Wait for the D3x or stay with the 1DsMkIII?

[picnic]

Both are quite dated lenses, not for high resolution digital. I guess Canon will come out soon with the new 24-70, of course IS, and higher resolution.

Unfortunately, the new 16-35mm is not a stellar lens either, and the 50mm f/1.2 got bad reviews.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205774\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Depends upon how old 'old is' LOL.   The 24-70L came out the end of 2002--I bought one of the first in Dec. 2002 from B & H.  It replaced the older 28-70, but the 24-70L certainly came out after digital.  I don't know about the 35L.

diane

[Dennishh]

This all keeps coming around full circle time after time. If you ask 20 guys how their 24-70 is you'll get 15 that say it's the greatest and 5 that say it's no good. I just tried out a 35 1.4L and found it to be soft at 1.4 so I took it back, but I have seen many samples of images at 1.4 that are just spectacular. My 24-70II is one of the great ones because I tested three lenses before I bought it. This variation is present in every lens I tested, so that's the norm for me now, especially with the 1DsMk3. Nikon seems to have solved the quality and resolution issue with their new lenses. I will be getting the 14-24g lens when my adapter arrives this month. This will give me the ability to use Canon or Nikon with just another purchase of the 24-70G.

[Czornyj]

Nikon seems to have solved the quality and resolution issue with their new lenses. I will be getting the 14-24g lens when my adapter arrives this month. This will give me the ability to use Canon or Nikon with just another purchase of the 24-70G.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206270\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nikon didn't solve anything. There were some reports about defected 24-70 and 14-24's alredy. In www.photozone.de test Nikkor AF-S24-70/2.8G exhibited strong field curvature, and many people confirmed that issue. On the other hand Bjorn Roslett's copies didn't exhibit anything like that, and - BTW - neither did my copy - it's perfect, even @24mm f/2.8, much better than AF-S28-70/2.8, and AF35-70/2.8
There were also some single reports of softness issues in both cases (14-24 & 24-70).

So you'd better watch out!

[Dennishh]

I will do as always and test three 14-24's and let you know what I find. I've seen some images that some friends have shot that are much better than the 16-35, but time will tell.

[Conner999]

As pixel densities climb on a given sensor size, the quality of the lenses needed to properly feed that sensor jumps in a step-wise fashion.

Interesting related thread to this one and also chats about Leica and Zeiss/Contax and Zeiss/Cosina glass:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/663648

While I (currently) shoot the 1Ds2, the one big advantage of the 'new' Nikon we're seeing right now is that they are starting to release stellar new 'digital ready' (for lack of a better term) lenses such as the 14-24 & 24-70 -- and there is every expectation and indication they will continue to update existing designs accordingly.  In short, as a Nikon shooter your wait time for lenses that match or better your new body will be shorter.

When I look at Canon all I see is more of the same slow evolutionary "why bother upgrading?" camera updates (5D2? = 40D+5D+14-16MP) and NO action on any lenses short of the uber-spendy longer sports glass - the segment they've typically poured $$$ into.

They need to start getting all their oars pulling in synch ASAP. Releasing new bodies that outperform the vast majority of your sub 300mm/2.8 lenses is NOT a smart move even in teh short-term; not any more.

[jmwscot]

A few weeks back I bought the DsMkIII and I am fairly happy with the results. Good camera no doubt, but disappointingly the flaws of the canon lenses have now become more than visible. having used a 5d everything was sort of fine for the last two years, but on the Mk III most lenses really suck. My 35/1.4 horror!!!, my 24-70/2.8 @ 24 horror!!! The only lenses that seem to match the resolution are my 50/1.2 and my 85/1.2-II. I am not looking for speed or wheater sealed bodies, all i really need is maximum image quality (and not MF!). Having been a nikon shooter for quite some time, i switched to canon with the 1DS, like so many others, but wouldn't mind going back to nikon, since the nikon lenses apparently are so much better. is that so? what to do? I am really a bit lost right now. Has anybody seen pictures taken with the miraculous 24-70/2.8 nikon zoom? is it really so much better than canon 24-70? and is it worth changing the entire equipment, if minor sharpness gain can be achieved in lightroom or aperture?

Don't get me wrong: i really like canon, the simplicity of its menues, but e.g. the screen on the MKIII is a bad joke and i just payed 7000 euro for a camera with the same image quality than the 5d.

I am sure I am not alone!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204847\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Dennishh]

"[When I look at Canon all I see is more of the same slow evolutionary "why bother upgrading?" camera updates (5D2? = 40D+5D+14-16MP) and NO action on any lenses short of the uber-spendy longer sports glass - the segment they've typically poured $$$ into.

They need to start getting all their oars pulling in synch ASAP. Releasing new bodies that outperform the vast majority of your sub 300mm/2.8 lenses is NOT a smart move even in the short-term; not any more."


Exactly!!!! This is why Nikon finally catching up is so good for us all. If canon wants to stay competitive and meet the needs of professionals it will have to wake up to the reality of those needs. First with lenses and second with less expensive 1 series cameras, that don't break the bank every year or so. Another question is how long can DSLR's keep the same format without a design change to a larger sensor and how that will impact the lens purchases we now are making?  If 2 1/4 systems come down in price and increase performance, just a little more, it might be time to get the system and just upgrade the back as needed.

[KevinA]

As pixel densities climb on a given sensor size, the quality of the lenses needed to properly feed that sensor jumps in a step-wise fashion.

I don't see this, yes it would be nice if the lenses could resolve what the sensor is capable of, but because there are now more pixels in a given area does not make the lens resolve any less than it did on lesser pixels. In fact I think Canon might of altered something in their sensors to improve wide angle performance on the 1DsmkIII, that's just a gut feeling at present. Until my long awaited return of my smkII I can't compare like for like side by side.

Kevin.

[BernardLanguillier]

I don't see this, yes it would be nice if the lenses could resolve what the sensor is capable of, but because there are now more pixels in a given area does not make the lens resolve any less than it did on lesser pixels.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206912\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, but if they don't resolve more the higher pixel count camera has little value.

Regards,
Bernard

[KevinA]

No, but if they don't resolve more the higher pixel count camera has little value.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206914\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Assuming that the "older" sensor was getting all it could out of all your lenses.

When scanning film, the scan was never done on what was the perceived definition retained in the image, no one gave it a second thought, it got scanned for output size.
It was not long ago when people claimed 3-4mpx's was all you ever needed and 8-10mpx's was showing up the lenses. i know I much prefer the images out of the smkIII compared to the smkII regardless of lens performance and I like the bigger file, call me weird but I would prefer even bigger files even if the lens performance was no better. There are digital artifacts that stay smaller as the image is cropped or enlarged. If you were happy say making 20x30's from a 5D, you should be even happier with 20x30's from nearly double the pixel count even with the same lens, just less computer made digital stuff to get in the way.
Yes I would like much better performing lenses.

Regards,

Kevin.

[riccohn]

yes i hope for the 24-70 mkII !!!  (snip)

and i have tried microadjustment and USM all the way. but it just makes a bad lens a little less worse.

I agree. Of all my lenses, my 24-70 looks the worst on the 1DsM3. It may not be a good sample. I had it adjusted by Canon with no improvement.

Of my other lenses, my 70-200 f4 IS looks really nice. 17-40mm so-so. My 50mm Macro is only OK. My 90mm TSE and 100 mm Macro look great. I'd say these 2 lenses definitely have the resolution to take advantage of the chip.

Ric