I believe the RF lenses are generally a little better than the EF lenses. But I wonder how they stack up against the Sony GM lenses.
alundeb wrote:
Agree that it looks good. Interesting that it is better at 100mm. The 100-400 II has the sweet spot at 300mm.
At the long end, in the center, the difference between the 100-400 at 400 and 100-500 at 500 is exactly the theoretical difference due to diffraction at apertures f/5.6 and f/7.1.
The slight fall off towards the edges at 500 mm is something that could be visible for compressed landscape use, hope it improves a bit by stopping down to f/8 - f/11. Even so, the 100-500 is now a hotter candidate for me than the 800. Might try to sell the 100-400, but not sure if the 100-500 is worth the extra cost still....Show more →
alundeb wrote:
Agree that it looks good. Interesting that it is better at 100mm. The 100-400 II has the sweet spot at 300mm.
At the long end, in the center, the difference between the 100-400 at 400 and 100-500 at 500 is exactly the theoretical difference due to diffraction at apertures f/5.6 and f/7.1.
The slight fall off towards the edges at 500 mm is something that could be visible for compressed landscape use, hope it improves a bit by stopping down to f/8 - f/11. Even so, the 100-500 is now a hotter candidate for me than the 800. Might try to sell the 100-400, but not sure if the 100-500 is worth the extra cost still....Show more →
Are the Canon MTFs now corrected for diffraction - they did not used to be?
arbitrage wrote:
Maybe next time whoever took that monkey photo will actually aim for the eyes and not the near cheek...FFS...how does stuff like this get published?
The good news is the monkey was shot on the R, not the R5, so we can't blame the Animal-Eye-AF...
And IMO it's still soft even at the focus point. Looks significantly softer than a 200-600 + 2x TC.
alundeb wrote:
Yes.
Where does Canon state that - I'd appreciate a link as I couldn't find it. The values do look in the right region for correction having been made.
cpe1991 wrote:
Where does Canon state that - I'd appreciate a link as I couldn't find it. The values do look in the right region for correction having been made.
Sorry, I don't remember if and where I have seen it stated from Canon. It is the only possible explanation for the differences between old and new charts for the same lens, and it does match well. No lens has higher MTF than the diffraction limit now. If Canon only was brave enough to include 100 lp/mm, the charts would be even more informative.
The photo I like best of all the samples in the OP links, is the R6 shot of the small dog and flowering cherry blossoms. Those trees bloom in March or April. I'm guessing it was the 85mm 2.0 lens
For the R5 photo in the trees, my guess is hand-held to show 1/8 in the forest. Because with a tripod, I've seen sharper from the 5DS and EOS R bodies. But if that was hand-held, that's very nice result.
alundeb wrote:
Sorry, I don't remember if and where I have seen it stated from Canon. It is the only possible explanation for the differences between old and new charts for the same lens, and it does match well. No lens has higher MTF than the diffraction limit now. If Canon only was brave enough to include 100 lp/mm, the charts would be even more informative.
I am sure you are correct by comparing Sigma geometric and diffraction MTFs with the new Canon ones for similar lenses like the 500 f/4s.
mdvaden wrote:
The photo I like best of all the samples in the OP links, is the R6 shot of the small dog and flowering cherry blossoms. Those trees bloom in March or April. I'm guessing it was the 85mm 2.0 lens
For the R5 photo in the trees, my guess is hand-held to show 1/8 in the forest. Because with a tripod, I've seen sharper from the 5DS and EOS R bodies. But if that was hand-held, that's very nice result.
Based on several sources of JPEG samples so far, the R5 at 1:1 is looking to me like it has a pretty thick AA filter that takes a ton of sharpening to bring it to 5DsR or even R sharpness at that zoom level. I think the R5 may be more like the 5Ds as far as 1:1 viewing. I've also noticed it seems to be (key word here being "seems") outresolving the RF 24-105. R5 at 1:1 may only show it's highest potential with the L primes and higher-end L zooms (28-70/24-70/70-200). Either that or Canon has gone super-light on its default JPEG sharpening.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Based on several sources of JPEG samples so far, the R5 at 1:1 is looking to me like it has a pretty thick AA filter that takes a ton of sharpening to bring it to 5DsR or even R sharpness
You may have missed some of the first image samples shown online. Some from faster shutter speeds that showed sharpness down to hair detail from a distance. Hand held, but fast shutter speeds.
That's why I said the forest sample was probably hand held with no tripod at 1/8 sec. Either that, or the person just didn't know how to photograph in a forest like that. It was crappy lighting, although that may have been intentional to get a wide range of dark and bright.
I'm already using a 5.6 zoom and stopping down at least 2/3 stop, most of the time, on crop. So if the RP gives the standard 1.5-2 stop high ISO advantage, that takes care of f/11.
So I'd get more reach and these are likely to be $500-600 used in a year or so. 600/11 only 2lbs, RP about the same as my Rebels. So lightweight and hopefully inexpensive, if the performance is there.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Based on several sources of JPEG samples so far, the R5 at 1:1 is looking to me like it has a pretty thick AA filter that takes a ton of sharpening to bring it to 5DsR or even R sharpness at that zoom level. I think the R5 may be more like the 5Ds as far as 1:1 viewing. I've also noticed it seems to be (key word here being "seems") outresolving the RF 24-105. R5 at 1:1 may only show it's highest potential with the L primes and higher-end L zooms (28-70/24-70/70-200). Either that or Canon has gone super-light on its default JPEG sharpening....Show more →
You can lose a lot of iq shooting jpegs. I use them but not on default settings on my SL2. Wouldn't be surprised if it was the jpeg & settings as opposed to the AA filter. I'm really not comfortable making a lot of iq assessments based on in-camera jpegs, especially since photographers shooting jpegs tend to be less knowledgeable.
