Canon Lens Review News Report News & Deals

Image quality results from a second Canon EF 200-400mm f/4 L IS USM Ext 1.4x Lens are now available on the site.
 
The second lens' results are displayed as sample "3" and "4". Read the Is This the World's Sharpest DSLR Zoom Lens? post to learn the details of this lens' image quality presentation.

You can cross bad image quality off of your list of potential reasons to not get the new Canon EF 200-400mm f/4 L IS USM Ext 1.4x Lens. Because this lens totally rocks in that regard. Image quality results from the 200-400mm f/4 L IS Lens are now available on the site. These are among the best results I've ever seen from a zoom lens - or from any lens.
 
I'll let you decide if the 200-400 L bests the previous zoom lens image quality title holder, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens. Here is the 200mm comparison (use the mouseover or toggle buttons feature). Note that you are going to see some distortion differences in these results as the 70-200 is at its longest focal length and the 200-400 is set to its widest focal length. Also note that the 70-200 has a 1-stop wider aperture in this comparison. I'll let you decide if they would be more-fairly compared at equivalent (f/4) apertures (you can change the comparison tool settings if you vote this way).
 
There are some things you need to know about the Canon EF 200-400mm f/4 L IS USM Ext 1.4x Lens image quality test results. The built-in extender with external extender compatibility complicates complete image quality presentation of this lens in our tool. So, here is what we are showing.
 
The first tested copy of this lens (we have two right now) is presented as two lens samples – sample "1" and "2". Sample "1" is tested at all focal lengths (including those with extenders) with the built-in extender switch set to 1.0x (not being used) with the only exception being the first of the two 560mm focal length tests – the one that indicates "1.4x Extender Int". Sample "2" results were all captured with the built-in extender in place – the switch was set to 1.4x with no exceptions. Sample "2" results showing one of the "III" extenders in use also had the built-in 1.4x in use. You will notice the ultra-high focal lengths in these results.
 
Here are some interesting comparisons that can be made:
 
Compare the image quality of the 200-400mm L lens at various focal lengths with and without the built-in extender in place by comparing lens sample "1" to lens sample "2". The with-extender image quality is really good, but there is a modest image quality penalty for using the extender. This is not unexpected from adding 8/4 elements/groups to the light path. Stop down 1 stop to eliminate most of that penalty.
 
Compare the image quality of the 200-400mm L lens' built in 1.4x extender to the external Canon 1.4x III Extender. The first difference I notice is that the internal extender appears to add pincushion distortion while the external extender adds a touch of barrel distortion. This difference is what would account for the difference in test chart detail sizes. Otherwise, I don't think you will see a difference in image quality between these two extenders used on this lens.
 
While extended focal lengths up to 1120mm are supported with Canon's blessings, I doubt that many will want to go to this extreme.

With the new arrival now home, the Canon Big White L Lenses just had to have their spring 2013 family picture created (download larger images below).
 

 
Featured in these pictures, from left to right, are the following lenses:
 
Canon EF 200mm f/2 L IS USM Lens
Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens
Canon EF 200-400mm f/4 L IS USM Ext 1.4x Lens
Canon EF 500mm f/4.0 L IS II USM Lens
Canon EF 600mm f/4.0 L IS II USM Lens
Canon EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS USM Lens
 
Download Larger Images
 
Download larger images for your wallpaper, physical wall – or just to get a closer look (grab a tissue to catch the drool):
 
No Hood | Hood
 

The Canon EF 200-400mm f/4 L IS USM Extender 1.4x Lens Review page has been updated to incorporate the newly-available information about this lens.
 
Links to the USA and UK press releases, the development announcements and also to some early user reports are provided.
 
I am very optimistic about the image quality that this lens is going to deliver and excited about what this lens will do for me.

Sample pictures have been added to the Canon EOS Rebel T4i / 600D and Canon EF-S 18-135mm IS STM Lens reviews.
 
I know, those reviews were completed long ago. It's just that I finally was able to take the time necessary to get the photos onto the site. Both sets of pictures are the same - just view one of the galleries.

Since we were discussing the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 L II USM Lens yesterday, I thought I would put up some fresh sample pictures for that lens. Hopefully you will find them - or one of the included tips - interesting and helpful.

