Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: cescx on November 01, 2007, 07:03:42 pm
-
For those seeking examples of the new eos you shipping this link.
Some pictures are not very good but...
Kenia mark III (http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/canon-eos-1ds-mark-iii-prueba-muestras,1_3740)
-
For those seeking examples of the new eos you shipping this link.
Some pictures are not very good but...
Kenia mark III (http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/canon-eos-1ds-mark-iii-prueba-muestras,1_3740)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150131\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am very interested in this camera, but you guys have scared the crap out of me with all the conversation of the AA filter. Then MR pulls his own comments, so I am lef not knowing what to think.
I went into it thinking this was going to be the bes images I can get for higher end wedding and portrait photography. Then I paid some attention to the Nikon D3, but after testing all the files in actual print form from the D3 and what I can get around the net from the 1Ds MKIII, the 1Ds is not significantly behind and keeps pace fairly nicely. I am guessing it is the size of the file that is making up some groundwork between the cameras, and/or Canon has improved even more on it's process from the existing MK3 camera.
I sure would like to know what is up with MR pulling that article. How is that to be interperted? Is the preproduction camera carrying a stronger AA filter than a production model will?
Peter
-
I am very interested in this camera, but you guys have scared the crap out of me with all the conversation of the AA filter. Then MR pulls his own comments, so I am lef not knowing what to think.
I went into it thinking this was going to be the bes images I can get for higher end wedding and portrait photography. Then I paid some attention to the Nikon D3, but after testing all the files in actual print form from the D3 and what I can get around the net from the 1Ds MKIII, the 1Ds is not significantly behind and keeps pace fairly nicely. I am guessing it is the size of the file that is making up some groundwork between the cameras, and/or Canon has improved even more on it's process from the existing MK3 camera.
I sure would like to know what is up with MR pulling that article. How is that to be interperted? Is the preproduction camera carrying a stronger AA filter than a production model will?
Peter
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150359\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi
I am getting a 1Ds III & until the I get one in my hands that is the only real test.
-
I sure would like to know what is up with MR pulling that article. How is that to be interperted? Is the preproduction camera carrying a stronger AA filter than a production model will?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150359\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Peter,
Chances are that pre-production camera will be just the same as production in terms of sensor.
As to why Michael removed his negative comments, no idea. He might have reached the conclusion that more testing was needed before forming an opinion on such a highly awaited camera.
Regards,
Bernard
-
I'm with the doubters. You really have to wonder what the hell is going on here.
Given that they are about to launch what should be, arguably, the final nail in the coffin for any doubters about digital SLRs replacing medium-format film, Canon should be building up to an Apple/iPod type 'All will be revealed on........!". i.e. The BIG day!
Instead, the best we've got is '....end November'!
Excuse me?!
Not good enough. From where I'm sitting, this stinks of last minute production problems, which have only been exacerbated by the problems surrounding the 1D Mklll, in that they only cause further bemusement about potential issues with the 1Ds lll.
I definitely want one of these, but I will certainly be waiting for the early adopters to iron out the problems for me.
Canon's handling of this launch just does not inspire confidence.
Meanwhile, I will continue to use my (sensational) 5D which, by the way, blows my Mamiya RB67 out of the water when the files are properly handled. But, I want the A3 size file that the 1Dslll will offer me.
D.
-
Read my addendum to the madagascar camera report...
Or, if that's too much trouble, here it is...
Addendum
Readers may recall that my initial 1Ds MKIII report a few weeks ago, when first published, contained some comments about how I felt that the camera might have too strong an AA filter, and therefore images not appear as "crisp" as they might without one or with a less strong filter.
A couple of hours after the piece first appeared I changed it so that this reference did not appear. Subsequently the conspiracy theorists have claimed that the "black Canon helicopters" must have started circling my house, (said in jest, I'm sure) or that some other form of coercion had been applied to make me change the article (not said in jest, I'm also sure).
Utter Rubbish – as anyone who even has the vaguest knowledge of how I work would know. For the record, the truth of the matter, for what it's worth, is this...
During my initial few days of shooting with the 1Ds MKIII in Algonquin Park I saw several files that did not appear to me to be as crisp is I thought they should be. This was likely as a consequence of also shooting with people who had Hasselblads and Mamiya's with P45+ backs on them, which can be bitingly sharp and of extremely high resolution, in part because they do not use an AA filter.
My friends and I discussed what we were seeing and came up with the theory that it likely was as a consequence of the Canon's AA filter, and so as I was working on my report I added a couple of paragraphs to this effect. After reviewing my image files yet again I decided that this was an inaccurate analysis and so I deleted the offending paragraphs. They were never intended for public viewing, simply because they were based on a false assumption and inaccurate technical analysis.
Somehow I subsequently ended up publishing the version that had the deleted paragraphs, rather than the one that had them removed. Brain fade, or whatever. Simply a mistake.
A few hours later I received an email from a friend who is extremely knowledgeable technically, chastising me for saying something dumb, and I realized that I'd posted the old draft rather than the revised one. So, I quickly changed it to what it should have been and noted that the article had been "updated".
That's the story. Middle aged brain fade leading to an early draft being published instead of the polished final version. No black helicopters, no coercion from on high. Conspiracy theorists can now climb back under their rocks.
-
A black Canon helicopter would be a nice accessory, i'll have to see if i can find one.
-
I am very interested in this camera, but you guys have scared the crap out of me with all the conversation of the AA filter. Then MR pulls his own comments, so I am lef not knowing what to think.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150359\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not the least bit fussed about the AA filter, and I have two reasons:
(1) The actual prints I've seen from this camera have such incredibly fine resolution (see my post in the other thread), I can't imagine needing any more for 99% of my purposes (and I'm fussy about sharpness and sharpening matters).
(2) The samples from the link Kenia MkIII further above in this thread, if you have examined them, really look terrific.
For the benefit of the "doubters", Canon announced this camera would be available in November. They did not give a precise date, which is normal. It is still November. What is the hullabaloo? Since it is perfectly normal in this industry for announced equipment and materials not to hit the market for weeks or even months after the indicated availability date, even if it doesn't ship till some time in December it will still be perfectly normal. Whatever the reason, whether it is to fix minor issues they've recently found, or production or shipping bottlenecks, I have confidence that (1) they are doing their best to market the camera because delays of shipping mean delays of revenue, and (2) the more they catch and correct before they ship the happier I'll be with product I eventually get. Yes, of course, I'm anxious to have the new camera, but I've lived without a 1DsMKIII for many decades now, so whether it turns up at my dealer in a few days or a few weeks, in the final analysis, so what?
-
Addendum
Readers may recall that my initial 1Ds MKIII report a few weeks ago, when first published, contained some comments about how I felt that the camera might have too strong an AA filter, and therefore images not appear as "crisp" as they might without one or with a less strong filter....
....During my initial few days of shooting with the 1Ds MKIII in Algonquin Park I saw several files that did not appear to me to be as crisp is I thought they should be. This was likely as a consequence of also shooting with people who had Hasselblads and Mamiya's with P45+ backs on them, which can be bitingly sharp and of extremely high resolution, in part because they do not use an AA filter.
My friends and I discussed what we were seeing and came up with the theory that it likely was as a consequence of the Canon's AA filter, and so as I was working on my report I added a couple of paragraphs to this effect. After reviewing my image files yet again I decided that this was an inaccurate analysis and so I deleted the offending paragraphs. They were never intended for public viewing, simply because they were based on a false assumption and inaccurate technical analysis.
Conspiracy theorists can now climb back under their rocks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153802\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Michael,
I don't consider myself one of the conspiracy theorists since I never read your original report.
However, my reading of what you have written above (which I have edited in my reply) tells me that:
1. You and your friends felt that the images were not as sharp as might have been expected.
2. You attributed this, incorrectly you felt later, to the AA filter.
3. You revised your opinion in your report.
Notwithstanding your change of mind on the reasons, the fact is that the images were either not as sharp as they might have been, or not. You do not appear to have revised your opinion on the sharpness, only the reason for it. There is an implication in your text above that it may have been simply comparing them with MFDBs being used on the same day, but you don't make this clear.
So, were the images disappointingly lacking in sharpness? Is there no marked improvement on previous SLRs? Or was it all down to the presence of the MFDBs?
Thanks.
D.
-
At the time that I wrote the first draft of the report I had concerns about the sharpness. I then did additional shooting with more lenses under a broader range of conditions and revised my opinion.
This is the sort of thing that happens all the time. It takes hundreds if not thousands of frames taken over time in a variety of situations to come up with a decent conclusion. I sometimes rewrite sections of a report and my conclusions a number of times. What I don't do is share them with the public until I have a pretty firm grip on what the truth is. That was my error in this instance.
There's an old saying about not wanting to see how sausages are made. The same might be said about camera field tests.
Michael
-
Hi,
I think that in some circumstances there will be better sharpness without an AA filter than with an AA filter. I also guess that if there is an AA-filter you would need a bit more capture sharpening. I suspect that if you look, well "pixel peep", at a picture without AA filter and compare with a picture with AA-filter using the same sharpening the first will be more "pixel crisp". With higher resolution diffraction in the lens will act as AA-filter and therefore it will be less needed.
I also guess that almost all information lost in the AA-filter can be regained during "capture sharpening".
AA-filters are not exactly cheap, so I think that Canon and other vendors would probably get rid of them if they were not needed.
Best regards
Erik
At the time that I wrote the first draft of the report I had concerns about the sharpness. I then did additional shooting with more lenses under a broader range of conditions and revised my opinion.
This is the sort of thing that happens all the time. It takes hundreds if not thousands of frames taken over time in a variety of situations to come up with a decent conclusion. I sometimes rewrite sections of a report and my conclusions a number of times. What I don't do is share them with the public until I have a pretty firm grip on what the truth is. That was my error in this instance.
There's an old saying about not wanting to see how sausages are made. The same might be said about camera field tests.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153965\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Michael,
................
However, my reading of what you have written above (which I have edited in my reply) tells me that:
1. You and your friends felt that the images were not as sharp as might have been expected.
2. You attributed this, incorrectly you felt later, to the AA filter.
3. You revised your opinion in your report.
Notwithstanding your change of mind on the reasons, the fact is that the images were either not as sharp as they might have been, or not. You do not appear to have revised your opinion on the sharpness, only the reason for it. There is an implication in your text above that it may have been simply comparing them with MFDBs being used on the same day, but you don't make this clear.
So, were the images disappointingly lacking in sharpness? Is there no marked improvement on previous SLRs? Or was it all down to the presence of the MFDBs?
Thanks.
D.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=153891\")
Dinarius, While Michael is entirely capable of responding to the questions you put to him in his own way, I have a couple of things to say about all this, because I was participating in the Bill Atkinson/Charles Kramer workshop over a Saturday and Sunday at Michael's studio when he was analyzing images and drafting his preliminary report on the 1DsMkIII.
The camera was right there, and during a couple of coffee breaks I had an opportunity to take the camera out of doors and make some trial shots. On Saturday, the camera had a 16~35 lens on it. We put the images up on the monitor and I have to say they were under-whelming. I was more than a bit concerned because I have one of these cameras on order. So we discussed it, and the thought occured to me that perhaps it's the lens, not the body.
So on Sunday I brought MY 24~105 f/4 L lens, which I know is tack-sharp from what it does with my 1Ds (11MP). First coffee break I went out of doors, took a number of shots of gritty stuff with lots of texture, and a shot of Bill Atkinson talking to some students. We transferred them to my USB key, I brought them home, and subjected them to nothing more than the bare-minimum I would do for any image: normalize the histogram in CR4.1, a bit of contrast enhancement with the Parametric Curve, and PK Capture and output sharpen in Photoshop.
I printed the photographs on Epson Enhanced Matte A3 size. I found the results to be very sharp, very high resolution, e.g. for hair, skin texture, brick walls, hose pipes, paint peeling off wood, etc.
But to make sure I wasn't fooling myself, I brought the prints to New York City when I attended Photo Plus Expo several weeks ago and showed them to three of the foremost digital imaging experts in the country (who will go un-named to protect the guilty). They confirmed that the resolution and overall image quality were fine. So the conclusion I came away with from this limited personal test is that the sensor is very unforgiving of second-rate lenses. (Sorry Michael, your 16-35 just doesn't cut it!)
Then, as I mentioned in my previous post, I had the opportunity of seeing some of Michael's prints of the images in the final field report, and commented on those here: [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20877]Previous Post 1DsMKIII Prints[/url], post #19.
Now all that said and done, suppose you can find someone like MaxMax (http://www.maxmax.com) to remove the filter for you. Then you will need some kind of post-capture processing software to deal with the issues the filter is designed to mitigate. Maybe it's easier to manage for MF cameras than it is for DSLRs, and presumably Canon has researched this alternative, because if it can occur to a photo-technics nonentity like me, it most likely occured to them - ions of time ago. Why would they want to market cameras with sub-optimal resolution? I think it is time to put the AA filter issue to rest.
Mark
-
Now all that said and done, suppose you can find someone like MaxMax (http://www.maxmax.com) to remove the filter for you. Then you will need some kind of post-capture processing software to deal with the issues the filter is designed to mitigate. Maybe it's easier to manage for MF cameras than it is for DSLRs, and presumably Canon has researched this alternative, because if it can occur to a photo-technics nonentity like me, it most likely occured to them - ions of time ago. Why would they want to market cameras with sub-optimal resolution? I think it is time to put the AA filter issue to rest.
Mark
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=153987\")
Over at [a href=\"http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=116427]Naturescapes[/url] there was a similar discussion (AA filters and feather detail mainly ) While it was a software-based theoretical exercise, I was surprised at how benign the effect of a "1-pixel" AA filter might be if it worked as intended. The 1 pixel radius Gaussian blur was waaay nastier in its effect on apparent resolution. It put some context on the issue for me - until someone has the nereve to send a 1Ds3 to MaxMax
Andy
-
I have a feeling that quite a few people are going to be disappointed by aspects of the 1DsIII, not because it's not the finest DSLR available, which it may be, but because the jump from 16 to 21 megapixels isn't going to show that great an improvement in the final prints. I suspect the improvement could be negated by differences between high-end glass and lesser glass, for example, or by differences in shooting technique. Seriously rational Canon shooters, who don't have lots of money or a job testing the cameras, might be better off skipping every-other iteration of the camera -- there'd be a pretty noticable difference between the 1Ds and the IDsIII, perhaps, but not so much difference between either of them and the camera in the middle, the 1DsII. Perhaps we've gotten to the point where new cameras will be like they were for the last thirty years of the film era -- the new F5 was great, but you didn't *have* to have it if you had an F4. On the other hand, you might want to go to it if you were still shooting an F2 or an F3...
JC
-
I printed the photographs on Epson Enhanced Matte A3 size. I found the results to be very sharp, very high resolution, e.g. for hair, skin texture, brick walls, hose pipes, paint peeling off wood, etc.
But to make sure I wasn't fooling myself, I brought the prints to New York City when I attended Photo Plus Expo several weeks ago and showed them to three of the foremost digital imaging experts in the country (who will go un-named to protect the guilty). They confirmed that the resolution and overall image quality were fine. So the conclusion I came away with from this limited personal test is that the sensor is very unforgiving of second-rate lenses. (Sorry Michael, your 16-35 just doesn't cut it!)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153987\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark,
I am not questioning the qualities of the 1ds3, but my D2x produces amazing A3 prints too with very fine details when used with the right lens.
A2 should be the minimal size to check such things IMHO.
Besides, Michael's 16-35 might not be the best in town, but there is no reason to think it is not at least an average performer since he considered it good enough until now.
The question that I would personnally like to see answered in due time is how the 1ds3 performs compared to the 1ds2 when using the same lens, including the 16-35 and/or 17-40. Michael has mentioned he had done such a comparison, I just hope that the 16-35 was part of the deal.
Regards,
Bernard
-
At the time that I wrote the first draft of the report I had concerns about the sharpness. I then did additional shooting with more lenses under a broader range of conditions and revised my opinion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153965\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Michael,
How about the 1ds3 with the 16-35?
Do you consider that combination to perform well after further usage, or are you still concerned by the lack of sharpness?
Thank you.
Regards,
Bernard
-
'''''''''''''''''''''''''' there'd be a pretty noticable difference between the 1Ds and the IDsIII, perhaps,...
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154017\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As I'm up-grading from the original 1Ds, a camera which I like very much, I'll be in for a 38% increase of resolution plus the theoretical advantage of 14 versus 12 bit depth, plus the lower noise of the DIGIC III processor. In principle, all this should allow higher quality larger prints of crops. Once it becomes available I intend to formally structure some comparison tests between the two bodies and see whether or to what extent the theoretical predictions are operational.
-
Michael,
How about the 1ds3 with the 16-35?
Do you consider that combination to perform well after further usage, or are you still concerned by the lack of sharpness?
Thank you.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154031\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In respect to my post, I should clarify that I was the one concerned about several images I shot with that lens. Needless to say Michael has far more experience with that lens than I do, so he most likely knows how to use it better. That is why I was keen to re-test with my 24~105 which I do know how to use. My own assessment of the image quality from the 1DsIII is based on both my shots with the 24~105 and the work Michael printed from his Madagascar trip shot with a number of lenses as he explained.
-
Mark,
I am not questioning the qualities of the 1ds3, but my D2x produces amazing A3 prints too with very fine details when used with the right lens.
A2 should be the minimal size to check such things IMHO.
Besides, Michael's 16-35 might not be the best in town, but there is no reason to think it is not at least an average performer since he considered it good enough until now.
The question that I would personnally like to see answered in due time is how the 1ds3 performs compared to the 1ds2 when using the same lens, including the 16-35 and/or 17-40. Michael has mentioned he had done such a comparison, I just hope that the 16-35 was part of the deal.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Bernard,
I just addressed the 16~35 question in my previous post. I also have a 17~40. It's not bad, but not as good as my 24~105. I believe ultra wide=angle zooms are much more of an optical and manufacturing challenge than the ones with a longer focal length range.
