Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 1DsIII & 17-40L  (Read 8233 times)
Mark F
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 345


« on: January 17, 2008, 05:49:32 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm planning on buying the 1DsIII and want something wider than my 28-70L. In his review of the 1DsIII Michael said something to the effect that with 21meg the quality of the attached lens will really be tested. So my question is, does anyone use this lens with the 1DsIII and what do they think? Does the lens stand up? Although it's an "L" class lens it's a LOT cheaper than the 16-35II. You usually get what you pay for but since I'm already spending more than I should for the body I'd like not to have to spend the extra money unless it's necessary.

Thanks.

Mark F
Logged

Mark
Marsupilami
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 75


« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2008, 02:17:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm planning on buying the 1DsIII and want something wider than my 28-70L. In his review of the 1DsIII Michael said something to the effect that with 21meg the quality of the attached lens will really be tested. So my question is, does anyone use this lens with the 1DsIII and what do they think? Does the lens stand up? Although it's an "L" class lens it's a LOT cheaper than the 16-35II. You usually get what you pay for but since I'm already spending more than I should for the body I'd like not to have to spend the extra money unless it's necessary.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167873\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I own the 17-40 L (second copy) and must say that while it is a versatile lens, the quality on the 5D is not satisfactory. This for critical work like architecture or landscape, where the performance in the edges is poor even at aperture 11. the 16-35 II is to be said nothing better, mostly it is worse than the 17-40. I am really getting angry about Canon, because they dont see their poor wide angle optics as a problem, might be that a lot of canon shooters are doing press and sports, where edge sharpness of Wide angle lenses is not that important, and in the high iso and tele canon has always been superb. As the lenses in my opinion are the most important factor for high resolution cameras I will take a close look to the new lens offerings of Nikon (14-24 and 24-70) if you want to stay with canon you can adapt these G lenses with an adaptor I have heard. Next week I will get both the 1Ds MarkIII and the Nikon D3 with the 14-24 and 24-70 for testing. If the new Nikon lenses are really that much better as a test at 16:9 suggests I will have a hard time to decide into which system I will invest, but I think it will be in the system with the better optics as this is what now and in the future is needed with high resolution cameras.
Logged
phila
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 246



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2008, 05:04:38 AM »
ReplyReply

I used the 17-40 for several years with a 1D MkII and was 95% happy with the results. I borrowed a 5D for a month long trip to Italy (thanks CPS) last year and found the edge performance with it to be not good.

Thus I bought the 16-35 II when I got a 1Ds MkIII a month ago, and while the edges are a little soft, they are a lot better than the 17-40 on a 5D. You simply can't expect perfection with a lens of this type, assuming you'd like like it small enough to hand hold and cost less than five figures, ;-)
Logged

KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 883


WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2008, 06:06:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm planning on buying the 1DsIII and want something wider than my 28-70L. In his review of the 1DsIII Michael said something to the effect that with 21meg the quality of the attached lens will really be tested. So my question is, does anyone use this lens with the 1DsIII and what do they think? Does the lens stand up? Although it's an "L" class lens it's a LOT cheaper than the 16-35II. You usually get what you pay for but since I'm already spending more than I should for the body I'd like not to have to spend the extra money unless it's necessary.

Thanks.

Mark F
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167873\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The 17-40mm has a few saving graces, it resists flare very well, has good colour, good contrast and sharp in the centre, but resolution at the edges is close to a Lens baby, the distortion is comedy lens stuff. It has to be used stopped down a long way to give the edges a chance.
It will not be any worse on a mkIII than it is on a 5D or MkII at a same size print.
Having said all that because I can shoot into the sun and get good strong colour I use it much more than I should. I wish other Canon lenses had the punch this one delivers, but on no account buy it for it's resolution. Overall Canon need a kick up the backside regarding wide performance.
This is the main reason I would switch brands or formats, poor wide lenses.

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 883


WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2008, 06:23:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The 17-40mm has a few saving graces, it resists flare very well, has good colour, good contrast and sharp in the centre, but resolution at the edges is close to a Lens baby, the distortion is comedy lens stuff. It has to be used stopped down a long way to give the edges a chance.
It will not be any worse on a mkIII than it is on a 5D or MkII at a same size print.
Having said all that because I can shoot into the sun and get good strong colour I use it much more than I should. I wish other Canon lenses had the punch this one delivers, but on no account buy it for it's resolution. Overall Canon need a kick up the backside regarding wide performance.
This is the main reason I would switch brands or formats, poor wide lenses.

Kevin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167938\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just to add
I have a love hate relationship with this lens, I curse it everytime I use, then again I probably use it more than any other lens I have. I also have the Sigma 12- 24mm, it has much better distortion control and more consistent across the frame for sharpness, of course it's also wider. I still end up using the 17-40mm more, the colour is very punchy. If you use it at 32mm it's even not bad at the edges.
One day when Leica bring a high pixel count SLR to the market I'll consider that for it's lenses.
I would think that even a cheap extreme wide voigtlander on an M8 resolves more across the frame than any Canon wide.

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 737



WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2008, 06:54:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm planning on buying the 1DsIII and want something wider than my 28-70L. In his review of the 1DsIII Michael said something to the effect that with 21meg the quality of the attached lens will really be tested. So my question is, does anyone use this lens with the 1DsIII and what do they think? Does the lens stand up? Although it's an "L" class lens it's a LOT cheaper than the 16-35II. You usually get what you pay for but since I'm already spending more than I should for the body I'd like not to have to spend the extra money unless it's necessary.

Thanks.

Mark F
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Here is a very old test.  It includes the 17-40, 16-35mkI, the Nikon 17-35 and the Sigma 15-30.  All taken with a 1DsMKII.

[a href=\"http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/wide_zoom_test]http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/wide_zoom_test[/url]

My standard these days on the same camera is the Sigma 12-24.
I must say the new Nikon looks very attractive.
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2008, 08:25:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thus I bought the 16-35 II when I got a 1Ds MkIII a month ago, and while the edges are a little soft, they are a lot better than the 17-40 on a 5D. You simply can't expect perfection with a lens of this type, assuming you'd like like it small enough to hand hold and cost less than five figures, ;-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167934\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, you might want to try out the new Nikon 14-24 f2.8. Don't know whether you would call it perfect, but it really is an impressive lens. From the results I see on the D3, it appears that this lens was designed to deal with much higher pixel counts...

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #7 on: January 18, 2008, 09:01:36 PM »
ReplyReply

There was an issue thom hogan had with the nikon lens.  I just skimmed it so I don't know for sure what it was and now I can't go back because of the dpreview forum crash.  I don't suppose you saw his message?
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2008, 05:52:35 PM »
ReplyReply

This is what he was saying...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=26422774

Nice lens just not necessarily that practical for his purpose.
Logged
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 699


« Reply #9 on: January 24, 2008, 11:54:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I have just bought a 1Ds Mk3.

I already owned the 17-40, 50mm macro, 90mm TSE and 100mm macro, all of which I had been using with my 5D.

The 17-40mm is seriously compromised by the 21Mp. In short, it is made to look crap.

The 90mm TSE is the best glass I have ever owned, period. Even better than the Schneiders on my Sinar. It is truly astonishing and it gives full expression to the 21Mp. I shot some commercial portraits at the weekend on a job and, without any sharpening whatsoever, zooming in to 100% reveals scary detail!  

Canon may be winning the pixel race but Nikon's tradional superiority in glass across the board may mean that their fewer pixels are producing better pictures.

D.

ps. I haven't tried either the 45mm TSE or the 24mm TSE, but I've heaard they're as good as the 90mm. Apparently, in order to cater for the movements that these lenses have, the optics have to be first class. Now why can't they just put those optics in all their other lenses?   I need very few lenses (the 50mm macro is my staple) and I would happily pay TSE prices for a 50mm equivalent.
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 24, 2008, 01:08:08 PM »
ReplyReply

At the wide end, the 17-40/4L shows noticeable shortcomings even on the 1Ds-I. So the 1Ds-III isn't going to treat it any better.

On the long end, it stands up well the the 1Ds-I, though.
Logged

jeffok
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 108


WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 25, 2008, 08:05:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, you might want to try out the new Nikon 14-24 f2.8. Don't know whether you would call it perfect, but it really is an impressive lens. From the results I see on the D3, it appears that this lens was designed to deal with much higher pixel counts...

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168082\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard, this guy is shooting Canon. Yes, I know there are adapters for the Nikon 14-24 but you lose functionality like AF. Besides, if you are a landscape or nature shooter, you won't want this lens because it doesn't take filters.  How useless is that? And who needs 14mm very often in a landscape situation? I suggest he go for the 16-35 II. Very sharp lens except wide open at f/2.8 but at 5.6 and up, it's very sharp at all focal lenghts. Resolves all 21MP of my 1DsIII nicely.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2008, 08:07:36 PM by jeffok » Logged
Mark F
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 345


« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2008, 09:17:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have just bought a 1Ds Mk3.

I already owned the 17-40, 50mm macro, 90mm TSE and 100mm macro, all of which I had been using with my 5D.

The 17-40mm is seriously compromised by the 21Mp. In short, it is made to look crap.

The 90mm TSE is the best glass I have ever owned, period. Even better than the Schneiders on my Sinar. It is truly astonishing and it gives full expression to the 21Mp. I shot some commercial portraits at the weekend on a job and, without any sharpening whatsoever, zooming in to 100% reveals scary detail!   

Canon may be winning the pixel race but Nikon's tradional superiority in glass across the board may mean that their fewer pixels are producing better pictures.

D.

ps. I haven't tried either the 45mm TSE or the 24mm TSE, but I've heaard they're as good as the 90mm. Apparently, in order to cater for the movements that these lenses have, the optics have to be first class. Now why can't they just put those optics in all their other lenses?   I need very few lenses (the 50mm macro is my staple) and I would happily pay TSE prices for a 50mm equivalent.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169285\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Mark
Mark F
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 345


« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2008, 09:25:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Bernard, this guy is shooting Canon. Yes, I know there are adapters for the Nikon 14-24 but you lose functionality like AF. Besides, if you are a landscape or nature shooter, you won't want this lens because it doesn't take filters.  How useless is that? And who needs 14mm very often in a landscape situation? I suggest he go for the 16-35 II. Very sharp lens except wide open at f/2.8 but at 5.6 and up, it's very sharp at all focal lenghts. Resolves all 21MP of my 1DsIII nicely.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169629\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

First, thanks to all for the very useful info. It definitely sounds like the 17-40mm is not the way to go.  I guess I'll have to spring for the 16-35 II after all.  Sorry for the delay in posting this thanks but just got back from a week in the Everglades and Big Cypress Natl Preserve. If you've never been there, the photography is great! Both landscape and wildlife (mainly birds).

Also sorry for the blank post that precedes this one. I'm new and cannot quite figure out how to delete it.
Logged

Mark
Marsupilami
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 75


« Reply #14 on: January 29, 2008, 06:25:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
First, thanks to all for the very useful info. It definitely sounds like the 17-40mm is not the way to go.  I guess I'll have to spring for the 16-35 II after all. 

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170459\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Test it before you buy it, some friends of mine, also full time pro phtotgraphers were not very happy with the new 16-35 either.

And as I said in another post, the 90 TSE might be a wonderful lens, the 24 TSE plainly just sucks and is useless on digital full frame.
Logged
MatthewCromer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 410


« Reply #15 on: January 29, 2008, 07:51:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Test it before you buy it, some friends of mine, also full time pro phtotgraphers were not very happy with the new 16-35 either.

And as I said in another post, the 90 TSE might be a wonderful lens, the 24 TSE plainly just sucks and is useless on digital full frame.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170554\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think some of the 24s might be better -- Darwin Wiggett swears by his on the 1DsII and III.
Logged
seberri
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


WWW
« Reply #16 on: January 29, 2008, 02:06:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Comparison
Logged
MarkKay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 587


WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 29, 2008, 03:15:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I had a hand picked 16-35mm version I.  I compared it to 2 others and at the wide end 16-24 it was much better than the others I had compared it with.  However, it was still not outstanding on the FF in the corners. By f8 it was decent at the edges but depending on light could still show some CA and fringing.  I tried the 16-35II.  I got two lenses.  One-- much better 16-24 at the wider apertures but by f8 about the same.  Less CA.  However at 24-35mm the version II was worse than my already marginal version one lens.  The second version II lens was worse or maybe equal at all comparisons with my version I albeit for the CA, which I believe to be better on the version II.

I do not think the 24mm TSE is horrible.  It suffers from fringing at the edges that can be corrected in PS.  The schneider 28mm PC for the canon is really sharp edge to edge but suffers from fringing.  The 90mm TSE is one of my favorite and most outstanding canon lenses.  For the wider side I love the 35mm contax PC.  Mark

BTW all of my testing above was with the 1DsmkII although i have used all my lenses except the 16-35II (which I returned) on the 1DsmkIII and have not changed my conclusions.

Quote
Comparison
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170708\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Mark F
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 345


« Reply #18 on: January 30, 2008, 06:59:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I had a hand picked 16-35mm version I.  I compared it to 2 others and at the wide end 16-24 it was much better than the others I had compared it with.  However, it was still not outstanding on the FF in the corners. By f8 it was decent at the edges but depending on light could still show some CA and fringing.  I tried the 16-35II.  I got two lenses.  One-- much better 16-24 at the wider apertures but by f8 about the same.  Less CA.  However at 24-35mm the version II was worse than my already marginal version one lens.  The second version II lens was worse or maybe equal at all comparisons with my version I albeit for the CA, which I believe to be better on the version II.

I do not think the 24mm TSE is horrible.  It suffers from fringing at the edges that can be corrected in PS.  The schneider 28mm PC for the canon is really sharp edge to edge but suffers from fringing.  The 90mm TSE is one of my favorite and most outstanding canon lenses.  For the wider side I love the 35mm contax PC.  Mark

BTW all of my testing above was with the 1DsmkII although i have used all my lenses except the 16-35II (which I returned) on the 1DsmkIII and have not changed my conclusions.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170733\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


So my choice is not so clear after all...    But if I understand all of the comments it seems that the 16-35mm II should be ok for landscape work with a full frame camera so long as I'm willing to use f8 or smaller.
Logged

Mark
DonWeston
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 148


« Reply #19 on: January 31, 2008, 08:08:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So my choice is not so clear after all...    But if I understand all of the comments it seems that the 16-35mm II should be ok for landscape work with a full frame camera so long as I'm willing to use f8 or smaller.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171136\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just another unhappy 17-40L customer, went through 3 samples over two years before I had one that was decent on a 5D. I would look for an alternative like the 16-35II if finances permit, especially on DSIII...fwiw...Canon's own images when the 5D came out were equally bad with the 17-40L....talking in the corners, very soft...
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad