I recently purchased a Leica 35-70 f/4 to use on my 1D classic and I have been reading some reviews about other people's experiences with using Leica and Zeiss lenses on older Canon bodies.
Is it true that these lenses will "outresolve" my 1D?
Someone on photo.net stated that the 1D has too low of a resolving power for these lenses, and I was just wondering how valid this statement is. Thanks for any help.
So this lens outresolving my camera is a good thing?
I would imagine that this would result in not using the lens to it's full "potential."
I had been planning on upgrading to a 1D II recently. Would the additional resolution from that camera make a very noticeable difference in image quality when compared to my current 1D?
I apologize if these questions have obvious answers. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks
The lens outresolving the camera is a good thing in the sense of getting maximum image quality from your 1D. It is not a good thing in terms of getting maximum performance from the lens.
Yes, the difference would be noticeable. In addition you would get better high ISO performance. With prices so low now, I think a 1D II is a good buy.
However, if you are planning to not make use of the world-class AF, because you will mainly use manual focus anyway, you might save some cash and get a used 20D / 30D instead, or spend a couple hundred more for a 40D. Image quality from RAW will be identical, in JPEG will be better on the 20D. The 40D will have noticeably better image quality than the 1D II. If you go this route, you will want to get a focusing screen, though-- the viewfinder is a lot smaller.
Ultimately, if we're worrying about resolution (and there's places for that and places not to worry about it), then we should be worried about system resolution.
Basically that follows a inverse relationship
e.g.
1/(total resolution) = 1/(sensor resolution) + 1/(lens resolution)
Your total resolution is equivalent to your sensor resolution presently, since your lens resolution is much higher than your sensor resolution.
Thanks for the help everyone, I really appreciate it
As far as upgrading my camera goes, I have been jumping back and forth between either a 1D II or a 5D.
With prices having dropped so low, I can't really decide between either.
And jvarszegi - I understand what you are saying about the necessity for the AF. I plan on getting other MF lenses, but not having them exclusively.
My most used lens on my 1D is my 16-35L, and since I love shooting UW, I was looking at the 5D. Then I started looking at 1D II's because of the price drops.
My primary concerns are better performance at higher ISO's and higher resolution. I'm not shooting sports as often as I used to, which is why I have been considering moving away from the 1D bodies, but I am just addicted to the ergonomics and build quality, as well as the AF speed when I do use it.
Assuming people here use these alternative lenses on Canon bodies, what would you guys suggest between the two I am considering? I really appreciate all of the contributions.
