# Firmware update coming to address Canon RF 70-200 focus issues at MFD



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 13, 2019)

> Canon has acknowledged focusing issues with the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM at its minimum focusing distance and is preparing a firmware update to address the issue, it looks like Canon will get this update out as soon as possible.
> Canon News was the first to aggregate the issues some users have experienced with the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. If you don’t use the lens at MFD, you won’t notice the troubles.



Continue reading...


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 13, 2019)

Great news.

And, just as a "Be open minded" reminder to all forum contributors, myself included, here is the dpreview link with one of the earliest and best demonstrated reports. Look at all the blowhard responses either questioning the OP's competence or claiming he is too picky. Here's one quote that sounds so sour and so familiar in tone:

"Gotta love pixel peepers. You didn't even notice this until you came across that thread. No one will ever notice that because no one but pixel peepers zoom into people’s pupils lol. Feel free to send me your lens if you don’t want it!"

Here's the link started by a smart, earnest, and persistent Canon customer:






My RF 70-200 f2.8 is front focusing: Canon EOS R Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.




www.dpreview.com


----------



## Architect1776 (Dec 14, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Great news. 
Canon does step up once they figure out the problem. 
Too many clowns accuse Canon of covering up, but they do not do knee jerk reactions. They wait, investigate and then find a solution. 
I do not see this in other manufacturers. 
Good for Canon stepping up when the matter was confirmed and a solution developed.


----------



## Tom W (Dec 14, 2019)

I've been following this on the FM forums for a few days. Even did a couple of MFD tests for the forum with my 100-400 and my Siggy 150-600 Contemporary, just to prove that those 2 lenses didn't have the problem when used with the adapter on the R.

I think Canon will be quick to fix this issue.


----------



## Photo Hack (Dec 14, 2019)

Anyone have any good samples of shots at 200mm at MFD? We’re buying this lens sooner or later and wondering if it can replace our Sigma 105mm Macro for basic macro shots. Mostly creative wedding and engagement ring shots.

Just one less lens to own and bring to shoots and weddings. Currently have the RF 35 1.8 IS Macro but would like the compression of a long lens. I should really do some test shots with the 35 as well.


----------



## Berowne (Dec 14, 2019)

The best news in this case is Canons swift reaction to the complaints.


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 14, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> Anyone have any good samples of shots at 200mm at MFD? We’re buying this lens sooner or later and wondering if it can replace our Sigma 105mm Macro for basic macro shots. Mostly creative wedding and engagement ring shots.
> 
> Just one less lens to own and bring to shoots and weddings. Currently have the RF 35 1.8 IS Macro but would like the compression of a long lens. I should really do some test shots with the 35 as well.



Don’t expect the RF 70-200 to replace a macro lens. It’s maximum magnification ratio is 0,23, far from macro territory.


----------



## Drcampbellicu (Dec 14, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Great news.
> Canon does step up once they figure out the problem.
> Too many clowns accuse Canon of covering up, but they do not do knee jerk reactions. They wait, investigate and then find a solution.
> I do not see this in other manufacturers.
> Good for Canon stepping up when the matter was confirmed and a solution developed.



it was the customers that figured out the problem. It was a news forum that highlighted it.

there’s an important role for customer feedback. It will force a company to respond if we aren’t all corporate zombies


----------



## Photo Hack (Dec 14, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> Don’t expect the RF 70-200 to replace a macro lens. It’s maximum magnification ratio is 0,23, far from macro territory.


Yeah I saw that but I’m curious how close it will be to just a similar look. I did the math weeks ago and tried to setup a test comparing 200mm from like 48” away vs 105mm 24” or so away from subject. I can’t remember the exact numbers but I’m looking for “good enough”. With 30mp and maybe more with the next R, I have no problem cropping in a lot too. 

Cool wedding ring shots aren’t the focus of a wedding, it’s a nice creative opportunity and a necessity for our album designs for our clients. But we don’t exactly need show stopping Macro shots either.

I’ve also considered extension tubes and know the limitations. A friend of mine who’s a Sony shooter has good results with one of his setups. A nice quick and easy way to get some macro shots in run and gun situations and not having to carry another lens.


