Canon Releases Recommended Lenses List for EOS 5DS & EOS 5DS R

[1982chris911]

well maybe the pixel density is above the limit of the IS of the 70-200 f4 IS ... see above.
You also see they did not include a lot of other IS gen.1 lenses like the 300 f2.8 or 400 f2.8 which certainly have enough resolving power to benefit from the new sensor

Cut off could also be for lenses that Canon still offers for sale.

The EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM isn't listed for example.

Any which way people will use whatever lens will operate with the body whether Canon recommends it or not.

I don't remember the EF 1200 being a superior design IQ wise ... only its focal length is unique... anyway that lens was never on any official Canon sales list afaik. It was built to order only with waiting times of two years or so

 

[GuyF]

I hope you enjoyed this factual interlude, we now return you to your regularly scheduled speculation.

Cough, splutter, facts?? Whatever made you think we would recognise or accept fact over speculation, hearsay, rumour, misguided opinion and blatant lies? You're on the wrong site if you want to cloud debate with your facts.

 

[1982chris911]

Cut off could also be for lenses that Canon still offers for sale.

Yup. That seems a rather natural reason for exclusion. Why would they promote something that they no longer sell?

And IS MUST work with all pixels in the frame not only the ones of the APS-C image circle ... otherwise that image would have a hefty sharpness decline towards the border of the frame and I don't mean the already visible imperfections every lens has anyway due to the more extreme bending of light towards the outer edges of the frame ...

 

[1982chris911]

I guess it is time for the canon 24-105 f4 lI is?

It's called 24-70 f4.0 IS ...

 

[1982chris911]

The increased pixel density might put a higher strain on IS capability in some lenses but then why hasn't this been declared and issue with earlier cameras of similar pixel density?

bc. this is the first 50.6 MP FF sensor ...

It is very easy to understand if I use a real world example:

Imagine you are on a little boat - its bow moves up by 5% ... you don't even realize it a lot (that's the APS-C sensor)
Now imagine you are on the Queen Mary 2 ... and again her bow moves up 5% ... now you jump 60ft into the air (that is a really really big sensor) ...

basically the bigger the boat the bigger the jump ... same goes for sensors and the IS MUST work against this ...

 

[Loswr]

Are you sure ? I mean if the Sensor is bigger the angular movement for the same angle is more

A 200mm lens has a (diagonal) AoV of 12.3° on FF. If you have a shake of 0.3°, that's 2.4% of your AoV. Put that lens on an APS-C camera, the AoV is 7.7° and the same 0.3° shake is now 3.9% of the AoV. Of course, I'm talking about angular motion in the 'pitch' and 'yaw' axes.

Your statements and your diagram suggest that you believe Canon's lens-based image stabilization corrects for camera rotation (angular motion in the 'roll' axis, i.e. in the plane of the sensor). Sorry, but you may want to rethink your argument, as it appears to be based on an incorrect assumption.

 

[dolina]

Red Glow are lenses from the 80s and 90s. With green glow is from 00's

Zoom Lenses

2011 EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM
2015 EF 11-24mm f/4L USM
2014 EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
2012 EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM
2012 EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM
2010 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
1999 EF 70-200mm f/4L USM <= must be an error, probably be the IS version from 2006
2010 EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM
2014 EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM
2013 EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM EXTENDER 1.4x

Wide Angle Primes

2009 TS-E 17mm f/4L
2009 TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II
2008 EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM
2012 EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM
2012 EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM
2012 EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

Standard Primes

2012 EF 40mm f/2.8 STM
2007 EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
1993 EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
1990 EF 50mm f/1.8 II < must be an error, probably be the STM version from 2015
1987 EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro

Telephoto Primes

2006 EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM
1992 EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
1991 TS-E 90mm f/2.8
1991 EF 100mm f/2 USM
2000 EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
2009 EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
1996 EF 135mm f/2.0L USM
2008 EF 200mm f/2L II USM
1996 EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
2011 EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM
2011 EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM
2015 EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM
2011 EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM
2011 EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM
2008 EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM

 

[SUNDOG04]

I certainly agree with all who said the 16-35 f4 is a replacement for the 17-40.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

It's amusing that the 16-35 f2.8 L II and 35mm f1.4 L aren't listed and yet pups like the 50mm f1.2 L are. The 24mm f1.4 L II is nearly as sharp as the 35mm f1.4 L so there's no reason the 35 isn't on the list.
The 50L? Well I could write a book about that lens.
The 16-35IIL was a surprise, it's mostly used for landscapers (generalisation) who stop down to f8-16. It's certainly sharp enough when stopped down!

 

[deleteme]

I guess it is time for the canon 24-105 f4 lI is?

Exactly. Mine is responsible for 80-90% of my work and while it has its strengths absolute sharpness is not among them.

I would love a version inspired by the 24-70 2.8 II.

 

[deleteme]

It's amusing that the 16-35 f2.8 L II and 35mm f1.4 L aren't listed and yet pups like the 50mm f1.2 L are. The 24mm f1.4 L II is nearly as sharp as the 35mm f1.4 L so there's no reason the 35 isn't on the list.
The 50L? Well I could write a book about that lens.
The 16-35IIL was a surprise, it's mostly used for landscapers (generalisation) who stop down to f8-16. It's certainly sharp enough when stopped down!

I wonder if they are taking into account the current penchant of shooting wide open irrespective of the application?

 

[privatebydesign]

The increased pixel density might put a higher strain on IS capability in some lenses but then why hasn't this been declared and issue with earlier cameras of similar pixel density?

bc. this is the first 50.6 MP FF sensor ...

It is very easy to understand if I use a real world example:

Imagine you are on a little boat - its bow moves up by 5% ... you don't even realize it a lot (that's the APS-C sensor)
Now imagine you are on the Queen Mary 2 ... and again her bow moves up 5% ... now you jump 60ft into the air (that is a really really big sensor) ...

basically the bigger the boat the bigger the jump ... same goes for sensors and the IS MUST work against this ...

If the entire camera plus lens moves up, down, left or right (rather than rotate) then the amount of movement is the same for both APS-C and FF. Not every IS correction is about rotation. If you want to see how it moves, turn on live view, turn off IS, zoom in 10x in live view and max out your zoom. As you watch the screen on the back, you'll likely see the picture jump all over the place - not rotate. That kind of motion is the same regardless of pixel size.

And if you then make a same sized reproduction out of the two images the crop camera image, and it's same distance blur, is enlarged 1.6 times as much, so is 1.6 times worse.

 

[lux]

At first I saw this and was upset…my 300 2.8 L IS is not on the list…I bought it used of course and in no way could afford a new 300 2.8 L II. I also have a 85 1.2 L (first generation). Then I realized that probably they wouldn't include the lenses that aren't sold on the list and that I should be fine…Then I realized that I wasn't going to be able to afford a 5dS/R anyway and I stopped worrying

 

[Loswr]

At first I saw this and was upset…my 300 2.8 L IS is not on the list…I bought it used of course and in no way could afford a new 300 2.8 L II. I also have a 85 1.2 L (first generation). Then I realized that probably they wouldn't include the lenses that aren't sold on the list and that I should be fine…Then I realized that I wasn't going to be able to afford a 5dS/R anyway and I stopped worrying

Lol.

In my case, I find that 10 of my 16 lenses have made the cut. Of the remaining six, three are EF-M and one is a 3rd party lens, leaving only the 35L and MP-E65 as compatible Canon lenses that are 'not recommended'.

So...it looks like I've got a great set of lenses to use on a camera I have no intention of purchasing.

 

[ghaack]

What about the 14mm 2.8 L II? That's a pretty big omission as well.

 

[privatebydesign]

What about the 14mm 2.8 L II? That's a pretty big omission as well.

Anybody that has used the 14 MkII and the 11-24 knows leaving the 14 off is a given, the two lenses don't compare in IQ, the 14 looks like the $2,000 milk bottle bottom it always has been.

 

[mangobutter]

This is awesome. All the lenses I own happen to be on this list. I wish though that all the lenses on the list are the lenses I owned. =(

My lineup of Canon:

16-35 F4 IS (got it on launch day), 50 1.4, 50 1.8 II, 70-200 F4L, Canon 100mm F2. I plan to add the 35 F2 IS some day and the 50 STM.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

And if the 70-300 IS USM is on the list, it definitely isn't because of image quality as that lens is really soft at the long end.

It's the L version on the list.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Lots of wildly unfounded speculation here, mixed with a healthy dose of misinformation (which is the norm anytime dilbert participates in a discussion).

The list comprises lenses, "...recommended by Canon for getting the best from the EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R." How does not being on the list mean 'not compatible with,' which is vastly different?

Lenses since 2008 or 2010? Sorry to smash that theory against the cold, hard rocks of reality but the 70-200mm f/4L is on the list, and it was released in 1999. Even if that's a typo and they meant the sharper IS version, that's from 2006.

I hope you enjoyed this factual interlude, we now return you to your regularly scheduled speculation.

well maybe the pixel density is above the limit of the IS of the 70-200 f4 IS ... see above.
You also see they did not include a lot of other IS gen.1 lenses like the 300 f2.8 or 400 f2.8 which certainly have enough resolving power to benefit from the new sensor

Or more likely, it's a typo and they forgot to write "IS" next to the 70-200 f/4 and the 300 2.8 IS and such ARE fine, but are no longer in production and so not on the chart.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Cough, splutter, facts?? Whatever made you think we would recognise or accept fact over speculation, hearsay, rumour, misguided opinion and blatant lies? You're on the wrong site if you want to cloud debate with your facts.

So what are the facts?

1) 3 separate companies make an announcement on the same day regarding the use of lenses on the 5Ds & 5DsR

2) Sigma & Tamron mention that firmware updates are required

3) Various currently available lenses that are being made by Canon (including well regarded ones) are not on the list

That's where the facts end as nobody has said anything in detail about why the updates are required or what the qualification was for putting the list together, nor that there are any errors in that list.

Now onto trying to draw some logic from all of this...

Is (1) a coincidence? I doubt it. Doesn't pass the smell test.

(2) implies that the issue is not around optical quality (especially since it is specific serial numbers in some cases)

(3) also tells us that whatever the issue is, it has nothing to do with optical performance.

There is a chance that some parts of (3) are just clerical error (such as the list being put together before the 50/1.8 IS STM was released and nobody thought to include it.)

Going further and trying to make educated guesses...

So what is it about a lens that could require an update to the firmware? The protocol used by the camera to communicate with lenses is one possibility. The identifiers that 3rd party lenses use to identify to the camera is another.

Maybe it is voltage levels or timings used by the newer cameras to communicate with lenses?

The increased pixel density might put a higher strain on IS capability in some lenses but then why hasn't this been declared and issue with earlier cameras of similar pixel density?

I hate to say it, but this time I think you are off-base and neuro is on base. (Although some suggest you are the same person, paid, to drive up thread counts ;D so maybe you are both on and off base at the same time, kinda like in quantum mechanics).