Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 1ds mk3 samples  (Read 13978 times)
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8355



WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 20, 2007, 06:25:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
bernard,

Like all very high resolution full-frame cameras the IIIs is merciless in revealing lens flaws. This is particularly true with ultra wides and even more so with ultra-wide zooms. And since Canon ultra-wide zooms are among the (least good) of the breed, this is what that story is about.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154075\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Michael,

Thanks for the feedback.

Best regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 710


« Reply #21 on: November 20, 2007, 08:38:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
bernard,

Like all very high resolution full-frame cameras the IIIs is merciless in revealing lens flaws. Those who want to shoot very WA with high res Canon cameras and whose primary concern is image quality should shoot with primes.
Michael
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Interesting points.

I guess another way of looking at it is that, if you want to extract the maximum value from these sensors, then use only the best lenses.

My stock in trade with the 5D are a 50mm macro and the 90mm TSE. The 90mm is the best lens I have ever owned, bar the Schneiders I use on my Sinar P.

I have been using a 17-40mm L Series Zoom too. But, let's be honest, 'L Series' that lens is not!  

For what it's worth, this is the site I refer to for lens tests. I can't vouch for their scientific accuracy, but the tests are extremely thorough.

[a href=\"http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_90tse_28/index.htm]http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/ca...se_28/index.htm[/url]

D.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2007, 08:51:32 AM by Dinarius » Logged
MarkKay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 587


WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 22, 2007, 02:09:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I tried 3 of the version I lenses when they were released.  I found one to be decent at 16 to 20mm stopped down. Or I should say one was much better than the other two.  I tried two copies of the version II lens and compared with my version I on the 1DsmkII.  I found one copy to be better than version I in the corners... the difference was more apparent at the the wider apertures.  However this lens was not as good as my version I  at the longer focal lengths.  The second copy of the II lens was worse or equal to my version I.  The one thing I found to be improved on the version II lens was the CA.   I also agree that my 24-105 is much better than the 16-35 at overlapping focal lengths. Again, I am not impressed with the wide angle glass formulas that canon have developed.

I should say that I had a good copy of a Tamaron 14mm (bought from Jack Flesher) that was optically sharper throughout the whole image compared to the canon 14mm (version I) and even equal or better in terms of distortion.  The Tamaron did have some substantial CA but I do not remember how it compared to the canon.  

I would be interesting to see how the new canon 14mm performs but I am not that hopeful.


Quote
bernard,

Like all very high resolution full-frame cameras the IIIs is merciless in revealing lens flaws. This is particularly true with ultra wides and even more so with ultra-wide zooms. And since Canon ultra-wide zooms are among the (least good) of the breed, this is what that story is about.

I have the 16-35mm lens with me because I wanted to shoot some record shots of the seminar group at my gallery. These were done wide open in very low light. Naturally everyone wanted to look at the files, and they looked soft. Thus the issue. When Mark tried the camera with a much better lens the next day the issue went away.

And to answer the inevitable question, this was the original version of that lens and I have tried the new one and it's not that much better. Those who want to shoot very WA with high res Canon cameras and whose primary concern is image quality should shoot with primes.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154075\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
MarkWelsh
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79


« Reply #23 on: November 23, 2007, 05:16:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Really? You think?!
Good grief: this is the sort of conversation I thought we'd nailed years ago . . . for anyone living in a cave since the 1900s, we should reiterate that the 16-35 Mark I is NOT a high resolution lens: demanding shooting on a Mark 1 1Ds revealed this a LONG time ago.

At the wide end, the 17-40mm is a little better, but nowhere near good enough for the 1Ds Mk2, let alone a 22MP version. Ditto the redesigned 16-35II. Of course the Mk3 is much more demanding; obviously poor results will be obtained using inferior lenses; for heaven's sake, yes, the lens is the weak link in the chain!

The 24-105L is a fraction better again, but we simply won't see what the Mk3 is capable of until someone, somewhere gets a half decent lens on the thing, at sensible apertures, with properly optimised RAW processing, and shows us what it looks like without JPEG compression. Until then, debates about IQ in extremis are futile – exactly as they were when premature babble surfaced in response to publication of Canon's Mark II samples.

Only a little more patience is required . . . .

