Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: stacibeth on March 21, 2008, 09:16:07 pm
-
I've heard the canon optics are just not cutting it. Has anyone had any experience with this/ I was looking at the 1ds mark 3 but I am concerned about their lens sharpness.
Would it be wise to use a nikon/nikkor lens on the canon with an adapter?, are the nikon lenses any sharper?
Mainly between the 24mm tilt shift canon, to similar nikon/nikkor lens?
Thanks
-
Well to talk from experience:
Canon lenses suck (for the new digital bodies). Quality assurance of Canon lenses sucks. Repair of Canon lenses sucks.
Now that I ranted a bit (without a point) let me make a point:
I used to love the Canon 85 1.8 prime. It was great on my 1Ds. Then I tested the same lens on the 1D MK2 and I started to receive severe purple fringing (specially on contrasty or backlit setups). Then came the 1ds MK2 which was a very nice camera but it wouldn't play nice with my fav portrait lense. 30-40 % of the pics in overcast light would have purple fringing. So I didn't use that lens any longer.
With the Canon 1Ds MK2 I only used the 24-70 2.8L and the 70-200 2.8 L IS zoom lenses. I stopped believing in changing lenses on Canon bodies as their sensors attract dust so severely and retouching out dust on every single pic is just something I don't have time to do.
So anyway... I purchased THREE copies of the 70-200 2.8L IS to find one that wasn't to bad... then I sold one with a loss and gave one to a customer as a gift. The 24-70 2.8 I only bought twice. One copy was terrible... the other was probably between average and good. I didn't bother to look further.
Beside my own equipment I went through rent equipment and there I had to realize that the same Canon lens can be very different between different copies (hence I bought more than one to make sure to find a good copy when I invested into digital systems).
Ok.... then about 2 years of use on one 1Ds MK2 with the 70-200 2.8L IS I suddenly got some severe backfocussing. Focussing on the eyes would give me sharp ears instead of sharp eyes. I had to bring the camera and lens combination 3 times for calibration. After the 3rd visit they told me that that 1Ds MK2 now probably wouldn't focus correctly with other lenses anymore and the 70-200 wouldn't focus correctly with other bodies.
Canon Professional Service couldn't get it to work during these three visits. And yes... it didn't focus accurately with other lenses either. I sold that body with the lens CHEAP to a guy that didn't mind to manually focus a 2 year old Canon flagship camera.
Now some will tell you: Shoot primes. Yes. They are better. But then you loose the speed and ability to quickly reframe between shots. The 70-200 is great... full lenght then one second later you take a close-up portrait - that's where DSLR's shine. If I need to shoot primes I stay with the Mamiya RZ.
What I realized working with Canon DSLR's is that the type of light plays a huge role into how they perform. My Canon's never really liked flash. They love sunlight (with a little flash fill) and neon tubes. Particularly the 24-70 gives me usually sharper images when shot at around 1/50 sec with neon tubes than when I shoot at 1/250 sec with strobe. Sounds funny... but that was my experience.
I think putting Nikon lenses onto an adapter to shoot on a Canon is just hassle without any real benefit but with many downsides. Depending on your application some people use MF lenses with adapters but that takes all the comfort of DSLR's so the question is almost if it wouldn't make more sense to go to a cheap used MF digiback setup if you're concerned with lenses and sharpness.
Happy easter
Boris
I've heard the canon optics are just not cutting it. Has anyone had any experience with this/ I was looking at the 1ds mark 3 but I am concerned about their lens sharpness.
Would it be wise to use a nikon/nikkor lens on the canon with an adapter?, are the nikon lenses any sharper?
Mainly between the 24mm tilt shift canon, to similar nikon/nikkor lens?
Thanks
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183370\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Well since your in search of a camera platform that allows you to shoot very wide with perspective control, you don't have a lot of choices with uber resolution cameras.
I tested the 24 tse with my 1ds3 and found it lacking... I'd suspect there will be an update to the shift lines from canon as no one is happy with the 24 when used with the 1ds2 or 3.
In regards to optics in general.... the high density of the 1ds3 really pushes the level of resolution requirements of the lens. This is also true of any MFDB over 22MP. I found that I had to stick to "L" primes and a few of the "L" zooms with the 1ds3. I have not found an acceptable wide shift for the 1ds3 and instead do my perspective control ( in regards to shift, not tilt ) in photoshop. Mind you I come from shooting 8X10 and 4X5 back in the 80's and 90's so I think I know what I'm doing... and I'm quite happy just doing the "straightening out" in post.
I have a "great" copy of a 17-40 "L" and I'm very happy with it for shooting architecture around f8/f11. I've tested the new 14mm II and find myself wanting one as well.... but 17mm is wide enough for the moment. If mid wide is your game, the 35mm f1.4 is outstanding as well and leaves nothing to be desired. The 24mm "L" is not as good... but down around f8 acceptable.
For MFDB.... the options get very pricey with shift, and even then there is not much of an image circle to play with in wide lenses, and since the lens needs to be so close the the sensor it requires specialized bodies like the AlPA. If you do enough of this type of work to make the ROI work then that would be the optimal kit... at a dear price.
-
Does it make sense to put a nikon lens on the canon, is it any better?
-
Does it make sense to put a nikon lens on the canon, is it any better?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183531\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
no
canon does make some fantastic glass... every brand has it's dogs so if you have the opertunity to hand pick your glass then you won't have much room to complain.
-
I too have had some problems with aberrations with the 24-70 f2.8L but its not really THAT bad at all and its only problematic below f5.6 or so and as you Boris only when backlit. No lens is perfect there is always some form of compromise especially when talking zooms but as for sharpness and contrast I have found the Canon lenses to be equal or better than Nikkor glass. I have previously run Horseman digiflex with a phase backs with Nikkor lenses and although the aberrations were less prominent the contrast was not as high IMO on the 28-70 Nikkor vs the 24-70 Canon on a 1Ds. The T/S 90 is a great piece I really enjoy working with it. I dont have the wider versions though I was warned against them by a colleague whom I respect.
As for CPS? I had something come loose inside my first 24-70 and they replaced it free of charge with a new one and this lens was well used and already 3 years old. Top notch service IMO
-
this is a really broad question with no simple answers and an incredible amount of discussion
a lot of the discussion is the result of Canon success, they have more professional users and have pushed digital cameras to the highest level
and digital shows up problems with lenses and facilitates lens testing for the average user
my personal experience is that Canon makes some great medium to extreme telephoto lenses - with some lens variation. going from medium to wide is a mixed bag in both lens design and lens-lens variation
from reading reviews and discussion, the medium to wide Canon lenses don't measure up to Zeiss or Leica. Nikon seems to do better with medium to wide than Canon, but i can't speak from experience -- and Nikon hasn't yet delivered digital cameras to push the limits of their lenses
i think Canon has done a good job of delivering "good enough" lenses at competitive prices -- but is not focusing on the number of people who would now like better than good-enough and are willing to pay for it (even though they may not need it)
i test all the Canon lenses i buy and may buy multiple copies for testing - that's my level of comfort
-
I found this on B/H, will it work on the new canon 1ds mark3????
Schneider Wide Angle 28mm f/2.8 PC Super-Angulon Manual Focus SLR Lens for Canon EOS
-
Have you considered stitching?
It is per my experience a much better option that t/s lenses for architecture shots, and correcting for converging verticals works really well with PTgui.
A recent example.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2334/2177500887_57afb57484_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I found this on B/H, will it work on the new canon 1ds mark3????
Schneider Wide Angle 28mm f/2.8 PC Super-Angulon Manual Focus SLR Lens for Canon EOS
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183855\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't know if that lens is good, great, or fantastic regarding resolution, color and contrast. But... I can tell you that I don't think it is wide enough for interior arch work with the 1ds3.
I tend to do most of my arch work with the 17-40.... staying in the 17 to 20 range and fixing the perspective in photoshop. I tend to shoot most interior images at a height that equals the the middle of the rooms height. That means that no perspective correction is needed.
The other lens I'd get ( as I already said ) is the 14mm II... I just tested one saturday and it is truly fantastic.
-
Have you considered stitching?
It is per my experience a much better option that t/s lenses for architecture shots, and correcting for converging verticals works really well with PTgui.
A recent example.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2334/2177500887_57afb57484_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183891\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lovely Bernard, how many frames did you stich for this (D3?)
Mike
-
Lovely Bernard, how many frames did you stich for this (D3?)
Mike
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183965\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
16 if I recall correctly.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I need a good crisp wide angle (perspective control prefered) any reccommendations. ??
-
I've heard the canon optics are just not cutting it. Has anyone had any experience with this/ I was looking at the 1ds mark 3 but I am concerned about their lens sharpness.
Would it be wise to use a nikon/nikkor lens on the canon with an adapter?, are the nikon lenses any sharper?
Mainly between the 24mm tilt shift canon, to similar nikon/nikkor lens?
Thanks
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183370\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not if you are using "L" glass. For professional work the Canon lenses are great. In the past year they have issued second series on some lenses optimized for digital work. I use the 14, 24, 35, 85 and 135 L glass. They are all sharp and have good color. Now, a disclaimer here. I am not a technical geek, I don't shoot charts and patterns, just photos. I shoot primarily architecture, I do have an adapted Nikon 28MM, and I have heard the Canon 24MM TSE is not as sharp as it should be, but the 45 and 90MM TSE lenses are quite fine. Also, some friends, buy and adapt the Zeiss lenses, but I understand the fit is better on the Nikon bodies.
-
L lenses, what does the L stand for?
what zeiss lens works on the 1ds3 with an adapter?
-
L lenses, what does the L stand for?
what zeiss lens works on the 1ds3 with an adapter?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=184002\")
Try this site....... it has a lot of info that might guide you..... lens tests on Canons and adapter info:
[a href=\"http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/compatible.html]http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/compatible.html[/url]
-
I need a good crisp wide angle (perspective control prefered) any reccommendations. ??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183989\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The new Nikkor 14-24 f2.8 comes to mind if your work does with single DSLR frame captures.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
They don't call it the "Canon Lens Lottery" for nothin'. L or non-L means little. Their QC sucks.
Their MTF charts are, at best, wishful thinking - and based on theoretical computer models, NOT real lenses tests.
At and 'above' the 300/2.8 IS - excellent
'Below' the 300/2.8 and above the 50mm range - some suck, most are just OK - IF you get a good copy (big IF), and a couple like the 135/2 are excellent - if you get a good copy that is still calibrated.
In the WA side - suck vs. the alternatives (manual focus) you can use on EOS (thankfully). The Alt glass trend on Canon (see FM Alt Forum) was born as the result of these lousy glass offerings.
Canon spent a kings ransom developing it's long pro glass and it shows. The rest....
Shoot a nice Zeiss or Leica lens (to name two) on your EOS and it's like you've got a whole new camera - excellent resolution in the fine detail, great transparency, accurate colors (no over-the-top reds and yellowy greens), much better shadow detail, etc.,
Most big SLR vendors are simply selling mass-production lenses designed in the days of film. However, unlike Nikon with the 14-24, 24-70, etc., Canon has yet to get its act together by starting to offer sub-300mm IS glass that lives up to the resolution abilities of it's sensors.
-
From my experience the following lens' I own are fantastic and leave nothing to be desired;
14mm II "L"
35mm 1.4 "L"
50mm compact macro f2.5
85mm f1.2
70-200 f2.8 & f4
100mm macro
As I said already, my 17-40 "L" is a great copy and when stopped down to f8 is fantastic as well.
Back in the 80's my 35mm kit was a contax rts... and some of those zeiss lens' are considered to be the best.... but when I tried a contax 50mm f1.4 on my 1ds3, I found my $200 canon 50mm macro to sharper.
-
what about the olympus 24mm pc, any info?
-
Have you considered stitching?
It is per my experience a much better option that t/s lenses for architecture shots, and correcting for converging verticals works really well with PTgui.
A recent example.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183891\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Bernard,
As usual - stunning.
Turning to the OP's question - I know two people who own Canon tilt-shift lenses and both find them thoroughly unsatisfactory. I forget which vintages. General advice here: make the photograph with a normal lens and correct the keystoning in Photoshop - works much better. Or Bernard's solution. Lovely.
As for my experience: the performance of Canon lenses varies from copy to copy of the same generic lens, hence you need to buy from a dealer allowing try-and-exchange. Canon itself knows perfectly well this is the case. They have a quality RANGE that falls within the "acceptable" category (to them).
I haven't used Nikon lenses on a digital camera so I don't know whether the story is any different, but I would not be surprised if it were the same, dollar for dollar.
Mark
-
As a result of an extended photoshoot in Yellowstone National Park last month where many of the images are of snow scenes occupying the whole image area (shot with my 1DsMk3, using mostly the 24~105L and the 70~300 DO), I discovered that these lenses produce a very slight magenta cast at the corners of the image. Measuring this cast relative to the image area closer to the center, I find the a* channel of the Lab info data would range from 1 to 3 levels more positive. That is, if the center were a* = 0, the corners would be a* = +1 to +3, which is noticeable. One would not notice this kind of thing on most photographs which are not close to bright-neutral throughout.
I have also seen that my 70~300 focused at infinity, 75mm, f/6.3 produces fuzzy corners capturing material which falls within the infinity range. At smaller apertures if performs much better.
-
As a result of an extended photoshoot in Yellowstone National Park last month where many of the images are of snow scenes occupying the whole image area (shot with my 1DsMk3, using mostly the 24~105L and the 70~300 DO), I discovered that these lenses produce a very slight magenta cast at the corners of the image. Measuring this cast relative to the image area closer to the center, I find the a* channel of the Lab info data would range from 1 to 3 levels more positive. That is, if the center were a* = 0, the corners would be a* = +1 to +3, which is noticeable. One would not notice this kind of thing on most photographs which are not close to bright-neutral throughout.
I have also seen that my 70~300 focused at infinity, 75mm, f/6.3 produces fuzzy corners capturing material which falls within the infinity range. At smaller apertures if performs much better.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184248\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bernard - 16 images to stitch - lovely work.
Mark, I also have a 70-300 DO and find that wide open it's not outstandingly sharp - and of course on the 1Ds3 you get to see that on screen even more than with the 5D - but agree that stopped down by 1 stop it really improves significantly. It's a lens that repays good technique really, thogh I tend to keep it for it's realtively low size and weight.
Mike
-
Here's my experience, and what I own:
15mm F2.8 fish, this is a great lens, and razor sharp too. Very good color and contrast.
14L Mark I, this is not a remarkable lens. Not bad, but not what one expects from an L prime.
24L, very good but a tad too soft wide open.
35L, most excellent...the best, perhaps the best 35mm of any brand. Razor sharp wide open.
50L, AF performance is sub par. When AF locks dead on and you know how to move your body to mitigate the focus shift, it is great, but when shooting close and fast the AF is dodgy...this is Canon's shame :-( And yes, it has been calibrated with little improvement. Why Canon chose to not use a floating rear element like the 35L and 85L is anyone's guess. Idiots!
85L, most excellent, and no other make has anything over this gem. Razor sharp wide open.
135L, fantastic, uber over the top amazing. The color rendition and contrast of this lens is magnificient.
200L, same as 135L
16-35L, very good lens, but not amazing.
24-70L, the best standard/normal zoom of any make, any brand. Razor sharp wide open, great color and contrast, and built for commercial-pro grade abuse.
70-200L F2.8 IS, a great tele-zoom. Very sharp wide open across entire focal range.
100-400 IS, nearly as good as the 70-200L F2.8 IS. This lens is very, very good for a tele-zoom.
-
I don't know if that lens is good, great, or fantastic regarding resolution, color and contrast. But... I can tell you that I don't think it is wide enough for interior arch work with the 1ds3.
I tend to do most of my arch work with the 17-40.... staying in the 17 to 20 range and fixing the perspective in photoshop. I tend to shoot most interior images at a height that equals the the middle of the rooms height. That means that no perspective correction is needed.
The other lens I'd get ( as I already said ) is the 14mm II... I just tested one Saturday and it is truly fantastic.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183913\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Have you tried any of the panoramic systems that are designed for vertical stitching?
drgary
-
Here's my experience, and what I own:
15mm F2.8 fish, this is a great lens, and razor sharp too. Very good color and contrast.
14L Mark I, this is not a remarkable lens. Not bad, but not what one expects from an L prime.
24L, very good but a tad too soft wide open.
35L, most excellent...the best, perhaps the best 35mm of any brand. Razor sharp wide open.
50L, AF performance is sub par. When AF locks dead on and you know how to move your body to mitigate the focus shift, it is great, but when shooting close and fast the AF is dodgy...this is Canon's shame :-( And yes, it has been calibrated with little improvement. Why Canon chose to not use a floating rear element like the 35L and 85L is anyone's guess. Idiots!
85L, most excellent, and no other make has anything over this gem. Razor sharp wide open.
135L, fantastic, uber over the top amazing. The color rendition and contrast of this lens is magnificient.
200L, same as 135L
16-35L, very good lens, but not amazing.
24-70L, the best standard/normal zoom of any make, any brand. Razor sharp wide open, great color and contrast, and built for commercial-pro grade abuse.
70-200L F2.8 IS, a great tele-zoom. Very sharp wide open across entire focal range.
100-400 IS, nearly as good as the 70-200L F2.8 IS. This lens is very, very good for a tele-zoom.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184704\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Are you talking about the 200 F/2.8 or the new 200f 2.0?
drgary
-
I make my living shooting architecture and do almost all my assignment magazine work with a 5D and PC lenses. These include a Canon 24 t/s, Olympus 35, Canon 45t/s and 90 t/s. The worst of the bunch is the 24 but if used carefully it is perfectly serviceable for magazine size spreads including double truck horizontal layouts. I do some stitching mainly from the 24 from left/right shift pairs. I usually work it out with a single image if possible. Part of the reason to use shift lenses is that I work allot on site with art directors of big magazines shooting tethered and a perspective corrected image popping up on the computer screen looks much more professional and understandable to the client. Also severe perspective correction in PS relies on significant interpolation and is not any better than mediocre lenses in the severely stretched areas. It doesn't surprise me that users of higher MP cameras than the 5d find fault with the 24. The 5D out resolves the 24 in the far corners even at f11, but my copies of the 45 and 90 are superb and sharp at the corners even fully shifted. These lenses certainly would work well with a 16MP and possibly 21MP camera. Certainly Canon has some work to do in this area, mainly on the 24 and wider lenses. I also own a 16-35L (mediocre), a 24-70L (adequate), a 70-200L (pretty good) and a 135L (absolutely superb).
For 30 years I only worked with 4x5, believing the naysayers, I did not believe I could get professional architectural results from the 5D and Canon lenses. I bought it just to play around andupdate my skills for the day when this technology really arrived. Christmas of 07 my local lab shut down for a couple of weeks forcing me to shoot digitally for a very picky client. I have never looked back. The technology had already arrived.
-
I have some technical questions from this interesting thread:
The photos from Kirk and Bernard are wonderful! We've all read numerous times that a single shot from the 1DsIII does not compete with the medium format digital backs for IQ, but are you both saying that stitched 35 mm shots do compete?
If you are going to use stitching, are the 12 MPIX cameras inherently better (dynamic range, high ISO, "pixel quality") than the 16 or 21 MPIX options?
If you were going to do a 12-image stitch, what lens would you choose? My inclination would be a normal prime to optimize optical quality. The T/S are nice too because you could use shift in one direction and move the camera in the other.
Thanks,
Cecelia
-
If you were going to do a 12-image stitch, what lens would you choose? My inclination would be a normal prime to optimize optical quality. The T/S are nice too because you could use shift in one direction and move the camera in the other.
Thanks,
Cecelia
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185203\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not an expert here, but isn't the answer to your question dependent on what you intend to do with the image? My panos usually end up as a half gb tiff, and I don't expect to be printing larger than say, 17 x 30 when I get a new printer. So I figure my 24-105mm zoom is up to the job, and certainly everything is sharp on screen down to the smallest detail that will be possibly visible on print. This file size also gives the stitching software a lot of leeway when it's correcting for perspective. Cheers, David
-
Cecelia, Those are allot of questions. I can't give you a comparison of the 5D and higher MP cameras, because I don't own them and haven'y used them much. I will probably upgrade to one of them latter this year, perhaps the new 5D?. MF digital doesn't interest me right now for my photography as shooting 4x5 film is so simple (for me I have been doing it for 30+ years) and cheap (the camera and lenses were paid off decades ago and work as well as the day they were new). For me I would never do 12 image stitch (I rarely do more than 3) unless I did not have my 4x5 handy which is rare, I almost always have it with me.
-
Are you talking about the 200 F/2.8 or the new 200f 2.0?
drgary
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184865\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
F2.8....I would love the F2 IS though.
-
Now some will tell you: Shoot primes. Yes. They are better. But then you loose the speed and ability to quickly reframe between shots. The 70-200 is great... full lenght then one second later you take a close-up portrait - that's where DSLR's shine. If I need to shoot primes I stay with the Mamiya RZ.
Well, that's your problem. If you enjoy spending top dollar on Canon bodies, and then turn around and use a 70-200 zoom instead of a prime, then don't complain, and more importantly, don't say that Canon lenses suck.
I've used many Zeiss, Leica, and Nikon lenses on Canon, and I've only kept a few, mostly because my Canon primes have outperformed them. The wide end needs help. Quality control also needs a bit of help, though I've had good luck with my "copies."
-
Cecelia, Those are allot of questions. I can't give you a comparison of the 5D and higher MP cameras, because I don't own them and haven'y used them much. I will probably upgrade to one of them latter this year, perhaps the new 5D?. MF digital doesn't interest me right now for my photography as shooting 4x5 film is so simple (for me I have been doing it for 30+ years) and cheap (the camera and lenses were paid off decades ago and work as well as the day they were new). For me I would never do 12 image stitch (I rarely do more than 3) unless I did not have my 4x5 handy which is rare, I almost always have it with me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185290\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Kirk,
What's the difference in image quality between using a T/S and modifying the image in Photoshop? Are there situations when you choose one over the other?
-
what about the olympus 24mm pc, any info?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184224\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's popular in some circles of 5d users, where it's reputed to do an excellent job, and possibly on par with modern offerings (otherwise they wouldn't be shelling out $2000 apiece for them to use with adapters on canon bodies). Not sure how well they would perform on a 21mp body, though.
-
They don't call it the "Canon Lens Lottery" for nothin'. L or non-L means little. Their QC sucks.
Their MTF charts are, at best, wishful thinking - and based on theoretical computer models, NOT real lenses tests.
At and 'above' the 300/2.8 IS - excellent
'Below' the 300/2.8 and above the 50mm range - some suck, most are just OK - IF you get a good copy (big IF), and a couple like the 135/2 are excellent - if you get a good copy that is still calibrated.
In the WA side - suck vs. the alternatives (manual focus) you can use on EOS (thankfully). The Alt glass trend on Canon (see FM Alt Forum) was born as the result of these lousy glass offerings.
Canon spent a kings ransom developing it's long pro glass and it shows. The rest....
Shoot a nice Zeiss or Leica lens (to name two) on your EOS and it's like you've got a whole new camera - excellent resolution in the fine detail, great transparency, accurate colors (no over-the-top reds and yellowy greens), much better shadow detail, etc.,
Most big SLR vendors are simply selling mass-production lenses designed in the days of film. However, unlike Nikon with the 14-24, 24-70, etc., Canon has yet to get its act together by starting to offer sub-300mm IS glass that lives up to the resolution abilities of it's sensors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184118\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
To be fair, what lens maker is not a lottery of quality? Some are worse then others of course.
When it comes to Canon L glass, they show the best QC with few exceptions.
As to Canon non-L, especially zooms, they are mostly craaap, and show lousy QC.
The 3rd parties are the worse with few exceptions, when it comes to QC.
I have 15 Canon L lenses, and the only one that I think performs subpar, and even after being calibrated by Canon, is the 50L....it is AF issues when shooting close and with wide apertures, and there is NOTHING that can be done about it because the problem is innate with the design....the 50L aside, I've never had any QC issues with the other 14 L lenses.
-
Are you talking about the 200 F/2.8 or the new 200f 2.0?
drgary
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184865\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
F2.8
-
what lens maker is not a lottery of quality?
I've used at various times over 20 Leica-R lenses and have had no QC problems.
-
To be fair, what lens maker is not a lottery of quality? Some are worse then others of course.
When it comes to Canon L glass, they show the best QC with few exceptions.
As to Canon non-L, especially zooms, they are mostly craaap, and show lousy QC.
The 3rd parties are the worse with few exceptions, when it comes to QC.
