High quality lenses- affects on Canon DSLR's w/ low pass filter

[ray .]

I've been hesitant (for 7 years!) to try more expensive lenses on my 5D, partially because I've always

wondered if they would be wasted on a body with a low pass filter. Wouldn't something like a Zeiss lens

have more of an effect on a camera like the Nikon D800E in which the blur effect caused by the filter

is negated?

 

TIA

[ray .]

.... More accurately, I should say, the question relates to lenses with <i>high quality optics, or glass...</i>

[brian yarvin]

<p>Ray, I hate to say it, but this sounds like you're overthinking the situation. Rent the highest quality lens you can find and see if it makes a difference. My own 5d's really appreciate the occasional moment with a great lens.</p>

 

[John Crowe]

<p>The best glass always makes a difference, no matter what DSLR, made in the past ten years, that you are putting it on. I made a lot of lens changes back when I had my 6 MP 10D and I could easily tell the difference. Yes, those same lenses create images on my 5D II, that are much more spectacular, but there is nothing wrong with investing in glass first and then upgrading the body when you can. </p>

<p>The primary advantage of the 36 MP bodies like the one you mention, or either of the Nikon or Sony alternatives, is their resolution. A low-pass filter-less body may push the resolution envelope slightly but the trade off may be a bit of disturbing moire. You certainly don't need to wait for a low-pass filter-less body to buy good lenses.</p>

<p>To this day I regret selling my Zeiss 85/1.4 ,that I used on my 10D for a short while. I still don't have a lens that can replicate its imagery for my current 5D II.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>So, for the last 7yrs you've been abusing your 5D by making it put up with poor quality glass?</p>

<p>All I can say is that you've been missing out for all that time... Frankly, even today, the 5D is capable of of producing imagery which is stunningly good, given good hands, and good glass. There are things other cameras can do that it cannot (like shoot higher than ISO3200, or MFA), but making awesome pictures is not one of them. *sigh* Yes, as said above, rent or borrow a high quality lens and you'll instantly see a difference.</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>Hiqh quality doesn't have to mean expensive... try the Canon 40mm pancake lens for example. Or any of Canon's 100mm lenses. Or indeed, some of the cheap but good fixed-focal lenses made by Sigma.</p>

[ray .]

Marcus, I did own a 24 L lens for a few months, and while it may have shown a bit more than the Canon

35mm f/2, and 28mm 2.8 I own, the difference was if anything subtle, not mind blowing. I know that given

a reasonably decent lens, light on the subject and exposure are more important than anything else as far

as image quality, to the point that small improvements in optics (Canon lenses vs Canon L lenses)

are clearly of secondary importance.

 

I guess my question is primarily focused on Zeiss lenses... I'm pretty sure that except for shots at f/1.4, most photographers couldn't tell from looking at a random photo without anything to compare it to- if a photo was taken with a 24mm L series or the cheaper version Canon 24mm lens. I'd assume that would hold for the 35mm L and 35mm f/2

as well.

[golem_bngolem]

<p>` <br>

<br>

Main ingredients of high quality imagery: <br>

f:8 and be there.<br>

<br>

BTW, do you bring a heavy tripod every time you need<br>

top quality to the Nth degree ? I mean one that weighs<br>

several pounds or more ? You do ? OK, maybe you'd<br>

benefit from getting rid of the AA filter glass. Get you<br>

an 810E and have at it. OW STFU re: IQ. <br>

</p>

[ray .]

Difference in sharpness between an AA filtered camera and one without one is visible without use of a

tripod. I know this from experience. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. <p>

 

<i>"STFU"</i><p>

 

Care to spell that out?<p>

[golem_bngolem]

<p>` <br>

<br>

I tend to believe you already can spell that out<br>

on your own, but that would entirely alter the<br>

intensity/tone of my remark ... converting from<br>

'snarky re: IQ' to 'really offensive re: IQ-and-<br>

much-else'. <br>

<br>

Other than clearing *that* up, I spoze there is<br>

less need of sooper triprods now that we have<br>

image stabilization, but having made my living<br>

for decades with everything from 35 to 8x10, I<br>

know you can see technically better images by<br>

deploying improved technology as it develops,<br>

but thaz about pixel peeping [in current jargon].<br>

The visual impression of clarity and sharpness<br>

is, however, not really tightly bound to using all<br>

the latest and finest tech. </p>