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

[benperrin]

The Nikon reference is only because the empirical results support the underlying physics. There is a 1/3 increase in linear resolution between the 5D MkIII and the 5DS, to get that at a stroke is remarkable, to try to get that by upgrading all your lenses is far less practical and much more expensive. On another note, that means that we can make some fairly appropriate predictions on the absolute maximum increase in resolution possible from the new sensors, and it will be a lot less than 1/3 increase over a 5D MkIII.

I will be very interested, from a something to argue about point of view, not an 'I must buy this or that lens' point of view, at the DxO lens test results from the 5DSr and how lenses like the 24TS-E MkII and 5DSr compare in resolution to the D810 and PC-E24.

Of course there are some impractical problems with upgrading to the 5ds like storage space, processing power required and filling the buffer but I'm also interested to see how certain lenses stack up on the 5ds/r. I'm already committed to getting one so I'm not so worried about these issues but it might be a consideration for some. Looking at some of the sample images though it's quite obvious that the level of detail that can be captured is quite good. It's going to be a nightmare retouching skin though.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The Nikon reference is only because the empirical results support the underlying physics. There is a 1/3 increase in linear resolution between the 5D MkIII and the 5DS, to get that at a stroke is remarkable, to try to get that by upgrading all your lenses is far less practical and much more expensive. On another note, that means that we can make some fairly appropriate predictions on the absolute maximum increase in resolution possible from the new sensors, and it will be a lot less than 1/3 increase over a 5D MkIII.

I will be very interested, from a something to argue about point of view, not an 'I must buy this or that lens' point of view, at the DxO lens test results from the 5DSr and how lenses like the 24TS-E MkII and 5DSr compare in resolution to the D810 and PC-E24.

Of course there are some impractical problems with upgrading to the 5ds like storage space, processing power required and filling the buffer but I'm also interested to see how certain lenses stack up on the 5ds/r. I'm already committed to getting one so I'm not so worried about these issues but it might be a consideration for some. Looking at some of the sample images though it's quite obvious that the level of detail that can be captured is quite good. It's going to be a nightmare retouching skin though.

You can get a pretty good idea of what to expect by looking at ordinary but reasonably good Nikon lenses on the D610 and then the D810 there will be considerably better sharpness. However, the tests were done with extreme care, and originally, new procedures had to be adapted to get the potential improvements.

A really sharp Nikon lens like the 85mm f/1.8G gets 19MPX on the 24 MP D610 and 26MPX on the D810. If you put that wonderful Carl Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 on your D610, you would get a nice jump to 23 MPX, but for the money, you could get more for less $$ by upgrading the body to the D810, and getting a huge jump in sharpness with all your lenses.

The reason I'm not thrilled about the 5DS quite yet is the high ISO performance in actual practice is unknown, and because my Nikon D800 performed poorly in low light compared to my Canon bodies.

 

[benperrin]

You can get a pretty good idea of what to expect by looking at ordinary but reasonably good Nikon lenses on the D610 and then the D810 there will be considerably better sharpness. However, the tests were done with extreme care, and originally, new procedures had to be adapted to get the potential improvements.

A really sharp Nikon lens like the 85mm f/1.8G gets 19MPX on the 24 MP D610 and 26MPX on the D810. If you put that wonderful Carl Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 on your D610, you would get a nice jump to 23 MPX, but for the money, you could get more for less $$ by upgrading the body to the D810, and getting a huge jump in sharpness with all your lenses.

The reason I'm not thrilled about the 5DS quite yet is the high ISO performance in actual practice is unknown, and because my Nikon D800 performed poorly in low light compared to my Canon bodies.

Yes, I've seen the comparison charts and realise that there will be a jump in resolution but I was more wondering how Canon's new lenses will perform and wondering if these new lenses designed for high mp cameras will actually end up performing better than the nikon lenses. We won't know for a few months yet but it'll sure be interesting to see all of the testing. I can't justify spending money on a zeiss lens either. No auto focus is an absolute deal breaker for me.

I don't think the high ISO performance is going to be great but most likely it'll be more than fine if you are able to scale your image down. For web I don't think there will be any problems.

 

[takesome1]

The Nikon reference is only because the empirical results support the underlying physics. There is a 1/3 increase in linear resolution between the 5D MkIII and the 5DS, to get that at a stroke is remarkable, to try to get that by upgrading all your lenses is far less practical and much more expensive. On another note, that means that we can make some fairly appropriate predictions on the absolute maximum increase in resolution possible from the new sensors, and it will be a lot less than 1/3 increase over a 5D MkIII.

I will be very interested, from a something to argue about point of view, not an 'I must buy this or that lens' point of view, at the DxO lens test results from the 5DSr and how lenses like the 24TS-E MkII and 5DSr compare in resolution to the D810 and PC-E24.

