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

Started Feb 2, 2013 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Joachim Gerstl
Joachim Gerstl Veteran Member • Posts: 6,649
Re: My Canon glass isn't so hot on the 1Ds Mk. III...

Have you ever touched one of this lenses?

35L and the Sigma 85 are miles ahead the two cheap Canons and not only because they are one stop faster or offer vastly better Bokeh.

They 70-200 IS L is by far better regarding sharpness and contrast.

Instead of saying nonsense to my comments you should gain some experience. "Second hand knowledge" is the main problem in forums.

-- hide signature --
 Joachim Gerstl's gear list:Joachim Gerstl's gear list
Ricoh GR Canon PowerShot G7 X Sony Alpha 7R Fujifilm X-T1 Sony a6000 +13 more
Limburger
Limburger Senior Member • Posts: 7,157
Re: My Canon glass isn't so hot on the 1Ds Mk. III...

FF is much less forgiving than crop.

Basicly you say your 1Ds MkIII is working propperly.

You changed the bottleneck in your system.

-- hide signature --

Cheers Mike

 Limburger's gear list:Limburger's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sony Alpha 7
brightcolours Forum Pro • Posts: 13,216
Re: My Canon glass isn't so hot on the 1Ds Mk. III...

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Have you ever touched one of this lenses?

35L and the Sigma 85 are miles ahead the two cheap Canons and not only because they are one stop faster or offer vastly better Bokeh.

So then in what way are they "miles ahead"? The 35mm f1.4 L USM does not have great bokeh, so that can't really be it. Nor is it vastly more sharp.

Then there is the Sigma 85mm f1.4. How does it have better bokeh than the Canon 85mm f1.8 USM? In fact, the Sigma can have so-so to nasty bokeh:

http://www.alanabramsphotography.com/2010/10/sigma-85mm1-4-ex-dg-hsm-lens-review-part-1/

It is fair to say that the Sigma 85mm f1.4 is nothing special regarding bokeh. It's only real plusses are the extra 2/3rds of a stop compared to the 85mm f1.8 and the lower price compared to the 85mm f1.2 L.

It is an ok lens, obviously, and not better than the Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM. Side by side, the Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM has nicer bokeh.

They 70-200 IS L is by far better regarding sharpness and contrast.

The* 70-200mm f4 L IS USM is a bit better regarding sharpness (but not all that much, the 70-200mm f4 L USM is no slouch), and worse regarding MFD work and bokeh. It's other plusses are weather sealing and IS. The non-IS is a fine lens in its own right, and (lack of) contrast is not one of its problems.

Instead of saying nonsense to my comments you should gain some experience. "Second hand knowledge" is the main problem in forums.

Instead of pretending to have knowledge, it is better to gain some.

-- hide signature --
Joachim Gerstl
Joachim Gerstl Veteran Member • Posts: 6,649
Re: My Canon glass isn't so hot on the 1Ds Mk. III...

brightcolours wrote:

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Have you ever touched one of this lenses?

35L and the Sigma 85 are miles ahead the two cheap Canons and not only because they are one stop faster or offer vastly better Bokeh.

So then in what way are they "miles ahead"? The 35mm f1.4 L USM does not have great bokeh, so that can't really be it. Nor is it vastly more sharp.

Then there is the Sigma 85mm f1.4. How does it have better bokeh than the Canon 85mm f1.8 USM? In fact, the Sigma can have so-so to nasty bokeh:

http://www.alanabramsphotography.com/2010/10/sigma-85mm1-4-ex-dg-hsm-lens-review-part-1/

It is fair to say that the Sigma 85mm f1.4 is nothing special regarding bokeh. It's only real plusses are the extra 2/3rds of a stop compared to the 85mm f1.8 and the lower price compared to the 85mm f1.2 L.

It is an ok lens, obviously, and not better than the Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM. Side by side, the Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM has nicer bokeh.

They 70-200 IS L is by far better regarding sharpness and contrast.

The* 70-200mm f4 L IS USM is a bit better regarding sharpness (but not all that much, the 70-200mm f4 L USM is no slouch), and worse regarding MFD work and bokeh. It's other plusses are weather sealing and IS. The non-IS is a fine lens in its own right, and (lack of) contrast is not one of its problems.

Instead of saying nonsense to my comments you should gain some experience. "Second hand knowledge" is the main problem in forums.

Instead of pretending to have knowledge, it is better to gain some.

-- hide signature --

Unless your real name is Alan Abrams you just proofed my point. You don't own and most likely never touched one of those lenses though you feel the need to comment. Sad.

-- hide signature --
 Joachim Gerstl's gear list:Joachim Gerstl's gear list
Ricoh GR Canon PowerShot G7 X Sony Alpha 7R Fujifilm X-T1 Sony a6000 +13 more
brightcolours Forum Pro • Posts: 13,216
Re: My Canon glass isn't so hot on the 1Ds Mk. III...

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

brightcolours wrote:

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Have you ever touched one of this lenses?

35L and the Sigma 85 are miles ahead the two cheap Canons and not only because they are one stop faster or offer vastly better Bokeh.

So then in what way are they "miles ahead"? The 35mm f1.4 L USM does not have great bokeh, so that can't really be it. Nor is it vastly more sharp.

Then there is the Sigma 85mm f1.4. How does it have better bokeh than the Canon 85mm f1.8 USM? In fact, the Sigma can have so-so to nasty bokeh:

http://www.alanabramsphotography.com/2010/10/sigma-85mm1-4-ex-dg-hsm-lens-review-part-1/

It is fair to say that the Sigma 85mm f1.4 is nothing special regarding bokeh. It's only real plusses are the extra 2/3rds of a stop compared to the 85mm f1.8 and the lower price compared to the 85mm f1.2 L.

It is an ok lens, obviously, and not better than the Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM. Side by side, the Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM has nicer bokeh.

They 70-200 IS L is by far better regarding sharpness and contrast.

The* 70-200mm f4 L IS USM is a bit better regarding sharpness (but not all that much, the 70-200mm f4 L USM is no slouch), and worse regarding MFD work and bokeh. It's other plusses are weather sealing and IS. The non-IS is a fine lens in its own right, and (lack of) contrast is not one of its problems.

Instead of saying nonsense to my comments you should gain some experience. "Second hand knowledge" is the main problem in forums.

Instead of pretending to have knowledge, it is better to gain some.

-- hide signature --

Unless your real name is Alan Abrams you just proofed my point. You don't own and most likely never touched one of those lenses though you feel the need to comment. Sad.

So what you are saying is that you feel the need to defend your own purchases, do I have that correct?

Or is your point that one can't see how a lens performs in a photo unless one has made the photo oneself? I suggest you think about that for a little...

-- hide signature --
photosen Veteran Member • Posts: 4,599
Another way of looking at it...

I am a fellow happy user of a 30D with a 35mm f2, 70-200 f4 (+10-22 and 50mm f1.4). While "full frame" certainly has several advantages I think what is lost in the consumption rush is that "crop" cameras have some advantages too, like using "the best part" of a lens. Instead of agonizing over details (I mean things like a an extra step of dynamic range, not your newly discovered soft corners) we should be a little more grateful for what this technology lets us do.

 photosen's gear list:photosen's gear list
Canon EOS 30D Canon EOS 70D Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM +3 more
plantdoc Senior Member • Posts: 2,358
My take

Your new camera has more megapixels (resolution) than your 30D. Assuming AF etc is working fine, more resolution is like looking at a larger print when you pixel peep at 100% view. I notice the same thing when I use a lens on my 40D (10 megapixels) vs a Rebel t2i with 18 megapixels. However, if I look at a pic from the 2ti at 50% view it looks just fine. For example, a camera/lens combo with adequate megapixels, but not the greatest lens, may make a great 5x7 but only a fair 11x14. Perhaps, this is a simplistic explanation, but it works for what I see.

Greg

Donald Duck
Donald Duck Regular Member • Posts: 308
Re: Samples of what I see (apples-to-apples):

CanonKen wrote:

Here is the same shot at f/2. While you cannot see it, the center of the image is in focus, and the brightness is the same as the f/11 image (with is, the same brightness across the board). My question is, for a lens like this, wide open on a FF body, is this what I should expect? It is OK if the answer is yes. I'm just surprised it is THAT severe. I'm really not trying to pixel-peep, I just want to make sure my expectations are in line.

It looks bad, indeed, but do you have a 22/1.2 lens which does better wide open on your crop body, at 21mp?

Donald Duck
Donald Duck Regular Member • Posts: 308
Re: Another way of looking at it...

photosen wrote:

I am a fellow happy user of a 30D with a 35mm f2, 70-200 f4 (+10-22 and 50mm f1.4). While "full frame" certainly has several advantages I think what is lost in the consumption rush is that "crop" cameras have some advantages too, like using "the best part" of a lens.

This is a myth. The only case that I know of is the 17-40 in the corners at 17mm (but sill better than the 10-22). You forget that the comparisons make sense only at equivalent settings.

Forrest Forum Pro • Posts: 14,666
Re: Wide open map photo??
Your expectations may be a bit off. I can not imagine one wanting to photograph a framed map with a 35mm f2 lens at f2. Not something one would use a shallow DOF setting for!

Think about it for a moment.  A map is flat.  It doesn't need gobs of depth of field if you're shooting it dead on.  There's no background to be out of focus!

brightcolours Forum Pro • Posts: 13,216
Re: Wide open map photo??

Forrest wrote:

Your expectations may be a bit off. I can not imagine one wanting to photograph a framed map with a 35mm f2 lens at f2. Not something one would use a shallow DOF setting for!

Think about it for a moment. A map is flat. It doesn't need gobs of depth of field if you're shooting it dead on. There's no background to be out of focus!

Think about it for a moment. A map is flat. There are no DOF preferences playing, no need at all for a shallow DOF. Yet, all the more problems if the focus plane is just a fraction curved. Also, softer corners wide open will show up, while it is not in any way logical to shoot wide open. And then there is the sensor induced heavy vignetting with FF sensors with big apertures and wide angles, which in a normal scene will not stand out as much as with a photo of a framed map hanging on a white wall.

Pretty odd, then, to shoot that with a 35mm f2 at f2.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads