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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 12, 2018)

```
We’re told that a new EF 24-70mm f/2.8L is on the horizon. The source didn’t know if the update lens would have image stabilization, or if it would be an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L III.</p>
<p>Previous reports peg two new “professional” lenses would be announced for Photokina, and one of the obvious lens possibilities would indeed be a EF 24-70mm f/2.8L replacement.</p>
<p>THe EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III and EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III releases have updated two of the three “holy trinity” f/2.8L zooms from Canon. While this update could be great, we can’t help but wish an IS version of the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L existed for the people that want it.</p>
<p>Take this with a big grain of salt for the moment and treat the [CR1] rating accordingly.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 12, 2018)

Quite a bit surprised about this, there are a lot people asking for stabilised version of 24-70mm lens so if Canon does add IS to lens it certainly would make a lot of people happy.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 12, 2018)

It needs a new paint color ;D


----------



## NancyP (Jun 12, 2018)

.3....2.....1.........ahsanford: Where's my 50 1.4 IS? 

I am just curious - the 24-70 f/2.8 II L no-IS and 70-200 f/2.8 II L IS are well loved lenses. How many people would be likely to upgrade from II to III?


----------



## Click (Jun 12, 2018)

blackcoffee17 said:


> It needs a new paint color ;D




;D ;D ;D


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 12, 2018)

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


----------



## MrFotoFool (Jun 12, 2018)

At this point in time it absolutely has to have Image Stabilization. I imagine a lot of Canon shooters are already using Tamron or Sigma for their 24-70 2.8 for exactly this reason. (I use the Canon f4 version partly for this reason).


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 12, 2018)

First, they put a coat of white paint and some coatings on a nearly perfect lens and now it looks like they might do another one of those instead of the right thing.

This is some epic lens development trolling of those waiting for a 50 or 135 prime. :'(

- A


----------



## fullstop (Jun 12, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> 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



no, *only I* would criticize. And all "Canapologists" would praise. ;D


----------



## Talys (Jun 12, 2018)

Yay! But I'm very happy with my f/4 IS, so this is a lens that I don't really care about at the moment 

I'll be happy for my f/2.8 shooters, if true, and especially if it has IS, though. Even (especially?) with IS, I don't think I'll want the 2.8, because of the size/weight for this focal length. But who knows, maybe I'll change my mind when I feel it.


----------



## KirkD (Jun 12, 2018)

I think an update is needed but not only is IS required, but I'm not very impressed with the resolution and contrast of the lens in the edges and corners of the current lens. I'd like to see its optics upgraded.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 12, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> This is some epic lens development trolling of those waiting for a 50 or 135 prime. :'(



Seeing as you raised trolling, I'll contribute mine by saying the EF 50mm f/1.4 will never be replaced and "mid-range" non-L primes will be exclusively EF-M mount in the future


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 12, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > This is some epic lens development trolling of those waiting for a 50 or 135 prime. :'(
> ...



Not trolling at all. But this will probably start a fight with someone on EF-M not being suitable for FF sensor use in 3, 2, 1...

- A


----------



## ethanz (Jun 12, 2018)

KirkD said:


> I think an update is needed but not only is IS required, but I'm not very impressed with the resolution and contrast of the lens in the edges and corners of the current lens. I'd like to see its optics upgraded.



The 24-70 f2.8L II is fantastic. One of the best IQ lenses in its range. Even in the corners


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 12, 2018)

ethanz said:


> KirkD said:
> 
> 
> > I think an update is needed but not only is IS required, but I'm not very impressed with the resolution and contrast of the lens in the edges and corners of the current lens. I'd like to see its optics upgraded.
> ...



+1. Uncle Rog could only declare the Sony GM as being about as good as the f/2.8L II -- despite being 4 years newer, heavier and $600 more expensive (and you get saddled with FBW to boot).

I never thought I'd say this, but the f/2.8L II is becoming a bargain, at least in comparison to its competitive peers. We all kind of threw up on our mouths a little when it was first offered for $2,299 (these lenses lived at a ~ $1400 price point before), but now it's only $1599 at year six of its lifecycle. Ha, maybe _that's_ why Canon might update it so soon.

- A


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 12, 2018)

Yes, IS would be dandy, especially for video shooters. Giving it at least nominal macro capability would be a big plus for wedding and other event shooters to have one lens do so much--people pictures and detail shots. Better detail shots is another important reason for the IS.

A great tool could become phenomenal.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 12, 2018)

Excellent news by Canon followed by their excellent announcements of 70-200 f2.8 / f4


----------



## docsmith (Jun 12, 2018)

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.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jun 12, 2018)

I'd be shocked if Canon didn't add IS. Absolutely no reason to update the II otherwise.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 12, 2018)

docsmith said:


> Two professional lenses before Photokina, the most noise/chatter would indicate two of the following:
> 
> 24-70 IS
> 135 f/2 II
> ...



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


----------



## infared (Jun 12, 2018)

???
...if it has no IS it makes no sense?
I have no reason to upgrade to the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III from my II..
...and I see no reason to upgrade to a new 24-70mm f/2.8 III from my II. ...even if it has IS. My 5DIV does just fine with that lens. IS not needed...not in my world. Odd "upgrades" in my world.


----------



## lexptr (Jun 12, 2018)

Yes, the current lens is great. Not perfect, but great. Being 6 years old it still beats the newest editions of other brands in terms of IQ (may be except for Sony? Didn't check their comparisons). And yes, it lacks the stabilizer. I agree with above said, it is meaningless to upgrade it without adding IS. I will swap mine if they add IS without sacrificing IQ. 

However, if we talk about upgrade, there are more things we can add to wishlist:
1) Better/more consistent IQ at 70mm. If I remember correct, Bryan Carnathan tested few copies and found that some of them had poor peripheral IQ at 70mm, worse than that of the older version. I don't have something to compare with, but I think mine is from the bad party. It is considerably soft at 70mm, so I tend to avoid shooting at that focal if possible. Would like to stop doing that with new version.
2) Other IQ improvements, e.g. better CA control. All the newest coatings, refractive elements and whatever they can add - welcome.
3) Shorter MFD is always a plus (at least for those, who like closeups here and there).
4) No body recolor please, it is fine as is.

Hope it won't come in a year or two, so I will spend money on some other cool things.


----------



## Isaacheus (Jun 12, 2018)

MrFotoFool said:


> At this point in time it absolutely has to have Image Stabilization. I imagine a lot of Canon shooters are already using Tamron or Sigma for their 24-70 2.8 for exactly this reason. (I use the Canon f4 version partly for this reason).



Family just bought the tamron version for a 5dmk4 due to the image stabiliser, even though there was a second hand Canon going for about the same price. 
Just one example sure, but that was the only reason they didn't get the Canon


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 12, 2018)

infared said:


> ???
> ...if it has no IS it makes no sense?
> I have no reason to upgrade to the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III from my II..
> ...and I see no reason to upgrade to a new 24-70mm f/2.8 III from my II. ...even if it has IS. My 5DIV does just fine with that lens. IS not needed...not in my world. Odd "upgrades" in my world.



What makes you think you are in the target market?


----------



## scottkinfw (Jun 13, 2018)

Click said:


> blackcoffee17 said:
> 
> 
> > It needs a new paint color ;D
> ...



I have and love all three. So NOT ME!

Scott


----------



## scottkinfw (Jun 13, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > This is some epic lens development trolling of those waiting for a 50 or 135 prime. :'(
> ...



You don't like the 24-7- 2.8L II?

You must have a bad copy or demand near perfection.

Scott


----------



## slclick (Jun 13, 2018)

docsmith said:


> Two professional lenses before Photokina, the most noise/chatter would indicate two of the following:
> 
> 24-70 IS
> 135 f/2 II
> ...



Fixed it.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 13, 2018)

The EF 28–70mm f/2.8L was released in '93

The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L mkI was release in '02

The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L mkII was release in '12

The mkII is an excellent lens, and DSLR lens sales aren't strong nowadays, so...

1. A refresh, a la the 24-105mm f/4L & 70-200mm f/2.8L, is far more likely than a big upgrade after just 5 years.

2. I wouldn't rule out a new 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM to compete with Nikon's 24–70mm f/2.8E ED VR and Tamron's 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC.


----------



## sanj (Jun 13, 2018)

blackcoffee17 said:


> It needs a new paint color ;D



Hahahahahaha


----------



## maxfactor9933 (Jun 13, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> First, they put a coat of white paint and some coatings on a nearly perfect lens and now it looks like they might do another one of those instead of the right thing.
> 
> This is some epic lens development trolling of those waiting for a 50 or 135 prime. :'(
> 
> - A



no one wants that lens.. everyone looking for L series 50mm 1.4


----------



## fullstop (Jun 13, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > ???
> ...



1. Canon should and probably will consider any 5D4 owner to be rightcat the center of the target market for a EF 24-70/2.8

2. if Canon updates the 24-70/2.8 II, then IS definitely must be added. From a marketing point of view Canon has to end the situation of being the only competing brand without stabilization for the staple, overall probably (?) most often used pro-grade f/2.8 standard zoom lens. No way around that. Even if this means a "more significant upgrade" than just new coatings and new body paint. they may continue to sell the Mk. II as a (relatively) lower cost version to those who don't need IS on it, but still want an optically excellent lens. Which it is.

3. personally i will not upgrade, but wait until i can finally buy a very compact 24-70 f/4 (!) IS in new, native mirrorless FF mount. @Canon: no more mirrorslapper lens purchases from me, at least not for lenses that could lose size, weight or girth on a new "slim fit" mount.


----------



## tmc784 (Jun 13, 2018)

For 24-70mm f2.8, I don't really need IS.
When I shoot at VERY low speed, I always use tripod or friction arm clamp if space is limited.


----------



## littleB (Jun 13, 2018)

fullstop said:


> 3. personally i will not upgrade, but wait until i can finally buy a very compact 24-70 f/4 (!) IS in new, native mirrorless FF mount. @Canon: no more mirrorslapper lens purchases from me, at least not for lenses that could lose size, weight or girth on a new "slim fit" mount.


You can easily buy the Sony/Zeiss 24-70 f/4, its IS, its FF, its mirrorless. This is your ticket to happiness, judging by your words. You are just $1.2K away from it. 
Why bothering about fat, long, heavy, DSLR, f/2.8 lens if you do not want it anyways?


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 13, 2018)

Just a FYI, a 24-70 f/2.8L IS wouldn't be an update to the f/2.8L II, it'd be a completely new lens, and in all likelihood the existing f/2.8L II would continue to sell for those who didn't want the extra weight and expense of IS.

And I still think Canon are likely to update the 24-70 f/2.8L II in the same way as the 70-200 f/2.8L III by improving the coatings but essentially leaving the rest the same.

That way from a marketing reason you then have

16-35 f/2.8L III
24-70 f/2.8L III
70-200 f/2.8L IS III

So I think the 24-70 III will be a coating upgrade only, and any IS lens will come later, possibly for the new mount.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 13, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Just a FYI, a 24-70 f/2.8L IS wouldn't be an update to the f/2.8L II, it'd be a completely new lens, and in all likelihood the existing f/2.8L II would continue to sell for those who didn't want the extra weight and expense of IS.
> 
> And I still think Canon are likely to update the 24-70 f/2.8L II in the same way as the 70-200 f/2.8L III by improving the coatings but essentially leaving the rest the same.
> 
> ...



Keeping two 24-70mm 2.8's plus an f/4 version? I don't think this would be practical from manufacturing, inventory, or marketing standpoints. And then there is repair support.

Your conjecture is reasonable based on the current situation with the three 85mm versions, but my guess is that, though there is still a large inventory of 85mm 1.2's, manufacturing has already been phased out--or will be by end-of-year. I can't even make a guess regarding the 1.8--it might still be profitable, but wouldn't it come from a very old manufacturing process that at some point begins to cost too much to maintain and support? 

True, the 24-70mm 2.8 II is still a relatively new version, but I don't think the price and size difference between it and a new IS model will be drastic enough to justify keeping both...though Canon might surprise yet again.


Maybe the f/4 version will be first to be officially discontinued?


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 13, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Keeping two 24-70mm 2.8's plus an f/4 version? I don't think this would be practical from manufacturing, inventory, or marketing standpoints. And then there is repair support.



Well, let's see:

L-series Ultrawide angle lenses (excluding the 11-24)

EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III
EF 17-40mm f/4L

And, of course, there are 4 different 70-200 options right now.

So I don't think Canon would have any problem with selling three variants of the 24-70 lens


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 13, 2018)

Given the way full frame video is going and Canon move with the EF85mm f1.4L IS USM the EF50mm f1.4L IS USM is in the works. The current CN-E 50 T1.3L cine lens is long in the tooth and behind the industry best and given what Sigma, Ziess etc. have done Canon will be able to repurpose a EF50mm f1.4L IS USM lens as a cine variant. 

The need for a EF24-70mm f2.8L IS USM is not in doubt and is a prerequisite to maintain the holy trinity.


----------



## BeenThere (Jun 13, 2018)

Wasn’t there some reports of the lens coating peeling or flaking off on a number of the 24-70 2.8 II units? Here is a iii with a new coating. Be happy with the upgrade.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 13, 2018)

Also, keeping a 24-70 f/2.8L III in the lineup means they can add a nice price markup on the inevitable IS version.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 13, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Keeping two 24-70mm 2.8's plus an f/4 version? I don't think this would be practical from manufacturing, inventory, or marketing standpoints. And then there is repair support.
> ...



Is the 17-40 still in production? Of course they will sell off inventory.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 13, 2018)

There are so many lenses Canon could update instead, many 20-25 year old designs. The M system could use a few higher quality zooms also. I don't understand how Sigma, a much smaller company can release many more new lenses a year, same for Tamron, even Olympus or Fuji.


