# R5 detailed lens testing of RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 vs. RF 800 f11, with & without RF 1.4x TC, for super-telephoto use.



## usern4cr (Mar 19, 2021)

*** PART 1 ***

A fellow R5 user, AlanF, and I enjoy taking photos of birds, sometimes at far distances. We've been wondering how the IQ (image quality) of the RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1L (with or without the RF 1.4x TC) compares to the RF 800 f11 on the R5 for super telephoto shots. I think it was AlanF that suggested that I consider doing a comparative test on them, since I had all of those items, and could do my own test of the IQ of these lenses on the R5, comparing (initially) 500mm, 700mm (500mm & 1.4x TC), and 800mm.

AlanF had suggested that a quantitative test was needed so that the resolution of the lenses could be measured as well as providing images for contrast and overall IQ. He suggested a test chart from Bob Atkins, which I looked at but thought it didn't have the fine resolution that I was hoping to find. So I continued looking online and found another chart, from Erlend Rønnekleiv, that had more detail. I thought I could improve on it, and so I used AffinityPhoto to re-arrange the pieces of it together into a more compact form with more detail in the same space. Erlend gave me permission to use & post this rearranged version, which is:



I taped this chart, printed on 8.5" x 11" paper, onto some wood and positioned the camera & tripod 6 meters away. I used a laser measure to ensure the chart was centered in the camera view and was exactly perpendicular to the camera. The 800mm f11 was just past minimum focal distance and viewed the whole test sheet plus just a little extra. Then I took photos at the same distance with it and the RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1L (with and without the RF 1.4x TC). For each I took 5 photos, 1 AF'd in the center and 1 AF'd as far as I could get to the 4 corners. In looking at all 4 corners of the images in their respective photos, they seemed to me to be the same as it was when AF'd in the center, so I only need to show the center AF'd photo from each.

I used DXO PhotoLab4 standard profile, set white balance, and used deep prime only to output tif files, which went to Affinity Photo, where I cropped the center of each (and the original test chart) at 1:1. Note: I did not adjust all white levels to the same brightness (which I'll do next time). So don't worry about them having different brightnesses.
Here they are, for:
original test chart, 500mm, 700mm(500 & 1.4x), and 800mm






The #lines resolved per sensor height is:
N * 6 * 5464(R5 sensor pixel height) / A
where N is the #(number) on the chart where you get the limit of resolution (N >> 40 (the max on the chart), so I used 40 below)
and A is the #pixels in the photo between the indicated test pattern line start & end, which is:
for 500mm: 1,355
for 700mm: 1,904
for 800mm: 2,340

So, the #lines resolved per sensor height is far greater than these numbers:
for 800: 560
for 700: 689
for 500: 968

So, at this relatively near focal distance, the chart still does not have enough small resolution to properly measure the resolution of the lenses.
Taking photos from further away would solve this, but this was just the initial test I did to see how everything worked.

I'd like to mention that there were many posts between us regarding these results, and further ideas regarding them. AlanF had many great insights into the results and had suggestions on how better to write up the results which I could post for the general CR community. It took a while for me to go through the next steps, since I had other pressing things at home to do and, well, sometimes I pause one task to do other ones. This post and those that follow are a revised summary of what we both came up with, and I hope that it's much more informative and enjoyable for all of you to see.

It occurred to me that I could probably create a higher resolution chart (lines closer together) from scratch using AffinityPhoto.
So that is what I planned to do, which will become Part 2 (next).


----------



## usern4cr (Mar 19, 2021)

*** PART 2 ***

Since my 20 year old black & white laser printer still works and is rated to support 1200 DPI, I decided to see how small I could print resolvable test lines on it. Using AffinityPhoto I ran tests and found that I could print up to 200 black lines, separated by 200 white lines, per inch on it that were barely resolvable visually. I'll call this 400 lines per inch (counting a black & white pair as "2 lines"), since many tests I've seen report values that way. Here's the (digital) test pattern I made for that smallest resolution:


At 1200 DPI, every 6 dots have 1 black dot and 5 white dots, and the laser printed paper could just be resolved as a (mostly)black and (thin)white pair, so 1200 / 6 * 2 = 400 lines per inch on printed paper. Any lines closer together than this would just print as a gray smudge, so the camera would be looking at a printed chart that was not as crisp & sharp as the digital chart I created in AffinityPhoto and am showing here. The lines at this resolution get so small that I had to use a 3.5x large magnifier with a flashlight to better illuminate it to best see how the digital file looked on once printed.

I then made more patterns, with 7 dots per 2 lines, 8, 9... etc., and ended up with this (digital) group of test patterns:


I did notice, with the magnifier, that the spacing between the lines seemed to be slightly wider or narrower than expected in certain areas. I didn't know why at the time, and it would be something that I had to live with (well, at the time).

If you take a photo of this test chart, you can measure the length of the "A" arrowed line (either horizontally or vertically) in your photo in pixels, and call it "A". Now set "S" as the # of pixels in the height of your sensor (for the R5 this would be 5464). Each test pattern has a # for it. Now set "N" as the # of the test pattern with the most lines that can be resolved visually as lines (vs. just "mush"). The number of barely resolved lines per sensor height could now be measured as N * 7 * S / A. So, for example, if the arrowed line was 1000 pixels long in your photo and N was 40, then you'd get 40 * 7 * 5464 / 1000 = 1530 barely resolved lines per sensor height.

