Leica Man wrote:
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.
Some lenses are, but most are not -- at least currently. Only time will tell how higher resolution sensors make use of our current glass.
It's just impossible to compare the two types of lenses. I mean, can you pan and track race cars going 200mph for hours at a time manual focusing? No way. If gaining this ability means losing a bit of sharpness that can be processed later, then you've got to make a choice on which system to use.
I would only consider the 35 1.4L/ 85 1,2L / 135 f2.0 L and 200 1.8L .....in the 200- focal range. Every other lens will be a dissapointment with your standards!
As zooms go, the 24-70 is very good. Its not going to out-resolve good primes in its range, at least not in the corners. But it is nevertheless a great lens. Distortion is low, and it is useable wide open if you need it. The 70-200's (all 3 of them) are also very highly respected zooms.
The 24/1.4L is a very good lens, though many consider it a notch below the 35/1.4L (which is a stellar performer, at least based on the accounts I've heard). The 50/1.4 is great and is reasonably priced. Both 85 mm lenses are well-liked, but that f/1.2 has gained a good reputation for its bokeh. The 135/2L is excellent, and the 200 f/2.8 L has a strong reputation.
Wider than 24 mm, I'm not quite sure what the best route is. I've seen people getting incredible images from the 21 mm Zeiss/Contax on these pages. I wish I knew what the 14 mm f/2.8 was really like - it would be a very nice addition for myself.
I recommend taking another look at the 500 and 600 mm lenses (if that kind of focal length suits you) - they are very long and present a great opportunity to ruin a shot with motion blur, even with IS.
I agree with Han's suggestions for lenses to look at -- 35/1.4, 85/1.2 (stopped down), 135/2, and 200/1.8.
If ultimate detail and sharpness are what you're after though, large format film will still blow away the 1Dsmk2, so DSLR's are already inherently a compromise as a medium. Therefore, obsessing about the fine line between "great" and "exceptional" in a compromised format seems rather... odd. If you already have a stable of Leica lenses and adaptors, you don't even need to be looking into the Canon line at all since we know Leica makes great glass, and if you need AF, weather sealing, etc, the Leica lenses are irrelevant. So it seems like a non-issue.
I've seen too many Leica/Zeiss holy wars to worry myself about what are the "best" or "most exceptional" optics. There are some darn good ones out there in just about every system, but ultimately the judgements become rather religious.
I know lots of Leica shooters who swear up and down by the 180 APO, but I'd take the 200/1.8L over it any day myself for Canon's killer AF, even if it's just as an occasional option. It's the difference between taking a loupe to a huge print versus being able to choose from the results of 8 in-focus frames per second.
Sounds like you need a $40,000 scanner and stick with your film gear.
I'm not anywhere close to an expert but from what I understand, although the 1dsII is capable of replacing medium format for some folks, I have not hear that it will be replacing larger fomats anytime soon, particularly for landscapes.
Maybe you could use a 200 1.8 for your landscape work and stitch it up to a wide angle, ha ha!
I would email Michael Reichmann, Arthur Morris and Art Wolfe to find out what lenses they are using. Once you have the lenses and cameras they have you'll be able to get images at least as good as their images.
I didn't call you arrogant. But your line of thinking about lenses certainly points in the direction of obsessing over sharpness in relationship to the image as a whole.
Maybe if you that insane about detail and high LF ability you need to look at a Large format scanning back from Betterlight.com.
They start at prices well below the 30K phase one backs.
As for lenses. I cannot believe the manner in which you started this thread by just insulting Canon lenses but saying I'm still gonna get a 1DSII.
So my first advice, if you go digital, learn how to post-process an image. Go over to luminous-landscape.com and learn about levels, curves, the necessities of sharpening digital images and etc..
Then if once you take your Leica ego out of where the sun no longer shines it's time to be subjective. Then look at the 200 f1.8 and realize that it is one of the sharpest lenses ever made commercially. This is not just according to these forum users but organizations like photodo.com.
So great canon lenses from my experience and that that has been relayed to me:
My experience:
200mm f1.8
135mm L -Stunningly sharp, amazes me why I have not yet bought it. Got to stop spending money on everything else
90mm TSE
65mm MPE
85mm f1.8 Once stopped down a bit
85 f1.2 once stopped down a touch
70-200 IS- Very sharp for a zoom let alone one with IS
I like and think the 400 f4.6 is quite special don't know what others think
from others:
300 f2.8 IS
600 and 500 IS's
180mm
70-200mm- quite possible the sharpest zoom ever made
80-200mm - right there with the 70-200mm
50 f1.4 - People claim this is very sharp but I must have had a dud copy. Thing got hosed by my cheap 50 f1.8. Ahh I'll try again sometime in the future. (in all fairness I bought a refurb so it may have been a recycled dud to begin with)
45 TSE- Many say this is excellent, I have it but have not had time to confirm this
cheers,
Scott
Edited by Sjhugoose on Mar 20, 2005 at 04:21 AM GMT
Edited by Sjhugoose on Mar 20, 2005 at 04:32 AM GMT
Look. A 14 MP digital camera is not going to match a 4x5 image from a good lens with a high quality scan. That's all there is to it.
A 14 MP full frame (36mm sensor) camera is not going to greatly exceed a medium format picture taken with an expensive German lens and then given a $300 oil drum scan. In my opinion, it will give it a run for the money, but in a careful comparison, there is a fair chance the MF/German/oildrumscan combo will beat it.
If you are going to try to compare 35mm film to full frame digital, it is just going to look different. Period. The picture is not going to look like a Leica. It is not going to operate like a Leica. It is not going to feel like a Leica. Notice I have not said "better" or "worse".
The only valid way to compare lenses is with identical test setups. Comparing lens performance on film to the same lens on digital or a different lens on digital is not a test of the lens. Comparing one manufacturer's MTF chart with different manufacturer's MTF chart is not a valid comparison.
Sharpening is a fact of life in the digital world, so poo-pooing sharpening right off the bat in your first thread doesn't seem to afford you much credibility. All digital audio systems apply the equivalent of sharpening filters because of the mathematics of aliasing and anti-aliasing and sampling and the whole nine yards of digital. You can fight mathematics or you can make your peace with it and use it for what it is good for, but mathematics rules the universe.
Canon does make good lenses. But if you've already decided that the lenses are bad or not as good as other lenses, as you have already told us, then you've already decided. You've got a closed mind. You won't be satisfied.
Since you've already decided that Canon is not very good, and Nikon lenses are better (as you have written), and Leica and other lenses are even better, and Canon lenses are definitely not good enough for you, then why the heck are you spending so much money on a Canon camera? Is that not a recipe for disappointment and frustration and grief? Are you a masochist?
On the other hand, many photographers, professionals among them, succeed in taking excellent, stunning photographs with Canon equipment, including landscape photographs. I don't know what it will take for you to become one of them.
I don't understand you. If you want help, you will have to help us understand you, and you will have to be open to receiving help. This is a great board for those who truly seek help. Chauvinists need not apply.
35mm f/1.4 L
50mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.8 or f/1.2 stopped down
135mm f/2
180mm macro
200mm f/1.8
300mm f/2.8 L IS
500mm f/4 L IS
I am slightly befuddled at your comment about the 500mm and 600mm lenses being soft. I really beg to differ. I suspect you weren't looking at a full size image from a competent photographer with good long lens techniques. I am not offended and I am not pointing the finger back, but I suspect another look at those two lenses will benefit you.
The 300mm f/2.8 L IS is, my opinion, one heck of a lens. Just sharp as a tack. My second favorite lens is the 135mm f/2 L. Wow. Great bokeh.
I know what you mean about Leica glass being great, but it is really hard to compare manual focus lenses that not many people ever really get to use, versus more mass marketed lenses from Canon and Nikon. Yes, I suspect Leica will come out on top, but the quantity and niche lenses that Canon makes have good value just in those two areas.
At the end of the day, lenses that don't get used are of little or no value to the owner. Get lenses that match your needs, not based on collecting the best quality glass, focal lengths aside. I suspect you are not in this category, but based upon your comment that you had some nice equipment that you never used, I had to make my comment back at you.
It seems to me you have tried a variety of the L lens Canon offers and have found them lacking. I presume you have good technique and the equipment was accurately focusing.
What matters is being able to focus on an image that has meaning to you, and have the equipment deliver a file able to be processed and then print out an image that has impact. In this area Canon as well as Nikon and others deliver, Unless you want to make a billboard size image to be viewed up close .
Bodies and lens are a compromise between price and perfection. It is hard to be a perfectionist in a world full or compromises. I wish you luck in your search for perfection in equipment.
.