brainer if EF is no longer the native mount for the new generation of FF mirrorless bodies. Of course a working pro or dedicated hobbyist will have some inertia because of their current investments, but at some point, the phasing out of EF is going to mean tough decisions about cashing out.

Of course Canon has an interest in continuing to sell off the EF inventory, and releasing some nominal updates at this time is one way to assure EF customers that EF is still relevant.

Now, if the new FF mirrorless has a native EF mount, I'm out on a limb that's going to break right off. But Canon has done little to signal they are sticking with EF.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 20, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> To continue heavily investing in EF lenses, especially Big Whites and tilt-shifts, doesn't seem quite as much a no brainer if EF is no longer the native mount for the new generation of FF mirrorless bodies.



There's one question nobody answered: why would Canon abandon EF? What limitations it has that would make Canon design a new mount for FF MILC? What features the new mount needs which EF doesn't have?

I'm not talking about flange distance & throat diameter, which can be bridged with an extension tube, as on EOS-M.

I'm not talking paranoid conspiracy theory about Canon switching mount because what if.

I'm talking about technical rational reasons, maybe an example like "FE does <feature, some implementation details> which there's no way to do with EF because <technical explanation of where limitation comes from>".


----------



## Kit. (Jul 20, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> But Canon has done little to signal


How would you expect Canon to signal to you, and why would they do it?


----------



## jd7 (Jul 20, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > I'm simply explaining why I believe strongly that something big is afoot. Canon has nothing to lose by telling us ahead of time EF will continue in the mirrorless lines.
> ...



I really struggle to see why Canon would introduce a new mount if the only benefit is a few lenses (ie normal and wide/normal primes) can be a bit smaller ... especially when the cost would be making people question whether to buy EF lenses (when obviously Canon's EF lens portfolio is a very substantial asset). Further, as I understand it, a shorter flange distance would make some lenses (UWA I think) harder to make and perhaps bigger and heavier than with EF mount. 

I can understand Canon releasing new EF mount lenses with improvements such as faster communications when used with newer camera bodies (eg for new or improved AF functionality), but that is a very different thing from a completely new mount.

Maybe I'll turn out to be wrong but I just don't see anything in mirrorless which even remotely suggests it would be worth it for Canon to introduce a new mount and risk de-valuing its EF lens portfolio. I know Canon did something like that when the EF mount was introduced but in that case the new mount allowed a very significant new function (AF) and (as I understand it) it wasn't going to be possible to deliver that function effectively with the old mount. That is a far cry from being able to make a few lenses a bit smaller.

Is there anything significant - for mirrorless or DSLR - which Canon needs a new mount to deliver? If not, I really struggle to see why Canon would do it ... unless perhaps they really do have a very elegant solution which means they can introduce a new mount without de-valuing the EF lens portfolio at all.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 20, 2018)

I wish Canon would announce for one reason: To put all these mount arguments and EF is dead or dieing threads out of our misery one way or the other. This is really getting old.

Let's see:
TS-E 50mm F2.8L Macro (2017) Major big deal
TS-E 90mm F2.8L Macro (2017) Major big deal
TS-E 135mm F4L Macro (2017) Major big deal
Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L (2017) Major big deal.
Canon EF 135 f/2L IS coming. Major big deal.
Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS coming. Major big deal.
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II released late 2015. Major big deal.
Canon 11-24 f/4L released February 2015. Major big deal.
There's a 24-105 in there somewhere.
That's just the "L" glass.

So you think issuing two updated versions of the 70-200 means EF is gonna die? Two updated great white this year will finally put EF on life support? 

Canon didn't wake up just last year and decide to build mirrorless FF, change the mount, discontinue EF in a couple of years, and design new lenses for a thin mount on FF. So far we haven't seen a single rumor about a new lens designed for a Sony like monstrosity. The camera will be here this year. New camera with a new mount and no rumor of a new lens? Duh! EF will stay. Add a new contact or something? EF v.2 Even then... where's the new lens rumor? FF mirrorless will be DSLR size. "But Sony...!" B.S.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 20, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> I know reports have been back a few months, but only recently have they reached this intensity. The fact that link is 9 months old does not seem to have hurt Canon sales, which brings us back to the question of whether there is any concern that Canon needs to address by announcing its plans. It seems not.



