# MTFs for Canon R 100-500mm, 600 f/11 and 800 f/11



## AlanF (Jul 21, 2020)

IMPORTANT EDIT: Canon has out-of-date MTF charts listed on its USA site for some lenses. Thanks to alerts from subsequent posts, I have gone to the Japanese site https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/ and have revised the charts and conclusions. This opening post has been rewritten so as not to mislead and I have added data from the EF and RF extenders.

Canon has at last uploaded the calculated MTF values for the new R telephotos, and I have made a collage of them with the those from the 100-400mm II as reference. To summarise, the 100-500 is slightly better at 100mm and slightly weaker at 500mm than the 100-400mm II at 400mm. The differences are slightly magnified by the EF and and RF 1.4x and 2xTCs. The new RF 2xTC gives a significant hit on IQ and does not appear to be an improvement on the old 2xTCIII. The 600mm and 800mm f/11 lenses are somewhat disappointing in terms of resolution and are outperformed in IQ by the RF zoom with extenders where the focal lengths overlap and to a similar extent by the old 100-400mm II.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 21, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Canon has at last uploaded the calculated MTF values for the new R telephotos, and I have made a collage of them with the those from the 100-400mm II as reference. Disappointing to say the least.



Considering the RF 24-240mm's IQ, and the lenses' slow apertures & low prices, I'm not the least surprised.


----------



## BeenThere (Jul 21, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Canon has at last uploaded the calculated MTF values for the new R telephotos, and I have made a collage of them with the those from the 100-400mm II as reference. Disappointing to say the least. The tele end of the 500 is weaker than the 400mm II. The contrast (10 lp/mm) of the f/11s is only just over 0.9 and the resolution (30 l/mm) a mediocre ~0.75, which decreases away from the centre with astigmatism, more than I would expect from a telephoto prime. They haven't posted the results with TCs.
> 
> View attachment 191468


Thanks for putting this together. Hope is not a planning factor.


----------



## tron (Jul 21, 2020)

I understand that for the DO lenses. The 100-500 zoom could be better though for that price! 

Unless Canon intends to keep our interest waiting for RF 100-500 II


----------



## digigal (Jul 21, 2020)

Basically you are not getting a better lens in any way. The only advantage would be the length of the lens total when handholding for shooting as you would not need to stack the adapter plus the 2x(or 1.4x) plus the extended 100-400 II on the camera which may be more unweildy than the new 100-500 and 1.4x.
I'm going to go with the first option for now because I like that the extender works for the full length of the 100-400 lens (same with the EF 70-200/2.8--I can still put an extender on the EF but not the RF)
Catherine


----------



## AlanF (Jul 21, 2020)

digigal said:


> Basically you are not getting a better lens in any way. The only advantage would be the length of the lens total when handholding for shooting as you would not need to stack the adapter plus the 2x(or 1.4x) plus the extended 100-400 II on the camera which may be more unweildy than the new 100-500 and 1.4x.
> I'm going to go with the first option for now because I like that the extender works for the full length of the 100-400 lens (same with the EF 70-200/2.8--I can still put an extender on the EF but not the RF)
> Catherine


It makes the R5 a more attractive item in that I won't have to splash out on expensive new lenses and TCs, and can use without any loss of IQ my trusty 100-400.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jul 21, 2020)

So if I am reading this right. The 100-400 II is really good and the 100-500 just isn't quite as good ?


----------



## tron (Jul 21, 2020)

I wonder how fast 400DOII+2XIII will focus on R5....


----------



## padam (Jul 21, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> So if I am reading this right. The 100-400 II is really good and the 100-500 just isn't quite as good ?


They have probably changed the scales, I would bet on it that it is going to outperform the 100-400 II (for almost double the price of course).


----------



## tron (Jul 21, 2020)

padam said:


> They have probably changed the scales, I would bet on it that it is going to outperform the 100-400 II (for almost double the price of course).


Has Canon said so? Maybe when TDP gets a copy and compares same megapixels EF and RF cameras we will get an idea.


----------



## SkySpades (Jul 21, 2020)

You're using the OLD MTF for the 100-400 II. Canon updated their MTF charts sometime in the last couple of years and this is the MTF for the 100-400 II using the current process...


----------



## AlanF (Jul 21, 2020)

padam said:


> They have probably changed the scales, I would bet on it that it is going to outperform the 100-400 II (for almost double the price of course).


Of course they haven’t changed the scales. The MTFs are on an absolute scale of 0 to 1. And, Canon doesn’t take into account diffraction, which will lower the f/7.1 500mm more than the f/5.6 400mm. The f/11 will be significantly lower still after diffraction is taken into account.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 21, 2020)

SkySpades said:


> You're using the OLD MTF for the 100-400 II. Canon updated their MTF charts sometime in the last couple of years and this is the MTF for the 100-400 II using the current process...


