docusync wrote:
We can’t compare theoretical MTFs from different manufacturers though…
Concerning the 300/2.8 II - it’s a crazy sharp lens. I used to shoot it with the 2x III and couldn’t tell much difference vs “bare” (on the 5DSR). Now I do have the 600/4GM you’ve mentioned (on the A1, which is 100% comparable to the 5DSR) and the 300 v2 seems equally sharp or even sharper. So maybe both charts are correct. BTW I feel stupid that I sold my 300 v2 a year ago! I couldn’t care less about the 100-200 range, I have my RF70-200/2.8 for that. It’s tiny and weighs nothing.
You talking to the wrong person. I have never worried about supertele IQ. I own the 500 f/4L IS II and the IQ is sublime. I posted the Sony in response to someone saying they thought the Canon's MTF's used to be closer to 1. As far as I know Sony's MTF's are the flattest ever published. I have never heard anyone say the Sony has superior IQ to the Canon, that have owned both.
IQ is a non-issue at even for a lens like a 100-400L II let alone these primes.
rscheffler wrote:
Thanks. I didn't think to look there. One thing however, at some point Canon changed how they measure or report MTFs. It used to be all their super-teles were pegged at nearly 1.0 across the image, which of course is unrealistic. This is what I'm seeing in the 300's MTFs.
Where I'm uncertain is that the 200-400 is from a similar timeframe and if its MTFs are formulated the same as the old way, then those I posted earlier would be overly optimistic. But on the other hand, IIRC way back in 2013, Lens Rentals tested the 200-400 and found that at 400mm it was nearly as good as the primes...
Here are the MTFs of the 200-400 posted at TDP, which are likely formulated the old way:
I suspect the 300/2.8IS II MTFs from TDP cannot be directly compared against the MTFs of the 100-300....Show more →
I know that Canon Japan site has the updated MTFs....as you noted they changed how they do them a number of years ago. TDP may not be updated ones for older lenses.
JRobertson wrote:
It would be a great lens for indoor/gym sports, but didn't Nikon just release a $9k 100-300? I don't see an individual spending $10k, maybe an organization like Getty/ESPN/etc. but who wants to piss away $6k for no reason? The Sigma 100-300 still reigns supreme in quality and cost, and it adapts perfectly.
physicist wrote:
Canon MTFs are now, and did not used to be, corrected for the (theoretical) effects of diffraction. Other manufacturers' MTFs are not.
That is not true regarding other manufacturers. Sony uses computed MTFs *without* the effects of diffraction included.
arbitrage wrote:
I know that Canon Japan site has the updated MTFs....as you noted they changed how they do them a number of years ago. TDP may not be updated ones for older lenses.
Yes, I pulled the current MTFs from the Japan site but they unfortunately only provide those for currently available lenses. And most of the EF line apparently is no longer available....
I'm eager to see what images look like with this lens and the 1.4 and 2.0 extenders... it would be great if this lens could replace the 300 and 200-400
fgphoto wrote:
I'm eager to see what images look like with this lens and the 1.4 and 2.0 extenders... it would be great if this lens could replace the 300 and 200-400
I’m pretty sure this is going to be a tack sharp 200-600 with the 2x. Will be a great safari lens.
fgphoto wrote:
I'm eager to see what images look like with this lens and the 1.4 and 2.0 extenders... it would be great if this lens could replace the 300 and 200-400
artsupreme wrote:
I’m pretty sure this is going to be a tack sharp 200-600 with the 2x. Will be a great safari lens.
Even Canon describes the lens as just rivaling the 300/2.8 IS II, i.e., not equal or better to the 2011 lens. I've never found any zoom to perform at a high enough level with a 2x at 45+MP, though it's probably good enough to replace the 200-400/4 w/1.4x. It is not going to be like a 600 prime in IQ.
fgphoto wrote:
I'm eager to see what images look like with this lens and the 1.4 and 2.0 extenders... it would be great if this lens could replace the 300 and 200-400
I'm on the fence about this myself. I think performance with the 1.4x TC will be good and I could see it replacing the bare 200-400 if 400 is enough reach most of the time. This would likely be the case for indoor court/arena sports. But for field sports, at least for me, I find I use the internal 1.4x of the 200-400 about half the time. And I probably would be more reluctant to use the 2x on the 100-300. So at least for me, the 200-400 still has points in its favor.
Based on Canon's MTFs for both the 100-300 (bare and with both TCs) and the 200-400 without and with the internal TC (posted here), The 200-400 at 400 appears to hold a slight edge over the 100-300 at 420mm and the 200-400 with internal TC has an edge over the 100-300 with 2x TC. Not surprisingly the 100-300 appears to suffer more with the 2x TC. Based on my experience with the 200-400 with its TC, this could mean the 100-300 has good 1.4x TC performance, but not quite as good as the primes. With the 2x looks a bit less compelling. Unfortunately we don't have MTFs from the same period (revised) for the EF300/2.8 II.
However, we can compare the 100-300 w/2x TC against the MTF of the RF600/4:
IMO there is a pretty significant difference in performance. It's likely to be a matter of what tradeoffs do you value most? Zoom vs. prime, size, cost, how often do you need 600mm?, etc.
With respect to the 100-300 vs 200-400, one area where I expect the 100-300 to be superior is initial AF acquisition speed/lock. While the 200-400 is fine for tracking moving subjects, IMO its initial acquisition speed could be better. It also becomes less consistent with really close and quick subjects in lower light conditions.
Here's the 100-300 MTF without and with 1.4x TC vs. EF400/2.8 III (optically the same as the RF):
And the 200-400 for reference:
The sagittal and tangential line separation away from image center of the 100-300 (and 200-400) implies increased astigmatism which may manifest as 'less clean' peripheral background blur and possibly some swirl, too due to the likelihood of greater optical vignetting at play than the 400 prime. From the few image samples on the Canon Japan 100-300 page, the 100-300 exhibits noticeable cats eye bokeh ball truncation towards the image periphery. Not sure if it was intentional, but the sample images generally avoid showing much in the way of background texture/rendering... In any case, my experience with the 200-400 vs. the 400 primes I used before it, background rendering and slightly greater peripheral swirl was one of the noticeable downsides of moving to the zoom. This is more the case when there isn't huge subject-background separation. It simply just doesn't look as 'pretty' or clean as the prime. But at least for me, I accepted this tradeoff for the vast increase in productivity covering sporting events with a zoom instead of a prime. IOW I traded some 'look' for greater flexibility.
The first image below shows the cats eye effect at 300 wide open, but background separation is huge, so not really a good opportunity to determine if there will be swirl, too.
The second image is with the 1.4x TC and the background looks pretty clean with some cats eye effect.
Here's the Canon Japan 100-300 page
Click the four 'tabs' directly under the product banner image near the top of the page to access tech specs, accessories and sample images.
Well I just sold my last EF lens, the 200-400. I have my order in for this lens, most likely it will take a bit to get as I waited to order. I think this lens will be awesome for the kayak and of course Kenzie pictures . I will welcome the lighter and more balanced lens over the 200-400mm.
RobAmy wrote:
Well I just sold my last EF lens, the 200-400. I have my order in for this lens, most likely it will take a bit to get as I waited to order. I think this lens will be awesome for the kayak and of course Kenzie pictures . I will welcome the lighter and more balanced lens over the 200-400mm.
Hah I literally just did the same thing....still not available for public pre-order in Canada so you might get in there
RobAmy wrote:
Well I just sold my last EF lens, the 200-400. I have my order in for this lens, most likely it will take a bit to get as I waited to order. I think this lens will be awesome for the kayak and of course Kenzie pictures . I will welcome the lighter and more balanced lens over the 200-400mm.
Cool, I'm staying optimistic that it will be very good with a 2x. I think it's a given it will be amazing both bare and with a 1.4x, but we'll see once you get it in your hands.
RobAmy wrote:
Well I just sold my last EF lens, the 200-400. I have my order in for this lens, most likely it will take a bit to get as I waited to order. I think this lens will be awesome for the kayak and of course Kenzie pictures . I will welcome the lighter and more balanced lens over the 200-400mm.
. I will welcome the lighter and more balanced lens over the 200-400mm. 