# Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III one of two “Big White Lenses” coming ahead of Photokina [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 15, 2018)

> We were told a while back that two big white lenses would be announced ahead of Photokina in September. We were also told that the lenses would both be version 3’s, which means they’ll be replacing two current Big White Lenses.
> A different source than the original is telling us that one of the lenses to be announced will be an EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III.
> The second big white to be replaced is still unknown at this time
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Canoneer (Aug 15, 2018)

Does anyone know if Canon will ever be inclined to provide non-L super-telephoto primes? Since the new 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS II has effectively consolidated the 300mm F/4L and the 400mm F/5.6L, I'd like to see OIS USM versions of those lenses without the great white bodies and price tags. A 600mm F/8 IS USM would be pretty nice too.


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 15, 2018)

This seems to me like a check the box release. Perhaps automated manufacturing, slightly better AF, a few grams lighter; but really not coveted like some other lenses. The 400mm DO II now rules this category with the 100-400 a good all-rounder alternative. Those who want the niche 2.8 already have it for the most part.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 15, 2018)

_"Upgrades for these lenses will likely focus on weight reduction and updated coatings. We expect the optical formulas to remain about the same."_

Sounds like lipstick on a pig.

The positive here is maybe the used version II's go down in price.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Aug 15, 2018)

Canoneer said:


> Does anyone know if Canon will ever be inclined to provide non-L super-telephoto primes? Since the new 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS II has effectively consolidated the 300mm F/4L and the 400mm F/5.6L, I'd like to see OIS USM versions of those lenses without the great white bodies and price tags. A 600mm F/8 IS USM would be pretty nice too.



Make it a 400mm f/5 and I promise that I will pre-order it.


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 15, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> _"Upgrades for these lenses will likely focus on weight reduction and updated coatings. We expect the optical formulas to remain about the same."_
> 
> Sounds like lipstick on a pig.
> 
> The positive here is maybe the used version II's go down in price.


Please don't forget that with the announcement of the Sony FE 2.8/400 mm the limits of weight have been shiftet quite a lot.
The Sony lens is amost 1 kg (!) lighter than the Canon.
Togehter with the A9 you gain about 1.8 kg over the Canon combo.
(1DX II + EF2.8/400 II; _disclaimer: this is a pure weight comparison, not about features or IQ_)
Maybe Canon sees the need here to put that lens on a diet.

Of course, production costs are always an important factor, as well.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 15, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> _"Upgrades for these lenses will likely focus on weight reduction and updated coatings. We expect the optical formulas to remain about the same."_
> 
> Sounds like lipstick on a pig.
> 
> The positive here is maybe the used version II's go down in price.



Erm, I don't think you understand that phrase. The pig is ugly even if you put lipstick on it. How is the 400L 2.8, one of the best-regarded Canon lenses, a pig? It's big, heavy, and expensive, but that goes with the territory. Improving any aspect of it is hardly a crude means of hiding deficiencies. Maybe you mean 'gilding the lily'?


----------



## RGF (Aug 15, 2018)

until I see specs I will withhold judgement as to how significant improvement this is.

Could be improved coatings and a slight weight reduction, or could be major change with drop extender.


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 15, 2018)

RGF said:


> ...
> or could be major change with drop extender.


Nope! 
With extender included, it would get a new name and no "Mark III".


----------



## ethanz (Aug 15, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> This seems to me like a check the box release. Perhaps automated manufacturing,



I believe the big whites are manufactured by hand by "master" lens makers. I'm not sure if Canon would choose to automate that.


----------



## FramerMCB (Aug 15, 2018)

I predict that the new versions will have the 1) "Air-sphere" coatings, 2) reduced weight (not by a large amount, as Canon needs to keep these lenses robust from a "must perform well and keep performing well under adverse and long use (= wear & tear of a busy working professional)", 3) Improved IS, 4) "Improved" price tags (although not by much), 5) automatic lifetime enrollment in CPS ( ;-) ), and 6) a new set of Extenders within 6 months of release of the first 2 'Bigs'.

I wonder if Canon will ever update the 800mm f5.6L IS, the 400mm f5.6L, and introduce a "bargain" zoom (say a 150-600mm or 200-600mm f5.6 USM IS)?


----------



## lightthief (Aug 15, 2018)

Imagine the second white would be a cheaper little brother - a 400 5.6 IS or 500 5.6 / 6.3 IS.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 15, 2018)

lightthief said:


> Imagine the second white would be a cheaper little brother - a 400 5.6 IS or 500 5.6 / 6.3 IS.



The original rumour was that both would be 'mark III' lenses. A new 400 f/5.6 with added IS wouldn't get a number (if they updated with without adding IS it would be a mark II), and a new lens like a 500 5.6 would also not have a numerical designation, so if that rumour was accurate, it can only be an update to an existing mark II lens (and also can't include an added extender, as some have requested).


----------



## robinlee (Aug 15, 2018)

Well it better be as light as Sony's 400mm 2.8 then.


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 15, 2018)

robinlee said:


> Well it better be as light as Sony's 400mm 2.8 then.


As long as that one is as robust as the Canon Mark I and II.
A feature that I haven't heard of with Sony products yet


----------



## NancyP (Aug 15, 2018)

Well, if it is, the version II ought to be coming up in the used market.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 15, 2018)

robinlee said:


> Well it better be as light as Sony's 400mm 2.8 then.


If lighter means a thinner lens barrel, more plastics inside, then the big whites would lose one of their main advantages.
Should Canon at any cost imitate Sony just to satisfy some forum members, or should they rather keep the discriminating professionals satisfied with proven durability?
Since when is Sony THE reference???


