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

[beforeEos Camaras]

I am interested in knowing what happens if I use a non recommended lens? How will the picture be inferior?

Think about this list as a marketing exercise from Canon to encourage people to buy newer lenses.

"Hmm, I've only got this 50/1.8 and if I want to buy a 5DsR one day, I should have the 50/1.8 IS STM instead, so maybe I should start thinking about selling the 50/1.8 and buying the newer lens so that I'll be ready to upgrade to a 5DsR in the future."

I like my old 50 1.8 mk1 its like a aged wine it still brings out some photos that I find enjoyable.
having posted that the old 1.8 is very much like the old 1.8 fd lens and mine only stopped down to f 16 on a ftb-n body that Dilbert is holding on to the past

 

[1982chris911]

S___, non of my Zeiss lenses made it ... I guess I have to get rid of them ...

How much ?

 

[wallstreetoneil]

I have the 5DSR and I have tested it with my 70-200 F4 IS, 70-200 F2.8 IS II and the 100-400 IS II. There is no difference, tested on a tripod between the 70-200 F4 and the 2.8. The 100-400II at 200mm is sharper than both the 70-200s tested at F5.6.

The 70-200 F4 IS lens is a great lens mated to the 5DSR as a 3rd camera wedding portrait lens at 200mm - so much lighter and tack sharp at F4 through F8.

 

[1982chris911]

I have the 5DSR and I have tested it with my 70-200 F4 IS, 70-200 F2.8 IS II and the 100-400 IS II. There is no difference, tested on a tripod between the 70-200 F4 and the 2.8. The 100-400II at 200mm is sharper than both the 70-200s tested at F5.6.

The 70-200 F4 IS lens is a great lens mated to the 5DSR as a 3rd camera wedding portrait lens at 200mm - so much lighter and tack sharp at F4 through F8.

Well that comes back to the main purpose of the 70-200 IS II being f2.8 (bc. sometimes you really need that) and I already had to shoot 200mm f2.8 at ISO 6400 at the limit of what was still handhold able... however it does not happen too often

 

[Calaverasgrande]

kind of ironic that they exclude the F4 24-105L.
That has been the kit lens for all their full frames until now!
I wonder if that means there will be a more suitable L series kit lens to start shipping?
I also wonder what the eff is wrong with the 24-105L?
Mine is pretty darn sharp, though a bit distorted at the wide end.

 

[Sporgon]

kind of ironic that they exclude the F4 24-105L.
That has been the kit lens for all their full frames until now!
I wonder if that means there will be a more suitable L series kit lens to start shipping?
I also wonder what the eff is wrong with the 24-105L?
Mine is pretty darn sharp, though a bit distorted at the wide end.

It was introduced with the original 13 MP 5D in 2005, and it is a sharp lens when used well, at least everywhere bar the extreme corners. On a 20-21 MP camera I'm not seeing a great difference in resolution between the newer 24-70 IS and the older lens. However the 24-70 IS does have higher resolution potential, and I think you'd see this difference on the 5Ds.

 

[meywd]

I have the 5DSR and I have tested it with my 70-200 F4 IS, 70-200 F2.8 IS II and the 100-400 IS II. There is no difference, tested on a tripod between the 70-200 F4 and the 2.8. The 100-400II at 200mm is sharper than both the 70-200s tested at F5.6.

The 70-200 F4 IS lens is a great lens mated to the 5DSR as a 3rd camera wedding portrait lens at 200mm - so much lighter and tack sharp at F4 through F8.

I don't have the 100-400 II so I can't compare copies, but from the reviews at lenstip Canon EF 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM, Canon EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS II USM you will see that in the center the 70-200 is sharper, in the corners the 100-400 is sharper

 

[jeffa4444]

kind of ironic that they exclude the F4 24-105L.
That has been the kit lens for all their full frames until now!
I wonder if that means there will be a more suitable L series kit lens to start shipping?
I also wonder what the eff is wrong with the 24-105L?
Mine is pretty darn sharp, though a bit distorted at the wide end.

It was introduced with the original 13 MP 5D in 2005, and it is a sharp lens when used well, at least everywhere bar the extreme corners. On a 20-21 MP camera I'm not seeing a great difference in resolution between the newer 24-70 IS and the older lens. However the 24-70 IS does have higher resolution potential, and I think you'd see this difference on the 5Ds.

If my examples are anything to go by then the EF24-70mm f4L IS USM is not better than the EF24-105mm f4L IS USM lens. Ive done a more scientific test of my EF24-70mm f4L IS USM and it should not be recommended for the 5DS.

 

[canadiannewbie]

Hello All!

Fairly new to the forum and since i can't start a new thread, i think this one is the most likely to have an answer.

I currently own a 7D and will most likely go to full frame in the next year or so. After many debates and second guessing, I come to the conclusion that the best body for me would be the 5DSR. I do a bit of everything bust mostly landscape, architecture, macro and travel.

Since the only 2 lenses I own that could work on a 5DSR are my Tamron macro and the nifty fifty, I'm looking for lenses as well.

I would like the thoughts of 5DsR owners on the lens i'm looking at:

Canon 16-35 f4 for wide angle
Canon 100-400 II for zoom

and as a general walkaround lens either the Canon 24-105 or the sigma art 24-105

Eventually maybe a prime or two or the sigma 24-35 f2 but that depend on budget/needs

Would there be a better combo to cover the same area?

P.S. I know usually the 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f 2.8 are the prefered lens but i don't think i could afford it from the get go.

Thanks for your help!

 

[j-nord]

I have some serious issue with this list, some of these lenses are not sharp enough to pair with the 5DSR. Some are missing. I think using DXO to look at lenses p-mpix metric when mounted on a 5DSR is the best comparison tool out there.

 

[bdunbar79]

You don't lose sharpness because of a higher MP sensor. For example if lens A is really sharp on a 22 MP sensor it isn't less sharp on a 50 MP sensor. That's absurd.

 

[j-nord]

You don't lose sharpness because of a higher MP sensor. For example if lens A is really sharp on a 22 MP sensor it isn't less sharp on a 50 MP sensor. That's absurd.

I must be missing where someone said anything of the sort...

 

[bdunbar79]

I have some serious issue with this list, some of these lenses are not sharp enough to pair with the 5DSR. Some are missing. I think using DXO to look at lenses p-mpix metric when mounted on a 5DSR is the best comparison tool out there.

I guess we could start with this one. I don't know what you mean by "not sharp enough to pair with the 5DsR." Just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

 

[j-nord]

I have some serious issue with this list, some of these lenses are not sharp enough to pair with the 5DSR. Some are missing. I think using DXO to look at lenses p-mpix metric when mounted on a 5DSR is the best comparison tool out there.

I guess we could start with this one. I don't know what you mean by "not sharp enough to pair with the 5DsR." Just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

Resolving power of a lens vs. the sensor. In my opinion, there is no point in pairing those 2. No where did I say the lens magically gets less sharp... You are just pushing the glass to its limits, there are much better options to pair with the 5DSR.

 

[bdunbar79]

Ok, but, no matter what, you still will get more resolution. No matter how crappy the lens.

 

[privatebydesign]

Singling out this lens or that lens as 'being sharp enough' for a certain sensor entirely misses a basic understanding of system resolution, just as 'pushing a lens to its limits' is incorrect (in the context of the lenses and systems we are talking about), so here goes.

Cut and pasted from a similarly misinformed thread in March last year, and September, and many others I haven't seen or commented in.

System resolution can be broadly shorthanded down to this equation, it isn't perfect but pretty close.

tsr = 1/sqrt((1/lsr) ² + (1/ssr) ² )

Where tsr is total spatial resolution, lsr is lens spatial resolution, and ssr is sensor spatial resolution.

So if, for example, we have a sensor that can resolve 100 lppmm, and a lens that can resolve 100 lppmm we get this

1/sqrt((1/100) ² + (1/100) ² ) = tsr of 71 lppmm

Leave the same lens on, good or bad, and double the sensor resolution to 200 lppmm

1/sqrt((1/100) ² + (1/200) ² ) = tsr of 89 lppmm


You will notice that the system resolution, even in this simplified form, can never resolve 100% of the lowest performing portion of that system, so if a 24MP sensor is returning 80% of the potential of a lens then a 50MP sensor might return 90%, how useful that is in real life is a moot point, but it does illustrate that even the most modest lens will show increased resolution when put in front of a higher resolving sensor.

Now if you grasp that basic explaination you can't fail to stop with the "this lens isn't sharp enough for this sensor nonsense" because it is nonsense.

Any lens put in front of a higher resolution sensor will give you more resolution, how much is moot, if it is 'enough' is also moot, but every lens will give you more resolution put on a 5DSR than a 5D MkIII however modest a lens it is.

 

[j-nord]

Ok, but, no matter what, you still will get more resolution. No matter how crappy the lens.

I agree you get more resolution but it doesn't guarantee significantly more perceivable detail. It's a case of diminishing returns.

example:

(Worst lens DXO has tested on the 5DSR)
6D + 70-300 DO = 9 p-mpix
5DSR + 70-300 DO = 10 p-mpix
11% more perceivable detail


6D + 24-70 f4 IS = 14 p-mpix
5DSR + 24-70 f4 IS = 21 p-mpix
50% more perceivable detail


6D + 24-70 f2.8ii = 17 p-mpix
5DSR + 24-70 f2.8ii = 32 p-mpix
88% more perceivable detail


6D + 300 f2.8ii = 21 p-mpix
5DSR + 300 f2.8ii = 45 p-mpix
114% more perceivable detail

 

[j-nord]

Singling out this lens or that lens as 'being sharp enough' for a certain sensor entirely misses a basic understanding of system resolution, just as 'pushing a lens to its limits' is incorrect (in the context of the lenses and systems we are talking about), so here goes.

Cut and pasted from a similarly misinformed thread in March last year, and September, and many others I haven't seen or commented in.

System resolution can be broadly shorthanded down to this equation, it isn't perfect but pretty close.

tsr = 1/sqrt((1/lsr) ² + (1/ssr) ² )

Where tsr is total spatial resolution, lsr is lens spatial resolution, and ssr is sensor spatial resolution.

So if, for example, we have a sensor that can resolve 100 lppmm, and a lens that can resolve 100 lppmm we get this

1/sqrt((1/100) ² + (1/100) ² ) = tsr of 71 lppmm

Leave the same lens on, good or bad, and double the sensor resolution to 200 lppmm

1/sqrt((1/100) ² + (1/200) ² ) = tsr of 89 lppmm


You will notice that the system resolution, even in this simplified form, can never resolve 100% of the lowest performing portion of that system, so if a 24MP sensor is returning 80% of the potential of a lens then a 50MP sensor might return 90%, how useful that is in real life is a moot point, but it does illustrate that even the most modest lens will show increased resolution when put in front of a higher resolving sensor.

Now if you grasp that basic explaination you can't fail to stop with the "this lens isn't sharp enough for this sensor nonsense" because it is nonsense.

Any lens put in front of a higher resolution sensor will give you more resolution, how much is moot, if it is 'enough' is also moot, but every lens will give you more resolution put on a 5DSR than a 5D MkIII however modest a lens it is.

I don't disagree with the more resolution, I do disagree with your dismissal of the subjective component. 'Sharp enough' is subjective and varies from person to person. I personally think using a 24-70 f4 IS, for example, is a waste of time and potential for the 5DSR.

 

[privatebydesign]

Singling out this lens or that lens as 'being sharp enough' for a certain sensor entirely misses a basic understanding of system resolution, just as 'pushing a lens to its limits' is incorrect (in the context of the lenses and systems we are talking about), so here goes.

Cut and pasted from a similarly misinformed thread in March last year, and September, and many others I haven't seen or commented in.

System resolution can be broadly shorthanded down to this equation, it isn't perfect but pretty close.

tsr = 1/sqrt((1/lsr) ² + (1/ssr) ² )

Where tsr is total spatial resolution, lsr is lens spatial resolution, and ssr is sensor spatial resolution.

So if, for example, we have a sensor that can resolve 100 lppmm, and a lens that can resolve 100 lppmm we get this

1/sqrt((1/100) ² + (1/100) ² ) = tsr of 71 lppmm

Leave the same lens on, good or bad, and double the sensor resolution to 200 lppmm

1/sqrt((1/100) ² + (1/200) ² ) = tsr of 89 lppmm


You will notice that the system resolution, even in this simplified form, can never resolve 100% of the lowest performing portion of that system, so if a 24MP sensor is returning 80% of the potential of a lens then a 50MP sensor might return 90%, how useful that is in real life is a moot point, but it does illustrate that even the most modest lens will show increased resolution when put in front of a higher resolving sensor.

Now if you grasp that basic explaination you can't fail to stop with the "this lens isn't sharp enough for this sensor nonsense" because it is nonsense.

Any lens put in front of a higher resolution sensor will give you more resolution, how much is moot, if it is 'enough' is also moot, but every lens will give you more resolution put on a 5DSR than a 5D MkIII however modest a lens it is.

I don't disagree with the more resolution, I do disagree with your dismissal of the subjective component. 'Sharp enough' is subjective and varies from person to person. I personally think using a 24-70 f4 IS, for example, is a waste of time and potential for the 5DSR.

That is why I specifically included the comments "how much is moot, if it is 'enough' is also moot", those subjective elements are moot. However, anybody claiming something as definitive as "I personally think using a 24-70 f4 IS, for example, is a waste of time and potential for the 5DSR" has zero credibility unless they can post something that gives that opinion some substance and validity, and some context of your personal output size expectations and quality demands would give relevance. Delivering 30,000 images a year means nothing other than you could give us some workflow pointers if they are passport sized images, if, for instance, you don't see a difference from the 24-70 until you go above 14" x 21" prints then that gives context.

Though all in all the use of the 5DS is overstated from a resolution point of view, sure it is there for some of the pixel peepers, but real world tests to non photographers don't care.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/canon_5ds-print-comparison.html

Oh, and read the conclusions here.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/canon_5ds-old_lens.html

 

[RGF]

The exclusion of the 70-200mm f/4L IS is rather surprising.

So are the lack of macro lens