Can any lens match the 1DsM3's resolution?

[timescapes]

I've seen some posts and tests online that suggest there are very few - if any - lenses that can resolve the full 21mp of the Canon 1Ds Mark III.  Is this true?  Is this something to worry about?  I'm looking for a good, fast wide-angle for the 1DsM3.  Minimum specs: at least 20mm wide - f/2.8.

Thanks.

[Tim Gray]

did you see this?

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml

I guess the answer is "It depends"  - lot of help...

Having said that, my sense is that regardless of the lens' resolving power, the issues of shooting technique (ie: if you generally hand hold - 21mpx is probably only good for giving you crop space) and diffraction limitations probably have more impact than resolving power, or lack thereof.

I also note that the Rebel 450d has a pixel pitch of 5.3um compared to the 1ds3 at 6.4um.

[Mike W]

I've seen some posts and tests online that suggest there are very few - if any - lenses that can resolve the full 21mp of the Canon 1Ds Mark III.  Is this true?  Is this something to worry about?  I'm looking for a good, fast wide-angle for the 1DsM3.  Minimum specs: at least 20mm wide - f/2.8.

Thanks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204795\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You might have a problem on your hands there....Most all wide-angles by Canon suck.
The 16-35mm has it's issues, I've heard....
the 24mm 1.4 is fast but not wide enough, and most copies aren't really sharp...
Maybe you should look at a Zeiss 21mm in Canon mount?
I haven't tested the 20mm though, it might be worth a shot since it only costs 400€ or so.

Personally, I've also been looking for a very high performing system with decent wide-angle lenses (that won't cost an arm and/or a leg).
I'm going for the Nikon D700 and a Nikkor 20mm, although the 17-35 is a great lens too (just to expensive compared to the 20mm). I've heard quite a lot of good things about the 14-24mm as well.

I guess it all depends on the system you've invested in in the past (you didn't say)?

regards,

Mike

[Christopher]

only a few examples
Leica R 19mm
Zeiss 21mm
Leica R 28mm
Zeiss 35-70
Some Canon lenses above 50mm

[carl dw]

I've seen some posts and tests online that suggest there are very few - if any - lenses that can resolve the full 21mp of the Canon 1Ds Mark III.  Is this true?  Is this something to worry about?  I'm looking for a good, fast wide-angle for the 1DsM3.  Minimum specs: at least 20mm wide - f/2.8.

Thanks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204795\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I use the Zeiss 21mm 2.8 on a Mk3.

The drawback is, of course, manual everything. But if you can deal with that (and it doesn't take too much getting used to) the results are truly stunning. The lens produces a look all of it's own. I find myself shooting at 2.8 and 4 most of the time and enjoy a nice razor sharp, reasonably shallow depth of field corner to corner which pulls subjects out from the background - even at this short focal length. There is no CA. That's right, none...even in the corners, zero!

I understand one reason this quality of lens cannot be produced these days is the ban on using lead in glass...thanks very much EEC!

I have a bag full of Canon glass but find I only really use the Zeiss 21mm, Zeiss 60mm Macro and Canon 85 1.2.

I use Contax to Canon adapters from "happypagehk" via Ebay. They are good quality, have a focus confirm chip and if you tell him what lens you're using he even programs the chip with the appropriate meta data for Photoshop/Lightroom and the like.

Since the arrival of my Mk3 my three 'L' zooms and 50mm 1.4 are now dust collectors!

[dwdallam]

only a few examples
Leica R 19mm
Zeiss 21mm
Leica R 28mm
Zeiss 35-70
Some Canon lenses above 50mm
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204836\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Specifically the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 L IS.

[Christopher]

Specifically the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 L IS.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204940\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes and no. In the cneter yes 100% in the corners, not really try the leica 80-200 or a 135 or 200 prime and you will see the difference.

Still I would use the 70-200 because it is a great range. I only prefer the f4 IS to my f2.8 IS

[KevinA]

A decent lens has always been important in photography, now with 100% viewing the norm, they have never been tested so much by so many before.
Having said that I don't think more pixels is all about more detail, neither do I think a lens gets any worse because it has more pixels to cover, I have no idea if any lenses I used on 5x4 could resolve everything film was capable of recording. I could even argue that I can crop more fuzzy edges off my 17-40mm and still have a decent file, not that is why I shoot a lot of wide angle images.
I just shot some night images from a helicopter, at 1/30th - 1/100th of a second we had a 20-30knt gusting wind from the wrong direction. I'm really glad I've got 21mp of image as they are being printed at 500mm, so after a bit of straightening, cropping I still have enough to reach 500mm without much resizing etc.
I don't think resizing by any method is as good as having the "real thing" to hand. The 14bits helped too when digging into the images.
Here's one I did not for the client, but stock for my library. I really like having  21 sharp mp's to play with. This has a sloping horizon cropped, a straight horizon made the buildings look odd. 25mm with the 17-40mm f4.5 1/60th.
I have a 14mp camera as well there is more in the 21mp despite the dodgy Canon 17-40mm lens.

Kevin.

 [attachment=7315:attachment]

[budjames]

Cool shot. What is the name of that city?

Bud

[KevinA]

Cool shot. What is the name of that city?

Bud
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205202\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

London, Canary Wharf on the Isle of Dogs.

Kevin.