----------



## AlanF (Aug 15, 2018)

Canoneer said:


> Does anyone know if Canon will ever be inclined to provide non-L super-telephoto primes? Since the new 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS II has effectively consolidated the 300mm F/4L and the 400mm F/5.6L, I'd like to see OIS USM versions of those lenses without the great white bodies and price tags. A 600mm F/8 IS USM would be pretty nice too.



A cheap 600mm f/8 will be unlikely to be competitive with the current cheap 150-600mm f/6.3s from Sigma and Tamron.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 15, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Erm, I don't think you understand that phrase. The pig is ugly even if you put lipstick on it. How is the 400L 2.8, one of the best-regarded Canon lenses, a pig? It's big, heavy, and expensive, but that goes with the territory. Improving any aspect of it is hardly a crude means of hiding deficiencies. Maybe you mean 'gilding the lily'?



Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Miss Piggy would take exception to your comments.

Besides that if you put lipstick on a pig it is still a pig. 
If the lenses looses an ounce or two and adds a coating it really isn't much of a change.

If they drop a few pounds of weight it will be significant and I retract my comment.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 15, 2018)

EF's last gasp?


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 15, 2018)

Del Paso said:


> If lighter means a thinner lens barrel, more plastics inside, then the big whites would lose one of their main advantages.
> Should Canon at any cost imitate Sony just to satisfy some forum members, or should they rather keep the discriminating professionals satisfied with proven durability?
> Since when is Sony THE reference???



Yes, Canon caters strictly to CR forum members, so, of course, they should imitate Sony just to satisfy us. Silly Billy.


----------



## Talys (Aug 15, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> EF's last gasp?


Doubtful. Canon will be making $5,000-$15,000 EF lenses for a very long time yet, I think


----------



## Talys (Aug 15, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Yes, Canon caters strictly to CR forum members, so, of course, they should imitate Sony just to satisfy us. Silly Billy.



I'm pretty curious as to the sturdiness and build quality of the Sony 400/2.8. The experience I have with Sony telephotos at the moment is the 100-400 GM, which I have mixed feelings about. While it is certainly a fine piece of engineering, it also feels like a delicate flower in comparison to the 100-400L2. It's also missing mechanical focus, the ability to just grab the ring and focus, or even, unlike the 70-200 a tactile way of knowing when manual focus is at either end. On the other hand, the programable button is cool, and I am fond of the tripod foot design.


----------



## Canoneer (Aug 15, 2018)

AlanF said:


> A cheap 600mm f/8 will be unlikely to be competitive with the current cheap 150-600mm f/6.3s from Sigma and Tamron.



It would look that way on paper, but the Tamron & Sigma 150-600mm F/5-6.3 aren't impressive at all on the long end. Low contrast, slow AF, pincushion distortion, and aberrations that usually accompany super-telephoto zooms, compared to a prime that is. A Canon 600mm F/8 with IS and USM auto-focus motors would be a very compelling choice for anyone interested in sports or wildlife photography. It might be a smaller aperture than the Sig and Tammy 150-600, but that means Canon would be able to apply better optical corrections when shooting wide-open. I'd happily shoot at 1/2 to 2/3 of a stop more ISO if it meant getting fast and consistent focus, better contrast, better CA management, and better image stabilization than what a 3rd-party superzoom could offer at 600mm and F/6.3.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 15, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> EF's last gasp?



$10K is big gasp.


----------



## sportskjutaren (Aug 15, 2018)

Maximilian said:


> Please don't forget that with the announcement of the Sony FE 2.8/400 mm the limits of weight have been shiftet quite a lot.
> The Sony lens is amost 1 kg (!) lighter than the Canon.
> ...


This kind of lenses takes a really long time to develop.
I can't see that Canon cares about weight only that much. 
Just because of what some other brand is doing.


----------



## sportskjutaren (Aug 15, 2018)

Nikon recently released an "upgraded" 200-400/4 which is a 180-400/4, built in a TC and made it lighter at the same time.

If canon will release a new 400/2,8 without a built-in TC.
I will be seriously disappointed.
I would, seriously, prefer a lens a bit bigger, and a little bit heavier, with a built-in TC.
Then one without.
And I do say that with experience from traveling a lot with heavy gear at international championships.
(Like EURO 2016 in France, 8000 KiloMeters (5000 miles) during one month.
https://agency.jkpg-sports.photo/index/G0000QZWjtakA.cg
Or the FIFA WC in Russia, 13000 KiloMeters (8000 miles) during five weeks.
https://agency.jkpg-sports.photo/index/G0000FrucfpGrwrQ).


----------



## kaihp (Aug 15, 2018)

sportskjutaren said:


> Nikon recently released an "upgraded" 200-400/4 which is a 180-400/4, built in a TC and made it lighter at the same time.
> 
> If canon will release a new 400/2,8 without a built-in TC.
> I will be seriously disappointed.
> ...



Then brace yourself for the disappointment then, because a 400/2.8 with a built-in TC wouldn't be a "Mk III" - it would be the first version of such a lens.
It's not that I don't understand why you want it, it's just that this is not what the rumor is telling.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 15, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> $10K is big gasp.


Certainly is for those shelling it out.


----------



## robinlee (Aug 15, 2018)

Del Paso said:


> If lighter means a thinner lens barrel, more plastics inside, then the big whites would lose one of their main advantages.
> Should Canon at any cost imitate Sony just to satisfy some forum members, or should they rather keep the discriminating professionals satisfied with proven durability?
> Since when is Sony THE reference???



Since none...


----------



## sportskjutaren (Aug 15, 2018)

kaihp said:


> Then brace yourself for the disappointment then, because a 400/2.8 with a built-in TC wouldn't be a "Mk III" - it would be the first version of such a lens.
> It's not that I don't understand why you want it, it's just that this is not what the rumor is telling.


The keyword here is "rumor".
And I will for sure not take anything for granted until we receive official information on this topic.

Canon introduced the built-in TC in their 200-400 that was released in 2013.
(After they changed the construction. They shoved a prototype in 2011).
The 400/2,8L IS II USM was released in 2011.
To me, it would make no sense at all if they wouldn't have worked on 400/2,8 with a built-in TC.
Let's remember that there is a seven-year timespan since the release of the 400/2,8L IS II USM.

*I might end up being totally wrong here.*
But it would make no sense to me at all.
If Canon wouldn´t use their knowledge from developing their 200-400/4 and built-in TC, with the upcoming 400/2,8.
*From a business perspective, a built-in TC makes a ton more of sense, than not having it built-in.*


----------



## robinlee (Aug 15, 2018)

Maximilian said:


> As long as that one is as robust as the Canon Mark I and II.
> A feature that I haven't hear of with Sony products yet



We don't know the durability of Sony 400mm 2.8 until September.


----------



## venusFivePhotoStudio (Aug 15, 2018)

Canoneer said:


> Does anyone know if Canon will ever be inclined to provide non-L super-telephoto primes? Since the new 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS II has effectively consolidated the 300mm F/4L and the 400mm F/5.6L, I'd like to see OIS USM versions of those lenses without the great white bodies and price tags. A 600mm F/8 IS USM would be pretty nice too.



Nobody would use such a lens  try to add a x2 converter and a x1.4 converter on a 2.8 lens and you'll understand why.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 15, 2018)

Canoneer said:


> It would look that way on paper, but the Tamron & Sigma 150-600mm F/5-6.3 aren't impressive at all on the long end. Low contrast, slow AF, pincushion distortion, and aberrations that usually accompany super-telephoto zooms, compared to a prime that is. A Canon 600mm F/8 with IS and USM auto-focus motors would be a very compelling choice for anyone interested in sports or wildlife photography. It might be a smaller aperture than the Sig and Tammy 150-600, but that means Canon would be able to apply better optical corrections when shooting wide-open. I'd happily shoot at 1/2 to 2/3 of a stop more ISO if it meant getting fast and consistent focus, better contrast, better CA management, and better image stabilization than what a 3rd-party superzoom could offer at 600mm and F/6.3.



I am not basing my comments "on paper". I own and use the 400mm DO II, 100-400mm II and the Sigma 150-600mm C, and used to have the 300mm f2.8 II. My Sigma is as sharp at the centre as the 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC or the 400mm DO II + 1.4xTC. It's a very good lens, though there are bad copies out there. Have you compared those lenses yourself or are your comments based on what you have seen on paper?


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 15, 2018)

Nope.
No matter how many times you push that line, the answer is still 'no'.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 15, 2018)

robinlee said:


> We don't know the durability of Sony 400mm 2.8 until September.



I find it highly unlikely we will know anything about its durability until long after the release date. We might have a few people disassemble one to make qualitative assessments in September or October, but unless Sony publishes its reliability engineering (which I’ll note is a discipline based in statistics), anything conclusive will take time and a sizeable sample.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 15, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Nope.
> No matter how many times you push that line, the answer is still 'no'.


Which post does this refer to, Mike?


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 15, 2018)

Yueng Linger deleted his post - he was repeating his claim that the big white refresh is a last throw of the EF dice.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 15, 2018)

sportskjutaren said:


> *From a business perspective, a built-in TC makes a ton more of sense, than not having it built-in.*



Why?


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 15, 2018)

sportskjutaren said:


> *I might end up being totally wrong here.
> From a business perspective, a built-in TC makes a ton more of sense, than not having it built-in.*



100% accurate.
You might be totally wrong here.


----------



## applecider (Aug 15, 2018)

Canoneer said:


> Does anyone know if Canon will ever be inclined to provide non-L super-telephoto primes? Since the new 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS II has effectively consolidated the 300mm F/4L and the 400mm F/5.6L, I'd like to see OIS USM versions of those lenses without the great white bodies and price tags. A 600mm F/8 IS USM would be pretty nice too.


Up to now canon has kept its native f stops on lenses to 5.6 so they work with all cameras. A f8 max lens would not for instance work with a 7D v one, or in my armament my backup SL1. So a long lens max f8 is unlikely.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 16, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> This seems to me like a check the box release. Perhaps automated manufacturing, slightly better AF, a few grams lighter; but really not coveted like some other lenses. The 400mm DO II now rules this category with the 100-400 a good all-rounder alternative. Those who want the niche 2.8 already have it for the most part.



True. There is never a supply of new buyers and users. It's all the same guys. Once they die there won't be a need for these lenses at all. *rolls eyes*


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 16, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Erm, I don't think you understand that phrase. The pig is ugly even if you put lipstick on it. How is the 400L 2.8, one of the best-regarded Canon lenses, a pig? It's big, heavy, and expensive, but that goes with the territory. Improving any aspect of it is hardly a crude means of hiding deficiencies. Maybe you mean 'gilding the lily'?



You beat me to it.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 16, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Yueng Linger deleted his post - he was repeating his claim that the big white refresh is a last throw of the EF dice.


 He's like that girl I thought I needed to take home to meet mama, and then wasn't that girl afterall.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 16, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> He's like that girl I thought I needed to take home to meet mama, and then wasn't that girl afterall.


I did not delete my post. It is still there. And still a reasonable conjecture.


----------



## RGF (Aug 16, 2018)

Maximilian said:


> Nope!
> With extender included, it would get a new name and no "Mark III".



Take the drop in extender as an example of what Canon might do.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 16, 2018)

Canoneer said:


> A 600mm F/8 IS USM would be pretty nice too.



Yes, I would really love to see some telephoto lenses which start at f/8 and therefore are very light, as I take most of my photos at f/8 anyway and I own a camera were autofocus works at f/8. 