I have 15 Canon L lenses, and the only one that I think performs subpar, and even after being calibrated by Canon, is the 50L....it is AF issues when shooting close and with wide apertures, and there is NOTHING that can be done about it because the problem is innate with the design....the 50L aside, I've never had any QC issues with the other 14 L lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214822\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Canon certainly sets the standard... for dismal quality control - and their apathetic "pro" service is even worse.
They do make some very good lenses, such as the 35mm f1.4L, 85mm f1.2L, 135mm f2L, 200 f2.8L, and all of the big white "L" lenses are excellent (except the 100-400L which must have lens elements supplied by Coca Cola, the 70-200 f4L (non-IS) which is plagued by back-fcous problems, and the 300 f4L which is only a so-so performer - perhaps it was the marketing department, rather than the design people, that decided to give these latter three lenses the "L" designation... )
The 17-40 f4L is decent if you can find one that doesn't have de-centered elements (a problem which is unfortunately all too common with Canon lenses). The 16-35 f2.8L is a forgettable lens, and the revised version is only slightly better. The 24-70 f2.8L is okay (except for the rather severe light falloff), but it certainly doesn't compare with the Nikon AF-S 24-70 f2.8. I liked the 180 f3.5L macro for closeups, but it wasn't too sharp for distance work. I owned about 6 different copies of the 24mm f3.5L TS-E; I really like that focal length and loved the tilt-shift features, but it has the worst CA of any lens I've ever used, and it wasn't exceptionally sharp either.
I've owned literally dozens and dozens of Canon L lenses over that last 15 years - typically having to go through two, three, or more copies of each to find one that didn't have problems (more than 10 copies in the case of the 100-400L IS, without finding one that was capable of delivering sharp images). Some of these lenses probably could have been made functional by having Canon calibrate them to the cameras I was using, but with typical "pro rush" turnaround times of 6-8 weeks, and usually having to send them back two or three times to get the work done, that didn't seem like a viable option either.
I've amassed a collection of about 20 Nikon lenses and several camera bodies in the couple of years since I started the switch away from Canon, and have yet to see a single problem of any kind... certainly a refreshing change.
-
Canon certainly sets the standard... for dismal quality control - and their apathetic "pro" service is even worse.
Some of these lenses probably could have been made functional by having Canon calibrate them to the cameras I was using, but with typical "pro rush" turnaround times of 6-8 weeks, and usually having to send them back two or three times to get the work done, that didn't seem like a viable option either.
I've amassed a collection of about 20 Nikon lenses and several camera bodies in the couple of years since I started the switch away from Canon, and have yet to see a single problem of any kind... certainly a refreshing change.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216821\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not sure how different it is oop north, but this hasn't been my experience. I do repair work for the last mom 'n pop full service pro oriented camera store in Northern California and spend two days a week processing all their incoming repairs. Even the Joe Blow repairs come back from Canon Service usually within a week or two. The only hold up is the occasional part back order. Nikon is a different story and their part backorder rate runs about 30%. Canon's redo rate is a little less than Nikon's and we spend a lot less time arguing about warranty status. Heck, Canon has even fixed stuff a couple of months outside the timeframe under warranty.
The people who've used Canon USA's Pro Service seem quite satisfied.
FORD-CHEVY-FORD-CHEVY-FORD-CHEVY-FORD-CHEVY...
-
I have to say, I've not had anything to fault as far as Canon service is concerned, and to add, I'm not a CPS member here... requirements are simply too high for me, even though technically I meet all of them bar one.
Even under normal service conditions, they've been open and quick with turnaround. Usually within a week, for a simple lens calibration, though I did have a 16-35mm that took 3 1/2 weeks due to a major issue with one of the compound lenses assemblies splitting inside. Even then the lens was still in warrenty, but they made sure I knew what was going on at every stage.
I suppose here in Australia we're used to being given the ring around, but I've been satisfied with their service. Over all I've not been unhappy with their optics. I really enjoy my 50 f/1.2, and my 70-200L 2.8 IS is still my favourite lens, and most used.
My 16-35 however, has gone (I had the first version)... Corner performance was simply too low, and always had been on my 5D, and was simply exagerated too much on the 1Ds III. Even a problem on a full frame print. I don't need perfect (I actually have a 24-70 which is brillaint wide open, with a little red fringing on the outer edges), sharp with minimal distortion. I'm very happy with that performance.
I have however, been underwhelmed with a lot of their cheaper lenses. For me, I just want a lens that performs... If it doesn't, it goes.
-
L lenses, what does the L stand for?
"Luxury", as noted on page 15 of this Canon document (http://software.canon-europe.com/files/documents/EF_Lens_Work_Book_2_EN.pdf).
-
Not sure how different it is oop north, but this hasn't been my experience. I do repair work for the last mom 'n pop full service pro oriented camera store in Northern California and spend two days a week processing all their incoming repairs. Even the Joe Blow repairs come back from Canon Service usually within a week or two. The only hold up is the occasional part back order. Nikon is a different story and their part backorder rate runs about 30%. Canon's redo rate is a little less than Nikon's and we spend a lot less time arguing about warranty status. Heck, Canon has even fixed stuff a couple of months outside the timeframe under warranty.
The people who've used Canon USA's Pro Service seem quite satisfied.
Unfortunately, it's a totally different story with Canon Canada. I'm a CPS member, and even with me dropping the gear off at the regional service centre, getting a lens calibrated was always a six to eight week ordeal, and they rarely ever get anything right the first time. I think they borrowed a page from the old Chrysler strategy... hold onto the gear for a few weeks and then return it to the customer without doing anything to it... repeat this process enough times, and eventually the customer will get fed up and go away, and you don't have to waste perfectly good money providing warranty service.
By comparison, Nikon Canada's typical turnaround time is 24-48 hours (and I'm not an NPS member yet...), and the work is done professionally and competently - the first time. I'm sure it's a lot easier for Nikon to provide this high level of service since their technicians aren't burdened with a mountain of defective gear... most likely because, unlike Canon, Nikon actually has some sort of quality control program in place.
-
Canon certainly sets the standard... for dismal quality control - and their apathetic "pro" service is even worse.
They do make some very good lenses, such as the 35mm f1.4L, 85mm f1.2L, 135mm f2L, 200 f2.8L, and all of the big white "L" lenses are excellent (except the 100-400L which must have lens elements supplied by Coca Cola, the 70-200 f4L (non-IS) which is plagued by back-fcous problems, and the 300 f4L which is only a so-so performer - perhaps it was the marketing department, rather than the design people, that decided to give these latter three lenses the "L" designation... )
The 17-40 f4L is decent if you can find one that doesn't have de-centered elements (a problem which is unfortunately all too common with Canon lenses). The 16-35 f2.8L is a forgettable lens, and the revised version is only slightly better. The 24-70 f2.8L is okay (except for the rather severe light falloff), but it certainly doesn't compare with the Nikon AF-S 24-70 f2.8. I liked the 180 f3.5L macro for closeups, but it wasn't too sharp for distance work. I owned about 6 different copies of the 24mm f3.5L TS-E; I really like that focal length and loved the tilt-shift features, but it has the worst CA of any lens I've ever used, and it wasn't exceptionally sharp either.
I've owned literally dozens and dozens of Canon L lenses over that last 15 years - typically having to go through two, three, or more copies of each to find one that didn't have problems (more than 10 copies in the case of the 100-400L IS, without finding one that was capable of delivering sharp images). Some of these lenses probably could have been made functional by having Canon calibrate them to the cameras I was using, but with typical "pro rush" turnaround times of 6-8 weeks, and usually having to send them back two or three times to get the work done, that didn't seem like a viable option either.
I've amassed a collection of about 20 Nikon lenses and several camera bodies in the couple of years since I started the switch away from Canon, and have yet to see a single problem of any kind... certainly a refreshing change.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216821\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Gosh, you seem to have made so much trouble for yourself. All you had to do with a suspect lens was send it to Canon for calibration, and the turn around is just 2-3 days with the Irvine shop. The only exception to this advise, was my canon 50L...no amount of calibration will mitigate it's short comings, but this lens is the only exception. The other 14 L lenses are excellent, and have no issues that could not be mitigated with a free and fast turn-around calibration at Canon.
And don't kid yourself, for every Canon complaint of QA issues, you will find same with Nikon...just hang out in the Nikon forums if you don't believe me.
However to be fair, I will say that the QA for all the major makes seem to have suffered over the years.
Part of the issue too, is that since digital, issues of sharpness and resolution are found easier, and are more obvious then back in the film-only SLR days. Digital seems more demanding in those regards...the ability to zoom into on the screen, etc....
-
Part of the issue too, is that since digital, issues of sharpness and resolution are found easier, and are more obvious then back in the film-only SLR days. Digital seems more demanding in those regards...the ability to zoom into on the screen, etc....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217336\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Can lead to extreme pixel peeping that overpowers the actual photography.
I don't know about you, but in my early days I have sometimes shot with not so great equipment. And you still could get great shots out of it.
Today, there are many, absolutely perfect looking photographs around. One taken out of a series of possibly hundreds, then intensely processed.
And then dropped into a magazine, just like that, as if it had been so easy.
The risk of taking perfection for granted.
PS: many of the classic, great photographs were shot with lenses that had not coating. And the glass quality...
-
Unfortunately, it's a totally different story with Canon Canada. I'm a CPS member, and even with me dropping the gear off at the regional service centre, getting a lens calibrated was always a six to eight week ordeal, and they rarely ever get anything right the first time. I think they borrowed a page from the old Chrysler strategy... hold onto the gear for a few weeks and then return it to the customer without doing anything to it... repeat this process enough times, and eventually the customer will get fed up and go away, and you don't have to waste perfectly good money providing warranty service.
