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

[dolina]

Canon's decision making is more like Apple's. From iPhone 4 to iPhone 5, everyone needed to get new cables. When new releases of iOS are released, some old hardware won't work. Apple could make it work with old hardware but there comes a point where supporting old hardware becomes a burden and stops you doing new things. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon was facing a similar issue with some of its lenses.

Why are Sigma/Tamron different?

They make their lenses to work on any Canon camera because they want the largest market possible.
Canon wants you to buy the best & latest gear and to upgrade often (like Apple.) Stick and carrot.

And yet people are stupid enough to buy a Canon much less Apple.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

 

[LonelyBoy]

The 17-40L is not on the list. Given its reputation for softness in the corners, this is not surprising. The 35 1.4 is to be replaced and 400 5.6 possibly will be replaced. What of the 17-40s future?

Wasn't the 17-40L supplanted by the 16-35/4 IS?

 

[1982chris911]

The absence of the 80/1.8 IS STM has got to be a mis-print... or else someone at Canon should be fired.

Otherwise, I wonder if the list is determined by autofocus compatibility? i.e. lenses such as the 70-200/f4L IS USM don't have a compatible AF with the 5Ds so they're not listed. Would Canon announce a firmware update if that was the case? Not sure...

Why should the AF not work on the 70-200/f4L IS, but on the non IS version ... Only thing I could imagine is that the old IS versions are not working exactly enough to be sharp with the increased resolution ...

It all depends on the implementation of EOS inside the lens. There's no guarantee that all lenses have the same EOS AF capability and as you rightly suspect, it may also be to do with the IS function. Maybe the IS in that lens doesn't activate properly or behaves in an erratic fashion.

I just nearly fell of my chair when looking at the performance on TDP of the 200-400 with internal 1,4 Ext in place and that this is actually by far not as sharp as the 100-400 MK II without Ext same with the 400 F2,8 Mk II with external Ext 1,4 in place.

So it looks that some recommendations are really thoughtful and not marketing only ...

I'm pretty sure that it is more than that.

Given that people are saying "everything since year X", that points more towards body to lens communication being the issue. 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.

Someone needs to do some testing of the 5Ds with lenses both on and off the list to see if a reason behind Canon's list can be determined.

Well regarding my impression with the earlier IS no longer working correctly my idea just comes from the fact that those IS systems must work within certain limits. While left and right plus up and down shake may not be any different on an FF or APS-C sensor, every angular movement is increased as sensor size increases (simple geometric function) ... So my idea was that when those first generation IS systems were designed they maybe had an max sensor of 25-30MP in mind (each pixel is bigger so the limits of the IS are less critical).
Now the jump from 22.3 to 50.6 is way more, meaning the pixels got smaller than the maximum limits the early IS were designed for on FF ... This is of course just guessing, but would make sense from a logical side as I cannot remember there were any problems or exclusions when the 7d or 7d Mk II ... Remember that this does not mean that there is no IS it just means that for certain types of movement it would no longer work as anticipated ...

 

[1982chris911]

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

 

[neuroanatomist]

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

On a list such as this, I'd expect Canon to list only current lenses, so I would not conclude anything from the exclusion of the superseded supertele primes.

 

[1982chris911]

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

On a list such as this, I'd expect Canon to list only current lenses, so I would not conclude anything from the exclusion of the superseded supertele primes.

Well true on the one hand but also not as those lenses are no longer sold anyway ... I personally would think it would have been a good achievement and advertisement for Canon to demonstrate how good these earlier lenses already were and how the EOS system is constantly evolving ... I mean IQ has not so much to do when ppl upgrade the Big Whites ... its more the weight and other technical aspects (better IS) ... which is not that important once you use them on tripods ...

You may not forget that backwards compabilty is also a sales argument for bodies ... not everyone wants to buy new glass immediately ... especially with these more substantial investments

 

[neuroanatomist]

If you can't get 3 or more stops of IS from the lens then maybe the chances of being about to shoot 1/mm and get a sharp image are so slim that Canon doesn't recommend it?

Right, because zero stops of IS gives better control of shake than 2-3 stops. Yes, that totally explains why the 70-200/4 and 200/2.8 lenses which lack IS were omitted from the list, whereas similar focal length zooms/prime with IS are included.

Oh, wait...we're not in dilbertland. Thank goodness!

 

[AlanF]

The same list should apply to the current APS-C cameras because they have either the same size or even small pixels as the 5Ds.

Regarding the use of extenders, 2xTCs lower MTFs by 20% or more and will noticeably spoil performance on APS-C. 1.4xTCs lower only by about 10%, but which may still be noticeable.

 

[1982chris911]

The same list should apply to the current APS-C cameras because they have either the same size or even small pixels as the 5Ds.

Regarding the use of extenders, 2xTCs lower MTFs by 20% or more and will noticeably spoil performance on APS-C. 1.4xTCs lower only by about 10%, but which may still be noticeable.

Not really as APS-C only use the inner image circle omitting the "bad parts" of a frame and also that guess I had with the angular movement of shake and IS limits would not be so much of a problem for a smaller sized sensor.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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

On a list such as this, I'd expect Canon to list only current lenses, so I would not conclude anything from the exclusion of the superseded supertele primes.

Well true on the one hand but also not as those lenses are no longer sold anyway ... I personally would think it would have been a good achievement and advertisement for Canon to demonstrate how good these earlier lenses already were and how the EOS system is constantly evolving ... I mean IQ has not so much to do when ppl upgrade the Big Whites ... its more the weight and other technical aspects (better IS) ... which is not that important once you use them on tripods ...

Can you please point out to me which lenses on the list are no longer sold? Before you answer, consider that this list was posted by Bryan at TDP, meaning it most likely comes from Canon USA. So, have a look at the lens lineup on the Canon USA website and compare that to the 5Ds/R list. After that, you may wish to revise your statement.

You may not forget that backwards compabilty is also a sales argument for bodies ... not everyone wants to buy new glass immediately ... especially with these more substantial investments

You should not forget that this list was not compiled by some independent source, it was posted by Canon themselves and it is first and foremost a proposed shopping list.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Not really as APS-C only use the inner image circle omitting the "bad parts" of a frame and also that guess I had with the angular movement of shake and IS limits would not be so much of a problem for a smaller sized sensor.

In fact, given the narrower AoV of a smaller sensor, an equal amount of angular motion represents a greater proportion of the FoV – in other worse, shake is magnified by a smaller sensor.

 

[1982chris911]

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

 

[Bob Howland]

The 45 TSE lens isn't on the list?? Given what I would use these bodies for, the 24, 45 and 90 TSE lenses would probably be my most used lenses with them, should I ever buy one.

 

[dolina]

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.

LOL I missed that. I dont have either 2006 lenses so didn't "mind" it.

 

[Pinchers of Peril]

So I see that the body cap is not included on the list... does that mean these cameras are going to have another light leak issue?

 

[LonelyBoy]

I think some intern typed this up over lunch and everyone's making far too much of it.

 

[1982chris911]

So I see that the body cap is not included on the list... does that mean these cameras are going to have another light leak issue?

Well they introduced body cap v2 ... For darker than black ... makes pushing 10 stops of DR possible without losing any detail as the whole picture will still stay at least black if not darker ... ;-)

 

[dolina]

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.

 

[1982chris911]

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

But the angular movement is only greater in the area outside of the APS-C crop in the center of the image.

However that only accounts for the camera rotating, not moving up or down or left or right.

Exactly what I said ... Won't quote myself now