Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: 1Ds Mark II, are the lenses going 2 be good enough  (Read 7617 times)

braindeadmac

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 33
    • http://www.jeffwrightphotography.com
1Ds Mark II, are the lenses going 2 be good enough
« on: November 11, 2004, 08:13:09 pm »

Quote
There are somewhat conflicting opinions about Canon L ultrawide lenses, but the great majority of reviews I've read have rated these lenses as being rather poor even for 1ds at the widest settings.  If this is even somewhat true, then Canon L ultrawides will be pretty hopeless for 1ds MKII if you want sharp corners at all focal lengths.  Are you planning to test any Zeiss distagon ultrawides with the 1dsMKII to see if they do substantially better than Canon L?
I don't know if Michael is planning on testing any, but I most likely will be. Of course, I don't have my 1Ds mkII yet, but my deposit has been paid. I currently have the 16-35 and the 24 TS/E.  I've rejected the canon offerings as a bit too expensive and heavy.  I'm looking to pick up a 35/1.4, 18, and 25 in the Contax Distagon family--go the ebay way; if it doesn't work out can always sell them again (for the same or more!). I'll probably compare these to the Canon zoom, as I don't own the primes. A great (and reasonably) lightweight kit I used when I owned my Nikons was the 20, 24, 35 1.4 (AIS), 35-70 2.8, and the 80-200....I later had the wider (and bigger/heavier) zooms, but never had the same warmy & fuzzy feeling about them.....

Since I keep hearing opinions, but am seeing no real data on this issue, I thought I'd try to post any examples of softness and CA on the web....
Logged

DiaAzul

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 777
    • http://photo.tanzo.org/
1Ds Mark II, are the lenses going 2 be good enough
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2004, 01:39:22 am »

Quote
I'm currently looking for an accomplice to help me stick up some recreational pharmaceutical delivery personnel so I can afford a 1Ds-MkII.
Your brave - most of the delivery companies in our area would not take too kindly to the action you are discussing. Surely it would be safer to wait for one to 'accidentally' fall of the back of a lorry
Logged
David Plummer    http://photo.tanzo.org/

didger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2030
1Ds Mark II, are the lenses going 2 be good enough
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2004, 01:53:39 pm »

Quote
10D I now use exclusively..... I bought a 17-40 f4L and a 70-200 f4L for use with my event shooting and am very impressed with them
I'm very convinced that 17-40 with 10D is a happy combination and that 10D is surely an ideal wedding shooting camera.  The confusion about trying to evalutate the Canon ultrawide zoom reviews is that often it's unclear what camera the lens was tried on; film 35mm, 6 Mpixel digital, or 1ds.  However, even with very qualified reviewers discussing 17-40 for 1ds, you get conflicting information.  This lens is frequently referred to as an excellent lens (even for 1ds) and it's frequently referred to as a dog. I have seen with my own eyes corner crops of real life photos with very noticeable softenss at 17mm.  Jonathan's Yosemite waterfall picture even showed this corner softness in an 800 pixel wide image.  Sample variations?  Different ideas what's "excellent"?  I'm not a corner softenss fan, so I'd want a lens to be very sharp corner to corner at all focal lengths before I'd call it "excellent".  In any case, I'm not buying any more zooms without personal testing of a few lenses to choose from.
Logged

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
1Ds Mark II, are the lenses going 2 be good enough
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2004, 03:43:51 pm »

Quote
Quote
Did you ever figure out which lens it was you used?

No hope of ever figuring that out.
By the above statement one can conclude that you have no EXIF data available for the lens.  Which further infers that it was indeed one of your Zeiss primes.  Which further infers at least one of your Zeiss primes has a severe falloff problem for at least one of its aperture settings...
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

didger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2030
1Ds Mark II, are the lenses going 2 be good enough
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2004, 05:28:35 pm »

Ooops, I hit reply too soon.  Here's the test images.

