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



## pulseimages (Feb 7, 2015)

I know Canon has stated that the 24-70 f/2.8 L II and 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II lens are optimized for the new 50 megapixel sensor in the 5DS/5DSR camera but what other existing 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?

I currently own the following lenses:

1) Canon EF 17-40 f/4 L USM
2) Canon EF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM
3) Canon EF 85 1.8 USM
4) Canon EF 100 2.8 Macro USM
5) Canon EF 70-200 2.8 L USM

Will my present glass be able to handle this new sensor or will I have to upgrade some of them?


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 7, 2015)

pulseimages said:


> I know Canon has stated that the 24-70 f/2.8 L II and 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II lens are optimized for the new 50 megapixel sensor in the 5DS/5DSR camera but what other existing 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?



Look at the d800 reviews from back then - most existing lenses don't make sense for 36mp, never mind 50mp. All your lenses are a previous generation and the 5ds would be wasted with them.

If you want to look for yourself, go to tdp's lens comparison tool and look at how sharp they are vs. top-rated primes or at least the 24-70L2: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx



te1973 said:


> Second you can convert the mount from EF to 5Ds/R BUT approx. every second pixel will then be black since
> the lenses are designed for exactly 24MPix.



Ugh? Who? What? The 5ds has a new mount? 24mp?? Every other pixel black???


----------



## dcm (Feb 7, 2015)

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


----------



## msatter (Feb 7, 2015)

te1973 said:


> Sorry to say, but none of the listed lenses will work.
> First of all you need the new 5Ds/R lens mount which these lenses lack of.
> 
> Second you can convert the mount from EF to 5Ds/R BUT approx. every second pixel will then be black since
> ...


Probably this person uses the wrong convertor to this reality.


----------



## bholliman (Feb 8, 2015)

dcm said:


> 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



Yes, lenses introduced since 2010. I do not think any of the lenses listed meet this criteria.

Note: the first response is either a bad joke or somebody who has no idea what they are talking about. The new cameras have an EF mount.


----------



## DominoDude (Feb 8, 2015)

It's not like they designed these new bodies to demand new lenses. I would guess that for most users they'll do pretty fine with what they have right now. If you're still in doubt, figure out which of your lenses that's the worst, and find a way to test it on one of these new bodies. If the result suck, upgrade that lens and go on to testing the next lens in line.
If, on the other hand, the first test goes fine, then you know the rest of them will be good. Trust your own judgment.


----------



## Finn M (Mar 9, 2015)

pulseimages said:


> I know Canon has stated that the 24-70 f/2.8 L II and 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II lens are optimized for the new 50 megapixel sensor in the 5DS/5DSR camera but what other existing 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?
> 
> I currently own the following lenses:
> 
> ...



Which camera do you own? If you ever have tried the 17-40/4L on a Canon full format camera with 20-22Mpix sensor like 6D/5DII/5DIII you may already have noticed that the lens just isn't sharp enough even on this sensor.

My advice: start by upgrading your lenses and buy the 5Ds camera afterwards. Your first move will be to sell the 17-40/4L and buy the brilliant 16-35/4L IS.
IS is an even more important factor with a 50Mpix sensor, if you don't want to drag a tripod with you everywhere of course.... The best is to use faster shutter speeds, but that isn't always possible. That's why I advice you to upgrade both your macro and 70-200mm to the IS versions which also are sharper.

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.


----------



## dcm (Mar 9, 2015)

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.


----------



## Laktibrada (Mar 9, 2015)

Finn M said:


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


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 9, 2015)

All your lenses will work well with the new cameras 5DS / 5DSR.
The correct question should be:

You will see a big improvement in sharpness when you change your 5D Mark iii the new 5DS?

While appear not controlled tests, my answer would be:

17-40 L - will look blurry when viewed at 100%.
24-105 L - will look blurry when viewed at 100%.
85mm F1.8 - F2.8 will have good images and great images in F4.
100mm 2.8 Macro - have good images at F2.8 and great images in F4.
70-200 2.8 L - will have good images in F4 and great images in F5.6.

Tips to enjoy the capacity of sharpness with Canon 5DS / 5DSR:

Change your 17-40 by 16-35 F4 IS
Change your 24-105 by 24-70 F2.8 ii, or 24-70 F4 IS
Change your 70-200 by 70-200 F2.8 IS ii


----------



## Haydn1971 (Mar 9, 2015)

Finn M said:


> 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.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 9, 2015)

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.