----------



## pd2002 (Jun 13, 2018)

Let's bring new body's colour with same optics :


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 13, 2018)

ethanz said:


> KirkD said:
> 
> 
> > I think an update is needed but not only is IS required, but I'm not very impressed with the resolution and contrast of the lens in the edges and corners of the current lens. I'd like to see its optics upgraded.
> ...



It is wonderful, isn't it? Very sharp. I'm even impressed with the bokeh at 70mm. What a lens. Just a great lens. IS would be great for those shots with slower shutter speeds, but what a lens.


----------



## NancyP (Jun 13, 2018)

I suspect that a 24-70 f/2.8 L III no-IS would be made mostly if there was a manufacturing process improvement that lowered the cost of making the lens. That's what I think has happened with the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS III. Now, the 70-200 f/4 L IS II has user significant improvement in IS, I understand.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 13, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Maybe the f/4 version will be first to be officially discontinued?



That wouldn't make much sense, IMHO. It's an engineering marvel -- I'm not aware of any other 24-70 with a nearly 1:1 macro onboard, and it is a more compact option for FF users than a 24-105 f/4 or 24-70 f/2.8. I love my 24-70 f/4L IS.

If canon support 6 70-200s (surely 4 in the longer term once they shut down the f/2.8L IS II and f/4L IS I) and 3 16ish-35ish UWAs, I think Canon can offer three in the 24-70 zoom range.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 13, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Is the 17-40 still in production? Of course they will sell off inventory.



The 16-35 f/4L IS came out a good 4 years ago now. I think the 17-40L might be here to stay as the budget L under the middle L (f/4L IS) and top L (f/2.8L III), but you may be right. They may just have a mountain of inventory piled up for what was at one point one of the higher (non-kit) sales runners for the L series.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 13, 2018)

NancyP said:


> I suspect that a 24-70 f/2.8 L III no-IS would be made mostly if there was a manufacturing process improvement that lowered the cost of making the lens. That's what I think has happened with the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS III. Now, the 70-200 f/4 L IS II has user significant improvement in IS, I understand.



Keep in mind with all my asking of a precedent where Canon didn't change the optical design of a professional lens that was being 'sequeled', the most recent example was over 10 years ago (85 f/1.2L II). Canon typically does not do what it just did with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS III.

It would be quite disheartening to see this as a trend for their best lenses. Do this for a 24-105 L lens, sure, or the nutty niche products that might just need the periodic facelift (the lesser used 200 f/2.8L II was the same optical design, I was told recently -- perfectly fine call there), but the highest end pro stuff needs to get better or it shouldn't get sequeled, IMHO.

- A


----------



## Kit. (Jun 13, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Keep in mind with all my asking of a precedent where Canon didn't change the optical design of a professional lens that was being 'sequeled', the most recent example was over 10 years ago (85 f/1.2L II). Canon typically does not do what it just did with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS III.


Canon "typically does not" try to fully automate lens assembly.

Still, it could be worse. Remember what they did with EF50/1.8 Mk I?


----------



## Cali Capture (Jun 13, 2018)

I think we will see more IS lens introductions from Canon. The 85 f/1.4 is has been doing great, good reviews and has yet to be on sale ( usually means it's low inventory). Canon needs the 50mm 1.4 IS or the 135mm IS more than any other lens in in their current line up of primes. with the 5D mark IV at 30+ MP, IS makes a huge differenace when you go cropping down a frame. IS extends that ability, and that ability allows a prime shooter to essentially zoom a shot in post. The 24-70 2.8 would benefit this way at the wider end and also given it's 50-70mm capability with hand reach. I know these are holes in my bag that would be nice to fill.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 13, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Is the 17-40 still in production? Of course they will sell off inventory.



It's still listed as a current lens on Canon's website. And it's still popular.

The street price of the 17-40 is significantly lower than the 16-35 f/4L IS (around £350 cheaper according to Amazon UK) - so if you're into landscape photography on a tripod and IS is of no use to you, there are compelling reasons to buy the older lens. 

They still sell the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS which I would have thought no-one would be interested in these days.


----------



## transpo1 (Jun 13, 2018)

If it doesn't have IS, this is a waste of a release.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 13, 2018)

Cali Capture said:


> with the 5D mark IV at 30+ MP, IS makes a huge differenace when you go cropping down a frame. IS extends that ability, and that ability allows a prime shooter to essentially zoom a shot in post.



I love IS myself and want it on everything, but what you are describing above could be managed without IS and simply a quicker shutter, no? 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 13, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> They still sell the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS which I would have thought no-one would be interested in these days.



Some folks don't need IS. Possibly -- just riffing, thinking out loud -- someone shooting reportage or portraiture all day. Stationary targets that are well lit.

