wickerprints wrote:
Is it me, or does the fisheye zoom MTF make no sense at the wide end? If it's 8mm circular, there shouldn't *BE* any MTF beyond 12mm because that's the radius of the image circle. So, what is the curve describing?
Yeah, they forgot to set the limits in their computer simulation model or what?
dolina wrote:
Who does not want faster glass? But it would probably be double the weight and price. This product's being aimed at xxD, xxD and 5D crowd so anything higher would not make this a universal solution.
But my point is that I don't *want* an 8-15/2.8 FE zoom. I wanted Canon to keep the prime because I don't find the idea of having a circular FE and a diagonal FE in one lens to be particularly useful. If I wanted one of each, I'd buy two lenses. And when the zoom is $1400, I pretty much could do just that. And the result would be better because both could be f/2.8 rather than one f/4.
Now there's no fisheye prime, which means I'll put up with the ancient EF 15/2.8, or I'll look into Sigma's (*shudder*). Unless this zoom is sharper than the 15/2.8, and is priced closer to $800, I won't buy it. $1400 is far too much to ask for this design, especially after looking at the 15mm MTF. I am not impressed, whether or not Canon puts a red ring around it.
PetKal wrote:
I am not so sure about that, Leonid.
While I agree that 500 f/4 Mk I is an excellent wildlife lens, I believe a 3.2 kg 4 stop IS 500 f/4 Mk II will be a perfect wildlife lens.
I am sure it will be great lens, but my current as well amazing too
These amounts are very hefty for my budget and I am not pro as you know, also I figured that investment in great travels returns more good photos than investments in new L's
Canon just re-defined the "rational pricing". The current 300/2.8L IS looks cheap relative to the new version. Perhaps I should snap up the 500/4L IS now that it looks "cheap"!
wickerprints wrote:
Is it me, or does the fisheye zoom MTF make no sense at the wide end? If it's 8mm circular, there shouldn't *BE* any MTF beyond 12mm because that's the radius of the image circle. So, what is the curve describing?
alundeb wrote:
Yeah, they forgot to set the limits in their computer simulation model or what?
That still wouldn't explain it, because in a computer model, even simulated incident rays could never fall outside of the image circle. There would be nothing to simulate. In other words, if the ray tracing simulation showed light falling outside the 12mm circle, then where did those rays originate? Certainly it could not have been modeled as passing through the lens!
Whatever is the case, I am sure we are looking at some bogus MTF results. That entire chart is suspect to me. The only plausible explanation I can think of is that the x-axis scale (image height) actually ranges from 0 - 12mm, and they simply neglected to label the axis correctly.
This whole question led me to think about other lenses that do not have the "normal" image circle, such as the TS-E lenses. And guess what I found when I looked up the TS-E 17/4L and the 24/3.5L? Not only do the charts show the usual x-axis scale (up to about 22mm), but those particular charts are missing another set of curves. I am guessing that the red curve is 10 lp/mm and the purple is 30 lp/mm, but then what is the performance by f-number? What is the performance outside of the 22mm circle? Or has the x-axis been drawn at the wrong scale? What a weird set of charts.
SR777 wrote:
Canon just re-defined the "rational pricing". The current 300/2.8L IS looks cheap relative to the new version. Perhaps I should snap up the 500/4L IS now that it looks "cheap"!
I would say yes!!! I might be getting "old" fisheye, it is amazing as it is.
DocsPics wrote:
Hope the 300/2.8 IS II doesn't become Canon's "New Coke".
I don't have a single complaint about my 300/2.8 IS MkI (except not having enough time to use it)
+1 My only complaint is I don't get enough time to use the 300/2.8L IS Mk1. MTF graphs for the new lenses don't make a difference to me - I love my 300/2.8L IS Mk1.
Breitling65 wrote:
I would say yes!!! I might be getting "old" fisheye, it is amazing as it is.
