[Rover]

I can kind of see why they did that with a super zoom (Sony and other ML brands relying on autocorrection when designing premium class lenses is rather more inexplicable, in my book), but the degree of the vignetting is rather jarring to put it mildly.

Makes me wonder if the identical (spec-wise) Sony lens is different / really better in this regard. I fully expect Klaus to avoid testing it for a variety of reasons though - and not that I blame him for such a decision if he does...

[wim]

Toni, with a RX100 or the others you can't do 50mm f1.2. Nor 85mm f1.2. Nor even 35mm f1.8. So, that is your answer. Cameras with lens mounts and separate lenses are not meant as a single lens camera. You can make it be a 24-240mm camera when you want that one day, and a 85mm f1.2 portrait special the next day.

And with 240mm f6.3 on FF, you do get shallow DOF (240 / 6.3 = 38mm aperture after all).

It is just that, "a convenient super zoom lens". I have never been a superzoom lens customer (never looked at any of the 18-200mm APS-C lenses or any FF equivalent), but I realize that other people might have a want for one.

---

Disappointing ... https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf24-240-f4-63/image/spec/spec-mtf.png

Looks not bad for a superzoom, to be frank.

Comparing it to the Nikkor 28-300mm:
https://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/e/Q5NM96RZZo-fTYlSZPBjlMhlFa1VHARsAMnUXbUr7JVMy59DqMksG-PXFl7J9v-FTV4SAbYhgfatpJWqkPJdzAwsgWRMuL--/Misc/AFS_28_300_ED_VR_MTF_w.jpg
https://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/e/Q5NM96RZZo-fTYlSZPBjlMhlFa1VHARsAMnUXbUr7JVMy59DqMksG-PXFl7J9v-FTV4SAbYhgfatpJWqkPJdzAwsgWRMuL--/Misc/AFS_28_300_ED_VR_MTF_t.jpg

The effective resolution on the 30mp EOS R will be lower than the effective resolution of the 12-100mm PRO on a 20mp MFT body ...

https://asia.olympus-imaging.com/content/000085683.gif

I doubt that for 3 reasons.

1. The center resolution for the lens seems pretty ok wide open. So you will get more "effective resolution" on 30mp on your subject for sure, it is not like 30mp is too taxing.
   
2. The Canon RF 24-105 f4 24mm Canon MTF chart is not that different from this 24-240mm lens, and that 24-105mm lens did a very good job when it comes to image resolution, according to some reviewer based in Australia.
   
3. The charts for the Olympus lens are for.... f4 on MFT. That is equivalent to f8 on FF. The charts for the Canon lens are for f4 on 24mm, and f6.3 on 240mm.
   

Other points:

• The Olympus does not do 240mm FF equivalent.
  
• I don't know of any 20MP MFT bodies that have an AA-filter, so the "resolution" will be contaminated with false detail and fake sharpness due to aliasing anyway, so any comparison is moot.
  

Besides that, the Olympus is a sharp lens of course, that is apparent. In FF terms, a sharp, slow 24-200mm f8 lens. A slow lens that weighs 239 grams less than the faster Canon 24-240mm f4-6.3 lens. A slow lens that is weather sealed, and $200 more expensive.

BC, I wish you would stop doing this. The Oly 12-100 F/4 is an F/4 lens. The only equivalent bit aperture wise is that it has the same DoF as an F/8 lens on FF, but it still is an F/4 lens.

Thank you in advance.

Kind regards, Wim

[Rover]

Just ignore that part, Wim.

[Brightcolours]

Toni, with a RX100 or the others you can't do 50mm f1.2. Nor 85mm f1.2. Nor even 35mm f1.8. So, that is your answer. Cameras with lens mounts and separate lenses are not meant as a single lens camera. You can make it be a 24-240mm camera when you want that one day, and a 85mm f1.2 portrait special the next day.

And with 240mm f6.3 on FF, you do get shallow DOF (240 / 6.3 = 38mm aperture after all).

It is just that, "a convenient super zoom lens". I have never been a superzoom lens customer (never looked at any of the 18-200mm APS-C lenses or any FF equivalent), but I realize that other people might have a want for one.

---

Disappointing ... https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf24-240-f4-63/image/spec/spec-mtf.png

Looks not bad for a superzoom, to be frank.

