# Review: Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III USM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 5, 2019)

> Most of the talk around Canon is about the EOS R system and RF mount lenses, but Canon has recently released two brilliant new super telephoto lenses, one being the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III USM.
> Bryan at the The-Digital-Picture has completed his review of the new king of the 400’s. Needless to say, the review is glowing.
> With superb build quality, a moderately-long telephoto focal length, an ultra-wide aperture, a fast and precise AF system, and extremely-high-grade image quality, the built-for-speed EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III package works exceedingly-well for serious, discerning sports photographers, wildlife photographers and photojournalists. This is the type of lens that will have under-funded photographers digging through their gear kits searching for anything that might be considered non-essential and potentially contributing to the 400mm f/2.8L IS III fund...



Continue reading...


----------



## ethanz (Feb 5, 2019)

Seems like Brian has no qualms about the image quality of the new lens with its weight reduction. Very tempting


----------



## AlanF (Feb 5, 2019)

It is very disappointing with a 2xTC - see https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0 where it is much softer than the II. It's even worse with a 7DII. The 400mm DO II is looks better https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0


----------



## ethanz (Feb 5, 2019)

AlanF said:


> It is very disappointing with a 2xTC - see https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0 where it is much softer than the II. It's even worse with a 7DII. The 400mm DO II is looks better https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0



Good catch. Surprisingly it is actually better on the corners lol.


----------



## dolina (Feb 5, 2019)

I do wonder if Canon will eventually offer a service to convert the the 400 & 600 from an EF mount to a RF mount. They did this before with the FD200mm f/1.8L in the late 80s


----------



## Angler13 (Feb 5, 2019)

According to the graphics in the Full Review, several of the large glass elements and groups have been moved back toward the back of the lens to make it lighter and more balanced. The only way to move them back is to use smaller glass.

So, since they are using less glass and less large pieces of glass, the cost should be considerably less too... right? Right Canon? Is this thing on?


----------



## Act444 (Feb 5, 2019)

He had this to say regarding handholding the lens:



> This lens is far lighter than its predecessor, but it is still not a light lens to handhold and handholding it completely unsupported (no help from an elbow resting against the body) for the many hundreds of images required for a complete image stabilization test session was a bit of a workout.



...and knowing how modest he tends to be with his language, I will take this to mean it is still not a handholdable lens, at least not in the way the 300 is...


----------



## SeanS (Feb 5, 2019)

dolina said:


> I do wonder if Canon will eventually offer a service to convert the the 400 & 600 from an EF mount to a RF mount. They did this before with the FD200mm f/1.8L in the late 80s


They also did it with the Canon FD 1200mm f/5.6L USM.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 5, 2019)

Wow! Checking the price, I was expecting more. Only if I were a pro shooter would I even start dreaming of having this, mainly because it is still pretty heavy for anyone who is getting up there in years. That alone makes me pretty content to be using the 400 DO II.

Now if I were young and athletic (and rich ) like Ethan, I'd just run out and buy it.

Alan, it's nice to see that we don't do too badly with the DO (X2) considering it's "low" price.

Jack


----------



## knight427 (Feb 5, 2019)

SeanS said:


> They also did it with the Canon FD 1200mm f/5.6L USM.


 I assume the demand will be much smaller since the EF lenses can be used with a glass-less adapter. I imagine their retrofit would just be permanently adding the adapter (but painted to match!) But who knows.


----------



## ethanz (Feb 5, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> Now if I were young and athletic (and rich ) like Ethan, I'd just run out and buy it.
> 
> 
> Jack



 Not all those adjectives necessarily describe me, Jack. Compared to most of you old men though, it might be true.


----------



## docsmith (Feb 5, 2019)

Act444 said:


> ...and knowing how modest he tends to be with his language, I will take this to mean it is still not a handholdable lens, at least not in the way the 300 is...



