What current Canon EF lens will work well with the new 5DS/5DSR?

[jcarapet]

everybody keeps beating me to the same point. I think it's a joke to say that they are "optimized". They are merely the optimal option because of top level sharpness. Every lens will work, it just won't be a mind blowing improvement. Which, will still be debatable in my opinion.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

I will recommend these zoom lenses:
16-35/4L IS
24-70/2,8L II
70-200/2,8L IS II
100-400/4,5-5,6L IS II

You can also use most of the fixed L-lenses except the 50/1,2L which needs upgrading.

The only lens you can keep is the 85/1,8.

+1 with your selection. Also add the second generation of super-telephoto lenses (e.g.300mm, 400mm)

 

[awinphoto]

It's time to heat up the popcorn again... Guys... your all missing the boat... you have all fallen into the trap of thinking "oh no, i MUST get all new lenses because new and improved (and not even out in the market) Camera X has come out"... this, to canon's credit, is what they WANT you to think... more $$ for them. As one poster stated, this camera is roughly the same pixel size as the 7dII... Rent that camera, go to a camera shop and test drive it, play with your lenses... See how they look. Now with the original 7d, there was, and i forgot the proper terminology, but an optimum aperture to get the sharpest images bases off of the sensor and the lens combination... for the original 7d, most of those lenses i had were around the F5.6 range for the sharpest image possible. This right there is what you are going up against. ALL your lenses will work on the new camera. All your lenses will have an optimum aperture that will work the best with your camera, when viewed at 100% at it's full 30"x40" printed glory. Yes, upgrading lenses, will broaden that needed F-stop for optimization, but it's not the current firestorm everyone is making it out to be.

 

[rozinyak]

Sorry if I missed it, I think no one mentioned the 16-35mm f/2.8L II yet. This appears to have been launched in 2007, which alone would justify a coming upgrade to this lens too? Don't know for sure, but I am not willing to give up on the f/2.8 compared to the f/4 announced with the 16-35mm f/4L in 2014. That makes me wonder if the f/2.8 II would reach its full potential on the 5Ds R. Suddenly I'm a bit sceptical...

 

[Leigh]

I think some folks have a perception that "these" cameras are 5Dlll's with double-+ resolution, & can be utilized in the same manner as a 5Dlll., with no trade-offs,

The fact of the matter is, that high degree of sensor resolution renders any degree of camera shake, or subject movement critically unforgiving.

That's why they have features like being beefed-up at the bottom tripod mount area, and Shutter release time lag.

The ISO noise values are akin to the 7D-ll--Not the 5Dlll; so optimal quality will require shooting at "low" ISO's.

They are designed primarily for critical Landscape, and Studio work where they would typically be mounted on a sturdy tripod, and with "shorter" focal length lenses.

http://www.canonwatch.com/chuck-westfall-canon-eos-5ds-eos-5ds-r-no-dr-improvement-5d3-sensor-made-canon/

Leigh

 

[Finn M]

All your lenses will produce better resolution on a higher MP sensor.

Lenses don't "out resolve" sensors, and sensors don't "out resolve" lenses. The system resolution will always be lower than the lower performing part of that system. The 50 f1.8 will resolve a lot more on the new cameras too, just not as much as a 200 f2.

Even a theoretical 'perfect' lens wouldn't resolve 50MP from the new cameras, it just doesn't work like that.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=25215.msg498253#msg498253

We have to get over this idiotic 'this lens isn't good enough for that sensor", "that lens out resolves this sensor" garbage, it just displays a complete lack of understanding of a pretty simple idea.

Nothing is perfect, no lens, even a theoretical perfect lens, will resolve every pixel on a sensor even if it doesn't have an AA filter.
No sensor can resolve 100% of any lenses resolution capability.
The end resolution will be lower than the lowest potential of any of the single elements in the system.
Any EF lens will resolve more on a higher MP sensor than a lower one.
How much resolution you need for any single image is entirely moot and only you can decide.

