5D - the Bad Boy

Just a question:

Why is the 5D always being singled out as being very demanding on lenses, and that only the best lenses should be used ?

Why does one never see this type of remark with any of the 1D series bodies - surely they must be just as demanding ?

I don't have a 5D (yet) but I'm working towards one and I was wondering if any lens will ever be good enough for a 5D.

Any thoughts on this ?
--
Jacques

JacquesC said:

Just a question:

Why is the 5D always being singled out as being very demanding on
lenses, and that only the best lenses should be used ?
Why does one never see this type of remark with any of the 1D series
bodies - surely they must be just as demanding ?

Click to expand...

Because it is full frame. Go to Canon's site and check our there MTF for some of the lenses. See how fast the MTF curves go down compared to a 1.26X sensor dimension; it is almost like falling off a cliff. To get the most out of a FF body you need very high quality lenses PERIOD. The good news is every RAW file I've seen taken from a 5D has exhibited great detail extraction (in the center) and wonderfully low noise levels. I'm happy with a 1DmkII and 17-40 for my landscapes BUT if I had started out with a 24-70 f/2.8 lens instead of the 17-40 I would have bought the 5D when it came out.

JacquesC said:

I don't have a 5D (yet) but I'm working towards one and I was
wondering if any lens will ever be good enough for a 5D.

Any thoughts on this ?
--
Jacques

Click to expand...

Well yes, once you get past the wide end all the better L-zooms will work great. Certainly all the better primes are well suited for the FF 5D. I don't own the 5D and suggest you take what I've written with a "little" grain of salt; you will be getting "better" and more "specific" answers than mine when the "real" 5D owners chime in.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter

http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia/original



SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT

JacquesC said:

Just a question:

Why is the 5D always being singled out as being very demanding on
lenses, and that only the best lenses should be used ?

Click to expand...

First there will be alot of views on this but I feel that if you buy this camera you will want the best quality possible. I only have good glass so I don't know how some of the cheaper glass works on this camera. I love the camera and so do everyone I know.

JacquesC said:

Why does one never see this type of remark with any of the 1D series
bodies - surely they must be just as demanding ?

Click to expand...

I would have to say the 1DS MKII will be even more demanding on lenses since it's higher megs.

JacquesC said:

I don't have a 5D (yet) but I'm working towards one and I was
wondering if any lens will ever be good enough for a 5D.

Click to expand...

My thought again, if you are going to buy this camera I would think you would want the best glass you could afford. That is with any camera though.

JacquesC said:

Any thoughts on this ?
Jacques

Click to expand...

All the best with you decission,
John

--
http://www.pbase.com/jhp

I can't say that I have never heard this remark with regard to 1D bodies. But I can speculate like everyone else who will particiapate in this thread:

Due to its price point, the 5D is a natural upgrade for 1.6x shooters many of whom are budget conscious with budget lenses and mercifully should be warned.

Corollary: Probably a larger percentage of 1D users do not have to be told this.

The 5D is a landscape camera (let's not argue, I refer you to Canon's 5D literature) and particularly on the wide side, it takes a very good lens to resolve deep into the corners.

You could use any EF mount lens, however to me real power of 5D is when you are using 24L, 35L, 85L, 135L, 200L lenses.

Stunning results with 99% of keepers! I wish some "happy" owners of new 1DIII could produce something like 5D could with lenses above. Or at least somebody independent compared shots IQ to stop this snobs yapping about their new toy. )

--



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My gallery: http://www.pbase.com/breitling65/best_of_

hello JacquesC ,

i'm not a 5D owner (yet..?) but as I understand this issue, the 5D is more
demanding on lenses because it's a FF camera, so it also uses the usually
weaker outer part of a lens (sharpness, resolution, abberations,...)

Cropped sensor cameras don't make use of the outer part of a lens, so they
are less likely to reveal those weaknesses, they rather use the so called
sweat spot if the glass.

Concerning 5D versus 1 series, the 1D has a 1.3 crop factor, which is less than
the Rebels and 20/30D with their 1.6 crop factor, but still the lens borders
are chopped off so to speak.

The 1Ds is the only other FF camera facing the same potential lens problem,
or stated otherwise is equally demanding on lenses. Actually the 1Ds is or
could be even more demanding, given its higher resolution.

The fact that this issue is brought up regularly in reviews and messages about
the 5D and less when talking about the 1Ds is imo due to the fact that
the 5D is within the reach of 'normal' people/photo-enthousiasts, while the 1Ds
imo is only an option for pro's and the really rich ones among us.
So, the better and more expensive lenses FF needs, is less of a problem for
those in the 1Ds-league.
5D users though could be faced with unexpected high lens costs because of
the cameras quality

You could describe this issue as "every advantage has its disadvantages":
the better the camera, the better/more expensive the glass needed ;-)

When we were teenagers, my brother bought himself a very nice windsurfer (just the sinker, not the sail).

He kept his previous sails (not so expensive, but they worked) and we sailed together, it was really a very nice and light sinker. He had much fun with it.

One day, after a long day of playing around in the waves, we laid down on the beach to rest and a friend of ours, let's call him Paul - who had bought the same sinker, although he was far from being as good as my brother - said, looking at the sail that was drying: "Dude, you suck. You should do like I do, an expensive sinker requires nothing else but expensive sails ..."

1D users are usually above this kind of puril debat, they are on another par. Paul type people can't afford a 1D, but they are able to afford a 5D.

Answer your question?

a++ Cédric

ps: The kit lens 17-55 won't be good enough for the 5D, but's that more for mecanical reasons )

Thanks guys for your replies, much appreciated.

I think you're right about the fact that most observers view the 5D as an upgrade from a FOVC camera and therefore issue the warning that one should be aware of lenses not performing as well on a 5D as on 1.6 bodies. The majority of 1Ds users are probably using L glass only anyway.

I love my 20D and is using it to improve my skills but will definitely go the FF way, and other than the price, I like the fact that the 5D is unobtrusive and far less bulky that the 1Ds. That suits me perfectly because I like travelling and would hate to haul around a big, heavy body. I already have a 24-105L lens, and the 70-200 f4 IS lens - all ready to go FF ! Most of my photography is on the wide side, low light, and indoor stuff - very little wildlife and/or sports, so the 5D looks like a perfect match.

One last thought - I REALLY appreciate all you guys who post your 5D pics on this forum because it gives all us aspiring guys a very good idea of just how bloody good the 5D really is - please keep it coming !

I'm drooling !
Regards,
Jacques - Cape Town, South Africa
--
Jacques

lenny_shp said:

You could use any EF mount lens, however to me real power of 5D is
when you are using 24L, 35L, 85L, 135L, 200L lenses.
Stunning results with 99% of keepers! I wish some "happy" owners of
new 1DIII could produce something like 5D could with lenses above. Or
at least somebody independent compared shots IQ to stop this snobs
yapping about their new toy. )

--



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My gallery: http://www.pbase.com/breitling65/best_of_

Click to expand...

Hey Lenny,

Your right on the money. I have 4 of those 5 lenses. I love the 35L and 135L.

All the best,
John

--
http://www.pbase.com/jhp

Hi Jacques,

JacquesC said:

Why is the 5D always being singled out as being very demanding on
lenses, and that only the best lenses should be used ?

Click to expand...

Actually, a more precise stance would be: the 5D is very demanding for wide and ultrawide lenses, but is more tolerant with longer focals, expecially in the central part of the frame.

An even more appropriate statement: Canon should manifacture better wideangles (and ultrawides in particular).

I own a 5D and have/had/rented lots of lenses, and it always boils down to edge/corner performances at short focal lengths.

Since 1D and 1.6x bodies don't cover the outer part of the lens' illumination circle, you don't see much problems, but the 5D and 1Ds-mkII exploit every mm of the image projected by the lens.

Unfortunately, as you can see from Canon's own MTF charts, their short lenses (Ls included) aren't all that wonderful at the borders/corners of the 24x36 frame, and there lies the problem.

That said, with longer lenses (including the excellent 35/1.4) corner performances are up to snuff, and you actually get more quality from the 5D because the spatial sampling is lower: the 5D only needs around 60 line pairs/mm from a lens to completely satisfy its sensor, while for example a 400D (XTi) needs almost 90 lp/mm.

At 60 lp/mm, a lens has a much higher microcontrast than at 90 (a lens is a low pass filter: the higher the frequency, the lower the transferred contrast).

Fernando
--
Portfolios: http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/18417.html
http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/showgallery.php?ppuser=1468
http://www.pbase.com/fer_1/galleries

Hi Jacques,

I don't think that "performing as well" is an appropriate expression. The 5D in comparaison to the 400D, for example, has different characteristics and demands.

For example, the spatial resolution of the 400D being greater than that of the 5D, the 400D is more demanding in terms of resolving power.

Whereas the surface of the 5D sensor is greater than that of the 400D, therefore there is more vignetting visible with the 5D than with the 400D.

Different sensor surface, different resolution, different problems at different focal lengths.

For example on my 5D I'm quite satisfied by 28-135 (not L) whereas I'm a bit dissapointed by the 17-40L at the wide end, wide open.

JacquesC said:

The majority of 1Ds users are probably using L glass only anyway.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't take a wager on that.

a++ Cédric

The comparison is a bit unfair I think. Fact: A 5D is basically just a 20D with full-frame sensor and a much bigger price-tag. If your lenses just render...mush... in the outer parts of the sensor area, you have basically thrown away a LOT of money with nothing much to show for it. Thus, using high-quality glass with good corner performance makes perfect logical sense on a 5D. It's a case of throwing good money after bad, in a way

Hi Staale,

Although I'm inclined to beleive that the quality lens weighs heavily when it comes to final image outcome (and therefore that high quality glass is vital) - regardless of the camera - 400D, 5D, 1D.

I also have the impression that quite a few of the whinners - or those who are most vocal about it - are mostly being snobbish. It's a bit of boys with toys story.

But that is my general impression - although I'm being a bit caricutural in expressing it, and I may probably wrong about it.

a++ Cédric

Staale S said:

The comparison is a bit unfair I think. Fact: A 5D is basically just
show for it. Thus, using high-quality glass with good corner
performance makes perfect logical sense on a 5D.

Click to expand...

Surely, but then doesn't high quality glass make sense (to a certain extent) on a 400D too? I mean the images will be better then if you took a 10$ plastic lens, no?

a++ Cédric

ps: I hope haven't offended too many people in saying that.

I shot a cropped body for 4 years and thought my mid-range Tamron SP 24-135 was ok.

With the 5D I discovered a couple things.

1. The lens was NOT the limiting factor on the Fuji S2. I get much more sharpness
with the 5D.

2. The left edge is slightly soft but only the far edge. In portrait orientation this is
is the bottom edge so no worries.

3. While I knew the distortion was there with a cropped body, it's more evident
with FF. However, I have CS3 and this lens now looks like $2,000 instead of
only $400.

The 5D will get more out of any lens you have and it might expose a weakness. But isn't that what you want?! It's not a serious thing unless you print everything to 50".

Better glass, better results.

Robert

How does the 24-70L perform on the 5d? It's supposedly better than the older 24-105, but I'm curious if both a weak in the edge.

At the moment I'm using my 10-22 for interior shots (350d) - how much is 24mm on FF vs crop?

--
http://www.pbase.com/winther1

I've found that the 24-105 can give astonishing results on the 5D, but to me its biggest weakness is the severe distortion at the wide end. You won't notice it with weddings etc, but if you try anything with straight lines (eg architectural, landscapes or rather seascapes) it's quite severe. It can be corrected to a large extent, but I gather the 24-70 is better in this respect.

I have some very good lenses, including the 400 f5.6L, the I80 f3.5 macro L and 70-200 f4L. I also have some decent consumer grade lenses, the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM and 100-300 f4.5-5.6.

All of these lenses perform better on my 5D than on my 300D. Stopped down, even the consumer lenses perform well.

To me this makes sense because you don't have to enlarge a the image from a full frame sensor as much as from a cropped frame sensor. Nonetheless, when I did a careful comparison with my 300D, it took some real pixel peeping to see differences. The results as shown at: http://www.pbase.com/jcassatt/canon_5d_vs_300d

Jim
http://www.pbase.com/jcassatt

Rick Knepper said:

I can't say that I have never heard this remark with regard to 1D
bodies. But I can speculate like everyone else who will particiapate
in this thread:

Due to its price point, the 5D is a natural upgrade for 1.6x shooters
many of whom are budget conscious with budget lenses and mercifully
should be warned.

Corollary: Probably a larger percentage of 1D users do not have to be
told this.

The 5D is a landscape camera (let's not argue, I refer you to Canon's
5D literature) and particularly on the wide side, it takes a very
good lens to resolve deep into the corners.

Click to expand...

--

Ben

John Motts said:

I've found that the 24-105 can give astonishing results on the 5D,
but to me its biggest weakness is the severe distortion at the wide
end. You won't notice it with weddings etc, but if you try anything
with straight lines (eg architectural, landscapes or rather
seascapes) it's quite severe. It can be corrected to a large extent,
but I gather the 24-70 is better in this respect.

Click to expand...

--
First off, the 24-105 is the newer lens.

The 24-105 does have more destortion than the 24-70, but the 24-70 does not really go to 24, it is more like 25 at the widest.

I have not seen any problem with destortion in landscapes with my 24-105 on my 5d.

Ben

crouvrais said:

Surely, but then doesn't high quality glass make sense (to a certain
extent) on a 400D too? I mean the images will be better then if you
took a 10$ plastic lens, no?

Click to expand...

To a large degree, yes - of course, good glass is good glass and is worth having. But in a great many cases, the difference between a perfectly decent lens and an outright excellent one is primarily in the edge/corner performance... which is only visible on a 5D or other full-frame camera, given that we are talking about full-frame lenses here. To a certain extent the extra dollars are wasted if you put it on a cropper. There are other goodies to a top-of-the-line lens of course, besides purely optical performance. But that is outside the scope of this discussion I feel.