----------



## Muggili (Dec 14, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> Anyone have any good samples of shots at 200mm at MFD? We’re buying this lens sooner or later and wondering if it can replace our Sigma 105mm Macro for basic macro shots. Mostly creative wedding and engagement ring shots.
> 
> Just one less lens to own and bring to shoots and weddings. Currently have the RF 35 1.8 IS Macro but would like the compression of a long lens. I should really do some test shots with the 35 as well.


yes, maybe I can show you mine. But this is only a home-made test. I sent it to Canon service Germany. No answer yet.
1. : tripod , Canon Eos r ,distance around 80 cm, 135mm f 2.8
2. tripod Canon eos r, distance around 1 80cm, 200mm f 2.8


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 14, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> Don’t expect the RF 70-200 to replace a macro lens. It’s maximum magnification ratio is 0,23, far from macro territory.



My primary macro lens is my 70-200 + extension tubes.

I find the design of all macro lenses to be just nuts. 50/2.8? 100/2.8? Macro lenses need to be long (so you don't have to be practically touching your subject) and slow (DOF is vanishingly small even at f/16 at 1:1 so why do I need f/2.8?). To me, an ideal macro lens would be a compact 300mm f/8 or something like that. Because no one makes any rational macro lenses, I use my 70-200, often with teleconverters.


----------



## Photo Hack (Dec 14, 2019)

Lee Jay said:


> My primary macro lens is my 70-200 + extension tubes.
> 
> I find the design of all macro lenses to be just nuts. 50/2.8? 100/2.8? Macro lenses need to be long (so you don't have to be practically touching your subject) and slow (DOF is vanishingly small even at f/16 at 1:1 so why do I need f/2.8?). To me, an ideal macro lens would be a compact 300mm f/8 or something like that. Because no one makes any rational macro lenses, I use my 70-200, often with teleconverters.


It really depends on what you're shooting. Working distance is definitely a factor depending on the subject. Have you looked at the Laowa lenses? I'm really hoping 200mm with half the MFD as the previous version will get me in the ball park of our 105mm Macro. Yeah the 2.8 maximum aperture isn't really necessary as a setting to use, but it helps bring in more light for better focusing......if you're even using AF. But again, nice to have the option if you're tracking a slow moving subject. 

Which extension tubes are you using? 









Laowa Launches New Lenses for Canon RF & Nikon Z Mirrorless Cameras


Laowa 15mm f/2 is the widest f/2 lens for Nikon Z & Canon RF mount cameras while the Laowa 10-18mm is the widest full frame zoom lens for Nikon Z mount cameras.




www.slrlounge.com


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 14, 2019)

I use Kenko extension tubes.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 14, 2019)

Lee Jay said:


> My primary macro lens is my 70-200 + extension tubes.
> 
> I find the design of all macro lenses to be just nuts. 50/2.8? 100/2.8? Macro lenses need to be long (so you don't have to be practically touching your subject) and slow (DOF is vanishingly small even at f/16 at 1:1 so why do I need f/2.8?). To me, an ideal macro lens would be a compact 300mm f/8 or something like that. Because no one makes any rational macro lenses, I use my 70-200, often with teleconverters.



LOL. Okay  

Fwiw I tried using the 70-200 L IS II as a 'macro' lens after I returned a faulty 180mm true macro lens, but it wasn't at all suitable. Not only is the maximum magnification too low, it's less sharp wide open, and had more fringing. It depends what your're shooting of course, but I'd tend to use a long macro lens wide open - I don't want my flowers or insects on a busy background. f/8? I'd rather do a small focus stack. (There are exceptions, like moths on a plain surface, or extreme work with the MP-E).

I'm genuinely intrigued what you'd be shooting at 300mm f/8, or what kind of image you'd be hoping to achieve with that setup. As an aside, have you considered that things seem 'nuts' because you're an outlier?


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 14, 2019)

Lee Jay said:


> I use Kenko extension tubes.



Is there any extension tubes that work with RF lenses?


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 14, 2019)

scyrene said:


> I'm genuinely intrigued what you'd be shooting at 300mm f/8, or what kind of image you'd be hoping to achieve with that setup.



I'd like to achieve a high-magnification image that's sharp and with the deepest possible depth-of-field (diffraction-limited).



> As an aside, have you considered that things seem 'nuts' because you're an outlier?



I seriously hope so.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 14, 2019)

Lee Jay said:


> I'd like to achieve a high-magnification image that's sharp and with the deepest possible depth-of-field (diffraction-limited).



But of what? Could you post one? I'm always interested to see other people's approaches.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 14, 2019)

scyrene said:


> But of what? Could you post one? I'm always interested to see other people's approaches.



Most of them are taken for engineering purposes (fracture surfaces and such). I don't shoot bugs.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 15, 2019)

Lee Jay said:


> Most of them are taken for engineering purposes (fracture surfaces and such). I don't shoot bugs.



Oh fair enough. I can see why you'd want large DOF in that case. But you can stop down at least.


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 15, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> Don’t expect the RF 70-200 to replace a macro lens. It’s maximum magnification ratio is 0,23, far from macro territory.


Given the fact he said he will be using for wedding rings and other such shots, I think its possible to get away with .23x mag ratio. I have been using 100-400mm to photograph lizards(skinks and agamas) as they are too skittish even for 180mm macro.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 15, 2019)

scyrene said:


> But of what? Could you post one? I'm always interested to see other people's approaches.



Granted there is a Nikon microscopic objective attached to this Canon 70-200mm, but, clearly, when modified accordingly, it is suitable for ULTRA macro!









Each of These Extreme Macro Mineral Photos is Made Up of Over 25,000 Individual Images


Extreme macro photographer Chris Perani specializes in capturing the natural world in extreme detail. His latest series "Minerals" gives us a peek at the




petapixel.com


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 15, 2019)

Chaitanya said:


> Given the fact he said he will be using for wedding rings and other such shots, I think its possible to get away with .23x mag ratio. I have been using 100-400mm to photograph lizards(skinks and agamas) as they are too skittish even for 180mm macro.



For comparison purposes, the EF 70-200 L III has a 0,21 mag ratio. The RF lens will therefore just be marginally better the the EF lens for “macro” work.


----------



## Tom W (Dec 15, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> Anyone have any good samples of shots at 200mm at MFD? We’re buying this lens sooner or later and wondering if it can replace our Sigma 105mm Macro for basic macro shots. Mostly creative wedding and engagement ring shots.
> 
> Just one less lens to own and bring to shoots and weddings. Currently have the RF 35 1.8 IS Macro but would like the compression of a long lens. I should really do some test shots with the 35 as well.



The 70-200 minimum focus distance is around 2.3 feet for a maximum magnification of 0.21X (typically, Macro is defined as 1.00X). 

A better choice for "almost-Macro" might be the 100-400 f/4-5.5 II lens, with an MFD of 3.2 feet, but a maximum magnification of 0.31X. Essentially, you can be a little farther from your subject and still have a little bit greater magnification.

Neither is a true Macro, but they can cover a pretty significant part of the Macro range, giving great results on objects 1-2 inches in width/height. 

Something else that might prove helpful, if you have the RP, the focus stacking (Canon calls it focus bracketing) feature can give you a huge depth-of-field by combining several images in DPP with slightly varying focus distance to give the impression that the entire object is in focus. It's not perfect, but works well.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 15, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> Anyone have any good samples of shots at 200mm at MFD? We’re buying this lens sooner or later and wondering if it can replace our Sigma 105mm Macro for basic macro shots. Mostly creative wedding and engagement ring shots.
> 
> Just one less lens to own and bring to shoots and weddings. Currently have the RF 35 1.8 IS Macro but would like the compression of a long lens. I should really do some test shots with the 35 as well.



The ef 100mm f/2.8L IS is light, affordable, and perfect for these kinds of shots. And it works so well on the EOS R. But, I get it, changing lenses on the run slows things down. The ongoing dilemma of interchangeable lens cameras.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 15, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> The ef 100mm f/2.8L IS is light, affordable, and perfect for these kinds of shots. And it works so well on the EOS R. But, I get it, changing lenses on the run slows things down. The ongoing dilemma of interchangeable lens cameras.


The solution is one of those 100X superzooms p/s cameras


----------



## R1-7D (Dec 15, 2019)

Now hopefully Canon will issue a firmware update for the weird lines that are appearing when shooting one of their fast primes at f/1.2 (even with mechanical shutter).


----------



## scyrene (Dec 15, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Granted there is a Nikon microscopic objective attached to this Canon 70-200mm, but, clearly, when modified accordingly, it is suitable for ULTRA macro!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ha! That's interesting, but what an odd setup!


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 15, 2019)

R1-7D said:


> Now hopefully Canon will issue a firmware update for the weird lines that are appearing when shooting one of their fast primes at f/1.2 (even with mechanical shutter).



Camera settings, please?


----------



## R1-7D (Dec 16, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Camera settings, please?



Those are crops from images taken with the RF 85 f/1.2L wide open at 1/8000s at iso 100. The settings don’t particularly matter, as long as there is a strong light source and the lens is at f/1.2. Additionally, the electronic shutter was fully turned off. 

This happens with the RF 50 f/1.2 and EF variants of the same lenses as well.

I started a thread about it over at DPReview:https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4445504

The lines don’t appear using Capture One Pro or Skylum’s Luminar 4. They show in Lightroom, Photoshop, and Canon’s own DPP software.


----------



## Daner (Dec 16, 2019)

Lee Jay said:


> I'd like to achieve a high-magnification image that's sharp and with the deepest possible depth-of-field (diffraction-limited).



Sounds like a business case for the focus bracketing, stacking, and composing feature from the EOS RP. Just wish that Canon would make it available via firmware on the EOS R as well.


----------



## Architect1776 (Dec 16, 2019)

Drcampbellicu said:


> it was the customers that figured out the problem. It was a news forum that highlighted it.
> 
> there’s an important role for customer feedback. It will force a company to respond if we aren’t all corporate zombies



Yes, consumers bring the problem to attention of Canon. But if there is no instant response they get in a huff that canon is covering it up while they really are confirming the issue and then working on a fix before they do a knee jerk reaction. Too many scream if there is no resolution the instant that they think there is something wrong, Canon has to ensure it is not just an idiot not doing things right and there is a real, not imagined problem, then they need to engineer a solution and get it out.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 21, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Yes, consumers bring the problem to attention of Canon. But if there is no instant response they get in a huff that canon is covering it up while they really are confirming the issue and then working on a fix before they do a knee jerk reaction. Too many scream if there is no resolution the instant that they think there is something wrong, Canon has to ensure it is not just an idiot not doing things right and there is a real, not imagined problem, then they need to engineer a solution and get it out.


 What is the proper amount of time before we may start huffing?


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 21, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Yes, consumers bring the problem to attention of Canon. But if there is no instant response they get in a huff that canon is covering it up while they really are confirming the issue and then working on a fix before they do a knee jerk reaction. Too many scream if there is no resolution the instant that they think there is something wrong, Canon has to ensure it is not just an idiot not doing things right and there is a real, not imagined problem, then they need to engineer a solution and get it out.



Now that Canon has admitted the problem is real and exists, why did earlier on affected lenses that people sent into service get sent back with notes like "Works perfectly" attached?

There's "confirming the issue and then working on a fix" and then there's straight out lying.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 21, 2019)

Daner said:


> Sounds like a business case for the focus bracketing, stacking, and composing feature from the EOS RP. Just wish that Canon would make it available via firmware on the EOS R as well.


If they have it working on the RP, then hopefully they are getting it ready for an update for theR as well. That said, I thought that the RP had focus peaking, but not focus stacking?

I do not have this feature on any of my Canon cameras, it seems strange to me to put down a multi thousand $ DSLR and pick up a cheap P/S camera to do such a shot.....


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 22, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> If they have it working on the RP, then hopefully they are getting it ready for an update for theR as well. That said, I thought that the RP had focus peaking, but not focus stacking?



The RP has focus stacking, you can configure it to take N pictures in a certain focus range and the camera will move the focus for you and take all the pictures. The downside is that it won't use the mechanical shutter, only the electronic one. So no flash. 
And you'll have to do the actual stacking yourself on a computer, be it via DPP or something like Zerene.