It is lighter than the 500 f/4 II, which I handhold all the time. I've walked miles with it attached to a black rapid strap, taking pictures along the way. So, I completely expect the 400 III to be "handholdable." 

But...your caveat is dead on, it isn't like a 70-200 f/2.8, 100-400 II, or the 300 f/2.8 II.


----------



## ethanz (Feb 5, 2019)

docsmith said:


> It is lighter than the 500 f/4 II, which I handhold all the time. I've walked miles with it attached to a black rapid strap, taking pictures along the way. So, I completely expect the 400 III to be "handholdable."
> 
> But...your caveat is dead on, it isn't like a 70-200 f/2.8, 100-400 II, or the 300 f/2.8 II.



And I don't think we should expect it to be like one of those lenses. It is a 400 f2.8. 

Handholdable is very subjective anyways.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 5, 2019)

dolina said:


> I do wonder if Canon will eventually offer a service to convert the the 400 & 600 from an EF mount to a RF mount. They did this before with the FD200mm f/1.8L in the late 80s



I doubt it. The RF adapter is already available and offers no loss in quality. Not sure how much of a market there would be for conversions, which would simply mean your lens wouldn't work on DSLRs any more. Anyone opting for the conversion better plan on being buried with the lens, because it would likely make it much harder to sell or trade.


----------



## dolina (Feb 5, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I doubt it. The RF adapter is already available and offers no loss in quality. Not sure how much of a market there would be for conversions, which would simply mean your lens wouldn't work on DSLRs any more. Anyone opting for the conversion better plan on being buried with the lens, because it would likely make it much harder to sell or trade.



DSLRs are on the way out. CIPA number shows that mirrorless are *replacing* and _not adding_ to interchangeable lens camera body sales.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 5, 2019)

Angler13 said:


> According to the graphics in the Full Review, several of the large glass elements and groups have been moved back toward the back of the lens to make it lighter and more balanced. The only way to move them back is to use smaller glass.
> 
> So, since they are using less glass and less large pieces of glass, the cost should be considerably less too... right? Right Canon? Is this thing on?


No, not necessarily. What are the manufacturing cost differences between the two and the R&D? Labor? It might very well have been just as expensive to make.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 5, 2019)

dolina said:


> DSLRs are on the way out. CIPA number shows that mirrorless are *replacing* and _not adding_ to interchangeable lens camera body sales.


Mount conversion would = adding a permanent adapter, essentially. Still have to make up for the flange distance difference. Probably not profit in it.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 5, 2019)

ethanz said:


> Not all those adjectives necessarily describe me, Jack. Compared to most of you old men though, it might be true.


So, you are rich?


----------



## AlanF (Feb 5, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> Wow! Checking the price, I was expecting more. Only if I were a pro shooter would I even start dreaming of having this, mainly because it is still pretty heavy for anyone who is getting up there in years. That alone makes me pretty content to be using the 400 DO II.
> 
> Now if I were young and athletic (and rich ) like Ethan, I'd just run out and buy it.
> 
> ...


The 2xTC lives on my 400mm DO II when it is on the 5DIV, so it is a real hoot that the lens beats out its big brother!


----------



## kaptainkatsu (Feb 5, 2019)

I really hope Canon comes out with a Version 3 300/2.8 with similar weight reductions.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 5, 2019)

AlanF said:


> It is very disappointing with a 2xTC - see https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0 where it is much softer than the II. It's even worse with a 7DII. The 400mm DO II is looks better https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0



I wonder how much of that is because of the weakness of the 2x TC. The bare lens and 1.4x are much closer in the comparison. Perhaps the correction residuals of the III is in the same "direction" as the 2x TC which makes the overall IQ weaker whereas the DO/II are in the opposite "direction" as the 2x TC so that some of the aberrations are cancelling. Perhaps it is time to roll out version IV of the TCs. At the very least they can update the paint color. 

Did anyone else notice that the review also states the lens is ONLY compatible with version III of the TC/extenders? I wonder why...


