My Canon glass isn't so hot on the 1Ds Mk. III...

Started Feb 2, 2013 | Discussions thread
brightcolours Forum Pro • Posts: 14,883
Re: My Canon glass isn't so hot on the 1Ds Mk. III...

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

CanonKen wrote:

I have used a 30D for years (well, since it came out, so 6 years I guess). I built up a few lenses since then:

35mm f/2, 85mm f/1.8, 17-40mm f/4L, 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS). They all work great on this camera and I fully trust the camera and lenses under any use (wide open, hard lighting conditions, etc.)

Overall, not at all thrilled with what I see on a FF body.

-- hide signature --

The 35mm is pathetic and miserable wide open, but EXCELLENT at f/8-11.

--The 85mm is so-so wide open but EXCELLENT at f/8-11.

--The 17-40mm is decent, probably fine for landscapes and such (corners get soft/distorted). Not good wide open, but for a landscape lens, not a concern.

--The 70-200 is great at 70mm, but not as good at 200mm (some slight softness on one side). Not so hot wide open.

Overall, all 4 lenses can look great, but I have to really stop them down to get something that can make use of the camera.

My question is about expectations. On a high-MP FF body, what should I expect from these lenses? All 4 worked great on my APS-C body, but on FF, the outer areas quickly degrade to a point they look bad on even an modest sized print. Do I have bad copies, or is this normal for lower-tier glass on a flagship FF camera?

Do I see a 24-70 & 70-200 f/2.8 in my future?

2/35 get the 35L instead, it is an excellent lens

Nonsense, only get a 35mm f1.4 L if one wants the extra stop, and does not care about its added weight. Photographing maps at f2 will still result in so-so sharpness across the frame and heavy vignetting.

1.8/85 get the Sigma 1.4/85, truly very very good

Nonsense, the 85mm f1.8 USM is truly very good too. No need to get a Sgma f1.4 instead (more expensive, heavier).

17-40L everybody knows that it is a landscape lens and needs to be stopped down

4/70-200L is not excellent: get the IS version or the new 2.8

The 70-200mm f4 L USM is excellent, and the IS version is not as good in 2 areas (besides the price): bokeh and close up work at MFD.

In short I recommend to get better glass.

His "glass" is not the problem, it is his expectations.

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow