but I do concur that the "S" screens are fine for f/2.8 and even for f/4. The darker
image is more than made up for by the way the image snaps into focus. I will not go
back to a non-S screen. It's just better for everything I do on the 5D.
Now, on a "birding" camera body, such as the 50D (high pixel density and cropped
sensor), where I would want to use the 400/5.6 with or without 1.4x extender, I would
prefer to use a non-S screen. Otherwise, the S screens are always preferable to me.
Well not any suprise to me. The first time I even heard of -S screens was 2 days ago when following this thread cogitech and Cableaddict mentioned they were good to use and that's when I emailed Bill. So give it a few days and hopefully Bill will give me info. to share with you all. One thing is for sure and that's I have zero experience using these screens so my eyes and ears are open.
trumpet_guy...I'm thinking out loud here, but lets say I'm using a Canon 180L 2.8 macro at f/8, the standard -S screen would work just find because the aparent aperture while focusing is still 2.8, correct?
My fastest lens currently is a Rokkor 58/1.4 and then several 2.8 and f/4's so maybe the stock -S screen will be sufficient?
lextalionis wrote:
For starters the EE-S is the Super Precision Processing Screen for the 5D and the EG-S is the one for the 5DMK2. These stock -S screens are awesome for great focusing ability ONLY if you shoot 1.4 or faster glass.
cogitech wrote:
That's a load of horse stupid me!. Pure horse stupid me!.
lextalionis wrote:
trumpet_guy...I'm thinking out loud here, but lets say I'm using a Canon 180L 2.8 macro at f/8, the standard -S screen would work just fine because the apparent aperture while focusing is still 2.8, correct?
-Roy
Aperture remains wide open during focusing unless you are using the DOF preview button. BTW, the lens is an EF 180mm f/3.5L
I would recommend just getting the Canon S screen and see if that does the job.
It's about $40. I doubt you will need to spend the money on the Maxwell screen.
If you don't like it, then sell it. You won't lose much at all.
Right right...3.5L...so the stock -S will be a huge imporvement over the stock 5DMK2 screen? I normall set the focus to 1:1 and just move the camera in/out to the subject and snap when I feel I got the focus spot on.
I don't know if what bothers me with the Rokinon is the same as what annoys cableaddict, but there has yet to be a Rokinon shot that I find really pleasing colour-wise. There seems to me to be a dark hue, almost a pall, that imbues Rok shots with a leaden, gloomy feeling. For reference, I am used to Zeiss lenses, but the Rokinon rubs me the wrong-colour-way more than, say, Canon lenses.
It will be a significant improvement.
You may find that the screen reveals that you need a different thickness of
washer (shim) in your focus screen holder, but don't worry about that until
you try the new screen first. In the best case scenario if will be perfectly calibrated,
and work just as well as using Live View.
philber wrote:
I don't know if what bothers me with the Rokinon is the same as what annoys cableaddict, but there has yet to be a Rokinon shot that I find really pleasing colour-wise. There seems to me to be a dark hue, almost a pall, that imbues Rok shots with a leaden, gloomy feeling. For reference, I am used to Zeiss lenses, but the Rokinon rubs me the wrong-colour-way more than, say, Canon lenses.
Hi philber,
I think I know what you are referring to, but I tend to think this is somewhat due
to it delivering lower contrast than Canon glass and Zeiss glass. With a high contrast
subject, I think the color is pretty good. How do you like this color performance:
You may be right, it could be the contrast rather than the colour itself. The two shots you posted do show what bothers me, though. Look at the top one. Obviously a very clear day, with tons of bright light. And where is the brightness? The bit of blue sky shows a hue like that of a very early morning, meaning still dark-ish, rather than the very light blue I would expect from the sort of light that the rest of the picture shows. The same with the picture below. If I were shooting it, part of the leaves would be so bright that I would have trouble maintaining full colour because of "glare", and might need to resort to underexposure to keep matters under control.
Maybe that is just me; I am not claiming to be right and that everybody else is wrong, but, for my eye, the Rok just doesn't do it. This may also explain why I am so zeiss-y, which is probably th emost -un-rok-y...
Looking again, I see less difference in those two landscapes than I first thought.
The sharpness is more even on the Zeiss, though this is only clearly noticed on a
larger file.
To my eyes, those could have been the same image file. I can se NO difference except for the framing. So, I really think this talk about lesser color performance is mostly made up in peoples brains.
Makten wrote:
To my eyes, those could have been the same image file. I can se NO difference except for the framing. So, I really think this talk about lesser color performance is mostly made up in peoples brains.
+1
I'm still looking for the difference between them.
That's because there is no difference. Just look at the comparison shots I posted. The processing on all images was identical.
When side-by-side shots are posted of the Rokinon against any other lens, differences in contrast and colour are negligible and there is no mysterious "darkness" in the Rokinon shots. It is imaginary. This ability to imagine things that are not there tends to increase with the amount of $$$$ spent on some other 85mm lens. Go figure.
Regarding the Ee-S vs. the Maxwell screen; you've got a bunch of people telling you that the Ee-S is perfectly sufficient all the way to f4 and then you've got one guy telling you that it is no good beyond f1.4. That one guy is trying to sell you a $175 focusing screen. End of story.
Central bokeh. Again, the Rokinon is no "darker" by any stretch of the imagination and once again it shows its superiority regarding ultra-smooth bokeh:
Another vote for the 'S' screen. Bumped up my manually focused keepers by at least 300% over the stock screen. I find it works fine down to f/4, and f/1.2 or 1.4 is it a irreplaceable.
I have found the Samyang produces fine colour, maybe a lot of the feelings people have about this lens being 'gloomy' has to do with it's popularity increasing right before winter. Here are a couple taken with decent light:
Hey, guys. I haven't read this whole thread, but just the first page or two. Just thought I'd insert a little tidbit I learned while way too thoroughly investigating focusing screens. The standard focusing screen for the 5D (and I believe all lower cameras in Canon's line-up) shows a dof of f/4. The S versions show a dof of 1.8. This is directly from a "Tech Tips" or whatever it's called that Chuck Westfall wrote. I chose to get the S screen in my 5D2 and have been playing with various lenses to see how it works. I think the idea that lenses faster than 1.8 are harder to super accurately MF focus using the S screen probably holds some merit as I'm guessing the dof of these lenses is not centered in exactly the center of the dof you see at the S screen's 1.8. I also buy into the fact that certain lenses are harder to MF than others. My 35L 1.4 seemed really hard to MF accurately. However, my 85L 1.2 seemed easier. I know that sounds a little contradictory, but that's been my (somewhat limited) experience thus far. My 135L 2 is actually pretty easy to get right on. I'm planning on adding the Zeiss 100 f/2 MP and the Zeiss 50 f/2 MP here shortly, so I'm thinking they'll be perfect for the S screen. Pretty excited about that fact, actually.