But I wanted to be able to measure the resolution towards the edges of the sensor as well as in the center of the sensor, so I repeated this group of patterns towards the edges and corners of an 8.5" x 11" page. Then I decided to extend it to a 3 x 3 grid of pages so I could get a bigger test chart to aim the camera at. I filled the gaps between these pattern groups with some "YingYang" art I made, which would contain larger solid areas of black and sweeping curves at various sizes from large to small, and this was the (digital) 3 x 3 page result:



I looked around for any boards I had lying around, and decided to just tape the 3x3 page chart onto a window screen that wasn't in use. I put that chart at the furthest inside part of my house with as many LED lights as I could shine on it, and put my camera & tripod on the opposite furthest side of the house with a clear view of the chart, about 14.85 meters away. Using a laser measure I could make sure the chart was centered in view and perpendicular to the camera. I then took a series of photos of the chart with the R5 and the lenses: 500mm, 700mm(500mm & 1.4x), 800mm, and 1120mm(800mm & 1.4x). For each lens combination I took photos at the center and as far to the 4 corners as the R5 AF box could be set (which was around 75% from center to corner for the 500 or 500 & 1.4x, and around 35% from center to corner for the 800 or 800 & 1.4x). I then visually noted the max chart # ("N") I could resolve for all of them.

The first thing I noticed was that it was really hard to get an exact value of "N", since it was a visual judgement call where the chart went from resolvable to not resolvable. I took 4 duplicate photos of everything so that I could average them together to get a better estimate of what "N" was.

The second thing I noticed was that as you reached the smallest barely resolved lines, you might be reaching the point (in the RF 100-500 at least) where you are approaching 1 sensor pixel for dark gray lines and 1 sensor pixel for light gray lines, so the image may go from barely resolvable to just a gray smudge depending on the how the dark & light lines are aligned on the sensor pixels. We're getting into the area where there is severe moire (by the nature of the test) which when combined with the imperfections of the laser print make it difficult for an accurate judge of which "N" value to claim as the highest barely resolvable.

The next thing I noticed was that the resolution values I got at the center of the chart and at the distances to the edge (noted above) was about the same. Mind you, the 800mm AF focus points don't go very far from the center to the corner, while the 100-500 AF focus points do. Since they were about the same, I'll only show results & images for the center of the sensor (which happens to be where AlanF was most interested in, anyway).

I chose 1/40" exposure for all since it'd give 3 cycles of illumination from the lights (pulsing at 120 fps). Also used IS, AF, electronic 1st shutter, manual aperture & speed with auto ISO, and cRaw (which I use for my photography). All photos are wide open, at AlanF's suggestion:
500mm f7.1, ISO 250
700mm f10, ISO 500
800mm f11, ISO 640
1120mm f16, ISO 1250

This time, in PL4 I also adjusted the white & black levels so that they were the same for all 4 lens combinations to allow for fairer comparisons between them.

Here are the photos without cropping as seen by the lenses.
500mm, 700mm(500 + 1.4x), 800mm, 1120mm(800 + 1.4x):







Further center image crops and results will follow in Part 3, next.


----------



## usern4cr (Mar 19, 2021)

*** Part 3 ***

For each lens combination, I took 4 photos AF'd at the center and 4 as far as the R5 could AF towards each of the 4 corners, trying my best to get a "N" value for the horizontal and another for the vertical lines. Here are 1:1 crops from each.
500mm, 700mm(500 + 1.4x), 800mm, 1120mm(800 + 1.4x):






For each lens combination, I averaged all the (8) values to get a "N" value at center and another (32) "N" values for all corners combined. I also got the "A" arrow lengths and could get the #barely resolved lines per sensor height for all of that, which I'll show here:
500: 5100 center, 4520 ~75% to edge
700: 3990 center, 3370 ~75% to edge
800: 3360 center, 3530 ~35% to edge
1120: 3050 center, 2850 ~35% to edge

Yes, the 800mm had better numbers slightly away from the edge than at the center. I assume that this is a result of the difficulty in deciding which "N" value was correct to use, as the printed charts were not nearly as accurate as the digital original, and we are entering the area of extreme moire inherent in this test. Or it can be a result of the sharpness actually increasing at that sweet spot before getting worse towards the edges (but I wouldn't bet on that). So you can take these numbers with a heaping "grain of salt" as appropriate! 

This shows (for my crude test) that for the 500mm, every 2.1 center sensor pixels can barely resolve a darker gray line and a lighter gray line, which is highly sensitive to the lines being aligned or not on the sensor (hence the strong moire effect). IMHO that's really great! Now it's not an accurate measure of the amount of separation in brightness between those lines, which would be needed to know how good the contrast was. But it's not bad for the test I'm able to do so far.

I'll show the # of pixels needed to barely resolve 2 lines here:
500: 2.1 center, 2.4 ~75% to edge
700: 2.7 center, 3.2 ~75% to edge
800: 3.3 center), 3.1 ~35% to edge
1120: 3.6 center, 3.8 ~35% to edge


Since I am always that guy who wants to print images really big, for say a bird when I couldn't get any closer to them or they are scared away, I wonder how using each lens combination with resizing would compare to the other. If I up-res one lens photo to the #pixels of another, only 1 photo will suffer resizing loss of IQ. So I don't think it's ever truly fair to do so. And with 4 lens combinations, it's even worse. So I think it's only fair to up-res *all* of the lens combinations to some higher #pixels so that all suffer resizing losses and thus we can get a fairer comparison.

The longest side of the single chart instance in the previous post was 292, 400, 467 and 644 pixels. So in PL4 I resized the output so that all 4 lens combinations were 2048 x 2048 pixels. Here they are.
500mm, 700mm(500 + 1.4x), 800mm, 1120mm(800 + 1.4x):





Now if you pop between these 4 back & forth I think you can get a fairer view of how they compare to each other when they all have to be up-res'd to a larger (equal) pixel size. I think this is the first time I've seen this kind of comparison, and I get a better feeling for how much IQ you can squeeze out of your photos with proper post usage which includes up-res'ing directly from the original raw files.