And Canon loves price points in this segment. They have effectively de-coupled IS vs. non-IS and f/2.8 vs. f/4 into a 'choose what you like, we have it all' 2x2 sort of value proposition. I often reference this 70-200 situation to friends buying their first camera after their Rebel/D5500/a6000 as a huge selling point for EF: Canon offers breadth of options in FF that no one can match.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 13, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Is the 17-40 still in production? Of course they will sell off inventory.
> ...



Indeed. If you are solely landscaping with it, you could save the money and get the 17-40L. There was one poster here who absolutely loved the sunstars the 17-40L created and felt the newer lenses' sunstars were a bit too clinical.

Where the 16-35 f/4L IS sings (beyond landscapes) is on the wide open end when you didn't think you'd need it -- it is gold for vacations for me. 

Crowded street markets? 16mm ftw. 
Judiciously framed candids? 35mm f/4 output is terrific. 
Dark interiors with no flash/tripods allowed (old churches, museums, etc.)? The 16mm + IS is wonderful. 

- A


----------



## SkynetTX (Jun 13, 2018)

An EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II IS would be good but don't forget about the EF-S 250mm f/5.6 IS USM Macro.  The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 offers up to 5 stops of image stabilization and I will likely buy it as soon as I'll have the money unless Canon comes out with a better lens.


----------



## Daan Stam (Jun 13, 2018)

yeah we are going to see a new lens within two years


----------



## slclick (Jun 13, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



I love my 16-35 f/4 sunstars


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 13, 2018)

slclick said:


> I love my 16-35 f/4 sunstars



And the 24-70 f/4L IS sunstars are pretty great too. I'm amazed how much they pop in such a busy scene here (open to see).

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

- A


----------



## Cali Capture (Jun 13, 2018)

ahansford
I love IS myself and want it on everything, but what you are describing above could be managed without IS and simply a quicker shutter, no? 

If you have enough light to up the shutter, with most new IS giving you 4 stops of correction, it makes natural light shooting in low light much more effective and crop worthy. We are talking 2.8 thru 1.4 lenses, so you're paying to gather more light as it is, IS helps you to gather it straight, and higher MP sensors will show more shake (cropped down) with all those extra little pixels rubbing shoulders! 

Fast f/ combined with IS gives you more latitude and will get you shots you couldn't without IS, especially at longer Focal lengths. That's why the 200mm f/2.0 with is such a great tool, It's unique in what and where it can deliver.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 14, 2018)

Cali Capture said:


> If you have enough light to up the shutter, with most new IS giving you 4 stops of correction, it makes natural light shooting in low light much more effective and crop worthy.



Agreed, but I think you are blending the value of IS in general with faster shutter speed requirements for sharp high res output.

IS helps _everyone_ keep their ISO down to earth when they are light constrained. This is true for everyone on every sensor.

Sounds to me like 'zooming in to a shot in post' is also known _simply cropping a sharp photo_.

Now _what you need to do to get a sharp photo_ on your 5D4 may require a more stringent shutter speed rule than on my 5D3, but the principal is the same: you can get away with longer shutters and still get sharp output with IS.

(Flipping that last paragraph: if you weren't getting sharp output with your 5D4, the lack of IS is not the reason why. You simply weren't at a high enough shutter speed.)

Please straighten me out if I'm misreading this. I think we're both taking a couple legs of the exposure triangle for granted in different ways here. 

- A


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 14, 2018)

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 (Jun 14, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> 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 (Jun 14, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


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



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 (Jun 14, 2018)

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


----------



## ken (Jun 14, 2018)




----------



## ahsanford (Jun 14, 2018)

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 (Jun 14, 2018)

EF is not going anywhere. Period.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 14, 2018)

slclick said:


> EF is not going anywhere. Period.



Bold. I hope you are right.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 15, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > EF is not going anywhere. Period.
> ...



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 (Jun 15, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



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


----------



## fullstop (Jun 15, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> There are three possible outcomes with FF mirrorless:
> 
> [list type=decimal]
> [*]Canon goes thin mount and offers an adaptor. All EF works perfectly.
> ...



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 (Jun 15, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 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".
> 
> ...



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. (Jun 15, 2018)

fullstop said:


> 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 (Jun 15, 2018)

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. (Jun 15, 2018)

fullstop said:


> 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.



fullstop said:


> 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 (Jun 15, 2018)

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. (Jun 15, 2018)

fullstop said:


> 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)?



fullstop said:


> 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.



fullstop said:


> 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_.



fullstop said:


> 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.



fullstop said:


> 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".



