I'll be honest. I'm pretty excited about the Canon 11-24mm f/4 L lens. I love shooting ultra-wide and the chance to shoot this wide with a rectilinear lens on a full-frame camera has me pretty excited. But I'm also very aware of how near-impossibly difficult designing a lens this wide would be, so my expectations were tempered a bit. There's a reason I'll often stitch together a couple of 24mm shots for a landscape rather than take one 16mm shot. OK, there are several reasons, but image quality is high among them.
So I couldn't wait to get the new lens on the optical bench to see if it was even close to acceptable at the wide end. But there is a bit of a problem there. We've never had the opportunity to test anything at 11mm focal length before. So what do we compare it to? I decided we'd compare the 11-24 to itself. We'd get an idea of how well it did at the long end compared to other 24mm options, and then compare those results to the wide end. The wide end can't possibly be as good as the long end, of course, but we can see how close it is.
This is not a detailed lens review, of course, just a nice quick assessment of resolution with the new lens.
This Sucker is Heavy, BTW
Looking at a comparison of the wide f/4 zooms most of us are familiar with, the new Canon 11-24mm is a little shorter and wider than the Canon and Nikon 16-35 f/4 lenses.
Left to right: Nikon 16-35 f/4, Canon 11-24 f/4, Canon 16-35 f/4 Roger Cicala, Lensrentals.com, 2015
The new Canon lens actually most resembles the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 lens, not just in size and shape but also in the very protruding front element.
Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 (left) and Canon 11-24 f/4. Roger Cicala, Lensrentals.com, 2015
What the pictures don't show is the weight. The new Canon weighs in at 2.6 pounds, which is twice the weight of the 16-35 f/4 IS lens, and half a pound heavier than the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8.
I decided to start by setting the bar ridiculously high. The best zoom lens we've ever tested at 24mm, and it's not very close, is the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 Mk II. To even the playing field totally, we tested both lenses at f/4. (We had 3 copies of the 11-24mm f/4 L to test. The MTF chart shows the average of the three, each tested at 4 rotations, as is our standard.)
Comparison of the Canon 11-24 f/4 and Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Mk II at 24mm and f/4.
You can choose whether your glass is half-empty of half-full. No, the new lens doesn't resolve as well as the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 at f/4 and 24mm. Nothing does, really. But it's decently close to it, and this is actually a good performance.
Let's try a more reasonable comparison; the 11-24 and the Canon 16-35 f/4 IS L both shot at 24mm. The 16-35 is a very good lens. 24mm isn't its strongest spot, but it's still very good there.
I think we all have to agree the glass is pretty full this time. The new Canon 11-24 at 24mm is really good. Other than having more astigmatism in the middle of the field, the area from 5 to 15mm distance from center, it's a bit better than the Canon 16-35 f/4 IS. I think we can all agree, it's a really good lens at 24mm. Let's see how much it deteriorates at the wide end.
Wide Angle Comparisons
For completeness let me point out that I had to modify the inputs at 11mm just a bit. At certain angles, the fixed hood would prevent MTF measurements at 20mm distance from center (it's supposed to do that). That means that while each lens was measured at 4 rotations from the center to 18mm, there were only 2 measurements at 20mm. It doesn't matter for anything other than variance measurements, which I'm not going to get into today, but I just want to mention it.
OK, so let's compare the 24mm end to the 11mm end.
If you're like me, you had to look twice to see that there are some definite differences. The lens is actually a tiny bit sharper in the center at 11mm. The outer 1/3 of the image has a tiny bit lower resolution at 11mm compared to 24mm. But the differences are pretty minor and I doubt any amount of pixel peeping could show them to you.
The truth is the two ends are so similar that I redid testing just to make absolutely certain we hadn't messed up. You rarely see a wide zoom where both ends have such similar image quality. I was totally shocked that the lens would have this kind of performance at 11mm.
For completeness we also tested the lens in the middle of the zoom range (about 16mm).
As you can see, the center t 16mm has an even higher resolution than the two extreme ends, although the edges are just a bit weaker.
But all of that is hair-splitting; this is a remarkable lens. Canon made the widest full-frame rectilinear lens available, and made it with superb image quality throughout the zoom range. Once again, hat's off to Canon's lens designers.