By comparison, Nikon Canada's typical turnaround time is 24-48 hours (and I'm not an NPS member yet...), and the work is done professionally and competently - the first time. I'm sure it's a lot easier for Nikon to provide this high level of service since their technicians aren't burdened with a mountain of defective gear... most likely because, unlike Canon, Nikon actually has some sort of quality control program in place.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217103\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Did you try bitching to management at the Canon service center? Letting them and management at corporate HQ know that your experience is costing them customers gets their attention.
The main thing Nikon's, and their contract shops, technician's aren't burdened with is the sheer number of repairs that inundate Canon. We'll see how this plays out as time goes by. Of course all the photogs who use Nikon gear due to sweetheart deals like the SI users enjoy will benefit from a level of service not available to the average owner.
One does wonder about the general tone in your posts, what with the assertion that Canon applies no QC in either manufacturing or service and Nikon walks on water. There does seem to be an agenda lurking in the background, as both statements are unsupportable.
-
And don't kid yourself, for every Canon complaint of QA issues, you will find same with Nikon...just hang out in the Nikon forums if you don't believe me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217336\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have not noticed that. It seems commonplace for Canon users to complain about lenses needing 'calibrating' (presumably realigning elements) whereas I hardly ever hear such things discussed in Nikon forums. Yes I am a Nikon user, and this is not scientific. There may be reasons that mask discussion of Nikon issues. That is not too say that my Nikon lenses are perfect. The 28mm F2.8 AFD was awful, but I think it was a bad design, rather than a bad sample.
-
Some of the softness of lenses is in technique, not in the glass, with the high-end digital cameras. I've spent the last few days shooting street stuff at the Republican convention and it's amazing how the sharpness improves when I'm not nervous. 8-)
Using D3, with 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 f2.8 glass.
-
Can lead to extreme pixel peeping that overpowers the actual photography.
I don't know about you, but in my early days I have sometimes shot with not so great equipment. And you still could get great shots out of it.
Today, there are many, absolutely perfect looking photographs around. One taken out of a series of possibly hundreds, then intensely processed.
And then dropped into a magazine, just like that, as if it had been so easy.
The risk of taking perfection for granted.
PS: many of the classic, great photographs were shot with lenses that had not coating. And the glass quality...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218197\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
All this bashing of pixel peeping. Funny, because it would be very, very foolish to not pixel peep the images taken with a new lens....there should never be any "shame" on pixel peeping. And if pixel peeping keeps one from doing real photography, it's not beceause of pixel peeping...it's because one was never into photography to begin with....aka---> Gear Heads.
And yea, in the good old days they shoot master pieces with so-so lenses, but what waters down your point is that in those days they had no choice! Don't you think those great masters used the best they could get? Of course they did!
-
Absolutely dreadful - worst lenses on the planet - everyone knows that which is why you won't get a penny for them secondhand. I would be happy, as an act of charity, to provide a home for a 16-35 II, a 90TS and a 135/2L, which are probably the very worst.
-
I don't think anyone mentioned this (sorry if i missed your point) but an extremely important factor, and one that does requires pixel peeping, is that most pro's are now shooting RAW digital capture.
The loss of apparent sharpness due to RAW capture is well documented, and the requirement for capture sharpening is one that it seems a lot of people still don't grasp.
Maybe this is playing a perceptive role.
i have canon glass and love it. If i had to grade them on a scale of 1-10
16-35L = 8
50mm 1.4 = 8
24-105L =9
70-200L 2.8 =9.5
-
I don't think anyone mentioned this (sorry if i missed your point) but an extremely important factor, and one that does requires pixel peeping, is that most pro's are now shooting RAW digital capture.
The loss of apparent sharpness due to RAW capture is well documented, and the requirement for capture sharpening is one that it seems a lot of people still don't grasp.
Maybe this is playing a perceptive role.
i have canon glass and love it. If i had to grade them on a scale of 1-10
16-35L = 8
50mm 1.4 = 8
24-105L =9
70-200L 2.8 =9.5
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221816\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You are not losing sharpness due to raw capture. Raw capture is how the file looks without any in-camera sharpening. JPEGs get sharpened as part of the processing happening in the camera. So it is normal for a JPEG to look sharper than a raw file, because the JPEG has been sharpened. One sharpens a raw file in LR, ACR or PS at the first stage to eliminate the loss of acutance caused by the camera's anti-aliasing filter. This has nothing to do with lenses.
-
16-35L = 4
50mm 1.4 = 5
24-105L =6
70-200L 2.8 =8,5
Leica 19mm = 8
Zeiss 21mm = 10
leica 28mm = 9.5
Leica 35-70 = 8.5
canon 135mm = 9.5
Canon 500mm = 9.5
Yes there are some good canon lenses but nothing wide.
-
You are not losing sharpness due to raw capture. Raw capture is how the file looks without any in-camera sharpening. JPEGs get sharpened as part of the processing happening in the camera. So it is normal for a JPEG to look sharper than a raw file, because the JPEG has been sharpened. One sharpens a raw file in LR, ACR or PS at the first stage to eliminate the loss of acutance caused by the camera's anti-aliasing filter. This has nothing to do with lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221833\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
um, precisely, that what i am saying. Read my words again.
-
I did and it's not, but not worth arguing about.