1DS MKIII and Conaon Lens Resolving

[dwdallam]

So what lenses are having trouble keeping up with camera performance, specifically the DS MKIII?

I've been seriously contemplating buying a 1DS MKIII (Although with all of the changes coming out right now, I may way a year), but I'd hate to have lens problems. And for the record, these problems mean that if you have say the original 16-35L your images may look worse when using that lens on the DS MKIII than on a 5D? What about the 24-70L and the 70-200 ISL?

[Geoff Wittig]

So what lenses are having trouble keeping up with camera performance, specifically the DS MKIII?

I've been seriously contemplating buying a 1DS MKIII (Although with all of the changes coming out right now, I may way a year), but I'd hate to have lens problems. And for the record, these problems mean that if you have say the original 16-35L your images may look worse when using that lens on the DS MKIII than on a 5D? What about the 24-70L and the 70-200 ISL?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171465\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, your images won't look worse. But the weak link in your image quality chain will be lens resolution, rather than sensor resolution. You won't get all the resolution out of the camera that you might with a more perfect lens. And we're talking about the last couple percent of quality here; you'll only see the difference with the camera on a solid tripod, carefully focused, optimal aperture and mirror lock-up applied. At least in my experience with the 70-200 IS lens resolution per se is not the problem; depth of field is.

[geotzo]

At least in my experience with the 70-200 IS lens resolution per se is not the problem; depth of field is.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171469\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I m using both 70-200 2.8 L IS and 24-70L on this camera and I think they both are up for the res. as they are sharp enough and well built for the job. I am perfectly happy with the combination.
George

[Wayne Fox]

No, your images won't look worse. But the weak link in your image quality chain will be lens resolution, rather than sensor resolution.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171469\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've felt for quite a while that this may be where we are headed.  It seems quite possible that sensor technology may some day exceed all optical technology, leaving us with the glass being the "weak" link.  However, I don't see this as a negative, and indeed with the 1DsMarkIII, while some lenses may not resolve to the level of the sensor, I at least know I'm getting the maximum possible resolution with a lens, instead of compromising the lens with the sensor.

[jeffok]

So what lenses are having trouble keeping up with camera performance, specifically the DS MKIII?

I've been seriously contemplating buying a 1DS MKIII (Although with all of the changes coming out right now, I may way a year), but I'd hate to have lens problems. And for the record, these problems mean that if you have say the original 16-35L your images may look worse when using that lens on the DS MKIII than on a 5D? What about the 24-70L and the 70-200 ISL?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171465\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think the issue you raise is a good one and I too had the same concern before I bought the 1DsIII. But I went ahead and purchased it and have been using the 16-35L II, 24-105L, 35L, 70-200 f/4L IS, 50 1.4, 100 Macro and TSE-45 with it since.
I chose these specific lenses for their sharpness and resolving power. In my experience so far, none has let me down. If I have a complaint, it is with the softness of the 50 1.4 under f/2.8. The 16-35 II is a bit soft wide open at 16mm, otherwise very sharp. I have found every one of these lenses produces sharp detail with the 1Ds III. The 16-35II is probably the most impressive lens of all given it is a wide zoom-  it is outstanding (and unlike the new Nikon 14-24, you can put filters on it!). I don't know about the 24-70 but every review I've seen of it says it is very sharp so I think that one is also a keeper.

With the high resolution of this camera, getting your focus where you want it while watching your depth of field and avoiding camera shake- these things have a far bigger effect on the sharpness of your photos that the lenses do IMHO. You have to be right on with your technique or the flaws will show through in spades.

[dwdallam]

Well, I own the 16-35L first generation, 24-70, and the 70-200 ISL. I've read about the 16-35 II being better at some f stops and lengths, but not better and perhaps a tad worse at others than the original 16-35. and since that lens is particularly expensive, I'd hate to have to replace it along with the MKIII. Sheesh.

[mcfoto]

Hi
I own the 16-35 2.8 II, old 85 1.2, old 35 f2.0 & the 70-200 f4 IS. I am thinking of a mid range zoom now. I will wait & see what Canon comes out with new lenses as I am in no rush. Has anyone tried Sigma, as they have some very interesting lenses? But if you want the best performance with the wides maybe the the 14, 24 & 35 L series would be the way to go.
Denis

[narikin]

I'm sorry but I just cant help myself - someone has to say that comparing Zoom lenses on a camera body of this quality is umm - not the best idea.

the highest resolution body demands the highest resolution lenses, which means.. primes.  end of story.

[Misirlou]

There's no reason that new lenses can't be made to exceed the quality of the new sensors. It will just require manufacturing processes and designs that have higher resolution as a goal. Until now, 35mm format lenses needed to meet 35mm film standards, so that's all the precision that went into them. When the dust settles, new generation zooms are likely to be substantially sharper than current primes.

Back in the film days, it was pretty common knowledge that medium and large format lenses could not generate more line pairs per milimeter than 35mm lenses. It was simply a matter of required enlargement. Everyone I know who has tried to mate a Hasselblad lens to a 35mm camera has wound up dissapointed in the results.

Same thing is happening now with 35mm vs. digital. Schneider has new large format lenses designed for digital sensors, and by all accounts, they're outstanding. They're also hideously expensive. But as DSLRs get better and better sensors, they'll need better lenses than we have now. So they'll be expensive too.

You have to decide whether the cost will be worth it. Personally, buying an entire new set of bodies and lenses doesn't appeal to me at the moment. I'd rather pay for a decent sensor that could handle my existing 4X5 equipment's resolution, since I rarely print stuff from handhled cameras no larger than 8X10 anyway. But I don't see that happening...ever.

[AJSJones]

I'm sorry but I just cant help myself - someone has to say that comparing Zoom lenses on a camera body of this quality is umm - not the best idea.

the highest resolution body demands the highest resolution lenses, which means.. primes.  end of story.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The Nikon 14-24 seems to be about to deliver a serious blow to that adage : as an example check out Mark's test at [a href=\"http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html]16-9.net[/url]. Other tests are also glowing.

[Misirlou]

The Nikon 14-24 seems to be about to deliver a serious blow to that adage : as an example check out Mark's test at 16-9.net. Other tests are also glowing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172329\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Agreed. New lenses designed and built to higher tolerances will be better than old ones. Digital sensors are pushing them like crazy.

[pfigen]

"I'm sorry but I just cant help myself - someone has to say that comparing Zoom lenses on a camera body of this quality is umm - not the best idea.

the highest resolution body demands the highest resolution lenses, which means.. primes. end of story."

Actually, it's not the end of the story. While it used to be true that zooms were the second class citizens as far as resolution is concerned, it is not that way anymore. Of course, it depends on the zoom in question, but one that has been mentioned in this thread, the 70-200 f/4IS is definitely a worthy contender. The copy I have (after it was tweaked by Canon) is at least as sharp as my 200 1.8 when zoomed to 200mm, and that's the weak end of the lens. It's even sharper at the short end, and that's saying a lot. The two areas where zooms to fall short is in flare resistance and in image distortion. The primes that the 70-200 replaces are all much better in those terms, but in actual resolved detail, no.

[Christopher]

Exaclty the same for the zeiss 35-70. Have you aver seen this lens ? I is certainly better than any prime in that range Canon has to offer. I think it even is so close to zeiss and Leica primes, that under normal shooting conditions you can't see a difference. (All thi is based on a 1DsMk3)

[nemophoto]

Perhaps it's just me, but I find all my lenses do fine on my Mark III, and in fact, seem better than on my Mark II. My 70-200/2.8L tended to vignette more on my 1Ds2 than I'm experiencing now. In designing the new chip, Canon made a concerted effort to improve light efficiency with the micro lenses and spaceing of the photo sites. I've seen the difference.

I just shot an editorial, available light (ISO500-640), shooting with my 50/1.4 at f2.8. Normally, the 50, by some at least, is not considered sharp. I found that not to be the case. If anything, it was the accuracy of the autofocus that hindered some of the lens performance. Given sharp, dead-on focus, the body peformed well, in regards to lenses. A few shots I did with the 24-70/2.8, also wide-open.

[Josh-H]

Slightly to the side of topic.

But I found in some testing last night that it makes a difference with the 70-200 F2.8L IS if you switch the IS on or off tripod mounted with the 1DS MKIII.

In other words - the image is sharper shooting the same shot on a tripod, mirror lock-up without IS on with the 1DS MKIII.

This was not the case with the 5D where I could see no difference on a tripod with IS on or off.

Just means I need to remember to turn IS off when tripod mounting the 70-200 F2.8 L IS with the 1DS MKIII to get the sharpest possible result.

[Doyle Yoder]

Any comments on the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L?

Doyle

[dwdallam]

Exaclty the same for the zeiss 35-70. Have you aver seen this lens ? I is certainly better than any prime in that range Canon has to offer. I think it even is so close to zeiss and Leica primes, that under normal shooting conditions you can't see a difference. (All thi is based on a 1DsMk3)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172738\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Where are the tests? I'd like to give those a look.

[dwdallam]

Any comments on the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L?

Doyle
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[a href=\"http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-28-300.shtml]http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...on-28-300.shtml[/url]

[The Hardcard]

Wouldn't lens resolution limitations show up on Canon's crop cameras first. The 1Ds MkIII has the same pixel pitch as the 20D, which came out some 4 years ago? Wouldn't the weak links in Canon's (or any other companies) lenses have been exposed three or four years ago?

I ask, because there are a couple of sites that measure lens quality. For Canon mount, Photozone uses the Imatest application to measure lenses on the 350D, which also has the same pixel pitch as the 1Ds MkIII. SLR Gear uses the DxO Analyzer to measure lenses on the 20D.

Granted, you aren't finding out about the edges, but it would seem to allow for a starting point. Obviously, if the center is below par, there is no need to even wonder about the edges.

I know nothing about the reliability of the results of these apps or how the websites are using them.