The location of the focus group usually determines focus breathing. Real life tests determine how much. Macro lenses tend to put focus groups close to the front so they don't change the angle of view. They are very aware that focus breathing for a macro lens is undesirable because of focus stacking. As focusing gets more complex and multiple lens groups move, it can be impossible for us to know. I hope there is essentially none.can we see amount of focus breathing with a patent? or gotta wait for real life tests?
I do not care if or how cynical you are. I already apologized for the silliness that debating it has brought, please consider that the end of that exchange on my part.
Your choice of camera system or your reason for chosing it is nothing I have any right or interest in judging anyway. To answer anyway, no I would not consider you a cynic for considering a switch to any system. Properly evaluating and questioning the benefits proposed by manufacturers and to a degree existing customers is perfectly reasonable.
As for your example, I can't judge what better means for you. The images will be extremely similar as the reach is virtually the same and both sensors and lenses are nothing to sneeze at in this comparison. For specific measurements, you may find one combination ahead of the other of course. There are many factors to the shooting experience that go beyond the result and would go into my personal judgement on whether or not a price difference is justified. I'm not interested in either combination, so I can't justify going through the pros and cons of each.
I'm not linking any reviews or charts since it is not my intend to convince you of anything here. You initially seemed to me to ask what's up with the rear element, and all I did want to do is provide my understanding and a quote of what that is based on for you to consider.
Anyway, even if a comparison of the EF lens on a 5Ds and the RF lens on the R5 that illustrates the RF combination beeing twice as sharp, I don't follow you how that would make a TC redundant. Assuming you are equating sharpness to resoultion here, without a higher resolution (or pixel density) body available you could still benefit from a TC in order to increase reach (when using fast enough lenses, of course).
The location of the focus group usually determines focus breathing. Real life tests determine how much. Macro lenses tend to put focus groups close to the front so they don't change the angle of view. They are very aware that focus breathing for a macro lens is undesirable because of focus stacking. As focusing gets more complex and multiple lens groups move, it can be impossible for us to know. I hope there is essentially none.
The patent site is down now for maintenance, so I can't read the patent to see how its constructed and what they might say about focus breathing.
The location of the focus group usually determines focus breathing. Real life tests determine how much. Macro lenses tend to put focus groups close to the front so they don't change the angle of view. They are very aware that focus breathing for a macro lens is undesirable because of focus stacking. As focusing gets more complex and multiple lens groups move, it can be impossible for us to know. I hope there is essentially none.
The patent site is down now for maintenance, so I can't read the patent to see how its constructed and what they might say about focus breathing.
Both 100mm macro lenses from Canon have severe focus breathing, they go from 100-ish mm at infinity to 65-ish mm at MFD. And yes, I've been bitten by it when trying to do focus stacking without moving the lens.
You mean, the more elements. And you’re wrong. They couldn’t do it in years past for a number of reasons. Calculation, even with lens design programs, was a real bear. Each extra element adds significantly to the problem. Then there was the mechanical integrity of the lens. Back when, Cooke was known for superb designs that never performed that well, because they couldn’t make them properly. The technology wasn’t up to it. Glasses are being developed every day, new coatings, etc. All of this allows designers to take more advantage of additional elements than they could use decades ago.An intelligent lens-design isn't about "the more lenses, the better".
One of the very best macro lenses, the Leica M Macro Elmar 90mm f4, has only 4(!) lenses, and doesn't miss a single one.
I often use it with macro rings on my EOS R, and it beats,without discussion,the EF 100 L IS.
Of course, it's an f4 lens, without AF.
And what should I say about the Apo Macro Elmarit 2,8/100mm, 8 lenses, so sharp at any setting and aperture that it almost hurts?