Image quality - Primes versus Zoom in L series for 5Dmk2

[tony_leinster]

<p>For landscape I use a 17-40L on my 5D as this gives me a really wide view. There is some work to be done in post production to correct distortion at the 17mm end and some vignetting but these are both pretty easy in DPP or similar. The lens is very sharp, not too heavy and the usual good L build quality.<br /> For the 50mm I would also suggest that you look at the Sigma 50mm f1.4, lots of rave reports about this lens.<br /> Either of the 100mm Canon Macro's are excellent, to be honest I can't see any real difference in test results. You might want to look at a longer focal length on the 5D if you are working with live subjects though. A 150 or 180 would be less intrusive and I think the Sigma 150 is highly rated and not too pricey.<br /> For good reviews and info try "www.slrgear.com/reviews" a good site with no axe to grind.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Another link, for Canon (and compatible) gear:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/</a></p>

[eddes]

<blockquote>

<p>... mostly landscape and some macro) presented mainly on stretched canvas...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know this is not exactly what you asked, but check out the Video journal #19 on <a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/whatsnew/#464">luminous-landscape.com</a> . There is a video article on Andrew Collett<strong> </strong> a photographer who specializes in landscapes on canvas. Could be interesting for you.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I guess that it has been said, but all lenses have a sweet spot in terms of aperture. Even the two EF 1.2 lenses that Canon makes are not known for being typically useful at 1.2. Their sweet spots are likely going to be when they are stopped down at least a little (if too much, what is the point of paying for all that extra glass?). I can vouch for that for the 85 1.2, but I have never tried the 50 1.2. The 85 is indeed good, but I rarely used it at 1.2. Of course, for landscapes that is not a lens that you would be considering.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>For two years after I bought the 5D in 2006, I had only two EF lenses, both zooms: the 24-70 2.8 (not an L lens but very, very good) and the 70-200 2.8L IS. It is amazing what I was able to shoot with those two. (I also used the 5D with some MF Nikkors with adapters. One was a used Nikkor 600 4.0, which would have cost me four or five times more had I had the AF version.) </p>

<p>Really quality zooms can give very, very good results. I really do like the 24 1.4 prime, though, even though I do have some wide angle zooms. Wide angle lenses will test FF cameras every time.</p>

<p>If one lens has been my workhorse, it has been the 70-200 2.8 IS. That lens is worth its weight in gold, at least for my (non-commercial) purposes.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[marty_schoo]

<p>Thanks for all your responses. It is slowly helping me make up my mind.</p>

<p>For those that have mentioned that maybe I should stick with the Pentax first, I agree and I am still considering it. But the sigma lenses I have currently, although very useful in their range are limited in their clarity. They are the 17-70 f2.8-4.5 and the 10-20 f4-5.6. To upgrade to primes or better quality zooms in sigma or pentax they are nearly double the price to canon units in some instances. And I believe their clarity will still not be matched by the Canon lenses. Peter J mentioned the price diff between 50mm primes which show the canon to be only slightly cheaper and lower f value but an important point missed here is the 50mm on the pentax will become an 80mm due to the cropped sensor. A 30mm in the pentax quickly becomes double the price once again. This is why I think I will change to Canon 5Dmk2 with a few quality lenses. I think this will help me create better quality prints from the start and help create a good rep.</p>

<p>From your many responses and opinions I think I could initially perform most tasks with just the two lenses. Ironically they are both lenses I didn't initially consider.</p>

<p>The 24-105mm f4L seems to be a favourite of many and most seem very happy with the clarity. Although I sometimes like to shoot wider than 24mm it is certainly wide enough for most situations. Low light situations might be its other downside.</p>

<p>The 50mm f2.5 Macro seems to be growing in popularity too as the standard lens of choice. Good image results and clarity along with the bonus of macro. I like the idea of stitching to create panoramic and wide angle shots too. Macro isn't a huge part of my work but it will certainly do the job initially. I can always bring in a 100mm in to the picture in future if I require it. In future if I find the need I could add a 20mm prime to cover the wider angles.</p>

<p>So the 5d mk2 with 24-105 f4 and 50 f2.5 macro seems a good option as an initial setup.</p>

<p>If anyone wants to add anything further feel free. I appreciate all the feedback.</p>

<p>Cheers Marty</p>

[bkpix]

<p>I'm not denigrating Canon, but it's an expensive proposition that you're considering.</p>

<p>Current B&H prices:</p>

<p>Canon:<br>

5d2 + 24-105/4IS $3,500<br>

50/2.5 $260</p>

<p>Total $3,760</p>

<p>Pentax </p>

<p>16-50/2.8 $745<br>

50-135/2.8 $820<br>

35 macro $540</p>

<p>Total $2,085</p>

You pay $1,700 more to end up with a slower (f/4 as opposed to f/2.8) system. All three Pentax lenses are superb and will match Canon in quality. The two Pentax zooms are also weather sealed, so you can play in the rain and dust.

 

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The value of the upgrade depends a lot on what you shoot and what you do with the photos. Faster lenses may or may not be "better." Maximum aperture is not the only criterion worth considering in a lens - others include resolutions, flexibility, build, focal length range, IS or not, price, bulk, weight, and so forth. When you run the comparison between cameras, also consider that formats are not the same. If you need (or believe you need) FF then comparisons to non FF bodies are not that meaningful. If you would consider moving to a smaller format then the Canon cropped sensor options are worth pricing.</p>

<p>Speaking for myself, a 50mm prime would not be the first lens I would get after acquiring a 24-105 for the FF Canon body. (YMMV, of course.) The 24-105 is actually capable of producing very sharp images and your consideration of a f/2.5 prime suggests that this is more your concern that large aperture. Think about perhaps holding off on the prime at first if you do get the 5D2 plus 24-105. Shoot the combo a bit and see what you really do end up missing the most. It might be a prime, but it also might be wider and/or longer FLs.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[marty_schoo]

<p>Thanks Bob,</p>

<p>Thats helpful information about the pentax lenses. I'll look into them and do a little more homework on them. How does the quality of these lenses compare to the lenses I have now? (mentioned above)</p>

<p> </p>

[marty_schoo]

<p>Hi G Dan,</p>

<p>I haven't necessarily decide on the 24-105 I may even go with just the prime first to see what I can achieve with that.</p>

<p>Also the main reason I really wanted to go FF is for the better resolution at very large print sizes. The 5D2 has other features like excellent low light capabilities and HD vid that I will find useful too. So yes, I think i need FF, and I think it will help me in the coming years devlop better quality imagery. I may be wrong though and I'm open to suggestions.</p>

<p>With my current setup I can't achieve the resolution I would like. I'm open to other suggestion to achieving this.</p>

<p> </p>

[bkpix]

<p>Marty,<br>

I haven't used your Sigma lenses. But I shoot both with Canon L glass and with Pentax, and see no practical difference in quality between the two brands' top lenses. The main differences between the two systems are that Canon has far superior autofocus speed and a much bigger long-lens lineup. These aren't too important for landscape photography. Pentax has more features for the money and a lovely line of sharp, small primes that no other manufacturer can equal.<br>

Eric had good advice, above. Printing on canvas will tend to degrade the resolution of your prints, making lens selection less critical anyway.<br>

If you go for Canon, realize that many of the less expensive non-L lenses are just as sharp as their ritzy L cousins. The difference is usually in maximum aperture and ruggedness.<br>

Good luck with your choice.</p>

<p>Bob</p>

<p> </p>

[marty_schoo]

<p>Bob thanks again,</p>

<p>I'll post a question in Pentax forum on recommendations on pentax primes and then I've done all my homework.</p>

<p>Except... now others have recommened the Sony A850 FF too. It just gets more confusing again. Anyone have experience with the FF sony's?</p>

[john_flores2]

<p>Hey Marty,<br>

I don't mean any disrespect, but your question about bokeh suggests that you're pretty new to photography. Before you go and drop some serious $$$ on some new glass or switching to a new system, can we review and make sure that you have some of the basics covered?</p>

<ul>

<li>Are you shooting when the light is good? midday haze is not good</li>

<li>Are you stopping down your lenses? The Sigma 10-20 can be soft wide open, but like most lenses, gets sharper when stopped down. It's a different lens at F11 than at F4.</li>

