Is this the pinnacle in sharpness, or more to go for??

[Julian Fletcher]

Hi

I'm shooting cruise ships at 135mm to 180mm on a 5DSR. Tripod mounted, low ISOs like 100 and 50, more often than not at 1/750 shutter or higher at f5.6, sometimes f4 and sometimes f8. The frame is well filled at this sort of focal length and to my eyes on a 4k monitor, the image is tack sharp.

My current lenses of choice are Zeiss ZE 135 f2 and Leica 180mm f3.4 APO. Telyt R.

Both look really good...but how much more could I get in terms of sharpness, clarity, resolution etc with another / another better lens?? Most of this is done at infinity focus, so I'm not sure the Canon L 200mm f2 would be right for this, but obviously willing to give it a go if someone can vouch for it's abilities over the two above. Also willing to flex focal length too, but I know that 300mm is probably too much but not unworkable.

What lens would be top of the pops for this application, that's also a big leap forward vs the Zeiss and Leica I have. I'd probably give the Zeiss the edge over the Leica in my experience, the Leica is from 1979 and the Zeiss probably around 2020.

All thoughts welcome!! The only thing off limits for me would be a change in camera body, would like to stick with the 5DSR and it's 51 mega pixels!!

Many thanks indeed

Julian

 

[RubenJ]

Why upgrade if your pictures look good?

 

[John Crowe]

This sounds awfully familiar. Have you posted something similar in the past?

Does the Leica 180mm f3.4 APO show any chromatic aberation? I have often thought about buying one of these, but I can't help but think that the much newer Canon 200mm f2.8 L would be at least as sharp. The 180 APO is calibrated for infinity focus, so it could have advantages in that range.

I had a Nikon 200mm f2 of the same era as the 180 APO, and it was the first extremely sharp lens that I have owned, but it did have CA. I suspect the much newer Canon EF 200mm f2 L IS would be sharper, with no CA. So, if the 180 APO does show CA, this one could outperform it. However, don't forget how heavy a 200/2 is.

The only other 135mm to consider is the Canon EF 135mm f2 L, but the Zeiss is likely similar, or even better.

I too have the 5DSR and I understand striving for the best lenses to take advantage of those MPs.

If you don't mind shooting much slower, and spending a fortune, a 100MP Fuji GFX and their 100-200, and or 250mm may deliver significantly better image quality.

 

[Julian Fletcher]

yes I did post this before - I took the advice and went for the Leica, but I want to keep pushing the envelope of sharpness and resolution! Maybe I've already reached it!!

 

[John Crowe]

If the APO shows CA, there may be room for improvement. Does it?

 

[Julian Fletcher]

If the APO shows CA, there may be room for improvement. Does it?

Hi - here are some shots. Weather not the same but you get the idea. Looking at these, I reckon the Zeiss 135mm f2 is way ahead of the Leica, but interested in your opinion too:

Queen Mary 2 - Zeiss



View attachment 04e9f8e9bbcf4005bac605f1b8948c3d.jpg

All of the below - Leica

Processed in lighroom, I always add sharpening to mid point on the scale. I think the Zeiss has the pop and vibrancy that the Leica doesn't. Its a new lens whereas my copy of the Leica (albeit mint) is from 1979!



View attachment 323beb518c484301af0e5f6021cb67ee.jpg



View attachment 11a0c3d751114331990199c78208d358.jpg



View attachment 70efd3495c7c444381fd875559f7b7e1.jpg

See what you think - I mean they're all good aren't they, just the Zeiss seems to be a bit sharper. All taken on the 5DSR at f5.6

Cheers Julian

 

[John Crowe]

They seem extremely sharp. I will look again on my laptop later.

Only the tiniest CA with each lens.

I can't see a difference in detail between the two. Looking at guy wires, ropes, light fixtures.

You may be getting a better impression of the 135mm lens because the ships are that much closer. This reduces any atmospheric effects, and generally speaking a really sharp shorter lens should be sharper than a really sharp longer lens.

You can test the lenses against each other in a controlled experiment. Using tripod, remote shutter release/delayed release, good lighting, same apertures, same shutter speeds photograph a test scene with the same view in each lens. So you move the 135mm lens closer to the target to get same framing of the 180mm. This will tell you if the 135mm lens is indeed sharper, more contrasty, than the 180mm.

I questioned how interesting these sorts of images would be but it's like looking at characters on a stage. Reminds me of the movie "Rear Window." Very entertaining form of people watching! Well done.

P.S. I do like that last detail shot. Maybe you could even put a 300/2.8 or f4 to good use. Heavier though.

 

[picturetime2]

Hi

I'm shooting cruise ships at 135mm to 180mm on a 5DSR. Tripod mounted, low ISOs like 100 and 50, more often than not at 1/750 shutter or higher at f5.6, sometimes f4 and sometimes f8. The frame is well filled at this sort of focal length and to my eyes on a 4k monitor, the image is tack sharp.

My current lenses of choice are Zeiss ZE 135 f2 and Leica 180mm f3.4 APO. Telyt R.

Both look really good...but how much more could I get in terms of sharpness, clarity, resolution etc with another / another better lens?? Most of this is done at infinity focus, so I'm not sure the Canon L 200mm f2 would be right for this, but obviously willing to give it a go if someone can vouch for it's abilities over the two above. Also willing to flex focal length too, but I know that 300mm is probably too much but not unworkable.

What lens would be top of the pops for this application, that's also a big leap forward vs the Zeiss and Leica I have. I'd probably give the Zeiss the edge over the Leica in my experience, the Leica is from 1979 and the Zeiss probably around 2020.

All thoughts welcome!! The only thing off limits for me would be a change in camera body, would like to stick with the 5DSR and it's 51 mega pixels!!

Many thanks indeed

Julian

I can see why you picked up the Leica for that price but it isn't sharp in those shots. I wouldn't even expect that from a Canon FD lens. Say the Canon FD 200mm f/2.8. Guaranteed to be sharper than those "leica" photos. But, it might hard to find a good one.

 

[John Crowe]

Not sure what you are seeing. The Canon FD 200mm f2.8, original or IF version, is not sharp at all. Far better than typical zooms of the time, but the Canon FD 80-200mm f4 L is sharper by a huge amount and is likely in the realm of the EF 70-200/4 L. It was the last FD lens. Well, other than the FD 200/1.8 L. The Leica APO is likely sharper, and possibly sharper than the EF 200mm f2.8 L.

 

[Julian Fletcher]

Not sure what you are seeing. The Canon FD 200mm f2.8, original or IF version, is not sharp at all. Far better than typical zooms of the time, but the Canon FD 80-200mm f4 L is sharper by a huge amount and is likely in the realm of the EF 70-200/4 L. It was the last FD lens. Well, other than the FD 200/1.8 L. The Leica APO is likely sharper, and possibly sharper than the EF 200mm f2.8 L.

Hi John, the FD debate aside, do you think these Leica shots are sharp? I did my best with the 5DSR live view!! I've viewed these on a 55" 4k tv and they look pretty sharp to me. What do you think and do you feel the Leica is as impressive as you would have expected?

 

[Julian Fletcher]

Hi

I'm shooting cruise ships at 135mm to 180mm on a 5DSR. Tripod mounted, low ISOs like 100 and 50, more often than not at 1/750 shutter or higher at f5.6, sometimes f4 and sometimes f8. The frame is well filled at this sort of focal length and to my eyes on a 4k monitor, the image is tack sharp.

My current lenses of choice are Zeiss ZE 135 f2 and Leica 180mm f3.4 APO. Telyt R.

Both look really good...but how much more could I get in terms of sharpness, clarity, resolution etc with another / another better lens?? Most of this is done at infinity focus, so I'm not sure the Canon L 200mm f2 would be right for this, but obviously willing to give it a go if someone can vouch for it's abilities over the two above. Also willing to flex focal length too, but I know that 300mm is probably too much but not unworkable.

What lens would be top of the pops for this application, that's also a big leap forward vs the Zeiss and Leica I have. I'd probably give the Zeiss the edge over the Leica in my experience, the Leica is from 1979 and the Zeiss probably around 2020.

All thoughts welcome!! The only thing off limits for me would be a change in camera body, would like to stick with the 5DSR and it's 51 mega pixels!!

Many thanks indeed

Julian

I can see why you picked up the Leica for that price but it isn't sharp in those shots. I wouldn't even expect that from a Canon FD lens. Say the Canon FD 200mm f/2.8. Guaranteed to be sharper than those "leica" photos. But, it might hard to find a good one.

What makes you feel these are not sharp?

 

[John Crowe]

I copied them and opened them all in photoshop and viewed on my 17" laptop. The Leica 180mm f3.4 photos show more detail than the Zeiss.

I blew up the first two images as much as possible before all the pixelation stuff and then dialed the one image back until the people were the same size as in the other image. There is more detail in the people with the Leica. Maintaining that size I then checked the very top of the tower and there is more detail in the lights and the wires with the Leica. I don't know why the foliage on the shore is in focus, but again the Leica shows more detail. I also notice that the Zeiss has more chromatic aberation, although only a tiny amount. This surprised me considering the age of the Leica.

I was getting confused while viewing. I knew the "Ventura" was the sharper photo, but it took me a minute to realize that that was the Leica!

The Leica APO certainly seems to be as good as it's reputation.

What I am getting off your post on dpreview is likely not as good as what you can see on your original images though.

I am going back to look at the CA again.

P.S. The Leica 180 APO does have CA but I estimate that it is about half of what the Zeiss has. However, I know that my Nikon 200mm f2 AI had far more than both. My Canon FD 800mm f5.6 L is a totally different focal length, but it has far more CA than your lenses too. I use it on the 5DSR and 90D.

It looks to me like the first two images, Cunard and Ventura, were photographed at a similar distance, so the 180mm lens benefits from a tighter composition, getting more pixels on one particular deck, for instance. So, I would not dismiss the Zeiss either though.

P.S. I have noticed in my own photography that images under full sun show much more CA than those in overcast situations, and that far more detail is rendered in overcast situations. I have actually wanted to post some samples here for a discussion to try and understand the cause better. So again, the Ventura benefits from the even lighting.

 

[picturetime2]

Not sure what you are seeing. The Canon FD 200mm f2.8, original or IF version, is not sharp at all. Far better than typical zooms of the time, but the Canon FD 80-200mm f4 L is sharper by a huge amount and is likely in the realm of the EF 70-200/4 L. It was the last FD lens. Well, other than the FD 200/1.8 L. The Leica APO is likely sharper, and possibly sharper than the EF 200mm f2.8 L.

Woops! What I meant to write there was EF 200mm f/2.8. Sorry about the miscommunication.

I actually do have the FD 200mm 2.8 (two copies) and they're pretty darn sharp considering the age. They get softer near MFD. Overall, I like them. The EF version is supposed to be better, I've seen it rec'd a lot for EF shooters.

In terms of modern lenses the RF series are mostly really sharp from what I have seen and experienced. Not the same price bracket but obviously either of the 70-200's will beat the Leica especially at the edges of the frame.

 

[picturetime2]

Hi

I'm shooting cruise ships at 135mm to 180mm on a 5DSR. Tripod mounted, low ISOs like 100 and 50, more often than not at 1/750 shutter or higher at f5.6, sometimes f4 and sometimes f8. The frame is well filled at this sort of focal length and to my eyes on a 4k monitor, the image is tack sharp.

My current lenses of choice are Zeiss ZE 135 f2 and Leica 180mm f3.4 APO. Telyt R.

Both look really good...but how much more could I get in terms of sharpness, clarity, resolution etc with another / another better lens?? Most of this is done at infinity focus, so I'm not sure the Canon L 200mm f2 would be right for this, but obviously willing to give it a go if someone can vouch for it's abilities over the two above. Also willing to flex focal length too, but I know that 300mm is probably too much but not unworkable.

What lens would be top of the pops for this application, that's also a big leap forward vs the Zeiss and Leica I have. I'd probably give the Zeiss the edge over the Leica in my experience, the Leica is from 1979 and the Zeiss probably around 2020.

All thoughts welcome!! The only thing off limits for me would be a change in camera body, would like to stick with the 5DSR and it's 51 mega pixels!!

Many thanks indeed

Julian

I can see why you picked up the Leica for that price but it isn't sharp in those shots. I wouldn't even expect that from a Canon FD lens. Say the Canon FD 200mm f/2.8. Guaranteed to be sharper than those "leica" photos. But, it might hard to find a good one.

What makes you feel these are not sharp?

Well, I do believe there is a *large* amount of "unsharp mask" being applied there. I never trust anything that looks that oversharpened.

 

[jgale]

I have no experience with the 180mm macro, but Ken Rockwell – who was touched many Canon lenses – really likes it: https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/180mm-f35.htm

This EF 180mm f/3.5 L macro is Canon's sharpest lens. While all Canon lenses are sharp, if you like to split pixels and try to force lenses into situations where you can see slight differences in sharpness, no other Canon lens is as sharp as this one.