----------



## TeT (Mar 9, 2015)

I would love to see comparison pictures using the new 5DS/R v 5DIII or 6D with either a 24 105 or 17 40 (as well as some of the upper echelon lenses, primes etc...) of an image from 10' to 15' of a busy subject with crisp lines....


----------



## benperrin (Mar 9, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> All your lenses will produce better resolution on a higher MP sensor.
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=25215.msg498253#msg498253
> 
> ...



This. Also the 17-40 will work just fine. As a previous owner of the 17-40 and a current owner of the 16-35 IS I can say that the main difference is the corners. The copy of the 17-40 I had was quite sharp and will perform well on a 5DS/R. The 24-105 is pure garbage though in comparison to the 24-70 II. Once again I own both and can tell you that the 24-70 II is an amazingly sharp lens. Of course the price difference between the 2 is substantial so it may not be worth the upgrade for you.


----------



## geekpower (Mar 10, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


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



All of that.

And this: lenses are analog. They can neither out perform nor under perform a digital sensor. The sensor simply does the best job it can at digitizing the light it receives through the lens. If a lens puts out a blurry line, a higher resolution sensor will do a better job of digitizing it than a lower res sensor, with less aliasing, and a smoother transition, that when zoomed out (not pixel peeped) will look sharper than before.

In the audio world, nobody tosses their old analog synths because the latest high sample rate AD converters are too good and it make them sound bad!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 10, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


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



+1

Any lens can produce better images, and the high end lenses that cost $$$$ and up provide better images at wide apertures.

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

The biggest factor toward getting high resolution will as always be the photographer. Those who are very careful and understand the techniques to get high resolution might even do it with a Coke bottle ;D

Don't obsess over lenses, like others, I like fine tools and that includes fine lenses, but they will all do just fine.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Mar 10, 2015)

Borrow a 7D-II or a 70D from a friend and use your lenses to shoot some static scenes at low ISO and with good light. The reason to use these 20MP APS-C bodies is because they have roughly the same pixel pitch as the 5Ds/R cameras. If you are happy with the detail that your lenses deliver on these high-res APS-C cameras then your lenses will perform adequately for you on the 5Ds/R cameras. If you feel detail (and other aspects of images quality) are degraded too much compared to your current camera setup then perhaps consider upgrading the relevant lens(es).


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2015)

And doing that will tell you nothing about the extra 160% of sensor area that a FF sensor will cover, and that tends to be the worst performing section of the image circle for lenses.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Mar 10, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> And doing that will tell you nothing about the extra 160% of sensor area that a FF sensor will cover, and that tends to be the worst performing section of the image circle for lenses.


Thanks for bringing up that point I should have mentioned it as well, although I would think that APS-C gives you enough center weighted info to make a decision since lens performance is logged radially.

To start, if the best performing section is not good enough then surely the worse performing areas will be inadequate. Also some basic geometry will show how large areas of the "missing" part of the full frame sensor will perform (see attached). 

The truly missing portion turns out to be about 21% of the full frame area. For some people this corner area will be critical for others not. Those for whom the corner performance is really critical would likely have the best lens(es) available already in their camera bags.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2015)

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!


----------



## jcarapet (Mar 10, 2015)

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 (Mar 10, 2015)

Finn M said:


> I will recommend these zoom lenses:
> 16-35/4L IS
> 24-70/2,8L II
> 70-200/2,8L IS II
> ...


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


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 10, 2015)

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 (Mar 10, 2015)

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 (Mar 10, 2015)

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 (Mar 10, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


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



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 (Mar 10, 2015)

Laktibrada said:


> Finn M said:
> 
> 
> > pulseimages said:
> ...


----------



## Finn M (Mar 10, 2015)

Haydn1971 said:


> Finn M said:
> 
> 
> > Said lots of generic review site tosh
> ...



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 (Mar 10, 2015)

Finn M said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > All your lenses will produce better resolution on a higher MP sensor.
> ...



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 (Mar 10, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> 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 (Mar 10, 2015)

Finn M said:


> Haydn1971 said:
> 
> 
> > Finn M said:
> ...



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 (Mar 10, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Finn M said:
> 
> 
> > Haydn1971 said:
> ...


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 (Mar 10, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Finn M said:
> 
> 
> > Haydn1971 said:
> ...



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 (Mar 10, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Finn M said:
> ...



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 (Mar 10, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



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 (Mar 10, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> 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.
> ...



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 (Mar 10, 2015)

Finn M said:


> 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.....
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 10, 2015)

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 (Mar 10, 2015)

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 (Mar 10, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> 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. :-[


----------



## jrista (Mar 10, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


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




Well, not often that you and I agree, but: +10,000,000,000.  Couldn't have said it better.


----------



## jrista (Mar 10, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Finn M said:
> 
> 
> > This just isn't true.
> ...




Again, fully agree. Simple matter of physics, Finn. Output resolution is a convolution of all input factors. It's approximated very closely by the RMS formula PBD supplied. As any component of the system improves in resolving power, the output resolution will increase. We aren't even close to the point of diminishing returns with either lenses or sensors, so the gains with a 5Ds should be more than sufficient for any one of the OP's lenses.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 10, 2015)

Even though I do not like DXO's magic number to be used across brands, you can look at a old and not spectacular lens like their 50mm f/1.8D and view the sharpness, distortion, CA's, etc on various Nikon Cameras. I picked it simply because it was old, and not nearly as sharp as the equivalent "G" model. 

GO to The DXO site http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Ratings

1. Go to the 50mm f/1.8D and start with a D3, then D4, then D800, then D810. As you get to the newer and higher MP cameras, the sharpness figure increases dramatically from 10 MPX to 23 MPX, while all the other measurements for the lens remain the same.


2. Then look at one of the very best lenses, - The Carl Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4. With the D3, it gets a 12MPX Resolution, with a D4, a 15MPX, and a D810, a 33 MPX.

Clearly, you get a lot more resolution for your money by moving from a D3 to a D810 using a lens that cost $134 new, then by keeping your D3 and adding a $4500 lens. That $4500 gets you a 20% gain in resolution while a move to the D810 gets a 230% increase in resolution for less money, and ALL of your lenses will see similar improvements.

So, if Resolution is your goal, spending $3700 on a body will give far better bang for your buck than spending it on just one or two lenses.

If you have the funds, then replacing all your lenses is certainly the way to go, but the gain per $1000 spent is not a lot.

The old Adage carried over from the film days just does not work, investing in expensive lenses but keeping a old body doesn't work(It did work with film cameras).


----------



## PureClassA (Mar 10, 2015)

Spokane,

Agree on all counts. My only concern is what purpose he intends to task a 5Ds with. As we've all noted, it's a highly specialized camera. And while spending the money to buy the new body with greatly boost the yield of his existing glass, the presumable loss suffered at high ISOs may mitigate greatly whatever gains he gets at the low end. So if he wants a general purpose camera (as I suspect most folks do) then spending $3700 on this machine would be ill-advised regardless if he had nothing but a bag of Outses.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 10, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Spokane,
> 
> Agree on all counts. My only concern is what purpose he intends to task a 5Ds with. As we've all noted, it's a highly specialized camera. And while spending the money to buy the new body with greatly boost the yield of his existing glass, the presumable loss suffered at high ISOs may mitigate greatly whatever gains he gets at the low end. So if he wants a general purpose camera (as I suspect most folks do) then spending $3700 on this machine would be ill-advised regardless if he had nothing but a bag of Outses.



I agree on this, and have made similar comments in other posts. For a studio camera, and for a landscape camera at low ISO's it should be very good.

For high ISO, that remains to be seen what the practical limit is. For my D800, it was about 800, and I expect something similar. With my 5D MK III, I use 12800 quite a lot.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 10, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> 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.



The price of a 5DS/5DSr will fund a whole bunch of lens upgrades. The body may be simpler, but you can buy a whole lot of lens for the price of it, and even more so when you sell the old ones.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > 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 despair sometimes. Read the thread including the OP's original question for context then get back to me.

As to your point, presumably the body would be partly funded by the sale of a 5D MkIII, so only the difference between those would be needed. But if you give the context of that comment of mine, it was in response to a comment that suggested it makes sense to spend over $9,000 in lenses, any way you cut it, even selling off the lenses you have, that is strange advice.

Context my friend, keep the context.


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Mar 10, 2015)

TexPhoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



its funny you stated this, I remember when I shot with my 40D on a tour one lens one body, I was shooting on end and even never for once even know that DXO even existed and the notion of the mp sizes on crop vs ff, I just shoot and I was happy as heck, sharpness was beautiful, everything sweet, even when i got my ff body it was still sweet. only recently when I came across some topics with the mp and censor with lens you get different mp sizes. 

Do you think I really care about all of that chatter? At first I thought about it, to be honest, I felt a little sad to see how I was robbed with all the BS, but I think for myself and looked at the hard images that I took with my cameras and ask do these images look like S___ to you? Hell no, a frame is a frame if the sensor is 20 then it's 20 period, if people want to get all technical and geeky over some glass and a computer body, then that's ok. But it will not be a part of my appetite to get carried away with this gimmick.

Life is to short for all that, guess what people, all the images that you took on those older lenses, you should go back and retake all the images you ever took before. I bet that sounds very foolish and ignorant, well this is the same thing I see when all these new stuff being talked about today over newer lenses. L lens 1999-2015 is all make with quality and I dont see any reason to get all worked up over it.

Look at, if you got a huge pockets, upgrade everything dont be cheep in doing so, I know if i was that obsessed over the latest and greatest I would but I am more happier with what I got that brings me closer everyday to preserving time. If i feel the need to change or get something else it will not be because of the latest and greatest, it would be out of need.
I always say there is no such thing as the best lens.
And allot of people are very much falling for it.

You guys got it right indeed, respect to that!!


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 10, 2015)

pulseimages said:


> I know Canon has stated that the 24-70 f/2.8 L II and 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II lens are optimized for the new 50 megapixel sensor in the 5DS/5DSR camera but what other existing 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?
> 
> I currently own the following lenses:
> 
> ...



I am late to the thread, and didn't go through the four pages of post but let me give you the answer to your question and the answer you should have asked for. 

You will see an increase in resolution with your lenses. However:

Glass first.
You will see a greater improvement by applying the $3,600 to a new 70-200MM II, 24-70MM II If you can sell the 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200mm and have enough cash with the $3600 you were debating on spending on the camera, buy the 16-35mm f/4.

Then think about the new body later.

Just my opinion.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> pulseimages said:
> 
> 
> > I know Canon has stated that the 24-70 f/2.8 L II and 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II lens are optimized for the new 50 megapixel sensor in the 5DS/5DSR camera but what other existing 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?
> ...



Maybe you should have read a bit of the thread before making your pronouncement. In the mean time there is a Mt Spokane comment six above yours that rather contradicts your opinion, he has facts and figures to back it up too.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 11, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > pulseimages said:
> ...



I will stick with the pronouncement after reading the entire thread.
Having owned the same lenses (less the 17-40mm) the OP mentions and updating to the current version, knowing what each will do I stick with my suggestion of upgrading the glass first. Even if he can't afford the 5Ds with this path, do the glass first. My answer has nothing to do with the need of upgrading lenses for the 5Ds, it is the path I would take regardless. 

In other threads your posts came across that you didn't see the usefulness (for your self anyway) of the high mp 5Ds. Maybe I miss read or miss understood them. What is your suggestion to the OP for this thread?


----------



## PureClassA (Mar 11, 2015)

To All: 

Again all this debate is purely academic. We have asked, but the OP has yet to reply to any request to get more information about what his specific needs are. Debating glass for a 5DS is a wasted effort for him if he really needs a camera for general purpose shooting. His glass may be spot on for what he needs as well as his camera because we no clue what he is planning to do with them. I dont think we even know what body he is shooting with do we?


----------



## sanj (Mar 11, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> All your lenses will work well with the new cameras 5DS / 5DSR.
> The correct question should be:
> 
> You will see a big improvement in sharpness when you change your 5D Mark iii the new 5DS?
> ...



Wow!! Based on what??


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 11, 2015)

sanj said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > All your lenses will work well with the new cameras 5DS / 5DSR.
> ...


Based on sample tests, like those of TheDigitalPicture, where you see the little sharpness using a 60D camera which has pixel density similar to the new Canon 5DS.

The sharpness in the corners of an image to be much worse than seen in samples 60D, since the lens edges provide image lower than the center.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 11, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> I despair sometimes. Read the thread including the OP's original question for context then get back to me.
> 
> As to your point, presumably the body would be partly funded by the sale of a 5D MkIII, so only the difference between those would be needed. But if you give the context of that comment of mine, it was in response to a comment that suggested it makes sense to spend over $9,000 in lenses, any way you cut it, even selling off the lenses you have, that is strange advice.
> 
> Context my friend, keep the context.