fullstop said:


> 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 (Jun 15, 2018)

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 (Jun 15, 2018)

fullstop said:



> 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 (Jun 15, 2018)

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.


----------



## Talys (Jun 16, 2018)

fullstop said:


> 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
> ...



In this, we differ. I don't want more intelligent AF at all - I just want it to be faster. AFMA is a minor hassle, but it's certainly worth the effort (on DSLRs, I mean).

For what you want, it's already there. Just buy a Sony. It has decent eye focus, face recognition, and subject tracking, and most importantly, you can have it today.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 16, 2018)

fullstop said:


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


Is there any physical basis for your belief? Or is it just wishful thinking?



fullstop said:


> 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
> ...


Nah. Then you will come here and whine that Canon autofocus is not focusing on the eyes of _the_ person you want it to focus.

Besides, the AI chip you want to decide which faces you want to see in focus on your mirrorless camera can also improve its autofocus accuracy, decreasing your need in slower-focusing lenses.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 16, 2018)

Kit. said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > I don't need *faster AF*. I want *more intelligent AF"*.
> ...



Could be resolved with Eye Control AF - look at the right face through an AF point that covers it to redirect face/eye tracking to the right place.

[Yes, it would fail if the face is partially covered, e.g. by a branch, or is too far from the center of the frame, but then again - nothing's perfect.]


----------



## Kit. (Jun 16, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Could be resolved with Eye Control AF - look at the right face through an AF point that covers it to redirect face/eye tracking to the right place.


That's the point: stupid Canon cannot decide when the user is looking at the "correct" face and when the user is just distracted. The user comes to the forum and blames Canon for not using Sony's algorithm of prioritizing user's family faces in Canon's sports shooting bodies.


----------



## BeenThere (Jun 16, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Could be resolved with Eye Control AF - look at the right face through an AF point that covers it to redirect face/eye tracking to the right place.
> ...


A built in Bluetooth brainwave mapper will resolve these issues. Another first for Canon.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 16, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Could be resolved with Eye Control AF - look at the right face through an AF point that covers it to redirect face/eye tracking to the right place.
> ...


Because photographers today are often distracted while prepping to press the shutter release? Yes, that's a real problem.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 16, 2018)

Canapologists last stand: trying to ridicule (and/or personal attacks) when they run out of arguments. 

Canon not having introduced Eye Control AF in an improved 2018 AI version is ... "beyond stupid". 

Rather than mucking around and wasting resources on micro-iterations and new paint jobs for Mk. III lenses it would create a massive unique competitive advantage for Canon EOS cameras equipped with it. But ... it may not be to the liking of all users? No problem, just put an "activate/deactivate" option into menu. 

I am sure that our dear Canapologists will find at least 101 reasons why it is "in the best interest of both Canon and their customers to NOT implement it. Strongest circular argument expected is something like: "It is only you who wants this. Canon does not care about you. They know everything better. So, if they have not implemented it, that means per definition, that it is the right decision!" ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Kit. (Jun 16, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Because photographers today are often distracted while prepping to press the shutter release?


_Photographers_ will be distracted by eye control picking wrong subjects when photographers check the background for the _lack_ of distractions. But photographers can just turn it off (or not turn it on at all), use a pre-selected focus point and recompose.



fullstop said:


> Canapologists last stand: trying to ridicule (and/or personal attacks) when they run out of arguments.


If you are about me, then:
1. I'm not "canapologist", I'm an "apologist" of physics and common sense.
2. It's you who could not back up your wishful thinking with _any_ arguments. No arguments are needed (or possible) to refute arguments that don't exist.



fullstop said:


> Canon not having introduced Eye Control AF in an improved 2018 AI version is ... "beyond stupid".


Have you actually tried to use eye control focus for a prolonged time?


----------



## fullstop (Jun 16, 2018)

I have a Canon EOS 30 (Elan 7E) with Eye Control. Just love it. Works like a charm, even though I am wearing glasses. And this is a comparatively "primitive 20th century implementation". 

Don't see why Canon could and can not bring a significantly improved, more intelligent version in their digital cameras. Killer feature. The most intuitive way to control what point in the frame focus should be put on. No fumbling around with nipple controllers. No smudging about on touch screens. Everything right where it belongs: in the viewfinder, before my eye. 8)


----------



## Talys (Jun 16, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Because photographers today are often distracted while prepping to press the shutter release?
> ...



... what do photographers "today" get distracted by as they press the shutter release, as opposed to photographers of "yesteryear"? 

Their iPhones?   

Seriously, if a camera distracts you from taking a picture _while you are pressing the shutter button_, surely, this must be the mark of a poor ergonomic design. I mean, that's the whole freaking point of a camera.