No need to reassure customers about something that isn't going to change. Right? It's only the people that think the new camera has to be a deck of cards hand killer (Aka Sony and most everyone else out there) that insist a new mount is a "must happen".

Their narrow view is, "If it is mirrorless FF it has to be tiny." Crazy.

If the Sony design were so great they'd have more than 10% market share. Canon will probably drive the last nail into Sony's coffin with this release... a mirrorless camera that is actually comfortable.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 20, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I wish Canon would announce for one reason: To put all these mount arguments and EF is dead or dieing threads out of our misery one way or the other. This is really getting old.



As I see it the rumours have developed in this way:
Canon is developing FF mirrorless
I think mirrorless cameras have to be smaller to compete with Sony
Smaller flange distance means new mount
Are my EF lenses now redundant
Canon - you are being stupid and unfair for nor announcing which mount it will be and you have to tell me immediately

Yet though all this Canon have said precisely nothing. So whose fault is it for forum dwellers working themselves up into a frenzy? It can't possibly be theirs, can it....


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 20, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > No
> ...



I don't know why you'd ask a question of others if you insist you already have the answer. Just want to tell people they are wrong? Slow day at the rock quarry, Fred?


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 20, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > I wish Canon would announce for one reason: To put all these mount arguments and EF is dead or dieing threads out of our misery one way or the other. This is really getting old.
> ...



Exactly. Canon probably doesn't even know these people are twisting in the wind and biting their nails. What is it? Maybe 10 people? I'm worried they'll set their hair on fire when they find out Canon isn't cloning a Sony. Maybe we should hire some grief counselors and keep them at the ready?


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 20, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > I wish Canon would announce for one reason: To put all these mount arguments and EF is dead or dieing threads out of our misery one way or the other. This is really getting old.
> ...



And EOS-M isn't a big enough clue here?



Mikehit said:


> Are my EF lenses now redundant



And EOS-M isn't a big enough clue here?


----------



## AlanF (Jul 20, 2018)

Nikon is introducing interesting new lenses with their current mount as well so they are not giving signs that they are phasing it out.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 20, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Nikon is introducing interesting new lenses with their current mount as well so they are not giving signs that they are phasing it out.



Yeah, but you haven't read the tea leaves some of these people are smoking around here.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 20, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



No and No.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 20, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Then why new versions? To incorporate slight improvements? Or do you think more for marketing?



To cater for yammering forum-goers complaining about the lack of updates.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 20, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...


A clue for what?

Did Nikon discontinue their half-century-old F-mount when they introduced 1-mount?


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 20, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



That Canon has no intention of killing the EF mount.



Kit. said:


> Did Nikon discontinue their half-century-old F-mount when they introduced 1-mount?



Your point being....? That if Canon introduces a 2.7x crop factor MILC, it might use another mount in parallel to EF?


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 20, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



The introduction of FF mirrorless is a completely different proposition to the M series. 

If you think back to the introduction of DSLRs, APS-C was introduced because of the technological challenges of making affordable FF sensors so they introduced a cropped sensor. That cropped sensor had to take the EF lenses already in existence which meant that even when they started making EF-S lenses specifically for DSLR they were constrained on how small they could go in designing lenses.
When Canon introduced the M series, they also took the decision that the new camera did not need to accept EF lenses as native, and this gave them the freedom to design smaller lenses in a smaller mount.

So the rationale behind M series and the FF mirrorless are completely independent.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 20, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...


Why? I see no connection at all. Neither to "intention", nor to lack thereof.


----------



## BillB (Jul 20, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> The introduction of FF mirrorless is a completely different proposition to the M series.
> 
> If you think back to the introduction of DSLRs, APS-C was introduced because of the technological challenges of making affordable FF sensors so they introduced a cropped sensor. That cropped sensor had to take the EF lenses already in existence which meant that even when they started making EF-S lenses specifically for DSLR they were constrained on how small they could go in designing lenses.
> When Canon introduced the M series, they also took the decision that the new camera did not need to accept EF lenses as native, and this gave them the freedom to design smaller lenses in a smaller mount.
> ...



