wickerprints wrote:
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:
The MTF shown in the link is labeled correctly and the x-axis is correct. *whew* Now I can sleep at night. ...Show more →
yes it's MTF charts. But it's not like the are made from a real lens, and you now about that lens when you buy it. Canons MTF are just theoretical MTF charts
wickerprints wrote:
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*).
Why shudder? Sigma's 15mm fisheye is absolutely fantastic. It's every single bit as good as the Canon, but with better build, better flare resistance and it focuses significantly closer. This is one area where going Sigma is not a downgrade in any way.
So, this 70-300L....is the same MSRP as I paid for a "bargain" 28-300L from KEH. And besides some scratches on the barrel, the thing is perfect, and picture quality is great with the 1k or so shots I've put on it so far.
For those looking for that flexability, I would think, even a mint condition 28-300L for $1,900 or so would make more sense than the 70-300L...maybe I'm wrong...
To me, the 70-300 needs to be very close to f4 at 200 to be tempting at all, with performance at least close to the 70-200.
Looks like the new full-frame non-L alternatives will all be third-party lenses. I think this is a serious mistake by Canon. Given my non-professional uses, I would am much more interested in Tamron's new 70-300 than I am in Canon's obtrusive white one...
Interested to see MTF charts for the 300/2.8II ($7k? That's crazy) and the 1.4xTC III... wondering if there's any optical improvement at all. It'll be some time before people get their hands on one of these puppies to do a proper astrophoto test (which is an optical torture test, revealing any flaws)
Perhaps I should join CPS now so I can get a free test in the future
WebDog wrote:
Not sure if commented b4 but the 70-300/IS appears to have vanished and replaced with the L version at 3 times the price....
The "old" 70-300 was a pretty good value for the money
It would make more sense to replace the 70-300 DO with the new 70-300 L rather then discontinue the consumer 70-300 IS and replace it with the L version.
Andrew Welsh wrote:
Interested to see MTF charts for the 300/2.8II ($7k? That's crazy) and the 1.4xTC III... wondering if there's any optical improvement at all. It'll be some time before people get their hands on one of these puppies to do a proper astrophoto test (which is an optical torture test, revealing any flaws)
Perhaps I should join CPS now so I can get a free test in the future
This announcement goes to show that nobody has the pulse on what's going to happen with the Canon lens market. Nobody saw a 75-300L coming or a zoom fisheye. I never saw anything saying yesterday was going to be a big announcement date.
) 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.
