MTF Charts vs. Sharpness in the field

[Cryve]

To be clear here, im not talking about just beeing futher away when taking the picture. You can always just go further away and show more Environment this way.
Im talking about how much background is visible behind the subject.

This comparison between 400 mm and 135 shows it quite well. Both pictures have the same framing of the Plant/Bush with the red berries in the bottom left corner (its the same size in both pictures) but the 135 shows way more of the background.

 

[EricN]

I saw posts where someone bought one of the Canons and it was soft or the AF motor couldn't stop at the correct point. I'm not sure how many have these problems, but that's something to look into - not only for buying one, but if a significant percentage aren't very usable on modern cameras it should suggest to Canon there's at least some people who would buy RF versions and not try to save by buying the EF versions.
I'm not sure if there is anyway we could research this, but I imagine Canon would get some inquiries regarding repair requests.

 

[EricN]

Tbh they have plenty you can cricise them for, this being one of the things.
I still like their camaras for their customizability and honestly im just in love with 61 megapixels and noone else has offered that yet.

But canon do have extremly good lens design, arguably better in many cases, in my opinion and i value its community way more, having been a canon shooter myself a bit ago, which is also why im posting here and not elswhere.

@Del Paso was almost certainly joking. I was curious why you were asking here.

 

[EricN]

If 600 f4 is the "racecar" for long range photography, then 200 f1.8 is the "racecar" for medium range in my opinion.

Of course telephoto lenses are nice to get closer and get extreme blur and i value them for that aspect, but if you want to show more of the enviornment in the background of the picture, then 135mm and 200mm are more ideal.

Some examples attached.

The first one is a swan with 400 f2.8. Its nice, but also you dont really see much of the environment and even if you wanted to show it, the swan would need to be like 80 meters away which is not practical in many situations. With a 600 this would be worse.

On the other hand with 135 you can show the envionment (see attached picture), but sometimes its not blurry enough or the animals are too far away. 200 f1.8 is the perfect middle ground here and gives maximum blur like nothing else, while still showing the environment.

They're nice examples. really like the one with both swans. There is a thread for bird portraits you can post on. I don't think anyone cares if it's Canon and personally, I'm curious to see what the other companies equipmentcan do.

 

[EricN]

To be clear here, im not talking about just beeing futher away when taking the picture. You can always just go further away and show more Environment this way.
Im talking about how much background is visible behind the subject.

This comparison between 400 mm and 135 shows it quite well. Both pictures have the same framing of the Plant/Bush with the red berries in the bottom left corner (its the same size in both pictures) but the 135 shows way more of the background.

Sometimes I have wondered why there isn't a 135mm f/1.4 (other than it has to be heavy and expensive.)

 

[Cryve]

Sometimes I have wondered why there isn't a 135mm f/1.4 (other than it has to be heavy and expensive.)

That would be a crazy lens. If you could stick a two times teleconverter to it it would be a 270 f2.8.

I cant imagine that it could be practical for folks who enjoy 135, its most certainly gonna be way too big for what people use 135s normally for.

200 f2 on the other hand is, as far as i can tell, is mostly for indoor sports. So i do have some hopes for it coming out again.
To my knowledge only canon has a patent for an rf 200 f2. If they release a camera in the 60-80 mp range and that lens im gonna be back

Otherwise i think my best bet for now is to stay with sony and the 300 f2.8.

 

[Cryve]

Off topic:

I wonder how far the megapixel race will take us. At some point it wont be practical anymore and the majority of people are completely fine with 45mp as we have seen over the last 6 years.

Sony sais they design their GM lenses (equivalent to canon L) to be able to resolve around 100 megapixel and that claim already seems questionable in practice. I doubt they will realse a camera that can resolve even close to that, as it would be weird to release a camera for lenses that might not be even able to resolve its sensor. its already evident with the 61 mp sensor... like how many sony lenses can fully resolve that wide open? Probably less than 5.

I wonder if we alreade have found a sweetspot with 45 mp, or if it will go much higher.
At some point shutterspeeds to get a sharp picture will just have to be too short to be practical
and at some point we will hit a limit with diffraction.
Maybe even lens sharpness is a limiting factor, with it being too expensive to design lenses for a nieche market that wants to resolve close to 100 mp.

 

[EricN]

That would be a crazy lens. If you could stick a two times teleconverter to it it would be a 270 f2.8.

I cant imagine that it could be practical for folks who enjoy 135, its most certainly gonna be way too big for what people use 135s normally for.

200 f2 on the other hand is, as far as i can tell, is mostly for indoor sports. So i do have some hopes for it coming out again.
To my knowledge only canon has a patent for an rf 200 f2. If they release a camera in the 60-80 mp range and that lens im gonna be back

Otherwise i think my best bet for now is to stay with sony and the 300 f2.8.

Nikon produced at least two 200mm F/2 lenses.

I hope the Sony 300mm will be what you want. At minimum, it's lighter weight

 

[neuroanatomist]

200 f2 on the other hand is, as far as i can tell, is mostly for indoor sports. So i do have some hopes for it coming out again.
To my knowledge only canon has a patent for an rf 200 f2.

A 200/2 is great for portraits and fashion, as well. As you know, most patents don't ever become products. The 200/2 patent has a back focus distance that's too short to allow it to take teleconverters (but that doesn't mean the lens, if it's ever released, will conform to the patent).

I do wonder how much the existing 100-300/2.8 mitigates the perceived need (from the standpoint of customers as well as Canon) for a 200/2. The EF 300-600 lenses got a MkII and some a MkIII, the 200 and 800 were not updated (you can consider the 200/2 an update to the 200/1.8, but there were non-IS predecessors of the others, too). However, there is an RF 800/5.6 (though it's really the EF 400/2.8 III with a built-in RF adapter and 2xTC).

Not sure I'd buy a 200/2 any more than I plan to buy a 135/1.8 (never say never). The 100-300/2.8 covers my use cases for both of them (and the RF 70-200/2.8 covers my use case for the 135/1.8, just as the EF 70-200/2.8 II did for the 135/2, which is why I ended up selling my 135/2).

 

[EricN]

Off topic:

I wonder how far the megapixel race will take us. At some point it wont be practical anymore and the majority of people are completely fine with 45mp as we have seen over the last 6 years.

Sony sais they design their GM lenses (equivalent to canon L) to be able to resolve around 100 megapixel and that claim already seems questionable in practice. I doubt they will realse a camera that can resolve even close to that, as it would be weird to release a camera for lenses that might not be even able to resolve its sensor. its already evident with the 61 mp sensor... like how many sony lenses can fully resolve that wide open? Probably less than 5.

I wonder if we alreade have found a sweetspot with 45 mp, or if it will go much higher.
At some point shutterspeeds to get a sharp picture will just have to be too short to be practical
and at some point we will hit a limit with diffraction.
Maybe even lens sharpness is a limiting factor, with it being too expensive to design lenses for a nieche market that wants to resolve close to 100 mp.

I still haven't tried using the R5 ibis high resolution, but when others posted photos from a steady camera and nonmoving subject, it looks good. Considering that, I believe it will be a question of if it's physically possible to make sensors at that resolution without losing image quality and then how much it will cost verses the predicted popularity.

 

[Cryve]

Nikon produced at least two 200mm F/2 lenses.

I hope the Sony 300mm will be what you want. At minimum, it's lighter weight

I hope so too. I really do.

 

[Cryve]

A 200/2 is great for portraits and fashion, as well. As you know, most patents don't ever become products. The 200/2 patent has a back focus distance that's too short to allow it to take teleconverters (but that doesn't mean the lens, if it's ever released, will conform to the patent).

I do wonder how much the existing 100-300/2.8 mitigates the perceived need (from the standpoint of customers as well as Canon) for a 200/2. The EF 300-600 lenses got a MkII and some a MkIII, the 200 and 800 were not updated (you can consider the 200/2 an update to the 200/1.8, but there were non-IS predecessors of the others, too). However, there is an RF 800/5.6 (though it's really the EF 400/2.8 III with a built-in RF adapter and 2xTC).

Not sure I'd buy a 200/2 any more than I plan to buy a 135/1.8 (never say never). The 100-300/2.8 covers my use cases for both of them (and the RF 70-200/2.8 covers my use case for the 135/1.8, just as the EF 70-200/2.8 II did for the 135/2, which is why I ended up selling my 135/2).

I think you arw right and its very unlikely for a 200 f2 to be released. Especialy in the age of ai noise reduction it is not really needed anymore for its light gathering abilities. It was more relevant when sensors were strugeling more with higher iso.

One can hope but its probably unrealistic.

 

[Cryve]

I still haven't tried using the R5 ibis high resolution, but when others posted photos from a steady camera and nonmoving subject, it looks good. Considering that, I believe it will be a question of if it's physically possible to make sensors at that resolution without losing image quality and then how much it will cost verses the predicted popularity.

It seems to be a nice feature. the sony cam has it too. its mostly for still subjects tho. I dont think i can use it for wildlife.

Regarding Pixel count:

It seems that if we take current age Aps-c cameras and scale them up to Full frame, that higher megapixel counts are already possible pixel pitch wise:

Canon r7 - 32,5 x 2,56 (1.6 x 1.6) = 84 megapixel Fullframe.

Fuji X-H2 - 40 x 2.25 (1.5 x 1.5) = 90 megapixel Fullframe.

So it seems like they just need to scale them up. But then again, maybe those megapixels arent cost effective nor practical. We will find out what the market dictated soon enough with the r5 ii coming soon and the sony a7r VI in about 2 years.

 

[EricN]

The R5 high resolution IBIS gives 400 megapixels

 

[SereneSpeed]

I’m not sure the comparison the OP did is fair. There’s more ‘stuff’ in the air when shooting the 400 vs. The 135, if the subject is framed the same.

I’m no expert of MTF charts, but in real world use, my 100-400 ii varies greatly depending on the weather and atmospheric conditions. A lot of the time, I can’t perceive those differences with my naked eye, despite spending all my free time outdoors and being fascinated by weather.

Just something to think about…

 

[EricN]

I’m not sure the comparison the OP did is fair. There’s more ‘stuff’ in the air when shooting the 400 vs. The 135, if the subject is framed the same.

I’m no expert of MTF charts, but in real world use, my 100-400 ii varies greatly depending on the weather and atmospheric conditions. A lot of the time, I can’t perceive those differences with my naked eye, despite spending all my free time outdoors and being fascinated by weather.

Just something to think about…

It's true, especially over water and hotter temperatures I can predict I'll get worse image quality at longer distances.

Do you notice some other things? I have heard if the temperature is not the same, it can have an effect and of course humidity seems to be a major factor

 

[Cryve]

It's true, especially over water and hotter temperatures I can predict I'll get worse image quality at longer distances.

Do you notice some other things? I have heard if the temperature is not the same, it can have an effect and of course humidity seems to be a major factor

I photograph a lot over water and i can safely say that the 400s sharpness was limited by the atmosphere 99% of the time, when photographing over water.. Only when wind was blowing or on very rare occasions it had little to no impact.

My tests over land and with moderate weather showed no atmospheric distortions tho and my test with the sheep at 20 meeters should have 0 effect on it. It was a cold, windy day and i took many photos and all display that kind of sharpness.

 

[EricN]

I photograph a lot over water and i can safely say that the 400s sharpness was limited by the atmosphere 99% of the time, when photographing over water.. Only when wind was blowing or on very rare occasions it had little to no impact.

My tests over land and with moderate weather showed no atmospheric distortions tho and my test with the sheep at 20 meeters should have 0 effect on it. It was a cold, windy day and i took many photos and all display that kind of sharpness.

I agree 20 meters on a cold day shouldn't have enough atmospheric distortion

 

[Cryve]

Update for anyone who is curious:

got the sony 300mm f2.8 today after i sold my 400 f2.8

its everything i had hoped for. Probably the sharpest lens in the current sony lineup, i think its sharper than even the 135mm that i adore so much.

the great tit is even taken in aps-c mode. Its straight out of cam, 800 iso no sharpening. this is insane tbh. Keep in mind that this is with a 61 mp sensor.

Edit: keep in mind some of the pics are 300% crops on a 61 mp sensor. Zooming in 1:1 or in this case 3:1 is relative to the mega pixel count. This means that the crops are comparable to a 300/400% zoom in in lightroom on a 45mp camera.

 

[AlanF]

Update for anyone who is curious:

got the sony 300mm f2.8 today after i sold my 400 f2.8

its everything i had hoped for. Probably the sharpest lens in the current sony lineup, i think its sharper than even the 135mm that i adore so much.

the great tit is even taken in aps-c mode. Its straight out of cam, 800 iso no sharpening. this is insane tbh. Keep in mind that this is with a 61 mp sensor.

The insane thing about the Great Tit image is the appalling noise in it - and at the low iso. And it's not particularly sharp. If that's typical Sony, well forget it. Here is a shot from an R5 at iso 5000 with the RF 100-500mm. And, one from yesterday afternoon which is a small crop from the RF 200-800mm at 800mm, which isn't the sharpest lens out there at there when at that focal length.