# The 2020 RF lens roadmap, up to 8 new lenses coming in 2020



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 26, 2019)

> We’re told that a loose roadmap for RF mount lenses in 2020 has been shown to select people and that the plan today is to release between 6 to 8 new RF mount lenses in 2020.
> Amongst those lenses will be f/4L zoom lenses, perhaps some of the recent patents give us some clues.
> At least one “crazy look-what-we-can-do” lens is coming next year.
> There will also be at least one fast L prime lens and a couple of non-L lenses, it’s unknown if they’ll be zoom or primes or both at this time.
> There has been no world on tilt-shift or macro lenses for the RF mount as of yet.



Continue reading...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 26, 2019)

I don't believe that Tilt-shift lenses are big sellers, so lower cost lenses should be a priority. Low sales has not stopped Canon from releasing some expensive RF sellers so far though.


----------



## amorse (Apr 26, 2019)

Well now I need to know what the "look what we can do" lens is! Is it the 14-21 f/1.4? Will it be the widest lens that need a tripod collar?


----------



## Cochese (Apr 26, 2019)

This should be exciting, I can't wait to see what that potential "look what we can do" lens is going to be, though I'll probably never be able to afford it, I hope it's something stupid like a 600/2.8. Though, I'm fine with lenses/ adapted lenses. I really can't wait to see what the next camera is going to be like. I'm hoping for something to replace my 5DMIV/ run along side it.


----------



## amorse (Apr 26, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I don't believe that Tilt-shift lenses are big sellers, so lower cost lenses should be a priority. Low sales has not stopped Canon from releasing some expensive RF sellers so far though.


I figured they'd expect people to just use the adapter considering that polarizing/filtering behind the lens would likely provide advantages over an RF tilt shift.


----------



## fabao (Apr 26, 2019)

Canon is doing everything right with their RF lens selection, and I really like that they are not just coming with the usual focal length/aperture combinations we already have on EF format, but also with unique lenses like the 28-70 f2, the small 70-200, and the perfect for travel 24-240. As those announced lenses become available, I think in this area they have an edge over Sony, Nikon, and Panasonic FF mirrorless options. BUT, they really need a body to match those lenses. In particular, they need to add IBIS to their camera bodies like the other manufacturers did. Shooting video just hand holding my GH5 is a delight, even with longer focal lengths. With the Canon RP with no stabilization, oh boy... And adding even cropped 4K 60fps would be to ask too much?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 26, 2019)

amorse said:


> I figured they'd expect people to just use the adapter considering that polarizing/filtering behind the lens would likely provide advantages over an RF tilt shift.


That’s one of the main reasons I bought an EOS R.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 26, 2019)

fabao said:


> Canon is doing everything right with their RF lens selection, and I really like that they are not just coming with the usual focal length/aperture combinations we already have on EF format, but also with unique lenses like the 28-70 f2, the small 70-200, and the perfect for travel 24-240...



I believe Canon is following a two-pronged approach. They are releasing lenses that duplicate the most popular EF lenses, which are matched to the common uses of their existing R bodies and they seem to be releasing some lenses that take advantage of the new mount design to show what it's capable of. Internally, it may be like telling the designers, "Okay, you can design this unusual lens, but you also have to get us 4-5 general purpose lenses."


----------



## padam (Apr 26, 2019)

unfocused said:


> They are releasing lenses that duplicate the most popular EF lenses, which are matched to the common uses of their existing R bodies and they seem to be releasing some lenses that take advantage of the new mount design to show what it's capable of.


All of their RF lenses take full advantage of the new mount design...


----------



## Eersel (Apr 26, 2019)

How about a crazy look what we can do camera body?


----------



## degos (Apr 26, 2019)

padam said:


> All of their RF lenses take full advantage of the new mount design...



Like a 50mm 1.2 that is bigger and heavier than the EF one, or a 70-200mm 2.8 that is fatter and probably heavier than the EF one? And it'll probably be twice the price as well, to keep the RF tradition alive. Oh how about a 24-105 that's pretty much identical in specs and IQ to the EF II? How's that an advantage?

Canon's RF designers seem to have Sigma Envy and want to show that they too have big manly bits. Meanwhile I'm looking at the EF 35mm IS because it's small and light.


----------



## magarity (Apr 26, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> There has been no world on tilt-shift or macro lenses for the RF mount as of yet.


The RF 35mm is tagged with 'macro' in the name. Is it not macro enough to count?


----------



## Tom W (Apr 26, 2019)

I have a feeling that we will see something like that 17-70 lens, as a kit zoom. Perfect for travel, providing it's light and decent. 17 is really wide on FF, and that would be a great plus for interior photography on an RF body.

Otherwise, I see a couple of non-L primes, maybe a 24 and 50 and some additional high-end primes.


----------



## Tom W (Apr 26, 2019)

magarity said:


> The RF 35mm is tagged with 'macro' in the name. Is it not macro enough to count?



It's maximum magnification is 1:2, basically 50%. A true Macro has 100% magnification or better, though there is some variance in that theory.

The 100 f/2.8 IS Macro works quite well on the RF as it is.


----------



## Tom W (Apr 26, 2019)

degos said:


> Like a 50mm 1.2 that is bigger and heavier than the EF one, or a 70-200mm 2.8 that is fatter and probably heavier than the EF one? And it'll probably be twice the price as well, to keep the RF tradition alive. Oh how about a 24-105 that's pretty much identical in specs and IQ to the EF II? How's that an advantage?
> 
> Canon's RF designers seem to have Sigma Envy and want to show that they too have big manly bits. Meanwhile I'm looking at the EF 35mm IS because it's small and light.



The 50/1.2 RF is a spectacular lens, and the 24-105 f/4 is as good a 24-105 as you can get. I'd rate it to be a bit better than the EF version, at least version I which I also have. The bokeh is excellent.

I do agree - some smaller, light lenses in the spirit of the older EF USM primes would be nice. Size does matter a lot of the time.


----------



## danfaz (Apr 26, 2019)

degos said:


> Oh how about a 24-105 that's pretty much identical in specs and IQ to the EF II? How's that an advantage?


Not a good analogy. The RF lens is significantly better than the EF II.


----------



## docsmith (Apr 26, 2019)

Sounds about right. Four lenses in 2018, 6 lenses (announced) in 2019, and then 8 in 2020. So, 2 years after the announcement of the EOS-R (Fall '18 to Fall '20) they will have 18 native lenses and some great adapters for legacy EF glass. I would expect 5-8 lenses per year for the first ~5-6 years following Fall'18.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 26, 2019)

padam said:


> All of their RF lenses take full advantage of the new mount design...


Perhaps, but only to the extent that the new mount design actually offers advantages...which is not the case for all focal lengths/apertures.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 26, 2019)

So many toys, so little money. _sigh_


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 26, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> So many toys, so little money. _sigh_


So true!


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 26, 2019)

With a body like the RP it's now about time to get some "non L" RF lenses, esp. some small FF prime with typical FL lenses like 24, 35, 50 mm or similar.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 26, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> With a body like the RP it's now about time to get some "non L" RF lenses, esp. some small FF prime with typical FL lenses like 24, 35, 50 mm or similar.


Such as the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro?


----------



## PureClassA (Apr 26, 2019)

I just bought an EOS R... (no RF glass yet) So of course I'm anxiously awaiting some of the earlier announced L glass, particularly the 15-35 2.8. I bought the camera mostly for video and as a travel camera, so I'm looking forward to comparably light and well balanced glass (vs using the EF adapter with EF glass) for video. the 15-35 focal range pretty much negates the 4k crop factor. I've been fiddling with it so far with the 16-35 f 4 and the 35 and 85 1.4 L primes.


----------



## BeenThere (Apr 26, 2019)

amorse said:


> Well now I need to know what the "look what we can do" lens is! Is it the 14-21 f/1.4? Will it be the widest lens that need a tripod collar?


And an assistant to carry it from shot to shot?


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 26, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Such as the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro?


Maybe smaller?


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 26, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> Maybe smaller?



The RF 35 is smaller, lighter, sharper than its EF 35 f/2 IS counterpart. With the camera market contracting like it is, I don't see much of a market for smaller, slower, cheaper lenses. Many of those users will be using their cell phones. Camera manufacturers are targeting enthusiasts and pros that want high IQ that that means more corrected and larger lenses. Sure, there might be a place for a pancake like 40 f/2.8, but I can't see f/1.8 or f/2 primes from the 24-85mm range being small/uncorrected. More likely, they'll sit near the RF 35 in IQ and size.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 26, 2019)

padam said:


> All of their RF lenses take full advantage of the new mount design...


Ah yes. Canon Rumors Forum, where you can always count on a pedantic comment.


----------



## BillB (Apr 26, 2019)

amorse said:


> Well now I need to know what the "look what we can do" lens is! Is it the 14-21 f/1.4? Will it be the widest lens that need a tripod collar?


Lo


Tom W said:


> I have a feeling that we will see something like that 17-70 lens, as a kit zoom. Perfect for travel, providing it's light and decent. 17 is really wide on FF, and that would be a great plus for interior photography on an RF body.
> 
> Otherwise, I see a couple of non-L primes, maybe a 24 and 50 and some additional high-end primes.


Don't know how light a FF 17-70 is going to be, even with 3.5-5.6 variable max aperture. They already have the 24-105, so the choice would be between a little longer or quite a bit wider.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Apr 26, 2019)

degos said:


> Like a 50mm 1.2 that is bigger and heavier than the EF one, or a 70-200mm 2.8 that is fatter and probably heavier than the EF one? And it'll probably be twice the price as well, to keep the RF tradition alive. Oh how about a 24-105 that's pretty much identical in specs and IQ to the EF II? How's that an advantage?
> 
> Canon's RF designers seem to have Sigma Envy and want to show that they too have big manly bits. Meanwhile I'm looking at the EF 35mm IS because it's small and light.



They have an additional control ring that can be set to what you'd like. I think that's huge too, not just a mount thing. Speaking of mount, there are more connections for lens and camera. So you're absolutely wrong about same specs. To the naked eye, the IQ may look identical (ref. 24-105) - but that's because it's already good.  
And you're talking about weight differences.. i.e. the 70-200. If you compare the canon EF to the Sony G 70-200, the Sony is not lighter by any means - practically the same (Sony is 10 grams lighter compared to the mark ii and the same compared to the mark iii) Mirrorless does NOT mean that the lenses are lighter. Due to flange size, different sizes in lenses and potentially decrease in weight, but not a whole lot else. If you're looking for a dreamy 85mm F1.2, I hope you're not looking for a pancake. I think the M mount exists for people seeking super small, compact, and travel friendly camera system.


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 26, 2019)

Eersel said:


> How about a crazy look what we can do camera body?



Exactly.

I made a special trip to check out the R, RP, Z6, Z7, A7ii, A7iii, EM10 and EM5 mark II at a Best Buy, and all the EVFs stink badly except the EM5 Mark II. And that one is only marginal.

No way in the world I'd shoot with any of them until someone makes a usable EVF for high-speed moving subjects in difficult light.


----------



## fabao (Apr 26, 2019)

Random Orbits said:


> The RF 35 is smaller, lighter, sharper than its EF 35 f/2 IS counterpart. With the camera market contracting like it is, I don't see much of a market for smaller, slower, cheaper lenses. Many of those users will be using their cell phones. Camera manufacturers are targeting enthusiasts and pros that want high IQ that that means more corrected and larger lenses. Sure, there might be a place for a pancake like 40 f/2.8, but I can't see f/1.8 or f/2 primes from the 24-85mm range being small/uncorrected. More likely, they'll sit near the RF 35 in IQ and size.


Couldn't agree more. When I want "light", specially when traveling, I use my m43 camera and tiny lenses. Gets the job done really well. When I want the FF "look", low light performance, or when I need to "look professional", I am all for the best quality lenses like the new RF 28-70 f2. Hoping for more lenses like it.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 26, 2019)

Random Orbits said:


> The RF 35 is smaller, lighter, sharper than its EF 35 f/2 IS counterpart. With the camera market contracting like it is, I don't see much of a market for smaller, slower, cheaper lenses. Many of those users will be using their cell phones. Camera manufacturers are targeting enthusiasts and pros that want high IQ that that means more corrected and larger lenses. Sure, there might be a place for a pancake like 40 f/2.8, but I can't see f/1.8 or f/2 primes from the 24-85mm range being small/uncorrected. More likely, they'll sit near the RF 35 in IQ and size.


The RF 35 is a great lens and I praised it in other treads before.
And if Canon can‘t or don‘t want to make RF pancakes then at least bring other FLs build like this - soon.
Thanks in advance.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 26, 2019)

padam said:


> All of their RF lenses take full advantage of the new mount design...


Canon has said that the new design has more capabilities and that we will see new designs taking advantage of those untapped capabilities.


----------



## melbournite (Apr 26, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s one of the main reasons I bought an EOS R.


Me too!


----------



## amorse (Apr 26, 2019)

BeenThere said:


> And an assistant to carry it from shot to shot?


I was thinking more like a wheelbarrow


----------



## domo_p1000 (Apr 26, 2019)

I may be in a worldwide minority of one, but I have always loved my 35-350/3.5-5.6L and now the 28-300/3.5-5.6L... it's like having a comfort blanket! The latter is now 15 years old - I really would like to see something new along those lines.


----------



## padam (Apr 26, 2019)

https://www.canonrumors.com/patent-superzoom-lenses-for-ef-and-rf-mounts/
But for the time being, the 24-240 should suffice.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 26, 2019)

padam said:


> But for the time being, the 24-240 should suffice.


For some/a lot: yes.
For me: never.
Such do-it-all zooms are an all compromize:
not small, not bright, not great in IQ.


----------



## LetsStewIt (Apr 26, 2019)

Hoping for a RF 35 1.4L!


----------



## flip314 (Apr 26, 2019)

BeenThere said:


> And an assistant to carry it from shot to shot?



Don't worry, if you can afford the lens you can afford an assistant.


----------



## padam (Apr 26, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> For some/a lot: yes.
> For me: never.
> Such do-it-all zooms are an all compromize:
> not small, not bright, not great in IQ.


I guess there is a reason why the 16-35/2.8 24-70/2.8 (or 24-105/4) 70-200/2.8 trio are still the ones being used the most in the photojournalistic field. The present and upcoming RF lenses are looking to cover this very well.
But sometimes getting any kind of shot with a single combination is just more important (convenient)
and for the most part, lenses are getting better and better (or less bad).

The Sony FE 24-240 is actually a usable lens within its limitations (I don't want to link that photographer but he shows it)
and this newer Canon RF equivalent should be at least as good.


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 27, 2019)

Nikon and Sony are going to be in a lot of trouble if Canon does release all those lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 27, 2019)

Chaitanya said:


> Nikon and Sony are going to be in a lot of trouble if Canon does release all those lenses.


YAPODFN&S.


----------



## Pape (Apr 27, 2019)

Dunno if they do simple 6 lens pipes like pancakes for RF anymore. Direction seems to be more complex and sharp .I bet RF 35mm 1,8 is as small as they will be


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 27, 2019)

padam said:


> All of their RF lenses take full advantage of the new mount design...



Very few, if any, lenses ever made have taken "full advantage" of their respective mount designs.


----------



## navastronia (Apr 27, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Very few, if any, lenses ever made have taken "full advantage" of their respective mount designs.



Source? Not saying you’re wrong, I’d just like more information because you bring up an interesting idea. Are you referring to the theoretical maximum aperture allowed by the mount design?


----------



## Gillettecavalcad3 (Apr 27, 2019)

I see Canon going the same way Nokia did in the mobile market.

We need a great mirrorless body to match the great lenses and they are simply taking far too long to release a pro EOSR.


----------



## SecureGSM (Apr 27, 2019)

Gillettecavalcad3 said:


> I see Canon going the same way Nokia did in the mobile market.
> 
> We need a great mirrorless body to match the great lenses and they are simply taking far too long to release a pro EOSR.



YAPODFN&S.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 27, 2019)

Gillettecavalcad3 said:


> I see Canon going the same way Nokia did in the mobile market.


Selling it to Microsoft and then buying it back?

No, I don't see Canon going this way.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 27, 2019)

Lee Jay said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I made a special trip to check out the R, RP, Z6, Z7, A7ii, A7iii, EM10 and EM5 mark II at a Best Buy, and all the EVFs stink badly except the EM5 Mark II. And that one is only marginal.
> 
> No way in the world I'd shoot with any of them until someone makes a usable EVF for high-speed moving subjects in difficult light.



Take a look at the Panasonic S1R. I’ve been shooting it for a couple weeks. At 120 refresh rate, it’s like looking through glass.

Just waiting for ef adapter now.


----------



## snoke (Apr 27, 2019)

[email protected] said:


> Take a look at the Panasonic S1R. I’ve been shooting it for a couple weeks. At 120 refresh rate, it’s like looking through glass.
> 
> Just waiting for ef adapter now.



Panasonic make right camera. USB charging excellent. Need more lens.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 27, 2019)

Poor Sony.


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 27, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I don't believe that Tilt-shift lenses are big sellers, so lower cost lenses should be a priority. Low sales has not stopped Canon from releasing some expensive RF sellers so far though.



Canon didn't release sub-$1,000 FF lenses since the 24-28-35mm upgrade in '12, so I don't expect cheap RF lenses.


----------



## Joules (Apr 27, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Canon didn't release sub-$1,000 FF lenses since the 24-28-35mm upgrade in '12, so I don't expect cheap RF lenses.


What about the 24-105 3.5-5.6 IS STM? Was released in 2014 according to Wikipedia.


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 27, 2019)

Joules said:


> What about the 24-105 3.5-5.6 IS STM? Was released in 2014 according to Wikipedia.



You're right. Looks to me like the exception that proves the rule.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 27, 2019)

Gillettecavalcad3 said:


> I see Canon going the same way Nokia did in the mobile market.
> 
> We need a great mirrorless body to match the great lenses and they are simply taking far too long to release a pro EOSR.



Lollllll


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 27, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> You're right. Looks to me like the exception that proves the rule.


And the 50/1.8 STM in 2015. And the RF 35/1.8 IS last year. Looks like your rule is broken.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 27, 2019)

amorse said:


> Well now I need to know what the "look what we can do" lens is! Is it the 14-21 f/1.4? Will it be the widest lens that need a tripod collar?



Excellent work being done by No #1 Canon to maintain on #1 and to create an excellent ML system along with EF and also APS ML EOS M


----------



## amorse (Apr 27, 2019)

Gillettecavalcad3 said:


> I see Canon going the same way Nokia did in the mobile market.
> 
> We need a great mirrorless body to match the great lenses and they are simply taking far too long to release a pro EOSR.


"Too long" to release a pro camera is relative to the user. Too long for you may not be too long for others, and it certainly doesn't seem to be too long for Canon. I'm content waiting a while longer because there's nothing wrong with my 5D IV and I honestly don't think I can blame even one missed shot on the camera. Canon has said they'll take their time to get it right, and frankly I believe that's the right choice. I can wait, and despite the doom and gloom from camera reviewers, Canon as a company seems to be fine.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Apr 27, 2019)

degos said:


> Like a 50mm 1.2 that is bigger and heavier than the EF one


It is bigger because it is optically better controlled, so its design needed more glass. I have and like the EF 50mm 1.2, in particular because it is quite compact and can deliver a nice bokeh. But optically it is definitely on the vintage side, including sometimes more softness wide open than I'd love to have. It was clear that Canon had to come up with an up-to-date design with the RF version. On the other side, the RF is clean and perfect but does not have this old school character of the old EF version...


----------



## ColinJR (Apr 28, 2019)

I say this as someone who has stuck with Canon _primarily_ because of their tilt-shifts—I don't think they need to focus on tilt-shifts for RF, but I'd be damn curious to know what kind of improvements they might be able to bring to TS-E lenses designed for the RF mount. 

As is, tilt-shifts work great on my R—the adapter makes accessing the shift knobs easier! lol


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 28, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> And the 50/1.8 STM in 2015. And the RF 35/1.8 IS last year. Looks like your rule is broken.



40 STM... 70-300 IS USM II... 

Shall I get the broom for the shattered remnants of that rule?


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 28, 2019)

justaCanonuser said:


> It is bigger because it is optically better controlled, so its design needed more glass. I have and like the EF 50mm 1.2, in particular because it is quite compact and can deliver a nice bokeh. But optically it is definitely on the vintage side, including sometimes more softness wide open than I'd love to have. It was clear that Canon had to come up with an up-to-date design with the RF version. On the other side, the RF is clean and perfect but does not have this old school character of the old EF version...




Designing a lens to have a high degree of flat field correction in order to do well from center to edge at the same focus position when imaging flat test charts seems to suck the soul out of the rendering character of a lens.

Just look at the entire Sigma ART range: every one of them is sharp as a tack when imaging flat test subjects, yet none of them have the kind of rendering character when used in the three dimensional world that many portraitists desire. It's the same thing as using a 90-100mm Macro lens for portraiture. Those macros are optimized to be best shooting flat subjects at very close distances, not rendering pleasing out of focus highlights at typical portrait distances.

What most lens tests _don't_ show is that many of the lenses from the past that were prized for their rendering character when shooting portraits is that the edges are sharper when the lens is refocused for maximum edge sharpness. The reason the edges are as soft as they are imaging a flat test chart when the lens is focused for the center is that the point of sharpest focus on the edges is well in front of the surface of the flat test chart.


----------



## SecureGSM (Apr 28, 2019)

*Michael Clark*



> .... Just look at the entire Sigma ART range: every one of them is sharp as a tack when imaging flat test subjects, yet none of them have the kind of rendering character when used in the three dimensional world that many portraitists desire. ....



Does this image(s) represent the Sigma Art entire range rendering character qualities you are referring to?


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/91jtuh


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/8y17wm


----------



## uri.raz (Apr 28, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> 40 STM



Released on 2012.


----------



## mk0x55 (Apr 28, 2019)

ColinJR said:


> I say this as someone who has stuck with Canon _primarily_ because of their tilt-shifts—I don't think they need to focus on tilt-shifts for RF, but I'd be damn curious to know what kind of improvements they might be able to bring to TS-E lenses designed for the RF mount.
> 
> As is, tilt-shifts work great on my R—the adapter makes accessing the shift knobs easier! lol


I guess they will introduce them to the RF line at some point, but surely not before they release a pro EOS R-like body with a lot of resolution for architectural and landscape shooters. Also having in mind that they just recently released a number of tilt-shift EF lenses.


----------



## mk0x55 (Apr 28, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> *Michael Clark*
> Does this image(s) represent the Sigma Art entire range rendering character qualities you are referring to?
> 
> 
> ...


Overall they render the portrait beautifully, but then you open the pictures and zoom in on them, you'll see the flatness of them if you just consider the face or body parts. The 3D separation is there more through the out-of-focus areas than the tonal transitions.

You'll see a lot of difference if you compare a shot taken using a Zeiss or even a Sony FE lens and a Sigma Art lens as Tony Northrup's example also shows:




The 3D-pop of the Sony is way better than the Sigma Art.

There are two articles on microcontrast (or the lens' ability to render 3D characteristics of a scene):


https://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/23/the-problem-with-modern-optics




https://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/8/micro-contrast-the-biggest-optical-luxury-of-the-world


There are more examples on this out there.

Modern lenses often sacrifice this 3D-rendering to resolution (there are some tradeoffs to be made due to physics and what is technologically possible to make); some of them appear to strike a better balance to my taste (e.g., Zeiss) than others (e.g., Sigma). On the one hand, I wouldn't accept poor resolution to retain top microcontrast (e.g., old prime lenses with very low element count); on the other hand, I wouldn't accept poor microcontrast to agressively optimize for the best possible resolution either (e.g., Sigma Art). Good microcontrast creates the perception of a better resolution; and if you finally view a picture, you seldom view it at 100% magnification (unless you are looking at a bird picture that has been heavily cropped, perhaps, or something similar).

EDIT:
I must confess though that there is a bit of confusion around it; and even I feel slighly confused - there are two lines of using the term microcontrast or 3D-pop. The first is what Yannick Hong describes among other in the above mentioned articles. The second is what Lloyd Chambers describes here:




__





Lenspire







lenspire.zeiss.com




While Yannick bases the notion of it on the quality/fidelity of tonal gradations; Lloyd seems to mostly base it on resolution, the lens' ability to hold contrast at high frequency of changes, which is actually a lot different from Yannick's definition.
To sort this out in my mind, I think there are two distinct things that contribute to an image rendering a scene with a 3D-look:
(1) The quality of the tonal gradations as the low-frequency intertonal detail (low-frequency MTF) - this is probably the dominant factor;
(2) The high-frequency intertonal detail (high-frequency MTF) that helps separate the interfaces between different objects, or an object from its background.

It would be cool to hear something clear and definitive on this, as there seems to be a lot of confusion around it. (The 3D-pop effect in images and the differences between different lenses' rendering are pretty clear at the same time, though.)

EDIT 2 (follow-up):
I'd actually agree with Lloyd on that the term Microcontrast shall for the sake of intuitiveness refer to the high-frequency MTF;
What Yannick refers to, and what often has a more dramatic impact, especially one that is retained when down-sampling the picture, shall be called something like tonal fidelity or tonal rendition.
Both together make up the 3D-pop of an image. The more of each, the better; but when making a lens, the design optimizations for the one compete with the other to a degree.


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 28, 2019)

*@mk0x55 * thanks for providing the link to Lloyd Chambers article - the most interesting part for me was his statement about sharpening: With AA sensors some sharpening is always helpful but I always use the standard Sharpening with DPP instead of this aggressive Unsharp Mask thing. Noise reduction is usually turned off except in some situations and then chroma noise first. This gives the best 3D effect and texture reproduction for my taste.
And the EF-S 10-22 needs always 2 steps more sharpening to be comparable like better lenses loosing some of the real detail while the EF-M 32 mostly suffers from the AA filter and needs one step less compared to my other lenses.

IMO Canon does very well with lenses like EF-M 32, EF-S 60, EF 100 macro, EF 2.0 100, EF 5.6 400 and just the old EF 2.8 24. The EF 70 200 4.0 IS is close, the EF-S 10-22 is not but thanks to high contrast and great color reproduction a fine lens.
At the moment I am not too interested in the RF system but if Canon provides an interesting camera I am happy with what I have (24/100/400/70-200) except ... a 1.4 50mm lens for FF - and if it is compact & macro like the 1.8 35 I will trade in a half stop for these advantages!


----------



## mk0x55 (Apr 28, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> IMO Canon does very well with lenses like EF-M 32, EF-S 60, EF 100 macro, EF 2.0 100, EF 5.6 400 and just the old EF 2.8 24. The EF 70 200 4.0 IS is close, the EF-S 10-22 is not but thanks to high contrast and great color reproduction a fine lens.
> At the moment I am not too interested in the RF system but if Canon provides an interesting camera I am happy with what I have (24/100/400/70-200) except ... a 1.4 50mm lens for FF - and if it is compact & macro like the 1.8 35 I will trade in a half stop for these advantages!


I think some lenses are pretty good in this respect, but the large count of optical elements in new glass is a bit worrying, actually.

One article from Yannick shows some figures as "The current state of [lens brand]" for Canon, Nikkor, Sigma, Zeiss, etc. However, I'd take it with a grain of salt because (1) there is no scientific measurement of it, as well as (2) he claims that both Milvus and Otus 1.4/85 and 1.4/50 belong below the "line of realism", which means poor tonal fidelity. I can't quite imagine that to be the case, but will gladly verify it as soon as I have at least the Milvuses at hand.

This is the article I refer to: https://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/23/the-problem-with-modern-optics


----------



## mk0x55 (Apr 28, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> *Michael Clark*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


One more follow-up on these two portrait images. While I think they are somewhat flat by the rendering of the tonal gradation of the models; I think that the use of flash (as opposed to only ambient lighting), tends to alleviate that weakness of a lens (poor tonal rendition), as the flash beam is brief and intense; intense enough to better penetrate the hyper-corrected high-element count glass, and so rescue some of that 3D pop that would be largely lost in coatings and the glass itself in pure ambient lighting conditions.

