5dsr with 135mm vs IS from the 100mm L

[orc73]

Hello

does anybody have experience with both the 135mm and the 100mm L on the 5dsr?
The 5dsr might deliver more consistant results with the 100mm because of the IS.

I mostly shoot portraits and fashion, where I usualy stay at 1/200s to avoid movement blur from the subject.
I tend to use f2.8-f4 to keep the focus, and the focal length difference is no big deal.

I do own the 135mm, which is able to deliver great results. I also own a 24-70 II and a Sigma 50.
Sharpness of the pictures is not as consistent as I wish still trying to figure out if the fault is camera shake, focus or simply just the missing quality outside the center in the lenses.

best regards

[nemophoto]

You have almost the identical lenses I have, though I own the 5Ds. I actually own the 135 and have borrowed the 100 macro IS from Canon. I have had excellent results from both, though you do, as you figured, have to stabilize more. I've started using my monopod more with the 5Ds to achieve more stability and not be locked down by a tripod. This seems to have really benefited the 135. Though the 100 macro is newer design and has IS, the 135 is one of the best lenses Canon makes (though somewhat more prone to flare if you're not careful).

You might experiment with a monopod to see if your results are better. That said, since I like working with primes, I'll probably invest in the 100 macro IS in the very near future.

Nemo

[stevesanacore]

In my opinion, it sounds like it's not your optics but could be technique or camera focus calibration. It's certainly a personal skill that we all have to evaluate, but 1/200 is slow for me to shoot handheld with a 135 even on my 5Dmk3. I would use 1/500 minimum.  The higher res of the 5DSR will only magnify any deficiencies in focus accuracy or camera shake. What looks acceptable in 20mp won't always work at 50mp. I am also finding that depth of field also appears less on the higher res sensors. Test all your lenses wide open for focus and minimum shutter speeds and you'll figure it out.

[BobShaw]

I would never use a monopod to shoot portrait or fashion. Just impractical.

Is any of the picture in focus or is it generally soft? If it is all soft then it's not a focus problem unless it focussed on the background.

I don't understand "I tend to use f2.8 - f4 to keep the focus". Keep the focus on what? What are you trying to focus on (hopefully the eyes) and what is it focussing on?
The camera has no brain so it has no idea what you want in focus and at f2.8 that is not much. Turn on the focus points and see.

At the end of the day, I don't think it is an equipment problem. If you NEED high MP portraits then the answer if MF. Then any movement is 2.5 times less obvious than 35mm.

[Dshelly]

At the end of the day, I don't think it is an equipment problem. If you NEED high MP portraits then the answer if MF. Then any movement is 2.5 times less obvious than 35mm.

This has not been my experience. MF cameras are heavier, clunky in the hands, and require good form to hand-hold when the lens is wide open and depth of field is diminished.

1/200th should be fine for a 135mm lens. You need to be on a tripod or open the width of your legs to create a strong foundation, and then tuck your arms into your body to stabilize camera movement. I've used much bigger lenses than the 135 in low light and have not had many issues. Just bump the iso and raise the shutter speed.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

In my opinion, it sounds like it's not your optics but could be technique or camera focus calibration. It's certainly a personal skill that we all have to evaluate, but 1/200 is slow for me to shoot handheld with a 135 even on my 5Dmk3. I would use 1/500 minimum.  The higher res of the 5DSR will only magnify any deficiencies in focus accuracy or camera shake. What looks acceptable in 20mp won't always work at 50mp. I am also finding that depth of field also appears less on the higher res sensors. Test all your lenses wide open for focus and minimum shutter speeds and you'll figure it out.

I agree with Steve, high resolution images (are they required e.g. for huge output sizes?) will need more attention, and IS will certainly help with reducing camera shake (but not subject motion). Higher shutterspeed/flash/monopod is what's needed to improve the probability of capturing sharp images.

If the motion blur is simple/linear, then software deconvolution sharpening can help, especially with plenty pixels to calculate with. For more complex movement, more elaborate software solutions and postprocessing are required.

To make sure that a lens is up to the job, one can shoot a resolution test target, and make sure to focus in each corner individually. That will tell if corner performance is equal or that lens decentering plays a role.

Of course, one may also need to adjust the Capture and Output sharpening, because of the larger number of pixels, with a different system MTF, than one may be used to.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

This has not been my experience. MF cameras are heavier, clunky in the hands, and require good form to hand-hold when the lens is wide open and depth of field is diminished.

1/200th should be fine for a 135mm lens. You need to be on a tripod or open the width of your legs to create a strong foundation, and then tuck your arms into your body to stabilize camera movement.

Hi,

I'm not so sure about the 135, which is a heavy lens to handhold (camera has different balance with so much weight further to the front), if 1/200th is adequate on a high resolution sensor. It does require a different technique, and I also frequently have some motion in my 21 MP shots with that lens, if shooting handheld. The OP may be better off with the lighter and stabilized 100mm lens. He''l have enough pixels to crop a bit if needed.

Cheers,
Bart

[BobShaw]

This has not been my experience. MF cameras are heavier, clunky in the hands, and require good form to hand-hold when the lens is wide open and depth of field is diminished.

They are a lot lighter than the RZ67 that Annie Leibovitz managed to use. I'll keep using my Hassy when it matters and the 5D2 when it doesn't.

[orc73]

Until now I did shoot with the Hasselblad H4D-40, and I did have less problems with that one then now with the 5dsr. Of course most of the time I use flash anyway with the Hasselblad. Now with the 5dsr I tryed to mix in ambient light more, maybe the problem is also there.

@bobshaw: I never knew that MF movement will be 2.5 times less, is there any proof/science for that?
I wrote I use f2.8/4, I meant I use those stops at least to make sure the focus plane is not to thin - and to say that I don't really use the stop advantage of the 135mm.

BTW My Hasselblad H4d-40(17000actuations) with 80mm,150mm and 50mm hcII is for sell, if somebody is interested, PM me.

[BobShaw]

Yes, simple. To make an A4 print  (297 x 210 mm) from a 35 mm camera 36 x24mm sensor then you need to magnify it roughly 8 times in each direction, or 64 times. If you want to make the same print from an MF camera then the magnification will be a lot less, 2-2.5 times because the sensor is that much bigger. You can do the maths.

If you are using flash then you can shoot at 1/800th sec so there will be no camera or subject movement compared to 1/200th sync on a Dslr.

[hjulenissen]

Yes, simple. To make an A4 print  (297 x 210 mm) from a 35 mm camera 36 x24mm sensor then you need to magnify it roughly 8 times in each direction, or 64 times. If you want to make the same print from an MF camera then the magnification will be a lot less, 2-2.5 times because the sensor is that much bigger. You can do the maths.

This does not make sense to me.

If you want to make equivalent images, then you need to compensate for sensor size by changing focal length and aperture, while adjusting ISO to keep exposure constant while keeping exposure time constant. If you do so, the angular field of view for both cameras will be the same. Any _angular_ movement of the cameras in question will translate to the same amount of blur on sensor relative to image height/width?

-h

[Rob C]

From '66, when I hung out my shingle until I retired some years ago, I made my living pretty much solely via fashion and calendar model shoots, so I picked up a thing or two about how best I might do it.

I used both Hasselbad 500 Series systems (50mm, 80mm and 150mm) and Nikon (24mm - 500mm); after my first practical (and shocking) experience with the basic Hassy camera and 80mm, immediately after I'd traded up from a Rollei TLR, that honey of a Swedish camera was never used again without a tripod, studio/flash work very much included. You learn about horses and courses.

In contrast, the Nikon was very often used hand-held unless I was shooting heads or anything else where exact focus and framing was so important. Think about framing, hand-held, with any focal length, especially if you are going to go up to clothing manufacturer exhibition stand displays at 40" x 60".

With regard to the Nikon situation, let me make this clear: on medium speed film, say Ilford FP3/4, I was perfectly able to work 1/125th, hand-held, both in studio or on location, with focal lengths up to 50mm. The 135mm, hand-held, was never a possibility for me. Though I had perfect vision and the long-missed wonders of a split-image screen to help and comfort me, I could not guarantee a framing accuracy good enough, and certainly not focus accuracy, off a tripod.

I have no idea about the OP's situation - pro, am or whatever, but if you use the 135 camera format in any serious way, you need to pay attention to every available square millimetre you've got! Folks who claim magical, repeatable hand-held ability at sub-125th speeds, if honestly so, have earned my respect. I've nailed it on digital at about a 30th, but that was a miracle, and as such, a very rare thing.

Naturally, the OP must do as he sees fit.

Rob C

[NancyP]

I have had some success in hand held insect macro by shooting at relatively slow shutter speeds in "continuous" mode. Often the first frame in the burst will have slight motion artifact and the second or third frame will be free of motion artifact. I also use continuous mode for handheld panning shots, eg, birds in flight. Yep, you toss some shots, but electrons are cheap!

Go for image stabilization , for your use.

[jduncan]

Hello

does anybody have experience with both the 135mm and the 100mm L on the 5dsr?
The 5dsr might deliver more consistant results with the 100mm because of the IS.

I mostly shoot portraits and fashion, where I usualy stay at 1/200s to avoid movement blur from the subject.
I tend to use f2.8-f4 to keep the focus, and the focal length difference is no big deal.

I do own the 135mm, which is able to deliver great results. I also own a 24-70 II and a Sigma 50.
Sharpness of the pictures is not as consistent as I wish still trying to figure out if the fault is camera shake, focus or simply just the missing quality outside the center in the lenses.

best regards

Hi I don't, I use Nikon, but if you don't need autofocus take a look at the 135mm Ziess. It does have a little of chromatic aberration, but in general is excellent, the price is right and has a lot of character.
Best regards,

[orc73]

I just got my 100mm L with the IS and all images were sharp so far. So I guess movement is the biggest issue.

I don't know if the 24-70 IS F4 would be getting better results as the 24-70mm II, even resolution on the paper is much lower.
And if so it would really need to be ready to use "wide" open on f4.

Probably starting a thread with that to avoid confusion

[BobShaw]

This does not make sense to me....  then you need to compensate for sensor size by changing focal length and aperture, while adjusting ISO to keep exposure constant while keeping exposure time constant. If you do so, the angular field of view for both cameras will be the same. Any _angular_ movement of the cameras in question will translate to the same amount of blur on sensor relative to image height/width?

What has any of this to do with basic maths? How do you compensate for sensor size? The sensor size is what it is.

(If we ignore aspect details.) In the case of a 35mm sensor it is 297/ 36 x 210/24 = 72 times magnification to make an A4 print. 
In the case of an H3D-39 sensor it is 297/49 x 210/36.7 = 34 times to make an A4 print. Any movement or imperfections or fly dirt at 35mm is twice as obvious.

End of story. Believe or not.

[bjanes]

What has any of this to do with basic maths? How do you compensate for sensor size? The sensor size is what it is.

(If we ignore aspect details.) In the case of a 35mm sensor it is 297/ 36 x 210/24 = 72 times magnification to make an A4 print. 
In the case of an H3D-39 sensor it is 297/49 x 210/36.7 = 34 times to make an A4 print. Any movement or imperfections or fly dirt at 35mm is twice as obvious.

End of story. Believe or not.

I don't believe it. You do not understand hjulenissen's post. To maintain the same perspective with the larger format, you need to use a lens with more than twice the focal length of that on the 35 mm sensor, and any angular camera movement on the larger sensor camera will be magnified by a factor of more than two.

Bill