I used the latest MTFs on the Canon USA site downloaded this evening.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 21, 2020)

tron said:


> Has Canon said so? Maybe when TDP gets a copy and compares same megapixels EF and RF cameras we will get an idea.


With luck, lensrentals will do a proper job on several copies. I don’t trust TDP. For example, they have the 100-400mm II sharper than the 400mm DO II whereas lensrentals have it the right way around as you and I know first hand.


----------



## Jesse E (Jul 21, 2020)

In 2018, Canon redid all of their MTF charts to new standards. They then did not update Canon USA for whatever reason.

Here is the updated MTF chart on Canon's Japanese website for the 100-400.






キヤノン：EF100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II USM 仕様


一眼レフ用交換レンズ EF100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II USM の仕様をご紹介しているページです。




cweb.canon.jp





And here is the actual image







Here is the 100-500 from the same site






キヤノン：RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM｜仕様


交換レンズ RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM の仕様をご紹介しているページです。




cweb.canon.jp










Here is the RF 600 f/11






キヤノン：RF600mm F11 IS STM｜仕様


交換レンズ RF600mm F11 IS STM の仕様をご紹介しているページです。




cweb.canon.jp










Here is the RF 800 f/11






キヤノン：RF800mm F11 IS STM｜仕様


交換レンズ RF800mm F11 IS STM の仕様をご紹介しているページです。




cweb.canon.jp










I would place the blame for this misinterpretation of MTF charts on Canon's shoulders for not updating their USA website.


----------



## tron (Jul 21, 2020)

AlanF said:


> With luck, lensrentals will do a proper job on several copies. I don’t trust TDP. For example, they have the 100-400mm II sharper than the 400mm DO II whereas lensrentals have it the right way around as you and I know first hand.


YEs I was thinking about Lensrentals tests using many copies (I remember this with 24-70 lenses) while TDP uses one. Of course Lensrentals would be more reliable.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 21, 2020)

padam said:


> ...I would bet on it that it is going to outperform the 100-400 II (for almost double the price of course).



100-400 II currently has MSRP of $2,200; 100-500 is $2,700. I wouldn't call that "almost double" the price. In a year or so, the 100-500 will be about $2,200 as well.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 21, 2020)

Jesse E said:


> In 2018, Canon redid all of their MTF charts to new standards. They then did not update Canon USA for whatever reason.
> 
> Here is the updated MTF chart on Canon's Japanese website for the 100-400.
> 
> ...


Thanks for that information. Canon is very naughty. The f/11 are low by any standard. But, they are relatively cheap. The Canon values are still higher than the actual measured ones by lensrentals using an optical bench https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-of-great-400mm-shootout/ it really will be interesting to see what the 500 one really is.


----------



## padam (Jul 22, 2020)

unfocused said:


> 100-400 II currently has MSRP of $2,200; 100-500 is $2,700. I wouldn't call that "almost double" the price. In a year or so, the 100-500 will be about $2,200 as well.


In the EU, the 100-400 II is available for a lot less than the MSRP (if people switch than there will be even more on the market, dropping the value a bit further)

And no, I have not seen a substantial price drop on the RF 70-200 either, which is also almost double than the discounted EF 70-200 III, so I expect the relation to be similar.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 22, 2020)

padam said:


> In the EU, the 100-400 II is available for a lot less than the MSRP (if people switch than there will be even more on the market, dropping the value a bit further)
> 
> And no, I have not seen a substantial price drop on the RF 70-200 either, which is also almost double than the discounted EF 70-200 III, so I expect the relation to be similar.


The RF 70-200 remains at about $2,400 here. I don't get it. For me, the telescoping feature just isn't worth the premium. I bought a refurbished III and sold my old II, which was candidly pretty rough cosmetically, but still perfect optically, and was able to recover 2/3 of what I paid for the refurb. 

Waiting for Canon to start releasing Big Whites in RF mount. I might actually be able to afford an EF version then.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 22, 2020)

IMPORTANT EDIT: Canon has out-of-date MTF charts listed on its USA site for some lenses. Thanks to alerts from subsequent posts, I have gone to the Japanese site https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/ and have revised the charts and conclusions. The opening post has been rewritten so as not to mislead and I have added data from the EF and RF extenders which are available only on the Japanese site. Canon can be a real pain in revealing data, which are hidden away in Japanese. They now no longer give stopped down data and I cannot find whether they use diffraction corrected values, but I guess that they do comparing some Sigma values with and without corrections with Canon's. I hope this compilation is useful to those considering purchases.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 22, 2020)

I've heard it mentioned that the new ones are indeed diffraction corrected, but like you I can't find anything official from Canon about that.


