Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: mholdef on October 03, 2005, 11:00:01 pm
-
I am soon going to purchase a Canon EOS 5D and want to be sure to buy the best optics in terms of sharpness, contrast, color, distorsion, etc.
I have for years been using Leica M and the lenses which are known for their very high quality.
First, I would like to know if I should expect all Canon lenses to behave similarly on the 5D compared to the 1Ds Mark II (given that both are full frame while however not having exactly the same sensor).
Second, will I obtain superior results with the following lenses compared particularly to the 24-70 f/2.8L lens (and if so, with which lenses and for which criteria):
- 24mm f/1.4L
- 28 f/1.8 or 28mm f/2.8 (Aside from lens speed, which lens is superior in terms of sharpness, contrast, color, distorsion, etc.?)
- 35 f/1.4L
- 50 f/1.4
- 85 f/1.8 or 100 f/2.0 (Which lens is superior in terms of sharpness, contrast, color, distorsion, etc.?)
In essence I am seeking the ultimate quality for my landscape and portrait use and want to have the most objective opinion possible.
Many thanks for your feedback as I want to invest wisely in my new system without regret.
Mark
-
I don't think you would be wrong for choosing the 24-70 f2.8l. It's image quality is likely as good as the primes you listed.
-
The 28 1.8 in my exp. is a dog, not sharp even after a trip to CPS.
And I sold my second 24-70 after 2 trips to Canon, it mostly was sharp but had huge problems with flare..Good but not great.
IMO not as good as the prime L's on my 1ds mark 2's.
the 50 1.4 I have is a ripper in 5.6 - 11 range, very very sharp,
in C1 I have to knock the sharpness out a fair bit for studio shots.
Also ahve a look at the 100 2.8 macro, very sharp lens.
David.
-
The 24-70/2.8L will hold its own against any of the f/2.8 primes in the same focal range, though it does have some easily correctable barrel distortion at the wide end. The 17-40/4L is better-corrected for barrel/pincushion, but is a bit soft at 17mm. The fast primes (f/1.4-f/2) 35mm on up are generally very good to excellent, especially the 135/2L, which is very very sharp even wide open.
-
Thanks everyone
Mark
-
I recently purchased the 28mm f/1.8. I find it to be pretty good. Sure it's not as sharp as the 85 or 50 f/1.4 when you look at the pixels at 100%, but the prints look great.
-
I'd skip the 28mm lenses, they aren't up to the same standards as the others you've listed. The 24mm L is excellent, but I'd only get it if you are looking to use if for low light work. If you're not, the 16-35mm f/2.8 L or 17-40mm f/4 L would likely serve you better for landscape work (shooting stopped down on a tripod). The zooms can be a little more variable in their quality, so test to make sure you're happy that the copy you end up with meets your standards. I'd also choose the 85mm f/1.2 L rather than the f/1.8 or the 100mm f/2.0 if you're really into portraiture. It's a phenomenal lens. Canon's L zooms are really quite good, any of the 70-200's are excellent, as is the 24-70 and 24-105mm L and wide zooms.
Summary: 35 L, 50, 85 L for available light work, L zooms for the rest...
Hope this helps!
-
Canon's L zooms are really quite good, any of the 70-200's are excellent, as is the 24-70 and 24-105mm L and wide zooms.
Summary: 35 L, 50, 85 L for available light work, L zooms for the rest...
Hope this helps!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51053\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I cannot recommend the 24-105mm L. Significant flare and distortion: (wide) and )long(.
-
I cannot recommend the 24-105mm L. Significant flare and distortion: (wide) and )long(.
It's a rather frightening prospect but I haven't noticed any flare problems with my copy yet even though the production number places it the category of faulty lenses.
The great advantage of the 24-105 is its IS (which the 24-70 doesn't have) and the longer reach. Whilst F4 maximum aperture might seem a bit limiting as regards shallow DoF, on a full frame sensor it's really quite shallow and those who are used to a 16-35/2.8 on an APS-C format will find that 24mm at f4 produces less DoF on a 5D than 16mm at f2.8 on an APS-C with the same (or similar) FoV.
I expect the 24-105 will be my most used lens on the 5D.
-
... but I haven't noticed any flare problems with my copy yet even though the production number places it the category of faulty lenses.
Ray,
I didn't noticea problem with mine either until i took a shot with a light source in it.
The problem is real so don't miss the chance to get your lense repaired.
N
-
Many Leica lenses work on the 5D, and every one you can mount on your Canon will be better than the Canon lenses you have listed.
If you want to see how those lovely Leica optics look on a 1Ds II, see here . . . (http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests)
The same site has information about where to buy EOS adaptors and which lenses are compatible. (http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/compatible.html)l The compatibility page is due for an update shortly: there are problems mounting some Leica lenses on the 5D that work fine with the 1Ds II, so give me a few days to do an update!
If you find the information useful, please click randomly and generously on the sponsored links before leaving: that way, Google pays my hosting bills and I can keep the site free!
-
>> - 28 f/1.8 or 28mm f/2.8 (Aside from lens speed, which lens is superior in terms of sharpness, contrast, color, distorsion, etc.?)
The 28/2.8 is the better one.
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/ca...28_18/index.htm (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_28_18/index.htm)
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/ca...28_28/index.htm (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_28_28/index.htm)
>> - 85 f/1.8 or 100 f/2.0 (Which lens is superior in terms of sharpness, contrast, color, distorsion, etc.?)
The 85/1.8 is a bit better.
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/8...0_135/index.htm (http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm)
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
-
I'm leery of reviews on the PhotoZone site, especially in a thread about lenses for a 5D, because they use a 350D with a 1.6 sensor for their tests. Their views on sharpness & their distortion charts omit the areas of FF where difficulties would appear.
I appreciate what they're trying to do, but wish they'd acquire a FF camera!
-
Hello,
How to consider to choose beetween a 135/2 and a 85/1.2 ?
Regards
exrty
-
Hello,
How to consider to choose beetween a 135/2 and a 85/1.2 ?
Regards
exrty
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52853\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's a question of focal length, not of lens performance. Both of these lenses are bitingly sharp and have beautiful bokeh, but they are noticeably different focal lengths. The only other deciding factor that I could think of is the auto focus speed of the 135mm will be faster - that, and the price.
-
That's the problem i'm used with 50mm and 100mm but not so much with my old FD 135/2,8.
I d'ont really know which one could be the more precious lens for any photographer.
-
>> I d'ont really know which one could be the more precious lens for any photographer.
It's not which one would be the more precious lens for any photographer, it's which one would best suite YOU. Consider trying first the 85/1.8 and 135/2.8. While not L, they are still extremely good.
http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox6.htm (http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox6.htm)
-
I already own a sigma 105 EX. I'm not sure to enjoy a 85/1.8.