Canon officially announces the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III & EF 600mm f/4L IS III. The worlds lightest lenses of their kind

[ethanz]

If the IQ of the III doesn't match the II it is a good thing. The II's used price will surely drop in price, while I do not see the need to spend $11 K on a new one I could be enticed with a substantial price drop in the used market.

Yes, the GAS is growing exponentially today.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If the IQ of the III doesn't match the II it is a good thing. The II's used price will surely drop in price, while I do not see the need to spend $11 K on a new one I could be enticed with a substantial price drop in the used market.

If the II is optically superior, wouldn't that prop up used prices?

 

[Deleted member 381342]

So now we have the lens I want to blow all my money on and the 28-70 I want to blow the rest of my money on. Yet one of these is on a 'old' mount. Given my 300mm f2.8 is now pushing 30 years, It looks like the logical thing to do seems to be to wait for the 600mm to get a native R mount which I guess we'll see when the R '1x' comes out.

 

[tron]

Canon USA
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/super-telephoto/ef-600mm-f-4l-is-ii-usm

Someone came in the office and I see JMZ posted it.

The MTF charts at Canon USA are the same as were posted when they first released.

I could not find the MTF chart for the version 600 2 in that link. In contrast the 600 version 3 contains it!

EDIT: FOUND THEM! The advice about read more was very useful!

 

[JMZawodny]

...

I’d also be really surprised if Canon released MkIII lenses that were so noticeably worse (based on those theoretical MTFs, the differences would be noticeable). That’s another reason I’m inclined to believe the comparison using the MTFs on Canon Japan.

I'd be just as surprised that the MTF curves for the Mk II and III are identical (save for the corner point) given the drastic change in optical layout between them. I can't believe it. Perhaps both the Japan and USA figures are wrong. That is infinitely more plausible than the Mk II and III being identical.

 

[JMZawodny]

I could not find the MTF chart for the version 600 2 in that link. In contrast the 600 version 3 contains it!

Go to the the Mk II Overview page and click the red "read more". You should get a sample image and the 3 sets of MTF curves.

 

[tron]

Go to the the Mk II Overview page and click the red "read more". You should get a sample image and the set of 3 MTF curves.

Yes, thanks! I found out 1 minute before and I updated my post after seeing about read more in a previous post.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'd be just as surprised that the MTF curves for the Mk II and III are identical (save for the corner point) given the drastic change in optical layout between them. I can't believe it. Perhaps both the Japan and USA figures are wrong. That is infinitely more plausible than the Mk II and III being identical.

I don't find the idea that the MkIII is substantially worse than the MkII to be plausible, either.

 

[takesome1]

If the II is optically superior, wouldn't that prop up used prices?

Probably, but maybe there will be enough buyers that must have the newest and latest lens.

 

[NancyP]

Here's hoping that some used 500 f/4 IIs come onto the market....
The new 400 f/2.8 redesign might be very attractive to sports photographers due to the change in weight distribution.

 

[JMZawodny]

I don't find the idea that the MkIII is substantially worse than the MkII to be plausible, either.

Well I certainly agree. The other problem has to due with an identical situation with the 400/2.8 Mks II & III. Perhaps the same person making the mistake updating the website twice. What does "the source" have to say about the 400/2.8 III, same identical performance? It is very unusual to have MTF graphs on the day of release. Could they have simply copied old data while developing the page and forgotten to update/delete those plots? That would not explain the USA site though, unless they copied different plots. Some sleuthing should sort this out quickly.

 

[tron]

I am satisfied with my 500 II. To update it I would require both a significant weight reduction and the same IQ as minimum! I assume it's similar with the 400 II and 600 II owners...

 

[takesome1]

Well I certainly agree. The other problem has to due with an identical situation with the 400/2.8 Mks II & III. Perhaps the same person making the mistake updating the website twice. What does "the source" have to say about the 400/2.8 III, same identical performance? It is very unusual to have MTF graphs on the day of release. Could they have simply copied old data while developing the page and forgotten to update/delete those plots? That would not explain the USA site though, unless they copied different plots. Some sleuthing should sort this out quickly.

They may be theoretical. If memory serves, the II version MTF’s at release were theoretical.

Also, the lens has just now been released, however there have probably been prototypes for over a year.

 

[neuroanatomist]

They may be theoretical. If memory serves, the II version MTF’s at release were theoretical.

All of Canon's MTFs are theoretical.

 

[padam]

Here's hoping that some used 500 f/4 IIs come onto the market....
The new 400 f/2.8 redesign might be very attractive to sports photographers due to the change in weight distribution.

Practical for carrying, but there won't be many situations where they wouldn't use a monopod (which attached to a point which is good for weight distribution anyway).
Yes, now you can definitely hand-hold it (and I am sure a sponsored video will emphasise that) but ultimately it won't lead to the same consistent results that they need. Wildlife photographers will probably make use of it, though.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Canon says in the presentation video that image quality is improved. So i don't believe it will be less sharp.

 

[psolberg]

Yes, unfortunately they are.

this is horrible. I kind of expect the general consumer stuff to go this way for cost savings. hell, I expect the vast majority of lenses to end here. But I was kind of hoping anything that starts to push near or exceeding 10K USD to not be concerned with FBW and retain the current physical system. I suppose the writing is in the wall: if these things get FBW, nothing will get spared. shame.

 

[neuroanatomist]

this is horrible. I kind of expect the general consumer stuff to go this way for cost savings. hell, I expect the vast majority of lenses to end here. But I was kind of hoping anything that starts to push near or exceeding 10K USD to not be concerned with FBW and retain the current physical system. I suppose the writing is in the wall: if these things get FBW, nothing will get spared. shame.

Maybe it'll be a really really really good FBW.

No, even I can't swallow that tripe.

 

[applecider]

So eight pins on mount or twelve?

And are the big white filters interchangeable with EOS R adaptor filters?

 

[applecider]

I know looking at charts has it's limits but the 600 MTF chart doesn't look as good as for the II.

My impression as well.