dmcphoto wrote:
Added: It's really difficult to imagine how this lens got released to the public. There are only two RF mount cameras released so far. If there had been any sort of thorough and controlled testing done in-house using those cameras someone would have found this problem. It seems as if Canon engineers designed the lens, probably testing the design on a test fixture, and left it to random empirical testing in the field to find any real world problems, which obviously didn't happen. It really does seem like something that could be caused by a rush to release the product....Show more →
I do wonder, too. I also imagine there are a larger number of variables to be tested. But at least it's not necessarily a game-changer problem for the majority. And at least Canon appears to be moving quickly to resolve it.
Back when the Sony a9 first appeared, I had a loaner with their new 100-400. The first thing I photographed with it was a football game, in a secondary role to my Canon system. Within minutes of using the Sony combo, I discovered it would not C-AF (similar to AI-Servo) a moving subject at all, if the lens was zoomed while shooting. Focus would jump all over the place - it was absolutely not a subtle problem. So, here was an 'action' camera intended to be used for sports photography and it could not follow-focus a subject while the lens was zoomed... It was only usable if not zoomed, or zoomed while not shooting anything. Not very useful when you have subjects dynamically moving towards and away from you. And it wasn't a one-off with my copy - the Sony rep who loaned it to me experienced the same thing on his own with another one. It certainly wasn't a positive introduction to the camera, but apparently it was addressed relatively quickly with firmware updates. And look at the a9 now with firmware already up into v5 or v6. Was it rushed out too quickly? It seems those who use it, generally like it. I'm seeing more and more of them on NFL sidelines now, too...
They still have my lens in extended testing, and I was shocked to read this. I called them today, and spoke with a service rep asking for a status update. He didn’t have any additional info, so he said he would email the service technicians to inquire about my case. I have yet to hear back. The only info I have is the technicians are working with the Software Department regarding my case. I was not aware of a firmware update until reading this article. I’m extremely happy Canon acknowledged the issue, and is providing a fix. I have always loved Canon lenses, and I’m glad this one gets to stay in my bag now.
jdavidse1901 wrote:
Great job everyone! I am so stoked. jkochuni did you ever hear back about your lens? Do they still have it?
jkochuni wrote:
They still have my lens in extended testing, and I was shocked to read this. I called them today, and spoke with a service rep asking for a status update. He didn’t have any additional info, so he said he would email the service technicians to inquire about my case. I have yet to hear back. The only info I have is the technicians are working with the Software Department regarding my case. I was not aware of a firmware update until reading this article. I’m extremely happy Canon acknowledged the issue, and is providing a fix. I have always loved Canon lenses, and I’m glad this one gets to stay in my bag now.
Maybe your lens is Patient Zero and will show up with shiny new firmware that nobody else has yet?
Seriously you should become a CPS member. Silver level is free, Gold is $100 a year. Silver guarantees a 3-5 day rush to any repair. Gold is 2 days. They pay return shipping overnight, you get to borrow ANYTHING (called an evaluation loan) and you get 5 free cleanings of a camera or lens per year. Your repair takes priority if there is a queue. And so on
Lol! That would be great! Perhaps they can include a new RF 85mm f/1.2 as well. I’ll definitely look into CPS membership. I’m just happy it’s being addressed, as I was really disappointed to think I would have to return it.
jdavidse1901 wrote:
Maybe your lens is Patient Zero and will show up with shiny new firmware that nobody else has yet?
Seriously you should become a CPS member. Silver level is free, Gold is $100 a year. Silver guarantees a 3-5 day rush to any repair. Gold is 2 days. They pay return shipping overnight, you get to borrow ANYTHING (called an evaluation loan) and you get 5 free cleanings of a camera or lens per year. Your repair takes priority if there is a queue. And so on
Hey! New here, but this thread prompted me to join up.
Long, long time Canon user, EOS-R owner, and own, or have owned all the 5D series, and 7D.
Let me share this... because maybe its relevant.
After I got my R, and after I shot my first long week of "learn as you burn" (Daytona Bike Week), I got to test all my current lenses with the new body.
To my dismay... my old trusty NON-IS 300/4.0USM back focused by a bunch. This is the first 300/4 that Canon made with EF mount. I think I got it new in the mid 90's. Its been great. Never needed any "focus compensation" on any of the bodies. On the EOS-R it back focused. Canon said "impossible". Long story short, I use that lens a lot, so I ordered up a new 300/4.0_IS-USM.
Tested it, and it focused fine. So, I took the nice Hoya HMC filter off the old 300/4 and put it on the 300/4_IS. It was the filter. The new 300/4_IS wouldn't focus with that filter either. Filter back on old lens, tried with 5DmkIV and 5DmkIII - perfect. Tried both lenses without filters on all three bodies and perfect. But, the 300's with that particular filter, on the EOS-R would throw backfocus.
So.... I tried other filters on each lens, and none of those had an issue. And, I tried the "obviously bad" filter on all two other lenses that accepted that size, and no issue! I have no idea what, but those 300mm lenses just don't like THAT filter, when they're on the EOS-R body. I just left what worked where it was at, and never looked back.
Anyway, not sure if that helps anyone, or if the Canon update will be for the EOS body or for the 70-200 RF lens. If its for the body.... I'm wondering if it will cure my own issue (non-issue now).
RottenTheCat wrote:
Hey! New here, but this thread prompted me to join up.
Long, long time Canon user, EOS-R owner, and own, or have owned all the 5D series, and 7D.
Let me share this... because maybe its relevant.
After I got my R, and after I shot my first long week of "learn as you burn" (Daytona Bike Week), I got to test all my current lenses with the new body.
To my dismay... my old trusty NON-IS 300/4.0USM back focused by a bunch. This is the first 300/4 that Canon made with EF mount. I think I got it new in the mid 90's. Its been great. Never needed any "focus compensation" on any of the bodies. On the EOS-R it back focused. Canon said "impossible". Long story short, I use that lens a lot, so I ordered up a new 300/4.0_IS-USM.
Tested it, and it focused fine. So, I took the nice Hoya HMC filter off the old 300/4 and put it on the 300/4_IS. It was the filter. The new 300/4_IS wouldn't focus with that filter either. Filter back on old lens, tried with 5DmkIV and 5DmkIII - perfect. Tried both lenses without filters on all three bodies and perfect. But, the 300's with that particular filter, on the EOS-R would throw backfocus.
So.... I tried other filters on each lens, and none of those had an issue. And, I tried the "obviously bad" filter on all two other lenses that accepted that size, and no issue! I have no idea what, but those 300mm lenses just don't like THAT filter, when they're on the EOS-R body. I just left what worked where it was at, and never looked back.
Anyway, not sure if that helps anyone, or if the Canon update will be for the EOS body or for the 70-200 RF lens. If its for the body.... I'm wondering if it will cure my own issue (non-issue now).
Exciting to hear they are working on a fix. That lens (and almost all the RF lenses) are just so insanely priced so they should be working hard on keeping customers happy.
Scrolling back thru this thread... I see the 300/4 non-IS (like the one I had) being used as an example. I can't see how any mirrorless body has any sort lens registration for it, as it was basically dumped by Canon two years after the IS version came out. I mean dumped as no longer supported, at all.
I'm wondering if we'll ever see in body corrections, like DSLRs have, in mirrorless Canon bodies. They say the lens "must" focus, due to mirrorless design. Obviously, not the case.
Disclaimer:
I've been using Canon since the mid 1970's, back in the silver ring FD lens era. Always three bodies, mostly primes (before we called 'em primes). I came >>>!<<< close to being hired as senior tech rep for CUSA (Bullington got the job, and frankly he was the better man). So there's a bit of fan boy in me. Not about to go Fake Chuck on Canon, but sometimes they do seem a bit in love with themselves, and I agree that any sort of field testing, of any lens or body, should reveal basic focus issues.