The aim is higher resolution.
My answer is that you get higher resolution and better picture quality by upgrading the lens (eg upgrade the 17-40/4L to 17-35/4L IS) than upgrading your old FF camera to the 5Ds. It is also my cheaper!
As a bonus you get a lens with IS which helps you get sharper pictures all situations except when using flash.
Quite simple.

 

[Finn M]

You can also use most of the fixed L-lenses except the 50/1,2L which needs upgrading.

but... thats the only L prime i have... am i doomed?!?!

No, you are not doomed. You and your 50/1,2L can live happily together with your 1DX 6D or 5D mk.III camera.

 

[Finn M]

Said lots of generic review site tosh

There's more to great photography than how sharp your glass is, my own personal favourite photo was taken using a 3Mpx Fuji point and click from the early 00's.

Don't worry about your glass until it's limiting your creativity - you've some great lenses, seriously think about what you need 50Mpx images for, if you've a practice use, get the camera and enjoy, see what results your getting and only then, if you ain't happy, look to upgrade your glass starting with the focal lengths you most need the higher resolution from.

As yet, no one really knows how good or bad the older lenses will be, so just go with the flow and let someone else make the unnecessary costly upgrades before you do.

Yes, you can also make good pictures with a mobile phone. But that was not the question here.
My point is that it is silly to pay $4000 for a new camera if you don't have lenses that are sharp enough. Then it is better to save the money and use your old camera. And it is important to ask yourself: Do you really need 50Mpix resolution?
And if you after all want to use some money, then my advice is to start with the lenses.

 

[privatebydesign]

All your lenses will produce better resolution on a higher MP sensor.

Lenses don't "out resolve" sensors, and sensors don't "out resolve" lenses. The system resolution will always be lower than the lower performing part of that system. The 50 f1.8 will resolve a lot more on the new cameras too, just not as much as a 200 f2.

Even a theoretical 'perfect' lens wouldn't resolve 50MP from the new cameras, it just doesn't work like that.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=25215.msg498253#msg498253

We have to get over this idiotic 'this lens isn't good enough for that sensor", "that lens out resolves this sensor" garbage, it just displays a complete lack of understanding of a pretty simple idea.

Nothing is perfect, no lens, even a theoretical perfect lens, will resolve every pixel on a sensor even if it doesn't have an AA filter.
No sensor can resolve 100% of any lenses resolution capability.
The end resolution will be lower than the lowest potential of any of the single elements in the system.
Any EF lens will resolve more on a higher MP sensor than a lower one.
How much resolution you need for any single image is entirely moot and only you can decide.

The aim is higher resolution.
My answer is that you get higher resolution and better picture quality by upgrading the lens (eg upgrade the 17-40/4L to 17-35/4L IS) than upgrading your old FF camera to the 5Ds. It is also my cheaper!
As a bonus you get a lens with IS which helps you get sharper pictures all situations except when using flash.
Quite simple.

You said, and I quote "The only lens you can keep is the 85/1,8." which is asinine. Every lens the OP owns will give them more resolution with the new bodies than they currently get. An upgrade of 17-40 to the 16-35 will get a marginal, though noticeable, improvement over a relatively narrow range. A body change will get a resolution increase across the board and the OP could then decide what lenses they need to upgrade for their output.

Personally I don't see a need for many people for the 50MP, I just don't see it, but whatever, that wasn't the question the OP asked. I would far rather have a 5D MkIII and a 16-35 f4 IS than a 5DS and a 17-40, indeed I'd rather have the 5DMkIII and 16-35 f4 over a 5DS and the same 16-35 f4.

 

[Finn M]

At f/8, all lenses will be pretty much equal as far as resolution, so don't worry.

That's not true.

One example: The 17-40/4L lens has bad resolution on 17mm outside the centre of the frame. And it doesn't hjelp very much to use f8 or even f16. This is very easy to see even with my old 1Ds 12Mpix camera from 2004.
It is a BIG upgrade to switch to the new 16-35/4L IS. It is much sharper even wide open! No competition at all....

The 17-40L behave well on a DX sensor, but that's because you only use the center image, not the bad parts of the lens.

 

[privatebydesign]

Said lots of generic review site tosh

There's more to great photography than how sharp your glass is, my own personal favourite photo was taken using a 3Mpx Fuji point and click from the early 00's.

Don't worry about your glass until it's limiting your creativity - you've some great lenses, seriously think about what you need 50Mpx images for, if you've a practice use, get the camera and enjoy, see what results your getting and only then, if you ain't happy, look to upgrade your glass starting with the focal lengths you most need the higher resolution from.

As yet, no one really knows how good or bad the older lenses will be, so just go with the flow and let someone else make the unnecessary costly upgrades before you do.

Yes, you can also make good pictures with a mobile phone. But that was not the question here.
My point is that it is silly to pay $4000 for a new camera if you don't have lenses that are sharp enough. Then it is better to save the money and use your old camera. And it is important to ask yourself: Do you really need 50Mpix resolution?
And if you after all want to use some money, then my advice is to start with the lenses.

No, what is silly is buying into the notion that any lens is "sharp enough", or not sharp enough. All lenses will realise more resolution with the new sensors than the current ones and it is much cheaper to upgrade one body than every lens.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

There's more to great photography than how sharp your glass is, my own personal favourite photo was taken using a 3Mpx Fuji point and click from the early 00's.
Don't worry about your glass until it's limiting your creativity - you've some great lenses, seriously think about what you need 50Mpx images for, if you've a practice use, get the camera and enjoy, see what results your getting and only then, if you ain't happy, look to upgrade your glass starting with the focal lengths you most need the higher resolution from.
As yet, no one really knows how good or bad the older lenses will be, so just go with the flow and let someone else make the unnecessary costly upgrades before you do.

Yes, you can also make good pictures with a mobile phone. But that was not the question here.
My point is that it is silly to pay $4000 for a new camera if you don't have lenses that are sharp enough. Then it is better to save the money and use your old camera. And it is important to ask yourself: Do you really need 50Mpix resolution?
And if you after all want to use some money, then my advice is to start with the lenses.

No, what is silly is buying into the notion that any lens is "sharp enough", or not sharp enough. All lenses will realise more resolution with the new sensors than the current ones and it is much cheaper to upgrade one body than every lens.

I disagree completely.

More megapixel with a mediocre lens, will only show more chromatic aberration, blur on the image corners, lack of adequate contrast. All this will give a very small gain in image quality.

In my opinion, high quality lenses (such as Canon 16-35 F4 IS) will show more improvement than any high megapixel body could theoretically offer.

 

[Finn M]

Said lots of generic review site tosh

There's more to great photography than how sharp your glass is, my own personal favourite photo was taken using a 3Mpx Fuji point and click from the early 00's.

Don't worry about your glass until it's limiting your creativity - you've some great lenses, seriously think about what you need 50Mpx images for, if you've a practice use, get the camera and enjoy, see what results your getting and only then, if you ain't happy, look to upgrade your glass starting with the focal lengths you most need the higher resolution from.

As yet, no one really knows how good or bad the older lenses will be, so just go with the flow and let someone else make the unnecessary costly upgrades before you do.

Yes, you can also make good pictures with a mobile phone. But that was not the question here.
My point is that it is silly to pay $4000 for a new camera if you don't have lenses that are sharp enough. Then it is better to save the money and use your old camera. And it is important to ask yourself: Do you really need 50Mpix resolution?
And if you after all want to use some money, then my advice is to start with the lenses.

No, what is silly is buying into the notion that any lens is "sharp enough", or not sharp enough. All lenses will realise more resolution with the new sensors than the current ones and it is much cheaper to upgrade one body than every lens.

This just isn't true.
I just sold my Nikon eqipment: Nikon D810 (36Mpix) plus the new $2500 Nikon AF-S 80-400/4,5-5,6G VR. This combination gave very soft pictures between 300-400mm. I sold the eqipment after seeing one of my pictures magnified into 80x120 cm. People are still buying this picture, yes, but I saw that the resolution of my current Canon EOS 5D mk.III plus the new and very sharp EF 100-400/4,5-5,6L IS II is much higher. That's why I switched back to Canon.
And by resolution I mean more information, details not pixels.....

I have owned three samples of the 17-40L and the most obvious thing to do is to start upgrading the 17-40L first. It will give dramatically better pictures even on a 20Mpix camera.
I agree that one can discuss what to buy first, the 5Ds or new 70-200 and 100 macro. But in my world IS is very important, and it will get even more important with a camera with higher resolution. The 70-200/2,8 IS is a beautiful lens which I highly recommend also because of the much better results against the sun (the contrast is much higher and less reflections). 90% of my pictures with this lens is taken in such situations.

 

[privatebydesign]

There's more to great photography than how sharp your glass is, my own personal favourite photo was taken using a 3Mpx Fuji point and click from the early 00's.
Don't worry about your glass until it's limiting your creativity - you've some great lenses, seriously think about what you need 50Mpx images for, if you've a practice use, get the camera and enjoy, see what results your getting and only then, if you ain't happy, look to upgrade your glass starting with the focal lengths you most need the higher resolution from.
As yet, no one really knows how good or bad the older lenses will be, so just go with the flow and let someone else make the unnecessary costly upgrades before you do.

Yes, you can also make good pictures with a mobile phone. But that was not the question here.
My point is that it is silly to pay $4000 for a new camera if you don't have lenses that are sharp enough. Then it is better to save the money and use your old camera. And it is important to ask yourself: Do you really need 50Mpix resolution?
And if you after all want to use some money, then my advice is to start with the lenses.

No, what is silly is buying into the notion that any lens is "sharp enough", or not sharp enough. All lenses will realise more resolution with the new sensors than the current ones and it is much cheaper to upgrade one body than every lens.

I disagree completely.

More megapixel with a mediocre lens, will only show more chromatic aberration, blur on the image corners, lack of adequate contrast. All this will give a very small gain in image quality.

In my opinion, high quality lenses (such as Canon 16-35 F4 IS) will show more improvement than any high megapixel body could theoretically offer.

And that is your prerogative, but it doesn't make you right or change the laws of physics.

Look, I 100% agree that most people will be better off with a 5D MkIII and 16-35 f4 IS than a 17-40 f4, but that wasn't the question and the way people were answering the question is wrong.

At this point nobody knows which combo will give 'better resolution', but the OP wasn't asking that, they asked "which Canon lenses will work well with this beast of a sensor or maybe more importantly what Canon lenses won't be up to the task?". The answer is they will all realise 'more resolution' than current sensors, the corollary has to be, 'How much do you want or need?'

 

[awinphoto]

There's more to great photography than how sharp your glass is, my own personal favourite photo was taken using a 3Mpx Fuji point and click from the early 00's.
Don't worry about your glass until it's limiting your creativity - you've some great lenses, seriously think about what you need 50Mpx images for, if you've a practice use, get the camera and enjoy, see what results your getting and only then, if you ain't happy, look to upgrade your glass starting with the focal lengths you most need the higher resolution from.
As yet, no one really knows how good or bad the older lenses will be, so just go with the flow and let someone else make the unnecessary costly upgrades before you do.

Yes, you can also make good pictures with a mobile phone. But that was not the question here.
My point is that it is silly to pay $4000 for a new camera if you don't have lenses that are sharp enough. Then it is better to save the money and use your old camera. And it is important to ask yourself: Do you really need 50Mpix resolution?
And if you after all want to use some money, then my advice is to start with the lenses.

No, what is silly is buying into the notion that any lens is "sharp enough", or not sharp enough. All lenses will realise more resolution with the new sensors than the current ones and it is much cheaper to upgrade one body than every lens.

I disagree completely.