There are some manufacturers like Danubia that produce 500mm lenses with a fixed f/8 aperture for less than $100, but those have very bad image quality and no autofocus. However those lenses are very light. I would like to see such a lens with autofocus, IS, and a better image quality. Of course that would be somehow heavier, but now as heavy and expensive as the cheapest 500mm options from Canon.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 16, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I did not delete my post. It is still there. And still a reasonable conjecture.



My apologies, you didn't - I don't know what happened there but looking at the time difference between your post and mine I may well have got distracted between opening the page and replying resulting in them getting separated on different pages and I could not see it when I looked.


----------



## docsmith (Aug 16, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> EF's last gasp?




Been looking for a reason to use these new emojis. Thanks for providing one!

These lenses are designed to be relevant for something approaching decades. Nothing about that is a "last" gasp.

Canon has shown no signs of slowing down on EF lens releases. 85 f/1.4 IS? 70-200 f/4 IS II? The 70-200 III repaint is a bit odd, but I am withholding judgement until reviewers get their hands on it and, who knows, the real driver for that could have been cost savings internal to Canon to make it more viable for a longer period of time. If Canon starts releasing a but of repainted updates, if DSLRs (7DIII, 90D, 5Ds II) are not updated, then you may be onto something if by "last gasp" you actual mean a very long and health wind down like the last few miles of a marathon.


----------



## sportskjutaren (Aug 16, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Why?


It would make the lens more versatile.
And Canon would be the only manufacturer to have a 400/2,8 with a built-in TC.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 16, 2018)

docsmith said:


> Been looking for a reason to use these new emojis. Thanks for providing one!
> 
> These lenses are designed to be relevant for something approaching decades. Nothing about that is a "last" gasp.
> 
> Canon has shown no signs of slowing down on EF lens releases. 85 f/1.4 IS? 70-200 f/4 IS II? The 70-200 III repaint is a bit odd, but I am withholding judgement until reviewers get their hands on it and, who knows, the real driver for that could have been cost savings internal to Canon to make it more viable for a longer period of time. If Canon starts releasing a but of repainted updates, if DSLRs (7DIII, 90D, 5Ds II) are not updated, then you may be onto something if by "last gasp" you actual mean a very long and health wind down like the last few miles of a marathon.



You've phrased it brilliantly. I did not mean that we are going to wake up on a certain date within the next 12 months and find that EF is no longer produced, sold or serviced, but that we are in a time of transition--with EF already planned for a gentle phase out. Certainly there have been tweaks in the pipeline, some small, some large, and they are being introduced now. But if the best possible mirrorless Canon can build to compete and excite involves a new mount, EF will no longer be the sole focus of lens development, obviously. EOS will remain for sale for some years, and adapters will extend the use of EF beyond that.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 16, 2018)

sportskjutaren said:


> It would make the lens more versatile.
> And Canon would be the only manufacturer to have a 400/2,8 with a built-in TC.



A unique feature only 'makes sense from a business perspective', as you originally said, IF it appeals to more potential customers than a competing product without that feature. We do not know if more possible 400mm f/2.8 buyers would prefer the lens with a built-in extender or without, but we can assume Canon has some idea. It adds length, weight, and cost, which might put other people off, so it isn't necessarily a good business move - it might repel more customers than it attracts (I emphasise *might*, and repeat that none of us here know either way). Incidentally, I am one who uses a supertele with an extender attached almost all the time, so it would appeal to me, but I've seen others saying they definitely wouldn't want a non-removable extender.


----------



## Canoneer (Aug 16, 2018)

AlanF said:


> I am not basing my comments "on paper". I own and use the 400mm DO II, 100-400mm II and the Sigma 150-600mm C, and used to have the 300mm f2.8 II. My Sigma is as sharp at the centre as the 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC or the 400mm DO II + 1.4xTC. It's a very good lens, though there are bad copies out there. Have you compared those lenses yourself or are your comments based on what you have seen on paper?



I haven't tried the Sigma 150-600, but I have used the Tamron 150-600 G2. Both are quite comparable from everything I hear. I own the 400mm F/5.6 and I've rented a Sigma 500mm F/4.5 and a Canon 600mm F/4. The fact that your Sigma is as sharp in the center as your 300mm F/2.8 w/ x2TC, or the 400mm F/4 w/ x1.4TC doesn't surprise me at all. I've used both the Canon 1.4TC and 2TC on my super-telephotos - they leave much to be desired. Contrast suffers with the TC, even the ones built by Canon (which are the best that I know of). 

My 400/5.6 beat out the Tamron in terms of sharpness, contrast, color rendition, AF speed, and AF accuracy at the 400mm focal length and apertures between 5.6-11. The Sigma 500mm F/4.5 beat out the Tamron in those same categories initially, expect for the AF accuracy, which required some significant microfocus adjustment. After MF adjustment was applied, it beat out the Tamron in AF accuracy as well. And lastly, the Canon 600/4... I don't even know why I'm bothering to say this. As you would expect, the Canon 600/4 when stopped down to f/6.3 (or any aperture) destroys the Tamron at 600mm. 

Slapping a Teleconverter on a shorter focal length prime with a maximum aperture twice as large as a prime lens with double the focal length is not an accurate indicator of how that longer prime lens would perform. Super-telephoto lenses are highly complex optical designs that require significant correction and control of aberrations. TC's are a duct tape solution for extended reach, not image quality.


----------



## sportskjutaren (Aug 16, 2018)

scyrene said:


> ...
> It adds length, weight, and cost, which might put other people off,
> ...


Nikon upgraded their 200-400/4 to a 180-400/4, added a built-in TC, *and made it lighter at the same time.*
That said, I would personally prefer a "heavier and bigger" lens with a built-in TC, than one without.
And, as You understand. I do really see a possibility to have a built-in TC and reduce weight at the same time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 16, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> EF's last gasp?