I've enjoyed the challenge of designing more detailed test charts so much that I've come up with another one that I hope will measure resolution even more accurately. I know that judging contrast is as important (or more) as resolution, so I'll also include some pretty foreign currency in hopes of giving us a better overall feel for IQ at a glance. That will be Part 4, next.


----------



## ColorBlindBat (Mar 19, 2021)

usern4cr,​Do you perhaps also have access to an EF 100-400 mk II and possibly EF 1.4 and 2.0 TCs?

If so and you have time, would it be possible to compare he EF with and without TCs against the RF combos you've tested?

TIA...


----------



## usern4cr (Mar 19, 2021)

ColorBlindBat said:


> usern4cr,​Do you perhaps also have access to an EF 100-400 mk II and possibly EF 1.4 and 2.0 TCs?
> 
> If so and you have time, would it be possible to compare he EF with and without TCs against the RF combos you've tested?
> 
> TIA...


Unfortunately, I only have some RF lenses + RF 1.4TC and the R5. If you wanted another RF lens tested, then I might have one.


----------



## dcm (Mar 19, 2021)

I seem to remember reading an article a while back about the sharpness not necessarily being consistent throughout the focus range, not just the zoom range. So the 800 at minimum focus distance may perform differently than infinity or in the middle of the range. Could be better, could be worse. I cannot remember the source. This is the challenge of designing tests to be equivalent when the parameters are different.

The RF 1.4x on the RF 800 I ordered just got more interesting.


----------



## ColorBlindBat (Mar 19, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Unfortunately, I only have 6 RF lenses + RF 1.4TC and the R5. If you wanted another RF lens tested, then I might have one.


usern4cr,​
Thanks. 

Your test methods and completeness are to be commended.

Hopefully at some point, someone will follow on your efforts with the EF glass.


----------



## usern4cr (Mar 19, 2021)

ColorBlindBat said:


> usern4cr,​
> Thanks.
> 
> Your test methods and completeness are to be commended.
> ...


Well, thank you, ColorBlindBat. But credit must also go to AlanF who was the other half to this effort.


----------



## usern4cr (Mar 20, 2021)

dcm said:


> I seem to remember reading an article a while back about the sharpness not necessarily being consistent throughout the focus range, not just the zoom range. So the 800 at minimum focus distance may perform differently than infinity or in the middle of the range. Could be better, could be worse. I cannot remember the source. This is the challenge of designing tests to be equivalent when the parameters are different.
> 
> The RF 1.4x on the RF 800 I ordered just got more interesting.


When I get my final chart done and run some tests, I'm hoping that I can run tests at the 6m, 14.85m, and an even longer one (somehow) for these lens combinations. That would help show better results for them at medium, far & very far distances. I assume most would consider 6m medium, as I don't consider it close. But the 800 f11 can't focus much closer and that's one of the considerable drawbacks of it.

I hope you enjoy your RF 800 and RF 1.4x. I really am impressed at the IQ of the RF 800 for the price - it's really a special-case bargain compared to the high prices of the RF L glass.


----------



## dcm (Mar 20, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> When I get my final chart done and run some tests, I'm hoping that I can run tests at the 6m, 14.85m, and an even longer one (somehow) for these lens combinations. That would help show better results for them at medium, far & very far distances. I assume most would consider 6m medium, as I don't consider it close. But the 800 f11 can't focus much closer and that's one of the considerable drawbacks of it.
> 
> I hope you enjoy your RF 800 and RF 1.4x. I really am impressed at the IQ of the RF 800 for the price - it's really a special-case bargain compared to the high prices of the RF L glass.



Thanks. I'm getting too old to lug around one of the great whites. The EF 100-400L II is my limit these days.

Nice work. I look forward to seeing the results at other distances.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 20, 2021)

Great work usern4CR!! It's far more detailed and better controlled than my measurements. Here is a brief summary of what I have learned from photos of charts, £10 notes and birds at various distances. First of all the disclaimer - my problem is embarras de riches: I have the R5 with the RF 100-500mm, EF 100-400mm II and 400mm DO II, on the one hand, and a Nikon 850mm + 500PF over the other shoulder. Canon lent me a demo RF 800mm for a week. I liked it a lot, it was so easy to hand hold and it was quite sharp at long distances and even worked with the 1.4xTC to give slightly more detail at very long distances in decent light.

3m from target
100-500>100-400+1.4xTC ~100-400, 800/11 won't focus. 100-500 is really good, not as good as 500PF, but better than the older lens plus TC
6m mfd of 800
100-500+1.4xTC slightly sharper than and as detailed as the 800/11, despite shorter focal (based on £10 target). 800mm DO II + 2xTC is a clear winner, along with 500PF + 1.4xTC.
20m 
800mm DO II + 2xTC better contrast than 800/11 but similar levels of detail, 800/11+1.4xTC a bit more detail in good light. 100-500+1.4xTC not quite as good.
50m and bird targets.
800mm DO II + 2xTC best, 800/11 a bit behind and the 100-500+1.4xTC a bit further behind.

1. If I am going out on a hike or having to travel with restricted weight. The constraints are that I don't like carrying heavier lenses and I photo insects close up and birds at all distances, and will carry only one lens on a hike. No question, it's the RF 100-500 with the TC in my pocket as it's the best all-rounder and weight compromise. The 800/11 wouldn't work for me.
2. I am travelling where there could be low light and also birds mainly far away. It will be the 400mm DO II + TCs, and I'll put up with the weight. The mfd of 3.3m does allow me to photo dragonflies, butterflies and other insects.

