This is a question for 1DsIII owners on how good Canon's L zoom are with the 21mp sensor.

I've owned and been happy with most of the various L zooms I've owned over the years (80-200L, 70-200L 2.8, 70-200L 2.8L IS, 28-70L, 24-70L, 24-105L, 17-35L, 16-35L, 16-35L II).

However, the only L zooms i've used since going digital are the 24-105L, 16-35L, 16-35L II and the 70-200L IS. How good are these with the 21mp sensor

After coming pretty close to going Nikon at the start of this year after frustration with my 1DIII, i decided to stick it out with Canon and despite saying i won't be a beta tester for canon again, I've pre-ordered the 5D II. I'm also planning on picking up the Ziess 21mm landens when it is available next year and possibly may also pick up the 85L after eying it for since the mid 90's.

However, I'm not sure if my current lenses are going to be sharp enough with the new 21mp sensor, as I've read various opinions from 1DsII and 1DsIII users on the need to stick with the Canon's L primes or lieca/zeiss wide angle primes to use with the 1DsII and 1DsIII.

Anyway, any advice from those that are using Canon's L zooms with the 1DsIII would be apprecaited.

I can't give you any definitive answer, but if it helps, I sold my 24-70 and my 70-200 IS after moving to the 1DsIII. They weren't cutting it for me. I picked up a 35L and a 135L instead for now. Haven't shot with them yet though. There was a recent thread about the 24-105 being soft, I posted a few samples of that lens on my 1DsIII as well. It's definitely soft, to me, but it's not my lens. YMMV.

From what I've heard as represented by the amazing smiley faces:

24-70 to
24-105 to
70-200 2.8 IS
70-200 2.8
70-200 4 IS
70-200 4
16-35 II to
100-400

Doesn't sound to encouraging for me

Jammy Straub wrote:
From what I've heard as represented by the amazing smiley faces:

24-70 to
24-105 to
70-200 2.8 IS
70-200 2.8
70-200 4 IS
70-200 4
16-35 II to
100-400


haha... that's actually a pretty accurate representation. Good job!

You might not get a big gain when shooting wide open with these lenses, but stopped down, the image should be sharper when viewed at the same size as the lower MP cameras.

If you view at full 21mp resolution, you will start seeing the limitations of the lens, but expect the final image at 8 X 10 to be sharper.

Yikes, that's not a good sign since what're the chances of Canon updating all those lenses in the near future? Seems like the entire zoom range from 16-200 f/2.8 needs to be replaced.

i got rid of my 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200 2.8 IS.

Current lineup is 14II, 35, 50, 85, 135, 200/2, 300 and 600 and they are all fantastic...but...I spent hours with micro adjust and had all these lenses absolutely tack sharp, but this seems to somewhat "go off" now and then. Maybe just me...

take a look at www.the-digital-picture.com, there are some nice samples of charts (mostly with a 1dsIII) and you can compare various lenses at different apertures.

My zoom lenses works good on my 1Ds3.
16-35 II
24-70
70-200/2,8 IS
I have of course a lot of prime lenses also.

Jammy Straub wrote:
From what I've heard as represented by the amazing smiley faces:

24-70 to
24-105 to
70-200 2.8 IS
70-200 2.8
70-200 4 IS
70-200 4
16-35 II to
100-400



But how many of those have you actually used on the 1Ds3
Or have you only been reading this in the forums from other people that have heard it in other places

what a crock.... you guys are kidding yourselves.

I use both the 24-70L and 70-200 f/4 IS on my 1Ds3. While I really liked the 24-70L on my 5D, IMO it falls short on my 1Ds3. Mainly wide open, at the corners and at the long end of the zoom range... but only when I view 100% on my monitor or print (very) large. The 70-200 f/4 IS is fine on my 1Ds3.

Oh, and I have tested two 24-105L's that I borrowed from friends. As far as resolution goes, they show roughly the same characteristics as my 24-70L on the 1Ds3.