Exactly my thoughts as well on the 15mm fisheye
Even if the new lenses are coated with gold and platinum, surely enough pros have published outstanding images with the existing line-up over the years. If it was good for them, it is brilliant for me
SR777 wrote:
+1 My only complaint is I don't get enough time to use the 300/2.8L IS Mk1. MTF graphs for the new lenses don't make a difference to me - I love my 300/2.8L IS Mk1.
+1, stunning IQ and amazing results. I don't care about 8% weight reduction for double price
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Good luck, maybe you will get it 2012
Lars:
Now i have the information required to make an informed decision.
800L IS now and 500L IS in 2011.
The 200L IS, 500L IS II and 800L IS is my objective/10 year plan.
Now, has anyone heard anything about the 1D V
PetKal wrote:
While I agree that 500 f/4 Mk I is an excellent wildlife lens, I believe a 3.2 kg 4 stop IS 500 f/4 Mk II will be a perfect wildlife lens.
If the 400 II's weight loss is any indicator I am batting for a sub-3kg 500 II and a 3.7kg 600 II.
SR777 wrote:
Supreme Commander PetKal, I can see you picking up a couple of copies of 500/4 Mk1
I would say with this announcement Canon will sell twice more "old" 500L/300L/fisheye's/etc than normal days Good tactic, announce today with actual in store availability end of next year, while that time all close-outs will be gone from stores.
Breitling65 wrote:
I would say with this announcement Canon will sell twice more "old" 500L/300L/fisheye's/etc than normal days Good tactic, announce today with actual in store availability end of next year, while that time all close-outs will be gone from stores.
This is a good way to negate the "Osborne Effect". Makes the current stock saleable, gives current owners a headstart to sell their gear before prices drop significantly by mid-2012.
Quite please that there is nothing for me in there.. I have spent way too much on optics lately. After releasing heir TS-E magic I'm not complaining about Canon releases. I still would love a new version of the TS-E 45.
Breitling65 wrote:
I would say with this announcement Canon will sell twice more "old" 500L/300L/fisheye's/etc than normal days Good tactic, announce today with actual in store availability end of next year, while that time all close-outs will be gone from stores.
Now, if I did that in my day job, my business would tank completely. I had always suspected I was in the wrong industry, but just got confirmation to that effect.
I started trolling through B&S forum to find the "old" fisheye and 500/4L lenses
Lars Johnsson wrote:
I don't belive there will that much of a price drop. With the new expensive prices a lot of people will be looking for the older versions
Then again, there will be enough MkI owners who would want to sell it to help finance the MKII. Grey importers will also want to shift their stock.
ViscaB wrote:
Quite please that there is nothing for me in there.. I have spent way too much on optics lately. After releasing heir TS-E magic I'm not complaining about Canon releases. I still would love a new version of the TS-E 45.
Ik niet. So would I. Fell in love with TS-E after getting the 17L.
The more I stare at these Canon MTF charts, the more I wonder if they actually MEAN anything....
(Yes, I know how to read MTF charts. At least real ones, not made-up weird charts with missing curves and suspicious axes.)
I just get this vague feeling of dread when I look at these...like things don't add up quite right. The 400/2.8L IS II could not possibly be that good. No lens is. It makes me question what the simulation parameters entail. Diffraction is one issue, but does it take into account loss of transmission due to air-glass interfaces? Does it take into account vignetting? Non-image forming light?
It's not that I need these MTFs to be real-world (okay, well, it would be *nice* ) but really, the whole thing smells funny to me now because of that stupid fisheye MTF. For all I know some Canon engineer's kid drew them in Illustrator, because that chart is very wrong.
EDIT:
Okay, my faith is restored. I should've just looked at the website instead of the earlier attachment in this thread, because someone copied the wrong chart:
. I have spent way too much on optics lately. After releasing heir TS-E magic I'm not complaining about Canon releases. I still would love a new version of the TS-E 45
) but really, the whole thing smells funny to me now because of that stupid fisheye MTF. For all I know some Canon engineer's kid drew them in Illustrator, because that chart is very wrong.