The 800/11 does have a lot going for it, and if I had one, I could see myself using it on bright days when I was out birding and their mainly being distant as It would be a pleasure to handle and carry relative to the DO II and sharper than than the 100-500mm + TC at distances. And, I suppose a lightweight shorter zoom wouldn't be much of a burden for me. But, I also have Nikons and the 500/5.6 PF, which frankly is the best lightweight telephoto available - it outperforms all of my others at 3m for insects and with the 1.4xTC is at least as good as the 400mm DO II + 2xTC and weighs about a kg less, similar to the 100-500mm. Come on Canon, bring out a 500/5.6 DO that focusses down to 3m, weighs 1.5kg or less, and I'll pre-order and pay a premium!


----------



## usern4cr (Mar 20, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Great work usern4CR!! It's far more detailed and better controlled than my measurements. Here is a brief summary of what I have learned from photos of charts, £10 notes and birds at various distances. First of all the disclaimer - my problem is embarras de riches: I have the R5 with the RF 100-500mm, EF 100-400mm II and 400mm DO II, on the one hand, and a Nikon 850mm + 500PF over the other shoulder. Canon lent me a demo RF 800mm for a week. I liked it a lot, it was so easy to hand hold and it was quite sharp at long distances and even worked with the 1.4xTC to give slightly more detail at very long distances in decent light.
> 
> 3m from target
> 100-500>100-400+1.4xTC ~100-400, 800/11 won't focus. 100-500 is really good, not as good as 500PF, but better than the older lens plus TC
> ...


Great post, AlanF! I hope to one day have a long RF superTele like what you've asked Canon to come out with: a 500/5.6 DO with shorter MFD and lighter weight! If they do hear from users like you and come out with one, what price range would you expect it to be at?


----------



## AlanF (Mar 20, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Great post, AlanF! I hope to one day have a long RF superTele like what you've asked Canon to come out with: a 500/5.6 DO with shorter MFD and lighter weight! If they do hear from users like you and come out with one, what price range would you expect it to be at?


Competitive with Nikon at $3500 or so. A lens of that size is so versatile - put a 2xTC on it and you have a 1000mm f/11.


----------



## usern4cr (Mar 20, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Competitive with Nikon at $3500 or so. A lens of that size is so versatile - put a 2xTC on it and you have a 1000mm f/11.


That'd be a great price for the higher IQ/shorter MFD/lighter weight!

Since the RF 100-500 already hits 500 f7.1, do you think it might be a better to offer a 600mm f6.7 or so with similar MFD and weight?
That might make me want to get it even more. Just a thought?

I assume you think the RF 2x TC will be a high enough IQ with it to make it worthwhile with the new lenses like that?
Also, do you think the current RF 1.4x and 2x TC's will be upgraded in the future, or will they be the only native RF TC's for many years to come?


----------



## Bdbtoys (Mar 20, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Also, do you think the current RF 1.4x and 2x TC's will be upgraded in the future, or will they be the only native RF TC's for many years to come?



I'm hoping the 1x/1.5x/2x on any lens sees the light of day soon (see link below).








Patent: A zoom teleconverter, 1.0x-1.5x-2.0x


Canon News has uncovered a patent showing a really cool idea from Canon, a zooming teleconverter. We've had teleconverters for a long time, but this is the fir



www.canonrumors.com





Until then, I'm using the current tc's on the 100-500 when I need the extra reach.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 20, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> That'd be a great price for the higher IQ/shorter MFD/lighter weight!
> 
> Since the RF 100-500 already hits 500 f7.1, do you think it might be a better to offer a 600mm f6.7 or so with similar MFD and weight?
> That might make me want to get it even more. Just a thought?
> ...


400/4.5 would be interesting. Same size front element but gives a wider field of view and faster shutter speeds but expands to 560/6.3 and 800/9 with 1.4 and 2xTCs. I like having the wider fov for fast birds in flight that get close and fast shutter speeds.


----------



## usern4cr (Mar 26, 2021)

*** Part 4 ***

Well, the good news is that I did finish the updated test chart I previously mentioned. The bad news is that after I finished it, I thought that my design kept the lower resolution parts of the chart too far away from the center where I was to aim the test shots. So (doh!) I decided to create (yet again) another newer test chart.

I'll enclose a cropped-in portion of the test chart I decided not to use. It's hand-held, and I don't have a macro lens, so the sharpness could be better. But it will give you an idea of what that chart would have been:



There are a few things that I tried to change in this chart. One is that my laser printer can print fairly sharp lines at maximum resolution (thinnest & closet lines) when it prints them straight up-down or left-right. When printed on any angle it will make the lines much thicker as the pixels are too big (relative to the line spacing) so the white space between lines starts to disappear. So I printed the chart with the lines up-down & left-right only, and for the chart "wedges" that are on an angle I cut out the non-angled wedges and taped then onto the final paper (crude, but effective). This ensured that I got the maximum accuracy in my printed lines when printed on any angle. Only later, upon closer inspection, did I notice that some the the wedges didn't print quite as good as others, as I think my last printer is getting low on toner. A good "shake" of the toner module helps to fix this problem in the short run, but I'm sure it won't last too long before needing a replacement.

Another thing is the addition of the Swedish bank notes. They have an amazing amount of small detail in them if you look with a magnifying glass (far more detail than can be seen in this image). And the images are cute and with a story behind them.

The last thing is that I always wondered why my previous test charts had the smallest lines darker in some areas than others, and often had some lines closer together than others within the same resolution chart. I assumed there's nothing to be done about it, until one day the programmer in me decided to copy the same group of charts onto an area nearby, but to alter the vertical spacing by and extra 1 dot. Then I copied both of those chart groups onto a nearby area while altering the horizontal spacing by an extra 1 dot. This would make the placement of the chart groups different in the even/odd dot positions. Maybe that would tell me something? The result was shocking (well, to me that is). Just changing from even to odd would change whether the thinnest lines were thick or thin, both in horizontal and vertical directions. I repeated this test on many of the various areas of the 8 x 11.5 page to see what would happen, and the same effect happened at all locations.