----------



## amorse (Aug 16, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> You've phrased it brilliantly. I did not mean that we are going to wake up on a certain date within the next 12 months and find that EF is no longer produced, sold or serviced, but that we are in a time of transition--with EF already planned for a gentle phase out. Certainly there have been tweaks in the pipeline, some small, some large, and they are being introduced now. But if the best possible mirrorless Canon can build to compete and excite involves a new mount, EF will no longer be the sole focus of lens development, obviously. EOS will remain for sale for some years, and adapters will extend the use of EF beyond that.


I think it is a bit early to read EF mount's obituary. It's very early to assume mirrorless will replace all DSLRs and that Canon will throw away the EF mount in favour of a new mount - replacing all existing EF lenses with new mount equivalents. For big lenses of this sort, a new mount offers nothing that EF doesn't already, so why re-invent the wheel? It doesn't make sense. 

If we look at Nikon's trajectory (since their mirrorless news has been more publicly available), they look as if they are planning for mirrorless to compliment their DLSR line and not replace it. They have said that their mirrorless line will focus on high end primes - notably an f/0.95 lens. Why would they do this? Because a new mount can let them do this where the current mount won't - there is a genuine advantage to having a new mount for that sort of lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 16, 2018)

amorse said:


> I think it is a bit early to read EF mount's obituary.


DSLRs continue to outsell MILCs by a strong margin. But some forum dwellers prefer to ignore reality and run around like Chicken Little in a panic.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 16, 2018)

Canoneer said:


> I haven't tried the Sigma 150-600, but I have used the Tamron 150-600 G2. Both are quite comparable from everything I hear. I own the 400mm ............ I've used both the Canon 1.4TC and 2TC on my super-telephotos - they leave much to be desired. Contrast suffers with the TC, even the ones built by Canon (which are the best that I know of)......



Dear oh dear, your standards are indeed much higher that just about everyone else I know. Most of us are rather satisfied with 1.4xTCs on our supertelephotos, and 2xTCs on the more recent lenses fare well. Indeed, the 600mm f/4 II + 1.4xTC is preferred over the bare 800mm f/5.6.

You have been arguing for an f/8 600mm, and it has been pointed out to you that it would not AF on some Canon bodies and cannot be used with TCs. In addition, f/8 is above the diffraction limit for APS-C sensors and high resolution ones like the 5DSR and others down the line. f/8 does not AF that well on most bodies. In short, if you think that TCs leave a lot to be desired, which I dispute, a maximum aperturte f/8 leaves far more to be desired.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 16, 2018)

sportskjutaren said:


> Nikon upgraded their 200-400/4 to a 180-400/4, added a built-in TC, *and made it lighter at the same time.*
> That said, I would personally prefer a "heavier and bigger" lens with a built-in TC, than one without.
> And, as You understand. I do really see a possibility to have a built-in TC and reduce weight at the same time.



They could reduce the weight from the current one whilst adding in an extender, but a new model with an extender will obviously weigh more than a new model without an extender! Some people want to cut as much weight and size as possible, though I repeat I don't know how many there are of each opinion.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 16, 2018)

Canoneer said:


> I've used both the Canon 1.4TC and 2TC on my super-telephotos - they leave much to be desired. Contrast suffers with the TC, even the ones built by Canon (which are the best that I know of).



Everybody's standards are different of course, but I find the 1.4x on the 500L II so similar in image quality to the bare lens that I'd not be able to consistently tell shots from them apart. The 2x does degrade things a little. As for contrast, can't that be easily dialled back in during processing?


----------



## sportskjutaren (Aug 16, 2018)

scyrene said:


> They could reduce the weight from the current one whilst adding in an extender, but a new model with an extender will obviously weigh more than a new model without an extender! Some people want to cut as much weight and size as possible, though I repeat I don't know how many there are of each opinion.


You got a valid point there. 
We will have to wait and see what the official announcement will say.


----------



## Canoneer (Aug 16, 2018)

AlanF said:


> You have been arguing for an f/8 600mm, and it has been pointed out to you that it would not AF on some Canon bodies and cannot be used with TCs. In addition, f/8 is above the diffraction limit for APS-C sensors and high resolution ones like the 5DSR and others down the line. f/8 does not AF that well on most bodies. In short, if you think that TCs leave a lot to be desired, which I dispute, a maximum aperturte f/8 leaves far more to be desired.



Aperture limited auto focus applies only to phase detection auto focus. I admit this would be a problem if you exclusively use optical viewfinders for focusing. But Canon has fielded a solution to this problem for many years now. It's called Dual Pixel Auto Focus. DPAF is not limited by small apertures, it's more accurate in subject tracking than conventional PDAF, and it doesn't front or back focus as PDAF systems routinely do. Focusing with an LCD screen and a loupe, or an EVF is just as effective as an optical viewfinder.

And diffraction limit? You're implying that images shot at or above f/8 on 24MP APS-C or a 5DSR all of the sudden turn to mush? I haven't noticed that yet.


----------



## Canoneer (Aug 16, 2018)

scyrene said:


> As for contrast, can't that be easily dialled back in during processing?



I've only found it possible to obtain a usable image in post-processing using added contrast if I overexpose by about 2/3 of a stop or more, and have a very well balanced histogram on all of my RGB channels. I'll almost always prefer using a bare lens and cropping to my desired focal length in post than using a TC and boosting contrast. That's just me though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 16, 2018)

Canoneer said:


> Aperture limited auto focus applies only to phase detection auto focus. I admit this would be a problem if you exclusively use optical viewfinders for focusing. But Canon has fielded a solution to this problem for many years now. It's called Dual Pixel Auto Focus. DPAF is not limited by small apertures, it's more accurate in subject tracking than conventional PDAF, and it doesn't front or back focus as PDAF systems routinely do. Focusing with an LCD screen and a loupe, or an EVF is just as effective as an optical viewfinder.


