Hard for me to read these well on my phone. Thoughts?
15-35 MTF seems same to worse, 24-70 MTF is a lot better at 24mm in the corners. But I'll wait for lensrentals to test RF lenses before looking at more MTF charts
Upvote
0
Hard for me to read these well on my phone. Thoughts?
It's interesting that both lenses are no smaller than their EF variants...but have IS...which doesn't have any size impacts. So from a technical point of view...there was no technical reason that IS couldn't be added to a future EF lens....only marketing reasons.
I haven't seen anything but if that is so then EF16-35 2.8L III which is better than EF 16-34 4L IS will be better than the RF 15-35. But I will wait for Lens Rentals and TDP to test and compare. But both 16-35 III and 16-35 4l IS are very good lenses so an RF lens equally good shouldn't be an issue...It's sad cause we can easily find differences on MTF charts between RF 85 1.2 vs EF 85 1.2 II, RF 50 1.2 vs EF 50 1.2, RF 24-70 vs EF 24-70 II, but with RF 15-35 vs EF 16-35 4.0 IS it's not so sweet.
The EF 50 1.2 and 85 1.2 we're pretty soft however and there was a lot of room to improve. Arguably the 16-35 f4 is already quite a sharp lens and doesn't need improvement quite as much.It's sad cause we can easily find differences on MTF charts between RF 85 1.2 vs EF 85 1.2 II, RF 50 1.2 vs EF 50 1.2, RF 24-70 vs EF 24-70 II, but with RF 15-35 vs EF 16-35 4.0 IS it's not so sweet.
The 15-35 is only $100 more than the MSRP of the EF 16-35 2.8 III and goes even wider. The 24-70 2.8 will sell at almost any price, and with people dying for an IS version for years they'll be flying off the shelves for the $400 premium.
I'm still waiting to see the 70-200 price because the price implied by recent rumors ($300 more than the other 2 lenses) seems excessive to me, but again it's a lens that many people want to own.
None of this is to mention that anyone that can wait another year will probably see rebates before then and a chance to buy them for a couple/few hundreds less.
Just be careful which MTF charts you’re comparing, by which I mean where you find those charts. In 2018, Canon changed the way they calculate the curves resulting in a more stringent assessment. So, if you compare the same lens with the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ MTF method, the performance looks substantially worse on the ‘new’ MTF curves. For all lenses pre-2018 currently in the lineup (which includes all the EF lenses you listed above), Canon revised their MTF charts to the new method, and for a valid comparison you need to compare the RF lenses (which all use the new method) to those revised MTFs. BUT...while Canon Japan shows the updated MTF plots, other regions e.g. Canon USA did not replace the old charts with the new ones.It's sad cause we can easily find differences on MTF charts between RF 85 1.2 vs EF 85 1.2 II, RF 50 1.2 vs EF 50 1.2, RF 24-70 vs EF 24-70 II, but with RF 15-35 vs EF 16-35 4.0 IS it's not so sweet.
No, this is incorrect. To start they are not the same sizes, the new RF lens are slightly larger and slightly heavier. They are close in size, so much that most won’t notice a difference in hand. But the RFs are larger and heavier somewhat. Check the EF sizes on the-digital-picture.com ...
Second, it is a totally different mount, RF vs EF, that changes how the lens can be designed.
I mean, a 15-35 (with 2.8 and IS) is still different to a 16-35, right? May not cause quite a stir like the 11-24 did, but it is still a good step forward.15-35 MTF seems same to worse, 24-70 MTF is a lot better at 24mm in the corners. But I'll wait for lensrentals to test RF lenses before looking at more MTF charts
Looking at the C500 Mark II indicates that they are dropping CF in favour of CFExpress and they probably keep SD as the secondary card slot.Another tease of that lovely wee fat 70-200mm. Really looking forward to that and the 24-70(which comes after the 70-200 and super tele). Really looking forward new R camera too, frankly the only thing stopping me on the current R is that it used SD cards instead of CF cards.
Looking at the C500 Mark II indicates that they are dropping CF in favour of CFExpress and they probably keep SD as the secondary card slot.
It is probably the best recipe to keep all potential buyers happy, UHS-II is plenty fast already anyway for 4k60p or high framerate burst with less megapixels.CFExpress suites me fine, I have other things I can plug that into but no other uses for SD cards.
Erm...no...the ef 50mm f1.2L for sure but not the ef 85mm f1.2L...it's seriously sharp wide open. I've owned 3 copies of the '50L and processed the output from a few more (2nd photogs) and they were all slightly soft. But every copy of the ef 85 f1.2 II L has been razor sharp.The EF 50 1.2 and 85 1.2 we're pretty soft however and there was a lot of room to improve. Arguably the 16-35 f4 is already quite a sharp lens and doesn't need improvement quite as much.
That said more sharpness would still be nice, especially with the rumored 80mp Sensor.
Looking at the comparison between the Sigma 85mm 1.4 Art and the Canon EF 85mm 1.2 II, both at 1.4 aperture... Saying that the 85mm II had a good amount of room for improvement seems like a fair statement to me. And Sigma doesn't have the advantage of the new Mount that Canon had with the RF 85mm 1.2. Unfortunately we don't have a 50 MP R yet, so there's no fair comparison there.Erm...no...the ef 50mm f1.2L for sure but not the ef 85mm f1.2L...it's seriously sharp wide open. I've owned 3 copies of the '50L and processed the output from a few more (2nd photogs) and they were all slightly soft. But every copy of the ef 85 f1.2 II L has been razor sharp.
Your argument is unfortunately is misinformed and naive. The Sigma lens has the massive disadvantage of Sigma's notorious AF inconsistency issues. A Sigma is NOT a comparative replacement to Canon's L range...regardless of the focal length and Aperture claim. The Canon is 1/3 stop brighter....that's a lot of real world light. The Canon has a focus by wire design that is slow but way more accurate than the appalling AF system implemented in the Sigma Art 35/50/85mm lenses. Then there's the Canon build quality...plus the resale value...Sigma is still some way behind Canon's finest. After all these years (the basic design of the 85IIL heralds from when the ESO system was first implemented...very pre-digital) and yet Sigma or Nikon haven't caught up...go figure. They copy and fall a bit short.Looking at the comparison between the Sigma 85mm 1.4 Art and the Canon EF 85mm 1.2 II, both at 1.4 aperture... Saying that the 85mm II had a good amount of room for improvement seems like a fair statement to me. And Sigma doesn't have the advantage of the new Mount that Canon had with the RF 85mm 1.2. Unfortunately we don't have a 50 MP R yet, so there's no fair comparison there.
Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens Image Quality
View the image quality delivered by the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.www.the-digital-picture.com
It used to be the case on DSLR, new Art lenses like 105 f1.4 are extremelly accurate.Your argument is unfortunately is misinformed and naive. The Sigma lens has the massive disadvantage of Sigma's notorious AF inconsistency issues.
I'm not making any argument about any Sigma lens being better or worse than a similar one from Canon. That depends entirely on the lens and use case, as well as subjective preferences. For me, for example, the 35mm 1.4 Art beats the Canon 35mm 1.4 II... Because one is affordable enough for me to buy it and take pictures with - and the other is not. And I rarely use AF, since I use that lens primarily for landscape and astro photography. But that was not the point at all.Your argument is unfortunately is misinformed and naive.