I am so _horribly_ sorry to be the cause of your despair. Rest assured I am suitably chastised.

"Context" can be different from the first post in the thread, and I decide who my friends are for myself.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 11, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> "Context" can be different from the first post in the thread, and I decide who my friends are for myself.



I agree, so why quote me completely out of context? Your comment was directed at mine, meanwhile you completely ignored Mt Spokane's comment that illustrated, quite succinctly, that your opinion is incorrect.

As for the 'friend', sorry, I forgot the italics tags, I will remember to not be so nice in future.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 11, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> I will stick with the pronouncement after reading the entire thread.
> Having owned the same lenses (less the 17-40mm) the OP mentions and updating to the current version, knowing what each will do I stick with my suggestion of upgrading the glass first. Even if he can't afford the 5Ds with this path, do the glass first. My answer has nothing to do with the need of upgrading lenses for the 5Ds, it is the path I would take regardless.
> 
> In other threads your posts came across that you didn't see the usefulness (for your self anyway) of the high mp 5Ds. Maybe I miss read or miss understood them. What is your suggestion to the OP for this thread?



Then your advice, when addressing the specific question the OP asked, flies in the face of empirical testing results done when Nikon upped their sensors from 12-36MP, and the physics.

In these threads I take several tacks, I try to answer the question being the first, and in doing so I often rail against the perceived wisdom, which I think is why I come across as so aggressive, I rarely comment on threads where the answer has been given but more often where I believe answers are mistaken or wrong, I hate bad advice. 

As a second tack I try to actually think about what the OP is trying to achieve, they might ask the question 'What is better the 16-35 f2.8 or the 16-35 f4 IS?' I'll then look at what they shoot and try to tell them what I think is best for them and there shooting, in doing so one doesn't necessarily answer the OP's original question, it goes to the heart of the question not the letter and suggest what is probably best for them. To do this a little background is needed, what they shoot, maybe a link to some images, bodies they use and lenses they currently have etc. If an OP doesn't give that kind of background you can't take that tack.

A third route I go is to say what I did and why, and point out the positives and negatives of going that route. This normally requires a bit of engagement with the poster, and again, if there is little or no background it is a difficult tack to take effectively.

In this thread I took the first route. I railed against the ridiculous notion of this or that lens being good enough, without knowing what the OP needs it is impossible to answer! But by looking at simple results from comparable Nikon sensor density tests gives us a very good indicator of what to expect. The physics, though greatly simplified, agrees.

So you then ask what would I advise specifically for the OP in this thread. My answer is that anybody that needs advice on buying a 50MP 135 format body doesn't need one, simple as that. If you need it and are capable of getting good results from it over a 24MP model then you already know that and you already know your output requirements.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 11, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Then your advice, when addressing the specific question the OP asked, flies in the face of empirical testing results done when Nikon upped their sensors from 12-36MP, and the physics.



I thought we were talking Canon lenses and Canon bodies. 
My advice may fly in the face of many things, but it was offered based on personal experience. Tempered with the understanding that we do not have a 5Ds in hand yet to compare.



privatebydesign said:


> So you then ask what would I advise specifically for the OP in this thread. My answer is that *anybody that needs advice on buying a 50MP 135 format body doesn't need one*, simple as that. If you need it and are capable of getting good results from it over a 24MP model then you already know that and you already know your output requirements.



I wouldn't go so far as saying that everyone asking for advice on the 5Ds doesn't need one. They might know they have the need and still want to hear advice and opinions. 

I do not think that was the case here.
My first thought about the OP and the nature of the question is that he did not know if he "needs" a 50mp body. 
We know he the OP offered little information, so I offered generic advice and the upgrade path I would follow.
Which included not initially buying the 50mp body.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 11, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



How many of the $4500 Carl Zeiss Otus lenses can you buy for $3700? A whole bunch of upgrades from a $1000 lens will cost a lot.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 11, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Then your advice, when addressing the specific question the OP asked, flies in the face of empirical testing results done when Nikon upped their sensors from 12-36MP, and the physics.
> ...



That is because you were taking tack two and I was taking tack one. We are actually in agreement on tack two, though as the OP offered so little background and the variants are many I didn't bother going in to each permutation, and so I confined my initial posts to the notion of lenses not being good enough; you just seem reluctant to accept the physics of tack one.

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.


----------



## benperrin (Mar 12, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> 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 (Mar 12, 2015)

benperrin said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Mar 12, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> 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 (Mar 12, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> benperrin said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



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 (Mar 12, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> 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.
> ...



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 (Mar 12, 2015)

dcm said:


> 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 (Mar 12, 2015)

dcm said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 12, 2015)

e17paul said:


> 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 (Mar 13, 2015)

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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 13, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> 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 (Mar 13, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


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


----------



## Act444 (Mar 13, 2015)

bitm2007 said:


> dcm said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (Mar 13, 2015)

NancyP said:


> 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 (Mar 13, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (Mar 13, 2015)

tron said:


> 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... 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 (Mar 13, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > 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).
> ...


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.


----------



## Act444 (Mar 13, 2015)

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 (Mar 13, 2015)

tron said:


> 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 (Mar 13, 2015)

tron said:


> 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 (Mar 13, 2015)

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


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 13, 2015)

R1-7D said:


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


Judging by the performance in the body 60D (similar pixel density), should do well sharp images on the new 5DS.


----------



## sdsr (Mar 14, 2015)

Finn M said:


> 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.....



But all that shows is that D810 + Nikon lens yields less sharp photos than 5DIII + Canon lens (viewed how, though - did you downsize the D810 images to the same resolution as the 5DIII's first?). That may be for reasons that have nothing to do with sensor resolution. Pending the arrival of the new Canon bodies, a more telling comparison is made by mounting Canon lenses on a 36MP sensor and see what happens; you can't do that with a Nikon body, but I've done so frequently during the year I've owned a Sony a7r (much the same sensor as the Nikon's), and while I don't perform tests, the lenses perform at least as well as they did/do on my 5DIII and 6D, and the resolution is obviously better. And you would perhaps be surprised by how well a lot of old manual focus lenses work on such sensors too. (I say something along these lines every time this "will our lenses be up to it" question comes up, so I'm feeling a bit like a stuck record. Maybe privatebydesign's excellent responses will be more effective!)


----------



## KimH (Apr 9, 2015)

Some time ago I took the time to read this article on Limunous Landscape - it helped me find my way thrugh this discussion.

https://luminous-landscape.com/do-sensors-aeoeoutresolveae%C2%9D-lenses/

With some luck (I've never linked before on this site) this link should show the chart of Aperture and SensorSize to find our way through... at least in theory.

https://luminous-landscape.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/TABLA3.jpg


----------



## painya (Apr 9, 2015)

Won't the 70-200 v1 be better? Isn't it sharper on a full frame?


----------



## JoFT (Apr 14, 2015)

It is pretty simple to simulate: Put your lenses on a 70D or 7D2: You can easily see wether the images are sufficient... If yes than the only problem might be in the corners....


----------



## toni999 (Jun 17, 2015)

I own the 5dsr now and the 24-70 L II 2.8.

I'm not impressed by the lense, at 5.6/8 it's "ok".

Follow here to see my updates on lenses for the 5dsr:
http://www.valentino-photography.com/photography-reviews/canon-5dsr/


----------



## tron (Jun 17, 2015)

painya said:


> Won't the 70-200 v1 be better? Isn't it sharper on a full frame?


Where did you read that? The 70-200 IS (v1) is much worse than 70-200 2.8 IS II and 70-200 2.8 (non-IS)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 17, 2015)

tron said:


> painya said:
> 
> 
> > Won't the 70-200 v1 be better? Isn't it sharper on a full frame?
> ...



DxOMark said so. When challenged on that conclusion, they defended it stating there had been no error. A year later they silently updated their measurements of the 70-200 II, which changes the conclusion to agree with what everyone else in the world already knew, that the 70-200 II is clearly better. 

Of course, DxOMark's measurements still show that the 17-40L is sharper than the 16-35/2.8 II with both wide open.  ??? :


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 17, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > painya said:
> ...



I remember the v1 and v2 fiasco. That was one of "the classics." One of my other favorites is the equal scoring of the Canon and Nikon 500mm lenses due to the superior DR of the D800, or how about the nifty fifty being better than the 600mm f/4L II IS. Or wait, there's just too many.


----------