The point is that as long as Canon sells DSLRs with an f/5.6 PDAF limit, they’re not going to release lenses that aren’t compatible with that limit. An EF 600mm f/8 lens is not going to happen.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 16, 2018)

Maximilian said:


> Please don't forget that with the announcement of the Sony FE 2.8/400 mm the limits of weight have been shiftet quite a lot.
> The Sony lens is amost 1 kg (!) lighter than the Canon.
> Togehter with the A9 you gain about 1.8 kg over the Canon combo.
> (1DX II + EF2.8/400 II; _disclaimer: this is a pure weight comparison, not about features or IQ_)
> ...



Sony wants to replace Canon as "the professionals camera of choice" and is mimicking all the lenses Canon do for professionals. What I don't see is true innovation and ground-breaking lens designs so whilst the "soft targets" are being replicated that's not really moving the game on such as the Canon EF 11-24mm f4L did with its rectilinear design.


----------



## robinlee (Aug 16, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> I find it highly unlikely we will know anything about its durability until long after the release date. We might have a few people disassemble one to make qualitative assessments in September or October, but unless Sony publishes its reliability engineering (which I’ll note is a discipline based in statistics), anything conclusive will take time and a sizeable sample.



Time will tell, there will be a lot of assessment going through the lens. Roger Cicala at LensRental may do the lens dismantling assessment as well.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 16, 2018)

Canoneer said:


> Aperture limited auto focus applies only to phase detection auto focus. I admit this would be a problem if you exclusively use optical viewfinders for focusing. But Canon has fielded a solution to this problem for many years now. It's called Dual Pixel Auto Focus. DPAF is not limited by small apertures, it's more accurate in subject tracking than conventional PDAF, and it doesn't front or back focus as PDAF systems routinely do. Focusing with an LCD screen and a loupe, or an EVF is just as effective as an optical viewfinder.
> 
> And diffraction limit? You're implying that images shot at or above f/8 on 24MP APS-C or a 5DSR all of the sudden turn to mush? I haven't noticed that yet.



I am well aware of DPAF - it's the major means of focus on my M5 (as well as an alternative for my other bodies).Have you tried DPAF for moving wild-life and birds? DPAF is very fine for video and static subjects but not for action.

Of course I am not implying that an image turns to mush suddenly at the DLA. You lose resolution linearly with f-number as you go through the DLA for diffraction limited lenses. Look at the MTFs of high quality lenses on say photozone.de: the Canon 35mm f/1.4 II resolves on the 5DSR 5562 lines/height at f/2.8, 5425 at f/4, 5134 at f/5.6 and 4685 at f/8. http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/964-canon35f14mk2?start=1. There is a similar loss of resolution for the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1000-sigma85f14art?start=1. The 35mm f/1.4 drops 16% in resolution from f/2.8 to f/8.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 16, 2018)

As I understand it, diffraction is dependent on the size of the pupil diameter, and the f number is a calculation of pupil diameter and focal length so the pupil diameter of f2.8 on an 85mmlens is different to the pupil diameter of f2.8 on a 35mm lens. 
Then the two lenses are tested on different bodies which adds another variable on the limit of lpm resolution - the only real way to even attempt this is on a test bench which very few people do. 
Add the MTF 50 is about micro contrast, so to say that it "...can be taken as a measure for sharpness..." in the way the article uses it is a gross oversimplification.

I find MTF charts useful for looking at the characteristics of a given lens but is very elastic when comparing lenses.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 16, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> As I understand it, diffraction is dependent on the size of the pupil diameter, and the f number is a calculation of pupil diameter and focal length so the pupil diameter of f2.8 on an 85mmlens is different to the pupil diameter of f2.8 on a 35mm lens.
> Then the two lenses are tested on different bodies which adds another variable on the limit of lpm resolution - the only real way to even attempt this is on a test bench which very few people do.
> Add the MTF 50 is about micro contrast, so to say that it "...can be taken as a measure for sharpness..." in the way the article uses it is a gross oversimplification.
> 
> I find MTF charts useful for looking at the characteristics of a given lens but is very elastic when comparing lenses.


No Mike. The size of the Airy Disk (diffraction spot) depends on on the focal length divided by the size of the pupil diameter, that is the f-number. It is the same size for any lens of the same f-number, independent of its focal length. See for example the equations in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk. The diameter of the Airy disk is ~1.22*wavelength*f-number.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 16, 2018)

Thanks Alan. 
I stumbled across this which explains it:

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

*



Technical Note: Independence of Focal Length

Click to expand...

*


> Since the physical size of an aperture is larger for telephoto lenses (f/4 has a 50 mm diameter at 200 mm, but only a 25 mm diameter at 100 mm), why doesn't the airy disk become smaller? This is because longer focal lengths also cause light to travel farther before hitting the camera sensor -- thus increasing the distance over which the airy disk can continue to diverge. The competing effects of larger aperture and longer focal length therefore cancel, leaving only the f-number as being important (which describes focal length relative to aperture size).


----------



## mjg79 (Aug 16, 2018)

I think a new 400mm 2.8 is inevitable.

Canon won't stop trying to improve such lenses anyway. But Sony threw down the gauntlet with their 400 2.8 GM. Not only is it a lot lighter but the weight is distributed much more to the centre so by all accounts it's far nicer to hold and shoot with.

I think in general Canon tends to follow its own path but when it comes to lenses like 70-200 2.8 and 300 and 400 2.8 lenses they will be keen to always fight back and stay ahead of the competition. To be known among professionals as having the best line up of telephoto lenses is great for the brand loyalty and prestige of Canon.

Sony really have got some great lens designers, that is beyond dispute. What I am curious about is whether they have improved quality control and manufacturing tolerances. Their 16-35 2.8 GM for example is probably the best wide angle 2.8 zoom on the market and on paper better than the Canon 16-35 L III. However lots of people buy them finding them to be badly de-centered at the longer end. The Sony Zeiss 35 1.4 is a lovely design, similar to the old Rollei/Contax 35 with a beautiful rendering but lots of credible people on fredmiranda report finding that after trying 4 or 5 copies they couldn't get a good one.

Surely Sony can't hope to sell a lens like the 400 GM with sloppy build quality but regardless it's an area I expect Canon (and Nikon) to stay ahead in.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 16, 2018)

My last gasp will come long before that of EF lenses.


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 17, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I did not mean that we are going to wake up on a certain date within the next 12 months and find that EF is no longer produced, sold or serviced, but that we are in a time of transition--with EF already planned for a gentle phase out. Certainly there have been tweaks in the pipeline, some small, some large, and they are being introduced now. But if the best possible mirrorless Canon can build to compete and excite involves a new mount, EF will no longer be the sole focus of lens development, obviously. EOS will remain for sale for some years, and adapters will extend the use of EF beyond that.



And Canon will replace EF with some other mount because... ?


----------



## docsmith (Aug 17, 2018)

I was wondering a bit on this rumor. It could be the 400 III looks a heckuva lot like the 400 II. But it is a bit odd that no one has seen one of these floating around in the wild.


----------



## kiwiengr (Aug 17, 2018)

Perhaps the difference from MKII to MKIII is an Arca compatible foot?


----------



## sanj (Aug 17, 2018)

A definite object of desire.


----------



## TAW (Aug 17, 2018)

I would love to see a 400 with a built in extender (don't expect to but can hope). My real hope is the next version of the extenders could remain independent of the lens (like they are today) but have an engage / disengage feature similar to the 200-400. I am not sure if that is optically possible? Regardless, if it is possible, I think the ability to have the extender on the lens and be able to engage and disengage it (without having to physically remove it) would be really valuable (and something I would be willing to pay nicely for...)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2018)

TAW said:


> My real hope is the next version of the extenders could remain independent of the lens (like they are today) but have an engage / disengage feature similar to the 200-400. I am not sure if that is optically possible?


_Technically_ possible, but practically not going to happen because of a very undesirable result. Such an extender, with the optics disengaged, would essentially be an extension tube – providing a shorter minimum focus distance with a concomitant increase in max magnification, but at the cost of preventing distant/infinity focus. Since you generally use a supetele lens with distant subjects, a switchable TC that prevents you from focusing on those distanct subjects when disengaged is basically a non-starter.

With the 200-400mm lens, the TC is in front of the rear element groups, not behind them as an external TC is placed.


----------



## ethanz (Aug 17, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> With the 200-400mm lens, the TC is in front of the rear element groups, not behind them as an external TC is placed.



So is that why on the 200-400 you can focus to infinity?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2018)

ethanz said:


> So is that why on the 200-400 you can focus to infinity?


Yup.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 17, 2018)

Canoneer said:


> I've only found it possible to obtain a usable image in post-processing using added contrast if I overexpose by about 2/3 of a stop or more, and have a very well balanced histogram on all of my RGB channels. I'll almost always prefer using a bare lens and cropping to my desired focal length in post than using a TC and boosting contrast. That's just me though.



Well we all have our preferences  I've never had to add extra contrast when using the 500L II + 1.4x III simply because of the extender. I'd still expect that if someone posted images taken with a bare supertelephoto lens and the same lens with a 1.4x extender (mark II or mark III) it would be very difficult to tell which were taken with which setup, but that's just my personal experience.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 17, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> _Technically_ possible, but practically not going to happen because of a very undesirable result. Such an extender, with the optics disengaged, would essentially be an extension tube – providing a shorter minimum focus distance with a concomitant increase in max magnification, but at the cost of preventing distant/infinity focus. Since you generally use a supetele lens with distant subjects, a switchable TC that prevents you from focusing on those distanct subjects when disengaged is basically a non-starter.
> 
> With the 200-400mm lens, the TC is in front of the rear element groups, not behind them as an external TC is placed.



You are so wise


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 18, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> This seems to me like a check the box release. Perhaps automated manufacturing, slightly better AF, a few grams lighter; but really not coveted like some other lenses. The 400mm DO II now rules this category with the 100-400 a good all-rounder alternative. Those who want the niche 2.8 already have it for the most part.





takesome1 said:


> _"Upgrades for these lenses will likely focus on weight reduction and updated coatings. We expect the optical formulas to remain about the same."_
> 
> Sounds like lipstick on a pig.
> 
> The positive here is maybe the used version II's go down in price.





RGF said:


> until I see specs I will withhold judgement as to how significant improvement this is.
> 
> Could be improved coatings and a slight weight reduction, or could be major change with drop extender.




The general assumption among those who have observed Canon since the EOS system was introduced in 1987 is that these "underwhelming" refreshes may also include some as yet unrevealed new capability that has to do with an impending release of a new camera in the relatively near future.

Kind of like back in 1995 when the first IS lens was introduced and pretty much all of the EOS bodies introduced since about 1992 already had the ability to control IS under the hood. But no one, including the owners of those cameras, had any clue until the first IS lens was released in 1995. That's when they found out the camera they bought back in 1992 was IS compatible. The same thing was seen earlier this year when Canon announced the new 470EX-AI flash with the new whiz-bang self pointing bounce flash head. It turns out that every new EOS body released since 2014 already has the ability to control this new feature announced in 2018.

