Is there such a thing like pro stock lenses, or special +++ quality lenses for demo or reviews ?

[TES]

I did it without difficulties for my MF Zeiss 50mm Macro Planar (which has an electronic interface).
But obviously it doesn't work with for instance fully "electronic-free" lenses (Leica R).
Edit: did it also for the Zeiss 21mm f2,8, EF mount.
PS: manual lenses of course don't autofocus after "AFMAing" them, but the green focus-ok LED in the viewfinder shows you if the lens is properly focused.
If you prefer, in this case, call it "FMA"

Makes sense to me with the focus-ok LED.

 

[TES]

TES, welcome to Canon Rumors, this a great forum that has an amazing community that is always willing to help and offer advice to those that need it.

That said this is also a favored spot for users with 1 - 10 post to come shit on x Canon (normally spelled Cannon) gear get their ass chewed out and slink back away into the black hole of the interwebs.

I would suggest if you are actually seeking advice to "Read the Room" this discussion has no legs.

Cheers

Hey, I never put out any shit on Canon or other gear for that matter. I think gear is very much a personal preference.

Anyway you have to post your first post, I applied for membership yesterday, but I see it will run out soon (see my next post)

 

[Peter Bergh]

What is AFMA ? Is that relevant for an R5 body ?

AFMA is an acronym for Auto-Focus Micro Adjust. It may be needed for SLRs because of manufacturing tolerances causing different positions of the focusing element relative to the sensor; in SLRs the sensor and the focusing element are not the same. In mirrorless cameras, such as the R5, the focusing element and the sensor are one and the same, so AFMA is not needed.

 

[privatebydesign]

I would happily agree with you, but there are certainly sample variations - and they can be quite substantial.

Perhaps it was just by chance the demo lenses from Canon that I tried turned out to be the best of the handfull I tested.

Yes there are definitely sample variations and manufacturing tolerances. Combine those amongst parts of a system, plus/minus on both a lens and a body, and you can get variations that make some combinations unsatisfactory. Having said that if I was getting multiple lenses that I wasn't happy with I'd be looking at the body, not the lenses, the body is the common denominator and you could well be looking for a set of lenses that are at one extreme of a manufacturing tolerance because your body is at the other extreme.

Uncle Roger, the guy who has bought more lenses than probably anybody on the planet and is very happy to take them apart, has had a lot to say about tolerances and sample variation over the years.

“This Lens Is Soft” and Other Facts

In 2008, I wrote an article This Lens is Soft, and Other Myths that pointed out that lenses and cameras all have tolerance ranges and sometimes a given lens can be sharp on one camera body, and soft on another. At the time, autofocus micro-adjustment was a fairly new feature on camera bodies and...

www.lensrentals.com

 

[TES]

AFMA is an acronym for Auto-Focus Micro Adjust. It may be needed for SLRs because of manufacturing tolerances causing different positions of the focusing element relative to the sensor; in SLRs the sensor and the focusing element are not the same. In mirrorless cameras, such as the R5, the focusing element and the sensor are one and the same, so AFMA is not needed.

Yes, I just didn't know the acronym - thanks

When I got the R and later R5, I was so surprised that some of my most problematic lenses suddenly were stellar performers. I spend hours with my Sigma dock to micro adjust the ART Lenses 24 / 35 / and mostly 50 (85 seemed ok at first) to my 5D4, at the R focus was no longer a problem, even the 50 could focus spot on near the frame. WOW even my 85 1.2 II got a revival. I think tat was the best part of buying a mirrorless for me.

 

[privatebydesign]

As for pro vs not pro knowing this stuff, I'd caution against broad assumptions. I am a working pro and I also geek out on this stuff, I know many other working pros and I'm surprised half of them can change a lens! Truthfully lots of working pros do not understand many aspects of photography and fewer still have deep understandings of their cameras.

TES, I welcome you to CR and hope you stay and teach us some of the undoubted expertise you have gained over that 30+ years of experience in whatever fields you get your work in.

This week I shot, professionally, a Symphony Orchestra, a street rename, and two swimming pools for a developer, I also led one field trip and one workshop, I have close to 10,000 posts here and with this user name and my previous one I have been here since it began, but I still learn stuff here all the time.