Of course there are some impractical problems with upgrading to the 5ds like storage space, processing power required and filling the buffer but I'm also interested to see how certain lenses stack up on the 5ds/r. I'm already committed to getting one so I'm not so worried about these issues but it might be a consideration for some. Looking at some of the sample images though it's quite obvious that the level of detail that can be captured is quite good. It's going to be a nightmare retouching skin though.

You can get a pretty good idea of what to expect by looking at ordinary but reasonably good Nikon lenses on the D610 and then the D810 there will be considerably better sharpness. However, the tests were done with extreme care, and originally, new procedures had to be adapted to get the potential improvements.

A really sharp Nikon lens like the 85mm f/1.8G gets 19MPX on the 24 MP D610 and 26MPX on the D810. If you put that wonderful Carl Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 on your D610, you would get a nice jump to 23 MPX, but for the money, you could get more for less $$ by upgrading the body to the D810, and getting a huge jump in sharpness with all your lenses.

The reason I'm not thrilled about the 5DS quite yet is the high ISO performance in actual practice is unknown, and because my Nikon D800 performed poorly in low light compared to my Canon bodies.

Why do we have to look at the Nikon lenses and bodies.

We have the 7D II with the same pixel density. A test similar to the test PBD showed in a different thread where you test both bodies from the exact same distance at the exact same target should give you an idea.
This is more of a real world test, and its with Canon's lenses. I did the exact same tests myself when I first received the 7D II. What I have seen shooting birds and home printed charts is that I am gaining about 15% with the ability to crop or print larger. A bit more if everything is perfect. This is with one of Canon's sharpest lenses, the 500mm F/4 II.

I expect the same improvement with the 5Ds, if it is above that great. I will not be disappointed if I do not see a 1/3 increase or 2x resolution. But I am sure there will be threads on CR about soft versions of the 5Ds.

I would be interested in similar real world tests on the Nikon D810 vs lower mp bodies. How much larger can they print? (not by the numbers by real world experience) How much more can they crop? (again by real world experience)

 

[benperrin]

Why do we have to look at the Nikon lenses and bodies.

We have the 7D II with the same pixel density. A test similar to the test PBD showed in a different thread where you test both bodies from the exact same distance at the exact same target should give you an idea.
This is more of a real world test, and its with Canon's lenses. I did the exact same tests myself when I first received the 7D II. What I have seen shooting birds and home printed charts is that I am gaining about 15% with the ability to crop or print larger. A bit more if everything is perfect. This is with one of Canon's sharpest lenses, the 500mm F/4 II.

I expect the same improvement with the 5Ds, if it is above that great. I will not be disappointed if I do not see a 1/3 increase or 2x resolution. But I am sure there will be threads on CR about soft versions of the 5Ds.

I would be interested in similar real world tests on the Nikon D810 vs lower mp bodies. How much larger can they print? (not by the numbers by real world experience) How much more can they crop? (again by real world experience)

The Nikon figures are just there for the real world high vs low mp comparisons. As of yet we can't say that a full frame 5ds/r is going to perform the same as a crop sensor 7d2. Not only that but the 5dsr includes a low pass cancellation filter that will change the results anyway. We'll all just have to wait for the real world tests of the 5dsr to find out.

 

[bitm2007]

I believe the interviews mentions L series lens introduced since 2010 were designed for high MP cameras. Until some form of official list is produced you might view DPReview's lens list sorted chronologically to get an idea.
http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/lenses?subcategoryId=lenses&sort=Chronological&view=Grid

I'm been considering replacing my 24-105mm f4 (2005) with the 24-70mm f4 (2012). Reviews however suggest that the resolution benefits would be minimal, can anybody who's had real world experience of both lenses confirm that this is a worth while upgrade ?.

 

[e17paul]

I believe it was mentioned previously that lenses introduced since 2010 were designed for higher resolution sensors. This doesn't include any of your current lenses.

Many of the L zooms were updated/released since 2010 (8-15L, 16-35/4L, 24-70Ls, 70-200L, 70-300L, 100-400L, 200-400L) and some of the non-L primes were recently updated with IS (24, 28, 35). All of the great whites have been updated: 600/4L II, 500/4L II, 400/2.8L II, 300/2.8L II, 400/4L DO II.

The L primes have not been updated since before 2010, including 14/2.8L II, 24/1.4L II, 35/1.4L, 50/1.2L, 85/1.2L II, 100/2.8L, 135/2L, 200/2L and all four TSEs. It's unclear how these will perform on the 5DS/R.

It will be interesting to see if/when TDP and the others add the 5DS/R to their repertoire. Its a lot of lenses to crank through.

If Canon are true to their word we can expect a whole series of L primes, but how many years will it take to crank through all the primes? Zooms seem to be pretty well covered already with only the 16-35/2.8L, 17-40L and 3 of the 70-200s predating 2010.

I'm relieved that I chose a 70-300L over a 70-200/4L IS or original 100-400L, but that was more luck than judgement. On the other hand, if I had known that the 100-400L II was coming...

 

[LonelyBoy]

I'm relieved that I chose a 70-300L over a 70-200/4L IS or original 100-400L, but that was more luck than judgement. On the other hand, if I had known that the 100-400L II was coming...

I've been keeping an eye out for a good deal on a 70-300L; what are you so happy about with it? Just looking for more confirmation of whether it's the right way to go.

 

[NancyP]

70-300L is shorter, fatter, and a bit heavier than the 70-200 f/4L IS. The feel is different. The 70-300L fits into most small bags better (on end instead of lengthwise). Also, 70-300L does not take Canon teleconverters , at least without inserting an extension tube between the teleconverter and the lens. The 70-200 f/4L IS does take Canon teleconverters.

 

[Loswr]

I've been keeping an eye out for a good deal on a 70-300L; what are you so happy about with it? Just looking for more confirmation of whether it's the right way to go.

I really like it as a travel lens because it fits 'vertically' in my photo backpacks, whereas the 70-200/4 would need to lay flat and take up two slots. It's smaller and lighter than my 70-200/2.8 II, and the extra 100mm comes in handy.

 

[CaptureWhatYouSee]

I've been keeping an eye out for a good deal on a 70-300L; what are you so happy about with it? Just looking for more confirmation of whether it's the right way to go.

I really like it as a travel lens because it fits 'vertically' in my photo backpacks, whereas the 70-200/4 would need to lay flat and take up two slots. It's smaller and lighter than my 70-200/2.8 II, and the extra 100mm comes in handy.

I concur.
It's about the maximum dimension and weight that qualifies itself to be called a "travel lens". Excellent IQ.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

I believe the interviews mentions L series lens introduced since 2010 were designed for high MP cameras. Until some form of official list is produced you might view DPReview's lens list sorted chronologically to get an idea.
http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/lenses?subcategoryId=lenses&sort=Chronological&view=Grid

I'm been considering replacing my 24-105mm f4 (2005) with the 24-70mm f4 (2012). Reviews however suggest that the resolution benefits would be minimal, can anybody who's had real world experience of both lenses confirm that this is a worth while upgrade ?.

I have both.

I would say that if you mostly shoot at the extremes (24mm or 70mm), then yes, you will see an improvement. In my experience, the improvement is not a huge one, but then it's likely I have one of the better copies of the 24-105. However, if you shoot in the middle (35-50mm), the improvement is minimal or nonexistent - and in some cases, is even a step backward.

Just like with the 24-105, I've found the 24-70 to be a lens of compromises. It just depends on which ones you're willing to make, that's all. If you like to shoot close-ups, the 24-70 gets the nod, although sharpness-wise it's not even in the same ballpark as my 100L. But it can get significantly closer to stuff than the 24-105, and that may matter to some. It's a good bit smaller, too. And to relate this back to the topic of the thread, with a 5DS you could even get the "reach" of the 24-105 back by using the 1.6x crop feature at 70mm. Of course, what doesn't come back is the increased background separation of 105mm f4...

 

[LonelyBoy]

70-300L is shorter, fatter, and a bit heavier than the 70-200 f/4L IS. The feel is different. The 70-300L fits into most small bags better (on end instead of lengthwise). Also, 70-300L does not take Canon teleconverters , at least without inserting an extension tube between the teleconverter and the lens. The 70-200 f/4L IS does take Canon teleconverters.

Thanks to all for the feedback! My (tentative) decision towards the 70-300 vs 70-200/4IS was that, even though the -300 can't take an extender... it seems close to being a -200 with an extender built-in, for cheaper than the combination, and no need to deal with the extender itself. Is that accurate?

 

[tron]

70-300L is shorter, fatter, and a bit heavier than the 70-200 f/4L IS. The feel is different. The 70-300L fits into most small bags better (on end instead of lengthwise). Also, 70-300L does not take Canon teleconverters , at least without inserting an extension tube between the teleconverter and the lens. The 70-200 f/4L IS does take Canon teleconverters.

Thanks to all for the feedback! My (tentative) decision towards the 70-300 vs 70-200/4IS was that, even though the -300 can't take an extender... it seems close to being a -200 with an extender built-in, for cheaper than the combination, and no need to deal with the extender itself. Is that accurate?

The thought that 70-300L should behave better than 70-200 4L IS at 50Mp is naive to say the least (I am referring to 70-200 range only, if someone needs the 200-300 too it may be different).

Has Canon ever said that?

I chose 60D at TDP site as a camera that has high pixel density.

