p.11 #1 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
Concerning the 5D vs. 1DsX adapter issue I'm no expert as I have never owned either - so don't take my word for it. I thought there were Zeiss lens users here who saw a difference. Seems some of the Zeiss WA lenses are more critical of adapter thickness tolerance. I was just trying to make the point that optimal lens adapter thickness for any given body may not be a given from calculated thickneses based on manufacturer specifications. It is not absolute, there are always the tolerances (of both the lens mount and adapter) to deal with.
I've seen discussion from users who believe the tolerances of their 5D mount is not up to the pro standards of the 1DsX. The different cameras use different quality assemblies, and are likely assembled to different tolerances. How much (if at all) it would affect lens performance is beyond my scope. Film to flange distance and flatness are the critical dimensions. There are cases where a lens+adapter combo will not hit the mirror on one 5D, but hit it on another (the same person who tried the combo on more than one 5D). Don't see the same report form the 1DsX users.
I've also seen more than one Canon user say they had to get their lenses "recalibrated" by Canon after switching from the 1DsX <-->5D. While AF accuracy is usally their main concern, some noted their lenses also performed better optically after the calibration. That may be why Canon prefers you send the body in with the lenses for best results. If you are an all out Canon user it isn't much of an issue; worst case you send your gear in to Canon for a calibration. If you are an alternate lens users you may be playing the adapter merry-go-round to find the perfect adapter.
p.11 #2 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
I've been in high tech manufacturing for many years. I think it's very likely that Canon produce their pro 1-series bodies to tighter tolerances than the consumer grade bodies. There's reasons besides material cost one pays 3x as much for a similar resolution camera from the same company.
That's not to say the 5D's are bad. It could be that 90% of the 5D's fall into the tolerances for the 1-series cameras. It could be the other 10% that don't fall into the 1 series spec don't show any symptoms in normal use. Adding an adapter with it's own tolerances adds another level of unknowns.
I'd also bet there is much less body to body variation with the 1-series cameras.
EDIT: If you don't believe that then you could make the analogy that the Canon pro lenses aren't manufactured to a higher tolerance than the consumer grade lenses. Hey, that would explain the copy to copy performance variation reported by many testing the Canon L glass.
hubsand wrote:
I don't buy the 5D/1 Series adaptor discrepancy at all. Like anything, the positioning of the sensor is subject to some degree of manufacturing tolerance - hence the new adjustment facility. But that's an issue that varies from body to body, not model to model.
p.11 #3 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
httivals wrote:
I consider that bad for a 19mm. I get substantially better from my Canon 17-40mm f4L at 19mm (admittedly it's a great copy; Hubsand sold it to me from his personal reserve when he tried the Mamiya experiment; said it was the best of 6 copies he'd tested).
I've only tested two copies of the Canon 17-40mm and their corners were blurry beyond belief, but quite sharp in the center. That it is possible to find a 17-40 that is sharp in the corners if one searches long enough, I've no doubt, given the large sample variations in these lenses.
When you claim that it's "sustantially better" I'd be curious to see how it performs. Care to post a sample?
Jan 06, 2008 at 03:45 PM
Andi Dietrich Offline [X]
p.11 #4 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
That sounds like guessing to me. I used 4 or 5 five-d's and neither of them had any remarkable problems with focusing. Not to say that Canon does everything perfect, but I would rather look at the lenses for sample variation. I dont believe that sensor to flange distance is an issue.
BTW if you ever serviced a contax or hassselblad lens you would see that they have infinity focus on their standard check list. I guess all moving parts suffer from years of use and a lot of used lenses are simply out of specs. (concerning your previous comment on adapters)
pdmphoto wrote:
I've been in high tech manufacturing for many years. I think it's very likely that Canon produce their pro 1-series bodies to tighter tolerances than the consumer grade bodies. There's reasons besides material cost one pays 3x as much for a similar resolution camera from the same company.
That's not to say the 5D's are bad. It could be that 90% of the 5D's fall into the tolerances for the 1-series cameras. It could be the other 10% that don't fall into the 1 series spec don't show any symptoms in normal use. Adding an adapter with it's own tolerances adds another level of unknowns.
I'd also bet there is much less body to body variation with the 1-series cameras.
EDIT: If you don't believe that then you could make the analogy that the Canon pro lenses aren't manufactured to a higher tolerance than the consumer grade lenses. Hey, that would explain the copy to copy performance variation reported by many testing the Canon L glass.
p.11 #5 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
photoArne wrote:
I've only tested two copies of the Canon 17-40mm and their corners were blurry beyond belief, but quite sharp in the center. That it is possible to find a 17-40 that is sharp in the corners if one searches long enough, I've no doubt, given the large sample variations in these lenses.
When you claim that it's "sustantially better" I'd be curious to see how it performs. Care to post a sample?
Yes, I'd like to see that also. The Leica 19 corner crops look much better than the Canon 17-40L I tried on FF.
I also find it interesting that in last couple weeks Mark stated that there isn't a problem with L lens sample variation, calling it a myth or such. Yet, he went through six copies of the 17-40 to find the one he sells you. Interesting to say the least.
p.11 #6 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
pdmphoto wrote:
I also find it interesting that in last couple weeks Mark stated that there isn't a problem with L lens sample variation, calling it a myth or such. Yet, he went through six copies of the 17-40 to find the one he sells you. Interesting to say the least.
Most L lenses vary a little: some vary a lot – that's a fact, not an opinion. I don't mind a bit of mindless carping but when you resort to unprovoked smears and outright lies I would suggest with all due respect that it's time to shut up and get this thread back on topic.
p.11 #7 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
I have been able to replicate Marks 24mm L results with my own copy - by manually focusing the lens. After I tuned the autofocus using the adjustment feature in the 1Ds3, the AF is now as sharp. Quite often, it is not a question of whether the lens is 'capable' of the resolution required, its a question of Canon's production tolerences. In this; I agree with Mark, there is definitely sample variation, BTW I also acheived the same results with a 135mm L.
Testing of multiple samples is really a quest to find the lens that best matches your camera's AF assuming no adjusment feature. Had this feature not been available to me, I would have returned my 24L . If the lens is not sharp using manual focus, then it never will be. This can be attributed to many factors depending upon the age, condition, and lens design.
The 14mm L in the test was manually focused to confirm accuracy using 5 and 10x live view on my 1Ds3. There is absolutely no focus error in the test. There are very likely field curvature differences between the lenses used in the test, this is to be expected, and is primarily a function of the lens design and is beyond Marks control.
The bottom line is, unless people are willing to voluntarily send multiple samples of particular lenses to Mark for him to test, then we should expect his tests to reflect some sample variation. It would be cost prohibitive for an individual Photographer to do otherwise.
Edited by Andrew Gough on Jan 07, 2008 at 01:34 PM GMT (Reason: bad typing...)
p.11 #8 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
That's good news, Andrew! Through trial and error I've come to the conclusion that focusing wide angles is too important to leave to the camera. There is a tendency to believe that sub-24mm 'at f8, everything's in focus', but careful examination of the images belies this. If you look critically at some of the decisions the AF makes about a wide field scene, it's a joke – which is why I'd never mourn the loss of auto focus for work that matters.
With longer lenses, it's a different story (for me, at least): really tight AF calibration is the only way to use a 70-200 or even 135L – with moving subjects, at least.
p.11 #9 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
My 16-35L is barley adequate at the edges when used with AF but with manual focusing the focus point moves beyond infinity and the edges sharpen up quite alarmingly - even stopped down to F11. I don't trust AF with super wides and even the focusing screen is not a garantee of optimal focus - carefull examination of images at 100% on the computer screen at different focus distances can yeild quite suprising and rewarding results.
p.11 #10 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
From recent experience, I fully agree with the advantage of manual focus over AF with very wide angle lenses.