 

[TES]

Yes there are definitely sample variations and manufacturing tolerances. Combine those amongst parts of a system, plus/minus on both a lens and a body, and you can get variations that make some combinations unsatisfactory. Having said that if I was getting multiple lenses that I wasn't happy with I'd be looking at the body, not the lenses, the body is the common denominator and you could well be looking for a set of lenses that are at one extreme of a manufacturing tolerance because your body is at the other extreme.

Uncle Roger, the guy who has bought more lenses than probably anybody on the planet and is very happy to take them apart, has had a lot to say about tolerances and sample variation over the years.

“This Lens Is Soft” and Other Facts

In 2008, I wrote an article This Lens is Soft, and Other Myths that pointed out that lenses and cameras all have tolerance ranges and sometimes a given lens can be sharp on one camera body, and soft on another. At the time, autofocus micro-adjustment was a fairly new feature on camera bodies and...

www.lensrentals.com

I need to understand you correctly, what you suggest is that my R5 might be the problem and not the lens ? Could you elaborate, thanks.

Interesting, I have to look into that, so far both my R and R5 have been excellent on focus with EF lenses, and Sigma Art Lenses, and also RF 24-70 /2.8 (my only RF lens).

Cheers, TES

 

[privatebydesign]

I did it without difficulties for my MF Zeiss 50mm Macro Planar (which has an electronic interface).
But obviously it doesn't work with for instance fully "electronic-free" lenses (Leica R).
Edit: did it also for the Zeiss 21mm f2,8, EF mount.
PS: manual lenses of course don't autofocus after "AFMAing" them, but the green focus-ok LED in the viewfinder shows you if the lens is properly focused.
If you prefer, in this case, call it "FMA"

Maybe I should have been more clear, how do you AFMA (or FMA if you prefer) an R5? The camera the OP was specifically talking about.

 

[TES]

As for pro vs not pro knowing this stuff, I'd caution against broad assumptions. I am a working pro and I also geek out on this stuff, I know many other working pros and I'm surprised half of them can change a lens! Truthfully lots of working pros do not understand many aspects of photography and fewer still have deep understandings of their cameras.

TES, I welcome you to CR and hope you stay and teach us some of the undoubted expertise you have gained over that 30+ years of experience in whatever fields you get your work in.

This week I shot, professionally, a Symphony Orchestra, a street rename, and two swimming pools for a developer, I also led one field trip and one workshop, I have close to 10,000 posts here and with this user name and my previous one I have been here since it began, but I still learn stuff here all the time.

You are absolutely correct, I know many pro photographers who don't give a sh+# about gear, and also treat their gear really badly. I was trained in science before I fell in love with photography, so for me the interest in the technical aspect of photography always came natural.

Thanks for welcoming me, you seem like a good person

However the old Rob Galbraith and later LL forum still haunts me, so much bad vibes then, and I really don't want to go back to that.

 

[privatebydesign]

I need to understand you correctly, what you suggest is that my R5 might be the problem and not the lens ? Could you elaborate, thanks.

Interesting, I have to look into that, so far both my R and R5 have been excellent on focus with EF lenses, and Sigma Art Lenses, and also RF 24-70 /2.8 (my only RF lens).

Cheers, TES

What I am suggesting is if multiple lenses are meh, maybe it is the common denominator the body. Focus is achieved as a percentage of aperture, it isn't 'the best it can be' it is within a range, maybe your camera AF is off slightly.

 

[TES]

What I am suggesting is if multiple lenses are meh, maybe it is the common denominator the body. Focus is achieved as a percentage of aperture, it isn't 'the best it can be' it is within a range, maybe your camera AF is off slightly.

Sure that is a possibility, I will look into that tomorrow. However my other 85's seem spot on (wide open focus on an eye), so I will test with both R and R5, seems unlikely they would both be off. Somehow my feeling (not tested) is that the AF on my R's are spot on.

Send you a PM

Cheers, TES

 

[Del Paso]

Maybe I should have been more clear, how do you AFMA (or FMA if you prefer) an R5? The camera the OP was specifically talking about.

Sorry for the confusion!
My answer referred only to the issues "TES" had with his 5DsR.
He started his post by speaking of the 100-400 and 24 TSE tested on the 5DsR, and found out copy variations, which I attributed to lack of AFMA.
Only Nikon's Zs offer AFMA.
Quality variations will be due exclusively to the lenses, but, as it's been already said, not very probable on the new RF L lenses.

 

[TES]

Sorry for the confusion!
My answer referred only to the issues "TES" had with his 5DsR.
He started his post by speaking of the 100-400 and 24 TSE tested on the 5DsR, and found out copy variations, which I attributed to lack of AFMA.
Only Nikon's Zs offer AFMA.
Quality variations will be due exclusively to the lenses, but, as it's been already said, not very probable on the new RF L lenses.

Yes, I kind of mixed that up. My problems are now with the RF 85 1.2 and my R5, and I am not aware that you can adjust the camera or lens AF.

I still have my 5DsR and some off brand lenses, so I will try your suggestions out, just to see. Have still some Tamron lenses and the Tamron dock.

Cheers, TES

 

[Joules]

Here are a 2 screenshots - 1 full view of my books, focus on the white text for all 3 RF Lenses @ 1.2
2nd are 100% view of the 3 RF Lenses - no sharpness or post applied

Just a few things to point out:

A single shot may not tell the whole story, as there are also variations of AF between shots. Taking multiple ones, and using a tool that actually calculates sharpness rather than comparing visually, would be recommended to prevent your personal bias or expectation to color your findings.
Books may not be the best target, a proper flat test chart provides better details to judge sharpness for example, while also allowing the AF to grab something more consistently.
With the R5, you may also want to state your shutter speeds, as there are shutter shock issues with shutter speeds at or below 1/100 s that will degrade sharpness independend of the lens.
Also, different copies of a lens may show different sharpness characteristics across the frame and at different distances. So a single crop section isn't enought to make proper judgements.

With a DSLR, unless you focus using LiveView, AFMA is of course also a factor, but others have already pointed this out and it does not apply to the mirrorless bodies.

 

[TES]

Just a few things to point out:

A single shot may not tell the whole story, as there are also variations of AF between shots. Taking multiple ones, and using a tool that actually calculates sharpness rather than comparing visually, would be recommended to prevent your personal bias or expectation to color your findings.
Books may not be the best target, a proper flat test chart provides better details to judge sharpness for example, while also allowing the AF to grab something more consistently.
With the R5, you may also want to state your shutter speeds, as there are shutter shock issues with shutter speeds at or below 1/100 s that will degrade sharpness independend of the lens.
Also, different copies of a lens may show different sharpness characteristics across the frame and at different distances. So a single crop section isn't enought to make proper judgements.

With a DSLR, unless you focus using LiveView, AFMA is of course also a factor, but others have already pointed this out and it does not apply to the mirrorless bodies.

Thanks, I did of cause shoot more than one frame. Focus was AF spot, R5 on a steady tripod IS off. I think the books are great, as you can very easy see if a written text (on binding) is absolutely sharp. The books are not absolute on a single plane as some books are offset (not sure if this is the correct term), and this will allow me to se if focus is perhaps off (then some books will be sharper in the frame).

I also shot some portraits, full body, half body and headshot using eye AF tracking - as this would be the way I would normally photograph. The result were equal to the bookshelf photo. I think with the portraits the Canon Demo stood out even more.

I am thinking what I could be missing, and you have some valid points. I would really like to have a brand new RF 85 1.2 and not one used for demo (as you don't know how other treated the lens), but the fact is that the demo lens is superior to me.

Cheers, TES

 

[TES]

Also, different copies of a lens may show different sharpness characteristics across the frame and at different distances. So a single crop section isn't enought to make proper judgements.

That is very true to my findings testing other lenses too. However with the demo RF 85 was better on the whole frame, except the very lower left corner (that was a tie)....

 

[Del Paso]

I may add that EF L lenses can indeed vary in quality.
My first 16-35 f4 was a disaster, it exhibited a strange behavior: at infinity setting, the foreground's center was sharp, the sides out of focus, the background was just the opposite. At 21mm, it was "about" sharp, at 35mm very good...
Number 2 is really excellent!
Let me guess that the newer Canon lenses benefit from an intelligent automated assembly method, what Lens Rentals' testing seems to prove.
But, if you want to keep sample variations to a minimum, you'll have to pay the Leica price (gaaaasp !).

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Those suggesting that you perform a AFMA on your R5 missed reading your original post. Canon Mirrorless bodies do not have a AFMA setting for the user. There is likely a setting that adjusts autofocus accuracy, but its done by the Factory or service center.

Lenses get bumped in shipping, boxes of them get dropped off fork lifts, lots of things happen between the factory and the buyer that can decenter a lens element or damage a lens internally so that it does not work quite right. Canon has really beefed up construction for recent lenses and their packaging provides better protection. There is also a tolerance in manufacturing between lenses that are considered as being in specification but are sub par for some users.


Some dealers let you try 2 or 3 lenses on a camera in store, but I really don't know how anyone could reasonably compare sharpness or lends anomolies that way.

This is a older article showing variation among different copies of the same lens.

Notes on Lens and Camera Variation

A funny thing happened when I opened Lensrentals and started getting 6 or 10 copies of each lens: I found out they weren't all the same. Not quite. And each of those copies behaved a bit different on different cameras. I wrote a couple of articles about this: This Lens is Soft and Other Myths [...]

www.lensrentals.com

 

[Joules]

Thanks, I did of cause shoot more than one frame. Focus was AF spot, R5 on a steady tripod IS off. I think the books are great, as you can very easy see if a written text (on binding) is absolutely sharp. The books are not absolute on a single plane as some books are offset (not sure if this is the correct term), and this will allow me to se if focus is perhaps off (then some books will be sharper in the frame).

I also shot some portraits, full body, half body and headshot using eye AF tracking - as this would be the way I would normally photograph. The result were equal to the bookshelf photo. I think with the portraits the Canon Demo stood out even more.

I am thinking what I could be missing, and you have some valid points. I would really like to have a brand new RF 85 1.2 and not one used for demo (as you don't know how other treated the lens), but the fact is that the demo lens is superior to me.

Cheers, TES

Have you confronted the store were you got all your samples from about these findings? As they seem to be willing to go through quite the hassle to keep you as a customer, they should also be okay with providing some information about the process that goes into determining which lens they put up as demo and what they could see as potential causes for the IQ differences.

If I had to speculate, somebody will check a lens out to make sure it isn't a total wreck before using it as demo - but nothing more than that. If that's information they won't share, it's odd (or they just have enough off you) and might be reason to pause.

But since you seem to have built up a reputation of being the guy who only buys the best lens, I also don't see how it serves them to degrade all their other boxes instead of just giving you said best one if they know which one it is anyway - unless of course they are circumventing some laws of the place you're from by essentially practicing a form of false advertising. In which case I would wonder what's the point of it all in the first place.

Anyway, seems to me we can only speculate and that won't help anybody, really. Either confront the store (or Canon) with your pictures, or just write it off as chance.

 

[TES]

Those suggesting that you perform a AFMA on your R5 missed reading your original post. Canon Mirrorless bodies do not have a AFMA setting for the user. There is likely a setting that adjusts autofocus accuracy, but its done by the Factory or service center.

Lenses get bumped in shipping, boxes of them get dropped off fork lifts, lots of things happen between the factory and the buyer that can decenter a lens element or damage a lens internally so that it does not work quite right. Canon has really beefed up construction for recent lenses and their packaging provides better protection. There is also a tolerance in manufacturing between lenses that are considered as being in specification but are sub par for some users.


Some dealers let you try 2 or 3 lenses on a camera in store, but I really don't know how anyone could reasonably compare sharpness or lends anomolies that way.

This is a older article showing variation among different copies of the same lens.

Notes on Lens and Camera Variation

A funny thing happened when I opened Lensrentals and started getting 6 or 10 copies of each lens: I found out they weren't all the same. Not quite. And each of those copies behaved a bit different on different cameras. I wrote a couple of articles about this: This Lens is Soft and Other Myths [...]

www.lensrentals.com

AFMA was not the issue or topic for my post, but thanks for your answer. Yes I guess handling and shipping might throw some lenses out of tolerance, however the boxes I got was in mint condition, but it could still be happening.