Comparing it to the Nikkor 28-300mm:
https://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/e/Q5NM96RZZo-fTYlSZPBjlMhlFa1VHARsAMnUXbUr7JVMy59DqMksG-PXFl7J9v-FTV4SAbYhgfatpJWqkPJdzAwsgWRMuL--/Misc/AFS_28_300_ED_VR_MTF_w.jpg
https://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/e/Q5NM96RZZo-fTYlSZPBjlMhlFa1VHARsAMnUXbUr7JVMy59DqMksG-PXFl7J9v-FTV4SAbYhgfatpJWqkPJdzAwsgWRMuL--/Misc/AFS_28_300_ED_VR_MTF_t.jpg

The effective resolution on the 30mp EOS R will be lower than the effective resolution of the 12-100mm PRO on a 20mp MFT body ...

https://asia.olympus-imaging.com/content/000085683.gif

I doubt that for 3 reasons.

1. The center resolution for the lens seems pretty ok wide open. So you will get more "effective resolution" on 30mp on your subject for sure, it is not like 30mp is too taxing.
   
2. The Canon RF 24-105 f4 24mm Canon MTF chart is not that different from this 24-240mm lens, and that 24-105mm lens did a very good job when it comes to image resolution, according to some reviewer based in Australia.
   
3. The charts for the Olympus lens are for.... f4 on MFT. That is equivalent to f8 on FF. The charts for the Canon lens are for f4 on 24mm, and f6.3 on 240mm.
   

Other points:

• The Olympus does not do 240mm FF equivalent.
  
• I don't know of any 20MP MFT bodies that have an AA-filter, so the "resolution" will be contaminated with false detail and fake sharpness due to aliasing anyway, so any comparison is moot.
  

Besides that, the Olympus is a sharp lens of course, that is apparent. In FF terms, a sharp, slow 24-200mm f8 lens. A slow lens that weighs 239 grams less than the faster Canon 24-240mm f4-6.3 lens. A slow lens that is weather sealed, and $200 more expensive.

BC, I wish you would stop doing this. The Oly 12-100 F/4 is an F/4 lens. The only equivalent bit aperture wise is that it has the same DoF as an F/8 lens on FF, but it still is an F/4 lens.

Thank you in advance.

Kind regards, Wim

It is equivalent to an FF f8 lens, Wim.

---

Toni, with a RX100 or the others you can't do 50mm f1.2. Nor 85mm f1.2. Nor even 35mm f1.8. So, that is your answer. Cameras with lens mounts and separate lenses are not meant as a single lens camera. You can make it be a 24-240mm camera when you want that one day, and a 85mm f1.2 portrait special the next day.

And with 240mm f6.3 on FF, you do get shallow DOF (240 / 6.3 = 38mm aperture after all).

It is just that, "a convenient super zoom lens". I have never been a superzoom lens customer (never looked at any of the 18-200mm APS-C lenses or any FF equivalent), but I realize that other people might have a want for one.

---

Disappointing ... https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf24-240-f4-63/image/spec/spec-mtf.png

Looks not bad for a superzoom, to be frank.

Comparing it to the Nikkor 28-300mm:
https://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/e/Q5NM96RZZo-fTYlSZPBjlMhlFa1VHARsAMnUXbUr7JVMy59DqMksG-PXFl7J9v-FTV4SAbYhgfatpJWqkPJdzAwsgWRMuL--/Misc/AFS_28_300_ED_VR_MTF_w.jpg
https://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/e/Q5NM96RZZo-fTYlSZPBjlMhlFa1VHARsAMnUXbUr7JVMy59DqMksG-PXFl7J9v-FTV4SAbYhgfatpJWqkPJdzAwsgWRMuL--/Misc/AFS_28_300_ED_VR_MTF_t.jpg

The effective resolution on the 30mp EOS R will be lower than the effective resolution of the 12-100mm PRO on a 20mp MFT body ...

https://asia.olympus-imaging.com/content/000085683.gif

I doubt that for 3 reasons.

1. The center resolution for the lens seems pretty ok wide open. So you will get more "effective resolution" on 30mp on your subject for sure, it is not like 30mp is too taxing.
   
2. The Canon RF 24-105 f4 24mm Canon MTF chart is not that different from this 24-240mm lens, and that 24-105mm lens did a very good job when it comes to image resolution, according to some reviewer based in Australia.
   
3. The charts for the Olympus lens are for.... f4 on MFT. That is equivalent to f8 on FF. The charts for the Canon lens are for f4 on 24mm, and f6.3 on 240mm.
   

Other points:

• The Olympus does not do 240mm FF equivalent.
  
• I don't know of any 20MP MFT bodies that have an AA-filter, so the "resolution" will be contaminated with false detail and fake sharpness due to aliasing anyway, so any comparison is moot.
  

Besides that, the Olympus is a sharp lens of course, that is apparent. In FF terms, a sharp, slow 24-200mm f8 lens. A slow lens that weighs 239 grams less than the faster Canon 24-240mm f4-6.3 lens. A slow lens that is weather sealed, and $200 more expensive.

BC, I wish you would stop doing this. The Oly 12-100 F/4 is an F/4 lens. The only equivalent bit aperture wise is that it has the same DoF as an F/8 lens on FF, but it still is an F/4 lens.

Thank you in advance.

Kind regards, Wim

It is equivalent to an FF f8 lens, Wim.

[wim]

....

It is equivalent to an FF f8 lens, Wim.

That may be true when it comes to DoF, aperture wise, but it still is an F/4 lens. As mentioned before, the difference is the image circle size. It still is F/4.

However, I'd like you to stop dissing lenses because of this. It still is as complex to design and manufacture as a FF lens, and requires even higher precision to get the most out of it.

You could actually tackle this from a more positive way than you normally do, just list pros and cons.

The main thing is that because of the smaller sensor and therefore limited image circle you will have more noise, as total light collected cirstumcances being the same is less, and therefore there is a limit to what iso you can use to get similar noise levels.

However, any crop type camera shooter accepts this, along with the increase in DoF.

MTF isn't actually any worse, because F/4 is F/4 with any lens, as mentioned before. Optical diffraction is limited by absolute aperture, not by equivalent aperture. Therefore, a 12-100 F/4 MFT lens is not the same as a 24-200 F/8 FF lens. All you can say is that it behaves from an FL and DoF POV as a 24-200 F/8 lens. However, light gathering is the same as any F/4 lens, just over a smaller image circle.

Kind regards, Wim

[JJ_SO]

Wim, I'm fully with you.

I don't know why would anyone get a useful information out of this constant blahhh about equivalencing. It's like going out, saying "it feels a bit chilly" and looking at the temperature scale. 10°C, alright, we have a number. I will not be able to pre-feel the temperature better next time when one adds "that's equivalent to 50°F".

I say, none of us would be able to look at a scene, pre-visualize the frame and then grabs a 173 mm lens, because that's what's needed. Like Rover put it one day "da wide and da wider" or something like that.

Or go somewhere and know in advance "the tree will be 16.87 m tall, I need 0.8 m Air above and my own standpoint need to be at 3.67 m to get 4 m grass in front of the tree. Now a bit triangulation or some vector-analysis and I know, I can get away with a 16 mm lens on an APS-C, but oopsy, I only have a GFX 50 and the frame proportion is different (like in µ 4/3, that's what makes this equivalencurbation extra stupid), so I start the calculation again. before I pack my bag, before I go there with my ladder and my 4 m high tripod.

All this math is entirely useless when I need to know which lens to take in advance. You learnt it, maybe very hard, BC, and now you pop up at nearly each occasion to say "it's equivalent to 50°F" as if one would care and you start discussions we continuously had for like a billion times.

I simply didn't figure out until today, what's in for you? Except getting everybody to walk away from a discussion about a 10× zoom from Canon?

[Rover]

Yeah I had said something along these lines. Nice to see that I'm becoming a meme maker around here.

I don't understand all that obsession about numbers either, but maybe that's what gives some people fun and gratification.

[JJ_SO]

Yeah I had said something along these lines. Nice to see that I'm becoming a meme maker around here.
...

And proof-reader as a side-job with lots of time to kill, as there's not much to proof-read these days. All so good?

[Klaus]

However, light gathering is the same as any F/4 lens, just over a smaller image circle.

Yes, and assuming the same megpixels the MFT sensor collects 4x less light - so it's back to "f/8" here as well.
A lens without a camera is just a paperweight.

It's the end result that counts - nothing else.

[JJ_SO]

Oh no, not more bullshit and at the end, as usual, a generally binding sentence. That doesn't make the previous gibberish any better.

If the end result would really count for the equivalurbators, they would start to look at what an IBIS of an Olympus does offer for lower ISO instead of isolating single parameters and look at them.