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.

My 16-35L (Mark I), 24-70L, 28-300L IS, and 70-200/2.8L IS all perform well on my 1Ds3. The 24-70L was a bit soft (even on my 400D) but after micro-adjusting the focus it is quite sharp. Higher resolution doesn't make your lenses performance worse; but it can reveal lens weaknesses. However, those weaknesses are generally only visible when viewing at 100% crops. For any given print size viewed at normal viewing distances (for that size print), the 1Ds3 (and presumably the 5DII) will provide superior IQ to a lower resolution capture. I wouldn't let concern over your lenses failure to perform keep you from upgrading.

i doubt anyone here is such a good photographer that they're being held back by L zooms.

abam wrote:
i doubt anyone here is such a good photographer that they're being held back by L zooms.




You might want to reconsider that statement. I have a heck of a time getting very sharp corners on a landscape shot when it's printed at a normal size (>= 12x18). Also, the chromatic aberration on high contrast edges near the edges of photo is a major fault of the lens. I would consider that to being held back to a certain degree.

Anyone suffering from "Soft Lenses" should send their body and lenses in to Canon to be calibrated and projection tested. All my zooms are sharp as a tack because of this.

No problem with the 70-2002.8 IS
Original at 200mm then cropped.

cineski wrote:
Anyone suffering from "Soft Lenses" should send their body and lenses in to Canon to be calibrated and projection tested. All my zooms are sharp as a tack because of this.


Even the best 24-70mm will still be soft wide open, or stopped down all the way. My 24-70mm has been in to canon, and it's as good as it can be --- but it still gets trampled by even a decent prime until about 5.6 or f/8. Unless you just shoot in the sweet spot of the L zooms, 21MP will definitely outresolve them. That's why I love shooting with the primes --- I can shoot the faster apertures without the dread of knowing that the images will be soft.

I don't foresee Canon needing to upgrade all of their lenses for the 5D2. it would have been done with the ds3 how long ago?

While the primes are almost always going to yield a better IQ, the zooms should do fine. There would have been complaints long ago. I think this just came up because some people hate their 24-70s, and want the optical performance of the Sony or Nikon one, in a Canon format.

I don't foresee any reason why the 5d2's images would be any less sharp than the 5d1's. While they may shine with primes, think of them like this...they should make the most of the zooms.

Ben Horne wrote:
cineski wrote:
Anyone suffering from "Soft Lenses" should send their body and lenses in to Canon to be calibrated and projection tested. All my zooms are sharp as a tack because of this.


Even the best 24-70mm will still be soft wide open, or stopped down all the way. My 24-70mm has been in to canon, and it's as good as it can be --- but it still gets trampled by even a decent prime until about 5.6 or f/8. Unless you just shoot in the sweet spot of the L zooms, 21MP will definitely outresolve them. That's why I love shooting with the primes --- I can shoot the faster apertures without the dread of knowing that the images will be soft.


Mine gets sharper at f/4, but at f/2.8, it's darn sharp. Mine is on a cropper though.

f/2.8

The above two have no extra sharpening.

Here is one at f/4, in real use. Not some graph, or chart, but a real subject.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/690229

Many lenses will give good results but the best lenses will give better results. My favorites are my 200mm F2.0 300 F2.8, 135L, 85L and 15FE in that order. I hope to get an adaptor for my 14-24 Nikkor some time soon.

Nobody can convince me that they will get worse results on a 1DsIII than on a body with less resolution as a result of the increase in resolution ... simply does not make sense. Lenses by their nature are analogue devices.

It may be the case however, that lesser lenses do not make as great improvement on the higher resolution sensor that a better lense would.

All my lenses (at least the ones I have used) give great results on the 1DsIII and it comes down to picking for focal length and aperture ... although the 85L is a favourate at the moment (as is the 300 2.8 on the DIII)

I too have noticed my 24-70 being soft on my 1DsIII. I used this lens a lot on my 5D, but now I rarely use it all because of the softness. My 70-200 IS is sharp as a pin, almost as good as a prime. My little 17-40 is the real surprise here as it still prodices great images, although in fairness I only tend to use it for landscapes at optimal aperture (well it's still as good as it was on the 5D). Now I tend to use primes a lot and let my feet do the zooming

The 24-70 has lost a lot of love with me on the 1Ds3. Not sure why; I know that mathematically there should be not much of a difference between the 1Ds2 and 1Ds3, but it somehow doesn't gel with the new camera.

I echo Ben's sentiments about the 16-35/II.

I don't think the 70-200/2.8LIS is all that bad, but then again I rarely use this lens.

The 400DO looks great with the 1Ds3.

Overall I don't think the 5D2 or 1Ds3 should strike fear in you and your lens collection. I still love my 24L, which has been badmouthed for years even with crop cameras (mainly by non-users). There's more to life (and photography) than pixel peeping

My best friend has a Canon 1Ds Mark III. His best lens, sharpness-wise? 135L F2 prime. He says none of the zooms are tack sharp. He also says the 85L F1.2 works great.