Don Haines said:


> I do not have this feature on any of my Canon cameras, it seems strange to me to put down a multi thousand $ DSLR and pick up a cheap P/S camera to do such a shot.....



Canon is really weird with features, things like intervalometer, focus stacking, live streaming to youtube all showed up in "low end" models first. And sometimes the features arrives in higher end models, but not always.


----------



## Architect1776 (Dec 23, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> What is the proper amount of time before we may start huffing?



Huff all you want.
Canon will make the correction and do it right and not rush crap solution just to please bloggers etc.


----------



## Architect1776 (Dec 23, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> Now that Canon has admitted the problem is real and exists, why did earlier on affected lenses that people sent into service get sent back with notes like "Works perfectly" attached?
> 
> There's "confirming the issue and then working on a fix" and then there's straight out lying.



I do not answer "Why" for Canon.
Perhaps you can ask them this question.
I know I am great and nearly all knowing to you but this is one thing I cannot answer but canon can.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 23, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Huff all you want.
> Canon will make the correction and do it right and not rush crap solution just to please bloggers etc.


Huff!


----------



## Viggo (Jan 20, 2020)

Is no one bothered that the 70-200 mkIII has 1,5 stops of vignetting at 200 and the RF 70-200 has 3 stops?


----------



## Viggo (Jan 20, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I'm bothered. It's a compromise. Deep breath...Sigh...
> 
> OpticalLimits have test results showing 2.6 stops of vignette.
> 
> ...


TDP reports 3 stops, but they have a method of really bringing out the worst case scenario, they also reported a horrible vignetting with the RF50 where I didn’t see anything that bad, but I’m kind of concerned... didn’t look horrible in your example though, thanks for sharing


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 20, 2020)

Viggo said:


> Is no one bothered that the 70-200 mkIII has 1,5 stops of vignetting at 200 and the RF 70-200 has 3 stops?


Not really, I'm much more bothered by the fact that a 70-200 f2.8 now costs $2,699, basically $1,000 more than an EF version, an RF 24-70 f2.8 costs $2,299 up $700 from the EF $1,599, an RF 85 f1.2 costs $2,699 and that is $850 more than the EF version.

Now those RF lenses might be a joy to own, they might focus quicker, they might not have the same aberrations, etc etc but I am not seeing images that are $800-$1,000 'better', indeed in a blind test I doubt anybody other than a few geeks could tell the differences. 

These new lenses are designed by computers and manufactured by robots Canon designed and built, they should be cheaper than the EF equivalents not more expensive!


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 21, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Not really, I'm much more bothered by the fact that a 70-200 f2.8 now costs $2,699, basically $1,000 more than an EF version, an RF 24-70 f2.8 costs $2,299 up $700 from the EF $1,599, an RF 85 f1.2 costs $2,699 and that is $850 more than the EF version.
> 
> Now those RF lenses might be a joy to own, they might focus quicker, they might not have the same aberrations, etc etc but I am not seeing images that are $800-$1,000 'better', indeed in a blind test I doubt anybody other than a few geeks could tell the differences.
> 
> These new lenses are designed by computers and manufactured by robots Canon designed and built, they should be cheaper than the EF equivalents not more expensive!



It's painful. They always go down, but part of the problem now is Canon is selling less volume than in the past, yet still must sustain production and service.

I hope the high prices don't further strangle the interchangeable lens industry. Maybe Sigma and Tamron will find opportunity, but then that hurts Canon's volume again, so...

You do have a good point about automation, but fewer sales means a larger markup per unit is necessary.

Then there is the harsh reality of inflation:






Calculate the Value of $1,800 in 2000. How much is it worth today?







www.dollartimes.com


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 21, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> It's painful. They always go down, but part of the problem now is Canon is selling less volume than in the past, yet still must sustain production and service.
> 
> I hope the high prices don't further strangle the interchangeable lens industry. Maybe Sigma and Tamron will find opportunity, but then that hurts Canon's volume again, so...
> 
> ...


The cost has played a large factor in my adopting the R system, I haven't!

If purchasing a mediocre body and three f2.8 zooms is going to cost me over $10,000 I want to see the differences in output and I just don't. That kind of investment puts the R system out of reach of most working pros, that is, those that buy their gear with the money it earns them.


----------

