F4L lenses and 5D Mk2

[NigelC]

I'll be thinking of replacing my 5D later in the year, depending on how the £/yen rate goes. I have all the "F4" lenses (17-40, 24-105, 70-200IS, 300IS) and a 50 2.5, because I don't like huge lenses. I'd be pretty confident about the 70-200 and the 50, but some articles I've read raise doubts about the 24-105 - less concerned about 17-40 because I tend to use that stopped down at least 2 stops. If I had to replace more than one lens, then start to think A900 becomes an option, although on the basis of a short play with my small hands I found it much harder to use (I think my hands have moulded to the Canaon interface - goes back to 10 yaers of T90 usage)  

Perhaps I would be best advised to see if I can hire one for a day and try out all my lenses.

BTW, haven't heard any more about the "5D2 Antartica issue", - need to e sure that had been resolved before committing.

[familiaphoto]

I have several F/4 lenses with my 5DII (17-40 & 24-105) and have found no issues to really complain about.  Only challenge with the 24-105 is some vignetting when the lens is wide open but that is a known thing with this lens and easily corrected in post.  Below is a quick sample of the 24-105 on my 5DII.  Just a quick snap shot of my son.

[NigelC]

I have several F/4 lenses with my 5DII (17-40 & 24-105) and have found no issues to really complain about.  Only challenge with the 24-105 is some vignetting when the lens is wide open but that is a known thing with this lens and easily corrected in post.  Below is a quick sample of the 24-105 on my 5DII.  Just a quick snap shot of my son.

Nice - looks like a fairly small aperture judging by background areas.

When Calumet has a demo version in stock I'm going to go in and put it on a tripod with mirror locked up, manually focus with live view and check all my lenses, wide open and stopped down. Then I can take away the files and see how good I can get them in post processing.

[pegelli]

Even though I'm a Sony user and like their system I think you'd be better off sticking with Canon if you want a similar lens line-up you have now.

The new 16-35/2.8 is great, but heavy and expensive
There is no equivalent to the 24-105L (the Sony 24-105/3.5-4.5 is in a different league and the 24-70/2.8 is much heavier, shorter reach and expensive)
There's no 70-200/4 and again the 70-200/2.8 is heavy and expensive.
There's no 300/4, only 2.8 (unless you go for an older second hand Minolta 300/4.0 APO)

So if you want light and don't want to upgrade to a faster but heavier 2.8 line there's really no alternatives to what you have now.

On the other hand if you want something completely different like having stabilised primes at 35, 50, 85 and 135 mm the A900 is well worth considering.

[NigelC]

Even though I'm a Sony user and like their system I think you'd be better off sticking with Canon if you want a similar lens line-up you have now.

The new 16-35/2.8 is great, but heavy and expensive
There is no equivalent to the 24-105L (the Sony 24-105/3.5-4.5 is in a different league and the 24-70/2.8 is much heavier, shorter reach and expensive)
There's no 70-200/4 and again the 70-200/2.8 is heavy and expensive.
There's no 300/4, only 2.8 (unless you go for an older second hand Minolta 300/4.0 APO)

So if you want light and don't want to upgrade to a faster but heavier 2.8 line there's really no alternatives to what you have now.

On the other hand if you want something completely different like having stabilised primes at 35, 50, 85 and 135 mm the A900 is well worth considering.

Are these Sony, Zeiss or Minolta primes - what is the quality level of the Sony primes?

[pegelli]

Are these Sony, Zeiss or Minolta primes - what is the quality level of the Sony primes?

The 35/1.4 and 50/1.4 are Sony primes, but still rebadged from the Minolta design. Especially the 35 seems something special. The 50 is a very solid standard prime.
The 85/1.4 and 135/1.8 are Zeiss A-mount autofocus and both super sharp.

There is also the 135 STF, a special super smooth bokeh king from the Minolta days due to a unique design, but it's MF only.

You can read a lot about these lenses on the A-mount site called Dyxum

If you go to the lenses section you can read (subjective user) reviews on almost any branded or 3rd party A-mount lens.

