Canon Officially Announces 4 new RF Lenses
- Thread starter Richard CR
- Start date
Is this good? As you can see it's not as good in the center and just falls apart on the peripheral across the board.
Upvote
0
- Previous Canon MTF evaluation standards were calculated from criteria derived years ago from the film (analog) era, and not changed until late 2018
- Optical performance is now measured using more critical, demanding standards, based on digital imaging and the use of high-resolution digital image sensors in digital SLRs and mirrorless cameras
- Canon MTF charts will now only display MTF results at the lens’ widest maximum aperture — previous Canon MTF charts displayed results at both maximum aperture, and at an effective f/8
This is what Canon states. They do NOT state that any aberration control takes place in the MTF, as a matter of fact, they specifically state that MTF cannot measure that.
"There are numerous optical aberrations that do not come into play in MTF charts — even a lens with stellar MTF results may exhibit one or more of these. Aberrations such as linear distortion (curvature of straight lines), light fall-off at the outer edges of an image, chromatic aberrations, comatic aberrations, flare in back-lit situations and more may appear in certain real-life situations for critical shooters and would not be factor in MTF results."
the bolded items are what is done in the camera's own image processing. Canon specifically states that cannot be measured in MTF's and I agree - I've never heard of someone looking at an MTF and telling those two items. astigmatism, bokeh can be determined - spherical aberration to a point, but definitely not that which is bolded.
if you have seen different information, i'd like to see it. thanks.
Upvote
0
the 50mm F1.4 is better. it slays it.
the 50mm F1.8 isn't that good optically wide open. it's cheap A.F. and that's why people get it. people don't get a $150 lens because of optical quality wide open. I'm not sure I see the point of the comparison here.
Upvote
0
All 70-200 f/2.8's are fabulous and you're probably not going to see a lot of difference in the real world. Version II and Version III of the EF version are optically identical in design. Version III just had some new coating for ghosting and flare and a new paint job.
It's all of the other benefits of the RF mount, weight savings, better AF performance and those sorts of things.
It'd be quite the rabbit hole to compare these lenses against everything under the sun.
Upvote
0
you can go to canon japan's website, and pull up any EF and RF lens and have their new post 2018 MTF data show up there.
easist way to look at it, higher the line, the better.
Upvote
0
I am NOT providing medical advice either.
On the USA Canon website the statement reads: "This product emits low level magnetic flux. If you use an implantable cardiac pacemaker or other medical device and feel abnormalities, please keep away from this product and consult your doctor."
On the 35 mm f1.4 VCM lens I actually purchased a Gauss meter to measure the magnetic flux around the lens. At a distance of two inches away or more away from the lens the magnetic field strength was <= 1 Gauss.
Upvote
0
The comparison does have a point given that they are both 50mm lenses for the RF mount. The 1.4 is obviously faster, it's sharper, it's more expensive and it's quite a bit longer. The comparison is as valid as that between the 1.4 and the 1.2. Of course, it could be argued that because of the small price difference, why even bother with the 1.4...
For me personally, the 1.8 is probably a better overall fit for what I look for in a normal prime.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Nothing to do with Brexit, more so with Canon greedy pricing. After exchange rate conversion and adding all available UK taxes, the price difference is still massive.Brexit going well I see
Upvote
0
Yes. It's really a meaure of sharpness. I'll wrote the article fast, I shouldn't have said resolution.
Upvote
0
There's no greed from Canon UK, Canon Japan sets the pricing in each market based on operating margin. One cavaet is there are some subsidiaries operated by other subsidiaries that will set the pricing for that market, based on Canon Japan's input. Canon USA sets the pricing for Canon Canada... there are others.
It simply costs more to do business in the UK than a lot of other markets. Canon's distribution model also makes it more expensive compared to how companies like Samsung and Apple do things.
I remember my first visit to the UK (London) as a Canadian and paying $25 Canadian dollars for a fish and chips and not even a tourist market. That cost $10 at home haha.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