----------



## tron (Jul 22, 2020)

How can a lens be diffraction corrected?

I know they advertise this in PP but even so I do not believe that we can reclaim something that isn't there in the first place.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 22, 2020)

tron said:


> How can a lens be diffraction corrected?
> 
> I know they advertise this in PP but even so I do not believe that we can reclaim something that isn't there in the first place.


In theory, if you know the point spread function, you can reconstruct and some people use algorithms such as the Richardson-Lucy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richardson–Lucy_deconvolution, though this is difficult for something as complex as a photo. From what I have read, it seems that the Canon and other camera programs improve the microcontrast at frequencies that are slightly lower than the diffraction limit (details larger than the diffraction limit) but don't deal with the frequencies that are higher. People claim they can see an improvement but I never do.


----------



## tron (Jul 22, 2020)

So no lens correction only Post Processing attempts.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 22, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I've heard it mentioned that the new ones are indeed diffraction corrected, but like you I can't find anything official from Canon about that.


I think that they are corrected - I compared the Sigma 500mm f/4 values https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/sports/s_500_4/data/ with Canon and the diffraction corrected values look the same as the Canon 500mm f/4. It explains why the f/11 values are so low.


----------



## tron (Jul 22, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I think that they are corrected - I compared the Sigma 500mm f/4 values https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/sports/s_500_4/data/ with Canon and the diffraction corrected values look the same as the Canon 500mm f/4. It explains why the f/11 values are so low.


I learned something today. I didn't know there was a diffraction MTF and that lenses could be diffraction corrected.


----------



## Billybob (Jul 22, 2020)

If I'm reading the revised MTFs correctly, it seems the new lens matches or may be marginally better than the old one at 100mm (maybe slightly better contrast) but normal humans won't be able to tell. And the new lens at 500mm looks slightly worst than the old one at 400, which suggests to me that the new lens is likely as good or a bit better than the old one at 400mm and provides an extra 100mm to boot. Correct? Only you can decide whether that difference is worth an extra $500 (or $1000 depending how you measure). For me, 500mm is the minimum focal length for birding (I hate TCs), so the old lens is not a consideration. And if the IQ at 500mm is as close to the old lens at 400mm, the new lens is going to have better IQ at 500mm than any of the long consumer zooms including the Sony 200-600mm


----------



## Sharlin (Jul 22, 2020)

tron said:


> I know they advertise this in PP but even so I do not believe that we can reclaim something that isn't there in the first place.



The data is there, it's just spread around. As AlanF said, if you know (an approximation) of the lens's point spread function, you can get some of it back (although image sensor aliasing irrevocably destroys some of the signal, at least if the resolution (sampling rate) is not sufficient). Deconvolution is a standard technique in scientific imaging, including optical astronomy, where the optical characteristics of instruments, including the PSF, are usually more or less well understood.

Incidentally, this is also why redacting sensitive data like text or people's faces by naive box or Gaussian blur is definitely not a secure technique. With such a well-behaving function getting useful data back via deconvolution is not at all unlikely.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 23, 2020)

Would love to have them side by side in RL. 
Esp. the AF speed of the new one is something I'd like to look at.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 24, 2020)

I have calculated the diffraction MTFs for lenses at different apertures. At f/11, MTF10 = 0.93 and MTF30 = 0.79; at f/16, 0.9 and 0.69; and f/22, 0.86 and 0.59. The f/11 lenses are basically close to diffraction limited.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 24, 2020)

I couldn't find plots of MTF vs f-number due to diffraction on the internet, so here are my calculated curves in case anyone is interested (MTF10 = 10 and MTF30 = 30 lp/mm as used by Canon, Sigma, Nikon etc as guides for contrast and resolution).


----------



## Bert63 (Aug 10, 2020)

So, in a nutshell, the old tried and true 100-400L II outshoots all the new long lenses? Theoretically within its capabilities?


----------



## AlanF (Aug 10, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> So, in a nutshell, the old tried and true 100-400L II outshoots all the new long lenses? Theoretically within its capabilities?


It's a little complicated. You have to take focal length into account as well when cropping. I'll add some more information when I have sorted it out to be digestible. The 600/11 is a bit of a wimp with a small front element and the 100-400mm and 100-500mm with extenders will outresolve it. The 800mm has about the same size front element as the two zooms and is competitive at longer focal lengths.


----------



## PhotoDoc (Sep 1, 2020)

Well, I have an RF 100-500 on order for my fabulous R5. I have been shooting the R5 with the 100-400 II and an adapter and also the 100-400 II with the 1.4 TC version II. Results are excellent. So when deciding to get the RF 100-500 I compared the above MTF charts of the 100-400 II and 1.4 TC @ 560 with the RF 100-500 @ 500. I am very pleased that the RF lens compares just about identically, with very minor differences, to the EF lens and TC combo @ 500, and is equivalent to the bare 100-400 II within its range. This is huge in my opinion. I will have 100-500 mm without the need to add extenders and essentially the same performance throughout the range. I am really looking forward to seeing what the reality is in every day use.


----------



## mandog (Apr 23, 2022)

AlanF said:


> It's a little complicated. You have to take focal length into account as well when cropping. I'll add some more information when I have sorted it out to be digestible. The 600/11 is a bit of a wimp with a small front element and the 100-400mm and 100-500mm with extenders will outresolve it. The 800mm has about the same size front element as the two zooms and is competitive at longer focal lengths.



I found these individual MTF charts on the www.canon.com.cn site:










The RF800mm F11 IS STM is on the left and EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM + EF 2X III @ 800mm f/11 is on the right.

It looks like the RF800mm should be a little better in contrast and even better in resolution than the EF+TC @ 800mm, so more than just competitive (except maybe in the extreme corners)?


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 23, 2022)

My two reasons for buying the Canon EOS 5D III instead of Nikon D 850? (I preferred the Nikon body).
The EF 100-400 and the TSE 24mm II. 
Thanks for confirming my love of the 100-400!


----------



## AlanF (Apr 23, 2022)

mandog said:


> I found these individual MTF charts on the www.canon.com.cn site:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Those charts have already been posted in the opening post and some subsequent ones. I found the RF 800mm f/11 is sharper and more contrasty than the EF 100-400mm II + EF 2xTCIII, when I compared my lenses directly on the R5.


----------



## mandog (Apr 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Those charts have already been posted in the opening post and some subsequent ones. I found the RF 800mm f/11 is sharper and more contrasty than the EF 100-400mm II + EF 2xTCIII, when I compared my lenses directly on the R5.


Yes, the MTF charts were posted in a 2x3 set of 6. I was just noting that they are available separately for individual side-by-side comparison. 

Thanks for confirming that you have done a bake-off between the two lenses, and your experience with them on the R5 is consistent with what the MTF charts suggest. I have been on the fence about getting the RF800 f/11 since I already have that covered with the EF 100-400mm II + EF 2xTCIII. But if the RF800 is better, lighter and cheaper, then that may get me off the fence.

It might also be interesting to compare the RF lens on the R5 against the EF lens on the 5DsR to see if that makes a difference, and see whether the sharper body or the sharper lens wins in the end.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 24, 2022)

mandog said:


> Yes, the MTF charts were posted in a 2x3 set of 6. I was just noting that they are available separately for individual side-by-side comparison.
> 
> Thanks for confirming that you have done a bake-off between the two lenses, and your experience with them on the R5 is consistent with what the MTF charts suggest. I have been on the fence about getting the RF800 f/11 since I already have that covered with the EF 100-400mm II + EF 2xTCIII. But if the RF800 is better, lighter and cheaper, then that may get me off the fence.
> 
> It might also be interesting to compare the RF lens on the R5 against the EF lens on the 5DsR to see if that makes a difference, and see whether the sharper body or the sharper lens wins in the end.


I have always been a strong advocate for removal of low-pass filters, and the 5DSR was my favourite body until I got the R5. To my astonishment, the R5 is as sharp as the 5DSR - I compared carefully my EF lenses on the R5 with an adaptor with them on the 5DSR. The 5DSR still has a low-pass filter, but it is supposedly neutralised, but I think that there still some loss of resolution.

I found the RF 2x on the RF 100-500 gives less degradation than the EF 2xTC III on the EF 100-400mm II, and I use it a lot.


----------



## mandog (Apr 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I have always been a strong advocate for removal of low-pass filters, and the 5DSR was my favourite body until I got the R5. To my astonishment, the R5 is as sharp as the 5DSR - I compared carefully my EF lenses on the R5 with an adaptor with them on the 5DSR. The 5DSR still has a low-pass filter, but it is supposedly neutralised, but I think that there still some loss of resolution.
> 
> I found the RF 2x on the RF 100-500 gives less degradation than the EF 2xTC III on the EF 100-400mm II, and I use it a lot.


I think the 5DsR still has some slight advantage over the R5 in my comparisons, but not enough to give up the other niceties like a flip-out touch screen in most cases. But if I really need maximum IQ from an EF600/4, then I will still use the 5DSR. 

