# Canon releases a product advisory for the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III and EF 600mm f/4L IS III



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 18, 2019)

> From Canon:
> We would like to inform you of the firmware for the interchangeable lens “EF 400mm F2.8L IS III USM” and “EF 600 mm F4L IS III USM” for SLR cameras, which will be released soon.
> Products
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## ethanz (Mar 18, 2019)

That is an interesting bug


----------



## max_sr (Mar 18, 2019)

"in combination with select cameras* "

* almost all cameras


----------



## tron (Mar 18, 2019)

Will the owners have to send their lenses back to Canon just like they had to send back the version II white teles in order to have them upgraded or this time the owners will be able to upgrade them through their cameras?


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 18, 2019)

tron said:


> Will the owners have to send their lenses back to Canon just like they had to send back the version II white teles in order to have them upgraded or this time the owners will be able to upgrade them through their cameras?


My guess would be almost certainly the later.


----------



## melgross (Mar 18, 2019)

I don’t see any listing for the R and RP. I wonder if they, along with the adapters, work without a problem.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 18, 2019)

melgross said:


> I don’t see any listing for the R and RP. I wonder if they, along with the adapters, work without a problem.


6DII also missing, meaning the 'fix' was applied to the newest camera firmwares prior to release.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 18, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> My guess would be almost certainly the later.


Hope so, for the users' sake. I'm less certain – as @tron pointed out, the MkII superteles had to be sent in for the post-launch firmware update, and that was _after_ Canon pushed out the firmware update for the 40/2.8 pancake that users could install themselves with newer camera bodies.


----------



## degos (Mar 18, 2019)

I can't imagine the tension of flashing firmware to a $15k lens


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 18, 2019)

degos said:


> I can't imagine the tension of flashing firmware to a $15k lens


Can you imagine the tension of UPS or Fedex tossing your $15k box around as it’s shipped to and back from Canon for a firmware download?


----------



## tron (Mar 19, 2019)

Fortunately this seems a rather unimportant issue since it affects only video and there are work-around methods. Personally I would ignore it. Of course other people could chose differently.


----------



## Rudeofus (Mar 19, 2019)

tron said:


> and there are work-around methods.


If the work around is "use only Tv and P mode", the "there are work-around methods" doesn't cut it.


----------



## tron (Mar 19, 2019)

Rudeofus said:


> If the work around is "use only Tv and P mode", the "there are work-around methods" doesn't cut it.


OK, I am not experienced with video (I don't shoot) but that's why I said other people could chose differently.


----------



## ethanz (Mar 19, 2019)

And I think the amount of people who use a 400 or 600 for video is very slim. The 200-400 would be a better choice for video I think.


----------



## FramerMCB (Mar 19, 2019)

ethanz said:


> And I think the amount of people who use a 400 or 600 for video is very slim. The 200-400 would be a better choice for video I think.


I think the Sigma 200-500mm f2.8 would be the best super-telephoto zoom for video... nice and heavy so when mounted on a hefty tripod setup, fairly stable (don't use in high-wind though). And that lens will only set one back about $29K USD... ;-)


----------



## FramerMCB (Mar 19, 2019)

ethanz said:


> And I think the amount of people who use a 400 or 600 for video is very slim. The 200-400 would be a better choice for video I think.


Surveillance video...?


----------