Just because Canon has not announced these "underwhelming" lens updates have new capabilities that are yet to be revealed does not mean they're not being built into the new lenses.


----------



## beegee (Aug 18, 2018)

Any idea if the “other” could be the 600 f/4 DO? With a lighter 400 f/2.8 and an even lighter 600 f/4 DO, would that not make a formidable combo?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2018)

beegee said:


> Any idea if the “other” could be the 600 f/4 DO? With a lighter 400 f/2.8 and an even lighter 600 f/4 DO, would that not make a formidable combo?


For the umteenth time, the rumor is about MkIII lenses. Not new focal length/aperture combos like a 500/5.6, not new lenses like a 600/4 DO, not adding built-in 1.4x TCs. Updated versions of current MkII lenses. That's all.


----------



## beegee (Aug 18, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> For the umteenth time, the rumor is about MkIII lenses. Not new focal length/aperture combos like a 500/5.6, not new lenses like a 600/4 DO, not adding built-in 1.4x TCs. Updated versions of current MkII lenses. That's all.



Sorry had missed the detail about MkIII. I thought it was two big whites, one happens to be the 400 f/2.8 MkIII and the other was undisclosed. Completely missed that the undisclosed was also a MkIII. SORRY.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 18, 2018)

jeffa4444 said:


> Sony wants to replace Canon as "the professionals camera of choice" and is mimicking all the lenses Canon do for professionals. What I don't see is true innovation and ground-breaking lens designs so whilst the "soft targets" are being replicated that's not really moving the game on such as the Canon EF 11-24mm f4L did with its rectilinear design.


Not to mention the fabulous new TSE lenses...


----------



## TAW (Aug 18, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> _Technically_ possible, but practically not going to happen because of a very undesirable result. Such an extender, with the optics disengaged, would essentially be an extension tube – providing a shorter minimum focus distance with a concomitant increase in max magnification, but at the cost of preventing distant/infinity focus. Since you generally use a supetele lens with distant subjects, a switchable TC that prevents you from focusing on those distanct subjects when disengaged is basically a non-starter.
> 
> With the 200-400mm lens, the TC is in front of the rear element groups, not behind them as an external TC is placed.



Great explanation. Thank you!


----------



## degos (Aug 18, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> For the umteenth time, the rumor is about MkIII lenses. Not new focal length/aperture combos like a 500/5.6, not new lenses like a 600/4 DO, not adding built-in 1.4x TCs. Updated versions of current MkII lenses. That's all.



We have no previous experience with what Canon would call an upgrade + TC. They might decide it's a Mk III, they might not. Repeating something you've based on personal conjecture doesn't make it any more true.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2018)

degos said:


> We have no previous experience with what Canon would call an upgrade + TC. They might decide it's a Mk III, they might not. Repeating something you've based on personal conjecture doesn't make it any more true.


Oh please. 

They put Extender 1.4x in the official name of the 200-400L. They're not going to add a TC _and _designate it a MkIII. 

Making illogical statements doesn't make them less asinine.


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 18, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Oh please.
> 
> They put Extender 1.4x in the official name of the 200-400L. They're not going to add a TC _and _designate it a MkIII.
> 
> Making illogical statements doesn't make them less asinine.


Especially when this was commented in this thread before, e.g. at post #9.


----------



## Pieter (Aug 18, 2018)

Exciting rumor - our experience with the 400 II in the Dragonfly team (https://www.dragonflytelescope.org/) is excellent, at least for our purposes; great to see continued work to make awesome lenses even better!


----------



## ethanz (Aug 18, 2018)

Pieter said:


> Exciting rumor - our experience with the 400 II in the Dragonfly team (https://www.dragonflytelescope.org/) is excellent, at least for our purposes; great to see continued work to make awesome lenses even better!



It is cool to see you post here. We've all heard about your project.


----------



## Thrashard (Sep 15, 2018)

I'm pretty much locked in and going to splurge and get the 400mm f/2.8 III next year. 

Could there be any chance Canon might release a 500mm 2.8 or are there limitations the larger the zoom ?


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 15, 2018)

Thrashard said:


> Could there be any chance Canon might release a 500mm 2.8 or are there limitations the larger the zoom ?



Yes - size. The front diameter would have to be 1.4 times the size of that on the f4. Then weight, then the price.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 15, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Yes - size. The front diameter would have to be 1.4 times the size of that on the f4. Then weight, then the price.


There's always a possibility...after all, it would be a bit smaller than the 1200mm f/5.6L.


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 15, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> There's always a possibility...after all, it would be a bit smaller than the 1200mm f/5.6L.


Only in length. A larger front element at f2.8


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 15, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> Only in length. A larger front element at f2.8


No, a 500/2.8 would have a smaller front element than the 1200/5.6 (and be shorter, obviously).


----------



## AlanF (Sep 15, 2018)

Pieter said:


> Exciting rumor - our experience with the 400 II in the Dragonfly team (https://www.dragonflytelescope.org/) is excellent, at least for our purposes; great to see continued work to make awesome lenses even better!


Are you using the array for our Dragonfly and Damselfly thread?


----------



## Pieter (Sep 16, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Are you using the array for our Dragonfly and Damselfly thread?



No but I did try for an afternoon! When we started building the array I tried out one of the 400's "in the wild" before we mounted it but they are no good for dragonflies, or at least the way I shoot them - I really need to walk around and be able to take shots quickly.. I use the 100-400 II on a 7D II for "portraits" and when I'm hunting for new species, the 100 f2.8 macro for close-ups, and the 300 f4 on a 5D III for in-flight shots (I prefer it over the 100-400 for that purpose because of its lower weight and its large focusing ring). The Dragonfly Array *is* named after the dragonfly photography as that helped inspire its development (the two mounts also kind of look like the eyes of a dragonfly).


----------

