canon optics?

[stacibeth]

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

[Boris_Epix]

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]

[witz]

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.

[stacibeth]

Does it make sense to put a nikon lens on the canon, is it any better?

[witz]

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.

[Dansk]

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

[stever]

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

[stacibeth]

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

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[witz]

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.

[sojournerphoto]

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]

Lovely Bernard, how many frames did you stich for this (D3?)

Mike

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[stacibeth]

I need a good crisp wide angle (perspective control prefered) any reccommendations. ??

[Aboud]

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.

[stacibeth]

L lenses, what does the L stand for?

what zeiss lens works on the 1ds3 with an adapter?

[Wolfman]

L lenses, what does the L stand for?

what zeiss lens works on the 1ds3 with an adapter?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

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]

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[Conner999]

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.

[witz]

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.

[stacibeth]

what about the olympus 24mm pc, any info?