The Holding Tank
Photography
RSS 2.0 Feed
| Photos
& Themes
RSS | Hardware | Technical |
Links | Books and Magazines
| Downloads |
Hardware
| Lens Data and Reviews | Lens Selection | Long Lens Selection | Wide Range Zooms | Consumer Zooms |
| Macro Equipment | Tilt and Shift Lenses | My Bags | My Old Hardware |
| My New Hardware | Lens MTF Comparison | Lens Tests | Weather Protection | Canon AF System |
This page summarizes some of my own
deliberations on selecting lenses for my Canon 20D and whatever may follow it.
As such it inherently includes my own bias,
for which I do not apologise, and is presented as is with no warranty, use at
your own risk etc etc.
Read the MTF
Data Overview.
20mm Region
24mm Region
28mm Region
35mm Region
50mm Region
85mm Region A
85mm Region B
100mm Region
135mm Region
200mm Region
There are more issues at shorter focal
lengths than at long, partly because of the more difficult design optimisations,
but also because Canon has a limited range of fixed focal length lenses below
24mm.
The zooms (other than the kit
zoom) perform very well over the APS-C frame but show much more differentiation
over the 35mm format frame coverage where the prime lenses are clearly superior.
Looking at the relative
performances the only really bad (relatively) lens is the 18-55mm kit zoom. The
other zooms fall into the second tier of performance being 10-20% worse than the
primes.
At maximum aperture for many cases the major maximum aperture
differentiation for contrast, detail and bokeh are beyond the frame of APS-C
sensors.
Generally, all the large aperture primes
performed well, even the 28mm f1.8 which had a lacklustre stopped down
performance.
Also take a look at:
Photodo / Canon MTF Cross Validation
It is interesting to find out which lenses
are limiting the image resolution, rather than the sensor being the dominant
limiting factor. To work this out relies on modelling
the lens spatial frequency response as a low pass filter. There are a number
of problems with this, firstly the lens frequency response will be a composite
of several functions and not a simple function. Secondly, Canon have only
provided MTF data for two points, 10 and 30 lp/mm, this is not much to base a
trend on.
So the accuracy of this analysis is limited,
and at best it perhaps provides an indication of how quickly the lens MTF
response decays to minimal contrast, a value of MTF=0.1 is chosen. At worst, the
plots may be trying to squeeze to much data out of too little information and so
be meaningless.
In these plots spatial frequencies (f) above 80 lp/mm are not plotted as this method is probably grossly inaccurate when the MTF gradient between 10 and 30 lp/mm is low.
Sensor resolution is limited to about 40
to 80 lp/mm for the EOS 20D and EOS 1Ds depending on what assumptions are
made in respect if anti-alias filter losses and losses due to geometric
orientation.
This is an important factor in terms of being
able to get the best out of future sensor developments. Clearly sensor
resolution limits are less of a problem for a larger format of a given sensor
resolution.
At 10mm the only information we have is from
the 10-22mm zoom, This seems to be mostly above the sensor limit.
Here some of the lenses are falling below the
sensor limit as the edge of the lens is approached, the 16-35mm zoom seems to be
the worst offender.
Here two zooms show up most significantly as
likely to be a limiting factor, the 24-70mm and the 17-40mm.

Here again the two zooms show up as most
significantly limiting, the 24-70mm and the 17-40mm and also the 28mm f1.8.
Here the most obviously limiting is the
17-40mm zoom.
There are no studied lenses that look likely
to be resolution limiting in this range.
The results of this section are somewhat
suspect and should be treated with some caution.
However, it seems this is only an issue at
and below 35mm with current sensor technology with the most significantly
resolution limiting lenses being zooms down to 24mm focal lengths.
As around 20mm focal lengths, the prime
lenses may start limiting very fine resolution at the edges of the 35mm frame.
This does not generally seem to be a major
issue for APS-C sized sensors at the lens frequency response remains good up to
the edge of the frame.
Note that it is also possible to use this fit
method to estimate the MTF at detail
resolutions higher than 30 lp/mm to scale the 35mm fine detail contrast standard
to the APS-C sensor size, this would be an equivalent resolution of 48 lp/mm
for a 1.6X crop factor sensor. This does not tend to provide much information
over that obtained directly however, as lens performance is less well
differentiated.
Times have changed since I was last in the
market for a lens system. In those days lenses were manual focus, almost
exclusively via linear extension, all lenses indicted the focused distance. Also
almost all (can’t think of any exceptions) included depth of field markings,
even zooms as most were of the trombone style.
Things have changed, now one has to consider
if these features are available or not, plus there is a variety of auto focus
actuators (motors).
Below is a table of lens information for the
lenses studied. Lenses with a mass 700g and over are highlighted in orange,
previous experience shows these become tiresome to use and have around the neck.
Anything over 1Kg is highlighted in red.
See IMATEST and DxO Analyzer for a discussion of these lens test methods.
|
Make |
Model |
Dia
mm |
Length
mm |
Volume mm^3 |
Mass
g |
Filter
Size |
FE
Rotation |
Focusing |
Reviews / Tests |
|
CANON |
83.2 |
136.2 |
740481 |
765 |
72mm |
AN |
RFS |
[1] [2] [3] | |
|
CANON |
82.5 |
112.0 |
598709 |
750 |
72mm |
AN |
RFS |
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] | |
|
CANON |
69.2 |
98.4 |
370081 |
390 |
52mm |
AN |
RFS |
[1] [2] [3] | |
|
CANON |
79.0 |
119.0 |
583299 |
600 |
58mm |
N |
IFS |
[1] [2] [3] [4] | |
|
CANON |
91.5 | 84.0 | 552418 | 1025 | 72mm | [1] [2] [3] | |||
|
CANON |
75.0 |
71.5 |
315877 |
425 |
58mm |
AN |
RFS |
[1] [2] [3] | |
|
CANON |
84.6 |
193.6 |
1088268 |
1310 |
77mm |
|
IFS |
[1] [2] [3] [4] | |
|
CANON |
86.2 |
197.0 |
1149663 |
1470 |
77mm |
|
IFS |
[1] [2] [3] [4] | |
|
CANON |
76.0 |
172.0 |
780271 |
705 |
67mm |
N |
IFS |
[1] [2] [3] [4] | |
|
CANON |
76.0 |
172.0 |
780271 |
7 |
67mm |
N |
IFS |
[1] [2] | |
|
CANON |
85.4 | 65.5 |
375186 |
545 |
72mm |
[1] [2] | |||
|
CANON |
73.8 |
50.5 |
216020 |
290 |
58mm |
|
OLE |
[1] [2] [3] [4] | |
|
CANON |
68.2 |
41.0 |
149776 |
130 |
52mm |
|
OLE |
[1] [2] [3] [4] | |
|
CANON |
67.4 |
42.5 |
151635 |
210 |
52mm |
|
OLE |
[1] [2] [3] | |
|
CANON |
83.5 |
77.4 |
423842 |
550 |
72mm |
AN |
RFS |
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] | |
|
CANON |
73.6 |
55.6 |
236549 |
310 |
58mm |
AN |
RFS |
[1] [2] [3] [4] | |
|
CANON |
67.4 |
42.5 |
151635 |
185 |
52mm |
|
OLE |
[1] [2] [3] | |
|
CANON |
83.2 |
123.5 |
671434 |
950 |
77mm |
|
FFM |
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] | |
|
CANON |
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM |
83.5 | 107 | 585931 | 670 | 77mm | N | IFS | |
|
CANON |
83.5 |
77.4 |
423842 |
550 |
77mm |
AN |
RFS |
[1] [2] [3] | |
|
CANON |
67.5 |
48.5 |
173556 |
270 |
58mm |
AN |
RFS |
[1] [2] | |
|
CANON |
77.5 |
70.6 |
333041 |
405 |
72mm |
AN |
RFS |
[1] [2] [3] [4] | |
|
CANON |
69.0 |
66.2 |
247540 |
190 |
58mm |
|
OLE |
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] | |
|
CANON |
EF-S
17-55mm f/2.8 IS |
83.5 |
110.6 |
605645 |
645 |
77mm |
|
|
[1] [2] [3] |
|
TOKINA
|
17mm
f/3.5 AT-X PRO (CANON AF) [1] |
84.0 |
57.0 |
315881 |
435 |
77mm |
|
Internal
Floating Element |
[1] |
|
CANON |
83.5 |
96.8 |
530076 |
500 |
77mm |
N |
|
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] | |
|
CANON |
88.5 | 111.6 | 686589 | 635 | 82mm | N | IFS |
[1] | |
|
CANON |
EF
16 35 mm f/2.8 L USM |
83.5 |
103.0 |
564027 |
600 |
77mm |
N |
IFS |
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5a] [5b] |
|
CANON |
83.5 |
89.8 |
491744 |
385 |
77mm |
|
IFS |
[1] [2] [3] [4] |
|
Make |
Model |
AF
Actuator |
FTMF |
Distance
Scale |
DOF
Scale |
Zoom
Control |
Extends When Zoomed |
Max
Mag |
Closest
Focus M |
Dec 04 Price UOS |
|
CANON |
EF
200mm f/2.8 L USM MK2 |