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 6, 2019)

Wonder how many II owners will update for weight since IQ doesn't seem to be a good reason? I would not be too happy with that converter degrade on such a lens. 

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Feb 6, 2019)

Just checked the Canon MTF values. They are in https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...ef/super-telephoto/ef-400mm-f-2-8l-is-iii-usm under Resources. They are not in the usual format and the link to the explanation is broken. But, whatever they are, they drop off with the 2xTC. It looks like Canon needs to issue a specific 2xTCIV just for the new 400 and 600mm lenses, which seems like a serious omission for $12000+ lenses.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 6, 2019)

Alan, I learned on CR that serious photographers don't use teleconverters. And guess why; they degrade the photo.

But since I'm not serious it's OK.

The MTFs for the 400 DO II with 1.4X and 2X look decent.

Jack


----------



## Pape (Feb 6, 2019)

its logical new lenses gives lesser quality .smaller lenses bigger errors on shaping.
teleconverter doubles chromatic abberation and other errors so they visible more clear.
Converter lenses are very small too ,i guess they add lot of errors also.


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 6, 2019)

Angler13 said:


> According to the graphics in the Full Review, several of the large glass elements and groups have been moved back toward the back of the lens to make it lighter and more balanced. The only way to move them back is to use smaller glass.
> 
> So, since they are using less glass and less large pieces of glass, the cost should be considerably less too... right? Right Canon? Is this thing on?



Not necessarily, since some types of optical glass can cost a fortune!


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 6, 2019)

Random Orbits said:


> I wonder how much of that is because of the weakness of the 2x TC. The bare lens and 1.4x are much closer in the comparison. Perhaps the correction residuals of the III is in the same "direction" as the 2x TC which makes the overall IQ weaker whereas the DO/II are in the opposite "direction" as the 2x TC so that some of the aberrations are cancelling. Perhaps it is time to roll out version IV of the TCs. At the very least they can update the paint color.
> 
> Did anyone else notice that the review also states the lens is ONLY compatible with version III of the TC/extenders? I wonder why...



I wouldn't be surprised if Canon introduced someday a new (specific?) extender.


----------



## Cochese (Feb 6, 2019)

dolina said:


> DSLRs are on the way out. CIPA number shows that mirrorless are *replacing* and _not adding_ to interchangeable lens camera body sales.



Considering the lenses already work on the RF system via a simple adapter (or a more complex one, if you choose), seems rather silly to go full conversion. Though, I suppose if people were willing to waste their money on it, they'd offer it.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 6, 2019)

The MTF charts in https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...ef/super-telephoto/ef-400mm-f-2-8l-is-iii-usm "Resources" are quite differently presented from in the past. Previously, thick lines were for 10 lp/mm and thin 30 lp/mm, black for wide open and blues for f/8. Now, there are just think lines and blue is worse than black. I guess that black may now be the 10 lp/mm, blue 30 lp/mm, and the results are for wide open only. If so, the III lens is worse at f/2.8 at 400mm, 560mm and 800mm. The same is true for the 600mm III vs II. But, the-digital-picture images show the 400mm II and III to be very similar at 400 and 560mm. There is currently no explanation on the Canon USA site for the change in presentation of the charts.


----------



## Pape (Feb 6, 2019)

second two lenses from main lense are removing chromatic abberation right? and they lot smaller now ,maybe they dont do just as good as big ones.
It looks more bluish on dicital picture com compare when compared to ii model with 2x. so maybe it doesnt bend blue light right and its comes visible with 2x?


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 6, 2019)

dolina said:


> I do wonder if Canon will eventually offer a service to convert the the 400 & 600 from an EF mount to a RF mount. They did this before with the FD200mm f/1.8L in the late 80s


No they didn’t. They released the EF version first and then under pressure from heavily invested FD using pros released a very limited number of FD versions. They never offered a service to ‘convert’ the 200 f1.8.