As for the print size one uses to make tests, yes, I also print A3 from my 1Ds, which has slightly lower resolution than your D2X, and the results are fine. Once you see, however, that crops substantially less than half the image area also stand up well to A3 printing, that more than does the job of testing full-frame on A2. I must caution that the work I did was rapid, hand-held, several photos. That's all I had the opportunity to do - but it was enough to satisfy me that the existence of the AA filter isn't a deal breaker.
-
Michael,
How about the 1ds3 with the 16-35?
Do you consider that combination to perform well after further usage, or are you still concerned by the lack of sharpness?
Thank you.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154031\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
bernard,
Like all very high resolution full-frame cameras the IIIs is merciless in revealing lens flaws. This is particularly true with ultra wides and even more so with ultra-wide zooms. And since Canon ultra-wide zooms are among the (least good) of the breed, this is what that story is about.
I have the 16-35mm lens with me because I wanted to shoot some record shots of the seminar group at my gallery. These were done wide open in very low light. Naturally everyone wanted to look at the files, and they looked soft. Thus the issue. When Mark tried the camera with a much better lens the next day the issue went away.
And to answer the inevitable question, this was the original version of that lens and I have tried the new one and it's not that much better. Those who want to shoot very WA with high res Canon cameras and whose primary concern is image quality should shoot with primes.
Michael
-
bernard,
Like all very high resolution full-frame cameras the IIIs is merciless in revealing lens flaws. This is particularly true with ultra wides and even more so with ultra-wide zooms. And since Canon ultra-wide zooms are among the (least good) of the breed, this is what that story is about.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154075\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Michael,
Thanks for the feedback.
Best regards,
Bernard
-
bernard,
Like all very high resolution full-frame cameras the IIIs is merciless in revealing lens flaws. Those who want to shoot very WA with high res Canon cameras and whose primary concern is image quality should shoot with primes.
Michael
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=154075\")
Interesting points.
I guess another way of looking at it is that, if you want to extract the maximum value from these sensors, then use only the best lenses.
My stock in trade with the 5D are a 50mm macro and the 90mm TSE. The 90mm is the best lens I have ever owned, bar the Schneiders I use on my Sinar P.
I have been using a 17-40mm L Series Zoom too. But, let's be honest, 'L Series' that lens is not!
For what it's worth, this is the site I refer to for lens tests. I can't vouch for their scientific accuracy, but the tests are extremely thorough.
[a href=\"http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_90tse_28/index.htm]http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/ca...se_28/index.htm[/url]
D.
-
I tried 3 of the version I lenses when they were released. I found one to be decent at 16 to 20mm stopped down. Or I should say one was much better than the other two. I tried two copies of the version II lens and compared with my version I on the 1DsmkII. I found one copy to be better than version I in the corners... the difference was more apparent at the the wider apertures. However this lens was not as good as my version I at the longer focal lengths. The second copy of the II lens was worse or equal to my version I. The one thing I found to be improved on the version II lens was the CA. I also agree that my 24-105 is much better than the 16-35 at overlapping focal lengths. Again, I am not impressed with the wide angle glass formulas that canon have developed.
I should say that I had a good copy of a Tamaron 14mm (bought from Jack Flesher) that was optically sharper throughout the whole image compared to the canon 14mm (version I) and even equal or better in terms of distortion. The Tamaron did have some substantial CA but I do not remember how it compared to the canon.
I would be interesting to see how the new canon 14mm performs but I am not that hopeful.
bernard,
Like all very high resolution full-frame cameras the IIIs is merciless in revealing lens flaws. This is particularly true with ultra wides and even more so with ultra-wide zooms. And since Canon ultra-wide zooms are among the (least good) of the breed, this is what that story is about.
I have the 16-35mm lens with me because I wanted to shoot some record shots of the seminar group at my gallery. These were done wide open in very low light. Naturally everyone wanted to look at the files, and they looked soft. Thus the issue. When Mark tried the camera with a much better lens the next day the issue went away.
And to answer the inevitable question, this was the original version of that lens and I have tried the new one and it's not that much better. Those who want to shoot very WA with high res Canon cameras and whose primary concern is image quality should shoot with primes.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154075\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Really? You think?!
Good grief: this is the sort of conversation I thought we'd nailed years ago . . . for anyone living in a cave since the 1900s, we should reiterate that the 16-35 Mark I is NOT a high resolution lens: demanding shooting on a Mark 1 1Ds revealed this a LONG time ago.
At the wide end, the 17-40mm is a little better, but nowhere near good enough for the 1Ds Mk2, let alone a 22MP version. Ditto the redesigned 16-35II. Of course the Mk3 is much more demanding; obviously poor results will be obtained using inferior lenses; for heaven's sake, yes, the lens is the weak link in the chain!
The 24-105L is a fraction better again, but we simply won't see what the Mk3 is capable of until someone, somewhere gets a half decent lens on the thing, at sensible apertures, with properly optimised RAW processing, and shows us what it looks like without JPEG compression. Until then, debates about IQ in extremis are futile – exactly as they were when premature babble surfaced in response to publication of Canon's Mark II samples.
Only a little more patience is required . . . .
bernard,
Like all very high resolution full-frame cameras the IIIs is merciless in revealing lens flaws. This is particularly true with ultra wides and even more so with ultra-wide zooms. And since Canon ultra-wide zooms are among the (least good) of the breed, this is what that story is about.
I have the 16-35mm lens with me because I wanted to shoot some record shots of the seminar group at my gallery. These were done wide open in very low light. Naturally everyone wanted to look at the files, and they looked soft. Thus the issue. When Mark tried the camera with a much better lens the next day the issue went away.
And to answer the inevitable question, this was the original version of that lens and I have tried the new one and it's not that much better. Those who want to shoot very WA with high res Canon cameras and whose primary concern is image quality should shoot with primes.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154075\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
The 24-105L is a fraction better again, ............
Only a little more patience is required . . . .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155169\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No. It's MUCH more than a fraction better - it's FAR superior - if you get a good copy.
-
No. It's MUCH more than a fraction better - it's FAR superior - if you get a good copy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155195\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I should really flesh out the bones of what I said above: in the 17-24mm range, the 16-35L Mk 1 is at the bottom of the heap; the 17-40L is a little better, and the Mark II is better again. At 24mm, I would place the 24-105 on par with the Mark II, two clear notches above the Mark I: so, yes, definitely better.
From 24-35mm, however, the Mark I 16-35 is at least as good as the 17-40L, and the Mark II better again. I would say there's little to choose between the 24-105 and 16-35II at 28mm – except for the fact that the longer zoom is just about perfect geometrically at that focal length, whereas the 16-35II has moderately severe pincushioning. By 35mm, the 24-105L just pulls away from the shorter zoom.
But none of the above can match a properly fettled Zeiss or Leica prime, or even several of the better Nikon and Olympus lenses in this range. The new AFS 14-24mm may yet rewrite the rules. When we start to see 1Ds III samples using the best wide angles (or top longer lenses with properly shot and processed files) we'll see what it's made of.
-
But none of the above can match a properly fettled Zeiss or Leica prime, or even several of the better Nikon and Olympus lenses in this range.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155212\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark, as someone who shoots everything on a tripod, at f8-f16, using primes almost always and who only focuses manually, I am interested in what you have to say.
It has been said more than once that the sensors have more than left the lenses behind.
But, what can we do? Are there any serious lens manufacturers who make lenses that will fit a Canon and perform better than their own glass?
Should I be looking at Tamron or Sigma? Do Zeiss make any Canon-fit lenses?
If not, isn't it about time?
D.
-
Mark, as someone who shoots everything on a tripod, at f8-f16, using primes almost always and who only focuses manually, I am interested in what you have to say.
It has been said more than once that the sensors have more than left the lenses behind.
But, what can we do? Are there any serious lens manufacturers who make lenses that will fit a Canon and perform better than their own glass?
Should I be looking at Tamron or Sigma? Do Zeiss make any Canon-fit lenses?
If not, isn't it about time?
D.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=155221\")
There's quite a body of lens tests and discussion forum content for those interested in going beyond some of the frankly less than appealing Canon sub-35mm lenses.
For starters, you might try Board 55 at FM:
[a href=\"http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55]http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55[/url]
or my site here (sorry about the plug, but I started the site because there wasn't much information available about using adapted lenses on the 1 Series):
http://www.16-9.net (http://www.16-9.net)
All the new ZF and ZS mount Zeiss lenses can be used on Canon bodies, as well as the Contax Yashica range (including the truly stellar 21mm f2.8) and there's even a Contax N conversion which converts great lenses like the Zeiss Contax 17-35mm f2.8 for AF/AE use on Canon bodies.
Just about every OM Zuiko lens works on 1 Series and crop sensor cameras (most also on the 5D), as well as the majority of Leica R optics, not to mention SMC Pentax A*, Zeiss Jena M42, Nikon F and most medium format lenses. The sky is quite literally your oyster.
-
All the new ZF and ZS mount Zeiss lenses can be used on Canon bodies, as well as the Contax Yashica range (including the truly stellar 21mm f2.8) and there's even a Contax N conversion which converts great lenses like the Zeiss Contax 17-35mm f2.8 for AF/AE use on Canon bodies.
Just about every OM Zuiko lens works on 1 Series and crop sensor cameras (most also on the 5D), as well as the majority of Leica R optics, not to mention SMC Pentax A*, Zeiss Jena M42, Nikon F and most medium format lenses. The sky is quite literally your oyster.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155229\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark, I am stunned! I never knew any of that.
I my film days, I was an Olympus user, so I have just about every lens they made!
I want a 50mm that is optically beyond reproach. Speed is of no consequence to me. It must have an entirely flat and distortion free field and be razor sharp. What should I consider? I am currently using Canon's 50mm Macro.
Secondly, how can I attach my Zuiko (Olympus) lenses to my Canon's?
Many thanks.
D.
-
THe olympus 21mm both zuiko versions 2.8 and 2.0? work well on the canon stopped down... f8/11. In fact, in regards to edge sharpness/ distortion , the 21mm zuiko was about as good as the zeiss 21mm distagon. The zuiko did suffer from some CA though. More open than that and the edges do not look good. I was not that impressed with other zuiko lenses I tried... with the exception of the olympus 24mm PC.
I went through a phase where i was using almost all 3rd party lenses on my FF canon DSLR. However, when the canon lenses were decent, I always went back to them because the image quality was very dependent on focusing ability and this is much more difficult with the 3rd party lenses especially the wide angles. So now, I stick with the 21 distagon, 35mm contax PC, contax 35-70, and Leica 100mm 2.8 R macro. I would like to get the leica 28mm elmarit R again at some point. These are the focal ranges that Canon is somewhat weak in. Canon Macro lenses are ok but the leica in my opinion cannot be beat. Since most macro is manual focus anyway.. No problem.
I can say I just got the Schneider 28mm PC for EOS-- same as the Leica 28mm 2.8. I am impressed with limiting testing so far. It is much better than the canon 24mm TSE and almost as good as the Contax 35mm PC. THe issue is the Schneider does give some CA shifted but this is easily corrected in CS3. THe corners are very sharp at least at f8 and distortion not too bad.
Mark, I am stunned! I never knew any of that.
I my film days, I was an Olympus user, so I have just about every lens they made!
I want a 50mm that is optically beyond reproach. Speed is of no consequence to me. It must have an entirely flat and distortion free field and be razor sharp. What should I consider? I am currently using Canon's 50mm Macro.
Secondly, how can I attach my Zuiko (Olympus) lenses to my Canon's?
Many thanks.
D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155235\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Mark,
Thanks for that.
But, I still don't know how to attach a third-party lens to my Canon 5D. Presumably, I need some kind of adaptor?
Also, when you refer to a Leica macr, which lens in particular are you referring to?
Many thanks.
D.
-
If you look at the DXO interactive blur graphs over at http://www.slrgear.com (http://www.slrgear.com) it's fairly clear that at 24mm and 35mm the 24-105 is better than the 17-40 which is better than 16-35 mkII.
Make sure you select the full-frame graphs.
It's easy to compare the three lenses at all their common apertures and focal lengths.
-
Yes you need adapters. THere are many different kinds. On the wide angle lenses you need a thin precise adapter. If you email me i can give you some suggestions, but i am not sure i know a best brand. THe Leica marco is the 100mm/2.8 R. It is 1:2 reproduction but you can use a canon extension tube or a Leica Elpro emarit adapter to make it 1:1
Mark,
Thanks for that.
But, I still don't know how to attach a third-party lens to my Canon 5D. Presumably, I need some kind of adaptor?
Also, when you refer to a Leica macr, which lens in particular are you referring to?
Many thanks.
D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155423\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Be careful on the 5D, as most will remember, there was (I suppose still is) an issue with some non Canon glass hitting the mirror. For a long time there was a post on FM where others had posted their success and failure with which adatper and which lens.
I have assumed that the MKIII will not have this issue since the body is based on the older 1ds II etc.
Paul C
-
I use plenty of 3rd party lenses on the 5D without a problem. There are certain lenses that are problematic on any canon-- leica 19mm, leica 21-35 needs the shim removed-- pretty easy to do. I use the 21mm distagon, contax35mm PC and 35-70 contax..
Be careful on the 5D, as most will remember, there was (I suppose still is) an issue with some non Canon glass hitting the mirror. For a long time there was a post on FM where others had posted their success and failure with which adatper and which lens.
I have assumed that the MKIII will not have this issue since the body is based on the older 1ds II etc.
Paul C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155649\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Mark,
Just ordered an adapter from www.fotodiox.com
Thanks for your help.
Seems pretty good value at the price.
I am going to try my Olympus 50mm macro against the Canon 50mm macro that I have been using.
Flat copy work is a lot of what I do, so the search for the perfect copy lens is ongoing.
All suggestions welcome!
D.
-
Fotodiox is not the best adapter for the wide angles for infinity focus. I had a few and they shoudl be fine. I had a faulty adapter that would not fit but they replaced it quickly
Mark,
Just ordered an adapter from www.fotodiox.com
Thanks for your help.
Seems pretty good value at the price.
I am going to try my Olympus 50mm macro against the Canon 50mm macro that I have been using.
Flat copy work is a lot of what I do, so the search for the perfect copy lens is ongoing.
All suggestions welcome!
D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Information about which adaptors to use, where to buy them, which lens work with which camera bodies, and which lenses are worth the trouble, are all on the site referenced above.
http://www.16-9.net (http://www.16-9.net)
The perfect copy lens is almost certainly an 105mm or 80mm Apo Rodagon. I've never used a lens with such high resolution over a 100mm image circle, perfect field flatness and neutral colour. Arianne Dubois over at FM rates the 80mm better than the 105mm, but claims it to be better than anything previously tested. My experience is borne out by the MTF figures: namely that the 105mm is superior. They're also amazingly compact.
In a few weeks time I will be selling a 105mm Apo Rodagon in a Zörk Canon-mount tilt adaptor: I guarantee it would be the best copy lens you've ever used!
Mark,
Just ordered an adapter from www.fotodiox.com
Thanks for your help.
Seems pretty good value at the price.
I am going to try my Olympus 50mm macro against the Canon 50mm macro that I have been using.
Flat copy work is a lot of what I do, so the search for the perfect copy lens is ongoing.
All suggestions welcome!
D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Mark,
Problem is it would be too long for me too often.
I really want to know what the best 50mm copy lens is - if, indeed, there is one better than what I am currently using.
Thanks.
D.
-
THis is a good web site but it does not give advice or testing of the adapters. There are various opinions as well depending on who you ask. But at least there is a list.
Information about which adaptors to use, where to buy them, which lens work with which camera bodies, and which lenses are worth the trouble, are all on the site referenced above.
http://www.16-9.net (http://www.16-9.net)
The perfect copy lens is almost certainly an 105mm or 80mm Apo Rodagon. I've never used a lens with such high resolution over a 100mm image circle, perfect field flatness and neutral colour. Arianne Dubois over at FM rates the 80mm better than the 105mm, but claims it to be better than anything previously tested. My experience is borne out by the MTF figures: namely that the 105mm is superior. They're also amazingly compact.
In a few weeks time I will be selling a 105mm Apo Rodagon in a Zörk Canon-mount tilt adaptor: I guarantee it would be the best copy lens you've ever used!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156042\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
The photodo MTF test results have always seemed accurate to me, based on 20+ lenses that I have owned. Unfortunately there are quite a few gaps in the testes - limited number of lenses that they have tested.
http://www.photodo.com/products.html?focal...4&name=Standard (http://www.photodo.com/products.html?focaltype=4&name=Standard)
The ranked photodo MTF numbers at the start of the search page are pretty interesting too! Best lenses ranked by photodo MTF test at the bottom of the page. Not sure how to continue the list - a lot of 4.6's - in the new interface:
http://www.photodo.com/products.html (http://www.photodo.com/products.html)
Best,
Michael
-
In reference to the earlier discussion about the AA filter, etc.:
Canon recommends fairly aggressive sharpening that works quite well for their previous 1 series bodies. If I remember correctly, in the White Paper that came out with the 1DsII 2 years ago, they recommend USM of 300/.1/0 for base sharpening for the 1 series sensors.
Personally, I have never owned a bad Canon digital, starting with the D30 (not the newer 30D). I never *plan* to upgrade, but the improvement in noise, Digix processor, etc. always pulls me in. Same thing this time with the 14 bits, Digix III, highlight expansion, etc.
And, FWIW (not much ;>) I never really used a lens wider than 28mm in 20+ years working with film. So the obsession with the superwides and the complaints about the wides (usually 24, 21, or wider) really has not affected me. (I do still use 4x5 film on a Cambo Wide ,with 47mm, 65mm, and 90mm lenses for architecture on that platform though. MFDB coming soon.)
The 1DsII always had more resolutin and sharpness than I needed for fashion. I often needed healthy doses of gaussian blur on unsharpened imnages. Horses for courses, as always, but some of the pre-release angst really doesn't affect 95% of the cameras potential users. It will be great for most purposes.
Best,
Michael
-
My Olympus to Canon adapter has just arrived from Fotodiox.
While it fits and I can focus to infinity, the action of attaching and removing it from both the camera and the lens could not be described as smooth. The steel on steel is a bit rough.
Otherwise seems OK.
D.