If you become a member (free) and post a question you'll get tons of advice from many members (including me  )

[photodan]

Canon 5dM2 - I had this for awhile and then sold it (but thinking of getting it back again, long story). Note - I'm very picky  :-)  35mm F1.4 - lots of purple fringing and wider stops, fairly sharp, v good bokeh. Canon should come with an improved version, so that software solutions to correct aberrations are not needed as much.    

70-200 f4 L IS - tack sharp in center, not so great elsewhere when viewed at 100% on a monitor. I compared my 135mm f2 lens at various apertures to the 70-200f4 L IS at 135mm. The zoom did about as well in the center (perhaps even a bit better at some apertures - too close to call), but outside of the central approx 50% area the fixed focal length lens was obviously sharper.

200F2.8MKII (single f.l.) - not quite as good as 135f2. Both lenses could use an update for improved contrast/flare control and roundness of aperture (they are good, but newer lenses like the 70-200f4IS are a little smoother, for my taste anyway). The unfortunate thing in my opinion is that most of the lenses out there, even 'L' lenses, don't make the best use of high res sensors (although I still prefer the greater detail from these cameras to the 12mp ones).

Sony Alpha 900 - absolutely great body and viewfinder. Metering on matrix setting was ok most of the time, but not as good as the Canon 5d MII or Nikon D700 in my testing. Alpha 900 -  Easy to use controls. Seemed to have a  better dynamic range at ISO 200 than the 5dMII and the D700.  

Tried the 24-70 f2.8 zoom. Got a bad sample. Even calibrating focus via the raw workflow pro gizmo and also iterating on landscape target I couldn't get reliable auto-focusing. When I got it to focus properly at 70mm, it would be off at 35mm, for example. I was very careful (on tripod, fast shutter speed, only center focus point, repeated many times, etc.). I'm not partial to zooms, and considering that Sony doesn't yet have really have an uptodate wide angle prime (the 35mm f1.4 I've heard varying reports on, and nothing I've been able to find causes me to believe it's an outstanding fit to a  24MP camera), and I didn't want to have to deal with noise that much - gonzo.

[Daniel Browning]

I'll be thinking of replacing my 5D later in the year, depending on how the £/yen rate goes. I have all the "F4" lenses (17-40, 24-105, 70-200IS, 300IS) and a 50 2.5, because I don't like huge lenses. I'd be pretty confident about the 70-200 and the 50, but some articles I've read raise doubts about the 24-105

Your question was never explicitly stated, but you seem to be asking this:

"If I upgrade, will I get the full expected resolution increase for all of my lenses wide open (except 17-40), or will some of them cause diminishing returns to reduce the improvement to as little as 5%?"

The 5D2 has 28% greater linear resolution than the 5D1. The 24-105 will give you the full 28% improvement across most of the focal length range and most of the image height. The corners at some focal lengths, such as 70mm, are pretty soft, though, so your improvement there might be more like 10%.

The 17-40 stopped down to f/8 will give you the full 28%, even in the corners and even on the wide end. Contrast is pretty low, with some correction for chromatic aberration, distortion, and sharpening, you will be amazed at how much better the images are than on your 5D1.

The 300 f/4 is not as sharp as the other supers, but it's easily sharp enough to take full advantage of the 28% increase.

35mm F1.4 - lots of purple fringing and wider stops, fairly sharp, v good bokeh. Canon should come with an improved version.

A new version would be nice.

70-400 f4 IS - tack sharp in center, not so great elsewhere (fine for portraits perhaps, not so great for landscape),

I can only assume you mean the 70-200 f/4 L IS, but your experience is so different from mine that perhaps 70-400 was not a typo and you are referring to some other lens. The sharpest zoom lens I have ever seen or heard of is the 70-200 f/4 L IS. It has more contrast and resolution in the corners than even prime lenses in its focal length range, and is almost into the quality range of the Canon Supers. It stays on my 5D2 more than any other lens except the 24mm f/1.4. If any telephoto zoom lens were perfect for landscapes, it's this one.

200F2.8MKII (single f.l.) - not quite as good as 135f2.

Agreed.

