p.4 #1 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
Monito wrote:
Thanks snapsy and Gunzorro. Gunzorro, was that on a 5DS?
No, sorry for being somewhat off-topic and interrupting snapsy's amazing thread.
The image was shot with the 5D2. With a little more work sharpening and masking off the RAW, I'm sure the small lettering on the sign would be much clearer. Just trying to point to copy variation as an issue in testing, plus offset some of the slams the 24-105L was getting -- not to dispute those poster's experience. Mine is a fairly recent version, and the early ones were known to be problematic (wasn't there a quiet repair recall around 2005?).
p.4 #2 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
Milan Hutera wrote:
Any chance of posting the 16-35 f2.8 L II? They say it's virtually the same as f4 L IS at f8 ...
I showed that the 16-35/4L IS was noticeably (but not hugely) better than the 16-35/2.8L II at f/4 and f/8, on a 6D at ISO 100. I expect the differences would be slightly greater on a 5DS/R, but the images from the 5DS/R would have noticeably better detail than those on the 6D. IOW, good lenses on better cameras produce better images.
p.4 #3 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
Gunzorro wrote:
No, sorry for being somewhat off-topic and interrupting snapsy's amazing thread.
The image was shot with the 5D2. With a little more work sharpening and masking off the RAW, I'm sure the small lettering on the sign would be much clearer. Just trying to point to copy variation as an issue in testing, plus offset some of the slams the 24-105L was getting -- not to dispute those poster's experience. Mine is a fairly recent version, and the early ones were known to be problematic (wasn't there a quiet repair recall around 2005?).
Cheers!
Not at all! While the 24-105 may not keep up with newer designs on the 5DS it has served me extremely well on my 5D. And my copy is sharper across the frame than three copies of the 24-70 f/2.8 II I've tried over the last two years; every one of them had a decentered or tilted element. Would love to get hold of a decent copy.
p.4 #4 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
Milan Hutera wrote:
Any chance of posting the 16-35 f2.8 L II? They say it's virtually the same as f4 L IS at f8 or f11. But mine is pretty unsatisfactory even on 1.3x 1D IV between 16-20mm.
Anyway, this is an interesting and helpful thread, thanks for all that hard work!
p.4 #5 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
snapsy:
Is the 24-70 as bad as it looks? The corners at 24 look really really soft. On the TDP crops, it is just about as good as the 24-70 2.8 II and 16-35 f4IS stopped down to f8 but looks noticeably worse in your pictures.
p.4 #6 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
snapsy:
Is the 24-70 as bad as it looks? The corners at 24 look really really soft. On the TDP crops, it is just about as good as the 24-70 2.8 II and 16-35 f4IS stopped down to f8 but looks noticeably worse in your pictures.
p.4 #7 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
Schlotkins wrote:
snapsy:
Is the 24-70 as bad as it looks? The corners at 24 look really really soft. On the TDP crops, it is just about as good as the 24-70 2.8 II and 16-35 f4IS stopped down to f8 but looks noticeably worse in your pictures.
Thanks so much for doing all of this!
CHris
The 24-70 f/4 IS looks reasonably ok at f/8. One thing to keep in mind with my shots is that they are taken across separate days. I try to only shoot with clear skies but some days have some high cirrus clouds diffusing the sun and also the exposure across days wont be well matched. When comparing my images across lenses you have to look through these differences to evaluate the resolution on its own. This is why I've started included post-processed samples as well, which have extra contrast and sharpening applied. I just went back and did one for the 24-70 f/4 @ f/8:
p.4 #8 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
Added the Canon 200mm f/2.8 II. Best long focal length lens I've tested thus far - nearly sharp across the frame @ f/2.8, razor sharp at f/4. No noticeable focus shift or field curvature. It's becoming clear from my testing that even Canon's best zooms can't keep up with primes on the 5DSR. This is a reversion to the past, where primes originally were much better but then recent zooms appeared to have caught up, at least judged on 12MP and 24MP sensors, but that doesn't appear to be the case when scrutinized on a 50MP sensor.
p.4 #9 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
Snapsy - do you have the 70-200 2.8 IS II? That would probably be considered their best short tele zoom. And what about the 100-400 II or the 200-400 f/4? I know that's pricy, but it's also supposed to be that good.
p.4 #11 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
These tests are incredibly helpful to me as I continue to refine my lens strategies. The EF 200mm f/2.8L results are impressive - I need to consider adding that one to my kit.
p.4 #12 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
Peter Figen wrote:
Snapsy - do you have the 70-200 2.8 IS II? That would probably be considered their best short tele zoom. And what about the 100-400 II or the 200-400 f/4? I know that's pricy, but it's also supposed to be that good.
I have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and just received the 100-400 II - I plan to test both within the next few days.