With both aps-c and FF, key questions would seem to be whether another mount would permit smaller cameras and lenses, and whether smaller cameras and lenses are a good idea. (The answers might be different for aps-c and FF.)


----------



## BillB (Jul 20, 2018)

We can assume that all updates to EF lenses cost money that Canon wants to recover through the sale of lenses over time, however trivial the improvements may seem to some of us.. We can also assume that Canon will be selling EF lenses as long as they are selling DSLR cameras. We can further assume that the lens mount design for the first Canon FF mirrorless will be announced long before Canon has recovered the costs of developing the new lenses or stopped selling DSLR's. I do not regard the current situation as showing that Canon is putting EF lenses on life support, but others might differ.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 20, 2018)

BillB said:


> We can assume that all updates to EF lenses cost money that Canon wants to recover through the sale of lenses over time, however trivial the improvements may seem to some of us.. We can also assume that Canon will be selling EF lenses as long as they are selling DSLR cameras. We can further assume that the lens mount design for the first Canon FF mirrorless will be announced long before Canon has recovered the costs of developing the new lenses or stopped selling DSLR's. I do not regard the current situation as showing that Canon is putting EF lenses on life support, but others might differ.



Maybe... the new Series III lenses have a secret bit built in, so when Canon release the thin-mount mirrorless you can send them in, Canon remove the 'little bit' and VOILA a mirrorless telephoto. And much to the bemusement of Canon afficionados, they realise they have been using an adapter all along


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 20, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > We can assume that all updates to EF lenses cost money that Canon wants to recover through the sale of lenses over time, however trivial the improvements may seem to some of us.. We can also assume that Canon will be selling EF lenses as long as they are selling DSLR cameras. We can further assume that the lens mount design for the first Canon FF mirrorless will be announced long before Canon has recovered the costs of developing the new lenses or stopped selling DSLR's. I do not regard the current situation as showing that Canon is putting EF lenses on life support, but others might differ.
> ...



Clever! Nice to see you back in top form!


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 20, 2018)

BillB said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > The introduction of FF mirrorless is a completely different proposition to the M series.
> ...



As far as making lenses smaller goes, you have two parameters that you can play with.... radius and length. The radius at the lens mount is constrained by the FF image circle and can not be made smaller without introducing serious vignetting for longer lenses. Since people go FF for "ultimate quality" this is not going to happen. The size of the large end of the lens is constrained by the F number.... To make the radius (filter size) smaller, you have to be prepared to shoot with a slower lens.... and since the FF market is dominated by those same people searching for ultimate quality, it is highly unlikely that they are going to give up fast lenses.....

That leaves you with one parameter that you can play with, and that is lens length. The problem with shortening lens length is that you are then increasing the angles that light is being bent, and that leads to increased chromatic aberrations, which gives you a poorer quality lens, which once again flies in the face of the desire for high image quality. There is a caveat here.... and that is DO technology, which can be used to make a lens shorter..... however, for a fair comparison you have to realize that DO technology makes the lens shorter regardless of whatever mount is chosen, so there is no inherent advantage to gained here..

So, if you want smaller lenses, buy slower lenses. Period! Works on all mounts.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Jul 20, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



If you are only talking about the dimensions of the lens then this is probably true. However, for many photographers it is the weight that deters them from buying large telephoto lenses rather than the length or diameter. Here there have already been some dramatic improvements - for example the 400mm F2.8L ii is 1.5Kg lighter than the mk 1 lens and yet the image quality is just as good, if not better. At 3.85Kg it is still a very heavy lens though and I am hoping that the new version will be even lighter.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 20, 2018)

People! Stop and look at yourselves for a minute. 

The premise of this thread is that Canon is updating its EF lenses as some sort of a ploy before they abandon the EF mount. That's tin foil hat crazy. 

You are wasting valuable internet space on a thread that should have been shut down with a simple answer: "No, that's effin stupid."


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 20, 2018)

Ian_of_glos said:


> If you are only talking about the dimensions of the lens then this is probably true. However, for many photographers it is the weight that deters them from buying large telephoto lenses rather than the length or diameter. Here there have already been some dramatic improvements - for example the 400mm F2.8L ii is 1.5Kg lighter than the mk 1 lens and yet the image quality is just as good, if not better. At 3.85Kg it is still a very heavy lens though and I am hoping that the new version will be even lighter.



You are very right! Composite materials have advanced considerably. My back is thankful!


----------



## Kit. (Jul 20, 2018)

unfocused said:


> The premise of this thread is
> ...
> stupid."


I think the thread is already at the stage where no one cares what it was originally about.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 20, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Kit. said:
> ...



The problem is in your eyes, or behind them.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 20, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > Why? I see no connection at all. Neither to "intention", nor to lack thereof.
> ...


So, there is no problem. You just wanted to look smart, and failed.

Ok.


----------



## brad-man (Jul 20, 2018)

unfocused said:


> People! Stop and look at yourselves for a minute.
> 
> The premise of this thread is that Canon is updating its EF lenses as some sort of a ploy before they abandon the EF mount. That's tin foil hat crazy.
> 
> You are wasting _*valuable internet space*_ on a thread that should have been shut down with a simple answer: "No, that's effin stupid."



I couldn't agree more with your response, though that one expression is a bit questionable. A few electrons were inconvenienced, that's all...


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 20, 2018)

brad-man said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > People! Stop and look at yourselves for a minute.
> ...



A lot of people seem to be hardwired to accept conspiracy theories....

(no electrons were harmed in the making of this post)


----------



## unfocused (Jul 20, 2018)

brad-man said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > People! Stop and look at yourselves for a minute.
> ...



It's all fun and games until this happens: http://hmpg.net/


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 21, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Kit. said:
> ...


Yes, you've failed to explain why Canon would introduce a new mount. Not smart, not at all.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 21, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...


Why are you trying to blame me for your own failures _when I'm still here_?



Antono Refa said:


> Not smart, not at all.


Indeed.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 21, 2018)

unfocused said:


> People! Stop and look at yourselves for a minute.
> 
> The premise of this thread is that Canon is updating its EF lenses as some sort of a ploy before they abandon the EF mount. That's tin foil hat crazy.
> 
> You are wasting valuable internet space on a thread that should have been shut down with a simple answer: "No, that's effin stupid."



Thank you for bringing the full weight of your intellect to the discussion.

Why are you so worried about EF going away? Surely Canon will have good adapters. And they'll probably keep repairing the old EF lenses for 7 or more years. Chill!


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 21, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Why are you trying to blame me for your own failures _when I'm still here_?



You saying "I have no idea why Canon would switch mounts, but I'll reject your reason to the contrary and declare me right" makes _you_ an idiot, not me.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 21, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > People! Stop and look at yourselves for a minute.
> ...



You are welcome. 

I think you may be projecting your own fears onto me. I am not in the least bit worried about EF going away, because the odds of that happening are infinitesimally small. It would be like worrying that when I walk out the door I will be abducted by aliens. 

What I am critical of is the bizarre reasoning that underpins this thread. That is that Canon is updating EF lenses today because they intend to discontinue them tomorrow. That is a non sequitur that requires a certain level of paranoia or perhaps extreme, paralyzing over-caution to even entertain such a possibility.

I note that that you have now started a new thread that takes this completely irrational fear to another level: "would you buy EF lenses (Canon's core lens mount) if a new mount for a tiny niche camera is introduced." 

I'm actually trying to help you with an intervention here. Your comments in other threads are often quite good, but you do have a tendency to start threads based on worries that are simply irrational. I'm only trying to bring some rational thought to the process.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 21, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



Don, I do have a serious question concerning the size of the front element and I'm wondering if that really has anything at all to do with f-stop number. I'm holding in my hand right now a Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 full frame lens with a 49mm filter size. I know the lens must be a different type than we have today, but wouldn't f be defined by the size of the hole made by the opening in the blades and light transmission through the glass? This lens is tiny but still has 7 elements in 6 groups. The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 also has 7 elements in 6 groups, but has a 58mm filter size. I suppose the front elements can be the same size and the bigger body on the Canon has to do with AF mechanicals. I just don't have a Canon 50mm to compare. One thing I know for sure is that these old lenses are very small.


----------



## BillB (Jul 21, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> As far as making lenses smaller goes, you have two parameters that you can play with.... radius and length. The radius at the lens mount is constrained by the FF image circle and can not be made smaller without introducing serious vignetting for longer lenses. Since people go FF for "ultimate quality" this is not going to happen. The size of the large end of the lens is constrained by the F number.... To make the radius (filter size) smaller, you have to be prepared to shoot with a slower lens.... and since the FF market is dominated by those same people searching for ultimate quality, it is highly unlikely that they are going to give up fast lenses.....
> 
> That leaves you with one parameter that you can play with, and that is lens length. The problem with shortening lens length is that you are then increasing the angles that light is being bent, and that leads to increased chromatic aberrations, which gives you a poorer quality lens, which once again flies in the face of the desire for high image quality. There is a caveat here.... and that is DO technology, which can be used to make a lens shorter..... however, for a fair comparison you have to realize that DO technology makes the lens shorter regardless of whatever mount is chosen, so there is no inherent advantage to gained here..
> 
> So, if you want smaller lenses, buy slower lenses. Period! Works on all mounts.



With wideangles, couldn't you also reduce lens size by avoiding the retrofocal design required by SLRs to provide clearance for the mirror?


----------



## stevelee (Jul 21, 2018)

I haven't seen any messages so far supporting the premise of the question, that EF lenses are already on life support.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 21, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you trying to blame me for your own failures _when I'm still here_?
> ...


And as I am _not_ saying anything like that, it makes _you_ an idiot.

You're welcome.


----------



## Durf (Jul 21, 2018)

stevelee said:


> I haven't seen any messages so far supporting the premise of the question, that EF lenses are already on life support.



EF lenses are far from being on life support in my opinion, no reason for Canon to change a great thing and I bet they'll work flawlessly on their new FF mirrorless too. (especially all the ones they've upgraded these last few years)....


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 22, 2018)

BillB said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > As far as making lenses smaller goes, you have two parameters that you can play with.... radius and length. The radius at the lens mount is constrained by the FF image circle and can not be made smaller without introducing serious vignetting for longer lenses. Since people go FF for "ultimate quality" this is not going to happen. The size of the large end of the lens is constrained by the F number.... To make the radius (filter size) smaller, you have to be prepared to shoot with a slower lens.... and since the FF market is dominated by those same people searching for ultimate quality, it is highly unlikely that they are going to give up fast lenses.....
> ...



I have a 28mm Takumar that has a 49mm filter thread. Use it on my 5D III all the time with no mirror problems. There isn't a problem with the 24mm or 20mm either. I don't have the 18mm, 17mm, or 15mm yet, but from what I understand there isn't a problem there either.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 22, 2018)

Durf said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't seen any messages so far supporting the premise of the question, that EF lenses are already on life support.
> ...



I’ve bought two L lenses in the last three months, so I’ve done my part.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 22, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > BillB said:
> ...



The maximum aperture will define the minimum size the front element can be - or, more exactly, the entrance pupil which is much further back but the front element is a close enough approximation. Manufacturers often make the lens larger for design reasons, among which is the amount of glass to reduce/mitigate aberrations or the selected mount design.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 22, 2018)

BillB said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > As far as making lenses smaller goes, you have two parameters that you can play with.... radius and length. The radius at the lens mount is constrained by the FF image circle and can not be made smaller without introducing serious vignetting for longer lenses. Since people go FF for "ultimate quality" this is not going to happen. The size of the large end of the lens is constrained by the F number.... To make the radius (filter size) smaller, you have to be prepared to shoot with a slower lens.... and since the FF market is dominated by those same people searching for ultimate quality, it is highly unlikely that they are going to give up fast lenses.....
> ...


Yes, but if your light hitting the sensor is at too great of an angle you get vignetting problems.... lens design is almost black magic.... it seems that everything you do to improve one thing makes another worse


----------



## BillB (Jul 22, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



So is there any practical payoff from a shorter flange distance at all?


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 22, 2018)

BillB said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > BillB said:
> ...