Both lenses could use an update for improved contrast/flare control and roundness of aperture (they are good, but newer lenses like the 70-200f4IS are a little smoother, for my taste anyway).

Agreed.

The unfortunate thing in my opinion is that most of the lenses out there, even 'L' lenses, don't make the best use of high res sensors (although I still prefer the greater detail from these cameras to the 12mp ones).

I highly disagree. Most of them give the full 28% resolution increase. Some, at certain focal lengths, or in the corners, drop down to 20% resolution increase or so, and a few have extreme corners that are past the point of diminishing returns at 12 MP (let alone 21).

I'm ready for a 50MP 1Ds Mark IV.

[photodan]

I can only assume you mean the 70-200 f/4 L IS, but your experience is so different from mine that perhaps 70-400 was not a typo and you are referring to some other lens. The sharpest zoom lens I have ever seen or heard of is the 70-200 f/4 L IS. It has more contrast and resolution in the corners than even prime lenses in its focal length range, and is almost into the quality range of the Canon Supers. It stays on my 5D2 more than any other lens except the 24mm f/1.4. If any telephoto zoom lens were perfect for landscapes, it's this one.

Thanks for pointing out the typo. I've gone back to my original post and also added a bit more detail. Perhaps my sample of the 70-200 was not as good as yours.

I highly disagree. Most of them give the full 28% resolution increase. Some, at certain focal lengths, or in the corners, drop down to 20% resolution increase or so, and a few have extreme corners that are past the point of diminishing returns at 12 MP (let alone 21).

I'm ready for a 50MP 1Ds Mark IV.

Resolution - Assuming you are correct on the resolution analysis for the current 21mp cameras in the center of the frame at optimal apertures, but I doubt that it's true outside of the center image area at any aperture, or anywhere in the image at f1.4-f2.. But are you implying the current 35/1.4 would be up to the task to make full advantage of a higher res camera well, maybe not 50mp, but even something like 28mp?

(And of course, I think we'd agree on other factors - other aberrations - chromatic/color fringing, coma, etc. - definitely room for improvement at wider stops, although perhaps not necessary for most uses. I surely would like an automatic color fringing correction in Canon's DPP like Nikon has for their lenses in Capture Nx2. Canon does have something similar, but it doesn't seen to work as well as the Nikon version for their lenses.  Lightroom has something similar but I don't think it's as automatic or customized to the particular camera/lens combo as NX2).
Dan

[Daniel Browning]

(And of course, I think we'd agree on other factors - other aberrations - chromatic/color fringing, coma, etc. - definitely room for improvement at wider stops,

Agreed. The only lenses that don't have room for improvement are the $6,000+ supers. But even as imperfect as the glass is, my viewpoint about resolution is I don't want my camera to be holding back my lenses. If the lenses have more to give, I want the camera to capture it. I'd shoot 200 MP right now if Canon had it. (With visually lossless compression to keep filesizes sane.)

I surely would like an automatic color fringing correction in Canon's DPP

Agreed.

I doubt that it's true outside of the center image area at any aperture, or anywhere in the image at f1.4-f2.. But are you implying the current 35/1.4 would be up to the task to make full advantage of a higher res camera well, maybe not 50mp, but even something like 28mp?

The corners of the 35mm at f/1.4 will certainly give more at 28 MP, and I think they'll make it to 50 MP, but I'm not sure about after that. This image is the corners of a 16 MP (1Ds2). Looks like the lens is pretty tapped out, right? Click on the link and see the improvement going to 21 MP (1Ds3):



As for the center, people are using the 35mm at f/1.4 on the 50D (equivalent of in 39 MP full frame) today, and still get aliasing, so there will be a ways to go in the center at f/1.4.

But even if you don't see any improvement wide open, you must agree that at f/2 the corners are worlds better.

Eventually, smaller pixels will extract nothing extra from the glass, which will be the point at which diminishing returns get too small to notice.