More megapixel with a mediocre lens, will only show more chromatic aberration, blur on the image corners, lack of adequate contrast. All this will give a very small gain in image quality.

In my opinion, high quality lenses (such as Canon 16-35 F4 IS) will show more improvement than any high megapixel body could theoretically offer.

And that is your prerogative, but it doesn't make you right or change the laws of physics.

Look, I 100% agree that most people will be better off with a 5D MkIII and 16-35 f4 IS than a 17-40 f4, but that wasn't the question and the way people were answering the question is wrong.

At this point nobody knows which combo will give 'better resolution', but the OP wasn't asking that, they asked "which Canon lenses will work well with this beast of a sensor or maybe more importantly what Canon lenses won't be up to the task?". The answer is they will all realise 'more resolution' than current sensors, the corollary has to be, 'How much do you want or need?'

Like what privatebydesign said, buying this camera will not magically make all your lenses inferior and you must upgrade everything now, despite what canon would like you to think... Now with that being said, not all lenses were created equal... Most people believe the 17-40 to be sharper to the 16-35 2.8 first generation, but believe the 17-40 to be not as good as the current 16-35 2.8 AND f4. The 28-135 is not as sharp as the 24-105, although the 24-105 does leave room to be improved. It is what it is, but, in relation, using a 28-135 on this new camera, when viewed at full resolution normal distances (a few feet away) will look similar to it shot on a 5d2 or 3 printed at a smaller print closer up. Now of course, you pixel peep looking at 100%, it will not be as forgiving as if you shot the same image with a 24-105 or even the 24-70 m2. But as far as an overall image, at normal viewing distances, this whole argument is moot.

 

[TexPhoto]

We have to get over this idiotic 'this lens isn't good enough for that sensor", "that lens out resolves this sensor" garbage, it just displays a complete lack of understanding of a pretty simple idea.

Nothing is perfect, no lens, even a theoretical perfect lens, will resolve every pixel on a sensor even if it doesn't have an AA filter.
No sensor can resolve 100% of any lenses resolution capability.
The end resolution will be lower than the lowest potential of any of the single elements in the system.
Any EF lens will resolve more on a higher MP sensor than a lower one.
How much resolution you need for any single image is entirely moot and only you can decide.

Yes. Exactly. Analog lenses that display different sharpness at the center of the frame vs the corner and everything in between, and at different apertures, and at different distances, and at different focal lengths if they zoom, don't become obsolete because the pixels on a new digital camera are a little smaller.

DXO starts measuring lenses for "M-Pix", something they completely made up, and that by the way shows different scores for the same lens on different cameras, and everybody goes nuts. The Sony and Nikon fanboys can't stop posting that no Canon lens "resolves" 50 Megapixels, and some Canon people are falling for it.

 

[privatebydesign]

This just isn't true.
I just sold my Nikon eqipment: Nikon D810 (36Mpix) plus the new $2500 Nikon AF-S 80-400/4,5-5,6G VR. This combination gave very soft pictures between 300-400mm. I sold the eqipment after seeing one of my pictures magnified into 80x120 cm. People are still buying this picture, yes, but I saw that the resolution of my current Canon EOS 5D mk.III plus the new and very sharp EF 100-400/4,5-5,6L IS II is much higher. That's why I switched back to Canon.
And by resolution I mean more information, details not pixels.....

I have owned three samples of the 17-40L and the most obvious thing to do is to start upgrading the 17-40L first. It will give dramatically better pictures even on a 20Mpix camera.
I agree that one can discuss what to buy first, the 5Ds or new 70-200 and 100 macro. But in my world IS is very important, and it will get even more important with a camera with higher resolution. The 70-200/2,8 IS is a beautiful lens which I highly recommend also because of the much better results against the sun (the contrast is much higher and less reflections). 90% of my pictures with this lens is taken in such situations.

Yes it is, it is physics.

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.

Now the reason your higher MP Nikon got you lower resolution then your lower MP Canon is because Canon lenses are often much better than Nikon lenses, so much so that they realise better resolution figures even though they have lower MP numbers.