So, knowing this issue, I made new charts and made sure that the lines were positioned on the even or odd position needed for the thinnest lines. While the previous chart had a line pair every 6, 7, 8, 9, ... lines, I had to reduce this to 6, 8, 10, ... lines so that the lines could not fall into the wrong even/odd positions. The result is that the most detailed lines no longer had the wrong even/odd problem, and that was fixed in the above chart (with Swedish bank notes).

I have made the new test chart in the original style where all chart #'s (from 9 to 80) are in a tight rectangle, and I've made a copy to paste with a 1 degree tilt left and another with a 1 degree tilt right. So when the camera & tripod are positioned so the middle chart is as close to level as possible, the other charts will be slight tilted. This will ensure that you will have a near perfectly aligned chart in one of the 3, and any slight tilt will result in a visible sharp to blurry to sharp to blurry... pattern when at maximum resolved resolution. Since I already taped up the Swedish notes, I'll use a single English note we had in the new chart. But being used by us a couple years back, it's pretty wrinkled up. So I'm going to get a new crisp (hopefully) one this Monday (it's a drive to get it). Then I can take photos and see what results I get. But in the meantime, I'll make a handheld photo of the newest group of charts with copies of it on even/odd horizontal & vertial positions to show you what the weird effect my printer does (hint: the bottom right group is in "correct" even/odd position:



So, again, I hope to have a better chart and results soon for you.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 26, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> *** Part 4 ***
> 
> Well, the good news is that I did finish the updated test chart I previously mentioned. The bad news is that after I finished it, I thought that my design kept the lower resolution parts of the chart too far away from the center where I was to aim the test shots. So (doh!) I decided to create (yet again) another newer test chart.
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure I spent that money once...about thirty years ago. Though I could be mistaken as I don't recall that closeup of the face on the back of the note.


----------



## usern4cr (Mar 26, 2021)

SteveC said:


> I'm pretty sure I spent that money once...about thirty years ago. Though I could be mistaken as I don't recall that closeup of the face on the back of the note.


The Swedish money is really beautiful. The lower note is for the author of the "Pippi Longstockings" series of books that many have come to love since childhood. They have nice art on both sides of them, with descriptions, and embedded in them are super-small resolution letters and text needing a strong magnifying glass to see.

These notes may not be long for this world, as Sweden is leading a forced change where they're trying to get rid of cash altogether. We found this out when trying to pay for gas and they only took credit cards, and it's happening in more places all the time. By eliminating cash, they're trying to eliminate the black market that doesn't pay taxes, but they're replacing cash with a computerized system that in addition to ensuring taxes are paid can also track your every movement and purchase, instead of just allowing "anonymous cash cards" that are anonymous but still pay taxes.


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 2, 2021)

*** Part 5a ***

Well, I got the British 5 Pound note, which was slightly crisper than the old one I had.
But then I got a call that my local art gallery just asked me to join them on their board, and that they'd like me to submit 8 of my hung photo prints for their upcoming exhibit through September or October, with April 13 as the hanging date. (Woo-hoo!)
I've got a photo printer on order and intended to print them on (eventually), but it's on back order. So now I have to go through my photos to find the best 8 and then find a printer to print them. That took (and continues to take) a while.
But I decided to take the time now to run some test photos with the new (simpler) lens chart I made.
This one's so fancy (ha!) that I just taped it to the wall on 1 side of the house, and took photos from the furthest point away from it (again), which was about 14.9 meters away.

Here's what the entire view was for the following with my R5.
I took shots at 1/60" and 1/125" and chose which I preferred.
Other info: EFCS, raw (uncompressed), AF, wired remote, IS enabled
Processed in DXO PL4, standard settings, white & brightness balanced to get all as close as possible, deep prime output (2K longest side, 95% jpg)
Left-to-right (wrapping to next line) are the following:
RF 100-500mm f4.5-7.1L @ 500mm, f7.1, 1/60", ISO 320
ditto + RF 1.4x TC, so 700mm, f10, 1/60", ISO 800
RF 800mm f11 @ 1/60", ISO 1000
ditto + RF 1.4x TC, so 1120mm, f16, 1/125", ISO 4000


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 2, 2021)

*** Part 5b ***

Here is a 1:1 crop of the center area with the bill and resolution charts of the same 4:







I also re-sized (from Raw) the above crops to the 2048 x 2048 size that happened to be what the 1120mm photo was at:


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 2, 2021)

*** Part 5c ***

Here is a 1:1 crop of the view of the Queen of the same 4:






The above are re-sized up (from raw) to 2K x 2K for a fairer comparison:







As far as the #lines barely resolved, the "N" value I chose was the average for horizontal & vertical lines for the 3 charts in each:
(note this is a rough #, based on visual inspection)
500mm: N = ~34
700mm: N = ~40
800mm: N = ~47
1120mm: N = ~49

The length of the arrow line "A" is:
500mm: A = 269
700mm: A = 372
800mm: A = 432
1120mm: A = 598

From the formula, #barely resolved lines = N * 7 * S / A
(where S = #pixels in sensor height, or 5464 for the R5)
(note a black & white line pair count as "2 lines")
500mm: #barely resolved = ~4834
700mm: #barely resolved = ~4113
800mm: #barely resolved = ~4161
1120mm: #barely resolved = ~3134

The number of sensor pixels needed to barely resolve a black & white line pair is:
500mm: ~2.3 pixels
700mm: ~2.7 pixels
800mm: ~2.6 pixels
1120mm: ~3.5 pixels

Note: I haven't compared these results with what I got in my previous post with an earlier chart. I hope they're close (you never know) 

You can be the judge of the results that I found at this focal distance.
I will try to find time to do another similar test at a longer focal distance, which will have to be outside of my house.