----------



## FramerMCB (Feb 6, 2019)

Cochese said:


> Considering the lenses already work on the RF system via a simple adapter (or a more complex one, if you choose), seems rather silly to go full conversion. Though, I suppose if people were willing to waste their money on it, they'd offer it.



I predict Canon offering it once (and if) they stop making DSLR's. I don't necessarily see DSLR's going away, but maybe. I'm not sure how much testing anyone has done yet with an EOS R, an adapter, a 1.4X or 2X TC, and a big white to see how that all works together. One would think it would be rather seamless, but then again, that is adding more connections that have to be "communicated" across from lens to camera body and back... (I'm not a technical guy so...)


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 6, 2019)

SeanS said:


> They also did it with the Canon FD 1200mm f/5.6L USM.


No they didn’t.

Canon never sold the FD 1200 (with built in 1.4TC), they made a very limited number of them that Canon Japan owned and lent out on occasions. They then disassembled all of them and rebodied the elements into the EF versions, minus the 1.4 TC, and did sell them commercially.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Feb 6, 2019)

- I like to use my tele lens with a lens2scope for direct viewing. It's fantastic what image quality even the 100-400ii gives. the new superteles can not be used this way, because they can not be focused without camera. Canon should offer a lens2scope themselves, which can activate the IS system (with included battery of course) I would preorder it just now.
- Handholdable is relative, people are very different in strength. One finds a 70-200 2.8 not handholdable for a longer time, the other can manage a much heavier combination.
- The price is almost 2x the version ii. it's one very expensively saved kilo (even if the balance may be better on top
- In the TDP measurements one can find more inconsistent results, if one compares them to the MTF lines, especially in the super teles. So, the worse center result with 1 of the extenders may be sample variation, a small defocussing or any other influence. I would be confident the lens is fantastic anyways and the better IS system alone may compensate for this little slip up (if it's real)
- I don't think the is a possibility to judge on IQ based of bloc diagrams, the optical design optimizes so many parameter to get the optimum out f a optical concept, that discussing element sizes and assumed production tolerances of them it just unqualified guessing.
- the EF/RF discussion and assuming DSLR's are dead etc, are in the wrong place. The shooting costs when such equipment is used are so high, that a early replacement of a EF lens or having a special EF camera for this lens is peanuts in the overall costs, and the adapter is not that heavy and doesn't hurt when shooting a football game. So, I would not expect to see any ii versions at the next Olympics, Formula 1, or FIFA events. At such events, it's a small part of the cost to have the best equipment available. Even for amateurs, if I can afford shooting penguins in Antarctica, updating a camera or lens can not be the problem, I would go with the best equipment available, and do some training just before I go, to avoid handling errors.


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 13, 2019)

dolina said:


> I do wonder if Canon will eventually offer a service to convert the the 400 & 600 from an EF mount to a RF mount. They did this before with the FD200mm f/1.8L in the late 80s



I'm late to the discussion, and new to Canon, after making the awkward switch from Nikon. Due to lenses like this and the new RF 70-200. Those two lenses cover the long range (starting as a friendly 70mm distance for everyday family photos) without leaving room to dream of something better. (A small fast prime and the 11-24 cover the rest).

My fear is that after dropping $12k on this, they'll come out with an RF version and I'll have to trade in expensively. But a factory conversion would be ideal. My patent-pending invention includes the notion of an RF lens sold with a visually-integrated "adapter" that removes for EF use. Preferably removable only when the lens is detached. I do wish that for $12k they offered a white control-ring adapter that was styled to match.

Another option is an RF adapter with switchable tele-converter.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 14, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> Wow! Checking the price, I was expecting more. Only if I were a pro shooter would I even start dreaming of having this, mainly because it is still pretty heavy for anyone who is getting up there in years. That alone makes me pretty content to be using the 400 DO II.
> 
> Now if I were young and athletic (and rich ) like Ethan, I'd just run out and buy it.
> 
> ...



No matter what one's net worth is, "rich" is always those with more than what one has themself.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 14, 2019)

dolina said:


> DSLRs are on the way out. CIPA number shows that mirrorless are *replacing* and _not adding_ to interchangeable lens camera body sales.



it seems to me, though, that the use cases for a 400mm f/2.8 lens are also some of the last use cases that will see movement from DSLR to mirrorless cameras.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 14, 2019)

AlanF said:


> The 2xTC lives on my 400mm DO II when it is on the 5DIV, so it is a real hoot that the lens beats out its big brother!



Flat test chart performance at relatively close distances can sometimes be different than actual performance at more typical distances for which a 400mm lens is used.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 14, 2019)

Optics Patent said:


> I'm late to the discussion, and new to Canon, after making the awkward switch from Nikon. Due to lenses like this and the new RF 70-200. Those two lenses cover the long range (starting as a friendly 70mm distance for everyday family photos) without leaving room to dream of something better. (A small fast prime and the 11-24 cover the rest).
> 
> My fear is that after dropping $12k on this, they'll come out with an RF version and I'll have to trade in expensively. But a factory conversion would be ideal. My patent-pending invention includes the notion of an RF lens sold with a visually-integrated "adapter" that removes for EF use. Preferably removable only when the lens is detached. I do wish that for $12k they offered a white control-ring adapter that was styled to match.
> 
> Another option is an RF adapter with switchable tele-converter.



To make a TC switchable, it needs to be in front of the bare lens' registration (flange-focal) distance. That is, it needs to be integrated into the lens itself. Otherwise, when the TC elements are removed from the optical path, the lens is the thickness of the TC too far from the camera.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 14, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Flat test chart performance at relatively close distances can sometimes be different than actual performance at more typical distances for which a 400mm lens is used.


That can indeed be true. One example is the Nikon 200-500mm, which is optimised for distances used by reviewers for charts.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 15, 2019)

AlanF said:


> That can indeed be true. One example is the Nikon 200-500mm, which is optimised for distances used by reviewers for charts.


OK, I'll believe you but is this documented?

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Dec 15, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> OK, I'll believe you but is this documented?
> 
> Jack


It was documented in an early review of the Sigma 150-600mm vs Tamron vs Nikon 200-500mm at various distances. Finding it again will take time.

Edit.

Ok, it’s in here, go down to the photos of the condor. https://photographylife.com/nikon-200-500mm-vs-tamron-150-600mm-vs-sigma-150-600mm-c

It’s a good review with tips about copy variation.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 15, 2019)

AlanF said:


> It was documented in an early review of the Sigma 150-600mm vs Tamron vs Nikon 200-500mm at various distances. Finding it again will take time.
> 
> Edit.
> 
> ...


 Thanks.

Jack


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 16, 2019)

For those for whom this is handholdable it would be nice to offer a cover for where the foot attaches. Or better still an ultra light cover ring to replace the tripod ring and cover the bearing surface. White vinyl tape anyone? 

Canon materials say that the small monopod foot replacement of the tripod foot requires factory service. Four screws. If they made me send it back I’d have the last laugh and remove the whole ring and send that alone. (Yes, warranty worriers, I know the risks).

Simplest solution is to make a little plastic cap to replace the foot. If lens weight savings are $4000 per two pounds then removing a two ounce part adds about $250 in value, right?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 17, 2019)

Optics Patent said:


> For those for whom this is handholdable it would be nice to offer a cover for where the foot attaches. Or better still an ultra light cover ring to replace the tripod ring and cover the bearing surface. White vinyl tape anyone?
> 
> Canon materials say that the small monopod foot replacement of the tripod foot requires factory service. Four screws. If they made me send it back I’d have the last laugh and remove the whole ring and send that alone. (Yes, warranty worriers, I know the risks).
> 
> Simplest solution is to make a little plastic cap to replace the foot. If lens weight savings are $4000 per two pounds then removing a two ounce part adds about $250 in value, right?



For me, once I'm up to a certain weight like the 400 DO II, a few grams/ounces isn't going to influence me one way or the other. I guess there is that straw that eventually breaks the camel's back though. Going from the 300 2.8 II to the 400 the reduction in throat diameter was quite welcomed, certainly more than the slight weight difference.

Jack


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 17, 2019)

Random Orbits said:


> I wonder how much of that is because of the weakness of the 2x TC. The bare lens and 1.4x are much closer in the comparison. Perhaps the correction residuals of the III is in the same "direction" as the 2x TC which makes the overall IQ weaker whereas the DO/II are in the opposite "direction" as the 2x TC so that some of the aberrations are cancelling. Perhaps it is time to roll out version IV of the TCs. At the very least they can update the paint color.
> 
> Did anyone else notice that the review also states the lens is ONLY compatible with version III of the TC/extenders? I wonder why...



Bryan does great work at T-D-C, but the weakness of his image quality tests is that his number of samples of each piece of gear is usually limited to one or, at the most, two examples. As Roger Cicala's rigorous testing methods at lensrental.com/OLAF have demonstrated, there can be considerable copy to copy variation from one sample to the next of a particular lens or particular combination of lens/camera. Introducing a third source of variability and an additional flange connection with associated alignment tolerances between the lens and the camera only increases the number of possible variables

Take, for example, his tests of Sigma telephoto lenses. Almost all of the recent ones do very well with the current Sigma 1.4X TC. Yet it seems all are universally mediocre (to put it politely) with the Sigma 2X TC. But I've seen some stunning work done with a Sigma 120-300/2.8 Sports + EF 2X III. Which leads one to suspect that Bryan's copy of the Sigma 2X TC may be the reason his tests of pretty much all recent Sigma telephoto lenses don't look that great with a 2X TC.

Or maybe his testing methods of very long focal lengths suffer from having targets too close to the camera compared to their typical use case?


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 2, 2020)

Act444 said:


> I will take this to mean it is still not a handholdable lens, at least not in the way the 300 is...



I'd say that the 300 is handholdable in the way a 5-1/4 pound lens is, and the 400 is handholdable in the way that a 6-1/4 pound lens is. Remove the 115g foot, and you have a 6-pound lens. If it were going to dedicated for handholding, then remove the whole ring. 

I've noted above that the cost per gram to go from the IS II to the IS III is $4.00. Which might explain why they use four Aluminum screws to mount the tripod foot. That's a 6 gram savings that probably doesn't cost them $24.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Jan 2, 2020)

dolina said:


> I do wonder if Canon will eventually offer a service to convert the the 400 & 600 from an EF mount to a RF mount. They did this before with the FD200mm f/1.8L in the late 80s


I heard they were going to release an at-home conversion kit...






Seriously though I just don't get this anti-adapter mania. I guess people just decided that adapters were bad from the experience of adapting Canon glass onto Sony cameras, which is a legitimate stance to have. It has always been a crapshoot to adapt one manufactuer's lens onto another manufacturer's body using a third manufacturer's adapter.

But I've used the RF adapter since it came out and it's flawless. Seriously if you want this lens "converted" to RF, but the adapter on, and tape off the joint between the adapter and lens to seal it up from any possibility of water getting past the seal.


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 2, 2020)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Seriously though I just don't get this anti-adapter mania. I guess people just decided that adapters were bad from the experience of adapting Canon glass onto Sony cameras, which is a legitimate stance to have. It has always been a crapshoot to adapt one manufactuer's lens onto another manufacturer's body using a third manufacturer's adapter.
> 
> But I've used the RF adapter since it came out and it's flawless. Seriously if you want this lens "converted" to RF, but the adapter on, and tape off the joint between the adapter and lens to seal it up from any possibility of water getting past the seal.