Again, I am not arguing the fact that the 16-35 f4 IS is a much better lens than the 17-40, nor that most of us are far better served by a 5D MkIII/IV and 16-35 f4 IS than a 5DS and 17-40, I am pointing out the physics at the root of the question and the fact that all the OP's lenses will give more resolution with a 5DS than they currently give on a 24MP sensor.

 

[Berowne]

I have no comparison with digital cameras exept the "upgrade" from the 18mpx sensor of the 550D to the 20mpx Sensor of the 70D. To my impression the newer sensor delivers quite better IQ, if conditions are optimal (100 ISO, optimal aperture, enough light, tripod, short exposure time). This is also true for my experience in the film area: fine grain gives more contrast and if you work carefully, the results are better.

But: the best improvement is with the best lens. My best lens is a Leica-R Makro-Elmarit 2.8/60. Compared with the EF-S Macro 60/2.8 it delivers visible better contrast. And it is 40y old.

My personal Conclusion: 5DsR plus Zeiss Otus or Macro-Planar on a heavy Tripod is a proper combination.

 

[PureClassA]

The short answer is, none of really know for sure. This is all speculation to one degree or another. Will your older lenses still work on a 5DS? Yes. Will they still look good or likely even better with a better sensor? Yes! (Given good technique and being able to use the EF to 5DS mount adapter and turn back on the other 24MP with a magic Lantern Hack..... Ya'll, I'm sorry, that post was freaking hilarious....)

Answer the question first (and my apologies if I've missed it already): WHAT DO I NEED THIS CAMERA FOR?

If you shoot a lot of studio, landscape, or otherwise controlled lighting situations.... yes, this is your diamond making baby right here. For this reason, I am personally buying one myself.

If you are looking for sports, action, general purpose, low-light sensitive, all around good pro body ..... No. This is the $10,000 Apple iStupid Watch. Go buy a 5D3 dirt cheap right now or even a 6D or wait til early next year for the 5D4.

Glass is glass. It never goes bad. Will what you have push the upper limits of this sensor's resolving capability? No. Not very likely. Will they produce better images than perhaps currently (dunno what body you're using now), yes, most likely... but at what cost to you? Again, this is about "What do you want to shoot with it?"

PS - Want an old dinosaur L lens that is gonna wreck this new sensor? $1000. Buy the 135L.

PPS - No, not every lens is equally sharp at f8. Preponderance of evidence against that. Besides, does everyone always shoot at f8??? Lord knows I don't. I like my ARTs at f1.4 and tack sharp. In fact, at 1.4, they are sharper than a lot of other glass at f8. The only lens I stop down regularly to f8 if possible is my 24-105 f4L. Got it for $600 just to have a cheap easy all around walkin' around lens. It won't push anywhere 50MP either. But I won;t be using it on my 5DS anyway. It'll stay on my 5D3 and 6D.

 

[StudentOfLight]

That is a good point, if it isn't 'good enough' in the center then it is unlikely that the edges will be better, having said that it is worth noting that for same sized prints/on screen the enlargement factor is less than 50% on a ff image so any lens issue will be less visible.

I don't understand your 21% comment though. An APS-C sensor is 332mm², a FF sensor is 864mm², that is 2.6 times the size, or, to put it another way, a crop sensor covers 38% the area of a ff sensor and for evaluation purposes that is a lot to not see!

Aha, I forgot to multiply by 2, it is about 21% on each side of the APS-C image circle.

Let me post the diagram with the image circles again and another:
In the first diagram you can see where the image circles lie. in the second I removed the APS-C sensor for simplicity. The APS-C image circle is paled out so you can see how it covers the full frame sensor beyond simply where the APS-C sensor is. If you have MTF data for APS-C then you have data for the whole APS-C image circle. The dark maroon portions of the full frame sensor is where we don't have direct MTF data.

I calculated the area on the one side as being 21% of full frame area, but for got to multiply by 2. :-[