I hope you liked this. Feel free to make comments or suggestions. I'm just a retired programmer with photography, pickleball, & travel as my main hobbies.

I hope you're all able to stay safe and can get your Covid vaccines. I got my 2nd one yesterday, so I'm very grateful for my luck with that.

Cheers!
usern4cr (well, also known as "John")


----------



## Stu_bert (Apr 4, 2021)

John and Alan,

amazing work, meticulous focus on comparing the lenses in a fair way.

Thanks for the hard work, intellectual work and sharing it in an easily digestible format.

For me, this is the sort of comparative reviews which are really informative about making purchases. I wish review sites would do more like this but I guess there is a lot more effort doing what you’ve done.

Many thanks again.


----------



## zim (Apr 4, 2021)

Indeed great stuff, that's a lot of commitment, work and time.
I don't have RF kit but still picked up a couple of interesting processing points that I'll be having a little play with!

Thank you


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 4, 2021)

Stu_bert said:


> John and Alan,
> 
> amazing work, meticulous focus on comparing the lenses in a fair way.
> 
> ...


Thanks so much, Stu_bert. I've haven't done this kind of thing before, and would really like to thank AlanF for his ideas and previous work and for helping to make it a more readable & (hopefully) enjoyable form.


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 4, 2021)

zim said:


> Indeed great stuff, that's a lot of commitment, work and time.
> I don't have RF kit but still picked up a couple of interesting processing points that I'll be having a little play with!
> 
> Thank you


Thanks, Zim. If you ever have the chance to get a R5 and the RF 100-500L pair, that's a really sweet combination all by itself.


----------



## RJM.Photo (Sep 18, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Thanks, Zim. If you ever have the chance to get a R5 and the RF 100-500L pair, that's a really sweet combination all by itself.



Hello! I own a Canon R5 and 800mm f11. I am really close to my savings goal to pick up the 100-500 L. I WAS planning to sell off the 800mm to help afford the 1.4x teleconverter, as i was under the impression an L lens would be heads above this 'cheap' 800 f11 lens, even with a teleconverter. 

Your test has now showed me otherwise. It appears per your test, The 100-500L is as sharp as the 800mm both without the TC, but when the TC is involved, the 800 with and without the TC appear sharper. DId I interpret these results correctly? 

If i want more detail at a subject that is far away, would i be better using the bare 100-500mm or the 800mm (if i have it with me at the time) and forgetting the TC all together? Many suggest there is absolutely no quality loss and their 1.4x TC lives on their 100-500mm, but your test proves thats just not true.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 18, 2021)

RJM.Photo said:


> Hello! I own a Canon R5 and 800mm f11. I am really close to my savings goal to pick up the 100-500 L. I WAS planning to sell off the 800mm to help afford the 1.4x teleconverter, as i was under the impression an L lens would be heads above this 'cheap' 800 f11 lens, even with a teleconverter.
> 
> Your test has now showed me otherwise. It appears per your test, The 100-500L is as sharp as the 800mm both without the TC, but when the TC is involved, the 800 with and without the TC appear sharper. DId I interpret these results correctly?
> 
> If i want more detail at a subject that is far away, would i be better using the bare 100-500mm or the 800mm (if i have it with me at the time) and forgetting the TC all together? Many suggest there is absolutely no quality loss and their 1.4x TC lives on their 100-500mm, but your test proves thats just not true.


You can see some more tests here: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-100-500mm-rf-800mm-and-ef-400mm-do-ii.40550/
The 800mm does perform very well, but so does the 100-500mm at 700mm and 1000mm. The 100-500mm + RF 2xTC outresolves the bare 800mm. There are other criteria that are more important. If you want to take close objects, then the 100-500mm is far more suitable. If you do birds in flight, then the 800mm has a more narrow field of view and slower AF than the bare 100-500mm or it with the RF 1.4x. I keep the 800mm f/11 for more specialist use and use the 100-500mm as my go to lens.


----------



## JohnC (Sep 18, 2021)

AlanF said:


> You can see some more tests here: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-100-500mm-rf-800mm-and-ef-400mm-do-ii.40550/
> The 800mm does perform very well, but so does the 100-500mm at 700mm and 1000mm. The 100-500mm + RF 2xTC outresolves the bare 800mm. There are other criteria that are more important. If you want to take close objects, then the 100-500mm is far more suitable. If you do birds in flight, then the 800mm has a more narrow field of view and slower AF than the bare 100-500mm or it with the RF 1.4x. I keep the 800mm f/11 for more specialist use and use the 100-500mm as my go to lens.


Have you used the ef100-400 II on the R5 and if so how would you say it compares to the RF 100-500?


----------



## JPAZ (Sep 18, 2021)

JohnC said:


> Have you used the ef100-400 II on the R5 and if so how would you say it compares to the RF 100-500?



@JohnC - FWIW, I had the 100-400ii, and a really good one that produced excellent results on the R5 with an adapter. But, I've since sold it and now use the RF 100-500 with no regrets. A little more reach with no need for the adapter and excellent IQ but each is a really great lens.

Many thanks to Alan and John for this fascinating evaluation.

If there ever is an RF 400DO that will work with the TCs, I might be going that way. I am lucky enough to have an EF 300 f/2.8ii (what an amazing lens even with a 2x TC) but it is not seeing much use these days and I am thinking of selling it. Who knows?