Obviously smaller lenses, but it all depends on if the 'disadvantage' explained by Don matters to you. It has occurred to me that a vast majority of the rave reviews of the Sony gear has been from portrait and studio photographers - very few from wildlife or landscape photographers. And maybe this is why, or maybe it is that studio and portrait photography (where by and large the photographer has greater control of conditions) it is easier to demonstrate what is and is not down to the gear.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 23, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Thanks. In the case of my old lenses vs the newer lenses I guess the front element, like you said, might be bigger to control aberrations etc. The newer lenses are monsters compared to 40 years ago.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Jul 26, 2018)

I'm waiting for the next quarter's financial reports. Intuition tells me sales of ef lenses are inversely proportional to the mirrorless rumor intensity. If sales have slowed markedly, it will pressure Canon to announce sooner. If sales are at a constant level, all this noise is meaningless. Probably the biggest factor is manufacturing capacity, but I haven't seen any reports of "stockpiling" new lenses for an announcement day splash!


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 26, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Thanks. In the case of my old lenses vs the newer lenses I guess the front element, like you said, might be bigger to control aberrations etc. The newer lenses are monsters compared to 40 years ago.


yes, my 40 year old lenses also look like toys compared to modern lenses.... The old ones were 7 or 8 elements, most new ones are 15+ elements.... We are definitely living in a golden time for photography!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 26, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks. In the case of my old lenses vs the newer lenses I guess the front element, like you said, might be bigger to control aberrations etc. The newer lenses are monsters compared to 40 years ago.
> ...



CAD > slide rule > abacus.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 27, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



Yes, like the new 70-200F2.8. 23 elements in 19 groups!

I can’t imagine designing such a zoom lens without a CAD system and at least a decade of experience! I don’t think many people realize the absolutely insane level of experience/ability that went into that design.


----------



## Sabaki (Jul 27, 2018)

Purely for the sake of my curiosity, how much better are the Otis primes versus the Canon versions?

Sharpness: Speaking of sharpness in today's world means sharpness right into the corners. Are Canon behind in this regard?

Aberration control: Fringing/flare/ghosting etc

Contrast/punch: Are Canon's lenses delivering comparable oomph or are the Otis lenses still better?

Bokeh: I personally enjoy Canon's bokeh but would I enjoy Zeiss's output more?


In part I'm also asking these questions as a way to balance what many are terming minor updates to already very good lens ranges. Could the upgrades be more substantial or is it just that Canon's lenses are some of the best out there?


----------



## littleB (Jul 27, 2018)

Sabaki said:


> Purely for the sake of my curiosity, how much better are the Otis primes versus the Canon versions?
> 
> Sharpness: Speaking of sharpness in today's world means sharpness right into the corners. Are Canon behind in this regard?
> 
> ...


I also have a few more questions:
1. Price. Can Canon make lenses 5x cheaper than Zeiss and having better quality?
2. Weight. Can Canon lenses can have better quality and the 2x lighter than Zeisses?
3. AF: Can Canon NOT have AF, have higher weight, higher price, but less quality than Zeisses?
P.S. Hey man, Otus mean small-eared owl in Latin, and Otis is either an elevator makers or the Greek name meaning "no one" or "Nemo".


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Jul 27, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks. In the case of my old lenses vs the newer lenses I guess the front element, like you said, might be bigger to control aberrations etc. The newer lenses are monsters compared to 40 years ago.
> ...


This is a really good point and something we often overlook. It is a clear illustration of the fact that we can have better image quality but the price to be paid is that the lens must be bigger and heavier. We don't get owt for nowt!


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 27, 2018)

*Q*



Ian_of_glos said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...


@Don Haines: I do not see this as a golden time - maybe a "silver rating" I would give at best. Why? Usability of tools has a bunch of parameters and light/small/unobtrusive is a heavy bunch of parameters in my opinion.
But in sheer terms of IQ you are absolutely right!
@lan_of_glos: I am not sure that this is the only way, to make lenses bigger/heavier to make them better.
But I am sure it is an easier way to get the IQ and to sell the lens for most users.