I included the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 L II Lens in my indoor action sports lens recommendation list. Some, in a politely-constructive way (always very appreciated), are questioning my logic for doing so. The big reason for this questioning is due to the 85mm f/1.2 L II's focusing speed. This is not the fastest Canon AF system.
 
So the question: "Can the EF 85mm f/1.2 L II Lens be used for sports action photography?" is one that I want to answer today.
 
The short answer is "Yes".
 
Here is a very slightly cropped sample photo I captured with a Canon 1D X:
 

 
Is it sharp? That is a good question because it is easy to make web-sized images sharp. Even with very light sharpening ("2" in DPP), the eyelashes are sharp as shown in the screen capture below. The screen capture is lower quality than DPP's RAW conversion (the sharpening is not as clean), but I want to show the active AF point placed on the jaw line:
 

 
Close and fast approaching subjects present a challenge to the autofocus systems of both cameras and lenses. This runner was very close and moving fast. She was on the inside lane of the track and I was off of the track *just* far enough to not disturb the race. It is going to be hard to get much closer to any action - and dangerous to get that close to anything faster. The 1D X has proven very impressive to me, making it a great choice for finding the limitations of the lens. This shot and a significant percentage of my other 85 f/1.2 action images are in sharp focus.
 
Adding to the challenge of capturing in-focus action sports images with this lens is the razor-thin depth of field at f/1.2. Maintaining a focus point on the same plane of focus as the in-action subject's eyes is a challenge. Do not expect an in-focus hit rate as high as with some good f/2.8 lenses - though the 85 f/1.2 L II bested some other non-Canon f/2.8 lenses I was testing at the same event.
 
You of course do not have to use a wide open aperture, but ... f/1.2 is a leading contributor to the major awesomeness of this lens. It is seldom too dark to stop action with an f/1.2 aperture as the in-action subject's ability to see becomes an issue.
 
Actually, it can be too bright to shoot sports at f/1.2 unless you have the right DSLR camera. Shooting under full sunlight as shown in the sample above? You need a DSLR with 1/8000 shutter speed capability (only higher end models have it) along with ISO 50 to keep images dark enough to avoid blown highlights in some scenarios. These were the settings used in the sample above. Alternatively, a neutral density filter can be used.
 
Returning to the autofocus speed question ... Can other Canon lenses focus faster than the 85 f/1.2 L II? Yes. But, this 85mm f/1.2 action sports sample is far from a 1-off autofocus accident. My overall focus hit rate is decent with this lens.
 
Can any other Canon lens produce the same sports image look?
 
No. I love this lens.

Canon EOS 60D ISO 12233 resolution chart test results for most current Canon lenses are now included in the site's camera lens image quality comparison tool.
 
As you can imagine, this was a big project for us. The 60D will become the standard EF-S Lens test camera and we will continue to test EF Lenses with the 60D as time permits.
 
Though the 60D results are useful in same-camera comparisons, you will find that results from this camera are not as sharp as results from the 1Ds III and other impressive Canon full frame cameras - even though identical test and processing settings (with a very low sharpness setting) were used. The T4i would deliver sharper results at the same processing settings (comparison), but the T4i has increased high ISO noise visibility as a result. There is a trade-off. The 60D results can also be given a higher sharpness setting. You are welcome to load 60D results into your favorite image processing application to see how increasing sharpness changes the results for the lens you are interested in.
 
Interesting spec: There are now 25,344 crops from 8,448 ISO 12233 test images available for review on the site.

The full review of the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM Lens has just been posted.
 
Check out the macro capabilities featured in what could perhaps be Canon's first EF zoom lens worthy of a "Macro" designator in its name. Then share the review with your friends. Thanks!

With a standard thickness B+W 82mm Circular Polarizer filter recently added to our lab inventory, we now have 82mm Circular Polarizer filter vignetting results included in the following reviews:
 
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens (compare)
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens (compare)
Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Lens (compare)
Tokina 17-35mm f/4 AT-X Pro FX Lens (compare)
Coming soon: Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM Lens
 
Because of the thickness of standard circular polarizer filters, mechanical vignetting is sometimes an issue when they are used on wide angle lenses. These tests allow comparison between the bare lens and the with-CP filter results (typically the last option in the focal length drop-down box).
 
In the above examples, the two Canon lenses show some additional vignetting when used with the standard thickness CP filters. While a slim circular polarizer filter is a great option, I much-prefer B+W's flagship B+W's XS-Pro Circular Polarizer Filters (B&H) (Adorama). These top-of-the-line filters are slim, but include front threads that will hold a standard lens cap in place.

Comparing the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens with the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Lens - which to choose:
 
If you need the f/1.4 aperture, for the shallow depth of field or for the faster shutter speeds it makes available (key to stopping action in low light), your decision is made. You need the Sigma 35 f/1.4.
 
If you need Image Stabilization, the Canon 35 f/2 IS is of course the right choice.
 
If f/2 is wide enough for you and you don't need IS, the decision becomes a bit more complicated. Here are some comparisons to help with that decision process.
 
The Sigma of course rules all comparisons at f/1.4 - and turns in remarkable performance at f/1.4 compared to other f/1.4 lenses.
 
The Canon joins the comparison at f/2. At f/2, you can expect the Sigma to be noticeably sharper in the center of the image and the Canon to have a slight sharpness edge closer to the corners - where the Canon shows more vignetting. The sharpness comparison at f/2.8 has these lenses performing more similarly in the center (both excellent). The Sigma retains a slight center advantage and the Canon holds the peripheral edge. Beyond f/2.8, both lenses are razor sharp with the Canon retaining slightly better full frame corner sharpness.
 
The Sigma has about 1/2 as much vignetting at comparable apertures until stopped down to about f/4 where the Canon trails the Sigma by a very small amount through f/16. The Sigma has slightly less flare until the aperture narrows to f/8. The Canon then has noticeably less flare through f/16. Neither lens has significant distortion. These two lenses deliver similar (good) bokeh at comparable apertures.
 
The Canon weighs 1/2 as much, is smaller and focuses closer with a higher MM (0.24x vs. 0.19x). The Canon is modestly less expensive at this time.
 
Here are the full reviews for these lenses:
 
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Lens Review
Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens Review

Clear skies have been in very short supply for us lately, but I was able to squeeze in a flare test recently. Flare test results are now included on the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM Lens Review page.
 
As with the other similar zoom lenses, you will want to keep very bright lights out of the frame when shooting with the Canon 24-70 f/4 L IS Lens.

ISO 12233 resolution chart results for extenders have been added to the Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens Review.
 
According to Canon, the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens is not compatible with extenders. Not fully compatible is correct, but ... extenders can indeed be used with this lens as proven by the 420mm and 600mm ISO 12233 chart results in this review.
 
If the 28-300 L is zoomed out to 50mm or longer, the rear element retracts into the lens far enough for the Canon 1.4x and 2x extenders to physically mount onto the lens. Once installed, zooming in to 50mm will result in physical contact between the front of the extender (likely the rubber ring surrounding the glass lens element) and the rear element of the lens. You obviously want to avoid this.
 
You will also likely want to avoid the image quality that the Canon EF 2x III Extender combo delivers at 600mm. The results are not pretty. At 600mm, this is an f/11 max aperture lens that will not AF even on a 1-Series body (tried it - AF didn't work). Better, but still not impressive are the results with the Canon EF 1.4x III Extender at 420mm where this is an f/8 max aperture lens. Autofocusing with the 1.4x attached is very, very slow and very frequently fails completely on the EOS 1Ds III being used for testing.
 
The extender and lens combo's focal length reported properly in EXIF, but the aperture did not.

Just posted: Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens Review

ISO 12233 resolution chart, distortion and vignetting test results, along with specs and measurements, have been added to the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM Lens Review page.
 
Here are some of my initial comparative thoughts based on multiple copies tested:
 
You will see very low distortion from the 24-70 f/4 L IS relative to similar zoom lenses. Noticeably less than from the 24-105 f/4 L IS - significantly less at 24mm. Landscape photographers shooting over a flat horizon (such as water) will especially appreciate the difference at 24mm, though the 24-70 f/4 L IS still has some barrel distortion.
 
The 24-70 f/4 L IS is nearly void of CA (Chromatic Aberration) until the longer end of the focal length range where mild CA becomes apparent at 70mm. The 24-70 f/4 L IS has noticeably less CA than the 24-105 f/4 L IS at the wide end, but more at 70mm.
 
The 24-70 f/4 L IS is similar to the 24-70 f/2.8 L II in regards to both CA and distortion.
 
The 24-70 f/4 L IS has less vignetting than the 24-105 f/4 L IS at the wide end at f/4, but more at the long end. By f/5.6, the two lenses are close in this regard. The 24-70 f/2.8 L II, with its 1-stop wider aperture, has the comparable-aperture vignetting advantage until about f/8 where the two are nearly equal.
 
If you are shooting at f/11, the 24-70 f/4 L IS, 24-105 f/4 L IS and 24-70 f/2.8 L II lenses produce essentially equal sharpness. The 24-105 has the longest focal length range to its advantage in this comparison. The 24-70 f/2.8 L II lacks IS.
 
At 24mm with a wide open aperture, the 24-70 f/4 L IS bests the 24-105 L IS in sharpness by a modest amount. The 24-70 f/4 L IS gets softer (especially in the mid and peripheral image circle) by 50mm f/4 where the lens performs its worst.
 
That this lens performs its worst at a mid-focal length vs. an extremity focal length is unusual. Since most people shoot their highest percentage of images at the focal length range extremes of a lens, the 24-70 L IS weakness is perhaps well placed. Roger at LensRentals.com has confirmed the 50mm weakness in his vast stock of this lens.
 
The 24-105 L delivers a sharper image at 50mm f/4. Sharpness improvement at 70mm brings the 24-70 f/4 L IS back up to near equality with the 24-105 L. These two lenses perform more similarly at f/5.6 and at f/8, results from these two lenses are nearly comparable. Again, the results are similar at f/11.
 
The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens is the sharper lens of this group - even at f/2.8 vs. f/4.
 
Overall, the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM Lens appears to be a great lens, but ... perhaps overpriced with the bargain-priced Canon EF 24-105 f/4 L IS Lens remaining available.

ISO 12233 resolution chart test results have been added to the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens Review page.
 
The Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens results are remarkably better than the results from the replaced Canon EF 35mm f/2 Lens in the mid and peripheral (corner) areas of the image circle. Results in the center appear slightly better in the IS lens, but the differences are very slight - not surprising as the old lens was very sharp in the center.
 
Here is a Canon 35 IS vs. 35 non-IS comparison (use the mouseover feature to see the differences).

With help from friend-of-the-site Norbert, I have updated the Determining the Age of a Canon Lens page. It now appears possible to determine the age of a Canon lens based on the new 10-digit serial number.
 
I say "appears" as this chart is somewhat of a work in process. The numbers seem to be holding out well (or are at most 1 month behind) for the lenses we've checked to date. We can use your help in testing the chart - Please send us any certain discrepancies you find.

A handful of sample pictures have been added to the following reviews:
 
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens Review
Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Lens Review

ISO 12233 chart, flare, distortion and vignetting test results along with measurements & specifications have been added to the Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Lens Review page.
 
Note that the Canon EOS M shares the Canon EOS Rebel T4i/650D imaging system. This includes the slightly sharper images output at our standard ISO 12233 test sharpness setting of "1" (with the Neutral Picture Style). The difference in sharpness is about the equivalence of a +1 sharpness setting.
 
As you have already guessed, I'm trying to decide if the EOS-M-tested lenses should be processed at Sharpness = 0 to be more equally represented with the rest of the lens tests - or if the standard setting should be adhered to.
 
All that said, I think that the Canon EF-M 18-55 is the lens that most people wanting a compact EOS M setup should be considering right now.

Just posted: Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Lens Review.

ISO 12233 resolution chart, flare, distortion and vignetting test results are now live on the Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Lens Review page.
 
Obviously, these tests had to be shot with the new Canon EOS M MILC (Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera). My Canon EF-EOS M Adapter just arrived, so I'll get some direct camera comparisons online in the near future.

Canon MTF chart comparisons have been added to the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens Review and Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens Review pages.

Part II of the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens Review is now online.
 
I'm very pleased with the AF performance and image quality this lens is delivering. I've used it a lot since part I of this review - especially for fall landscape photography. The results are superb.
 
I'll add some sample pictures soon.
 
B&H and Adorama now have the 24-70 L II in stock.

The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM Lens Review has been updated to include Canon EF 1.4x III Extender and Canon EF 2x III Extender compatibility information including ISO 12233 Resolution Chart results. Here are the details:
 
The Canon 70-300 L is officially NOT compatible with Canon extenders. I've tried mounting Canon extenders to the 70-300 L - and they do not fit. The rear 70-300 L lens element physically hits the front element of the extender.
 
Then, in a major firmware update announcement for the Canon EOS 1D X, Canon included the 70-300 L and Canon EF 1.4x III Extender combo on a compatibility list.
 
Intrigued, I did more experimenting. What I learned is that the 70-300 L's rear element retracts into the lens far enough that, at about 250mm, there is enough clearance for Canon extenders to mount.
 
The available with-1.4x focal length range is about 350-420mm and 500-600mm with the 2x installed. Zooming out wider than the 250mm-or-so zoom ring mark results in a physical bump inside the lens. I'm guessing that it is the rubber around the edge of the extender element contacts the rear 70-300 L lens element or its barrel. I do not recommend mounting this combination due to potential damage the to lens.
 
I of course felt the need to try out these unsupported combinations. My solution to the damage risk issue was to Gaffer Tape the lens zoom ring to lock it at the 300mm mark while using extenders.
 
Mounting a 1.4x or 2x extender behind any lens reduces its aperture range by 1 or 2 stops respectively. At review time, only Canon 1-Series bodies can autofocus when using the very-dark f/8 max aperture the 70-300 L lens and 1.4x extender combination yields. Tested 1D X and 1Ds III bodies autofocused this combination.
 
No bodies can AF with the even-darker f/11 max aperture the 70-300 L and 2x combo yields. While it tries, the tested 1Ds III body cannot lock focus with this combination.
 
The interesting part of this story starts with the fact that the Canon Extenders do not report their presence when mounted behind the 70-300 L. The reported max aperture incorrectly remains f/5.6.
 
And what is much more interesting is that the 70-300 L and 1.4x combination's f/8 max aperture combination autofocuses even when mounted to the 60D (and presumably on most/all other Canon EOS bodies). Autofocus speed with the 1.4x extender is very, very slow on all tested bodies, but AF does work - even on the 60D.
 
Since I'm sure you are wondering what the image quality from these combinations looks like, here is a look at the Canon EF 70-300 L with EF 1.4x III Extender ISO 12233 image quality. Image softening from the 1.4x is very noticeable at f/8 in mid and outer regions of the image circle, though the center of the frame remains reasonably sharp. CA becomes pronounced with increasing amounts visible toward the outer image circle. Stopping down to f/11 results in modestly better image quality.
 
Here is a look at the Canon EF 70-300 L with EF 2x III Extender ISO 12233 image quality. Wide open, the results with the 2x installed are remarkably close to the performance of the 1.4x III, but more sharpness/contrast degradation is apparent - especially in the center of the frame. The 1.4x III takes a wide lead in the image quality race when stopped down to the with-2x's f/11 max aperture. Diffraction levels the results from both combinations at f/16. Again, the with-2x combination has problems locking autofocus.
 
While the image quality of the 70-300 L with extenders is not impressive, it can certainly be usable in a pinch (especially in the center of the frame with the 1.4x).

The new Canon 1D X firmware special page includes the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM Lens (they actually say "f/4.5-5.6L") and Canon EF 1.4x III Extender combination under the "Current Canon EF Lens/Extender Combinations That Support Cross-Type Autofocus with Firmware Update Ver. 1.1.1 for EOS-1D X". (thanks John)
 
The problem is that Canon 70-300 L is not compatible with the 1.4x in the first place. The Canon USA website indicates that the 1.4x "... is only compatible with fixed focal length L-series lenses 135mm and over, as well as the EF 70-200/2.8L, EF 70-200/2.8L IS, EF 70-200/4L, and EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L." Granted, the compatible 70-200 f/4 L IS is missing, but the 70-300 L is not listed.
 
I've tried mounting the 1.4x to the 70-300 L before - and it does not fit. The rear lens element physically hits the front element of the extender.
 
What I just discovered, however, is that the 70-300 L's rear element retracts into the lens far enough that, at about 250mm, there is enough clearance for the 1.4x to mount.
 
The available focal length range is about 350-420mm. There is a physical bump at the lower end of that range with (guessing) the rubber around the edge of the extender element contacting the rear 70-300 L lens element or its edge ring. This combination indeed autofocuses on the 1D X with the new firmware.
 
I'll put this combination on the ISO 12233 chart testing list to see what the image quality looks like, but ... I'm not sure that I recommend mounting this combination due to potential damage the to lens. I'll try to find out what Canon says about this.