----------



## JohnC (Sep 18, 2021)

JPAZ said:


> @JohnC - FWIW, I had the 100-400ii, and a really good one that produced excellent results on the R5 with an adapter. But, I've since sold it and now use the RF 100-500 with no regrets. A little more reach with no need for the adapter and excellent IQ but each is a raelly great lens.
> 
> Many thanks to Alan and John for this fascinating evaluation.
> 
> If there ever is an RF 400DO that will work with the TCs, I might be going that way. I am lucky enough to have an EF 300 f/2.8ii (what an amazing lens even with a 2x TC) but it is not seeing much use these days and I am thinking of selling it. Who knows?


Thank you that is helpful.


----------



## RJM.Photo (Sep 18, 2021)

AlanF said:


> You can see some more tests here: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-100-500mm-rf-800mm-and-ef-400mm-do-ii.40550/
> The 800mm does perform very well, but so does the 100-500mm at 700mm and 1000mm. The 100-500mm + RF 2xTC outresolves the bare 800mm. There are other criteria that are more important. If you want to take close objects, then the 100-500mm is far more suitable. If you do birds in flight, then the 800mm has a more narrow field of view and slower AF than the bare 100-500mm or it with the RF 1.4x. I keep the 800mm f/11 for more specialist use and use the 100-500mm as my go to lens.



So I have an addiction to the Conowingo Dam in MD for the Eagle population. I frequent there more than id like to admit lol. As you may know, the MFD of the 800mm doesnt come into play very often there, and I hardly find myself wanting less than the max focal length. The bigger focus area of the 100-500 w/ 1.4tc and focus speed would be the biggest advantage compared to the 800mm there i feel. Is the 100-500mm w/ 1.4tc close enough to the IQ of the bare 800mm to leave the 800mm at home? Or since it is so easy to bring an extra lens and swap it when i need more FL, i should forego the TC for that use case? Im going to comb over the images in the thread you linked me to see if i can determine for myself, but you seem to be very experienced in this system and i value your opinion! 

TIA


----------



## RJM.Photo (Sep 19, 2021)

I guess ill keep my 800mm for sharper shots at max focal length and save some more funds and eventually pick up the 1.4tc for the versatility when i want the zoom range and MFD of the 100-500 + 1.4tc and will sacrifice the IQ for it.


----------



## usern4cr (Sep 19, 2021)

RJM.Photo said:


> Hello! I own a Canon R5 and 800mm f11. I am really close to my savings goal to pick up the 100-500 L. I WAS planning to sell off the 800mm to help afford the 1.4x teleconverter, as i was under the impression an L lens would be heads above this 'cheap' 800 f11 lens, even with a teleconverter.
> 
> Your test has now showed me otherwise. It appears per your test, The 100-500L is as sharp as the 800mm both without the TC, but when the TC is involved, the 800 with and without the TC appear sharper. DId I interpret these results correctly?
> 
> If i want more detail at a subject that is far away, would i be better using the bare 100-500mm or the 800mm (if i have it with me at the time) and forgetting the TC all together? Many suggest there is absolutely no quality loss and their 1.4x TC lives on their 100-500mm, but your test proves thats just not true.


Since I bought the 800 f11 and also bought the RF 1.4x TC, I have chosen to leave the 1.4x on the 800 as if it was a single lens. If I want a really long focal range and don't care about closer focusing, then the 800 & 1.4x is super lightweight and is a joy to use for that purpose and is sharp enough for my purposes.

I have the RF 100-500L and it is absolutely my favorite lens. But I don't have a RF 2x TC (well, yet). And I'm not a fan of putting on a TC on the 100-500 since you end up with a minimum focal length of 300mm * 1.4x (or 2x). But if I wanted to take a single lens and a single TC for long distance flexibility, then I would take the 100-500 and RF 2x where I'd use (or not use) the 2x on it as the situation needs. I wouldn't bother with the 1.4X on the 100-500 as it's not worth losing the wider angles for only a 1.4X longer range (to me), so if I'm going to bother with doing that then I'd only want the 2X put on it, and AlanF has shown how great that combo is!

If you're car camping, then I'd take the 100-500 (with no TC!) and the <800 + 1.4X combo> so that I have an easy lens change between them for 100-500 or 1120 mm. Personally, I find changing the TC in and out to be a PITA, but that's just me and that's why this combination is appealing since it eliminates changing the TC's in & out.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 19, 2021)

JohnC said:


> Have you used the ef100-400 II on the R5 and if so how would you say it compares to the RF 100-500?


A lot and the comments are spread over various threads. If you shoot in the range 100-400mm only, then the 100-400mm II is marginally better than than the 100-500 at 400mm and marginally worse at 100mm, and no real difference in AF etc. The EF at 560mm with the 1.4xTC, is about the same as the the RF at 500mm for resolution or marginally better and not much different in other ways. The 100-500mm leaps ahead with the RF 1.4x and 2x if you want to shoot at 700mm and 1000mm, and better than the EF at 800mm. Based on my experience with one copy of the 100-500mm and 3 of the EF.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 19, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Since I bought the 800 f11 and also bought the RF 1.4x TC, I have chosen to leave the 1.4x on the 800 as if it was a single lens. If I want a really long focal range and don't care about closer focusing, then the 800 & 1.4x is super lightweight and is a joy to use for that purpose and is sharp enough for my purposes.
> 
> I have the RF 100-500L and it is absolutely my favorite lens. But I don't have a RF 2x TC (well, yet). And I'm not a fan of putting on a TC on the 100-500 since you end up with a minimum focal length of 300mm * 1.4x (or 2x). But if I wanted to take a single lens and a single TC for long distance flexibility, then I would take the 100-500 and RF 2x where I'd use (or not use) the 2x on it as the situation needs. I wouldn't bother with the 1.4X on the 100-500 as it's not worth losing the wider angles for only a 1.4X longer range (to me), so if I'm going to bother with doing that then I'd only want the 2X put on it, and AlanF has shown how great that combo is!
> 
> If you're car camping, then I'd take the 100-500 (with no TC!) and the <800 + 1.4X combo> so that I have an easy lens change between them for 100-500 or 1120 mm. Personally, I find changing the TC in and out to be a PITA, but that's just me and that's why this combination is appealing since it eliminates changing the TC's in & out.


We are very much in complete agreement here. I would say that I have a higher regard for the RF 1.4x on the 100-500mm. The default setting for lens sharpness in DxO PL softens the lens at 700mm and needs to be set to global +2. Conversely, it oversharpens the lens with the RF 2x at 1000mm and needs to be set at at -1 or so for well focussed images. You see the benefit of extenders at distances where the fine details are just out of the range of resolution of the bare lens and just within the range with the extender. I think we have both toyed with selling the 800 f/11. But, I have fun with the 800 + TCs. Two nights ago, I played with the 2x on the 800 vs 2x on the 100-500mm taking photos of the moon. The 1000mm actually gave me sharper details. But, I took shots of Jupiter and could just make out at the colours at 1600mm in an 80px80px image.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 19, 2021)

AlanF said:


> We are very much in complete agreement here. I would say that I have a higher regard for the RF 1.4x on the 100-500mm. The default setting for lens sharpness in DxO PL softens the lens at 700mm and needs to be set to global +2. Conversely, it oversharpens the lens with the RF 2x at 1000mm and needs to be set at at -1 or so for well focussed images. You see the benefit of extenders at distances where the fine details are just out of the range of resolution of the bare lens and just within the range with the extender. I think we have both toyed with selling the 800 f/11. But, I have fun with the 800 + TCs. Two nights ago, I played with the 2x on the 800 vs 2x on the 100-500mm taking photos of the moon. The 1000mm actually gave me sharper details. But, I took shots of Jupiter and could just make out at the colours at 1600mm in an 80px80px image.
> View attachment 200283


Is that in any way stacked, or just a single image?

I was shooting my 100/400 with a 2.0 tc once and could not get anything like that (even scaled down). I should, as a bonus, also have got Saturn (because it was the great conjunction last December) and barely got something recognizable. I actually did almost as well (if that's the word--maybe I should have said "only slightly more poorly") as my camera did with my cell phone handheld in front of my telescope's eyepiece--once out of about 20 tries.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 19, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Is that in any way stacked, or just a single image?
> 
> I was shooting my 100/400 with a 2.0 tc once and could not get anything like that (even scaled down). I should, as a bonus, also have got Saturn (because it was the great conjunction last December) and barely got something recognizable. I actually did almost as well (if that's the word--maybe I should have said "only slightly more poorly") as my camera did with my cell phone handheld in front of my telescope's eyepiece--once out of about 20 tries.


Single image. You would be pushed to get anything at 800mm on the 100-400 II, just not enough pixels - 40x40, and the lens isn't sharp enough. I got this at 900mm on the 100-500mm II + RF 2x f/13.


----------



## JPAZ (Sep 20, 2021)

Before I had the 100-500, I tried an RF 800 and my experience matched the reviews. The reach for a relatively light lens with decent IQ was impressive but the f/11 and close focus distance made me think it was not for me.

So here I am with the 100-500 and a 1.4TC wondering if I should get a 2x TC. I might do better with the 800 with and without the 1.4x I already have thinking about versatility and the lens swapping I'd be doing. I see some differences in IQ based on these charts and understand the differences in relative aperture with TCs but, this has got me thinking. 2x with the 100-500 is basically 600-1000 and the 800 with the 1.4x yields 800 / 1200 with a stop of light. 

Say what you will about Canon's RF lineup but they've given us lots of options.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 20, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Single image. You would be pushed to get anything at 800mm on the 100-400 II, just not enough pixels - 40x40, and the lens isn't sharp enough. I got this at 900mm on the 100-500mm II + RF 1.4x, f/13.
> View attachment 200288


I couldn't see where you mentioned the camera, which for me was an R5. I suppose I could have got more pixels on it with the M6-II but it was hopeless trying to focus it. With the R5 I could crank the ISO, manually focus, then drop back down and take the picture.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 20, 2021)

SteveC said:


> I couldn't see where you mentioned the camera, which for me was an R5. I suppose I could have got more pixels on it with the M6-II but it was hopeless trying to focus it. With the R5 I could crank the ISO, manually focus, then drop back down and take the picture.


The details are in the link you replied to and quoted a few posts above: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-100-500mm-rf-800mm-and-ef-400mm-do-ii.40550/ It's an R5.


----------



## EricN (Sep 22, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Single image. You would be pushed to get anything at 800mm on the 100-400 II, just not enough pixels - 40x40, and the lens isn't sharp enough. I got this at 900mm on the 100-500mm II + RF 1.4x, f/13.
> View attachment 200288


I tried it on the 100-400 II with no extender. It's just enough to recognize Jupiter. I overexposed and got what looked like 4 moons. Then I went for Saturn and again, just enough to recognize.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 22, 2021)

EricN said:


> I tried it on the 100-400 II with no extender. It's just enough to recognize Jupiter. I overexposed and got what looked like 4 moons. Then I went for Saturn and again, just enough to recognize.


Just went out and tried the bare 100-500mm on the R5 and Saturn. Hand held at 1/250 and iso 3200. My first ever shot of Saturn.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 23, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Just went out and tried the bare 100-500mm on the R5 and Saturn. Hand held at 1/250 and iso 3200. My first ever shot of Saturn.
> 
> View attachment 200358


I have early access to an R3, so I mounted my bare RF 100-500 on it and took my own picture of Saturn.




That's what happens when you're stuck with a measly 24 MP.


----------