I haven't used a 1DsIII or, of course, a 5DII (though I ordered one from the US today). However, they have similar pixel density to the 30D, which I used extensively with a 24-105 and 70-200 f4 IS. Both were fantastic on the 30D. Of course, we aren't seeing the corners of the lenses as such on a 30D. The corners weren't as good as good primes even on a 5D, so I expect they'll be a bit meh on a 1DsIII/5DII, but I expect the centre to be sharp.
The biggest problems with my remaining L prime - the 24-105 - are vignetting and distortion (only really visible on FF bodies), which tend to just make me not like the images taken with it straight away when I look at them, and that causes me to use it less, despite the fact that they are still very workable with 5 seconds of correction. I'm going to consciously try to love my 24-105 again with my 5DII, by cropping it back and by correcting for distortion and vignetting before I make judgements (if I can).

Jammy Straub wrote:
From what I've heard as represented by the amazing smiley faces:

24-70 to
24-105 to
70-200 2.8 IS
70-200 2.8
70-200 4 IS
70-200 4
16-35 II to
100-400



In my experience, the 16-35 II holds up well on the 1Ds3.

Would Canon really design a camera that would outmatch their available lenses that they know most users will be using?

Your non L lenses will be fine on a 21 megapixel sensor so there won't be any problem.

As usual the answer to your question is;

It all depends.........

If you are posting uncropped downsampled pics on the web all lenses are just fine on the 21mp sensor. So is a $400 pocket camera.
If you are printing high quality 20 x 30 inch sizes the zoom lenses are a total toss-up. One 70-200 will look ok at f/6.3 another one will look bad printed that size.
And then again;
I've seen pics people thought were absolutely gorgeous. I look at them and think that I would delete it immediately if I found it on my computer

Almost all lenses will produce better photos (from a technical standpoint) on a 21 MP sensor than on a 12 MP sensor of the same physical dimensions.

Is the 21 MP sensor more likely to show the lens's flaws when viewing at 100%? Yes, absolutely. But that's irrelevant to the final output, which will be a fixed size print or web image at much less than 100% magnification.

That aside, while the 21 MP full-frame sensor is the 'toughest' one for lenses to 'live up to' in the corners at 100%, it's not the toughest sensor overall. That would be the 50D's 15 MP sensor, which has the smallest pixels in the lineup, considerably denser than those in a full-frame 21 MP sensor. And yet it's not like image quality will drop when you use a consumer zoom on the 50D compared with using the same zoom on a 40D or 30D. Image detail will still increase slightly, as improvements in resolution are beneficial to final image quality whether those improvements come with the capture device (sensor) or the imaging device (lens). Again, don't draw conclusions just by viewing things at 100%.

I have good luck with the 24-105, I use it as my primary walk around lens. Here is a 100% crop from a sraw file shot in standard, no other sharpening.

ward1066 wrote:
I have good luck with the 24-105, I use it as my primary walk around lens. Here is a 100% crop from a sraw file shot in standard, no other sharpening.


Looks good for a 5MP sRAW file

How about a 100% crop from a 100% RAW file?

One very important thing to grasp here is MAGNIFICATION. Here's a thread about being careful to assess correctly (i.e. equal magnification): http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/688976

Daan B wrote:
ward1066 wrote:
I have good luck with the 24-105, I use it as my primary walk around lens. Here is a 100% crop from a sraw file shot in standard, no other sharpening.


Looks good for a 5MP sRAW file

How about a 100% crop from a 100% RAW file?



I think sraw in the 1ds3 are like 10-11mp? anyways, here a 100% raw.

ward1066 wrote:
I think sraw in the 1ds3 are like 10-11mp? anyways, here a 100% raw.

Nope, 5MP, but 10-11MB

Looks like what I am getting with my 1Ds3 + 24-70L in the center of the frame. Looks OK

Well the biggest i print is 36x24 and im happy with all my zooms.
The majority of my stuff is 12x8 and 18x12 and ALL of my zooms perform well giving great results.
Sorry i dont use the 100% view to asses glass just the final prints.
And my 70-200/2.8 IS gives brilliant results.

16-35mm 2.8 II: Pretty decent in the center, but definitely softer than I would like on the edges
24-70mm 2.8: This one has been okay, but not very sharp until stopped down a ways. I've had a love hate relationship with this lens. Also, the high MP will show that it has more color fringing than I would like. It's easially correctable.

70-200mm f/4 IS: This lens is a gem on the 1DsIII. It's nearly as sharp as a prime.

I would HIGHLY recommend having a good set of primes with this cam, or the 5DII though. My 35L, 135L, and my 50mm 1.4 are superstars on the 1DsIII. All the hype is true about primes on this cam.