[aaykay]

Tried the 24-70 f2.8 zoom. Got a bad sample. Even calibrating focus via the raw workflow pro gizmo and also iterating on landscape target I couldn't get reliable auto-focusing. When I got it to focus properly at 70mm, it would be off at 35mm, for example. I was very careful (on tripod, fast shutter speed, only center focus point, repeated many times, etc.). I'm not partial to zooms, and considering that Sony doesn't yet have really have an uptodate wide angle prime (the 35mm f1.4 I've heard varying reports on, and nothing I've been able to find causes me to believe it's an outstanding fit to a  24MP camera), and I didn't want to have to deal with noise that much - gonzo.

I have had 2 examples of the CZ 24-70 f/2.8, and both are prime-quality sharp wide-open, all the way from 24mm to around 65mm, with a slight degradation (wide-open on the A900), at 70mm.  This outclasses the quality that I got from my prior Canon 24-70 f/2.8L (on the 5D MkI and 1DSMKII), which was rated as a "sharp" copy (I kept mine, after trying out 2-3 different examples).  

However, as far as the poster's question is concerned, Sony does not have the "L" quality f/4 lenses, like the Canon - at least not yet.  If you are looking for f/2.8 zooms from 16mm to 200mm, there is none better. If you are looking for 85mm or 135mm primes, there are none better in the marketplace either, for sheer quality on 25MP Full-frame (even including the 85mm f/1.2L II in the comparison).

[marcmccalmont]

I would make a final judgement on a lens both before and after DxO corrections
Marc

[NigelC]

Your question was never explicitly stated, but you seem to be asking this:

"If I upgrade, will I get the full expected resolution increase for all of my lenses wide open (except 17-40), or will some of them cause diminishing returns to reduce the improvement to as little as 5%?"

The 5D2 has 28% greater linear resolution than the 5D1. The 24-105 will give you the full 28% improvement across most of the focal length range and most of the image height. The corners at some focal lengths, such as 70mm, are pretty soft, though, so your improvement there might be more like 10%.

The 17-40 stopped down to f/8 will give you the full 28%, even in the corners and even on the wide end. Contrast is pretty low, with some correction for chromatic aberration, distortion, and sharpening, you will be amazed at how much better the images are than on your 5D1.

The 300 f/4 is not as sharp as the other supers, but it's easily sharp enough to take full advantage of the 28% increase.



Thanks, you have succeeded in crystallising the question I should have asked, in terms of resolution anyway.  Concerning abberations, I would expect vignetting and rectalinear distortion to be identical and colour fringing to be magnified, but not worse - but of course these are correctable in DPP to an extent.



I can only assume you mean the 70-200 f/4 L IS, but your experience is so different from mine that perhaps 70-400 was not a typo and you are referring to some other lens. The sharpest zoom lens I have ever seen or heard of is the 70-200 f/4 L IS. It has more contrast and resolution in the corners than even prime lenses in its focal length range, and is almost into the quality range of the Canon Supers. It stays on my 5D2 more than any other lens except the 24mm f/1.4. If any telephoto zoom lens were perfect for landscapes, it's this one.



Agreed.



Agreed.



I highly disagree. Most of them give the full 28% resolution increase. Some, at certain focal lengths, or in the corners, drop down to 20% resolution increase or so, and a few have extreme corners that are past the point of diminishing returns at 12 MP (let alone 21).

I'm ready for a 50MP 1Ds Mark IV.

[NigelC]

Daniel

Thanks, you have succeeded in crystallising the question I should have asked, in terms of resolution anyway.  Concerning abberations, I would expect vignetting and rectalinear distortion to be identical and colour fringing to be magnified, but not worse - but of course these are correctable in DPP to an extent.

Sorry I didn't intend to requote all your post in previous message

[NigelC]

Completely aside from imaging quality, but changing systems isn’t necessarily such an insurmountable barrier, even without paying work.

For example, in the UK (other countries may be different) I estimate the net cost of a 5D2 body after putting 5D on ebay will be £1300-£1350 (5D2 is c£2100)

If I put all my Cannon gear on ebay, I should get about £3000. Taking prices from Warehouse Express, the cost of Sony A900, Sigma 12-24, Sony Zeiss 24-70, Sony SSG 70-300, Sony 500 Cad (all of which gives me similar cover) will be £4750, leaving a net cost of £1750, “only” £400-450 more than option 1.