RottenTheCat wrote:
Scrolling back thru this thread... I see the 300/4 non-IS (like the one I had) being used as an example. I can't see how any mirrorless body has any sort lens registration for it, as it was basically dumped by Canon two years after the IS version came out. I mean dumped as no longer supported, at all.
I'm wondering if we'll ever see in body corrections, like DSLRs have, in mirrorless Canon bodies. They say the lens "must" focus, due to mirrorless design. Obviously, not the case.
Disclaimer:
I've been using Canon since the mid 1970's, back in the silver ring FD lens era. Always three bodies, mostly primes (before we called 'em primes). I came >>>!<<< close to being hired as senior tech rep for CUSA (Bullington got the job, and frankly he was the better man). So there's a bit of fan boy in me. Not about to go Fake Chuck on Canon, but sometimes they do seem a bit in love with themselves, and I agree that any sort of field testing, of any lens or body, should reveal basic focus issues....Show more →
Since correct focus can be seen on the screen, we know that the camera and lens can actually achieve focus. We know it's not a hardware issue. It can only be a communication issue.
Maybe there had been a firmware revision that introduced a communication error and they didn't do a full enough regression test afterward.
RDKirk wrote:
Since correct focus can be seen on the screen, we know that the camera and lens can actually achieve focus. We know it's not a hardware issue. It can only be a communication issue.
Maybe there had been a firmware revision that introduced a communication error and they didn't do a full enough regression test afterward.
This is incorrect. The front focusing can be seen on the LCD and on the EVF just as well as the resulting image file. I've had to make this point clear many times now. It's real, physical, forward biased focus that is at it's worse case at 200mm @ MFD but is by no means confined to 200mm or MFD.
Got a call from Canon today, and they are shipping back my lens. They confirmed the issue, and said they are working to resolve this issue with a future firmware update.
jkochuni wrote:
Got a call from Canon today, and they are shipping back my lens. They confirmed the issue, and said they are working to resolve this issue with a future firmware update.
Agree. I could manually focus better than the camera/lens did with auto-focus.
Folks say "communication", but really there is some logic involved. I remember reading someplace that there actually is (no pun) fuzzy logic involved, which prevents hunting, speeds up focus, nails "correct" focus. Manual corrections were to overcome the inaccuracy of the focusing system with a mirror design - trying to keep things in focus, with parts flopping around that redirect the image from focusing to image sensor.
One time, and one time only was enough... I manually aligned the focusing system in a Nikon F2. Mirror had to be precisely 45, screen had to not only focus in the middle, but left right and top bottom. All done with shims and a little set screw that the mirror rested upon... Then you align the whole focusing frame left right and up down for correct 100 percent viewing. I have no idea how they did it in the factory, but it gave me a real appreciation for the complexity of wanting to focus anywhere on the groundglass with a reflex design.
I need to post my message here, since preview.com has not published my message for some reason.
I got information from Authorized Canon Service Centre (in Europe) that they do have updated firmware available in their hands which address the front focus issue.
They checked my EOS R and the RF70 - 200 earlier this week, and didn't find abnormalities and sent the devices back to me, but then yesterday called me telling they do have now updated firmware available which should fix the issue. They told I should send the lens again to them, or alternatively wait until the firmware becomes public.
Great news. I wonder if it will hit sites like Canon Japan or Germany before the USA site
Juicce wrote:
I need to post my message here, since preview.com has not published my message for some reason.
I got information from Authorized Canon Service Centre (in Europe) that they do have updated firmware available in their hands which address the front focus issue.
They checked my EOS R and the RF70 - 200 earlier this week, and didn't find abnormalities and sent the devices back to me, but then yesterday called me telling they do have now updated firmware available which should fix the issue. They told I should send the lens again to them, or alternatively wait until the firmware becomes public....Show more →