<li>Are you supporting your camera? A good, stable tripod can help a bunch. The K20d also performs a mirror lock-up on any timed shutter release 2 seconds and longer to help control vibration.</li>

<li>Do you have any cheap UV filters in the way? For the ultimate in sharpness, remove any extra glass.</li>

<li>there are probably more tips that dedicated landscape and macro photographers can provide...</li>

</ul>

<p>I've owned the K20d and the Sigma 10-20 but never used them together. They are both capable of very good images. And as another mentioned, it sounds like the "resolution" of the canvas may be the greatest limiting factor after your own skills.<br>

Forgive me if you know all of this, I just want to make sure. Better equipment can only help so much.</p>

[john_flores2]

<p>Hey Marty,<br>

Quick follow-up....I just looked at your portfolio. Resolution is low so I can't say much about sharpness. But you have some nice shots there - good composition and good light. Good luck in whatever direction you choose.</p>

[marty_schoo]

<p>Thanks for your feedback John. No offence taken. I am aware of all points you have made. The main point you made that I have been guilty of being lazy on in the past is the tripod but use it religeously now. I probably should use UV filters to help protect my lenses but actually don't use any and take extra care with them. As for Bokeh, yeah its a term I've never encounted. Maybe due to being self taught and enjoying mainly landcsape work I haven't encounter it.</p>

<p>I recently took some low light shots in rock caves with only reflected natural light (off other rock) entering and the effects were amazing. Apperture around 9 to 11 with exposures of around 1-4 seconds on a heavy tripod with 2 second time delay. Now that you've mentioned it though I didn't use the mirror lock up feature. The shots turned out well on display and overall I'm happy with the shots but once put on computer screen again the detail is just not there once zoomed right in at actual size. It would be fine for say A3 print but not larger.</p>

<p>I guess this is what I'm trying to remedy. So if it means getting a pin sharp 35 or 50mm prime and stitching then this is what I may have to do. I'm open to suggestions, hence the thread.</p>

<p>Again I appreciate the feedback and opinions. Thanks</p>

[john_flores2]

<p>Hey Marty, definitely try 2 second timer with mirror lock up. The timer also turns off Shake Reduction, which is recommended when you are using a tripod.<br>

Come to think of it, Shake Reduction with a tripod may be the source of your lack of sharpness. I've stitched 360 degree handheld panoramics with a kit lens and a 6Mp Nikon D70. They were pretty sharp. The K20d plus your Sigma lenses should be even sharper.<br>

Also, if you are shooting RAW, understand that unlike JPEGS no sharpening has been applied. So a little sharpening is PP can help a lot.<br>

Good luck!</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Wow. How large <em>are</em> you printing? I have not problem producing very sharp images for print at 24" x 36" from the 5D2 with L zooms. I work carefully, virtually always use a tripod, MLU/live view, and a remote release.</p>

<p>If you are <em>regularly</em> printing <em>larger than that</em> with photographic (rather than, say, poster) quality then you may need to think about a different format than full-frame DSLR.</p>

[marty_schoo]

<p>Ok, I have decided.</p>

<p>Firstly thankyou everyone for your input. A discussion like this is always helpful when you have no one else to speak to about it, (ie where I live).</p>

<p>I've decided to stick it out with my k20D and get a sharp, fast prime and stitch.</p>

<p>I now just have to decide which lens or two it is that will be best for me. The pentax forum is already helping me here to in leaps and bounds.</p>

<p>That coupled with mirror lock up hopefully I can achieve wonderful things.</p>

<p>Cheers, Marty</p>

[dogbert]

<p>Both landscapes and macro are shot at small apertures using a tripod. Fast lenses have no real advantage for such subjects and only add to cost. Canon f4 L zooms and a basic macro lens will have all the resolution you need for this.<br>

The slight sharpness advanatage of primes becomes even more questionable if you regularly have to crop pictures to correct framing. That is, the framing advantage of a zoom can easily trump the sharpness advantage of a prime in practice.<br>

You are intending to printing on canvas which is much more suited to low resolution than high resolution images. 6-10 megapixels is more than enough for large canvas prints.</p>