This example got lost in the last thread I started on this topic and I decided to start it fresh. If this thread dies quickly too I'll know to move on due to lack of interest. This is one example from the Canon 200mm f/2.0L IS lens. This is shot with a Canon 1Ds III camera. I think the capture detail is stunningly good, you can see every single vein in the leaf up front that was in the focal plane. I'm posting this because not a lot is written about this lens yet and I'm sure that not everyone wants to plunk down $5,500 without the ability to do some good research ahead of time. If this topic shows some interest I'll post more examples.
First picture, part of a willow tree.
Second picture, 100% crop of some of the leaves.
Edited by perspective on Jul 08, 2008 at 06:44 AM GMT
Jman13 wrote:
It ought to, given the $5.5K price tag.
Well that's the crux of the matter, yes? I think serious photographers who are wanting this lens are desiring to see if it can truly resolve very fine detail. I am convinced it does very well and wanted to show what I think is some convincing proof.
I agree with you. This is an awesome lens. Thanks for highlighting the detail as I have not looked into this myself. However what I like about the 200L F2 is the new IS. I can shoot at 1/20 sec and even hear the double click of the shutter (to show how slow the speed is) and I can still obtain very sharp images. Ideal for my theatre/festival photography.
I have a $500 Zeiss 85mm that can resolve amazing detail too and the same goes for my macro lens, 135L, 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4. The 200 looks excellent but the price is obscene. I would love that 5 stop IS though.
PetKal wrote:
Why do I see noise in that 1DsMkIII image at ISO 100 ? What on earth would happen at ISO 3200 ? Anyway, that's irrelevant in this topic's context
I agree, this seems to be an extremely sharp lens. Congratulations! But what can you say about the bokeh? In the 100% crop, the edges of the willow leaves and the highlights therein don't look extremely pleasing to me. But maybe that's just a problem of the willow leaves, or the sharpening (if any)?
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I have a $500 Zeiss 85mm that can resolve amazing detail too and the same goes for my macro lens, 135L, 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4. The 200 looks excellent but the price is obscene. I would love that 5 stop IS though.
My 135 f/2L could not resolve the detail you see in this picture quite to this level of granularity. It was good, but not this good.
thedigitalbean wrote:
What kind of settings were used in that image? The 100% crop looks a bit oversharpened to me.
I used USM of 280, .5 and 0 in Photoshop.
I'll shoot the same image again with no sharpening for comparison. The 1Ds III shots really do need some USM though. I think the noise is jpeg artifacts or artifacts from the USM that was applied.
I didn't mean to imply in the original posting that it was an unsharpened image. My main emphasis was on the detail and the detail is there with or without sharpening. The sharpening was done so that the detail would be more visible in the web image. I haven't done very many analytical shots like this so bear with me. I was also kind of waiting to see if someone would call me on giving all the credit to the lens and question that maybe the camera is the one that is responsible for the detail. So, I'll probably take the shot again using both of my cameras and see if the level of detail is any different. I want to know the truth too even though I've already dropped the money on the lens.
Rainer wrote:
..the edges of the willow leaves and the highlights therein don't look extremely pleasing to me. But maybe that's just a problem of the willow leaves, or the sharpening (if any)?
Thanks,
Rainer
I don't like how the highlights look either. I wouldn't attribute this to the lens though. I didn't spend a lot of time metering the shot and the light was harsh. I just wanted some of the leaves in focus so I could tell if the veins would be visible. Like I said in the other thread, I can *barely* see those veins with my naked eye so I thought this would be a really good torture test of the lens.
What is your main use for this lens. You certainly shown how good the lens is. I agree with you, I own the 135, 58 L and it sure does not produce such detail
perspective wrote:
My 135 f/2L could not resolve the detail you see in this picture quite to this level of granularity. It was good, but not this good.
Unless I missed something, you didn't mention the shooting aperture you used for the sample image.
I hesitated posting this because I don't want it to seem like I'm trying to rain on your parade. But there are plenty of lenses in Canon's lineup that I know from experience will resolve detail at least this well, though most of them have to be stopped down to do it. I shot with a 20D for a long time, and that had a higher pixel density than the 1Ds III. At 100%, all of the following resolved detail as well as the sample image you have here, though some had to be stopped down 3-4 stops to do so:
I didn't list any wideangle lenses here because (subjectively speaking) they never seem to resolve detail the same way that normal and telephoto lenses do, even if strictly speaking they measure as if they do.
The 200/2L might well be able to resolve that kind of detail at a wider aperture than any of the others; I don't know. Of the lenses I listed above, the only ones that can approach that level of detail close to wide open are the 85/1.8, 135/2L, 300/4L and 70-200/4L IS.
Edit: That's not to say my list is comprehensive. There are other lenses I suspect could resolve to that level of detail but I haven't owned them or shot with them for long enough to say so. They would probably include the 85L, 200/2.8L and all the superteles, plus others I'm not thinking of right now.
I realize differences in subject matter, DOF, shooting conditions, presence or lack of a tripod, etc make these kinds of comparisons difficult, but here's a shot I made with the lowly 28-70/3.5-4.5 II on my 20D, handheld, a couple years ago:
And here's a 100% crop with moderate sharpening applied (certainly less than the 280, .5 and 0 you mentioned applying to your sample, though I don't remember exactly what I used):
I can't say it's resolving more or less detail than your first crop above, due to the differences I noted previously. But to me it's clearly resolving detail down to the pixel level of the 20D, which as I mentioned before has a higher pixel density than the 1Ds III.
