p.3 #1 · 24-70 II MTF charts on FF hint at astounding IQ
Ed Sawyer wrote:
"the new zoom hitting fantastic levels of image quality and being very noticeably better than the current version. "
It had better be, considering it's more than twice the price of the old 24-70. (I paid I think $950 for that new, with rebate, a couple years ago...)
I think over the years Canon has suffered from MTF inflation. Their MTFs have always been calculated, but I think the calculation method has changed over time, and comparing them to MTFs from the past may not be a 1:1 comparison. LIkely the change in calculation method has not necessarily been to improve the method of calculation but probably to improve how the results look.
the new primes look nice but it will be interesting to see how they stack up in real-world comparisons to great (and much less expensive) legacy glass like OM 24/2.8, various 28/2s (Hollywood, OM, etc.) and others.
If anything I think they may have had anti-MTF inflation though , Since the 24 1.4 II does a lot better than the 24 2.8 (at least with my copies) but the MTF for the 24 1.4 II looks only modestly better. And same can be said in some other cases too I think.
p.3 #2 · 24-70 II MTF charts on FF hint at astounding IQ
surf monkey wrote:
I never really looked at or cared to understand the MTF charts, but I'm interested in the new lens and the charts are impressive.
Besides the CA issue with the 70-300L, do any previous MTF charts by Canon grossly misrepresent the actual real world lens performance. Just wondering if the MTF charts are really as bad (ie: poor indicators) as some say or are they good indicators of actual performance?
Edit: Looks like Aravind beat me to it.
I'm not sure that the 70-300L MTF misrepresents the CA behavior since the distance between the two lines can also come from a reason other than CA, which was more my point.
p.3 #3 · 24-70 II MTF charts on FF hint at astounding IQ
skibum5 wrote:
If anything I think they may have had anti-MTF inflation though , Since the 24 1.4 II does a lot better than the 24 2.8 (at least with my copies) but the MTF for the 24 1.4 II looks only modestly better. And same can be said in some other cases too I think.
But we will see.
Agreed. They only provide data for 30 lp/mm and we are evaluating these lenses with systems that regularly capture good MTFs well beyond that - into areas we can appreciate improvement not discernible from the graphs, whether it be called "microcontrast" "3D" or simply the "Zeiss effect" Now we need even more MPs to really appreciate the true improvement in the lenses, to convince us to buy the lenses, and then the camera they need to shine on And so on....
p.3 #4 · 24-70 II MTF charts on FF hint at astounding IQ
I am not surprised at all that a new lens is better than its predecessor. It is to be expected. Personally, I can't help wondering how the new Tamron will stand out against it.
p.3 #6 · 24-70 II MTF charts on FF hint at astounding IQ
RobertLynn wrote:
I think the w/without grip increased/decreased FPS is a joke (like Nikon does), but if it's 6fps base, can I have it have 8fps with a grip?
yeah the whole grip fps vs no grip fps thing does sound kinda ridiculous to me, I guess if they feel they need to get another $1000 to make up for D4 losses for some more speed it's fair trade though, so yeah if the 5D3 goes from 6fps to 8fps with addition of a magic $600 battery for the 5D3 grip then sure why not
, Since the 24 1.4 II does a lot better than the 24 2.8 (at least with my copies) but the MTF for the 24 1.4 II looks only modestly better. And same can be said in some other cases too I think.