I purchased a converted Contax 17-35mm N from Andrew, and was initially not as impressed with the results as I had anticipated (in comparison to my 21mm Distagon).
However, I soon realised that (on my 5D at least) the focus was frequently way off the mark. After re-calibration by Bo-Ming using the newer software, the improvement was very noticeable. However I still find that manually focusing is the only way to really achieve optimum results every time.
Pressing the AF button several times can actually result in several slightly different focus points.
"The bottom line is, unless people are willing to voluntarily send multiple samples of particular lenses to Mark for him to test, then we should expect his tests to reflect some sample variation."
I actually offered to send Mark my 17-35mm N and my 21mm Distagon for comparison in the big wide angle test (family commitments prevented me from attending), but my PM was not even acknowledged.
I wonder when we'll get to actually see some of the Nikon v Zeiss results.
p.11 #11 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
i have had manual focusing issues with the 5D when changing to the Brightscreen screen, apparently due to tolerances in the screen thickness, carrirer, etc. shims are supplied to work this out, but it is pesky enough that I went back to the canon screens. camera-to-camera variation is a culprit as well.
of course, AF works fine, since it does not use the optical path through the mirror.
regarding the flange thickness, as long as you can focus on infinity, i wouldn't think that it is such an issue, since AF is determined from the image and MF is done through the viewfinder (assuming the miiror path is matched to the direct path.)
p.11 #12 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
jmilich wrote:
i have had manual focusing issues with the 5D when changing to the Brightscreen screen, apparently due to tolerances in the screen thickness, carrirer, etc. shims are supplied to work this out, but it is pesky enough that I went back to the canon screens. camera-to-camera variation is a culprit as well.
of course, AF works fine...
When talking about manual focussing of wide angle lenses, i think it is implied doing so WITH THE DISTANCE SCALE, not trough the screen. Using hyperfocal distance tables can give you much more precise focussing than what you can see trough any SLR viewfinder.
Still, you have to get to know your specific lenses, because the corners can focus at different distances than the center etc... But ther's no way you can critically focus a super wide angle looking in the VF or by AF (well, maybe by luck...).
p.11 #13 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
Sorry Mark, but I'm not going to let you have it both ways. You've said before that L lenses don't have excessive sample variation, and talk about your perfect 24L you got on your first try, as an example. But then you sell a 17-40L and talk about how it was the best out of six you tried. That doesn't add up to me. If you want to call that unprovoked smears and outright lies - and tell me to shut up - then I think you are the one being unfair.
As long as we are talking about lenses in the 14-24mm range, any lens in that range is on topic. Considering what you have to say on your review it sounds like nothing in the 14-24mm range can touch it:
On 16-9 review:
Is it perhaps the most impressive wide angle lens ever by a huge margin? Yes, and yes again. Run – really, run to your local dealer and buy one as fast as you can. Then sell all those other lenses it replaces and treat yourself to a case of Chateau d'Yquem with the proceeds.
Perhaps you should at least put the word "zoom" in there somewhere.
Seems you know the facts about L lenses (and anything else you test) better than anyone else, regardless of anyone else's experience with them. For whatever your reasons, I think you go too far. I am just another voice to help balance that out.
hubsand wrote:
Most L lenses vary a little: some vary a lot – that's a fact, not an opinion. I don't mind a bit of mindless carping but when you resort to unprovoked smears and outright lies I would suggest with all due respect that it's time to shut up and get this thread back on topic.