As for
Quote
A photograph for which "sharpness" is its main claim to fame is a sad photograph indeed
I don't think anyone is claiming this or would claim it.  However, we were not discussing test patterns exclusively, but very visible corner softness and falloff in actual real life landscape photos.  Sure, these defects may not be fatal and some folks have done great photography with 35mm film, but all other things being equal I want the best corners I can get and the overall best resolution.  That doesn't compromise what I do in the field.  I get out a LOT and my outings are hugely strenuous and I want the best possible results for all that effort.  That means the best possible equipment along with the getting out in the field as much as possible.  To each his own.
Quote
It hasn't descended into the mindless petty bickering....
Don't shop around too much in some of the other threads happening just now if you want to keep your good impression.  We really are generally more polite and kind and tolerant here than most forums, but now and then....
In any case I think Jack and I are both more interested in getting to the bottom of this than in equipment one-upmanship.  I'm ready to bail on any of my Zeiss lenses if I can find something (especially a zoom) that's actually substantially sharper.  I won't bail on any of my lenses for what I consider a minor falloff issue even if it turns out there's something with less corner fallof.  Easy enough to fix, but soft corners are pretty well impossible to fix and I don't want them.  I don't think I have them either.  The testing isn't that hard and I'm just not seeing any soft corners for any of my lenses at f11 (don't care about wide open).
Logged

didger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2030
1Ds Mark II, are the lenses going 2 be good enough
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2004, 08:53:18 pm »

Quote
No offense Didger, but it sounds like you've never tried it yourself...
Hey, no need to keep "no offense-ing" me.  I don't get offended over such things, only gratuitous personality slams.  I know there's a lot I don't know and I haven't ever done any BD correcting, but only read about the image degradation thing.
Quote
That is probably the WORST way to try and deal with falloff!
Yeah, I wasn't too clear.  I've occasionally done some doctoring of boring skies with cloud cloning and if a dark corner is involved...
Quote
Yours wasn't that.
I'll take your word for it.  Several people suggested that in the thread, so I figured, OK, maybe.  It must have been the 18mm lens, since the 28 and 35 have way way less falloff than that.  In fact as you can see from my test results here, the 18 images have less falloff than the other picture.  You'll also notice that the bottom corner falloff is less than top, which I've noticed before too, so why that image had such drastic falloff (though probably f11, and not f8 like the test strip here) is beyond me.  The 18mm picture on my "suggestions" thread also had very mild falloff that only one person commented on because he thought maybe it was intentional, since he thought it enhanced the image.  

In any case, the 18mm falloff I can live with, since usually it's pretty mild even before any correction and I don't see a problem with the 28 and 35mm lenses at all.
Quote
Sorry to burst your bubble
My photography bubble is made of indestructible material and has little to do with equipment; don't worry.

Anyway, I'd be interested to see what some 18, 28, and 35mm sky shots would look like with your Canon super lens.  Resolution tests are not quite so easy to do comparisons with from different locations, but sky shot falloff tests are pretty simple, so how about showing us?
Logged

didger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2030
1Ds Mark II, are the lenses going 2 be good enough
« Reply #6 on: November 13, 2004, 12:37:28 pm »

Hey, Jack, I'm so relieved and glad to note your positive and constructive and un-pis*ed-off response.  I was quaking a bit in anticipation of maybe a flamish response.  A bit paranoid, but I've been a target a little too much lately.

I'm aware that you tested several lenses before finding such a good one and I'm aware that even Zeiss primes could conceivably vary, but the total picture here implies a truly phenomenal magnitude of variations; more than I would have considered possible.  And to think that there's people that consider the whole sample variation issue a myth.  In any case I'll be very interested to see what we come up with.  I want to try my grid pattern shots like usual and a few Michael type "real life" test shots.  These aren't so great for comparing center with corner for the same lens, but just fine for comparing one lens with another.  By the time we finish we should have some interesting information about sample variations and Zeiss vs 16-35L.  It's almost beyond belief that Canon would have such expensive lenses with the extremely lax quality control standards that you've experienced with your tests of several 16-35 samples.  Tells me that buying a lens on ebay is never a good way to save a few bux; I'll pay the extra and the sales tax to pick a good lens in a store in the future.  I'm still keen to see about the quality of that new Tamron 17-35 and to see how much variation there is.  All the reviews have been good, so maybe even the worst samples aren't dogs.

I'm still working on making my super duper ultralight fiberglass cabover camper for my 4x4 truck.  As usual with such things, the farther I get along the more I realize just how big and challenging this project is.  It WILL get done, though, and then we can work out a mutually good time for me to come up your way.  I'm reluctant to make a time estimate, but I'm eager to get out again for some more shooting, so I won't dawdle.
Logged

Ben Rubinstein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1822
1Ds Mark II, are the lenses going 2 be good enough
« Reply #7 on: November 11, 2004, 04:36:42 pm »

On a comparison of the 100-400L to the 400mm, Micheal reiterates that for the1Ds only the best L lenses will 'do'.

I'm a wedding shooter  (and sometime landscape when I have the time!) and have been very pleased with the results of the 10D I now use exclusively. Infact since I bought one a month ago, my film cameras haven't fired a shot and my trays of film look so forlorn in the fridge...

I bought a 17-40 f4L and a 70-200 f4L for use with my event shooting and am very impressed with them. However my Sigma 28-70EX, although satisfactory on film, even up to 15X10" prints, pales in comparison when used on the digital.

I was wondering whether such a high resolution FF DSLR as the 1Ds Mark II is going to start showing even more shortcomings in canon's current lens lineup, to the point that those seeking to replace medium format with this camera, should bargain for a lot higher expenditure in lenses then they may have had to in the past?

I sold my Mamiya 645 system to pay for the 10D after being assured by the pro lab I use that at the max size I print for my landscape work, 18X12", I wouldn't be able to notice the difference. That said, I still wouldn't use the sigma, after seeing the quality of the pictures compared to those shot with canon's lenses. I'm not going to bother replacing it as with the X1.6 factor I do not find it a useful focal length anymore, but it would have been an extra expenditure I hadn't counted on, and maybe something extra that people should be taking into account when going digital.
Logged

didger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2030
1Ds Mark II, are the lenses going 2 be good enough
« Reply #8 on: November 11, 2004, 06:19:07 pm »

Quote
Something has to be the limiting factor. But, I would imagine that those looking for image quality to compete with medium format digital will want to use Canon's prime L lenses.
There are somewhat conflicting opinions about Canon L ultrawide lenses, but the great majority of reviews I've read have rated these lenses as being rather poor even for 1ds at the widest settings.  If this is even somewhat true, then Canon L ultrawides will be pretty hopeless for 1ds MKII if you want sharp corners at all focal lengths.  Are you planning to test any Zeiss distagon ultrawides with the 1dsMKII to see if they do substantially better than Canon L?
Logged

didger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2030
1Ds Mark II, are the lenses going 2 be good enough
« Reply #9 on: November 11, 2004, 09:07:15 pm »

Quote
18, and 25 in the Contax Distagon family--go the ebay way
I saw an 18 on ebay a while ago, but it's disappeared.  18's and 21's are extremely difficult to find, new or used.  25, 28, and 35 are very common.  The reviews for 25 are not as good as 28.  Any reason you prefer 25?  In any case there's plenty of 25's on ebay right now.
I hope you do get some distagon lenses.  I'll be very eager to see how they compare with your 16-35 and how any of these lenses work with 1dsMKII.  If you can really get the maximum advantage from the sensor so that the lenses are not the bottle neck then 1dsMKII should totally rival MF film for absolute enlargability and blow it away every other way.  Wow, I might have to take time out to hustle for some money if this is really the case.  I've already got a killer selection of lenses...
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
1Ds Mark II, are the lenses going 2 be good enough
« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2004, 12:10:02 am »

The reputation of the original 1Ds as being very demanding on lenses is well-deserved. I have a collection of mostly L glass, (a few of my primes are non-L, like the 100/2) and I've become intimately familiar with the shortcomings of all of my lenses. I don't see the 1Ds-MkII as being a waste even if ultimate resolution is lens-limited; having more pixels than the lens can resolve will still give you better color accuracy (more sensor pixels will increase the accuracy of Bayer interpolation within lens-resolvable detail) and the additional pixels will decrease the visibility of sensor noise in prints, which will make the 1Ds-MkII's lowered sensor noise at high ISO even more advantageous over the 1Ds.

I'm currently looking for an accomplice to help me stick up some recreational pharmaceutical delivery personnel so I can afford a 1Ds-MkII.
Logged

didger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2030
1Ds Mark II, are the lenses going 2 be good enough
« Reply #11 on: November 12, 2004, 05:51:49 am »

Quote
having more pixels than the lens can resolve will still give you better color accuracy (more sensor pixels will increase the accuracy of Bayer interpolation within lens-resolvable detail) and the additional pixels will decrease the visibility of sensor noise in prints
Very good points, and obvious enough now that you mention them.  Of course, I still hope there are some lenses (especially maybe distagon ultlrawides) that outresolve the sensor.  I want it all.

