Tested my five Canon lenses on my 5DS

[jeffreybehr]

They are F4/L zooms in 16-35 and 24-70, TS-Es in 17mm and 24mm(II), and a 70-300/L.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56064704

I did the most-careful job I knew how to do.  Surprises were that the 16-35/4 isn't quite as sharp as the 17TSE* and that the 70-300L is as sharp as it is thru its range--and including at 300, which I previously thought was somewhat soft.

So without the 16-35 my roller got a pound-and-a-half lighter, but then yesterday I ordered a Samyang/Rokinon 14mm for only $257 delivered.  I hope it works as well as the Samyang 12mm I have for my excellent Samsung NX1.

And yes, I can see on screen but especially in 17" prints the higher resolution of the 50MP 5DS compared with the 28MP NX1.

FWIW I'm thrilled with the results from my 5DS.  The images in print are VERY highly resolved, its noise is lower and finer grained than that from the 5D3 or NX1, and overall the images are attractive and appealing.

* And probably it should not be surprising that a U$2K prime is sharper than a U$1K zoom.

[David Eichler]

They are F4/L zooms in 16-35 and 24-70, TS-Es in 17mm and 24mm(II), and a 70-300/L.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56064704

I did the most-careful job I knew how to do.  Surprises were that the 16-35/4 isn't quite as sharp as the 17TSE* and that the 70-300L is as sharp as it is thru its range--and including at 300, which I previously thought was somewhat soft.

So without the 16-35 my roller got a pound-and-a-half lighter, but then yesterday I ordered a Samyang/Rokinon 14mm for only $257 delivered.  I hope it works as well as the Samyang 12mm I have for my excellent Samsung NX1.

And yes, I can see on screen but especially in 17" prints the higher resolution of the 50MP 5DS compared with the 28MP NX1.

FWIW I'm thrilled with the results from my 5DS.  The images in print are VERY highly resolved, its noise is lower and finer grained than that from the 5D3 or NX1, and overall the images are attractive and appealing.

* And probably it should not be surprising that a U$2K prime is sharper than a U$1K zoom.

If you read the Roger Cicala article linked to elsewhere in this forum, you will realize that there can be very significant variations between copies of the same lens design. I own the Canon 16-35 F:4 and would say that, at 17mm, it is about as sharp as most copies of the Canon 17mm ts-e I have tried. However, I once tried one copy of the Canon 17mm ts-e that was garbage. I think the Canon 16-35mm f:4 is a terrific lens overall and would suggest that, if you have not already done some, you try some other copies of it if you are suspecting that your copy is not that good.

[jeffreybehr]

If you read the Roger Cicala article linked to elsewhere in this forum, you will realize that there can be very significant variations between copies of the same lens design. I own the Canon 16-35 F:4 and would say that, at 17mm, it is about as sharp as most copies of the Canon 17mm ts-e I have tried. However, I once tried one copy of the Canon 17mm ts-e that was garbage. I think the Canon 16-35mm f:4 is a terrific lens overall and would suggest that, if you have not already done some, you try some other copies of it if you are suspecting that your copy is not that good.

I'm sure that what you write is correct.  I tested MY single lenses and not a group of lenses.  My 16-35/4 is very good, but its image sharpness was bettered by both my 17TSE and 24-70/4.  My 16-35 is long beyond its return period, and I won't be buying or renting more to test.  As I wrote at DPR, "Pls keep in mind that these conclusions result from ME using MY lenses and certainly are not universal proclamations, and your experience may be different."

[robdickinson]

Love my 16-35/4 because it offers so much versatility with close to prime like quality.

Its not a prime though and it isnt that expensive either.

You ditched it from your bag, I take it as an only lens , or with a 50/1.4

Likewise the 24tse doesnt live in my bag because its sharp (which it is, unshifted) its there for its utility too.

[jeffreybehr]

I reshot 3 different targets/distances with the 24TS-E2, 24-70/4, and 16-35/4 and came to slightly different conclusions.

"Correction--more testing of the 16-35/4, 24-70/4, and 24TSE-II, with three different targets, now shows me that the 16-35/4 is as sharp at 24 as the 24-70 is, and that's very sharp.  The 24TSE-II is still lagging in res, however; I'm still investigating that." 

Subsequently I sent the 24TSE to Canon for repair, as the new testing showed its pics suffered from jaggies and much more CA than was acceptable.  It'll be back next week; we'll see what my $200 got me.

But I still think the 24TSE2 will be the least-used lens among all of these and that I'll sell it.

[orc73]

Hello
how is your experience now with the 24-70 f4 now in general? are images sharp outside the center at f4 on the 5dsr?
I do own the 24-70 II, and I just found out IS is a game changer for the 5dsr at least on my new 100mm L.

best regards

[jeffreybehr]

Hello
how is your experience now with the 24-70 f4 now in general? are images sharp outside the center at f4 on the 5dsr?
I do own the 24-70 II, and I just found out IS is a game changer for the 5dsr at least on my new 100mm L.

Orc, my Canon system has been gone for months.  I just saw your question.

[BernardLanguillier]

Orc, my Canon system has been gone for months.  I just saw your question.

What have you replaced it with if I may ask?

cheers,
Bernard

[jeffreybehr]

What have you replaced it with if I may ask?

cheers,
Bernard

A Sony a7R2.  I had an a7R a few years ago, and eventually its many foibles drove me crazy so I replaced it with a Samsung NX1 system.  That lasted until Canon announced the 5DS, which I received in early-summer of '15 IIRC.  That system turned out to be too heavy (the lenses), and then Sony announced the a7R2 which apparently resolved many of the a7R's problems.  The 'R2 system turns out to be heavier than I thought initially, since the body's too small for good handling without a batterygrip, but I now have two classic Zeiss lenses (Zeiss/Contax-Ns* with Kapon and fringer adapters) plus two new Loxias, and I'm plenty happy enough with the whole mess.

The 5DS's images are still the best, overall, I've ever printed with my 3880, but the Sony's image quality is plenty close enough, so I'm happy.

* 24-85 and 70-200, both 3.5-4.5.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I have also both the Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII and the 16-35/4L (on Sony A7rII), my sample of the TSE 24/3.5 is not as good as the 16-35/4 at 24, but it does T&S. My Sony 24-70/2.8 is also sharper than the TSE 24.

Overall, my sample of the 24/3.5 TSE is a bit of disappointment, but I have heard from two owners who also had similar performance on theirs. One of those users had two samples. The second user suggested that the issue would be tricky field curvature. That may be the case, but MTF curves I have seen did not indicate tricky field curvature.

When shooting interiors, the 24/3.5 TSE LII worked very well.

My sample of the 16-35/4L is impressive on the A7rII.

Next lens I buy for the Sony is probably the Canon 24-70/2.8, it is said to be the best 24-70 lens. A friend of mine had a broken sample, unsharp on one side and the loaner he got from Canon also was unsharp. He just got the repaired lens back and it was OK after repair.

TSE samples here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/24TSE/
16-35/4L samples here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/Canon_16_35_4/

Here is a comparison of my three lenses at 24 mm (near corner crop at actual pixels): http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/24mm_compared/

Best regards
Erik

I reshot 3 different targets/distances with the 24TS-E2, 24-70/4, and 16-35/4 and came to slightly different conclusions.

"Correction--more testing of the 16-35/4, 24-70/4, and 24TSE-II, with three different targets, now shows me that the 16-35/4 is as sharp at 24 as the 24-70 is, and that's very sharp.  The 24TSE-II is still lagging in res, however; I'm still investigating that." 

Subsequently I sent the 24TSE to Canon for repair, as the new testing showed its pics suffered from jaggies and much more CA than was acceptable.  It'll be back next week; we'll see what my $200 got me.

But I still think the 24TSE2 will be the least-used lens among all of these and that I'll sell it.

[BernardLanguillier]

I have also both the Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII and the 16-35/4L (on Sony A7rII), my sample of the TSE 24/3.5 is not as good as the 16-35/4 at 24, but it does T&S. My Sony 24-70/2.8 is also sharper than the TSE 24.

Which isn't that surprising. T/S lenses are designed to have a very large image circle with reasonnably uniform image quality all the way to the corners. It always results in a slightly lower performance in the center section of the image circle.

lenscore.org rates the Canon 24mm T/S as a good wide prime, but not as an outstanding one. It is btw rated as being far behind the Nikon 24mm T/S, which is probably because they measure those lenses un-shifted. The Nikon isn't that great with large amounts of shift, but it is truly excellent in the center of the image circle or when tilted slightly.

Cheers,
Bernard

[David Anderson]

 Surprises were that the 16-35/4 isn't quite as sharp as the 17TSE*

My experience with the 16/35 2.8 II and a 17 TSE were that the TSE wasn't sharper, but had better corners and a flatter field of focus.
(on 1DSIII's)


That said, the 17 was a lousy event lens compared to the 16/35.