Edited by pdmphoto on Jan 07, 2008 at 08:58 PM GMT
p.11 #14 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
I have been following this thread with great interest. I just hope that Mark will come out with the verdict on how the Nikon lens performs against the other lenses he listed he had tested. I ordered and received a copy of the Nikon 14-24mm but I ended up returning it as I would like to wait out until the dust has settled..... Well, the holiday season for sure didnt' help him much to post the long awaiting results .
p.11 #15 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
I thought the 5D sample variation theme had to do with mirror clearance issues.
quote]pdmphoto wrote:
I've been in high tech manufacturing for many years. I think it's very likely that Canon produce their pro 1-series bodies to tighter tolerances than the consumer grade bodies. There's reasons besides material cost one pays 3x as much for a similar resolution camera from the same company.
That's not to say the 5D's are bad. It could be that 90% of the 5D's fall into the tolerances for the 1-series cameras. It could be the other 10% that don't fall into the 1 series spec don't show any symptoms in normal use. Adding an adapter with it's own tolerances adds another level of unknowns.
I'd also bet there is much less body to body variation with the 1-series cameras.
EDIT: If you don't believe that then you could make the analogy that the Canon pro lenses aren't manufactured to a higher tolerance than the consumer grade lenses. Hey, that would explain the copy to copy performance variation reported by many testing the Canon L glass.
p.11 #16 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
d_chiesa wrote:
... But ther's no way you can critically focus a super wide angle looking in the VF or by AF...
Words of wisdom. Coming from the large format school, precise focusing of super wides was always challenging. I find the same holds true with 35mm. AF is the least precise way I have found (with or without the focus confirmation LED).
rfkiii wrote:
I thought the 5D sample variation theme had to do with mirror clearance issues.
It is the focus screen as well. Canon uses color coded shims to precisely align it at the last step of manufacturing as the screen seat is not that accurately made.
p.11 #17 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
Andrew Gough wrote:
The bottom line is, unless people are willing to voluntarily send multiple samples of particular lenses to Mark for him to test, then we should expect his tests to reflect some sample variation. It would be cost prohibitive for an individual Photographer to do otherwise.
Edited by Andrew Gough on Jan 07, 2008 at 01:34 PM GMT (Reason: bad typing...)
I've made this offer on other forums before and it always stands: I don't have the time or expertise to test a bunch of lenses for sample variation, and can't send a couple of dozen copies off for weeks. But if someone with testing skills ever wants to come to Memphis for a few days, I can supply between 8 and 50 copies of each L lenses (depending on stock) to test for sample variation. I actually think this would be a great service to the photo community: we talk about this constantly but no one has ever tested more than a half dozen lenses for sample variation, and those usually sequentially and anectdotally rather than concurrently and scientifically, to see what sample variation there actually is.
p.11 #18 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
Amen - I fought with my 5D for months trying to get it shimmed properly to manual focus accurately using Canon's OEM EE-s screen. My temper eventually went medevial on my patience and I sold it to an AF-only user and went back to a 1Ds2. Best move I made in a long time. The 5D may have a nice FF sensor, but it is moldings are manufactured to consumer-grade or simply just sloppy tolerances.
p.11 #19 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
pdmphoto wrote:
Sorry Mark, but I'm not going to let you have it both ways. You've said before that L lenses don't have excessive sample variation, and talk about your perfect 24L you got on your first try, as an example. But then you sell a 17-40L and talk about how it was the best out of six you tried. That doesn't add up to me. If you want to call that unprovoked smears and outright lies - and tell me to shut up - then I think you are the one being unfair.
This is not the place to discuss sample variation, or to impute fraudulent motives. Please see here for the former – https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/604114 – and keep the latter to yourself.
p.11 #20 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
RCicala wrote:
I've made this offer on other forums before and it always stands: I don't have the time or expertise to test a bunch of lenses for sample variation, and can't send a couple of dozen copies off for weeks. But if someone with testing skills ever wants to come to Memphis for a few days, I can supply between 8 and 50 copies of each L lenses (depending on stock) to test for sample variation. I actually think this would be a great service to the photo community: we talk about this constantly but no one has ever tested more than a half dozen lenses for sample variation, and those usually sequentially and anectdotally rather than concurrently and scientifically, to see what sample variation there actually is. ...Show more →
.