My desired path of new lenses would be the following. Take the 1.4 50mm S.S.C. FD lens and put all the new lens technology in the existing design like (1) aspherical surfaces, (2) low / anormal dispersion glass / material types and (3) advanced mechanics e.g. to shift 3 groups simultanously to achieve optimum quality (perhaps shift the aperture group too. I am confident you can have the center quality of the old FD lens straight to the corners + better contrast at f/1.4 in a package which has 1cm more diameter and is 1 cm longer. But you might have to pay 700 $ / € and 300 bucks more for integrated image stabilization.

But larger lenses and great image quality reviews sell better than a compact prime with nearly the same IQ in a not so glamorous package - just my opinion but I see the same development with cars, mobiles etc.: Representative design and long feature lists first, usability at the other end.


----------



## BillB (Jul 27, 2018)

*Re: Q*



mb66energy said:


> compared to 40 years ago.
> 
> My desired path of new lenses would be the following. Take the 1.4 50mm S.S.C. FD lens and put all the new lens technology in the existing design like (1) aspherical surfaces, (2) low / anormal dispersion glass / material types and (3) advanced mechanics e.g. to shift 3 groups simultanously to achieve optimum quality (perhaps shift the aperture group too. I am confident you can have the center quality of the old FD lens straight to the corners + better contrast at f/1.4 in a package which has 1cm more diameter and is 1 cm longer. But you might have to pay 700 $ / € and 300 bucks more for integrated image stabilization.
> 
> But larger lenses and great image quality reviews sell better than a compact prime with nearly the same IQ in a not so glamorous package - just my opinion but I see the same development with cars, mobiles etc.: Representative design and long feature lists first, usability at the other end.



The biggest change in lenses over the last 20 years has been the development of high quality zooms, at least in focal lengths up to 200mm, or more recently, up to 400mm or so. One effect of the growth of high quality zooms has been to depress the demand for primes, which has led to stagnation in development of prime lens designs, except perhaps at very top end of the market.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 27, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks. In the case of my old lenses vs the newer lenses I guess the front element, like you said, might be bigger to control aberrations etc. The newer lenses are monsters compared to 40 years ago.
> ...



Yes, today's pictures are sharper and often superficially prettier. But, today's technically perfect eye candy images often lack any real depth. It's like much of today's auto tuned, pre-processed music designed to entertain for a few minutes and then be forgotten. 

[/rant from child of the 60s]


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 27, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...


and that is why the internet needs more cat pictures taken with a cell phone


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 27, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...




I'd venture to say your happy cat has never been agitated by a single forum post ever.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 27, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > and that is why the internet needs more cat pictures taken with a cell phone
> ...



Yes 

Some of us get a little passionate at times, but I can honestly say that I have yet to encounter a forum user that I would not go out for a beer with, or plop in the canoe and take them for a paddle .


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 1, 2018)

Sabaki said:


> Purely for the sake of my curiosity, how much better are the Otis primes versus the Canon versions?
> 
> Sharpness: Speaking of sharpness in today's world means sharpness right into the corners. Are Canon behind in this regard?
> 
> ...




1) Sharpness means different things to different people. In the current lens comparison environment, it has come to mean "perfect edge to edge reproduction of a flat test chart shot at relatively short distances."

What many fail to realize is the price we pay for that degree of flat field correction (no uncorrected lens has a flat field of focus, it has a spherical shaped field of focus) is reduced micro-contrast and "busy" or even "harsh" bokeh. Many lenses that are said to be "soft" on the edges and corners aren't really as soft as some think they are. They're just focused for the center of the flat test chart to be the sharpest and so the point of sharpest focus on the edges of the field of view is a bit in front of the surface of the edges of the flat test chart. Roger Cicala has discussed this in several of his blog entries recently. He's even developed a method for determining how far in front of or behind optimum center sharpness a specific lens must be focused to get maximum contrast for the total frame.

2) See above. Insisting on perfect reproduction of a flat test chart forces compromise with regard to other aberrations unless we make the lens even heavier and more expensive by introducing additional corrective groups of elements. Thus the "mayonnaise jar" size and weight of lenses such as the Sigma 35mm ART, 50mm ART, 85mm ART, and 135mm ART.

3) See above.

4) See above. Flat field correction often degrades the the smoothness of bokeh.

In the end, lenses should be designed and selected based on the purpose for which they are intended to be used. It's silly to base the selection of a lens intended for portraiture based on how well it can reproduce a flat test chart at a specific distance. Well, unless one wants to become known as the world's greatest portraitist of Flat Stanley.

People think many macro lenses are incredibly sharp because they are optimized for flat field performance at short distances. Thus they do well when tested using flat test charts at short distances. Many of them do not do as well when shooting at longer distances for which they have not been optimized. Many non-macro lenses are optimized to perform better at longer distances than at MFD. Yet based on the test charts shot at short distances, many will claim that "my 100mm macro is sharper than your faster 100mm lens" and refuse to see the results that say otherwise when the subjects are mountains several miles away.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 1, 2018)

mb66energy said:


> *Q*
> 
> 
> @Don Haines: I do not see this as a golden time - maybe a "silver rating" I would give at best. Why? Usability of tools has a bunch of parameters and light/small/unobtrusive is a heavy bunch of parameters in my opinion.
> ...



Anything optimized for taking better reproduction photos of flat test charts at relatively short distances sells better in the current market, even if that lens isn't actually better for taking the photos one actually intends to take with said lens.

It's not just a question of spending more and including more corrective elements. It's the question of choosing better flat field performance for better performance with flat test charts at shorter distances over smoother bokeh by leaving some or all field curvature uncorrected. It's the question of optimizing a lens for shorter or longer focus distances. It's the questions of dozens of things that must be balanced against each other when a lens is designed.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 1, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Yes, today's pictures are sharper and often superficially prettier. But, today's technically perfect eye candy images often lack any real depth. It's like much of today's auto tuned, pre-processed music designed to entertain for a few minutes and then be forgotten.
> 
> [/rant from child of the 60s]



There are prices to be paid in other optical qualities in order to make a lens optimized for shooting flat test charts at relatively short distances. Yet that is what the market currently demands: The best performance when reproducing a flat test chart shot at relatively short distance. No matter that such a lens may not do as well as another lens design for taking the photos we actually intend to take using said lens.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 1, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Look at the minimal improvements to some recent lenses, such as the version III of the already wonderful ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. Also, rumors regarding the new big whites. Seriously, except for weight, which would be minimal, and some "new" coatings, how much better could new versions of the big whites be?
> 
> Could this be Canon's attempt to keep the EF L series lenses selling through the transition to whatever the new mount that will be used for FF mirrorless? Keep EF relevant long enough (years more, yes) for the FF mirrorless market to be approaching maturity?




It is far more likely that Canon is updating much of their current lens line to be (thus far, silently) compatible with some as yet unrevealed new feature or capability included in future camera bodies. These lens updates likely include compatibility with features or capabilities of planned camera bodies that the lenses recently replaced do not have the ability to fully exploit.

*I think the likelihood that Canon plans to stay with the EF mount for a long time is increased with every "marginal" upgrade of an EF lens*, particularly with upper tier lenses such as the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III and the two expected new IS III versions of the Super Telephoto series. What we don't know, at present, about these _minimal improvements_ is how much other stuff has been silently upgraded in these lenses in preparation for the new camera models on the horizon.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 1, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> It is far more likely that Canon is updating much of their current lens line to be (thus far, silently) compatible with some as yet unrevealed new feature or capability included in future camera bodies. These lens updates likely include compatibility with features or capabilities of planned camera bodies that the lenses recently replaced do not have the ability to fully exploit.
> 
> *I think the likelihood that Canon plans to stay with the EF mount for a long time is increased with every "marginal" upgrade of an EF lens*, particularly with upper tier lenses such as the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III and the two expected new IS III versions of the Super Telephoto series. What we don't know, at present, about these _minimal improvements_ is how much other stuff has been silently upgraded in these lenses in preparation for the new camera models on the horizon.



That is a very good point. They are designing the lenses to a roadmap, not just to immediate requirements. As I understand it, the series 2 telephotos were much better when paired mkiii extenders because of the way the lens read the LUTs in the extender and how the future bodies interacted with both and you do not do that without an integrated design program.


----------