Our Just the Lenses posts are optical tests where we compare various lenses on the optical bench. Unlike DxO or Imatest test results, no cameras are involved, eliminating one of the major variables. It's particularly useful when we're looking at third-party lenses that can be used on various cameras. It's hard to extrapolate the results of a test made using a third-party lens on a Canon 5D Mk III when you are trying to determine how it might compare to one shot on a Nikon D800, for example. Testing on the optical bench gives a direct comparison between lenses without any other variables.
You know Aaron and I love doing teardowns of almost anything. The two types we look forward to most, though, are Sony cameras and Canon lenses, because those tend to be on the cutting edge of engineering elegance. For a couple of weeks now, we've been wanting to sink our screwdrivers into the new Canon 100-400 IS Mk II lens, and yesterday we finally got a few free hours to do it.
For those two or three of you who don't like a little lens strip-tease I'll give you the quick summary: the build quality on this thing is amazing. I usually laugh when people describe a lens as "built like a tank" because what I know is the lens they are describing has a thick, heavy outer metal shell filled with tiny delicate pieces that break and wear out with great frequency. But this lens is built like a tank inside and out. Continue reading →
When I posted our Imatest results from the single copy of the Nikon 300 f/4E PF ED VR that we had received, I pointed out that the copy was slightly decentered and therefore the results were questionable. We got a second copy of the lens in today, and this one was perfectly centered.
I had planned on waiting until we had a half-dozen samples tested before writing anything else, but apparently I stirred up such a hornet's nest with the first results that I thought I'd go ahead and post the results of this well-centered copy. Especially since it looks like it will be several weeks before we actually have six copies in stock to run a series.
My guess when testing the previous copy was that a well-centered copy might or might not be better at peak resolution, and probably would be better in the corners. Turns out, for those who want the short version, my guess was pretty much correct. Continue reading →
We're growing, which means we're hiring! Lenrentals is a fantastic place to work. We believe in working hard, having fun, and giving our customers the best possible rental experience. Our team members get great benefits, including health, dental, paid vacation, and 401(k), not to mention - FREE RENTALS!
Please see below for a list of job descriptions. To apply, please send your resume to firstname.lastname@example.org
As most of you know, we generally test multiple copies of a lens when we evaluate it, simply because we are so aware of copy-to-copy variation. But I got caught between a rock and a hard place this week. We received exactly one copy of the new Nikon 300mm f/4E PF ED VR lens and the purchasing department told me it would be at least a week and probably longer before any more come in. But I've been dying to know how it measured up against the existing Nikon 300mm f/4 ED AF-S lens.
So I did what I had to do and ran the one copy through Imatest, comparing it to a batch of several copies of the older model. We used the new high-resolution, backlit film charts that we've been using for telephoto lens test lately, and shot all the tests on a Nikon D810 test camera so we would generate the highest possible resolution.
I always like to mention my expectations going into testing. The existing 300mm f/4 AF-S is a very, very good lens. The new PF ED VR brings a lot of new technology to the table, and we know from experience with Canon that Phase Fresnel (what Canon calls Diffraction Optics) technology has historically not give the resolution that a good optical lens does. On the other hand, Canon's second generation DO lenses seem to be every bit as good as their standard optical telephotos. So I hoped the new lens would be optically as good as the old one, but wouldn't be shocked if it were a bit better or a bit worse.
Even if it wasn't quite as good optically, the PF ED VR has a lot of attractive features: an excellent VR system, a tiny size, better coatings, and an all electric aperture system with no mechanical linkages. (Most of you won't consider the latter a great advantage, but most of you don't work on lenses for a living.)
For emphasis: this is somewhat of a failed test. The results we got for the 300mm f/4E PF ED VR lens are good, but other copies may well be better. I'll speculate on how much better, but until we get more copies, that's all it is, speculation.
A Quick Look at the Lenses
The side view shows at a glance just how much smaller the new 300mm lens is. It can't show you the weight difference, but the new lens, at 1.66 pounds, weighs about half as much as the original version.
Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S (left) and 300mm f/4E PF (right) with hoods. Image Roger Cicala, Lensrentals.com, 2015
The view from the mount shows that, like the other "E" lenses, there is no mechanical aperture lever. The aperture in this lens is completely electronic.
Image Roger Cicala, Lensrentals.com, 2015
Below is a simple table showing the Imatest results as we usually present them: Center point, Weighted average of 50 points across the front of the lens, and average of the 8 corner results (4 horizontal, 4 vertical) given in Line Pairs / Image Height from unsharpened raw images.
