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]