---------------------------------------------
darbo wrote:
These tests are incredibly helpful to me as I continue to refine my lens strategies. The EF 200mm f/2.8L results are impressive - I need to consider adding that one to my kit.
For me as well. After my testing is over I plan to whittle down my lens collection significantly, keeping just 10% of what I have now.
p.4 #13 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
Added Canon 100-400mm V2. Lens perform much better than V1, both wide-open and stopped down. Very good performance across the frame at 100mm and 200mm at f/8, with edges noticeably less sharp at 300mm and 400mm. No noticeable focus shift or field curvature. The 200mm f/2.8 II prime still reigns supreme at 200mm.
Sadly I've lost the Canon new-lens QC lottery again - this just-purchased 100-400 V2 is noticeably softer on the left edge at 100mm and 200mm. I plan to send it to Canon CPS first thing next week.
p.4 #14 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
Nice test!
Edit: I'm actually surprised how good the 24-105 L is. I know, it's soft in some areas. But honestly for the price and the range it gives, it's quite nice. I wish you had the Sigma to test, too! The 24-70 F4L IS is noticeably better though especially at 24mm it seems.
The lowly 200 2.8 and 50 1.8 STM are *amazing* at f8.
If you do more, there is one lens I really wish to see... the 40mm STM
p.4 #15 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
Added Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS V2. This lens restored my faith in zooms in the 5DSR My copy exhibits some softness on the right hand side at 70-135mm but otherwise the lens is very sharp across the frame at f/4 and sharpens up a bit more at the edges at f/5.6, where they're about at peak sharpness. The lens is just about as sharp as the 200mm f/2.8 II prime the lens, maybe just a tiny hint less, but the utility of having a well-performing zoom in this range trumps all. No noticeable focus shift or field curvature.
Another interesting observation...until this test I always thought my 70-200 f/4 IS (and non-IS, soon to be posted) were as sharp as the 70-200 f/2.8 II IS when stopped down. At least that was the case when evaluated on a lower MP body. The introduction of the 5DS/R now demonstrates that not to be the case.
p.4 #16 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
Snapsy - Even on a 5D3, the f/2.8II zoom outperforms the f/4 IS - even wide open, so I'm not surprised. It's just harder to see on the lower res body. If yours is sharper on one side than the other, it might need a tweak from Canon.
p.4 #17 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
Peter Figen wrote:
Snapsy - Even on a 5D3, the f/2.8II zoom outperforms the f/4 IS - even wide open, so I'm not surprised. It's just harder to see on the lower res body. If yours is sharper on one side than the other, it might need a tweak from Canon.
On the 5DSR I think nearly every zoom is going to need a centering tweak. The question is whether Canon's service dept and their optical equipment is up to the task.
p.4 #18 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
A lot of folks will never notice the difference, or if you shoot people, you might never notice it. This is a vocal forum but most photographers out there are blissfully ignorant about their lenses. Certainly this camera will make it easier to show CPS when your lenses ARE out, but who's to know yet how they're going to deal with it. Right now you can't even get an R camera, and even on my 5D3's I can easily see more color fringing on one side of the image than the other with the brand new 11-24. The new camera, when it finally shows up will make it that much easier to make my case. In the past they've been pretty good about fixing lenses that weren't right out of the box. Plus I'm sure they know a huge number of purchasers will never notice, so they just fix the ones that do, which is still much less expensive than hand testing every lens on the production line. We'd be paying Schneider or Leica prices then.
p.4 #20 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
Peter Figen wrote:
A lot of folks will never notice the difference, or if you shoot people, you might never notice it. This is a vocal forum but most photographers out there are blissfully ignorant about their lenses. Certainly this camera will make it easier to show CPS when your lenses ARE out, but who's to know yet how they're going to deal with it. Right now you can't even get an R camera, and even on my 5D3's I can easily see more color fringing on one side of the image than the other with the brand new 11-24. The new camera, when it finally shows up will make it that much easier to make my case. In the past they've been pretty good about fixing lenses that weren't right out of the box. Plus I'm sure they know a huge number of purchasers will never notice, so they just fix the ones that do, which is still much less expensive than hand testing every lens on the production line. We'd be paying Schneider or Leica prices then....Show more →
I definitely agree with this. I've bought quite a few used lenses that were decentered and when I pointed this out to the sellers they say they never noticed it and I fully believe them. It's the curse of the landscape shooter to need well-centered lenses. Most other types of shooting never place subjects at the extreme edge of the frame. Based on my experience with Canon I don't think they have the facilities to correct these centering issues reliably.
---------------------------------------------
mitesh wrote:
Adam, if you want to test a 200-400/4, PM me. I'll send you mine .
Don't tempt me Mitesh! I'm afraid if I test yours I'd want to buy one for myself and here I am trying to *reduce* my lens set!
