# Just MTF Charts: Canon Prime Lenses



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 25, 2019)

> Lensrentals.com has posted their first in a series of MTF charts for Canon lenses, I imagine they’ll post other brand MTF charts as well. The first release is for Canon prime lenses, excluding tilt-shift lenses, those will be done in a separate article.
> *Roger explains the methodology of the testing:*
> This is the first post of a series of posts publishing all of our MTF results so that methodology is consistent, easy to find, and up-to-date. (For some of the older lenses there are graphs done with older software floating around. For a couple of lenses, there are incorrect graphs done before we worked out all of the details for sensor glass in the testing pathway. These are all current.)
> Otherwise, there are no comparisons, no commentary, just the test results for you to use and abuse as you see fit. The major purpose is just to get these MTF charts organized and in one place where you can find them.
> Just to avoid 4,200 comments: these are all average MTFs from multiple copies...



Continue reading...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2019)

Thanks, Uncle Rog!


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 25, 2019)

I know a lot of people like these charts and I know they are helpful to some. A lot of work went into this. I don't find them useful for myself. Glad somebody does find them useful.


----------



## Jester74 (Mar 25, 2019)

Dat crappy ol' 135/2L, looool


----------



## degos (Mar 25, 2019)

Jester74 said:


> Dat crappy ol' 135/2L, looool



Yes, beaten by the Sigma 135mm 1.8 at a third of a stop faster. But keep handing-over your $1000 to Canon.

Right-hand section of top chart only, to compare to the Canon:



https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2017/04/stopdown.jpg



I admit to being surprised that the 135mm f2 held up so well, given my experience of it. But still no defence for continuing to churn-out a 30-year-old lens.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 25, 2019)

degos said:


> Yes, beaten by the Sigma 135mm 1.8 at a third of a stop faster. But keep handing-over your $1000 to Canon.
> 
> Right-hand section of top chart only, to compare to the Canon:
> 
> ...


What about unreliable focusing of a brand new Sigma lens?
The 30 year old veteran has no problems... 
I'll just wait for the RF 1,4/135 , which won't have any focusing issues, and, in the meantime, enjoy my excellent 30 year-old veteran...whithout any focusing issues.


----------



## slclick (Mar 25, 2019)

The bashing of the wonderful 135 f/2L is senseless. It's no longer worthy due to its age? How sophomoric.


----------



## JonSnow (Mar 25, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> What about unreliable focusing of a brand new Sigma lens?
> The 30 year old veteran has no problems...
> I'll just wait for the RF 1,4/135 , which won't have any focusing issues, and, in the meantime, enjoy my excellent 30 year-old veteran...whithout any focusing issues.



only if you use 60 year old focusing technics in your DSLR.

try a mirrorless and you will not have AF isses with sigma lenses......


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 25, 2019)

JonSnow said:


> only if you use 60 year old focusing technics in your DSLR.
> 
> try a mirrorless and you will not have AF isses with sigma lenses......


So you need a mirrorless to use the Sigma????
The Canon doesn't!


----------



## slclick (Mar 25, 2019)

The beauty of photography is that it can be done well with new gear, old gear and homemade DIY gear. One is not better, nor more correct to use than any other. Myself, I prefer a mix. Same goes for technique.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Mar 25, 2019)

I'd take the 135L at $999 all day, every day over the Sigma 135A at $1399. A 40% price premium is significant.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 25, 2019)

slclick said:


> The bashing of the wonderful 135 f/2L is senseless. It's no longer worthy due to its age? How sophomoric.


It's my favorite portrait lens all day long.  Hmmmm... the Sigma wins on the chart, he says? Thankfully, I don't photograph charts.  Best lens money I ever spent. My problem is always never quite getting DOF deep enough, but that's not the len's fault.


----------



## peters (Mar 25, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> It's my favorite portrait lens all day long.  Hmmmm... the Sigma wins on the chart, he says? Thankfully, I don't photograph charts.  Best lens money I ever spent. My problem is always never quite getting DOF deep enough, but that's not the len's fault.


These photos are amazin, congratulations!  
"I dont photograph charts" is a beautiful response also =)


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 26, 2019)

I had always felt that the L version of the 100F2.8 macro was significantly better, despite being told by many that the only real difference was the IS. These charts show a significant improvement!

My surprise from the charts is the 40F2.8. For the size and cost of the lens, that's incredible!


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 26, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> I had always felt that the L version of the 100F2.8 macro was significantly better, despite being told by many that the only real difference was the IS. These charts show a significant improvement!
> 
> My surprise from the charts is the 40F2.8. For the size and cost of the lens, that's incredible!