The tests at 70 and 200mm prove the opossite. 70-200 4 L IS better than 70-300L at 70-200 range.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=736&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=738&Sample=0&SampleComp=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

 

[LonelyBoy]

The thought that 70-300L should behave better than 70-200 4L IS at 50Mp is naive to say the least (I am referring to 70-20 range only, if someone needs the 200-300 too it may be different).

Has Canon ever said that?

I chose 60D at TDP site as a camera that has high pixel density.

The tests at 70 and 200mm prove the opossite. 70-200 4 L IS better than 70-300L at 70-200 range.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=736&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=738&Sample=0&SampleComp=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

I... wasn't talking about the 5DS/r, with my comment - it was specific for my uses, which is currently SL1 and also a 5D3 if the prices keep dropping. I do appreciate that comparison - it's worse than I thought, which causes me to reconsider, though it isn't awful (and the -200/4 with the 1.4x is quite worse than the -300 at 300, which was one of my points - if you need to go above 200mm, you have to add the price of an extender, and then futz with adding and removing it).

Hrm.

 

[tron]

The thought that 70-300L should behave better than 70-200 4L IS at 50Mp is naive to say the least (I am referring to 70-20 range only, if someone needs the 200-300 too it may be different).

Has Canon ever said that?

I chose 60D at TDP site as a camera that has high pixel density.

The tests at 70 and 200mm prove the opossite. 70-200 4 L IS better than 70-300L at 70-200 range.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=736&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=738&Sample=0&SampleComp=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

I... wasn't talking about the 5DS/r, with my comment - it was specific for my uses, which is currently SL1 and also a 5D3 if the prices keep dropping. I do appreciate that comparison - it's worse than I thought, which causes me to reconsider, though it isn't awful (and the -200/4 with the 1.4x is quite worse than the -300 at 300, which was one of my points - if you need to go above 200mm, you have to add the price of an extender, and then futz with adding and removing it).

Hrm.

I completely agree for 200-300 range. It is just that the 70-300L is a little worse than 70-200 4 IS at 70-200 that I was talking about. If they were equal I might consider it too (I do have the 70-200 4 IS and it is very good).

Maybe someone should test 70-300 before they buy it. The reason is that the two rings are reversed (the zoom ring is the outer one!)

I have tried 70-300L once and I was not very much happy about this. The 70-300 can be more compact which is convinient for transfer but is is heavier. The 70-200 4 IS is so light that you can hold 1 5D3 with it with one hand. So there is no real winner for me.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

I found the 70-300 to be an excellent lens on my old 60D. 300 gives you quite a bit of reach, at least for general shooting. 70mm f/4 was a bit weak though. I had the 70-200 f/4 and I found 200mm to be a bit short on occasion so the extra 100mm makes a difference, especially outside.

 

[Random Orbits]

I completely agree for 200-300 range. It is just that the 70-300L is a little worse than 70-200 4 IS at 70-200 that I was talking about. If they were equal I might consider it too (I do have the 70-200 4 IS and it is very good).

Maybe someone should test 70-300 before they buy it. The reason is that the two rings are reversed (the zoom ring is the outer one!)

I have tried 70-300L once and I was not very much happy about this. The 70-300 can be more compact which is convinient for transfer but is is heavier. The 70-200 4 IS is so light that you can hold 1 5D3 with it with one hand. So there is no real winner for me.

Which is why the 70-300L is a good travel lens. It trades a slight loss in IQ (difference is smaller for FF than the for APS-C) for more reach and compactness. It works better than carrying the 70-200 and a 1.4x. The switch of ring locations doesn't bother me much. For those that already have a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, the 70-300L is often a better complement than the 70-200 f/4 IS. For those that don't already have a 70-200, the trade is a slight IQ loss for more range.

 

[LonelyBoy]

I completely agree for 200-300 range. It is just that the 70-300L is a little worse than 70-200 4 IS at 70-200 that I was talking about. If they were equal I might consider it too (I do have the 70-200 4 IS and it is very good).

Maybe someone should test 70-300 before they buy it. The reason is that the two rings are reversed (the zoom ring is the outer one!)

I have tried 70-300L once and I was not very much happy about this. The 70-300 can be more compact which is convinient for transfer but is is heavier. The 70-200 4 IS is so light that you can hold 1 5D3 with it with one hand. So there is no real winner for me.

Yeah, I was surprised how much worse the -300 was in the 70-200 range, especially given how much I like the samples thread for it over on POTN. This has given me food for thought. I'm also very curious about the rumored new 70-300 non-L, non-DO. If it's a 70-300 IS STM, with the optical quality of the other STM lenses, at a price well under the L... that's tempting. Anyway, no need to take this thread further off-topic (though I think it ran its course already, honestly), but thank you very much for the input!

Also, (all used), I think the -300L is cheaper than the -200/4 and 1.4iii, isn't it?

 

[R1-7D]

How well do you all think the current EF 100 f/2.8L macro lens will work?