Can you forward me a recreational pharmaceutical delivery schedule for your neighborhood?  I think the action here is all too small.
Logged

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
1Ds Mark II, are the lenses going 2 be good enough
« Reply #12 on: November 12, 2004, 12:11:02 pm »

Quote
 Of course, I still hope there are some lenses (especially maybe distagon ultlrawides) that outresolve the sensor.  I want it all.
My offer to test the ones you have against Canon prime glass remains open -- I am unconvinced that using Contax (Zeiss) glass on Canon represents a marked improvement in image quality.
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

boku

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1493
    • http://www.bobkulonphoto.com
1Ds Mark II, are the lenses going 2 be good enough
« Reply #13 on: November 12, 2004, 01:14:40 pm »

Quote
I'm a wedding shooter  (and sometime landscape when I have the time!) and have been very pleased with the results of the 10D I now use exclusively.

I bought a 17-40 f4L and a 70-200 f4L for use with my event shooting and am very impressed with them. However my Sigma 28-70EX, although satisfactory on film, even up to 15X10" prints, pales in comparison when used on the digital.
For your application I would think you would be well served by adding a 50mm f/1.4 prime to your kit. Great for candids and available light portraits.
Logged
Bob Kulon

Oh, one more thing...[b

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
1Ds Mark II, are the lenses going 2 be good enough
« Reply #14 on: November 12, 2004, 02:38:35 pm »

Quote
 Your Canon 17-35mm Photodo 3.2.  
Yes, but I compared it to my 16-35 and that is avery different lens than the 17-35 Photodo tested...

As for my results being different:  First off, I am not a lone voice.  Several folks got the same results I did and quietly sold their Zeiss lenses before stating anything publicly -- I know this, we talked about it offline.  Second, most of us who did so tested against the expensive Canon L primes -- 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 -- while most of your Zeiss choir used the lesser f2.8 designs for comparison.  (The exception is the 20, and I agree the Zeiss 21 is superior -- but in my case, my 16-35 is superior to the two 20 primes I tested, and not too far off the Z21.)

Second, I believe it is because I am very picky and used a real test target and tested all apertures from a set position, and not just some images casually shot only at f8 in my front yard.

Lastly, I think a lot of it has to do with mob mentality -- three people at RG do a test of one Zeiss lens against one Canon prime and claim the Zeiss is far superior.  Then a dozen others buy the lenses and adapters, never really test them, but jump in and claim their superiority too.  FTR, my difference is I actually test them for myself, even though it may have been the early reports that encouraged me to do so.  

Furthermore, there seems to be a lot of incorrect assumptions floating around -- like Photodo said this or that and they must be right, or just like yours that I was using the older design 17-35.


Cheers,
Jack
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

didger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2030
1Ds Mark II, are the lenses going 2 be good enough
« Reply #15 on: November 12, 2004, 03:28:00 pm »

Quote
Did you ever figure out which lens it was you used?
No hope of ever figuring that out.  I was running around like mad to take advantage of the brief window of good light and quiet water.  I might also have had a polarizer on the lens.  In any case I've got lots of other pictures with all my lenses with uniform sky images without this sort of dark corners and my test grid shots show no significant differences in regards to corner performance for any of my 4 Zeisses and my 50mm Canon.

All in all, still a confusing situation.  I can't help but give weight to your opinions and experiences, so I won't feel convinced one way or the other without tests with mutually controlled methodology.  I'm not sure I even ever saw any reviews about 16-35 Canon.  It's not even listed in Photodo.  Could be that it's better than the Zeisses.  What's hard to believe is that everybody totally miss-evaluated the Z28 and that it's really such a poor lens.  I won't be totally surprised if some of my lenses fail and I end up quietly listing them on ebay, but I won't make any rash decisions at this point.
Logged

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
1Ds Mark II, are the lenses going 2 be good enough
« Reply #16 on: November 12, 2004, 05:40:33 pm »

No link...

FWIW, a common problem in lens design; there is no free lunch:  When you correct for barrel distortion one of the big compromises is corner falloff.  In Zeiss' case, they are very well corrected against BD -- almost perfect which is a major feat in itself.  However the downside is the falloff.  (Ironically, they spent additional effort on the 21 and designed in a bit of "moustache" distortion -- a combination of Barrel in the center 2/3 and Pincushion in the outer 1/3 -- thereby gaining a bit of ground on the falloff issue.  You can easily see this if you shoot a full horizon shot with that lens  

However to answer your question, in general the Canon lenses show far less falloff -- almost all gone at f4 while the Zeiss are still showing at f8 -- but conversely the Canon glass have notably more BD.  (Unfortunately this extends even to the TS-E lenses.)

As digital photographers, the good news is that we can easily deal with barrel distortion using the free plug-in "PTLens".  We can also deal with the falloff -- though not as easily -- using a mask in PS.
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
1Ds Mark II, are the lenses going 2 be good enough
« Reply #17 on: November 12, 2004, 06:36:00 pm »

Quote
Quote
You could only see the falloff in the sky in the first place,

It was obvious to me even in the water.

Quote
and there cloning can often come to your rescue if nothing else works

That is probably the WORST way to try and deal with falloff!

Quote
but fixing BD easily is not really a free lunch either, since the interpolation required for distortion fixing introduces image degradation

No offense Didger, but it sounds like you've never tried it yourself... This is one of those assertions that gets blindly followed by those who have never even tried it but read it somewhere else...  

First off, de-fishing a fisheye DOES imaprt some significant distortions that can be seen after the fact if you know what to look for.  BUT! A normal de-barrel is so slight of a pixel-push that it will go totally unnoticed even in very large, interpolated prints.  

Quote
The falloff in that image was an extreme worst ever case (probably polarizer) and the images here were all f8.

Sorry to burst your bubble but...  

1) Yours wasn't that.  Anybody that's used a polarizer with wideangles wider than 28mm knows that depending on the angle of the sun they will generate a "sine-wave" darkening pattern in a clear blue sky.  It is as plain as day when you know what to look for.  It can show up only on one edge of the image and appear to be falloff or vignetting, but it never radiates evenly from center to corner.

2) A similar effect from a polarizer could be due to a too-small filter causing vignetting, but usually that shows as a severe clip at the very corners only and NOT a gradual darkening from the center out as your image indicated.  

Cheers,
Jack
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

didger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2030
1Ds Mark II, are the lenses going 2 be good enough
« Reply #18 on: November 13, 2004, 04:46:34 am »

Hey, I just carefully checked out Michael's review comparing 17-40L and 16-35L.  The 16-35 loses very substantially every which way at 17mm: flare, less overall resolution and worse corner resolution and less corner contrast.  Now unless Michael flat out faked every bit of that, the pictures in the article leave no possible doubt about the relative performance of the two particular lenses he tested.  I haven't been able to find many other reviews of 16-35, but several said "not sharp".  I've seen a number of pretty awful 17-40 corner crops (real life images) and some incredibly bad reviews and test result reports for 17-40, so now it looks like you must have the absolute best 16-35 ever made, a whole different kind of animal from what Michael tested and maybe Michael tested the absolute best 17-40 ever made and an outright defective 16-35.  The implausibilities mount and if we also add in the fact that your Zeiss 28mm is not only not as good as your 16-35, but actually flat out bad, in opposition to just about everything you can find published (including Photodo) about Z28, it looks like your findings come from an alternate Universe or something.

Your all around huge expertise about hardware and Photoshop is very clear and beyond question and I'm just a relative beginner in all areas, but these test results of yours are simply beyond what I could accept from anybody without verification.  The other folks that have tested these lenses are also experts, at least some of them (Michael, Photodo) and you can only make just so much allowance for sample variations.

If you're into doing the comparison testing of our lenses where we can look over each other's shoulders I'd still be into working that out some time.  I don't mind risking how foolish that might end up making me look.  If your lens is really as much better than Zeiss primes as you indicate, I'll start looking around for a 16-35 super copy, though the weight of that lens is a huge turn off.
Logged

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
1Ds Mark II, are the lenses going 2 be good enough
« Reply #19 on: November 13, 2004, 11:43:29 am »

Quote
and you can only make just so much allowance for sample variations.
I will state this again so there is NO confusion -- you obviously have not been reading my posts completely.

I tested THREE 16-35's before I found a good one.  My first one did not flare badly, but was HORRIBLE in the corners re resolution.  My second one was a bit better in the corners, but not good enough for me -- and flare was worse.  Any of the Zeiss glass I tested wouyld have easily bested EITHER of those lenses.  

HOWEVER!!!  It was not until my third copy that I got a "winner" -- And again, FOR THR RECORD, it is NOT a super lens, just VERY GOOD and still shows some corner softness.  But it is better than ALL the alternatives I have compared it to in the 20mm range and 28mm range, including Zeiss.  

And yes, feel free to look over my shoulder when we do a test -- you are welcome to come up to my neck of the woods anytime to do it.   I am willing to accept the fact that maybe there is also significant variation in Zeiss glass,  and perhaps the ones I tested were crap,  and even the remote possibility that maybe it's YOU who happen to have the super-set-end-all Zeiss lens collection   

Cheers,
Jack
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up