I tried an RF 100-500, but decided that taking the TC off to put the lens away all the time was just too much risk of getting dust on the sensor.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 24, 2022)

mandog said:


> I think the 5DsR still has some slight advantage over the R5 in my comparisons, but not enough to give up the other niceties like a flip-out touch screen in most cases. But if I really need maximum IQ from an EF600/4, then I will still use the 5DSR.
> 
> I tried an RF 100-500, but decided that taking the TC off to put the lens away all the time was just too much risk of getting dust on the sensor.


I've been taking lenses on and off the R5 several times daily for 18 months, putting on and taking off TCs and haven't got dust on the sensor. The R had the important innovation from Canon of having the shutter close to protect the senor and the sensor cleaning seems very effective. If you keep the open surfaces pointing down during manipulations, like a bacteriologist does with Petri dishes, gravity is your friend.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 24, 2022)

mandog said:


> I think the 5DsR still has some slight advantage over the R5 in my comparisons, but not enough to give up the other niceties like a flip-out touch screen in most cases. But if I really need maximum IQ from an EF600/4, then I will still use the 5DSR.
> 
> I tried an RF 100-500, but decided that taking the TC off to put the lens away all the time was just too much risk of getting dust on the sensor.


Canon, I think it was Chuck, said in an interview that the R5 would outresolve the 5DSR, and I thought it was hype. But, optyczne.pl measures sensor resolution and it does seem true. Canon claimed that their innovation with the 1DXIII of splitting the beam into 16 components instead of 6 by the filter would reduce loss of resolution. They appear to be telling the truth, the 45 Mpx R5 sensor being very similar to the Z7's 45 Mpx without the filter.


----------



## mandog (Apr 26, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I've been taking lenses on and off the R5 several times daily for 18 months, putting on and taking off TCs and haven't got dust on the sensor. The R had the important innovation from Canon of having the shutter close to protect the senor and the sensor cleaning seems very effective. If you keep the open surfaces pointing down during manipulations, like a bacteriologist does with Petri dishes, gravity is your friend.


IDK, I got dirt on an R5 swapping TCs outdoors, and it wouldn't come off. Fortunately, it was a Canon CPS loaner, so it wasn't my problem in the end....


----------



## mandog (Apr 26, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Canon, I think it was Chuck, said in an interview that the R5 would outresolve the 5DSR, and I thought it was hype. But, optyczne.pl measures sensor resolution and it does seem true. Canon claimed that their innovation with the 1DXIII of splitting the beam into 16 components instead of 6 by the filter would reduce loss of resolution. They appear to be telling the truth, the 45 Mpx R5 sensor being very similar to the Z7's 45 Mpx without the filter.


Alan, thanks for pointing me to optyczne.pl--interesting stuff there. I'd be careful comparing the two graphs you posted though, because they used different lenses.

If you look at Bryan Carnathan's cross-test, he used the same lens: Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM Lens Image Quality

Another possibility would be to get a 90D instead of the RF800 (a refurb is cheaper now). Then I could shoot with just the 1.4x, which would give 2x shutter speed at ISO100 with about the same MP. But from their test, it looks like the AA filter would eat up most of the extra resolution, even though it only works in one direction.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 26, 2022)

mandog said:


> Alan, thanks for pointing me to optyczne.pl--interesting stuff there. I'd be careful comparing the two graphs you posted though, because they used different lenses.
> 
> If you look at Bryan Carnathan's cross-test, he used the same lens: Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM Lens Image Quality
> 
> Another possibility would be to get a 90D instead of the RF800 (a refurb is cheaper now). Then I could shoot with just the 1.4x, which would give 2x shutter speed at ISO100 with about the same MP. But from their test, it looks like the AA filter would eat up most of the extra resolution, even though it only works in one direction.


The data at f/8 and greater should be independent of lens as most good lenses have negligible aberration there and it's diffraction that is limiting. The R5 is still outresolving the 5DSR at these narrower apertures. I don't put much store by the TDP's charts, they are the weakest point of one of the best websites, if not the very best.

The 90D does not realise the full potential of its 32 Mpx sensor. And, you would have to use low isos. I found at the high isos I shoot at, usually 640 to much more, I wasn't getting better resolution than a 20 Mpx crop without an AA-filter (D500). I just checked on https://www.optyczne.pl/433.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_90D_Rozdzielczość.html and indeed they find the D7500, another 20 Mpx sensor without the AA-filter, is just as sharp! optyczne.pl is a hidden gem of a website. I read it using chrome browser to translate automatically.


----------

