Real world RF 28-70 2.8 IS results?

[mangobutter]

I've seen drips and drabs of MTF, or bookshelf charts, the optical limits thing, the christopher frost thing, or the TDP thing -- sure. Decent resources.

But my 20 years of digital Canon large sensor experience (day 1 5D shooter here too) tells me charts don't tell the whole story, due to field curvature, etc.

So to those who have used this lens for distance @ infinity both wide open and stopped down, how does this lens resolve throughout its focal range?

From what I've seen and gathered (thus far), this lens doesn't shoot well on charts due to field curvature, but shoots very sharp edge to edge in real world distance scenarios but i've only seen a few focal lengths, more so at the wide end. And still, i don't know what processing was done, etc. All Flickr.

So to those picky pixel peepers here, how does this lens shoot real world?

I'm the type to go in at 1:1 edge to edge in LR, and examine each pixel when doing landscapes.

And I get it I get it, art doesn't require pixels, no ones looking at pixels, no ones looking in the corner, etc etc. I am, and I do. And it's how I like to shoot. =)

 

[Jethro]

I've had a good relationship with this lens, and brought back a bunch of pictures from a trip to Japan recently. I'll have a bit more of a peep than I usually do, and let you know my thoughts.

 

[Del Paso]

I've seen drips and drabs of MTF, or bookshelf charts, the optical limits thing, the christopher frost thing, or the TDP thing -- sure. Decent resources.

But my 20 years of digital Canon large sensor experience (day 1 5D shooter here too) tells me charts don't tell the whole story, due to field curvature, etc.

So to those who have used this lens for distance @ infinity both wide open and stopped down, how does this lens resolve throughout its focal range?

From what I've seen and gathered (thus far), this lens doesn't shoot well on charts due to field curvature, but shoots very sharp edge to edge in real world distance scenarios but i've only seen a few focal lengths, more so at the wide end. And still, i don't know what processing was done, etc. All Flickr.

So to those picky pixel peepers here, how does this lens shoot real world?

I'm the type to go in at 1:1 edge to edge in LR, and examine each pixel when doing landscapes.

And I get it I get it, art doesn't require pixels, no ones looking at pixels, no ones looking in the corner, etc etc. I am, and I do. And it's how I like to shoot. =)

This is also what I usually criticise, pictures of charts aren't very useful when shooting "real life". They are certainly relevant for macro and repro lenses where flat field lenses are needed, but far less useful for most other subjects. Ok, architecture...
What also bothers me is that chart pictures are always taken at moderate distance settings.
To put it short: I too am far more interested in reviews by photographers than reviewers.
My favourite and often repeated quote from Leica's former optical head-developer: "Cameras aren't made for chart photography".

 

[EricN]

This is also what I usually criticise, pictures of charts aren't very useful when shooting "real life". They are certainly relevant for macro and repro lenses where flat field lenses are needed, but far less useful for most other subjects. Ok, architecture...
What also bothers me is that chart pictures are always taken at moderate distance settings.
To put it short: I too am far more interested in reviews by photographers than reviewers.
My favourite and often repeated quote from Leica's former optical head-developer: "Cameras aren't made for chart photography".

Even for macro, it's not all that relevant if your use case will venture outside the realm of flat objects such as coins.

 

[AlanF]

This is also what I usually criticise, pictures of charts aren't very useful when shooting "real life". They are certainly relevant for macro and repro lenses where flat field lenses are needed, but far less useful for most other subjects. Ok, architecture...
What also bothers me is that chart pictures are always taken at moderate distance settings.
To put it short: I too am far more interested in reviews by photographers than reviewers.
My favourite and often repeated quote from Leica's former optical head-developer: "Cameras aren't made for chart photography".

Reviewers charts are done close up, and the distances usually not stated. My charts are done at distances of 12m and 20m, the distances at which I am most frequently at from birds whose images occupy the centre of the sensor. I want to know if the lens and sensor can resolve the fine details at the pixel level, and charts at a distance are most useful for that. Leicas are pretty close to the bottom of the list for nature photography so maybe such matters wouldn't concern their former optical head developer.

 

[AlanF]

Even for macro, it's not all that relevant if your use case will venture outside the realm of flat objects such as coins.

Those doing macro of insects etc use focus bracketing to get the necessary depth of field.

 

[EricN]

Those doing macro of insects etc use focus bracketing to get the necessary depth of field.

This is true but sometimes movement could make bracketing ineffective.

 

[AlanF]

This is true but sometimes movement could make bracketing ineffective.

As finding insects/butterflies/dragonflies is always opportunistic, I usually do a quick hand-held burst as moving camera, or even focus on different parts, and then stack in PS. It's surprisingly effective.

 

[Frodo]

I have this lens. Better than the two RF 24-105/4L lenses I had previously in terms of resolution. I use the f/2.8 aperture more than I miss the 24mm (and I have the RF 24/1.8), and when cropped is sharper than the RF 24-105s at 105mm. Smaller and lighter (I love how it retracts). Main use is events, family portraits and hiking. Only real downside is that it goes soft at very close focus.

 

[EricN]

As finding insects/butterflies/dragonflies is always opportunistic, I usually do a quick hand-held burst as moving camera, or even focus on different parts, and then stack in PS. It's surprisingly effective.

I'm doing something wrong because I couldn't even get a burst of flowers to be effective enough

 

[AlanF]

I'm doing something wrong because I couldn't even get a burst of flowers to be effective enough

Maybe I am using longer lenses for near macro, like the RF 100-400mm at 0.4x at about a metre/yard, it's easier. For flowers, I wouldn't use a burst but focus on the nearest part, take a shot, then turn through a small angle top something further away, and then a few more. The slight changes in angle have little adverse effect usually.