I used to have that lens (40mm f/2.8). It was really a nice little lens, but I never used it much. Once I got the 24-70 it never got used again, but just because the zoom is more versatile. Canon makes some really nice lenses. Canon's zooms are so good. I've never owned a Canon macro lens, unfortunately.


----------



## dirtyvu (Mar 26, 2019)

how does one read these charts?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 26, 2019)

dirtyvu said:


> how does one read these charts?


Do a search for MTF Charts. Its far to complex to explain how to read them. 

Higher is better, the resolution goes from the center of the lens on the left to the outside edge on the right. Macro lenses and copy lenses want a flat line, for portraits, many want the center sharp and the edges softer.


----------



## Jester74 (Mar 26, 2019)

degos said:


> Yes, beaten by the Sigma 135mm 1.8 at a third of a stop faster. But keep handing-over your $1000 to Canon.
> 
> Right-hand section of top chart only, to compare to the Canon:
> 
> ...



I don't care about that Sigma, or any Sigma. I said that the old 135/2L is fabulous according to the chart. And in real life too.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 26, 2019)

Jester74 said:


> I don't care about that Sigma, or any Sigma. I said that the old 135/2L is fabulous according to the chart. And in real life too.


+ 1 !


----------



## docsmith (Mar 26, 2019)

It is great to have the wide open data, but is there a resource for stopped down data for all of these lens? The closest that I am aware of is over at TDP, which has stopped down data for some, but not all. For example:








Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM Lens Average MTF


View the MTF average test results delivered by the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM Lens using the ultra-high precision Trioptics Imagemaster MTF bench. Compare the MTF results of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com





Stopped down data for the 24 mm L II but not the 50 mm L. Also, some of the Sigma data seems to be missing.

Just trying to see if there is a useful link where I can use the data for apples to apples comparisons.


----------



## padam (Mar 26, 2019)

Just because some people don't care of its existence, it does not mean that the Sigma 135/1.8 is not amazingly good, it is one of their best. Yes, it is surgically sharp (so you can point it at anything anywhere in the frame wide-open and have interesting results) but the DOF at close range is so thin it smears away plenty of unwanted detail, it has a very nice look to it (of course the Canon is an excellent lens as well, but in that case this is still an "excellent-excellent" lens) Canon users like to brag about f/1.2L AF lenses sometimes, well, f/2 vs f/1.8 is also noticeable in the same way. It also has weather sealing and fluorine coating (which older Sigma lenses don't).
And yes, with eye-AF on the EOS R and using the sensor for AF this has just became an even more terrific weapon in the toolbox, I probably have to obtain one again if I find a deal as I can believe some may have focusing issues with some copies (I didn't, and I had two) but I also wouldn't say no to a very cheap 135L either, it is definitely lighter to carry around (but looking at recent mirrorless lenses, for the performance, the Sigma may not be considered to be too heavy or expensive either).


----------



## AlanF (Mar 26, 2019)

docsmith said:


> It is great to have the wide open data, but is there a resource for stopped down data for all of these lens? The closest that I am aware of is over at TDP, which has stopped down data for some, but not all. For example:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good places for stopped-down data are opticallimits.com and lenstip.com. ePhotozine.com also has useful data.


----------



## JBSF (Mar 27, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> It's my favorite portrait lens all day long.  Hmmmm... the Sigma wins on the chart, he says? Thankfully, I don't photograph charts.  Best lens money I ever spent. My problem is always never quite getting DOF deep enough, but that's not the len's fault.



Maria is beautiful. The perspective and subject isolation are perfect. But you knew that.


----------



## ritholtz (Mar 28, 2019)

Do we notice any difference between 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2 in real world use? 85mm seems to be little better in the charts.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 28, 2019)

What I find funny, is the fact that the 2,8/24 IS seem to be noticeably better than the 1,4/24 IS II, according to LR 
Can anyone confirm or infirm their results?(want to buy a 24mm, NOT the Sigma, already have the TSE...)


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 28, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> What I find funny, is the fact that the 2,8/24 IS seem to be noticeably better than the 1,4/24 IS II, according to LR
> Can anyone confirm or infirm their results?(want to buy a 24mm, NOT the Sigma, already have the TSE...)



The LR charts say that the 24mm f/2.8 has better MTF *at 2.8* than the 24mm f/1.4 *at 1.4*. It doesn't say anything about how the 24mm f/1.4 is at *2.8.* 
And IMO people buy the f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses primarily for the aperture, not so much for the sharpness.


----------



## BillB (Mar 29, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> What I find funny, is the fact that the 2,8/24 IS seem to be noticeably better than the 1,4/24 IS II, according to LR
> Can anyone confirm or infirm their results?(want to buy a 24mm, NOT the Sigma, already have the TSE...)


Each lens was tested at maximum aperture, so one MTF reading is at f2.8 and the other is at f1.4.


----------