300mm f/4 AF-S
300mm f/4E PF VR
The results seem somewhat straightforward at first glance. The new lens is a bit sharper in the center, not quite as sharp in the corners, but the two lenses are very close in resolution. Certainly with only one copy of the new lens tested I wouldn't want to say more than 'equivalent in resolution' to the original version. It's advantages in size and VR speak for themselves. I'd want one if I shot at this focal length a lot.
But . . .
One of many Imatest shots taken with the 300mm f/4E PF VR lens
There's more to it (or at least there should be more to it) than just letting the computer spit out numbers. When we look at the actual graphs of the Imatest results, the 300mm f/4E PF VR graphs all show the sharpest point not near the center of the lens, but off to the right side of the image. It looks like the lens is slightly decentered or tilted. This isn't bad, by any measurement, but it's noticeable.
Our Imatest set-up self-checks to be certain we are correctly aligned, but just to be sure we tore it down, set it back up, and got similar results. We then put the lens on OLAF, our 5-micron-pinhole-collimator testing machine, which confirmed the lens was just slightly decentered.
OLAF image of the 300mm f/4E PF VR at center point.
If you look carefully it's apparent that the rings for each dot are not perfectly symmetrical; they're slightly shifted to the left. Again, this isn't a horrible result by any means. A really bad lens would be smeared 300% or more times on one side compared to the other, this is not bad at all.
Still, it's apparent this lens is slightly decentered.
What Does That Mean for the Results?
I'm going to speculate here, because we don't have experience with decentered Fresnel lenses. When we get another half-dozen copies we may find they are all just like this - that a slight degree of decentering doesn't affect the lens at all. (There are several lenses like that, where every copy is slightly decentered and the resolution is just fine.)
We may find that a well-centered copy is far superior to this one, particularly in the corners, but perhaps even in the center.
What we can say is that the new lens is at least the equal, from a resolution standpoint, to the old lens. That's about all for now.
When I get a half-dozen copies in and tested, I'll be able to say a lot more. What I suspect I will find is the center resolution after testing multiple copies will be about what it is here -- just slightly better than the original 300mm f/4 AF-S. I think that because our maximum resolution point, while off-center, was not up near the edge of the image. My experience is that the center resolution won't change much on a well-centered copy, it will just return toward the center of the image.
I expect we will see somewhat better numbers in the corners, and therefore in the overall average of the lens, probably making it slightly better than the original lens in all areas. Not greatly better, possibly not enough that you'd even notice it in a photograph. But at least as good, in a much lighter lens with excellent VR. That will definitely make this a worthwhile purchase for a lot of people.
The real bottom line? Testing one lens creates about as many questions as it does answers, at least for an OCD guy like me.
A while back we did a teardown of the Sony A7r, and were very impressed with its clean modular design. Now that Sony has released the A7 II we thought a similar teardown would be worthwhile. There are certainly going to be some differences. First among them, of course, is that the new camera has 5-axis, in-body image stabilization, which is definitely going to create some differences. There also is a more robust magnesium alloy shell and lens mount, and perhaps (or perhaps not) improved weather resistance.
In an earlier post we were most impressed with how much better the new Canon 400mm f/4 IS DO II resolved compared to the original version. I mentioned that we hadn't been able to get many copies and didn't have time to do any other comparisons right then, but that we would do more as soon as we could.
We still haven't received any of the other couple of dozen 400mm DO IS II lenses we've ordered, so the results are for the same pair as the original post. For all other lenses in this post we tested four copies and averaged the results. For the 300mm f/2.8 with 1.4X TC III test we used four lenses and four different converters. All tests are done using the same backlit film chart as the previous test, using a Canon 5D Mk III test camera.
400mm DO II vs. 300mm f/2.8 IS II
The first comparison we made was between the 400mm f/4 DO IS II and the 300mm f/2.8 IS II at their native focal lengths - 400mm and 300mm. I do want to point out that this puts testing distances at roughly 19 and 15 feet respectively. This is not ideal working distance for super telephoto lenses, so take these results with that tiny grain of salt.
We tested the 300mm lens at both f/2.8 and at f/4 to level the playing field a bit.
400mm f/4 DO II
300mm f/28 IS II f/2.8
300mm f/2.8 IS II f/4
These results are about what I expected, since we already knew that the 400 DO II is really excellent. Shot at its native f/4 it has a bit better resolution than the 300 f/2.8 does shot at f/2.8. Stop the 300mm lens down to f/4, though, and it's a bit sharper than the DO.
Could you notice these differences in a photograph? Probably if technique was equal and you pixel peep a bit. But these are all spectacular results. If you can't tell the difference between a 300mm f/2.8 shot at f/2.8 and at f/4 (most of us can comparing side-by-side shots), then you sure can't tell the difference between either one and the DO.
The question most people (and by most people, I mean me and a couple of others) wanted answered was how the 400 DO compares to the 300 f/2.8 with a 1.4 X teleconverter added. Other people wanted to know how it compares with the tried-and-true, bargain-priced Canon 400mm f/5.6 L, so we did those comparisons too.
Let's again point out that there are some differences in these tests. The 300mm f/2.8 with teleconverter is actually shooting at 420mm, so it gives a bit more reach. The 400mm f/5.6 is being compared one stop down compared to the other two, which are being shot at f/4, which gives it a bit of an optical advantage.
400mm f/4 DO II
300mm f/2.8 with 1.4X
400mm f/5.6 L
The results, again, are fairly triumphant for the DO. The DO version I, which I shot with frequently, definitely gave up some image quality compared to a 300 f/2.8 with teleconverter. Most of us who shot the DO were willing to do so because it weighed less, and the weight was distributed near to the mount making it easier to handhold. The version II 300 f/2.8 is much lighter than its predecessor, so the weight savings isn't quite as significant. However, it's clear that from a resolution standpoint at least, the 400 DO is slightly better than the 300 f/2.8 IS II with teleconverter.
Again, let's remember that with DO lenses, field tests in varied lighting conditions may well reveal other issues that a simple resolution test can't. But the resolution test certainly suggests that shooting the DO could give results at least as good, and perhaps a tiny bit better, than the 300 f/2.8 IS II with teleconverter.
The results with the 400mm f/5.6 weren't surprising to me at all. It has always been regarded as a very sharp lens. Given that it's shooting at a 1-stop narrower aperture, no one should be shocked that it can hang with the other two lenses in the center. The price is certainly far more attractive, although the narrower aperture and lack of image stabilization make it a very different lens than the other two.
Would I sell my 300 f/2.8 IS II and move to the 400 DO? I doubt it. But if I was considering the two for purchase and realized I was going to shoot at 400mm, I'd be leaning towards the DO. It's still easier to shoot handheld, the IS systems are now equal, and it doesn't appear to give up anything from a resolution standpoint.
Can I get equivalent shots with a 400 f/5.6? If the light and technique are good, I can certainly get very close, if not equal shots. But the other two lenses will get shots in a lot of conditions that the 400 f/5.6 could not shoot well in.
"He caused a lot of trouble over here, you know." A librarian at the Royal Aeronautical Society, when asked for references on Sydney Cotton.
It's been a while since I did a history article. I love writing about the true "characters" of photography, and to be honest, I hadn't stumbled across anyone that really interested me for a while. But while I was writing an article about the most decorated photoreconnaissance flight in history, I kept running across the name Sydney Cotton, who was considered the father of aerial reconnaissance. Continue reading →
A few months ago, before my hiatus from blogging, we did a series of articles showing the effect that a thick sensor stack (the glass above the sensor) had when we use adapted lenses designed for a thin sensor stack. The first one was mostly about theory, the second about when it was likely to actually be noticeable, and the third gave a general summary of when you might expect problems. All of that theory and prediction is good and useful.
The articles generated a fair amount of discussion about removing filter stacks on cameras so that they would perform better with legacy or film lenses designed for little or no sensor stack. In theory, that would make a big difference, but changing the stack has its own set of issues: focus is changed, infrared filtering can become inadequate, etc. Recently, though, our friends at Kolarivision, who had contributed a lot to our database on filter stack thickness, asked us to do some independent resolution testing for them.
They had modified some Sony a7R cameras, removing most of the thick sensor stack and replacing it with thinner Schott BG39 glass (I do not know the exact thickness of the replacement glass, but it is described as 'significantly thinner'). The replacement glass closely matched the original IR transmission, maintaining accurate colors, but, in theory at least, should improve resolution on wide-angle, wide-aperture, short-backfocus distance lenses. In other words, it should improve the performance of the a7R using wide-angle Leica and other M-mount lenses designed for film. Continue reading →