EDIT: A few more examples on 3D-pop - pretty good article:








The Death of Beautiful Rendition and 3D Pop on Modern Lenses







photographylife.com




He makes fun of a few claims relating to causes of the 3D pop differences between classical and modern glass; nevertheless I think there is a drop of truth to it. There is concrete, independent, photographic evidence of it out there (although not for conclusions like in the 'Summary' section).


----------



## degos (Apr 28, 2019)

justaCanonuser said:


> It was clear that Canon had to come up with an up-to-date design with the RF version. On the other side, the RF is clean and perfect but does not have this old school character of the old EF version...



There was nothing stopping them coming up with an up-to-date EF design, other than business strategy; certianly they updated other lenses for less valid reasons. And I doubt it would have been any heavier than the 950g of the RF lens. After all the EF 50mm 1.0 was only 67g heavier than that... and despite all that 'optical correction' the RF lens still has coma out the wazoo.

One of the claimed advantages of the short flange was that it made wide lenses easier to design than on EF, yet here we are with 1kg lenses and not even with IS. It's just not making sense.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 28, 2019)

degos said:


> One of the claimed advantages of the short flange was that it made wide lenses easier to design than on EF, yet here we are with 1kg lenses and not even with IS. It's just not making sense.



Why do you quote their reference to 'easier to design' then talk about weight? The two are not mutually exclusive. They seem to have done more with the RF 50mm f1.2 than they managed with the EF version. 
OK, I accept we are talking about several years' technolgical development since the EF was released so they would have improved that but comments I have seen suggest the RF has taken it further.


----------



## ColinJR (Apr 28, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> I guess they will introduce them to the RF line at some point, but surely not before they release a pro EOS R-like body with a lot of resolution for architectural and landscape shooters. Also having in mind that they just recently released a number of tilt-shift EF lenses.



Exactly. I also recognize that tilt-shifts are still extremely niche. It says something that neither Fujifilm nor Sony have any tilt-shifts in their line, and Nikon barely bothers to try and compete with Canon.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 28, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> Released on 2012.



Ah, yes you're right. Still, another way of phrasing it is "since 2012, Canon has filled in the few gaps in their sub-$1k FF lens lineup". Seriously, they have a standard zoom, tele zoom, trio of IS primes, and a pancake. The 100L macro is barely over $1k, and the non-L is $600. For the entry-FF user, what's missing?


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Apr 29, 2019)

Why can they give us a lens roadmap but not a camera roadmap. This indicates they have no faith in themselves to deliver a truly class leading camera any more. They don't need many details just a broad outline of what to expect. Not a chance in hell I'd buy into the R system without indication they can compete camera wise.


----------



## Jethro (Apr 29, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Why can they give us a lens roadmap but not a camera roadmap. This indicates they have no faith in themselves to deliver a truly class leading camera any more. They don't need many details just a broad outline of what to expect. Not a chance in hell I'd buy into the R system without indication they can compete camera wise.


In terms of whether you buy in now, it depends on whether the R or RP are right for you - if not, then you presumably won't buy in. All a 'roadmap' for upcoming R series cameras would do is potentially put you off buying one of those cameras (if the upcoming one was looking like being closer to your specs). But such a roadmap would never provide definite dates, or definite specs or definite pricing - so all it would do is fuel speculation. Canon's tactic is to try and sell as many of each new R series camera as they can - so there was no real inkling of the RP for months (and a Xmas buying period) to avoid putting off sales of the R. Similarly, they won't cannibalise (or postpone) sales of the RP (or R) by encouraging people to wait until an officially flagged different version is confirmed. This is how they work - it is actually how they 'compete camera wise'.


----------



## epiieq1 (Apr 29, 2019)

[email protected] said:


> Take a look at the Panasonic S1R. I’ve been shooting it for a couple weeks. At 120 refresh rate, it’s like looking through glass.
> 
> Just waiting for ef adapter now.


I rented one for a week or so. I was thinking it might be my choice for going mirrorless...sent it back, and am now trying to decide what other direction to go as I was super disappointed (AF was atrocious).


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 29, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> I think some lenses are pretty good in this respect, but the large count of optical elements in new glass is a bit worrying, actually.
> 
> One article from Yannick shows some figures as "The current state of [lens brand]" for Canon, Nikkor, Sigma, Zeiss, etc. However, I'd take it with a grain of salt because (1) there is no scientific measurement of it, as well as (2) he claims that both Milvus and Otus 1.4/85 and 1.4/50 belong below the "line of realism", which means poor tonal fidelity. I can't quite imagine that to be the case, but will gladly verify it as soon as I have at least the Milvuses at hand.
> 
> This is the article I refer to: https://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/23/the-problem-with-modern-optics



This article supports my observation that e.g. the EF 5.6 400 has very good rendering using only a few lens elements. The EF-M 32 is an exception while having 14 lenses it renders IMO very naturally straight from f/1.4. Just a loose unscientific observation: Canon seems to increase the lens numbers but tries to group them where possible - so the EF-M 32 has only 8 lens groups hence 16 glass-air surfaces where reflections occur. Maybe this is the secret (or one of it) of the high contrast and very good technical correction without loosing to much "character".

Like Yannickkhong I would like to see slightly modified conventional lenses with new coatings, new glass types and some aspherical surfaces (if necessary/helpful) to provide e.g. a light compact image stabilized 4.0 200 mm lens with 6 lenses in 3 groups or so. But in a world where specs are often more important than real value of things only a few are in the market for a highly corrected 6/4 lens/elements optics @ 700 EUR while other lenses have three times the lens elements, more technical sharpness at the same price ...


----------



## Kit. (Apr 29, 2019)

ColinJR said:


> I say this as someone who has stuck with Canon _primarily_ because of their tilt-shifts—I don't think they need to focus on tilt-shifts for RF, but I'd be damn curious to know what kind of improvements they might be able to bring to TS-E lenses designed for the RF mount.


An obvious (but far from easy) one would be autofocus (including autotilt).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2019)

ColinJR said:


> I say this as someone who has stuck with Canon _primarily_ because of their tilt-shifts—I don't think they need to focus on tilt-shifts for RF, but I'd be damn curious to know what kind of improvements they might be able to bring to TS-E lenses designed for the RF mount.


 Certainly not specific to RF versions, but they could add encoders for the tilt and shift to report that in the EXIF. That would enable lens profile-based corrections for vignetting, etc., in RAW converters.


----------



## uri.raz (Apr 29, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> Ah, yes you're right. Still, another way of phrasing it is "since 2012, Canon has filled in the few gaps in their sub-$1k FF lens lineup". Seriously, they have a standard zoom, tele zoom, trio of IS primes, and a pancake. The 100L macro is barely over $1k, and the non-L is $600. For the entry-FF user, what's missing?



The trio of IS primes is from 2012, all the 100mm lenses are older than that.

What's missing at the sub $1,000 price point? For starters 50mm & 85mm primes w/ IS, I would buy both at $600. A case could be made for 135mm with IS, but the f/2L is already priced at $999.


----------



## MayaTlab (Apr 29, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> Yannick Hong



Oh please can we stop spreading Yannick's articles ? It's to optical science what homeopathy is to medicine.

It's not because it's got a bunch of graphs in it that an article actually contains some valuable knowledge. Yannick's articles are 90% horse manure, 10% graphic design, 0% science, facts, rational thinking, or valid observations. 

For starters given that there's basically nothing in common between the Sigma 35mm 1.4 ART and the 40mm 1.4 ART in terms of astigmatism, field curvature, vignetting, spherical aberration, colour aberrations, coma, etc...- all of which affect bokeh and transition areas - it doesn't make any sense to bunch all Sigma lenses into the same basket. Same applies to Zeiss, Leica or any other lens manufacturer.



mk0x55 said:


> (The 3D-pop effect in images [...] are pretty clear at the same time, though.)



No. 3D pop is clear to no one as it's got no operational definition upon which we can start to draw hypothesis or experiments. Basically, no one understands in the same way what 3D pop means. Therefore it's completely pointless to use the term in a conversation or an article, it won't lead anywhere.



mk0x55 said:


> ([...]the differences between different lenses' rendering are pretty clear at the same time, though.)



Obviously yes. But there are much better ways to talk about it than using the term above.


----------



## SecureGSM (Apr 29, 2019)

*MayaTlab*

Very well said, thank you..


----------



## Gillettecavalcad3 (Apr 29, 2019)

amorse said:


> "Too long" to release a pro camera is relative to the user. Too long for you may not be too long for others, and it certainly doesn't seem to be too long for Canon. I'm content waiting a while longer because there's nothing wrong with my 5D IV and I honestly don't think I can blame even one missed shot on the camera. Canon has said they'll take their time to get it right, and frankly I believe that's the right choice. I can wait, and despite the doom and gloom from camera reviewers, Canon as a company seems to be fine.



But my point is why release all these great lenses if there is not yet a pro body to use them on. The EOSR isn't a pro body. I'm solely focussing on mirrorless cameras here, not dslrs.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Apr 29, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> Why do you quote their reference to 'easier to design' then talk about weight? The two are not mutually exclusive. They seem to have done more with the RF 50mm f1.2 than they managed with the EF version.
> OK, I accept we are talking about several years' technolgical development since the EF was released so they would have improved that but comments I have seen suggest the RF has taken it further.


The old EF 50mm f/1.2 has a relatively simple design for such a lens, which makes it so nicely compact but often creates visible softness even in the in-focus areas when you shoot it white open. From the viewpoint of optical quality, it is a quite mediocre lens, but if one can accept its character, one can get nice results with a touch of vintage look. I personally had to overcome some dissappointment first when I started to use it, because my expectations were biased by my EF 85mm f/1.2 II. The EF 50mm f/1.2 does not deliver this pop of visual sharpness in-focus and huge creamy bokeh oof that makes the EF 85mm f/1.2 so very special. Btw am I talking about "3D pop"? No, I talk about personal reception, no scientifically based facts.

It is clear that Canon couldn't stick with this old design when they created a successor for the new RF system.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Apr 29, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Designing a lens to have a high degree of flat field correction in order to do well from center to edge at the same focus position when imaging flat test charts seems to suck the soul out of the rendering character of a lens.


This reminds me of my Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 lens. It's design has no flat field correction - well, quite the opposite. When I made my first test shots with my then new copy I really was a bit shocked. I shot a big bookshelf wide open with close distance and realized that only the center was in focus. Then I started to use this lens in real life for landscape, in the street, for exhibition installations of artists for their catalogues etc. and realized to my great relief how sharp and contrast-rich the images were - from the center to the edges (of course mostly stopped down, like you do with an UWA lens). Zeiss has this lens optimized for motivs in medium to far distance, there this lens shines. But it would always get a bad rating shooting test charts from typical lab review distances. 

That's why I do not always trust lens reviews, in particular those of specialized lenses. Finally, it's you as a photographer who has to personally like a lens in real life, and that's much more than optical test chart results.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2019)

Gillettecavalcad3 said:


> But my point is why release all these great lenses if there is not yet a pro body to use them on. The EOSR isn't a pro body. I'm solely focussing on mirrorless cameras here, not dslrs.


So you buy the EOS R to use ‘all these great lenses’ for now, then when the ‘pro body’ comes along, you buy that too. More ¥ for Canon.


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 29, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> So you buy the EOS R to use ‘all these great lenses’ for now, then when the ‘pro body’ comes along, you buy that too. More ¥ for Canon.



You're implying you would actually _use_ the camera + lens to take a picture?!?! Blasphemy!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> You're implying you would actually _use_ the camera + lens to take a picture?!?! Blasphemy!


No, please don’t misinterpret.  Canon doesn’t care if you actually _use_ anything they sell you. They just care that you buy it. Particularly for th first 1-2 years (depending on geography), if you actually use it it might break and they’d be out the repair costs. 

But for me, yes...buying the R to use a lens for which I had a need would make sense. I just don’t need a 50/1.2, or a 28-70/2. But I do need to use an ND filter with a TS-E 17 and an 11-24, and the PITA of front-filtering those lenses was one of the reasons I bought the R.


----------



## mk0x55 (Apr 29, 2019)

MayaTlab said:


> No. 3D pop is clear to no one as it's got no operational definition upon which we can start to draw hypothesis or experiments.


Well, thanks for your input on this. I've seen examples of differences in lenses' ability to reproduce the 3D look of a scene through tonal gradations and provided them - see my post higher above with the link to Tony and Chelsea's video, which compares the Sigma 135 with the Sony 135. There the difference is showed beyond obvious - in one case you see the 3D structure of the sceene as if it was popping out of the image. In the other case (Sigma), you see that to a much lesser degree.

On the flipside, I agree with the critics that statements such as "a lens with more than N optical elements will produce poor microcontrast" are flat out BS; because it doesn't take into considerations the quality of the glass, its surfaces, coatings, and other design characteristics, all of which impact the final rendering a lens has.

Definition? I thought I also provided it: Low-frequency intertonal detail. I admit that I haven't operationalized it and indeed it is a tougher one to operationalize (mathematically), but not impossible. Attempt to a free-text operationalization: Given a gradient between two shades of a color (e.g., let's say grey), the ability of the lens to retain that gradient true-to-life, so as to evoke that 3D pop at the one who looks at the picture.

If you don't agree with it, I'm eager to hear what I'm getting wrong here.


----------



## MayaTlab (Apr 29, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> Well, thanks for your input on this. I've seen examples of differences in lenses' ability to reproduce the 3D look of a scene through tonal gradations and provided them - see my post higher above with the link to Tony and Chelsea's video, which compares the Sigma 135 with the Sony 135. There the difference is showed beyond obvious - in one case you see the 3D structure of the sceene as if it was popping out of the image. In the other case (Sigma), you see that to a much lesser degree.



I don't know what "3D structure" means. So I don't know what to look for.
I'm not quite sure that a short video with a couple of zoomed in comparison shots is quite enough to ascertain anything.



mk0x55 said:


> Definition? I thought I also provided it: Low-frequency intertonal detail.



