I'm sorry, your line of thinking is throwing me for a loop. First off, don't buy thinking that digital is going to retain value. This isn't liek a leica- sure these are fine pieces of engineering, but the basic workings of film haven't changed much in the past 50 years. Have new gadgets been added, of course, but the technology advancements arent even remotely close to whats going on in digital. That being said, digital bodies can become obselete much more quickly than an m6 for example.
Also, don't stick to one lens because you think you might get dust on the sensor. Get a sensor brush and shoot with what you need.
As far as super sharp canon reccomendations: 180 macro, 35 f/1.4, 200 f/1.8, there are more of course, but those come to mind immediately.
AGeoJO - The sample shot was found somewhere on the web. I can't remember. It is a night shot of Tokyo I think. The file data says 24mm as the focal length.
Leica Man wrote:
This thread isn't really about asking for recommendations on any lenses I need. I most likely will get the 24-70/2.8L.
The Zoom I think is not that much worse than the prime lenses and by not changing lenses often, I will reduce the possiblity of getting dust on the sensor, right?
Basically this thread is about curiosity ...
OK, so I'm curious. If ultimate sharpness and image quality is the goal, why buy the zoom? Yes, it would mean fewer lens changes, but is an occasional sensor cleaning really that high a price to pay for better images?
Brooke Clyde - Good point. Because I am assuming that Canon primes are not that good. And that their Pro "L" zooms are as good as the primes, or maybe very, very slightly worse. Of couse I am hopeful that I am wrong! I am glad people are recomending some lenses...
I forgot to mention that there is also a lot to think about in lens design as well:
Today's lenses not only cram in the glass optics, but also motors, circuitry, stabalization systems, etc. Plus, the amount of engineering that goes into making a 28-300mm lens towers over a Leica 35-70 for example. The 28-300 will surely have diminished fidelity, but how couldn't it? Leica lenses are just lenses. They conform to a simple optic/mechanical design whereas these newer lenses are the birth of techology and electronics. When you think about about what physically goes into the making of these lenses, there will be a big difference in what they can output.
My 24-70/2.8 L is nowhere near as good as my 50/1.4 prime. I don't have the 35mm L and 24mm L primes to compare with, but the 24-70/2.8 L is not even close to primes like the 135 f/2 L and 500 f/4 L.
Leica Man wrote:
stevei - Wow! That sucks. I had high hopes for the 24-70/2.8 L
I'm adopting your standards in saying what I said, though - the 24-70 is excellent compared to other Canon zooms. The sharpness it does have is maintained very well across the full frame, unlike the 17-40, for example. But from what you've said about the top Canon primes, I can't imagine you being ecstatic with the 24-70. To some extent it doesn't matter all that much, because when you put it on a 1Ds II, and apply careful post processing, you can still produce stunning images. But when you look at the results compared to the 135 f/2 L, or the samples I've seen with a 21mm distagon, you just know the camera is capable of more and the 24-70 is the weak link.
The way I see it, the 1Ds II sensor is way, way better than ANY film and so to see it mated to not such great lenses seems a waste in my opinion. I mean is it worth increasing the megapixels all the time when the lenses are really the limit?
The EOS-20D puts even more strain on the lenses, as it has even a higher resolution per mm. So will they bring out a EOS-30D with say a 12 megapixels? Will the results be any better with the same lenses? I don't think so...
bistervels - I am not arrogant. Just honest. A $500 4x5 camera with a 150mm Schnieder lens (another $500) will beat the crap out of any Leica or Zeiss or Hasselblad...
Leica Man,
If you have made up your mind to get a 1Ds MkII, then I recommend you to limit yourself to the L lenses, all three macro lenses and all three TS lenses. These are truly the best Canon has to offer. IMO, Canon's weakness is in the wide angle area from 14-28mm range; that's why people resort to those "exotic" non-Canon lenses. Anything else, you will be OK with Canon. Have a fruitful and happy Canon life! Who knows maybe you change your name to "Canon Man" one day .
Leica Man wrote:
The way I see it, the 1Ds II sensor is way, way better than ANY film and so to see it mated to not such great lenses seems a waste in my opinion. I mean is it worth increasing the megapixels all the time when the lenses are really the limit?
The EOS-20D puts even more strain on the lenses, as it has even a higher resolution per mm. So will they bring out a EOS-30D with say a 12 megapixels? Will the results be any better with the same lenses? I don't think so...
I think it's premature to make statements like this simply from reading around. You've got to be an avid user of the tools to know how they work.
Besides, technology is not perfect. You're asking too much of something that is still very new. All of this talk is like complaining that my oven heats more evenly than my microwave.
This guy must be joking. If sample shots he saw with the Canon 500/4 and 600/4 lenses were unsharp, then they were defective or the photographer didn't know what he was doing.
sippinsoma - But isn't it obvious that lenses are the limiting factor now in SLR digital photography? I mean if you can tell a bad lens from a good one, then clearly the sensor is too good for the lenses.
If ultimate sharpness and image quality is the goal, why buy the zoom? Yes, it would mean fewer lens changes, but is an occasional sensor cleaning really that high a price to pay for better images?