Canon’s corporate strategy for 2024 released

[Del Paso]

I have doubts about that. Significant doubts.

View attachment 215456 View attachment 215457

The MTFs support my doubts. 'Sharpness' corresponds to the blue lines. As far as MTFs go, the difference between the two lenses is significant.

Were the MTFs measured according to the same procedure? Hasn't there once been a change of method?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Were the MTFs measured according to the same procedure? Hasn't there once been a change of method?

1) Canon’s MTFs are calculated from the optical formulae, not actually measured.

2) Yes, they changed the calculation method around 2018-2019. The old method was more ‘forgiving’, so comparing old and new is not valid.

The MTFs I posted are comparable. They’re easy to tell apart, the old versions have 8 lines, the new ones have 4 lines. To find the new versions of MTF charts for older lenses (pre-RF), you need to look on Canon Japan’s site – they updated all the old lenses to the current MTF format, but other geographies still show the old ones.

 

[AlanF]

As the 800mm is 60% longer, its resolution is boosted by 60% over the bare 500mm and will appear sharper for distant objects that have to be cropped more on the 500mm. But, I too am surprised that it would be sharper than the 500mm f/4 II + 1.4xTC at 700mm as that lens takes the 1.4xTC very well.

 

[AlanF]

1) Canon’s MTFs are calculated from the optical formulae, not actually measured.

2) Yes, they changed the calculation method around 2018-2019. The old method was more ‘forgiving’, so comparing old and new is not valid.

The MTFs I posted are comparable. They’re easy to tell apart, the old versions have 8 lines, the new ones have 4 lines. To find the new versions of MTF charts for older lenses (pre-RF), you need to look on Canon Japan’s site – they updated all the old lenses to the current MTF format, but other geographies still show the old ones.

I think the difference is that the new ones are corrected for diffraction.

 

[neuroanatomist]

From Rudy Winston at Canon USA:

https://www.usa.canon.com/learning/training-articles/training-articles-list/reading-and-understanding-lens-mtf-charts

 

[Del Paso]

From Rudy Winston at Canon USA:

https://www.usa.canon.com/learning/training-articles/training-articles-list/reading-and-understanding-lens-mtf-charts

Very useful and informative. Thank you!

 

[roby17269]

Many photos at 800mm (or even 600mm and 700mm) are quite soft and it has nothing to do with the lens. So very difficult to judge until you try it yourself with favorable atmospheric conditions.

Very true, but the long wait for it is not helping my jitters

 

[roby17269]

The optical compromises are far less on the 100-400 than on the 24-240, IMO.

Most likely, given one is wide-tele and the other is tele-tele - still, I have the 100-500 and I consider it light enough that it does not bother me hiking.

I considered the 200-800, but not very seriously. When I need something that long (birds), I use the 600/4 II + 1.4x, and if I don't need something that long then the 100-500L does a better job. Same reason I was not seriously tempted by the 800/11.

Well, if I had a big exotic white like you (what's your address and door lock code, incidentally?? ) I would not consider the 200-800, as I wouldn't have bought the 800 11. But alas, I don't so I do

 

[roby17269]

A friend of mine, who is a serious and avid bird photographer, has done tests with the 200-800mm on the R5 and compared the results with the EF 500mm Mk II (with and without EF1.4 Mk III extender) and his conclusion is that the 200-800mm is sharper that his EF 500mm.

Maybe his 500 is not a good copy? I find that difficult to believe, based on empirical evidence (i.e. the photos I see online)

 

[John Wilde]

I mean this in the nicest way, but this thread is a good indication of how unrepresentative the average forum user is, compared to the general camera buying public.

According to CIPA, industry-wide, about 1.6 lenses are sold per camera body, and that includes kit lenses. Not everyone is a lensaholic. That said, Canon likes the high margins they get on their RF-L lenses.

 

[EricN]

According to CIPA, industry-wide, about 1.6 lenses are sold per camera body, and that includes kit lenses. Not everyone is a lensaholic. That said, Canon likes the high margins they get on their RF-L lenses.

Every time I see this 1.6 number, and an ef 50mm f/1.8 was one of the top ten lenses sold of the year, I wonder How many of us are lured into the seduction of buying L lenses (or equivalent from other companies)?

 

[Brikna]

Every time I see this 1.6 number, and an ef 50mm f/1.8 was one of the top ten lenses sold of the year, I wonder How many of us are lured into the seduction of buying L lenses (or equivalent from other companies)?

Many quality lenses "last" significantly longer than cameras. For example, at one time you I bought EF 16-35L, EF 24-70L, EF 70-200L, EF 50L, EF 300L with the 5DII. After 5DII, you I bought 5DIII, and then 5DIV.
You are approximately at 1,666 lenses per camera, even though you I consider yourself myself an above-average user.

 

[AlanF]

From Rudy Winston at Canon USA:

https://www.usa.canon.com/learning/training-articles/training-articles-list/reading-and-understanding-lens-mtf-charts

There's some waffle there that they recalculated the old MTFs to allow for modern high resolution sensors. But, that's nonsense as the calculation of the MTF of a lens is independent of the sensor. It's clear that the old values were "geometric" ones that didn't include diffraction as the values for the best lenses were above the theoretical limits dictated by diffraction. I'm pretty sure that basically all they did was to follow Sigma and include diffraction. Here are the MTFs for different f-numbers for diffraction that are used to multiply the geometric ones by. You can see by looking at the old values and the new ones they have been scaled down by these diffraction MTFs. The new narrow RF lenses, like the f/11 600mm and 800mm, 800mm f/9 etc, have MTF values that are a bit below the diffraction limits showing that diffraction is the major factor in Canon's calculations for them at the centre, and the geometric values fall off as the edges are approached.

.

 

[scyrene]

Most likely, given one is wide-tele and the other is tele-tele - still, I have the 100-500 and I consider it light enough that it does not bother me hiking.

Well, if I had a big exotic white like you (what's your address and door lock code, incidentally?? ) I would not consider the 200-800, as I wouldn't have bought the 800 11. But alas, I don't so I do

I'm intrigued, what are you hoping the 200-800 will provide over the 100-500? Just that extra bit of reach? Does the 1.4x not suit for that purpose?

 

[roby17269]

I'm intrigued, what are you hoping the 200-800 will provide over the 100-500? Just that extra bit of reach? Does the 1.4x not suit for that purpose?

I love the 100-500 naked, but I have used it with the 1.4x and 2x extenders and I did not love the results (nor the ergonomics limitations)
For me extenders are a last resort measure. I prefer to get there with naked lenses and / or high resolution.

 

[scyrene]

I love the 100-500 naked, but I have used it with the 1.4x and 2x extenders and I did not love the results (nor the ergonomics limitations)
For me extenders are a last resort measure. I prefer to get there with naked lenses and / or high resolution.

Fair enough!

 

[chasingrealness]

Are you using the R7/50 1.2 for portraits?

Whenever I read/hear corporate PR, I ask myself "Who is this intended to manipulate and what do they want the reader/listener to believe?"

I am, and it’s fantastic. I also shoot with a Tamron SP EF 35mm f/1.4, a Samsung RF 85mm f/1.4 and a Sigma EF 135mm f/1.8. All of those lenses render beautifully on the R7.

 

[davidhfe]

Japanese corps still use faxes & floppy disks (though these are just now being phased out), so an ancient looking powerpoint is no surprise.

At least faxes and floppies were useful. There has NEVER been a time when a giant red glow around black text has been appropriate for a corporate communication!

 

[EricN]

Many quality lenses "last" significantly longer than cameras. For example, at one time you bought EF 16-35L, EF 24-70L, EF 70-200L, EF 50L, EF 300L with the 5DII. After 5DII, you bought 5DIII, and then 5DIV.
You are approximately at 1,666 lenses per camera, even though you consider yourself an above-average user.

I'm not sure, because I have been buying one or two lenses a year (not necessarily L) and don't buy every updated model of body..
What do you mean by, "above average user"?

 

[EOS 4 Life]

All fora populated by people passionate in something do not represent the average user

Is there an r/averageperson?