fullstop said:


> Canapologists last stand: trying to ridicule (and/or personal attacks) when they run out of arguments.



Nobody is ridiculing your positions because they've "run out of arguments". They ridicule your arguments because those arguments often ignore observable facts and always ignore the entire market that has different needs as you.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 17, 2018)

fullstop said:


> I have a Canon EOS 30 (Elan 7E) with Eye Control. Just love it. Works like a charm, even though I am wearing glasses. And this is a comparatively "primitive 20th century implementation".


I had Elan 2E (or technically "have" - it is still lying somewhere on the shelves). If you were just looking on where you wanted it to focus, eye control would eventually work. If you were checking your framing in the viewfinder, it could jump to the focus point you didn't need. It was much faster and simpler just to use the central AF point and then to recompose.



fullstop said:


> Don't see why Canon could and can not bring a significantly improved, more intelligent version in their digital cameras.


"Low customer demand".

That was the official Canon position on ECF since at least 2006, and it's unlikely that it has changed by now.


----------



## slclick (Jun 17, 2018)

Sp, rumor has it there is a new 24-70 on the horizon, anyone want to chat about it? /o


----------



## Kit. (Jun 17, 2018)

slclick said:


> Sp, rumor has it there is a new 24-70 on the horizon, anyone want to chat about it? /s


As Canon moves its most popular lenses to fully automated assembly lines, it's highly likely that it will require _some_ changes in the 24-70 design. The lens will likely get new lens coating as well.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 17, 2018)

Kit. said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > Don't see why Canon could and can not bring a significantly improved, more intelligent version in their digital cameras.
> ...



would you have link/s to such statement/s by Canon/officials? i have not seen any mentioning of ECF. interestingly, no journalists/bloggers/interviewers seem to be asking canon execs about it and insist on a meaningful answer. or they are "not allowed" to. but that thought of course falls under conspiracy theory to any Canapologist.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 17, 2018)

fullstop said:


> would you have link/s to such statement/s by Canon/officials? i have not seen any mentioning of ECF. interestingly,


This one was probably the most recent:
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0912/tech-tips.html

Anyway, all the critical patents on it would have already expired by now, so your conspiration theory needs to include all other camera manufacturers as well.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 17, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



You can Canowhine about ECF until you're blue in the face, for all the good it'll do. No one else is asking because, unlike you, they understand reality. Here's something for you to put in your conspiracy theory pipe and smoke...

[quote author=Chuck Westfall]
I have stated numerous times on the Web and at least twice in Tech Tips that it is obvious by now that the omission of ECF in EOS Digital SLRs is a marketing decision, not a technical issue. We get user requests for ECF from time to time, but to be blunt, *customer demand so far has been insufficient to justify adding this feature*. I'll never say never, but don't hold your breath on this one.
[/quote]

As usual, you have no clue about the needs/wants of the market in general, but yet you continually ASSume that your personal wants are representative of the market as a whole. Typical Canowhiner behavior.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 17, 2018)

thx for the link/quotes. Had not seen Chuck's response on the matter. 

I know it won't surprise you, but I don't believe "lack of demand" was the true reason for "no more ECF in ANY digital Canon EOS". 

And if all relevant patents have expired, here's hoping Sony (or Nikon) will pick it up then in (some of) their future mirrorless FF cameras.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 17, 2018)

fullstop said:


> I know it won't surprise you, but I don't believe "lack of demand" was the true reason for "no more ECF in ANY digital Canon EOS".



Of course you don't. Chuck was just a big liar, and you know more about Canon's internal decision-making than Canon themselves. 

: : :


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 17, 2018)

fullstop said:


> thx for the link/quotes. Had not seen Chuck's response on the matter.
> 
> I know it won't surprise you, but I don't believe "lack of demand" was the true reason for "no more ECF in ANY digital Canon EOS".



What is the "real reason" then? 

I'm wondering aloud what Alex Jones would have to say about this.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 17, 2018)

Read what Chuck said. 
btw.: he was as kind, nice and honest a person as there is. Of course professionally he served as marketing representative for Canon and in that capacity he could not always tell "the whole truth". But he definitely did not lie. 

Reasons:
1) "low demand": if not so many bought ECF enabled Elan 7E vs. non-enabled Elan 7 the reason may simply have been: "price differential too high", not lack of demand for the feature per se 
2) "people did not use it" = implementation was not good enough back then
3) "complexity high + memory-intensive" = cost reasons (for Canon)
4) and Elan 7NE was introduced in April 2014. EOS 10D was already on the market, too more forward-thinking enthusiasts it was clear, that digital SLRs had arrived. Not much interest left to buy film SLRs. 
https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/film245.html

are some of my thoughts on the matter. pure "conjecture" of course. ;D


http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0912/tech-tips.html


> Q: How likely is it that Canon would respond if lots of EOS-1D(s), 7D & 5D users really supported the re-introduction of Eye Controlled Focus? Do you know the story behind its demise?
> 
> A: Eye Controlled Focus in future Canon products cannot be ruled out, but there is no evidence to support the notion that it will reappear anytime soon. In the meantime, Canon will continue to study the market and gauge the interests of its customers in all sorts of camera features including ECF.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 17, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Read what Chuck said.
> btw.: he was as kind, nice and honest a person as there is. Of course professionally he served as marketing representative for Canon and in that capacity he could not always tell "the whole truth". But he definitely did not lie.
> 
> Reasons:
> ...



Low demand not the main reason, huh?

1. Low demand.
2. Customers did not use it. (Low demand)
3. Cost to Canon (low sales = higher costs per unit). (Low demand)
4. Elan 7NE was introduced in April 2014. EOS 10D was already on the market, too more forward-thinking enthusiasts it was clear, that digital SLRs had arrived. Not much interest left to buy film SLRs. = Low demand
5. and Canon had received reports indicating that *many customers were not using it for various reasons *such as:
Their eyes did not move normally so the feature didn't work for them;
Their eyeglass lenses were too thick or they habitually wore sunglasses, so the camera couldn't detect their eye movement;
They didn't know it was necessary to recalibrate the system for each and every light level and/or camera orientation, so they couldn't understand why the system was only working every once in a while for them.
Finally, sales figures indicated that the majority of customers weren't willing to pay for ECF if they could buy the same camera, as in Elan 7N, without ECF for less. Considering all the obstacles, it's not too surprising to me that Canon eventually decided to drop the feature. = Low demand

Come on, man. From a business perspective low demand is the reason. People just didn't care about it or care for it. It was expensive to Canon because people just did not want it. People didn't want to pay for it. :

But, doubling down when wrong is your specialty. Silly.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 18, 2018)

CFB: maybe you read and try to understand my post first before using the word "silly". 

"Low demand" was Canon's interpretation. Interesting thing is, WHY demand appeared to be low to them. Think about it for a minute before posting.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 18, 2018)

fullstop said:


> CFB: maybe you read and try to understand my post first before using the word "silly".
> 
> "Low demand" was Canon's interpretation. Interesting thing is, WHY demand appeared to be low to them. Think about it for a minute before posting.



LOL! Demand didn't just appear to be low to Canon, it was low. Period. Sillier.


----------



## slclick (Jun 19, 2018)

I really hate red fonts.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 19, 2018)

slclick said:


> I really hate red fonts.



oh, really?







;D ;D ;D


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 21, 2018)

fullstop said:


> 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
> 
> ...



The difference in speed in 2018 has little or nothing to do with the differences between discrete PDAF sensors and main sensor based forms of AF. On an 80D or a 1D X Mark II there is very little difference in AF speed using PDAF or using Live View.

*The primary reason Canon's current mirrorless cameras focus slower is due to the smaller batteries they use. *It's also due to the fact that STM lenses are optimized for smooth (i.e. slow) video focussing. Canon's top EF glass still all have USM AF that is faster in cases where the focusing elements themselves in the USM lenses don't weigh more than an entire M-series camera plus the heaviest EF-M lens on the market. USM lenses accelerate/decelerate much more quickly than STM/Nano USM lenses do. The sudden acceleration/deceleration of USM AF is not appropriate for video AF, but most of the pro videographers using 'L' glass focus manually anyway, so it's not a factor to them.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 21, 2018)

we shall see how well legacy EF glass will AF on future BIG CHUNKY mirrorless bodies with BIG FAT batteries. I expect them to be sub-par compared to new native mirrorless lenses.


----------



## Talys (Jun 23, 2018)

@Michael Clark - I think that dual pixel AF is actually pretty decent when there is enough light. It still struggles a bit when it is darker though, and the raw speed on a DSLR in live view is still very slightly slower. I was pretty impressed with m50 AF speeds, given the price. 

Because Canon doesn't yet have a pro-ish MILC yet, we don't have advanced af modes with dpaf yet, so we will soon see how that pans out. 

@cfb - lol  as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 23, 2018)

Talys said:


> @Michael Clark - I think that dual pixel AF is actually pretty decent when there is enough light. It still struggles a bit when it is darker though, and the raw speed on a DSLR in live view is still very slightly slower. I was pretty impressed with m50 AF speeds, given the price.
> 
> Because Canon doesn't yet have a pro-ish MILC yet, we don't have advanced af modes with dpaf yet, so we will soon see how that pans out.
> 
> @cfb - lol  as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.



Apparently it got taken down.


----------