Quote
bernard,

Like all very high resolution full-frame cameras the IIIs is merciless in revealing lens flaws. This is particularly true with ultra wides and even more so with ultra-wide zooms. And since Canon ultra-wide zooms are among the (least good) of the breed, this is what that story is about.

I have the 16-35mm lens with me because I wanted to shoot some record shots of the seminar group at my gallery. These were done wide open in very low light. Naturally everyone wanted to look at the files, and they looked soft. Thus the issue. When Mark tried the camera with a much better lens the next day the issue went away.

And to answer the inevitable question, this was the original version of that lens and I have tried the new one and it's not that much better. Those who want to shoot very WA with high res Canon cameras and whose primary concern is image quality should shoot with primes.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154075\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7054


WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 23, 2007, 08:28:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The 24-105L is a fraction better again, ............

Only a little more patience is required . . . .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155169\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No. It's MUCH more than a fraction better - it's FAR superior - if you get a good copy.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
MarkWelsh
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79


« Reply #25 on: November 23, 2007, 09:59:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
No. It's MUCH more than a fraction better - it's FAR superior - if you get a good copy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155195\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I should really flesh out the bones of what I said above: in the 17-24mm range, the 16-35L Mk 1 is at the bottom of the heap; the 17-40L is a little better, and the Mark II is better again. At 24mm, I would place the 24-105 on par with the Mark II, two clear notches above the Mark I: so, yes, definitely better.

From 24-35mm, however, the Mark I 16-35 is at least as good as the 17-40L, and the Mark II better again. I would say there's little to choose between the 24-105 and 16-35II at 28mm – except for the fact that the longer zoom is just about perfect geometrically at that focal length, whereas the 16-35II has moderately severe pincushioning. By 35mm, the 24-105L just pulls away from the shorter zoom.

But none of the above can match a properly fettled Zeiss or Leica prime, or even several of the better Nikon and Olympus lenses in this range. The new AFS 14-24mm may yet rewrite the rules. When we start to see 1Ds III samples using the best wide angles (or top longer lenses with properly shot and processed files) we'll see what it's made of.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2007, 10:01:07 AM by MarkWelsh » Logged
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 710


« Reply #26 on: November 23, 2007, 10:42:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But none of the above can match a properly fettled Zeiss or Leica prime, or even several of the better Nikon and Olympus lenses in this range.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155212\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mark, as someone who shoots everything on a tripod, at f8-f16, using primes almost always and who only focuses manually, I am interested in what you have to say.

It has been said more than once that the sensors have more than left the lenses behind.

But, what can we do? Are there any serious lens manufacturers who make lenses that will fit a Canon and perform better than their own glass?

Should I be looking at Tamron or Sigma? Do Zeiss make any Canon-fit lenses?

If not, isn't it about time?

D.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2007, 10:46:17 AM by Dinarius » Logged
MarkWelsh
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79


« Reply #27 on: November 23, 2007, 11:08:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Mark, as someone who shoots everything on a tripod, at f8-f16, using primes almost always and who only focuses manually, I am interested in what you have to say.

It has been said more than once that the sensors have more than left the lenses behind.

But, what can we do? Are there any serious lens manufacturers who make lenses that will fit a Canon and perform better than their own glass?

Should I be looking at Tamron or Sigma? Do Zeiss make any Canon-fit lenses?

If not, isn't it about time?

D.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There's quite a body of lens tests and discussion forum content for those interested in going beyond some of the frankly less than appealing Canon sub-35mm lenses.
For starters, you might try Board 55 at FM:
[a href=\"http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55]http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55[/url]
or my site here (sorry about the plug, but I started the site because there wasn't much information available about using adapted lenses on the 1 Series):
http://www.16-9.net

All the new ZF and ZS mount Zeiss lenses can be used on Canon bodies, as well as the Contax Yashica range (including the truly stellar 21mm f2.Cool and there's even a Contax N conversion which converts great lenses like the Zeiss Contax 17-35mm f2.8 for AF/AE use on Canon bodies.

Just about every OM Zuiko lens works on 1 Series and crop sensor cameras (most also on the 5D), as well as the majority of Leica R optics, not to mention SMC Pentax A*, Zeiss Jena M42, Nikon F and most medium format lenses. The sky is quite literally your oyster.
Logged
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 710


« Reply #28 on: November 23, 2007, 11:50:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
All the new ZF and ZS mount Zeiss lenses can be used on Canon bodies, as well as the Contax Yashica range (including the truly stellar 21mm f2.Cool and there's even a Contax N conversion which converts great lenses like the Zeiss Contax 17-35mm f2.8 for AF/AE use on Canon bodies.

Just about every OM Zuiko lens works on 1 Series and crop sensor cameras (most also on the 5D), as well as the majority of Leica R optics, not to mention SMC Pentax A*, Zeiss Jena M42, Nikon F and most medium format lenses. The sky is quite literally your oyster.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155229\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mark, I am stunned! I never knew any of that.

I my film days, I was an Olympus user, so I have just about every lens they made!

I want a 50mm that is optically beyond reproach. Speed is of no consequence to me. It must have an entirely flat and distortion free field and be razor sharp. What should I consider? I am currently using Canon's 50mm Macro.

Secondly, how can I attach my Zuiko (Olympus) lenses to my Canon's?

Many thanks.

D.
Logged
MarkKay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 587


WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 23, 2007, 01:40:21 PM »
ReplyReply

THe olympus 21mm both zuiko versions 2.8 and 2.0?  work well on the canon stopped down... f8/11.  In fact, in regards to edge sharpness/ distortion , the 21mm zuiko was about as good as the zeiss 21mm distagon.  The zuiko did suffer from some CA though.  More open than that and the edges do not look good. I was not that impressed with other zuiko lenses I tried... with the exception of the olympus 24mm PC.

I went through a phase where i was using almost all 3rd party lenses on my FF canon DSLR.  However, when the canon lenses were decent, I always went back to them because the image quality was very dependent on focusing ability and this is much more difficult with the 3rd party lenses especially the wide angles.  So now, I stick with the 21 distagon, 35mm contax PC, contax 35-70, and Leica 100mm 2.8 R macro.   I would like to get  the leica 28mm elmarit R again at some point.  These are the focal ranges that Canon is somewhat weak in.  Canon Macro lenses are ok but the leica in my opinion cannot be beat.  Since most macro is manual focus anyway.. No problem.

I can say I just got the Schneider 28mm PC for EOS-- same as the Leica 28mm 2.8.  I am impressed with limiting testing so far.  It is much better than the canon 24mm TSE and almost as good as the Contax 35mm PC.  THe issue is the Schneider does give some CA shifted but this is easily corrected in CS3.  THe corners are very sharp at least at f8 and distortion not too bad.


Quote
Mark, I am stunned! I never knew any of that.

I my film days, I was an Olympus user, so I have just about every lens they made!

I want a 50mm that is optically beyond reproach. Speed is of no consequence to me. It must have an entirely flat and distortion free field and be razor sharp. What should I consider? I am currently using Canon's 50mm Macro.

Secondly, how can I attach my Zuiko (Olympus) lenses to my Canon's?

Many thanks.

D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155235\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 710


« Reply #30 on: November 24, 2007, 03:35:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Mark,

Thanks for that.

But, I still don't know how to attach a third-party lens to my Canon 5D. Presumably, I need some kind of adaptor?

Also, when you refer to a Leica macr, which lens in particular are you referring to?

Many thanks.

D.
Logged
Craig Arnold
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 24, 2007, 05:53:47 AM »
ReplyReply

If you look at the DXO interactive blur graphs over at http://www.slrgear.com it's fairly clear that at 24mm and 35mm the 24-105 is better than the 17-40 which is better than 16-35 mkII.

Make sure you select the full-frame graphs.

It's easy to compare the three lenses at all their common apertures and focal lengths.
Logged

MarkKay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 587


WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 24, 2007, 12:13:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes you need adapters. THere are many different kinds. On the wide angle lenses you need a thin precise adapter.  If you email me i can give you some suggestions, but i am not sure i know a best brand.  THe Leica marco is the 100mm/2.8 R. It is 1:2 reproduction but you can use a canon extension tube or a Leica  Elpro emarit adapter to make it 1:1

Quote
Mark,

Thanks for that.

But, I still don't know how to attach a third-party lens to my Canon 5D. Presumably, I need some kind of adaptor?

Also, when you refer to a Leica macr, which lens in particular are you referring to?

Many thanks.

D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155423\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Paul2660
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1969


WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 24, 2007, 08:01:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Be careful on the 5D, as most will remember, there was (I suppose still is) an issue with some non Canon glass hitting the mirror.  For a long time there was a post on FM where others had posted their success and failure with which adatper and which lens.

I have assumed that the MKIII will not have this issue since the body is based on the older 1ds II etc.  

Paul C
Logged

Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
Photography > http://photosofarkansas.com
Blog> http://paulcaldwellphotography.com
MarkKay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 587


WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 24, 2007, 08:32:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I use plenty of 3rd party lenses on the 5D without a problem. There are certain lenses that are problematic on any canon-- leica 19mm, leica 21-35 needs the shim removed-- pretty easy to do.  I use the 21mm distagon, contax35mm PC and 35-70 contax..

Quote
Be careful on the 5D, as most will remember, there was (I suppose still is) an issue with some non Canon glass hitting the mirror.  For a long time there was a post on FM where others had posted their success and failure with which adatper and which lens.

I have assumed that the MKIII will not have this issue since the body is based on the older 1ds II etc. 

Paul C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155649\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 710


« Reply #35 on: November 25, 2007, 11:32:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Mark,

Just ordered an adapter from www.fotodiox.com

Thanks for your help.

Seems pretty good value at the price.

I am going to try my Olympus 50mm macro against the Canon 50mm macro that I have been using.

Flat copy work is a lot of what I do, so the search for the perfect copy lens is ongoing.

All suggestions welcome!  

D.
Logged
MarkKay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 587


WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 25, 2007, 12:23:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Fotodiox is not the best adapter for the wide angles for infinity focus. I had a few and they shoudl be fine. I had a faulty adapter that would not fit but they replaced it quickly

Quote
Mark,

Just ordered an adapter from www.fotodiox.com

Thanks for your help.

Seems pretty good value at the price.

I am going to try my Olympus 50mm macro against the Canon 50mm macro that I have been using.

Flat copy work is a lot of what I do, so the search for the perfect copy lens is ongoing.

All suggestions welcome!   

D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
MarkWelsh
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79


« Reply #37 on: November 26, 2007, 04:50:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Information about which adaptors to use, where to buy them, which lens work with which camera bodies, and which lenses are worth the trouble, are all on the site referenced above.
http://www.16-9.net

The perfect copy lens is almost certainly an 105mm or 80mm Apo Rodagon. I've never used a lens with such high resolution over a 100mm image circle, perfect field flatness and neutral colour. Arianne Dubois over at FM rates the 80mm better than the 105mm, but claims it to be better than anything previously tested. My experience is borne out by the MTF figures: namely that the 105mm is superior. They're also amazingly compact.

In a few weeks time I will be selling a 105mm Apo Rodagon in a Zörk Canon-mount tilt adaptor: I guarantee it would be the best copy lens you've ever used!

Quote
Mark,

Just ordered an adapter from www.fotodiox.com

Thanks for your help.

Seems pretty good value at the price.

I am going to try my Olympus 50mm macro against the Canon 50mm macro that I have been using.

Flat copy work is a lot of what I do, so the search for the perfect copy lens is ongoing.

All suggestions welcome!   

D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 710


« Reply #38 on: November 26, 2007, 11:28:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Mark,

Problem is it would be too long for me too often.

I really want to know what the best 50mm copy lens is - if, indeed, there is one better than what I am currently using.

Thanks.

D.
Logged
MarkKay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 587


WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 26, 2007, 12:02:27 PM »
ReplyReply

THis is a good web site but it does not give advice or testing of the adapters.  There are various opinions as well depending on who you ask.  But at least there is a list.

Quote
Information about which adaptors to use, where to buy them, which lens work with which camera bodies, and which lenses are worth the trouble, are all on the site referenced above.
http://www.16-9.net

The perfect copy lens is almost certainly an 105mm or 80mm Apo Rodagon. I've never used a lens with such high resolution over a 100mm image circle, perfect field flatness and neutral colour. Arianne Dubois over at FM rates the 80mm better than the 105mm, but claims it to be better than anything previously tested. My experience is borne out by the MTF figures: namely that the 105mm is superior. They're also amazingly compact.

In a few weeks time I will be selling a 105mm Apo Rodagon in a Zörk Canon-mount tilt adaptor: I guarantee it would be the best copy lens you've ever used!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156042\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad