24-70 f/2.8L on 1Ds III or 5D II, does it cut it?

[evphotography]

<p>Just got the new 5D mark II and was considering the 24-70 f/2.8L lens. But I would like some opinions on how well does the lens perform with a FF 21MP sensor. I Use to use this lens when I was shooting w/5D and it was great, but I can tell already this mark II will really show any flaws of a lens.</p>

[james_glucksman1]

I am quite happy with it.

[sbp]

<p>I use this lens on 1D3 and 1Ds3 bodies. No problems, great IQ.</p>

[gregf]

<p>This is Canon's premier normal range zoom lens, why you would even be concerned that this lens would not be sufficient? If not this lens, then what lens? Seriously, you are not going to find a better zoom lens in this range, so relax and enjoy the new camera and quit pixel peeping.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Absolutely! Will be good for 25 to 30 MP full frame camera. A few years to go yet! DSLRs will plateau at a certain resolution at which point the lenses required become economically unviable. Or, perhaps Canon will eventually come out with an "LL" lens line and market them to the ultra rich at $5000-$20000 a pop (something like what Leica already does). Yes, that would be $5000 for a 28/2.8 or 50/1.4 lens, that sort of thing. Even so the MP limit you can push is not that much higher. That is when full frame medium format will come back into play.</p>

[gregf]

<p>Let me add that film like E100VS is still superior is resolution to digital. Yet we have been shooting the that for over ten year, no one asked then if the film was too good for the lenses. The difference is today, we can blowup, at no cost, out photos (on our monitor) and spend hours disecting them looking for every technical flaw (a flaw that is not visible to most eyes even at 18x24).</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>This sort of question is reasonable, I suppose, but it also seems somewhat odd given that the 1Ds3 has been out and hasn't raised this sort of question, and in light of the fact that the 20+ MP full frame bodies still have lower photosite density sensors than found on cropped sensor cameras.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>The short answer is that it works perfectly well - indeed beuyond going to primes I am unsure how you can improve on the lens. Resolution is not an issue with this lens - if you pixel peep very closely you can occasionally find some examples of CA but so far they have not been visible until you are looking at a pixel level and searching for them - they would have no impact on an image. I have only had the 5D II for 2 weeks but I am happy with all three of my F2.8 Canon zooms on this body - the 16-35 II is clearly the worst but still good.<br>

Since some one brought up the issue of film resolution (and I am a long term film user) the lens is perfect for film use too. In terms of resolution popphoto claims film is 3000 lines compared to 2830 for the 1DsIII and 2820 for the 5DII. I think this understates the resolving power of film as most film will resolve between 60 - 80 lines per mm at low contrast (1.6:1) and 140 - 160 at high contrast (1000:1). If we look at a 36x24mm frame we are in the range of 12 - 24 megapixel equivalent. This is a religiuos issue with a wide range of claims. Ken Rockwell has velvia 50 at 87 Megapixel equivalent but suggests that you really need a 175 Mpixel camera to match it due to the colour response of film http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm<br>

Roger Clark has film at about 16 Megapixels in one of the most scientific tests I have seen which is well worh reading even if you disagree with the conclusions. http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html <br>

From my perspective film produces images as good as the 5DII but if you stay analogue and use wet processing. While digital produces cleaner images film does a better job of colours and fine (low contrast) details. If you move film into the digital realm you definately get a better image from the 5DII than from Fuji Velvia. I scan with the Nikon 5000ED which in theory is a 21.4 Megapixel device and is tested to have much better colour accuracy than any DSLR yet launched (not sure about the MF backs). In practice it delivers results that are more comparable to an 8-12 Megapixel camera than to the 5DII.</p>

<p>I suspect that going much beyond the 21 -24 megapixel limit with 35x24mm sensors and current optical technology will not pring any more advantages. While I do not have the test results for the Canon 24-70 F2.8L most top quality lenses resolve about 120 - 140 lpm at high contrast and about 70 - 90 at low contrast so the sensor which on the 5DII is 156 pixels per mm will resolve about 78 lpm (assuming 2 pixels per line resolved). Since this is the low contrast resolution level of a good lens there is unlikely to be much benefit left in going to sensors much beyond 24 Mpixel. This suggests that MF may yet return - if only I can get (afford) a Digital back for my Fuji GX680 !.</p>

<p>On a subjective note I find the contrast and colour reproduction of the Canon lenses to be more of a limitation than their resolution. My wife's Contax G2 have a quality to the image that I cannot get with my Canon lenses while my Fuji GX680 produces images that are on another level (although it is hardly portable and has painful handling).</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Interesting ideas relative to film. One other thing to consider here - not that film is going to be of interest to most at this point - is the course of your workflow with film.</p>

<p>Digital (whether from a DSLR or scanned film) has some advantages over film-based chemical processes in the post-processing stage that are significant, perhaps <em>extremely</em> significant depending upon how/what you shoot and what you do with the images. To note a few: virtually all post-processing adjustments can be applied selectively to different portions of the image and can be controlled very precisely and consistently; a single initial image can end up as a color or black and white print; etc.</p>

<p>While these options are available in images that began life on film and were then scanned, when you calculate the IQ stuff you really need to measure not the initial capture quality of the film system, but the condition the image is in when it arrives in, say, Photoshop. In the case of film it has passed through an additional scanning stage which cannot be lossless.</p>

<p>Thanks for your thoughtful post.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[nhut-nguyen]

<p>I got this quote directly from Luminous-Landscape's article Canon 50D Milestone written by Harold M. Merklinger.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For those contemplating the purchase of a 5D II, you need not be so concerned. The pixel density that yields 10 megapixels in the 40D would yield about 26 megapixels full frame. So at 21 megapixels, the 5D II is actually more forgiving of lens defects than the 40D.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can read the whole article which was posted recently here. <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/50d.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/50d.shtml</a></p>

[ben_quinn1]

<p>biggest problem is finding a good copy of the 24-70, no joke</p>

[jim_larson1]

<p>If I understand the article correctly. . . .because of the high pixel density, the 50D will show lens warts more readily than any current full frame camera?<br>

Hmmm. Need to think about this.<br>

He also seconds the low opinion of others regarding the 50D high iso performance. . .</p>

[zml]

<p>In terms of pure resolution, in its "sweet spot" (say 30-60mm) the 24-70 is great at f/8 or so. In other focal lengths the corner sharpness and contrast suffer considerably but nothing that intelligent sharpening and some lens aberration correction can't handle. It'll never be as good as pretty much any single-focal length lens offered by Canon at that focal length range but with most zooms one needs to trade performance for convenience. FWIW I use the 24-70 and 24-105 (even less stellar lens that the 24-70) as my "all around lens"on a 1Ds3 and 1Ds2 but I'm always much happier with 100/2.8 Macro or any 80, 50, 35 or 24 mm Canon lens. </p>

[evphotography]

<p>Reason I brought it up is because after testing my Canon 17-40 f/4L outdoors, the results I got were horrible. The right and especially left top corners and I'm not just talking about extreme corners, was terrible soft and all smeared. This was shot on a Gitzo series three CF tripod with mirror lock up at shutter speeds over 200 sec. Shot at apertures f/8-13. 17mm was worst, 21mm improved slightly, 24mm about same as 21mm and 28 probably best of all those focal lengths but in my opinion not nearly good enough. I tried a friends 35mm f/2 and even though it was touch soft in couple of extreme corners at f/5.6-8, it wasn't bad at all and at f/11 overall looked great. After reading a lot of reviews I get the impression that their primes at wide end like 24mm & 28mm don't perform any better than their L zoom lenses in that range, is this true? I just want some good glass to cover from 20-28mm end. I have seen a lot of mixed results on the 16-35L II, saying it isn't any better than 17-40 when stopped down. Do I need to just keep buying lenses until I find a good one?</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>"I just want some good glass to cover from 20-28mm end. I have seen a lot of mixed results on the 16-35L II, saying it isn't any better than 17-40 when stopped down. Do I need to just keep buying lenses until I find a good one?"</p>

<p>Could you share some examples of the bad corner performance you are seeing?</p>

[zml]

<p>Eric - try <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Lens-Reviews.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Lens-Reviews.aspx</a>, pick the 24-70 lens and compare the ISO 12233 crops to other lenses on a FF rig. Very educating... As an aside, in terms of resolution, contrast and color rendition I find all Canon EF primes I use (24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 80/1.8 and 1.2) in the 24-70 range superior to the 24-70 zoom. Yeah, fast primes do have some issues wide open but at f/2.8 all are awesome. Only, you can't zoom the 35/1.4, so if you need too zoom you need a zoom...</p>

[evphotography]

<p>Here is the top left corner, it was the worst of the two. This is very visible at print size as well.</p><div></div>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Eric - you may have a bad copy of the 17-40 F4L. I chose this lens a few years ago over the 16-35 F2.8 MkI and was very hapopy with it. I recently upgraded to the 16-35 F2.8 II which is a slightly better lens but not by much. At F4 it is clearly better at the edge than the 17-40 but did not appear to be visably different from F5.6. The main reasons for my upgrade were to complete my F2.8 set and because i shoot a lot of film still - especially Velvia 50 (at 40ISO) and the extra stop makes a big difference. Unfortunately i sold the 17-40 before I got my 5DII so I am unable to test the lens on the body. The 16-35II is the worst of my F2.8 lenses but still very good. <br>

To Michael's comment on the 24-70 F2.8 mine is generally pretty good - I agree it is better between 30 and 60mm but it is still quite acceptable outside this range. I do notice however that the 70 -200 F2.8 is better at 70mm than the 24-70.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>24-70mm cuts it! This is a full on pro lens, don't even think twice.</p>

 

[marknagel]

<p>If it didn't what's you alternative? The 3rd party's don't compare (owned 4 Tamron 28-75 and a Sigma 24-70, so I have experience). Its the best in that range.</p>

<p>m</p>

[bob_osullivan]

<p>I hate to say it but the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 and 17-35 F2.8 yeild comparable sharpness, color and contrast to the Canon counterparts. And both are under $300. The Canons do have weather ceiling and USM over the Tammys but for my purposes that wasn't enough to justify spending 400% more. I do use primes a lot as well. You might want to try out the Tamrons while you're checking out the Canons.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>I would think personal limitations with respect to vision, interpreting what's before you, snagging nice light, and post-processing skills would have far greater impact towards the success of the resulting photograph.</p>

[marknagel]

<p>Here is what I found:</p>

<p>http://www.nagelhome.com/phototest/Test%20Final.jpg</p>

<p>http://www.nagelhome.com/phototest/Tamron%2028-75%20Test.jpg</p>

<p>Tams were all over the place with AF consistancy and softness between copies. Not to say the Canon isn't, but the couple Canons I tried were about the same in quality.</p>

<p>m</p>

[pkallos]

<p>My 24-70 is noticeably inferior to my 50/1.4 at f/8 for studio work. Maybe I got a bad copy... but I'm not impressed with the lens. If they come out with a new one with IS I'll be switching it out.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>"My 24-70 is noticeably inferior to my 50/1.4 at f/8 for studio work. Maybe I got a bad copy... but I'm not impressed with the lens. If they come out with a new one with IS I'll be switching it out."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, yes, of course. The 50mm f/1.4 lens is among the sharpest optics available when shot at smaller apertures. No zoom is going to match it under those circumstances.</p>

<p>Dan</p>