I'm not an optical engineer but I don't think that this will have any meaning to them. Does it ?



mk0x55 said:


> I admit that I haven't operationalized it and indeed it is a tougher one to operationalize (mathematically), but not impossible. Attempt to a free-text operationalization: Given a gradient between two shades of a color (e.g., let's say grey), the ability of the lens to retain that gradient true-to-life, so as to evoke that 3D pop at the one who looks at the picture.
> 
> If you don't agree with it, I'm eager to hear what I'm getting wrong here.



Well start testing away then. We've heard a lot of claims about "3D pop" whatever over the years. Perhaps it's time to actually provide measurable test results or at least unequivocal visual evidence instead of claiming that "Grass is red. Don't you see how red grass is ? I'm sorry if you can't see it. Maybe you're just colour blind ?".

It's the job of those who claim these things to demonstrate them. Otherwise scientists would waste their time having to disprove every single bonkers opinion.

I'm all ears to carefully detailed demonstrations / explanations. I used to send people towards this link for an example of how reasonable people go about demonstrating "rendering" claims in a rational, well detailed way but alas the pictures are now missing : https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4031515. This thread is far more informative than anything Yannick Khong has written on his blog over the years.


----------



## mk0x55 (Apr 29, 2019)

What a lot of confrontation here... I find it a bit unnecessary, but here come my answers more adjusted to that tone:



MayaTlab said:


> I'm not an optical engineer but I don't think that this will have any meaning to them. Does it ?


I think it would, but it might be time for you to lift your sight and not limit yourself to what you can express by what you know about numbers and mathematics. Mathemathics is indeed very elegant, concise and beautiful way of capturing things; but also constrained, limited and not always intuitive as all/most other human constructs.
Don't misunderstand me here - I like mathematics and the quantitative, but limiting my view and reasoning to it would be foolish, I'm convinced. Moreover, photography is an art in its essence and the final impact of the images one produces is what is most important. All the operationalizations and definitions are merely tools to crisply understand how things work and how we can optimize them.
I also believe that an optical engineer dealing with photographic equipment will only benefit from developing his/her artistic vision and skill when it comes to photography. That way one can more efficiently do effective optimizations of photographic equipment without the need for hundreds of pages of scientific text, analysis, descriptions, data, etc. etc. to be produced and published.



MayaTlab said:


> Well start testing away then. We've heard a lot of claims about "3D pop" whatever over the years. Perhaps it's time to actually provide measurable test results or at least unequivocal visual evidence instead of claiming that "Grass is red. Don't you see how red grass is ? I'm sorry if you can't see it. Maybe you're just colour blind ?".
> It's the job of those who claim these things to demonstrate them. Otherwise scientists would waste their time having to disprove every single bonkers opinion.


No argument against the direction which you suggest me to take here. I agree with it. However, this inquiry of mine and my drive to publish about it also has its limits and the level of rigor that you suggest exceed both that and the budgetary constraints I find defensible for it in my case. To get all the stuff (incl. lenses) for a piece of small research study like that, do the analysis and publish on it has requirements that fall beyond what I'm willing to give it at this point. Sorry for that if it disappoints you - I don't care enough to persuade those that are not themselves seeking what lies in and beyond these concepts. Perhaps more, perhaps less. I've seen enough to rule out that it is altogether bogus, though. It's not entirely my job do to what you say, as I haven't committed myself to carrying out a scientific research study on it.

If I was a paid optical scientist/engineer and had the time and possibility to carry out such research, I'd gladly commit myself to the task with the ambition to come up with results as true and waterproof as possible.



MayaTlab said:


> I don't know what "3D structure" means. So I don't know what to look for.
> I'm not quite sure that a short video with a couple of zoomed in comparison shots is quite enough to ascertain anything.


If you have eyes to see and curiosity to drive you, you might indeed try. It's not my mission to convince you nor motivate you to understand; that is entirely up to your free will.

Those who are curious and willing to explore and understand what this 3D pop might be, will give it honest attempts, just as I do. Those that just want to disprove the concept or diminish it, will find their ways of doing so and there is pretty little I can do about it however hard I try.


----------



## MayaTlab (Apr 29, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> What a lot of confrontation here... I find it a bit unnecessary, but here come my answers more adjusted to that tone:



Not any more confrontational than a government stopping reimbursing homeopathic medicine after years of failing to demonstrate its effectiveness. 
At some point you've got to draw a line. 

Let's just say that I'm tired of seeing the work of people who actually know a thing or two about optics drowned in a mass of baseless articles. 



mk0x55 said:


> I think it would, but it might be time for you to lift your sight and not limit yourself to what you can express by what you know about numbers and mathematics.



Oh please cut the [Censored].
I'm not asking you to use maths. Just a minimum amount of reasonable, rational demonstration. Sometimes a basic photo will just do, for example such as : 




If we were to ask people to A/B them on the basis of "which was has a rounder bokeh ball" we'd get a nearly 100% success rate. 

Obviously for finer, less obvious details that's not going to work quite as well. But since as you so rightly put it photography is a visual endeavour you probably should be able to give us some visuals that would lead to non equivocal results if we were to poll people. 



mk0x55 said:


> I also believe that an optical engineer dealing with photographic equipment will only benefit from developing his/her artistic vision and skill when it comes to photography. That way one can more efficiently do effective optimizations of photographic equipment without the need for hundreds of pages of scientific text, analysis, descriptions, data, etc. etc. to be produced and published.



I don't think that optical engineers have been waiting for your advice to do so. 



mk0x55 said:


> If you have eyes to see and curiosity to drive you, you might indeed try. It's not my mission to convince you nor motivate you to understand; that is entirely up to your free will.



It's not my mission to try to understand what isn't understandable because it's not expressed in a way that's conductive to sharing an idea in a form that remains reasonably well defined among various people. 



mk0x55 said:


> Those that just want to disprove the concept or diminish it, will find their ways of doing so and there is pretty little I can do about it however hard I try.



Many things wrong here : 

If we were very strict, we could say that one cannot prove or disprove a concept. One can prove or disprove an hypothesis / thesis. Well, we talk about "proof of concept" but to some degree that's an abuse of language.
to prove of disprove anything, one needs some degree of operational definition.

Right now the sentence "those that just want to disprove the concept or diminish it" is akin to saying "those that just want to disprove God or diminish it".

I don't want to disprove whatever the hell you're thinking about because it's just impossible to prove or disprove it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2019)

“3D pop” – sounds completely subjective. Even with technical (or at least pseudo technical) terminology like ‘low-frequency intertonal detail’ it still sounds subjective and undefined. What frequencies? What detail? How does a gray gradient in a two dimensional image translate to three dimensionality? Subjectively. That was even acknowledged as, “...so as to evoke that 3D pop at the one who looks at the picture.”

Subjective discussions are perfectly fine, whether they’re about 3D pop, ‘rendering’ (whatever that means, again something subjective that varies from person to person), etc. Some discussions along these lines do blur the distinction, for example saturation. For a given color, the degree of saturation can be defined and measured in an image. But as soon as someone mentions *over*saturation, it becomes a subjective discussion. Once you’re discussing something subjective, it boils down to ‘I like A more than B,’ and obviously someone else may prefer B. Arguing about whether A or B is better under those circumstances is ridiculous and pointless.

Heck, even things that are easily defined and measured can become subjective. Sharpness, for example. It’s quite easy to state that lens A delivers more sharpness than lens B. But then you’ll have some portrait photographers adding Gaussian blur to images from lens A in post for a “better“ portrait.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Apr 30, 2019)

Random Orbits said:


> The RF 35 is smaller, lighter, sharper than its EF 35 f/2 IS counterpart. With the camera market contracting like it is, I don't see much of a market for smaller, slower, cheaper lenses. Many of those users will be using their cell phones. Camera manufacturers are targeting enthusiasts and pros that want high IQ that that means more corrected and larger lenses. Sure, there might be a place for a pancake like 40 f/2.8, but I can't see f/1.8 or f/2 primes from the 24-85mm range being small/uncorrected. More likely, they'll sit near the RF 35 in IQ and size.



Many pro's, such as Thom Hogan, have been asking for a kit of light, compact lenses for years. I had to go way outside of Canon's lineup to find such a kit to pair with my RP. Canon needs to at least make a pancake -- that doesn't require an adapter -- ASAP.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Apr 30, 2019)

This is the sort of thing I'd imagined when the RP was announced:





Voigtländer 10mm Heliar-Hyper Wide f/5.6 with an RF to Leica M adapter. Widest non-fisheye lens on the market. 1/3 the size and weight of the nearest Canon lens. Much less distortion, too.

Amazing what you can do when you remove the mirror box.


----------



## ColinJR (Apr 30, 2019)

Kit. said:


> An obvious (but far from easy) one would be autofocus (including autotilt).


I don't think the RF mount makes that any more possible than EF... I think I wonder if they can make the image circle that much larger, thus offering more shifting ability. Or, maybe the new mount will make it easier to have better, sharper images when fully shifted? ‍


----------



## mk0x55 (Apr 30, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> “3D pop” – sounds completely subjective. Even with technical (or at least pseudo technical) terminology like ‘low-frequency intertonal detail’ it still sounds subjective and undefined. What frequencies? What detail? How does a gray gradient in a two dimensional image translate to three dimensionality? Subjectively. That was even acknowledged as, “...so as to evoke that 3D pop at the one who looks at the picture.”


Well photography as an art form has a lot of subjectivity going for it. 
When it comes to 3D pop, I'd rather call it intersubjective. 

As MayaTlab wrote above, it is ultimately about impossible to prove or disprove stuff like hypotheses (since everything we work with is somehow conditional and relative), and similar it is with objectivity. Between the poles of objectivity and subjectivity there is inter-subjectivity as a proxy to getting closer to the objective. 

However, when someone claims that 3D pop is altogether non-existent BS and compares it to homeopathy that even doesn't make logical sense; that person is either missing the forest for the trees or downright behaves as a troll to only a win a verbal argument. It is also likely that such person really lacks photographic vision and the ability to distinguish the characteristics of an image.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 30, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> *Michael Clark*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, it does. The background blur is course and uneven. Put those shots side to side with the same model, scene, camera, and lighting using the EF 85mm f/1.2L II and you'll immediately be able to see the difference. But keep on believing that you're using a better lens because it does better shooting flat test charts at closer distances with _no background to render_.

The 85L would smooth out those cut-off bokeh balls that are fouling some of your edges and make that mistake hardly even noticeable, too.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 30, 2019)

ColinJR said:


> I don't think the RF mount makes that any more possible than EF...


I did not say it was _impossible_ for EF. It just makes more sense to do it for RF, because of more space in the lenses, faster communication protocol and more fine-grained autofocus control by default.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 30, 2019)

Gillettecavalcad3 said:


> But my point is why release all these great lenses if there is not yet a pro body to use them on. The EOSR isn't a pro body. I'm solely focussing on mirrorless cameras here, not dslrs.



Why release a pro body until there are some great pro lenses to hang on them?


----------



## Kit. (Apr 30, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Does this image(s) represent the Sigma Art entire range rendering character qualities you are referring to?


That's quite harsh bokeh, to be honest. Granted, the background itself is not cooperating, so some degree of apodization or undercorrected spherical aberrations would be good to have here.


----------



## MayaTlab (Apr 30, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> As MayaTlab wrote above, it is ultimately about impossible to prove or disprove stuff like hypotheses



It absolutely is possible to prove or disprove an hypothesis, that's the whole point of it. If it's unfalsifiable, it simply isn't an hypothesis, merely an opinion or a thought. So far no one talking about 3D pop has come up with an hypothesis.



mk0x55 said:


> However, when someone claims that 3D pop is altogether non-existent BS



I didn't. I'm simply saying that I don't know what it is. And neither do you since you're having trouble explaining it. 



mk0x55 said:


> It is also likely that such person really lacks photographic vision



Bring it on. Where are your pictures ? 




__





MayaTlab0: Galleries: Digital Photography Review


Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.




www.dpreview.com


----------



## SecureGSM (Apr 30, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Yes, it does. The background blur is course and uneven. Put those shots side to side with the same model, scene, camera, and lighting using the EF 85mm f/1.2L II and you'll immediately be able to see the difference. *But keep on believing that you're using a better lens because it does better shooting flat test charts at closer distances with no background to render.*
> 
> The 85L would smooth out those cut-off bokeh balls that are fouling some of your edges and make that mistake hardly even noticeable, too.



did i say that sigma 85 is a better lens? when and where? why you are implying that I am a flat test chart warrior?
Sigma 85 1.4 Art is quite poor at closer distances - what is your point?

why are you attacking someone who asked a simple question? i trust my visual perception but am an open minded person enough to maintain a critical judgement.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 30, 2019)

MayaTlab said:


> It absolutely is possible to prove or disprove an hypothesis


No. It is possible to disprove a hypothesis but technically it is not possible to prove one.
</pedantry>


----------



## MayaTlab (Apr 30, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> No. It is possible to disprove a hypothesis but technically it is not possible to prove one.
> </pedantry>



In the world we live in right now a bit of pedantry isn't exactly a bad thing.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 30, 2019)

Stephen Melvin said:


> Many pro's, such as Thom Hogan, have been asking for a kit of light, compact lenses for years. I had to go way outside of Canon's lineup to find such a kit to pair with my RP. Canon needs to at least make a pancake -- that doesn't require an adapter -- ASAP.



Yes, but with a contracting market, these lenses are not a high priority. If Canon's plan is to upsell FF (i.e. RP) to consumers, then the first and possibly only lens is a mid-range zoom or a megazoom. Pancakes are used by people that have multiple lenses, and that group is much smaller, and it looks like your solution might still be larger than EF 40 + adaptor. With fewer camera users, the breadth and variety of lenses will go down. If a 5D/EOS-R + 24-70/24-105 is too large, then the 5D/EOS-R + slow pancake will still likely be too large, and something like a M + EF-M 22 will be significantly smaller anyway.

The only time I bring the EF 40 is to pair it with a 100-400 for soccer. If I'm walking around, it's a mid-range zoom or a fast prime. I'd rather bring one zoom rather than three pancake primes. I'm not saying that Canon won't bring out a pancake eventually, but I am saying that Canon knows its bread and butter are f/2.8 zooms and fast primes. And now that the RP has been released, it'll be more important for Canon to produce consumer RF 24-70 or 24-105.


----------



## mk0x55 (Apr 30, 2019)

MayaTlab said:


> ... So far no one talking about 3D pop has come up with an hypothesis. ...
> ... since you're having trouble explaining it. ...


Perhaps it's you who don't see nor hear them - just as you claim that I haven't provided evidence or definition although I have. Selective perception on your side, looks like. Or conscious manipulation attempts (trolling)?
I made an explanation, but now it seems that you have a hard time understanding it and keep claiming that I have trouble explaining it. You seem to want everything readily served on a golden plate right in front of you... come one are you so spoiled?



MayaTlab said:


> ... Bring it on. Where are your pictures ? ...


Thanks for yours. I uploaded four of mine, downsized, and you should still be able to see how the contents pop out:




__





mk0x55: Galleries: Digital Photography Review : Digital Photography Review


Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.




www.dpreview.com





At 50%-100% magnification (the original 50mp files), I can see that the objects really pop out, and that is probably further amplified by the crisp interfaces between the objects and their surroundings (great high-frequency MTF performance), as Lloyd Chambers describes in his Lenspire article. But that falls beyond the discussed question, so I don't provide crops of them here.

There are some logical prerequisites to seeing the pop though. Among other, your screen must be capable of displaying the tonality faithfully enough - if you use a poor screen (or a heavily miscalibrated one), there would be no wonder that you can't see it.
It's the subtle tonal transitions in the picture (e.g., a round pipe or anything with discernible 3D shape) - the low-frequency intertonal detail as in not from pixel to pixel, but across distances of several pixels to very many pixels (even all the way to across the entire frame if needed).
If the smoothness of the transition is lost or damaged - i.e. if the transitions begins very mildly and then there is a sudden shift to the other tone - then the 3D pop is negatively affected (or lost, put simply). That's my observation subjectively confirming what Yannick writes about on his blog.

For the addition, the 3D pop I am refering to is the function of both the image (sort of "hard data" in 2D) and human perception (highly intersubjective, but there are individuals who may have formed/trained the perception differently, or who might simply lack the ability to distinguish it, as in any other type of human perception).

Lastly, I have no pictures to compare that 3D rendering characteristic between different lenses so far (as e.g. Tony did in his video or Yannick does on his blog, both of which I linked to previously). In a follow-up to this I can try comparing Canon's EF 70-200 2.8 IS USM II with the Milvus 2/135 at 135mm... While I'm curious to see the difference when testing, I expect the Canon lens to retain the 3D pop better than e.g. the Sigma 135, but not as well as the Milvus. I'll be only able to verify the Canon vs. Milvus lens hypothesis, though.

EDIT:


MayaTlab said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


By the way, your pictures have an interesting artistic style, but because the contrast is so maxed out in them and the pictures are so heavily edited, they are not suitable to judge stuff like tonal transitions at all. Even if the tonal transitions were captured by your sensor into your RAW files, they would have been eliminated by such heavy editing.
By that I don't want to say that the pictures are anyhow faulty - they may be great pieces of art, but they are simply not suitable for this type of inquiry (3D pop), as far as I can see.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 30, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> No. It is possible to disprove a hypothesis but technically it is not possible to prove one.
> </pedantry>



Not to mention, the correct approach is to form a hypothesis and then attempt to _disprove_ it (and hopefully fail), not form a "hypothesis" and cherry-pick supporting data (or "data") and impressive-sounding words to "prove" it.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 30, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> Thanks for yours. I uploaded four of mine, downsized, and you should still be able to see how the contents pop out:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What I see there is postprocessing (sharpening) artifacts (dark contours of light-colored objects).

Is that what you are calling "the 3D pop"? If so, it has nothing to do with the lens.


----------



## mk0x55 (Apr 30, 2019)

Kit. said:


> What I see there is postprocessing (sharpening) artifacts (dark contours of light-colored objects).
> 
> Is that what you are calling "the 3D pop"? If so, it has nothing to do with the lens.


Could you please be more specific on which picture and which part do you see it on?
I can't see that somehow. Remember, the original picture size (except the swan that is heavily cropped) is around 8868 pixels on the longer side. It is downsized to 1024. Sharpening visibly showing strong artifacts that are 8 pixels in width? That would have to result in a truly ugly output, which I surely would have tossed. What you see must be JPEG artifacts or something like that, not sharpening artifacts.
Moreover, the pictures were sharpened using default sharpening in Capture One, which doesn't tend oversharpen images like some other editors do.

Perhaps the lens itself draws that way - and perhaps that's a part of what Zeiss does on purpose to achieve their famous 3D pop - this is pure speculation though.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Apr 30, 2019)

Random Orbits said:


> Yes, but with a contracting market, these lenses are not a high priority. If Canon's plan is to upsell FF (i.e. RP) to consumers, then the first and possibly only lens is a mid-range zoom or a megazoom. Pancakes are used by people that have multiple lenses, and that group is much smaller, and it looks like your solution might still be larger than EF 40 + adaptor. With fewer camera users, the breadth and variety of lenses will go down. If a 5D/EOS-R + 24-70/24-105 is too large, then the 5D/EOS-R + slow pancake will still likely be too large, and something like a M + EF-M 22 will be significantly smaller anyway.
> 
> The only time I bring the EF 40 is to pair it with a 100-400 for soccer. If I'm walking around, it's a mid-range zoom or a fast prime. I'd rather bring one zoom rather than three pancake primes. I'm not saying that Canon won't bring out a pancake eventually, but I am saying that Canon knows its bread and butter are f/2.8 zooms and fast primes. And now that the RP has been released, it'll be more important for Canon to produce consumer RF 24-70 or 24-105.



What, then, is the point of a tiny camera without tiny lenses?

Here's my makeshift set:



19mm f/3.8
40mm f/2.8
105mm f/2.5
10mm f/5.6

Mostly MF, but compact, lightweight, and competent. The 105 f/2.5 is a legend, and the 10mm is the widest lens, period. Having one of these attached is much more balanced than the 24-105.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Apr 30, 2019)

ColinJR said:


> I don't think the RF mount makes that any more possible than EF... I think I wonder if they can make the image circle that much larger, thus offering more shifting ability. Or, maybe the new mount will make it easier to have better, sharper images when fully shifted? ‍♂



Focus confirmation and (possibly) AF become more likely with DPAF that can focus down to f/11.


----------



## uri.raz (Apr 30, 2019)

Stephen Melvin said:


> This is the sort of thing I'd imagined when the RP was announced:
> 
> View attachment 184161
> 
> ...



An f/5.6 prime released in 2016 is smaller and has better IQ than an f/4 zoom released in 2003? How surprising!


----------



## BillB (Apr 30, 2019)

Random Orbits said:


> Yes, but with a contracting market, these lenses are not a high priority. If Canon's plan is to upsell FF (i.e. RP) to consumers, then the first and possibly only lens is a mid-range zoom or a megazoom. Pancakes are used by people that have multiple lenses, and that group is much smaller, and it looks like your solution might still be larger than EF 40 + adaptor. With fewer camera users, the breadth and variety of lenses will go down. If a 5D/EOS-R + 24-70/24-105 is too large, then the 5D/EOS-R + slow pancake will still likely be too large, and something like a M + EF-M 22 will be significantly smaller anyway.
> 
> The only time I bring the EF 40 is to pair it with a 100-400 for soccer. If I'm walking around, it's a mid-range zoom or a fast prime. I'd rather bring one zoom rather than three pancake primes. I'm not saying that Canon won't bring out a pancake eventually, but I am saying that Canon knows its bread and butter are f/2.8 zooms and fast primes. And now that the RP has been released, it'll be more important for Canon to produce consumer RF 24-70 or 24-105.



There are also the f4 zooms and the variable max aperture zooms which are lighter and less expensive than the f2.8's. For a while now, there have been good quality zooms which a lot of people prefer to primes. This has really put a dent in the demand for light weight, lower cost primes. Canon put out the 24, 28 and 35 IS primes in 2012, but I wonder how many have actually been sold. I bought the 28mm the year before the 16-35 f4 came out, and I haven't used the 28 since I got the 16-35. If the 16-35 had been available, I would not bought the 28mm. The 28 weighs half as much as the 16-35, but having the 16-35 is like having a whole bagfull of very good wide angle primes.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 30, 2019)

Stephen Melvin said:


> What, then, is the point of a tiny camera without tiny lenses?
> 
> Here's my makeshift set:
> View attachment 184179
> ...



And that proves that your are not the typical target user for the RP. 

All kidding aside, I do hope that Canon produces some smaller/lighter options, but I'm not expecting them to be high priorities when they're building out the system the next few years. SwissFrank is still waiting for a pancake RF 35 f/2 the RF 35 f/1.8 IS macro is too large for him.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 30, 2019)

BillB said:


> There are also the f4 zooms and the variable max aperture zooms which are lighter and less expensive than the f2.8's. For a while now, there have been good quality zooms which a lot of people prefer to primes. This has really put a dent in the demand for light weight, lower cost primes. Canon put out the 24, 28 and 35 IS primes in 2012, but I wonder how many have actually been sold. I bought the 28mm the year before the 16-35 f4 came out, and I haven't used the 28 since I got the 16-35. If the 16-35 had been available, I would not bought the 28mm. The 28 weighs half as much as the 16-35, but having the 16-35 is like having a whole bagfull of very good wide angle primes.



Agreed. I tried using the 24, 28 and 35 IS because I wasn't a fan of the original 24-70 f/2.8. They originally came out around 800 each, but the price quickly dropped for those lenses. Of the 3, I found the 35 f/2 IS to be the most useful just because it has a larger aperture. And I also agree on the new 16-35s (f/4 IS and f/2.8 III) -- they are great.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Apr 30, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> An f/5.6 prime released in 2016 is smaller and has better IQ than an f/4 zoom released in 2003? How surprising!



1/3 the price, too.


----------



## BillB (Apr 30, 2019)

Stephen Melvin said:


> 1/3 the price, too.


If you only buy one


----------



## Kit. (Apr 30, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> Could you please be more specific on which picture and which part do you see it on?


Every single picture, any part that has a sharp contrast between light subject and dark background (and vice versa). This, for example:




Or this:




Which is at least a millennium old technique of "3D pop" image enhancement, but has nothing to do with lenses.



mk0x55 said:


> Perhaps the lens itself draws that way


No, it's physically impossible.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 30, 2019)

degos said:


> Like a 50mm 1.2 that is bigger and heavier than the EF one, or a 70-200mm 2.8 that is fatter and probably heavier than the EF one? And it'll probably be twice the price as well, to keep the RF tradition alive. Oh how about a 24-105 that's pretty much identical in specs and IQ to the EF II? How's that an advantage?
> 
> Canon's RF designers seem to have Sigma Envy and want to show that they too have big manly bits. Meanwhile I'm looking at the EF 35mm IS because it's small and light.


I own three Canon 24-105mm zooms, two in EF and the RF version. Your so wrong about the RF version its technically superior to the EF versions. We have an EF adaptor for our optical lens projector and have made an RF adaptor so please quantify how you have made this technical observation?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 30, 2019)

The disadvantage of the RF mount is you cannot simply remount existing optics to work with a shorter back-focus (it may have worked to an extent the other way). That means brand new designs and the limitation is all opto-mechanical engineering time / personnel, as well as manufacturing capacity. Add to this Canon is still designing both motion picture and broadcast lenses as well as manufacturing these. Its a huge commitment but one they are facing up too with determination. 

Having met with a Canon lens engineer today, plus a sales colleague, they are more than up to the task. They are getting a wide industry perspective not just on direct replacements but "like to haves", "unusual & challenging optics" as well as pushing boundaries not possible with the EF mount whilst also looking beyond traditional applications. 

Have faith, Canon know what they are doing.


----------



## mk0x55 (Apr 30, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Every single picture, any part that has a sharp contrast between light subject and dark background (and vice versa). This, for example:
> View attachment 184182
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for your examples; I had a closer look and saw it, too on the swan. By the way, the yellow machine is downsized by almost nine times... that hardly retains the sharpening halos. By the way, do you know how human visual perception works? Our brains do exactly the same - they lay a mask over bright objects in a contrasting scene (and not only luminosity, but color, too) and if you slightly move your eyeball then you will see it. Since the dynamic range of a daytime scene is much greater than whatever the monitor can shine on you, the effect will also be stronger.

Below I provide these images with the sharpening completely turned off in Capture One. Now guess what - no difference to the 3D pop of the image, really. Att 100% it may even look better now unsharpened. The 3D pop dwells in something else - most likely a good degree of preservation of the tonal gradation across the image, not just sharp transitions around contrasty edges.

This is the swan picture with all sharpening turned off (it is now att 100% crop):



A 100% crop from the yellow machine with all sharpening completely turned off - the fine tonal gradations and the 3D pop are still there, especially if you back out of the screen a little:



Now the whole image downsized to 1024 pixels on the long edge by Photoshop's bicubic method optimized for smooth gradations - still "pops" nicely out, at least as far as I can see. Still with all sharpening completely turned off:



I think this rules out that it's sharpening in post that adds the 3D pop. Whatever the pop dwells in; it contributes to the object being recognized by my brain as floating in a pleasant 3D space rather than a flat sterile and boring surface (slightly exaggerated words here).

Do you see the subtle shifts of tonality across the swan or the yellow machine as their different surfaces curve? This is more what I concentrated on rather than pixelpeeping for sharpness, sharpening and halos (all that is about high-frequency intertonal detail; I'm studying the low-frequency one here). That is undoubtedly what promotes my perception of that 2D image as a 3D scene.

Don't forget what the ultimate goal of photography as an art is: Mediate the strongest way of seeing a scene.

If this 3D pop rendering character of a lens (and even if it was 100% postprocessing which it is not, actually to about zero degree) helps me mediate a stronger way of seeing a scene than otherwise, then it is a heck of an asset to my photography. And in such case I can't care less what some dogmatically limited a-priori judging mind might say about it. It simply works and it works beautifully. Above is some evidence for it.

EDIT:


Kit. said:


> No, it's physically impossible.


It might be for the sharpening halos...
On the other hand, the lens gets in the light through a pretty wide front element - light that at different positions as entering the lens througout the time of the light travel and capture has different spectrum of intensity, wavelength, polarization... you name it. The information input to the lens is far far richer than whatever the sensor can capture, irrespectively of resolution. Why do you think that it is physically imposible to make a lens that would convert part of that information into a part of the information that is captured by the sensor, so as to help our brains reconstruct the captured 2D image into a 3D scene in our perception?
Maybe this is what every lens is supposed to do, but the more optical imperfections of e.g., lesser quality glass; and imperfections introduced by optical corrections from a lens, the more this reproduction suffers - in the same direction as Yannick etc. claim. I say maybe, as I don't have any proof of that nor any clear evidence for that statement.

I actually intend to follow up on these examples with a comparison of the same scene captured by two or three different lenses. Let's see what that yields.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Apr 30, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> An f/5.6 prime released in 2016 is smaller and has better IQ than an f/4 zoom released in 2003? How surprising!



The Canon 11-24 was released in 2015.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 30, 2019)

Stephen Melvin said:


> Focus confirmation and (possibly) AF become more likely with DPAF that can focus down to f/11.


Given that the aperture is electronically controlled, and focusing can be performed wide open (which is how it’s done in a DSLR), I’m not sure that DPAF has any relevance to the issue.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 30, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Every single picture, any part that has a sharp contrast between light subject and dark background (and vice versa).


Those are the places where aliasing often shows up in an image. Given the mention of 50 MP and previous posts indicating @mk0x55 owns a 5DsR, I suspect that’s what you’re seeing. 



mk0x55 said:


> I think this rules out that it's sharpening in post that adds the 3D pop. Whatever the pop dwells in; it contributes to the object being recognized by my brain as floating in a pleasant 3D space rather than a flat sterile and boring surface (slightly exaggerated words here).


I think your ‘3D pop’ is a depth of field effect, with a large leavening of wishful seeing and perhaps a small leavening of aliasing.


----------



## mk0x55 (Apr 30, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think your ‘3D pop’ is a depth of field effect, with a large leavening of wishful seeing and perhaps a small leavening of aliasing.


Well, it can happen that I fail to see the visual evidence for what I claim (and I yet have to demonstrate that point here).

However, what I've been talking about relates also to what Lloyd described in his article under the chapter "Penetrating power: distinguishing dark tones" in here:
https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/en/article/micro-contrast-and-the-zeiss-pop-by-lloyd-chambers

And that actually is how I also understood it and what I understood even Yannick describes in his blog. (The difference between the two's emphasis being that while Lloyd dominantly discusses the crispness of the lens's rendition on a very local scale; Yannick seems to only mention this Lloyd's concept of penetrating power, or tonal fidelity on a more global scale of the lens; plus blaming the current resolution-centric trends and creating controversy by describing a strong competition between the lens' optimization on resolution and corrections, wide-aperture optical performance, and this tonal fidelity that he terms as the 3D look.)

The sharper (or otherwise more distorted) the tonal transitions are rendered by a lens from a completely neutral transition (the ideal of linearly going from fully bright in the scene to completely black); the more the 3D-pop evoking rendering shall to my understanding be impaired.
This I also relate to the fact that our digital cameras capture most tonal detail close to the luminosity values of sensor saturation, i.e., closer to the highlights (see even https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/gamma-correction.htm), where they also are least affected by read noise etc. Shadows as we humans perceive them contain non-linearly less tonal detail than highlights when captured by our digital sensors. If the already inferior tonal detail of the shadows is further compressed by the lens' rendering to even more shadowy areas of the captured tonal spectrum, then we're really losing a lot of what helps the brain reconstruct a 3D scene.

Anyways, let's see if I manage to find any discernible differences when I compare the lenses on a suitable scene in some reasonably stable weather & lighting conditions.


----------



## ColinJR (Apr 30, 2019)

Stephen Melvin said:


> Focus confirmation and (possibly) AF become more likely with DPAF that can focus down to f/11.



Again, not things that are exclusive to the RF mount. Am I not understanding you?


----------



## ColinJR (Apr 30, 2019)

Kit. said:


> I did not say it was _impossible_ for EF. It just makes more sense to do it for RF, because of more space in the lenses, faster communication protocol and more fine-grained autofocus control by default.



I think the mechanics of tilt-shift lenses are the far bigger obstacle with regards to autofocus than the focusing system of the camera. But, I am not an engineer so what do I know... I don't mean to be hard on you, I just value the image quality potential of RF far more than features like AF, and when I'm using my tilt-shift, MF is not really ever a problem.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (May 1, 2019)

ColinJR said:


> Again, not things that are exclusive to the RF mount. Am I not understanding you?



The AF system of most dslr's work with f/5.6 or wider apertures. Sensor-based focusing is definitely a game changer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2019)

Stephen Melvin said:


> Th AF system of most dslr's work with f/5.6 or wider apertures. Sensor-based focusing is definitely a game changer.


How? DSLRs AF with the lens wide open, so on-sensor AF is only ‘game changing’ with a lens having a max aperture of f/8 or narrower. (Are you simply unaware that’s how it works? The selected aperture is irrelevant, only the max aperture of the lens matters.) That’s mainly f/4 lenses with a 2x TC or f/5.6 with a 1.4x or 2x TC (and many recent higher-end DSLRs have PDAF at f/8). We were discussing TS lenses. In that context, those who use a 2x TC with the wide angle TS lenses would have their game changed. All six of those people.

On sensor AF _is _game-changing from the standpoint that Canon can legitimately come out with f/6.3 lenses for MILCs that don’t have to ‘spoof’ the AF system like the less expensive 3rd party telephoto lenses for DSLRs.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (May 1, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> How? DSLRs AF with the lens wide open, so on-sensor AF is only ‘game changing’ with a lens having a max aperture of f/8 or narrower. (Are you simply unaware that’s how it works? The selected aperture is irrelevant, only the max aperture of the lens matters.) That’s mainly f/4 lenses with a 2x TC or f/5.6 with a 1.4x or 2x TC (and many recent higher-end DSLRs have PDAF at f/8). We were discussing TS lenses. In that context, those who use a 2x TC with the wide angle TS lenses would have their game changed. All six of those people.
> 
> On sensor AF _is _game-changing from the standpoint that Canon can legitimately come out with f/6.3 lenses for MILCs that don’t have to ‘spoof’ the AF system like the less expensive 3rd party telephoto lenses for DSLRs.




I'm quite aware of how it works. T/S lenses have trouble with AF because of the mechanical vignetting caused by moving the exit pupil around. The combination of having phase detection in 80% of the sensor and sensitivity down to f/11 means that there should be a lot more flexibility for the angle of the rays hitting the AF sensor.

In simpler terms, on a dSLR, a lens at maximum shift or tilt will be "seen" as having a smaller aperture because half of the rays will be blocked by the narrower angle of view of an AF sensor that needs to see the _entire_ f/5.6 aperture to function.

This is also why some AF sensors will AF at f/2.8 only with the center AF point.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2019)

Stephen Melvin said:


> I'm quite aware of how it works. T/S lenses have trouble with AF because of the mechanical vignetting caused by moving the exit pupil around. The combination of having phase detection in 80% of the sensor and sensitivity down to f/11 means that there should be a lot more flexibility for the angle of the rays hitting the AF sensor.
> 
> In simpler terms, on a dSLR, a lens at maximum shift or tilt will be "seen" as having a smaller aperture because half of the rays will be blocked by the narrower angle of view of an AF sensor that needs to see the _entire_ f/5.6 aperture to function.
> 
> This is also why some AF sensors will AF at f/2.8 only with the center AF point.


Thanks, that makes sense. 

However, it’s still not a capability conferred by the RF mount. A DSLR in live view could have the same functionality (and live view is a logical choice for use of a TS lens, since it obviates metering problems with lens movements as well).


----------



## Stephen Melvin (May 1, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Thanks, that makes sense.
> 
> However, it’s still not a capability conferred by the RF mount. A DSLR in live view could have the same functionality (and live view is a logical choice for use of a TS lens, since it obviates metering problems with lens movements as well).



You're welcome. I agree a dSLR in LV could do that now, though new optical designs could absolutely smoke existing ones were they to use the new lens mount.


----------



## uri.raz (May 1, 2019)

Stephen Melvin said:


> The Canon 11-24 was released in 2015.



The lenses shown in the photo are the Heliar and the EF 17-40mm, not the 11-24mm.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2019)

Stephen Melvin said:


> ...though new optical designs could absolutely smoke existing ones were they to use the new lens mount.


I doubt that, except perhaps for the TS-E 17. Certainly the RF lenses we’ve seen so far don’t support that viewpoint. The RF 50/1.2 is sharp, but so is the Otus for EF. Canon has patents for EF f/2 standard zooms (and they couldn’t manage to get the RF version out to 24 mm, personally I’d take the wider FOV over the stop of light in a standard zoom), and the RF 24-105 is essentially identical to the EF version. Maybe Canon’s market-speak will turn out to be true in some cases (e.g. a UWA zoom), but we haven’t seen that yet.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 1, 2019)

This thread is about the new RF lenses but playing into that is the cameras. A Japanese organisation called BCN+R has analysed sales data for the EOS RP and despite strong sales in the first month the second month sales have "collapsed" in Japan. The article puts this down to lens choice which I would tend to agree with an entry level full-frame mirrorless camera without entry level RF lenses seems like a rare "own goal" by Canon. With no immediate lens like an RF version of the EF 24-105mm f3.5-5.6 IS STM (Which in the UK is listed at £ 414.99 as opposed to the EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM II at £ 1,029.99 or the RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM at £ 1,119.99) its a strange way to promote entry into a camera system. The RF body is £ 1,399.99 with the mount adaptor and the EOS R £ 2,349.99 with mount adaptor. 
With nothing yet mentioned on the road map aside from the RF 24-240mm which while compact for a 10-1 zoom is still not your average walk-around lens its a strange situation.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (May 1, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> The lenses shown in the photo are the Heliar and the EF 17-40mm, not the 11-24mm.



Yes, but only because I don't own the 11-24. I used the 17-40 for scale, but I did use the words "1/3 the size and weight of the _nearest Canon lens_." Considering that the 17-40 is an inexpensive featherweight, I figured it would be understood that the _nearest Canon lens_ would be the one with the 11mm focal length.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (May 1, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I doubt that, except perhaps for the TS-E 17. Certainly the RF lenses we’ve seen so far don’t support that viewpoint. The RF 50/1.2 is sharp, but so is the Otus for EF. Canon has patents for EF f/2 standard zooms (and they couldn’t manage to get the RF version out to 24 mm, personally I’d take the wider FOV over the stop of light in a standard zoom), and the RF 24-105 is essentially identical to the EF version. Maybe Canon’s market-speak will turn out to be true in some cases (e.g. a UWA zoom), but we haven’t seen that yet.



Every T/S lens in the lineup except the 90 is a retrofocus design. Getting rid of that can lead to less distortion, greater light transmission, more compact size,and better corner sharpness. The latest Canon lenses do a better job than the older models, but there's always room for improvement.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2019)

Stephen Melvin said:


> ..new optical designs could absolutely smoke existing ones were they to use the new lens mount.





Stephen Melvin said:


> ...less distortion, greater light transmission, more compact size,and better corner sharpness. The latest Canon lenses do a better job than the older models, but there's always room for improvement.


Sorry, but:

less distortion for lenses with only ~1% distortion
greater light transmission (unlikely to be more than a stop) for lenses which are commonly used stopped down
more compact size for lenses the size of a standard zoom that are usually used on a tripod, and
better corner sharpness for lenses which are already quite sharp in the corners
...sounds nothing like 'absolutely smoking' the existing lenses. Perhaps if a TS-E 17 for the RF mount could be made without the bulbous front element and thus take front filters, that would 'absolutely smoke' the current TS-E 17. But given the need to support an effective FoV of an 11mm rectilinear lens, I don't see that happening (and short of that, the ability to use the current TS-E 17 on an EOS R with an ND or CPL behind it far outweighs any minor improvements in distortion or sharpness in an RF version, at least for me).

The RF mount is nice and offers some interesting possibilities, but I think you're 'absolutely smoking' something if you believe it's some sort of miracle mount.


----------



## uri.raz (May 2, 2019)

Stephen Melvin said:


> Yes, but only because I don't own the 11-24. I used the 17-40 for scale, but I did use the words "1/3 the size and weight of the _nearest Canon lens_." Considering that the 17-40 is an inexpensive featherweight, I figured it would be understood that the _nearest Canon lens_ would be the one with the 11mm focal length.



Fair enough.

I think the two other points still stand - there's little point comparing a prime to a one stop faster zoom of the same age.


----------



## mk0x55 (May 2, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> Well, it can happen that I fail to see the visual evidence for what I claim (and I yet have to demonstrate that point here).
> ...
> ... let's see if I manage to find any discernible differences when I compare the lenses on a suitable scene in some reasonably stable weather & lighting conditions.


Although the conditions I mention didn't occur around me so far... I attempted a quick-ish comparison, below.



neuroanatomist said:


> ...





Kit. said:


> ...





MayaTlab said:


> ...



A short follow up on my 3D pop inquiry, folks.

I made an attempt (still sort of preliminary, mainly due to the lack of stable weather and lighting conditions when shooting). I briefly compared two pairs of lenses:

Canon 50mm 1.8 STM (plastic fantastic) vs. Zeiss Milvus 1.4/50mm ZE
Canon 70-200mm 2.8 L IS USM II vs. Zeiss Milvus 2/135 ZE
First I need to name the rather clear and surely expected:

The Zeisses resolve better and further out to the corners;
The Zeisses have smoother bokeh;
The Zeisses have higher light transmissivity than the Canons.
Then there is one minor observation relating to the gradations:

The Canons seem to stretch the histogram (in Capture One) a slight touch toward the edges (blacks, whites) as if they were more globally contrasty when compared to the Zeisses (no major difference though, slighly noticeable when just looking at the pictures using my 8-bit monitor (Eizo FlexScan)) - example histogram; I've seen this trend on several comparison exposures made:
Zeiss:


Canon:



Now the differences I was able to spot:

The *50mm* lenses (please note that although the price difference between them is huge, both lenses are very sharp and render very well under normal conditions such as where flaring is not a problem... especially for the Canon, which is susceptible to that):
Globally (looking at the picture from a distance, necessarily viewed at far lesser resolution than the captured), I can't distinguish any noticeable difference in the 3D pop;
Zoomed in (pixel-peeping) at f/7.1, I can see differences in favor of the Zeiss - clearly due to its slightly higher resolving power, but also due to a slightly smoother bokeh quality; namely, the Milvus renders a slightly out-of-focus object (grill) more "3D pop"-py to my eyes than the Canon; but I attribute that mostly to the bokeh, as said:
Zeiss:



Canon:



Another example zoomed in at 400% at f/5.6, looking at a shadowy fissure of a rock with the exposure lifted by 2 stops, it appears to me that the Zeiss has a bit more shadow detail there, although it is extremely close (possibly because I had to adjust the exposure boosting the Milvus by 0.15 and taking down the Canon by 0.1 - this is a change in favor of the Canon though, from the perspective of texture detail and noise control!):
Zeiss:


Canon:



Conclusion: These two lenses seem to me to be very close, but I see a slight touch more shadow detail / gradation richness from the Zeiss (perhaps wishful seeing?). In any case, this is in contrast to what Yannick presents in his blog, where he trashed the Milvus 1.4/50 from the 3D pop perspective and scored the Canon 50 1.8 STM higher. I don't find supporting evidence for that here.

The *135mm *comparison (at f/5.6):
Smiliarly to the 50mm comparison, I can't distinguish much difference from the scene I captured globally (at a distance);
Zoomed in, the Zeiss shows both more shadow detail and superior image quality otherwise (the latter is nothing unexpected, really, comparing a premium prime to a zoom, although a very good one).
Zoomed-in comparison at 400% close to the center of the frame:
Zeiss:


Canon:



To conclude this one, I'd say the Milvus 2/135 is the winner, but again, not by a very large margin.

Possible sources of error that I am aware of:
Different ambient lighting as I can't capture all shots in a single moment, especially in the evening when it stopped raining... resulting in an additional changing variable except the variable tested (lens), which can invalidate the results;
Slightly different focus in shots (due to my focusing error or slight focus shift of the lens)... purely a possibility; I haven't really found it though;
Slightly changing environment due to atmospheric conditions (humidity, rocks drying...);
My way of looking at my screen when comparing... as well as my screen being incapable of showing me the gradations well enough (as it's no photographic screen, really and just has a 8-bit per color channel).

The demonstration here is sort of preliminary and the method and sequence of doing the comparison is far from waterproof (the conditions outdoors didn't really allow for that yet); but it shows at least something - check it out and feel free to leave me any feedback based on what you see.

Lastly, all of the lenses I tested are considered pretty good on overall (I happen to not really own poor lenses). To really test the interesting stuff (something like a good Canon/Nikon/Sony/Zeiss lens vs. Sigma Art that is rumored to have famously low 3D-pop), I would have to own or rent a Sigma Art, which is not on my horizon really. If you own any such combination of lenses, feel free to test it and show something similar...

Full versions of one of the above scenes with the 50mm (more I can't attach here and don't want to spam this forum which is about the RF lens roadmap anyway!):

Zeiss 50:



Canon 50:


The end of it so far.

Update a day later: Jared Polin compared the Sony FE 135 with the Sigma 135: 



He also provides RAW files to compare (NOTE: the first of Sigma had wrong number in the URL when I downloaded it, so to download them all you might need to correct that). I could clearly see that the Sony has a better depth to the images (more 3D pop) - one picture with the model sitting on a chair, there are multiple parts of the image (both on the model and elsewhere), where the difference is apparent.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 3, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> did i say that sigma 85 is a better lens? when and where? why you are implying that I am a flat test chart warrior?
> Sigma 85 1.4 Art is quite poor at closer distances - what is your point?
> 
> why are you attacking someone who asked a simple question? i trust my visual perception but am an open minded person enough to maintain a critical judgement.



Sorry if answering your question honestly was interpreted as an "attack." If a critique that mild sets off all of your alarms, any kind of serious photography is probably not the place for you.

As for which one of us is using their critical judgement and which one is in denial...

I'll let the other critiques above that echo mine speak for themselves.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 3, 2019)

BillB said:


> There are also the f4 zooms and the variable max aperture zooms which are lighter and less expensive than the f2.8's. For a while now, there have been good quality zooms which a lot of people prefer to primes. This has really put a dent in the demand for light weight, lower cost primes. Canon put out the 24, 28 and 35 IS primes in 2012, but I wonder how many have actually been sold. I bought the 28mm the year before the 16-35 f4 came out, and I haven't used the 28 since I got the 16-35. If the 16-35 had been available, I would not bought the 28mm. The 28 weighs half as much as the 16-35, but having the 16-35 is like having a whole bagfull of very good wide angle primes.



Agreed.

That's also coupled with the likely reality that at the time the 24/28/35 IS primes came out in 2012, most of the shooters that would have been most interested in wide angle primes still were of the opinion that IS wasn't that important for lenses in tht focal length range. Many potential buyers probably kept the 24/28/35 non-stabilized primes they already had and passed on the newer lenses.

IBIS, though available in a handful of small format mirrorless cameras, had not yet really become widespread enough in 2012 for a lot of folks to become convinced of the usefulness of stabilization for wider angle lenses. For most Canikon shooters, it was just something the "minor" brands' shooters liked to tout that they had that Canokon did not.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 3, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> I think the two other points still stand - there's little point comparing a prime to a one stop faster zoom of the same age.



Not necessarily. Before around 2010 or so¹ good mid-range primes still outperformed most zooms, including those that cost a lot more. The primes were generally sharper, had less geometric distortion, and less transmission loss (f-number vs. T-stop).

¹ I consider the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II the "watershed" in this respect. It was the first mass-produced lens that came close to beating most of the affordable primes in its focal length range. Even then, the out of focus background areas can be harsher with the 70-200/2.8 III that with an 85/1.8, 135/2, or 200/2.8 set at f/2.8. The 70-200/2.8 III has been surpassed many times over since 2010, but there wasn't really any other mainstream 3X+ zoom lens at the time that was that good all of the way from wide to long at every aperture.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 3, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Sorry if answering your question honestly was interpreted as an "attack." If a critique that mild sets off all of your alarms, any kind of serious photography is probably not the place for you.
> 
> As for which one of us is using their critical judgement and which one is in denial...
> 
> I'll let the other critiques above that echo mine speak for themselves.



What are you critical about? Those aren’t my photos even. I am a Canon shooter.
I do not understand what are you on about.


----------



## jd7 (May 3, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Yes, it does. The background blur is course and uneven. Put those shots side to side with the same model, scene, camera, and lighting using the EF 85mm f/1.2L II and you'll immediately be able to see the difference. But keep on believing that you're using a better lens because it does better shooting flat test charts at closer distances with _no background to render_.
> 
> The 85L would smooth out those cut-off bokeh balls that are fouling some of your edges and make that mistake hardly even noticeable, too.


Please accept this as a genuine question. Are you able to point me to any examples which show the difference you are talking about between the Art and Canon lenses?

I so often read things on the internet claiming the Art series lenses have poor bokeh, but I rarely see photos shot side by side of the same scene, etc, to provide a good comparison of an Art lenses with a comparable lens - and when I have, I haven't felt convinced the criticism of the bokeh of the Art lenses is justified. For example, this website http://willchaophotography.com/sigma-50mm-f1-4-art-review/ has comparison shots taken with the 50 Art and the 50L but it doesn't convince me the 50 Art's bokeh is poor (and in fact the author's opinion was it is not). When I look around on the internet at images shot with the 35 Art and the 35L II, I haven't seen anything to make me complain about the 35 Art's bokeh either - but I'm not sure if I've ever seen sets of images taken under the same conditions providing a good comparison between them. (I've seen test shots comparing things like sharpness, but I'm talking specifically about comparing bokeh.) 

I do sometimes think the 85L II at f/1.2 may be able to produce slightly better bokeh (as subjective a concept as that is) than the 85 Art, but I put that down to its wider aperture, as a I think the same about the 85L II and any 85/1.4 I've seen images from. Again though, I'd like to see good comparison shots (taken under same conditions, etc) to really be sure.

Anyway, I'm not someone who values sharpness above all else in a lens - I am interested in the overall look of the image produced (again, however subjective a concept that may be), and sharpness is obviously only one factor - so if you can point me to any good bokeh comparison shots, I'd be genuinely interested to have a look.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (May 5, 2019)

There remains a lot of evidence that Sigma _still_ has issues with the electronics in their lenses, I've owned 6 or 7 Sigmas. Only one didn't have a major failure: Canon mount 70-200 f/2.8. I have a friend whose ART no longer AF's correctly. Familiar story to me.

I use only use Canon lenses in the AF world. Never had a problem with one.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 5, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> So you buy the EOS R to use ‘all these great lenses’ for now, then when the ‘pro body’ comes along, you buy that too. More ¥ for Canon.


Canon have been very cleaver here...they create a system that every one wants...but not the camera. So every one buys the camera they don't really want to get "into the system"....then Canon releases a slightly better camera (assuming here) and we all rush out and buy it because it's closer to what ewe all wanted in the first place...thus selling 2 cameras. The S/H resale of the 1st camera plummets which Canon don't make any money on any how....then they release the camera we all wanted in the first place....and we all do the same thing 3rd time around. Canon finally eclipse Sony sales in the Mirror-less full frame market and has sold us 2 cameras that we never really wanted in the first place...kudos to Canon...For me...I'll wait until the right camera comes along...lol...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 5, 2019)

Stephen Melvin said:


> There remains a lot of evidence that Sigma _still_ has issues with the electronics in their lenses, I've owned 6 or 7 Sigmas. Only one didn't have a major failure: Canon mount 70-200 f/2.8. I have a friend whose ART no longer AF's correctly. Familiar story to me.
> 
> I use only use Canon lenses in the AF world. Never had a problem with one.


Like wise. Currently it's only their 50mm f1.4 art that could temp me to buy another Sigma. Only because Canon haven't bothered to fix the ef 50mm f1.2 L (and they really could have with a mkIII). The problem with Sigma for me (apart from saying I'd never buy another Sigma lens again) is 1) resale value is very poor. 2) Generally heavier. 3) less reliable. 4) Their Outer shells tend to wear more easily. 5) Sharp optics let down by poor flare control and coatings. 6) warm colour cast that's different to Canon lenses. 7) Hesitant and inconsistent AF lock...often seems to get it slightly wrong. 8) the AF and IS systems feel like a toy when compared to the best of Canon. 9) Why Do I have to buy and use a calibrator for every lens? Surely they should get this right in the factory? Only Sigma could make a sales feature out of Pi55 Poor production engineering and Quality Control. 10) Lastly...the pro dealership network isn't any where nearly as fast or as good as Canon or Nikon's. 
They do make some interesting lenses and they have come a long way from their early HSM designs.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 5, 2019)

jd7 said:


> Please accept this as a genuine question. Are you able to point me to any examples which show the difference you are talking about between the Art and Canon lenses?
> 
> I so often read things on the internet claiming the Art series lenses have poor bokeh, but I rarely see photos shot side by side of the same scene, etc, to provide a good comparison of an Art lenses with a comparable lens - and when I have, I haven't felt convinced the criticism of the bokeh of the Art lenses is justified. For example, this website http://willchaophotography.com/sigma-50mm-f1-4-art-review/ has comparison shots taken with the 50 Art and the 50L but it doesn't convince me the 50 Art's bokeh is poor (and in fact the author's opinion was it is not). When I look around on the internet at images shot with the 35 Art and the 35L II, I haven't seen anything to make me complain about the 35 Art's bokeh either - but I'm not sure if I've ever seen sets of images taken under the same conditions providing a good comparison between them. (I've seen test shots comparing things like sharpness, but I'm talking specifically about comparing bokeh.)
> 
> ...



It is getting harder and harder to find direct comparisons of how two lenses render "real world" scenes than it used to be. Although anecdotal, here's my take on why that is:

1 - Those who think some objective measure of "sharpness" using a flat test chart is the only way to measure the usefulness of a lens tend to dismiss types of lenses optimized for other characteristics offhand. They don't bother comparing how such lenses perform when photographing things other than flat test charts. In their minds the flat test chart has already closed any discussion about which lens is "better." Among those who are currently buying higher end lenses, this crowd seems to be increasing as a percentage of the total number of buyers.

2 - Those few who _do_ tend to test both types of lenses side-by-side taking "real world" images and then publish their findings are folks more concerned with how many clicks their reviews can generate than with which lens produces real world images that are more sellable. So they play to the "my lens is 0.000137 sharper than your lens" crowd because that's who spend a lot of time on youTube and review sites. Those who are more worried about taking great images are out taking images and worrying about pleasing their clients, rather than about how many online clicks they can get or whether someone else may own a lens that can take a picture of a flat test chart with ever so slightly sharper corners than their current lens can.

3 - Those who have been in the image selling game long enough know that the most important thing is being able to create images that make clients willing to pay for them. What sets one image apart from another in the mind of a potential buyer is not as easy to objectively measure the way one can measure how sharp pairs of black and white lines on the corners of a flat test chart are rendered by a specific lens/camera combination. How a lens makes images of a 3D world rather than of a 2D test chart is far more important to many of those whose livelihoods depend more on what makes a client want to buy an image than on which lens makes better photos of flat test charts (unless, of course, the client is someone who needs lots of flat documents archived).

4 - As the numbers of full-time professional photographers in many segments of the photo producing market continues to dwindle, the upper end of the camera gear market is more and more being driven by the enthusiast crowd rather than by working pros. Camera and lens manufacturers have taken notice. Sony jumped on this trend when they started releasing "spec sheet" cameras that were more or less still in the "beta" stage of design as they entered the FF mirrorless market. The rock solid reliability where everything just works right out of the box on day one and can take a day-in-and-day-out pounding aren't considered near as necessary in the enthusiast crowd.

5 - This "spec sheet" mentality regarding camera bodies seems to go hand in hand with an "MTF" mentality with regard to lenses. If a lens is not the absolute best at that measurement which is most easy to measure and quantify (MTF), then it's not worthy of any consideration. It's just like if one camera has 0.05 stops less DR at base ISO than another, it's not worthy of consideration at all, even when the intended usage is for shooting something like sports/action in low light where that same "inferior" camera may have 0.33 stops better SNR at ISO 3200.

6 - Lensmakers are giving the market what sales numbers say the market wants: lenses optimized for shooting flat test charts.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 5, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Why Do I have to buy and use a calibrator for every lens? Surely they should get this right in the factory? Only Sigma could make a sales feature out of Pi55 Poor production engineering and Quality Control.



Because not every lens is made to be used on the same unique camera body. Lens design has gotten to the point that they are sharp enough that differences in manufacturing tolerances as small as 20 microns from one side of the camera/lens interface to the other can be measured in photographs. Mission critical medical equipment is manufactured to tolerances of 50 microns. That stuff is a lot more expensive than consumer cameras. (Even the top "Pro" models are considered consumer products here. They're not mission critical products in which life or death depends on reliability or precision.)

Roger Cicala has written a number of blogs over more than a decade discussing this.

*"This lens is soft" and other myths 
“This Lens Is Soft” and Other Facts 
Optical Quality Assurance *


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 5, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Because not every lens is made to be used on the same unique camera body. Lens design has gotten to the point that they are sharp enough that differences in manufacturing tolerances as small as 20 microns from one side of the camera/lens interface to the other can be measured in photographs. Mission critical medical equipment is manufactured to tolerances of 50 microns. That stuff is a lot more expensive than consumer cameras. (Even the top "Pro" models are considered consumer products here. They're not mission critical products in which life or death depends on reliability or precision.)
> 
> Roger Cicala has written a number of blogs over more than a decade discussing this.
> 
> ...


Well...I had three Sigma f2.8 zoom lenses that were bought new and all three had to go back fro calibrating for quite severe back focus. The 70-200 f2.8 I bought from them was nearly an inch out of focus at 4m @ 200mm. It'sP1ss poor QA...nothing else. In my entire back catalog of Canon lenses I've only ever had one that required calibration, a 17-40L that I bought S/H. Every other L lens has been pretty much perfect or at least properly QA'd in the factory. As I've said in other threads....I'm done with Sigma. They have always been a promising brand but unfortunately they never seem to deliver on their promises....certainly not compared to Canon L glass, which are in a different league as far as I'm concerned.
Sigma glass is cheap for a reason...so are their low resale values...which also speaks volumes of their market place reliability. No other lens marque needs a lens dock calibrator except Sigma...and on one else would have the cheek to charge for it either. It should have been done in the factory...if they have time to box and bag it up, they have time to run it though a calibration machine...commercial ones take seconds.


----------



## uri.raz (May 6, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Canon have been very cleaver here...they create a system that every one wants...but not the camera. So every one buys the camera they don't really want to get "into the system"....then Canon releases a slightly better camera (assuming here) and we all rush out and buy it because it's closer to what we all wanted in the first place...thus selling 2 cameras.



Not everybody.

I'd like to upgrade to the R system, e.g. to get 15-35mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8 with IS. As the camera isn't out there yet, I'm holding on to my 5DmkIII for another year, waiting to see what Canon does.


----------



## jd7 (May 6, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> It is getting harder and harder to find direct comparisons of how two lenses render "real world" scenes than it used to be. Although anecdotal, here's my take on why that is:
> 
> 1 - Those who think some objective measure of "sharpness" using a flat test chart is the only way to measure the usefulness of a lens tend to dismiss types of lenses optimized for other characteristics offhand. They don't bother comparing how such lenses perform when photographing things other than flat test charts. In their minds the flat test chart has already closed any discussion about which lens is "better." Among those who are currently buying higher end lenses, this crowd seems to be increasing as a percentage of the total number of buyers.
> 
> ...


You may well be correct as to why it isn't easier to find more direct "real world" comparisons of lenses. It's fine to know what the MTF of a lens is, how it performs when shooting a test chart, etc, but I feel like specs and the characteristics which get measured (eg sharpness on a test chart) often dominate the discussion of whether a lens is "better", without stopping to look at performance in real world use and the overall images created. (For that matter, intended use also makes a difference in assessing which lens is better. For example, as you say, if you are taking photos of documents, what you are looking for may be significantly different from what is important if you are taking photos of something else.)


----------



## padam (May 6, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Canon have been very cleaver here...they create a system that every one wants...but not the camera. So every one buys the camera they don't really want to get "into the system"....then Canon releases a slightly better camera (assuming here) and we all rush out and buy it because it's closer to what ewe all wanted in the first place...thus selling 2 cameras. The S/H resale of the 1st camera plummets which Canon don't make any money on any how....then they release the camera we all wanted in the first place....and we all do the same thing 3rd time around. Canon finally eclipse Sony sales in the Mirror-less full frame market and has sold us 2 cameras that we never really wanted in the first place...kudos to Canon...For me...I'll wait until the right camera comes along...lol...


It is part of marketing, similar to Fuji where only the X-H series get the sensor stabilization, they have a lot of other models and none of them are going to have it in the foreseeable future.

So no, the EOS R (at a discounted price) might not loose a significant amount of value, if the next camera with better video and image stabilisation will cost over 4000$.
Of course it will loose value when it finally gets replaced (any camera does that) and the some of the high-end camera's features will get introduced, but it is not going to be a short product cycle.

It does not make sense to start with 4000$+ cameras that even less people are going to buy, and the EF lenses are already there for those who want to get into RF (although the system was designed with these in mind).


----------



## Del Paso (May 6, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> It is getting harder and harder to find direct comparisons of how two lenses render "real world" scenes than it used to be. Although anecdotal, here's my take on why that is:
> 
> 1 - Those who think some objective measure of "sharpness" using a flat test chart is the only way to measure the usefulness of a lens tend to dismiss types of lenses optimized for other characteristics offhand. They don't bother comparing how such lenses perform when photographing things other than flat test charts. In their minds the flat test chart has already closed any discussion about which lens is "better." Among those who are currently buying higher end lenses, this crowd seems to be increasing as a percentage of the total number of buyers.
> 
> ...


You delivered an absolutely perfect description of the present situation, unfortunately!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 7, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> Not everybody.
> 
> I'd like to upgrade to the R system, e.g. to get 15-35mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8 with IS. As the camera isn't out there yet, I'm holding on to my 5DmkIII for another year, waiting to see what Canon does.


Canon have played the same game with you too...they knew every one wanted a 24-70 f2.8 LIS...so they released an excellent but not quite what we all wanted non IS version on the EF mount. Only to introduce the lens we really wanted on the RF mount...causing us to buy the EF version...then change camera (EOS R) and lens (buying another 24-70)....to get where we always wanted to be...except the camera isn't as good as the 5D mk4. Lol.....


----------



## uri.raz (May 7, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Canon have played the same game with you too...they knew every one wanted a 24-70 f2.8 LIS...so they released an excellent but not quite what we all wanted non IS version on the EF mount. Only to introduce the lens we really wanted on the RF mount.



Yes, it is a bummer Tamron & Nikon have 24-70mm f/2.8 with IS, and Canon doesn't. I didn't thoroughly compare their IQ, but I've heard neither excel optically, even compared to Canon's mk II.

I've upgraded to the 24-70mm f/2.8L II when my 24-105mm f/4L mk I broke down, and before Canon announced the EOS R.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 7, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Canon have played the same game with you too...they knew every one wanted a 24-70 f2.8 LIS...


Personally I see no real need for IS in that focal range, my subjects are either moving or my exposures are long enough that I need a tripod. Not that I’d mind it having IS (assuming not much impact on weight and no IQ penalty), but I’m just fine without it.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 7, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Personally I see no real need for IS in that focal range, my subjects are either moving or my exposures are long enough that I need a tripod. Not that I’d mind it having IS (assuming not much impact on weight and no IQ penalty), but I’m just fine without it.


Yep me to...but everyone seem to want an IS unit regardless of how useful it is. I'm still rocking the mk I 24-70 f2.8 L


----------



## Michael Clark (May 9, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Well...I had three Sigma f2.8 zoom lenses that were bought new and all three had to go back fro calibrating for quite severe back focus. The 70-200 f2.8 I bought from them was nearly an inch out of focus at 4m @ 200mm. It'sP1ss poor QA...nothing else. In my entire back catalog of Canon lenses I've only ever had one that required calibration, a 17-40L that I bought S/H. Every other L lens has been pretty much perfect or at least properly QA'd in the factory. As I've said in other threads....I'm done with Sigma. They have always been a promising brand but unfortunately they never seem to deliver on their promises....certainly not compared to Canon L glass, which are in a different league as far as I'm concerned.
> Sigma glass is cheap for a reason...so are their low resale values...which also speaks volumes of their market place reliability. No other lens marque needs a lens dock calibrator except Sigma...and on one else would have the cheek to charge for it either. It should have been done in the factory...if they have time to box and bag it up, they have time to run it though a calibration machine...commercial ones take seconds.



If all three lenses were demonstrating focus inaccuracies in the same direction, maybe the problem wasn't with the lenses...

They can't match a lens to a camera that isn't there when they check the lens.

Quoting Roger Cicala from his classic blog entry *"This lens is soft" and other myths*:

"*Addendum:* I recently saw the greatest real life example of this ever, in an online forum where the poster states ’Canon’s New XX camera sucks’ (I’m eliminating names so the bots don’t pick this up and repeat it.) He goes on to say he had a body for several years, and a _hand picked collection of lenses that he knew were perfect because he’d gone through several copies of each to get the sharpest one._ Now he bought a new body and all his lenses sucked, and he’d now exchanged bodies twice and they still all sucked. So here is the perfect example of a person starting with a camera at the edge of tolerance, choosing through multiple selection a set of edge-of-tolerance lenses, and now generalizing that all the new bodies suck. The sad part is the new body has microfocus adjustment and he never even tried it. Just sent copy after copy back to the store."

If cinema lenses costing five to six figures need to be adjusted by a technician to match the cinema camera to which it is attached, a process that usually takes a couple of hours, minimum, then why would you think lenses costing less than one-tenth that would come from the factory already matched to every existing camera in a particular mount?


My anecdotal personal experiences with Canon "L" lenses:

For my copy of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II that I bought in 2010 I currently use AFMA values of -1 (at 70mm) and -6 (at 200mm) when mated to my EOS 7D Mark II. +1 (70mm) to -4 (200mm) with 5D Mark III.

Before a drop and trip to CPS (after it was dropped the lens was demonstrating fairly strong tilt), I used AFMA corrections of +7 (at 70mm) and +10 (at 200mm) with the same 7D Mark II. I used values of +5 (70mm) and +8 (200mm) when mated to a 5D Mark III. Between the time it was dropped and the time it was repaired, I used +9 (70mm) to +12 (200mm) with the 7D Mark II. The lens performs as well after the repair as it did when new.

Before the drop that required the trip to CPS, I used -4 with a 50D, -2 with a 7D, and +1 with a 5D Mark II. Those cameras only allow a single adjustment per lens. I haven't recalibrated it with any of those after the repair because I no longer use that lens on any of those cameras.

EF 135mm f/2L: 0 with 5D Mark III, 0 with 7D Mark II

EF 17-40mm f/4L: -7 with 5D II, -1 (17mm) and -1 (40mm) with 5D Mark III,

EF 24-105mm f/4L IS: 7 (24mm) and 6 (105mm) with 5D Mark III, 0 with 5D Mark II

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L: -2 (24mm) and -2 (70mm) with 5D Mark III, -2 with 5D Mark II



Non "L" lenses:

EF 50mm f/1.4: -7 with 5D Mark II, -2 with 5D Mark III at longer distances, +1 at shorter distances.

EF 85mmf/1.8: 0 with 5D Mark III

EF 100mm f/2: +7 at medium to longer distances, +3 at shorter distances.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (May 9, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Yep me to...but everyone seem to want an IS unit regardless of how useful it is. I'm still rocking the mk I 24-70 f2.8 L



Yeah, when the 24-70/2.8 won't do I use the 35/2 IS. Which, yes, has IS, but it's the extra speed I'm after. I'd be using the 35L if I could justify it.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (May 26, 2019)

Two things of note to clarify after reading recent posts:

1. IS can be very useful even in fast lenses that don't "need" it. First, it stabilizes the finder, which is always handy. Second, as someone who shoots bleeding-edge handheld available-dark images at ISO 25000 with my 24mm f/1.4 wide open, I will take any help I can get.

2. The myth that IS degrades image quality needs to die. Some of Canon's sharpest lenses have IS. This myth is no doubt related to the myth that adding elements to a lens degrades image quality.

IS is in more and more lenses because it _improves_ image quality by reducing the effects of camera shake.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 26, 2019)

Stephen Melvin said:


> 2. The myth that IS degrades image quality needs to die. Some of Canon's sharpest lenses have IS. This myth is no doubt related to the myth that adding elements to a lens degrades image quality.
> 
> IS is in more and more lenses because it _improves_ image quality by reducing the effects of camera shake.


It’s perhaps not as much a myth as it is poor technique. Not everyone is aware that an IS system takes up to 0.5 s to fully engage, and during that ‘warm up’ time it can soften the image relative to not having IS (or with IS turned off on the same lens).


----------



## Michael Clark (May 27, 2019)

Stephen Melvin said:


> Two things of note to clarify after reading recent posts:
> 
> 1. IS can be very useful even in fast lenses that don't "need" it. First, it stabilizes the finder, which is always handy. Second, as someone who shoots bleeding-edge handheld available-dark images at ISO 25000 with my 24mm f/1.4 wide open, I will take any help I can get.
> 
> ...



IS only improves image quality if the amount of blur due to camera movement is greater than the amount of blur introduced by displacement of the IS lens elements from their ideal position. For IS to counteract camera movement, lens elements have to move. That means they are introducing either tilt or centering compensations that are less than ideal.

IBIS also affects IQ, but in a different way. As the sensor shifts it moves the center of the frame away from the center of the imaging circle. This will typically cause the IQ at one edge/corner of the frame to improve (because that edge/corner is now closer to the center of the image circle) while at the same time causing the IQ at the opposite edge/corner to degrade (because that edge/corner is now closer to the edge of the image circle).


----------

