MTFs for Canon R 100-500mm, 600 f/11 and 800 f/11

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,342
22,517
IMPORTANT EDIT: Canon has out-of-date MTF charts listed on its USA site for some lenses. Thanks to alerts from subsequent posts, I have gone to the Japanese site https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/ and have revised the charts and conclusions. The opening post has been rewritten so as not to mislead and I have added data from the EF and RF extenders which are available only on the Japanese site. Canon can be a real pain in revealing data, which are hidden away in Japanese. They now no longer give stopped down data and I cannot find whether they use diffraction corrected values, but I guess that they do comparing some Sigma values with and without corrections with Canon's. I hope this compilation is useful to those considering purchases.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,342
22,517
How can a lens be diffraction corrected?

I know they advertise this in PP but even so I do not believe that we can reclaim something that isn't there in the first place.
In theory, if you know the point spread function, you can reconstruct and some people use algorithms such as the Richardson-Lucy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richardson–Lucy_deconvolution, though this is difficult for something as complex as a photo. From what I have read, it seems that the Canon and other camera programs improve the microcontrast at frequencies that are slightly lower than the diffraction limit (details larger than the diffraction limit) but don't deal with the frequencies that are higher. People claim they can see an improvement but I never do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,342
22,517
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

tron

CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
5,222
1,616
Upvote 0

Billybob

800mm f/11 because a cellphone isn't long enough!
May 22, 2016
268
537
If I'm reading the revised MTFs correctly, it seems the new lens matches or may be marginally better than the old one at 100mm (maybe slightly better contrast) but normal humans won't be able to tell. And the new lens at 500mm looks slightly worst than the old one at 400, which suggests to me that the new lens is likely as good or a bit better than the old one at 400mm and provides an extra 100mm to boot. Correct? Only you can decide whether that difference is worth an extra $500 (or $1000 depending how you measure). For me, 500mm is the minimum focal length for birding (I hate TCs), so the old lens is not a consideration. And if the IQ at 500mm is as close to the old lens at 400mm, the new lens is going to have better IQ at 500mm than any of the long consumer zooms including the Sony 200-600mm
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0

Sharlin

CR Pro
Dec 26, 2015
1,415
1,433
Turku, Finland
I know they advertise this in PP but even so I do not believe that we can reclaim something that isn't there in the first place.

The data is there, it's just spread around. As AlanF said, if you know (an approximation) of the lens's point spread function, you can get some of it back (although image sensor aliasing irrevocably destroys some of the signal, at least if the resolution (sampling rate) is not sufficient). Deconvolution is a standard technique in scientific imaging, including optical astronomy, where the optical characteristics of instruments, including the PSF, are usually more or less well understood.

Incidentally, this is also why redacting sensitive data like text or people's faces by naive box or Gaussian blur is definitely not a secure technique. With such a well-behaving function getting useful data back via deconvolution is not at all unlikely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,342
22,517
So, in a nutshell, the old tried and true 100-400L II outshoots all the new long lenses? Theoretically within its capabilities?
It's a little complicated. You have to take focal length into account as well when cropping. I'll add some more information when I have sorted it out to be digestible. The 600/11 is a bit of a wimp with a small front element and the 100-400mm and 100-500mm with extenders will outresolve it. The 800mm has about the same size front element as the two zooms and is competitive at longer focal lengths.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Well, I have an RF 100-500 on order for my fabulous R5. I have been shooting the R5 with the 100-400 II and an adapter and also the 100-400 II with the 1.4 TC version II. Results are excellent. So when deciding to get the RF 100-500 I compared the above MTF charts of the 100-400 II and 1.4 TC @ 560 with the RF 100-500 @ 500. I am very pleased that the RF lens compares just about identically, with very minor differences, to the EF lens and TC combo @ 500, and is equivalent to the bare 100-400 II within its range. This is huge in my opinion. I will have 100-500 mm without the need to add extenders and essentially the same performance throughout the range. I am really looking forward to seeing what the reality is in every day use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
It's a little complicated. You have to take focal length into account as well when cropping. I'll add some more information when I have sorted it out to be digestible. The 600/11 is a bit of a wimp with a small front element and the 100-400mm and 100-500mm with extenders will outresolve it. The 800mm has about the same size front element as the two zooms and is competitive at longer focal lengths.

I found these individual MTF charts on the www.canon.com.cn site:
20200513010615_39602.png


RF800mm F11 IS STM @ 800mm f/11EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM + EF 2X III @ 800mm f/11

The RF800mm F11 IS STM is on the left and EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM + EF 2X III @ 800mm f/11 is on the right.

It looks like the RF800mm should be a little better in contrast and even better in resolution than the EF+TC @ 800mm, so more than just competitive (except maybe in the extreme corners)?
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,342
22,517
I found these individual MTF charts on the www.canon.com.cn site:
20200513010615_39602.png


View attachment 203176View attachment 203177

The RF800mm F11 IS STM is on the left and EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM + EF 2X III @ 800mm f/11 is on the right.

It looks like the RF800mm should be a little better in contrast and even better in resolution than the EF+TC @ 800mm, so more than just competitive (except maybe in the extreme corners)?
Those charts have already been posted in the opening post and some subsequent ones. I found the RF 800mm f/11 is sharper and more contrasty than the EF 100-400mm II + EF 2xTCIII, when I compared my lenses directly on the R5.
 
Upvote 0
Those charts have already been posted in the opening post and some subsequent ones. I found the RF 800mm f/11 is sharper and more contrasty than the EF 100-400mm II + EF 2xTCIII, when I compared my lenses directly on the R5.
Yes, the MTF charts were posted in a 2x3 set of 6. I was just noting that they are available separately for individual side-by-side comparison.

Thanks for confirming that you have done a bake-off between the two lenses, and your experience with them on the R5 is consistent with what the MTF charts suggest. I have been on the fence about getting the RF800 f/11 since I already have that covered with the EF 100-400mm II + EF 2xTCIII. But if the RF800 is better, lighter and cheaper, then that may get me off the fence.

It might also be interesting to compare the RF lens on the R5 against the EF lens on the 5DsR to see if that makes a difference, and see whether the sharper body or the sharper lens wins in the end.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,342
22,517
Yes, the MTF charts were posted in a 2x3 set of 6. I was just noting that they are available separately for individual side-by-side comparison.

Thanks for confirming that you have done a bake-off between the two lenses, and your experience with them on the R5 is consistent with what the MTF charts suggest. I have been on the fence about getting the RF800 f/11 since I already have that covered with the EF 100-400mm II + EF 2xTCIII. But if the RF800 is better, lighter and cheaper, then that may get me off the fence.

It might also be interesting to compare the RF lens on the R5 against the EF lens on the 5DsR to see if that makes a difference, and see whether the sharper body or the sharper lens wins in the end.
I have always been a strong advocate for removal of low-pass filters, and the 5DSR was my favourite body until I got the R5. To my astonishment, the R5 is as sharp as the 5DSR - I compared carefully my EF lenses on the R5 with an adaptor with them on the 5DSR. The 5DSR still has a low-pass filter, but it is supposedly neutralised, but I think that there still some loss of resolution.

I found the RF 2x on the RF 100-500 gives less degradation than the EF 2xTC III on the EF 100-400mm II, and I use it a lot.
 
Upvote 0