1. Love the "kit"! But seriously, I haven't seen any "mania", and I'm not sure how you can tell what people "decided." I agree that the adapters do their job flawlessly, but that isn't the issue. Read on and you might understand the thinking.
2. I paid a $4/gram lightness premium for this lens. Adding a 109 gram adapter (125g with control ring) is a $400-500 value hit on the lens. I'm confident that without the extra male and female mounts, fastener, structure, and electrical interfaces, much of that could be saved to add value. Intense effort went into shaving grams from the lens, and the adapter is made for all EF lenses so did not have the same weight-loss motivation. Lightest is a replacement rear housing that simply adds the needed length (this is the 6" long part that supports all the switch panels and has the window). Next is a bolt on that replaces the bayonet mount, presumably with special attention to weight reduction.
3. If a detachable adapter is to be used, then there's no weight benefit unless designed specially using the advanced materials of the IS III, but there is an aesthetic benefit to not having a mismatched color on the setup. For $12,000, one is entitled to a little pride of ownership, and an included one in matching white would be appreciated. It's not as bad as a mismatched body panel on a new luxury car, but...
4. It may be irrational, but most buyers have a dose of emotionalism to their decision making, and Canon has a powerful interest in simple measures that overcome the hesitancy that a percentage of potential customers have to some degree, whether aesthtics, weiught, or a mistaken assuption about quality or utulity. The more lenses Canon can sell, the more motivated they will be to continue to advance the technology and even price marginally more agressively.
5. A second release button is an opportunity for error - a dedicated adapter can avoid this.
6. With less than one adapter per lens, one often can have a hard time finding one when needed. Ask me how I know. At least when it's on the white lens I can tell at a glance!
7. Your comment acknowledges that having another seal to leak is at least a perceived disadvantage.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2020)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> I guess people just decided that adapters were bad from the experience of adapting Canon glass onto Sony cameras, which is a legitimate stance to have.



No, you've misidentified the error here.

The error was in adapting _the photographer_ from Canon to Sony, not the glass.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 2, 2020)

What I really don't like is the mix up that can occur with lens caps. I've used a paint pen to ID them.

Jack


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Jan 3, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> 1. Love the "kit"! But seriously, I haven't seen any "mania", and I'm not sure how you can tell what people "decided." I agree that the adapters do their job flawlessly, but that isn't the issue. Read on and you might understand the thinking.
> 2. I paid a $4/gram lightness premium for this lens. Adding a 109 gram adapter (125g with control ring) is a $400-500 value hit on the lens. I'm confident that without the extra male and female mounts, fastener, structure, and electrical interfaces, much of that could be saved to add value. Intense effort went into shaving grams from the lens, and the adapter is made for all EF lenses so did not have the same weight-loss motivation. Lightest is a replacement rear housing that simply adds the needed length (this is the 6" long part that supports all the switch panels and has the window). Next is a bolt on that replaces the bayonet mount, presumably with special attention to weight reduction.
> 3. If a detachable adapter is to be used, then there's no weight benefit unless designed specially using the advanced materials of the IS III, but there is an aesthetic benefit to not having a mismatched color on the setup. For $12,000, one is entitled to a little pride of ownership, and an included one in matching white would be appreciated. It's not as bad as a mismatched body panel on a new luxury car, but...
> 4. It may be irrational, but most buyers have a dose of emotionalism to their decision making, and Canon has a powerful interest in simple measures that overcome the hesitancy that a percentage of potential customers have to some degree, whether aesthtics, weiught, or a mistaken assuption about quality or utulity. The more lenses Canon can sell, the more motivated they will be to continue to advance the technology and even price marginally more agressively.
> ...


2-3. We're still talking about a lens that weighs over 6lbs here. Honestly how much difference would there be in the weight of an RF adapter vs a hypothetical lens built with the added length of the RF flange distance built in? The RF adapter is already plastic. But I guess you save the additional metal flanges, so a lens made for RF from the start would be _maybe_ 0.1lb lighter than this lens with the adapter on the back. With a lens that already weighs 6lbs and will probably spend most of its life on a monopod or a tripod, I'm struggling to see how much 0.1lb matters.

