Report: Canon to launch 4 fast L prime lenses in the first half of 2024

[neuroanatomist]

I can understand that but it gets confusing either way.
The EF 85 f/1.4 IS and RF 85 f/2 IS both have lens stabilization which is doing nothing when coupled with IBIS.

I disagree... "coordinated" means 2 or more systems acting in synch. Yes there may be cases when the best outcome requires one of the systems to do nothing. But 1 system alone does not coordinate with itself

They are acting in sync, and both systems are doing something at least in the case of the RF 85/2. I'm not sure where @EOS 4 Life is getting his information, but Canon includes the 85/2 on the list of Lenses Offering More Effective Stabilization by Combining Lens and Camera IS.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Obviously not possible. But, by using a lens that requires rather extreme digital correction (distortion sufficiently bad that the image doesn't fill the frame) with a substantially more expensive lens in the same class that at the same focal length requires no distortion correction, I would say I was stacking the deck in favor of finding that digital correction is worse. Except that it wasn't.

To be honest, I was quite surprised by the results because I went into it suspecting that optical correction was better. That demonstrates why empirical testing is better than suspicions.

If I got it right, you weren't even comparing a corrected RF 16-35mm vs uncorrected EF 11-24. They both were corrected.

And we don't know what exact transformations DxO and ACR apply for those lenses, there could be additional sharpening.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

OK, an R5 sensor is 8192 pixels wide and 36mm, right? So 227 pixels per mm. That's 110 line pairs per mm, or 110 lp/mm. Have you ever seen a lens that can render 110 lp/mm? What's the deepest test we've seen? I think I saw one site testing 60 lp/mm and I seem to recall the best lenses even in the center didn't have much contrast at 60 lp/mm.

In theory, sure, every source pixel's energy can end up on up to 4 destination pixels. That causes a blur of up to 1 pixel. That would harm 110 lp/mm details but I don't think lenses can really render those anyway. Can you find a photo of yours that has a strong jump from say white to black to white again in three neighboring pixels? That'd be the kind of detail that distortion correction would blur out. Do you have any photo that can show us an example of that? Maybe a perfectly-focused star? Or generally any pixel-peeping 1:1 or even fatbits that can show us how resolution is lost in practice rather than in theory?

To be clear I don't mean to be arguing with you, I'd legitimately like to learn something.

Note your pixels are discreet fixed grid and you need at least 2x pixel density - 120lp - in order to resolve a 60pl lens (Nyquist sampling theorem).
Also I'm not sure about that 60lp figure, where did it come from exactly?
I think a quality lens resolution can be much higher, but at the same time it depends on the f/stop, you can get much lower resolution at narrow apertures.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If I got it right, you weren't even comparing a corrected RF 16-35mm vs uncorrected EF 11-24. They both were corrected.

And we don't know what exact transformations DxO and ACR apply for those lenses, there could be additional sharpening.

True, and your second point is the reason I used the profiles for both lenses. But the distortion correction is essentially zero for the 11-24/4 at 13-14mm (toggling it on/off makes no obvious difference, and testing sites report no distortion at that point in the zoom range).

The simple fact that the results are close enough to debate is really telling. Sure, maybe stopping a lens down from f/5.6 to f/6.3 makes it a little sharper, and from f/14 to f/16 makes diffraction a little worse. But in reality, if you’re actually arguing the point then there’s no practical difference. That seems to be the case for optical vs. digital correction of distortion, at least when comparing one L lens to another.

 

[mb66energy]

RF 50mm 1.4 delayed for 2033?

I think you are a little bit too optimistic.

 

[sanj]

12mm 1.2 would be sweet but probably big and expensive. Not that that has stopped me in the past
I like TS lenses, they are great fun! but I'd wager we're looking at 2+ years before anything materialize...

My other camera system is based on the Hasselblad H system. That one is truly d-worded. Guess what? I can still take photos I love with it
View attachment 212932
View attachment 212933

View attachment 212934

I wish I could take pictures like these... Super

 

[sanj]

Why does it matter? Why shouldn't we only care about the final result, and not care at all about what things may look like at mid-points in the processing?

It matters as processing 'screws up' the affected pixels. That is why companies are doing their best to create lenses with better MFT charts.

 

[sanj]

Big words!
Even if it is 1,5kg lens with 120mm diameter and a price of 5000$ ?
(just an example without a real lens in mind!)

There are two words I used: Best and Possible. So it has to be a practical combination.

 

[Del Paso]

12mm 1.2 would be sweet but probably big and expensive. Not that that has stopped me in the past
I like TS lenses, they are great fun! but I'd wager we're looking at 2+ years before anything materialize...

My other camera system is based on the Hasselblad H system. That one is truly d-worded. Guess what? I can still take photos I love with it
View attachment 212932
View attachment 212933

View attachment 212934

I love them too!

 

[roby17269]

I think some of my more recent messages have been lost?
The site was down this morning for me

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think some of my more recent messages have been lost?
The site was down this morning for me

Yes. I believe the site crashed and had to be restored from a snapshot.

 

[Del Paso]

This site was poisoned by Sony trolls!
(I heard it from FOX News, THE objective news medium!)

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Nyquist is beyond the scope of this discussion.

It's directly related to this discussion - the more pixels the sensor has, the more room you have for digital corrections.
You need to have pixel density at least twice as many as the lens can resolve, but because of demosaicking, it's probably even more.

misremembered a chart I saw in 2019; it's 50lp/mm not 60lp/mm. If you meant my point isn't clear, it's that we don't even test lenses at their ability to resolve details anywhere near the scale of the 1-pixel-or-so blurring that distortion correction would apply.

If you meant this quote from https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/07/just-the-mtf-charts-70-200mm-f4-zoom-lenses/

From there, the Sagittal and Tangential tests are done in 5 sets, started at 10 lines per millimeter (lp/mm), all the way up to 50 lines per millimeter (lp/mm).

Then they don't imply the lenses can't resolve more that 50lp/mm (which they call "lines per mm", not "line pairs per mm" for whatever reason).
They don't test with charts higher than 50lp/mm but that doesn't mean lenses can't resolve more than 50lp/mm.

 

[Fixxxer]

I'm interested in the 35 f/1.2L and the 28mm f/1.4L. If the 35 turns to be a 1.4 I will have to consider if I keep my adapted Sigma 35 1.4 ART or get the new Canon RF.

 

[mimbu]

Curious to see what Canon will charge for a 14/1.4L. Sigma's new native E mount 14/1.4 DG DN is $1599, so around double that? Maybe....$2899? $3299?

 

[DhlcadR6]

Curious to see what Canon will charge for a 14/1.4L. Sigma's new native E mount 14/1.4 DG DN is $1599, so around double that? Maybe....$2899? $3299?

I would say close to the EF's MSRP....

 

[mimbu]

I would say close to the EF's MSRP....

Canon never made an EF 14mm f1.4L. They did however charge $2100 for the EF 14mm f2.8L ii, a lens that is two full stops slower. I'd say my $2899 to $3299 estimate is likely pretty close.

The Sigma 14/1.4 DG DN ART is a stunning lens, as is the Sony 14mm f1.8 GM. The Sony has the advantage of being a LOT more compact and lighter, but there's nothing quite like that extra 2/3 of a stop when it comes to astro.

It will be interesting to see what Canon does, and perhaps Nikon too.

 

[photographer]

Still hoping for 35 1.2.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Still hoping for 35 1.2.

Can you imagine how the internet would break if Canon developed a RF 24-35mm f1.4 L zoom?

 

[SwissFrank]

It matters as processing 'screws up' the affected pixels.

Again, could you share an example of this?