4. I get that people take pride in their gear, but honestly at this level of photography, most of the people who buy it and use it are buying it as a tool, not something that looks pretty. I doubt the people buying and using this lens care if there's an adapter on the back that's a different color. Hell a lot of these lenses will probably get the name of the news agency that owns them carved into the side of the lens. There are a lot of photojournalists out there running around with cameras that look like they got run over by a car. They don't care, as long as they still work.

5. If you're that worried about accidentally hitting the release slide and having the adapter come off, there are plenty of ways you could make the slide harder to manipulate to prevent this.

6. If you have $12,000 to spend on a lens, and you're using it in the fast paced environments it's likely to be used in, you have $100 to buy an RF adapter to live permanently on the back of the lens.

7. If you are shooting in conditions so severe that the existing rubber seal between this lens and the adapter may cause a water or dust leak, then you should just tape off the joint between them. And if you're in those kinds of conditions, you almost certainly don't care how having tape on your lens looks as long as it keeps things dry.

And lastly, probably the biggest one, why would anyone buy an RF version of this lens knowing that doing so effectively cuts them off from ever putting it on any camera made in the last 35 years or so that has an EF mount? As far as where we stand right now, Canon has not made any camera with an RF mount that performs well enough for most of the conditions that someone would be using a 400mm f2.8 in. That is a massive investment to make in a lens to be locked out of using it on every camera made since the '80s aside from the EOS R/RP.

Maybe in two years or so we'll finally have an RF camera with performance on par with a 1D. But even then, is the thought of using an adapter that repulsive that you'd rather sink a $12,000 investment on a lens that you can only use with a handful of cameras, when if you're willing to just deal with one inconsequential adapter, you could also use the lens on dozens of other cameras? I feel like it's going to be many years before it makes sense to buy such an expensive lens in a native RF mount, unless they make a similar lens with a design that takes advantage of the shorter flange distance to be better/cheaper/lighter than the EF counterpart so that the lens just fundamentally couldn't be made to work on an EF mount.


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 3, 2020)

Good comments.

2-3. 0.1 pounds is a good guess ($200 value). Nearly half the weight eliminated by eliminating most of the metal.
4. Most isn't all. I'm referring to one segment that Canon can sell more easily to by addressing this issue. Sounds like you're not in this segment, but some surely are.
5. None more appealing than superglue or duct tape that I've heard.
6. If Canon wants more people to pay $12k for a lens, they might consider making it more attractive. Note that I'd willingly pay double (say $400) for an adapter that matches the lens and can't be inadvertently removed. I'd happily pay normal for a different paint color. (Note that the $100 version doesn't even match the camera!)
7. All true but missing my point about a market segment.
8. I (and those in my segment) don't care about reverse compatibility (but would keep a take-off rear housing for a future buyer). My segment has no intention ever to buy a flippin' mirror Canon. Looking forward not back. And I can be patient awaiting better mirrorless bodies while having the lenses ready for them.

Not only will small measures make top lenses attractive to RF owners, but this will also make RF (and Canon overall) more attractive to camera buyers.

Again, because one segment is understandably indifferent to how their pro tools look on the job, that doesn't mean that there isn't a real segment that can be marketed to more effectively with a few minor efforts. But I'm repeating myself so should let my opinions stand.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 6, 2020)

O


SteveC said:


> No, you've misidentified the error here.
> 
> The error was in adapting _the photographer_ from Canon to Sony, not the glass.


Oh, that’s is nearly impossible to achieve at this time. I am sorry to rain on your day, Sir!


----------



## dolina (Jan 9, 2020)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> I heard they were going to release an at-home conversion kit...
> 
> 
> View attachment 187994
> ...


Amazing I get quoted 11 months after!


----------

