# Canon Releases Recommended Lenses List for EOS 5DS & EOS 5DS R



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 30, 2015)

```
Canon has released their list of recommended lenses according to The-Digital-Picture.</p>
<p>Notable omissions from the list are the EF 35mm f/1.4L, EF 70-200mm f/4L IS, EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, TS-E 45mm f/2.8 and EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS. Oddly enough, all of these lenses are on the “to-be-replaced” soon list (“soon” is always a relative term with lenses).</p>
<p>A couple of other oddities are the EF 50mm f/1.8 II appearing on the list and not the brand new EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, as well as the EF 50mm f/1.4 making an appearance.</p>
<p><strong>Zoom Lenses</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM</li>
<li>EF 11-24mm f/4L USM</li>
<li>EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM</li>
<li>EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM</li>
<li>EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM</li>
<li>EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM</li>
<li>EF 70-200mm f/4L USM</li>
<li>EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM</li>
<li>EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM</li>
<li>EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM EXTENDER 1.4x</li>
</ul>
<p><!--more--></p>
<p><strong>Wide Angle Primes</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>TS-E 17mm f/4L</li>
<li>TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II</li>
<li>EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM</li>
<li>EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM</li>
<li>EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM</li>
<li>EF 35mm f/2 IS USM</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Standard Primes</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>EF 40mm f/2.8 STM</li>
<li>EF 50mm f/1.2L USM</li>
<li>EF 50mm f/1.4 USM</li>
<li>EF 50mm f/1.8 II</li>
<li>EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Telephoto Primes</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM</li>
<li>EF 85mm f/1.8 USM</li>
<li>TS-E 90mm f/2.8</li>
<li>EF 100mm f/2 USM</li>
<li>EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM</li>
<li>EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM</li>
<li>EF 135mm f/2.0L USM</li>
<li>EF 200mm f/2L II USM</li>
<li>EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM</li>
<li>EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM</li>
<li>EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM</li>
<li>EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM</li>
<li>EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM</li>
<li>EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM</li>
<li>EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM</li>
</ul>
```


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 1, 2015)

Regarding 50mm: EF 50mm f/1.2L USM ... well they don't have much else what they could write : : : even when they presented the pre production 5DsR here they had the Zeiss Otus 55mm and said the 50mm f1,2 L may maybe better suite "another kind of picture style" ... 

Also strange the 35mm f1,4 L is not included ... well maybe a hint production is already over and the new one is coming soon


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 1, 2015)

The exclusion of the 70-200mm f/4L IS is rather surprising.


----------



## Eldar (Jul 1, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> The exclusion of the 70-200mm f/4L IS is rather surprising.


Indeed. That is a very good lens, which should have been on the list, unless there´s som market tactics we don´t know. There were a few (to me) surprise entries as well, but there are a number of these newer primes I have never used, so I do not have a very qualified view.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Jul 1, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> The exclusion of the 70-200mm f/4L IS is rather surprising.



70-200 f/4L IS II Confirmed!!!

j/k... or am I???

Yeah I am.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 1, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> The exclusion of the 70-200mm f/4L IS is rather surprising.



True but also the 180mm Macro ... well maybe they have forgotten they still officially produce that lens however it is still maybe the sharpest in the center beside the Zeiss Otus 55mm and should take great advantage of the added resolution of the 50MP sensor


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Jul 1, 2015)

hehehe seems all my best lens are excluded the 400 5.6l the 70-200 4is I guess I chose unwisely. so I guess I just need to get the 5dmk 3
and let Dilbert mock my choices


----------



## dolina (Jul 1, 2015)

The exclusion of the 70-200mm f/4L IS could be a typo like the existence of a EF 200mm f/2L *II* USM

It appears that the cut off for L lens marketed from 2010 and newer as stated by Mike Burnhill of Canon Europe CPS isnt that true.

Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM, Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM and Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM were marketed in 2008.

These are really old non-L lenses arrange from oldest to newest.

1987 EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro
1990 EF 50mm f/1.8 II 
1991 EF 100mm f/2 USM
1991 TS-E 90mm f/2.8
1992 EF 85mm f/1.8 USM 
1993 EF 50mm f/1.4 USM 
2000 EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM


----------



## Zv (Jul 1, 2015)

50 1.8 II instead of the newer 50 1.8 STM? Doesn't it play nice with the new bodies? Weren't the sample shots done with the STM? 

I don't trust this list ??? (not that I'm gonna be using a 5DS any time soon!)


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 1, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> The exclusion of the 70-200mm f/4L IS is rather surprising.



Especially with the older, inferior, non-IS version on the list. Between that and the 50 STM omission, I'm inclined to think this list is pointless.


----------



## snowphotographer (Jul 1, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> The exclusion of the 70-200mm f/4L IS is rather surprising.



But the sharper 70-200mm f/4 non-IS is on the list. Perhaps it's time for an upgrade of the IS version.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 1, 2015)

snowphotographer said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The exclusion of the 70-200mm f/4L IS is rather surprising.
> ...



Not sure I agree, the IS version is the sharper of the two f/4 lenses.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jul 1, 2015)

So much for my bargain 24-105L I bought in January. Well, I'm happy with my 5D and don't see me upgrading until my photography upgrades, so long live the 24-105L!!!


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Jul 1, 2015)

The 17-40L is not on the list. Given its reputation for softness in the corners, this is not surprising. The 35 1.4 is to be replaced and 400 5.6 possibly will be replaced. What of the 17-40s future?


----------



## risc32 (Jul 1, 2015)

of course it's not going to make any sense. So i take it you guys don't see something that reads like this headline and just assume that a Canon intern was tasked with this? Canon recommended lenses? that's a good one.


----------



## pj1974 (Jul 1, 2015)

An ‘interesting’ list indeed. I do wonder as to the ‘why’ of such a list (is it specifically attempting to address an optimised set of lenses that can resolve the ‘most out of’ 50MP 35mm equivalent sensors”) Or another marketing approach – for the uber-wealthy to attempt to fill their ‘camera room’ with all lenses in that list?

Indeed – there are a number of unusual omissions (or, dare I say it – errors).
That the EF 70-200mm f/4L was included in the list, but not the sharper / better quality EF 70-200mm f/4L IS.
And the 50mm f/1.8 II rather than the 50mm f/1.8 STM (which I own!) How dare they?!

But seriously… I’m glad I own a few of the lenses on this list, including the lovely compact ‘travel telezoom’ 70-300mm IS USM and the trusty 100mm f/2.8 macro (non-IS) – which has great quality and value into a 100mm macro lens. 

Paul


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Jul 1, 2015)

No 16-35 L II must mean Canon knows it really needs an update! Proof the v III lens will be out in the next 6 months, probably with the 1DxII.


----------



## douglaurent (Jul 1, 2015)

I visited a CPS 5Ds presentation event by Canon Germany several month ago, where they did unofficially present a similar but a bit shorter list. The list basically included most that's expensive and new. Not sure, but it feels as if they now added pieces like the 50/1.2 for marketing reasons and to show they have the whole lineup.

More surprisingly, what they also said is they definitely DON'T recommend the use of any extenders, not even the new ones. I asked and they told me that even the 1.4x extender of the 200-400/4 is not recommended for highest resolution and 5Ds use!

I guess depending on the visual subject, and the fact that stopped down at least the centre of most lenses will bring acceptable results among many other factors, i simply would use whatever is there and ignore the list. I tried the latest Tamron 28-300 superzoom on the 5DsR and it worked okay, with the more megapixels definitely being a help for image quality although the glass wasn't the best.

The Canon CPS guy in a personal conversation by the way admitted that the latest Otus and Sigma Art offerings are very well done and usable.


----------



## dufflover (Jul 1, 2015)

I'm not even sure why this list even exists? Is it just trying to peddle lenses to "newbies" a bit like manufacturers putting down "recommended RAM" or "recommended memory cards" for things?

I have a few non-listed lenses that perform pretty well on my crop sensor with a similar pixel density (I get it that edge sharpness is another issue).


----------



## Luds34 (Jul 1, 2015)

dufflover said:


> I'm not even sure why this list even exists? Is it just trying to peddle lenses to "newbies" a bit like manufacturers putting down "recommended RAM" or "recommended memory cards" for things?
> 
> I have a few non-listed lenses that perform pretty well on my crop sensor with a similar pixel density (I get it that edge sharpness is another issue).



Probably should only use Canon filters as well. 

I think the list is fairly arbitrary and is obviously not all lenses above a certain sharpness threshold. Just more typical marketing BS that comes out of certain type of meetings. I've seen plenty of engineers cringe when they see press releases, product announcements, or even spec sheets.


----------



## TeT (Jul 1, 2015)

Eldar said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The exclusion of the 70-200mm f/4L IS is rather surprising....
> ...



That list starts and stops as a marketing tactic....


----------



## gn100 (Jul 1, 2015)

No 65mm macro either?
No 14mm L?

As mentioned above, surprised the 180mm macro isn't on the list. The 35mmL is interesting .... is the new one coming out .... but the 50mm f1.8STM is already out and the old 50f1.8 is on the list. I thought the 400mm f5.6 may have been there too. The 17-40 and 24-105 are probably the worst of the L lenses, so no surprise they are missing. The 70-200mm f4IS ..... I suspect a typo as it's sharper than the older non-IS version. The 16-35mm f 2.8 corners aren't great, but it leaves the list with nothing faster than 2.8 which is wider than 24mm

The 50mmf1.4 when stopped down is optically very good, just lousy wide open, lousy af motor and lousy build quality


----------



## dolina (Jul 1, 2015)

SUNDOG04 said:


> The 17-40L is not on the list. Given its reputation for softness in the corners, this is not surprising. The 35 1.4 is to be replaced and 400 5.6 possibly will be replaced. What of the 17-40s future?



The successor of the 2003 Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM is the 2014 Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM.


----------



## johnctharp (Jul 1, 2015)

Both the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 (all versions) resolve plenty well for the 5Ds cameras at f/5.6.

As to why the 70-200/4L IS, 300/4Ls, and 400/5.6L weren't included, well, that's anyone's guess.


----------



## sanj (Jul 1, 2015)

How do we know Canon made this list? With all due respect to Brian.


----------



## Zeidora (Jul 1, 2015)

gn100 said:


> No 65mm macro either?



Just use any of the many other lenses that can stand in for that old dinosaur. After all, it's not even an AF lens! oh, wait ...


----------



## dolina (Jul 1, 2015)

It appears that the cut off is more like 2008 than 2010 and here are the list of lenses prior to 2008.

2007
Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM 
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM 

2006
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM 
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM 

2005
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM 
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM 

2004
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM 
Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM 

2003
Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM 
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM 

2002
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM 

2001
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM 
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM 

Unlisted by Canon but released after 2008.

2014
Canon EF 24-105mm F3.5-5.6 IS STM 

==========================

Would Canon's recommended lenses for the 5Ds and 5Ds R sway you to buy any of these lenses?

I did a side by side comparison between the 2001 Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and 2010 Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM on two original 7D bodies (during a futbol match, both bodies were reset, had same firmware number and identical Manual settings) and I was impressed enough to get the Series II lens but I still kept the Series I as the offers made wasnt worth selling for.

If Canon were to come out with a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM with IS then I'd be inclined to get one. This could happen as Tamron announced a Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD in 2012.


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (Jul 1, 2015)

SUNDOG04 said:


> The 17-40L is not on the list. Given its reputation for softness in the corners, this is not surprising. The 35 1.4 is to be replaced and 400 5.6 possibly will be replaced. What of the 17-40s future?



I would say that the 16-35mm f/4 IS was a replacement for the 17-40mm


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jul 1, 2015)

Zv said:


> 50 1.8 II instead of the newer 50 1.8 STM? Doesn't it play nice with the new bodies? Weren't the sample shots done with the STM?
> 
> I don't trust this list ??? (not that I'm gonna be using a 5DS any time soon!)


It is actually weird


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 1, 2015)

deleted

EDIT: On second thought, I'd bet that 70-200 f/4 IS thing is just a typo and nothing more


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 1, 2015)

SUNDOG04 said:


> The 17-40L is not on the list. Given its reputation for softness in the corners, this is not surprising. ... What of the 17-40s future?



I assume the 16-35mm f/4 IS USM is the upgrade path for 17-40mm owners, so I would expect the two to be upgraded about the same time, in about a decade.


----------



## JoFT (Jul 1, 2015)

SUNDOG04 said:


> The 17-40L is not on the list. Given its reputation for softness in the corners, this is not surprising. The 35 1.4 is to be replaced and 400 5.6 possibly will be replaced. What of the 17-40s future?




For me the replacement of the 17-40 is the 16-35 f4.0 IS


----------



## Lock5151 (Jul 1, 2015)

What is EF 200mm f/2L II USM, there is no version II on the market, or I am wrong?


----------



## BMLmedia (Jul 1, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> Canon has released their list of recommended lenses according to The-Digital-Picture.</p>
> <p>Notable omissions from the list are the EF 35mm f/1.4L, EF 70-200mm f/4L IS, EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, *TS-E 45mm* f/2.8 and EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS. Oddly enough, all of these lenses are on the “to-be-replaced” soon list (“soon” is always a relative term with lenses).</p>
> <li>TS-E 90mm f/2.8</li>
> </ul>



So it looks like the 45 and 90 TS lenses are not being replaced together.

strikes me that this is a very big list. perhaps there should be two lists:
these lenses will be amazing with this camera
these lenses will achieve reasonable results with this camera

I have primarily used the camera with four lenses, the 24 TS mkii, 17mm ts, 11-24mm and the 55mm Otus. the image quality is outstanding


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 1, 2015)

Actually there was a list like this already in April in Japan in der 5DSR promotional material


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 1, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> No 16-35 L II must mean Canon knows it really needs an update! Proof the v III lens will be out in the next 6 months, probably with the 1DxII.



It was said here in Germany (of course not official) that the 17-40 and 16-35 II are too weak in resolution in the corners for the sensor ... well they also said that the 50mm 1,2 L is kind of a soft lens ... and referred to the very dreamy look as kind of "feature" ... I had the impression they know very well how weak that lens is and just did not want to say that one of their main primes is basically unusable (meaning makes no difference if used on the 5 DsR or 5d MK iii) on the high resolution sensor ... As they had the Otus here (on a more or less official Canon presentation) it really looked like they are a bit puzzled about what to do with the 50mm prime range especially for all the wedding photographers


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 1, 2015)

dolina said:


> It appears that the cut off is more like 2008 than 2010 and here are the list of lenses prior to 2008.
> 
> 2007
> Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM
> ...



A 24-70 f2.8 WITH IS would make much sense for this camera as it would be the basic high quality walk around lens ... IS is important here to really not run into a problem in more difficult light conditions with short exposure times not possible as IS basically let's you get rid of micro shake


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> The absence of the 80/1.8 IS STM has got to be a mis-print... or else someone at Canon should be fired.
> 
> Otherwise, I wonder if the list is determined by autofocus compatibility? i.e. lenses such as the 70-200/f4L IS USM don't have a compatible AF with the 5Ds so they're not listed. Would Canon announce a firmware update if that was the case? Not sure...



Why should the AF not work on the 70-200/f4L IS, but on the non IS version ... Only thing I could imagine is that the old IS versions are not working exactly enough to be sharp with the increased resolution ... 

I just nearly fell of my chair when looking at the performance on TDP of the 200-400 with internal 1,4 Ext in place and that this is actually by far not as sharp as the 100-400 MK II without Ext same with the 400 F2,8 Mk II with external Ext 1,4 in place. 

So it looks that some recommendations are really thoughtful and not marketing only ...


----------



## GuyF (Jul 1, 2015)

I'd have expected maybe one or two older lenses would be fine with the new bodies. Surely the 300mm f2.8 IS mk1 is plenty sharp enough, no? No doubt Canon want to encourage people to upgrade older lenses even if they are still sharp enough.


----------



## GuyF (Jul 1, 2015)

Dilbert,

Fair point. Mind you, third party lenses are reverse engineered whereas Canon surely have the ability to include "full functionality" with the vast majority of their "top" lenses.

Regards.


----------



## dolina (Jul 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Canon's decision making is more like Apple's. From iPhone 4 to iPhone 5, everyone needed to get new cables. When new releases of iOS are released, some old hardware won't work. Apple could make it work with old hardware but there comes a point where supporting old hardware becomes a burden and stops you doing new things. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon was facing a similar issue with some of its lenses.
> 
> Why are Sigma/Tamron different?
> 
> ...


And yet people are _stupid_ enough to buy a Canon much less Apple.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 1, 2015)

Lots of wildly unfounded speculation here, mixed with a healthy dose of misinformation (which is the norm anytime dilbert participates in a discussion).

The list comprises lenses, "...recommended by Canon for *getting the best from* the EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R." How does not being on the list mean 'not compatible with,' which is vastly different?

Lenses since 2008 or 2010? Sorry to smash that theory against the cold, hard rocks of reality but the 70-200mm f/4L is on the list, and it was released in *1999*. Even if that's a typo and they meant the sharper IS version, that's from 2006. 

I hope you enjoyed this factual interlude, we now return you to your regularly scheduled speculation.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 1, 2015)

SUNDOG04 said:


> The 17-40L is not on the list. Given its reputation for softness in the corners, this is not surprising. The 35 1.4 is to be replaced and 400 5.6 possibly will be replaced. What of the 17-40s future?



Wasn't the 17-40L supplanted by the 16-35/4 IS?


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Well regarding my impression with the earlier IS no longer working correctly my idea just comes from the fact that those IS systems must work within certain limits. While left and right plus up and down shake may not be any different on an FF or APS-C sensor, every angular movement is increased as sensor size increases (simple geometric function) ... So my idea was that when those first generation IS systems were designed they maybe had an max sensor of 25-30MP in mind (each pixel is bigger so the limits of the IS are less critical). 
Now the jump from 22.3 to 50.6 is way more, meaning the pixels got smaller than the maximum limits the early IS were designed for on FF ... This is of course just guessing, but would make sense from a logical side as I cannot remember there were any problems or exclusions when the 7d or 7d Mk II ... Remember that this does not mean that there is no IS it just means that for certain types of movement it would no longer work as anticipated ...


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 1, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lots of wildly unfounded speculation here, mixed with a healthy dose of misinformation (which is the norm anytime dilbert participates in a discussion).
> 
> The list comprises lenses, "...recommended by Canon for *getting the best from* the EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R." How does not being on the list mean 'not compatible with,' which is vastly different?
> 
> ...



well maybe the pixel density is above the limit of the IS of the 70-200 f4 IS ... see above. 
You also see they did not include a lot of other IS gen.1 lenses like the 300 f2.8 or 400 f2.8 which certainly have enough resolving power to benefit from the new sensor


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 1, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> You also see they did not include a lot of other IS gen.1 lenses like the 300 f2.8 or 400 f2.8 which certainly have enough resolving power to benefit from the new sensor



On a list such as this, I'd expect Canon to list only current lenses, so I would not conclude anything from the exclusion of the superseded supertele primes.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 1, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > You also see they did not include a lot of other IS gen.1 lenses like the 300 f2.8 or 400 f2.8 which certainly have enough resolving power to benefit from the new sensor
> ...



Well true on the one hand but also not as those lenses are no longer sold anyway ... I personally would think it would have been a good achievement and advertisement for Canon to demonstrate how good these earlier lenses already were and how the EOS system is constantly evolving ... I mean IQ has not so much to do when ppl upgrade the Big Whites ... its more the weight and other technical aspects (better IS) ... which is not that important once you use them on tripods ... 

You may not forget that backwards compabilty is also a sales argument for bodies ... not everyone wants to buy new glass immediately ... especially with these more substantial investments


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> If you can't get 3 or more stops of IS from the lens then maybe the chances of being about to shoot 1/mm and get a sharp image are so slim that Canon doesn't recommend it?



Right, because zero stops of IS gives better control of shake than 2-3 stops. Yes, that totally explains why the 70-200/4 and 200/2.8 lenses which lack IS were omitted from the list, whereas similar focal length zooms/prime with IS are included. 

Oh, wait...we're not in dilbertland. Thank goodness!


----------



## AlanF (Jul 1, 2015)

The same list should apply to the current APS-C cameras because they have either the same size or even small pixels as the 5Ds.

Regarding the use of extenders, 2xTCs lower MTFs by 20% or more and will noticeably spoil performance on APS-C. 1.4xTCs lower only by about 10%, but which may still be noticeable.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 1, 2015)

AlanF said:


> The same list should apply to the current APS-C cameras because they have either the same size or even small pixels as the 5Ds.
> 
> Regarding the use of extenders, 2xTCs lower MTFs by 20% or more and will noticeably spoil performance on APS-C. 1.4xTCs lower only by about 10%, but which may still be noticeable.



Not really as APS-C only use the inner image circle omitting the "bad parts" of a frame and also that guess I had with the angular movement of shake and IS limits would not be so much of a problem for a smaller sized sensor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 1, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 1982chris911 said:
> ...



Can you please point out to me which lenses on the list are no longer sold? Before you answer, consider that this list was posted by Bryan at TDP, meaning it most likely comes from Canon USA. So, have a look at the lens lineup on the Canon USA website and compare that to the 5Ds/R list. After that, you may wish to revise your statement. 




1982chris911 said:


> You may not forget that backwards compabilty is also a sales argument for bodies ... not everyone wants to buy new glass immediately ... especially with these more substantial investments



You should not forget that this list was not compiled by some independent source, it was posted by Canon themselves and it is first and foremost a proposed shopping list.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 1, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> Not really as APS-C only use the inner image circle omitting the "bad parts" of a frame and also that guess I had with the angular movement of shake and IS limits *would not be so much of a problem for a smaller sized sensor*.



In fact, given the narrower AoV of a smaller sensor, an equal amount of angular motion represents a greater proportion of the FoV – in other worse, shake is magnified by a smaller sensor.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 1, 2015)

Are you sure ? I mean if the Sensor is bigger the angular movement for the same angle is more


----------



## Bob Howland (Jul 1, 2015)

The 45 TSE lens isn't on the list?? Given what I would use these bodies for, the 24, 45 and 90 TSE lenses would probably be my most used lenses with them, should I ever buy one.


----------



## dolina (Jul 1, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lenses since 2008 or 2010? Sorry to smash that theory against the cold, hard rocks of reality but the 70-200mm f/4L is on the list, and it was released in *1999*. Even if that's a typo and they meant the sharper IS version, that's from 2006.


LOL I missed that. I dont have either 2006 lenses so didn't "mind" it.


----------



## Pinchers of Peril (Jul 1, 2015)

So I see that the body cap is not included on the list... does that mean these cameras are going to have another light leak issue?


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 1, 2015)

I think some intern typed this up over lunch and everyone's making far too much of it.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 1, 2015)

Pinchers of Peril said:


> So I see that the body cap is not included on the list... does that mean these cameras are going to have another light leak issue?



Well they introduced body cap v2 ... For darker than black ... makes pushing 10 stops of DR possible without losing any detail as the whole picture will still stay at least black if not darker ... ;-)


----------



## dolina (Jul 1, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> well maybe the pixel density is above the limit of the IS of the 70-200 f4 IS ... see above.
> You also see they did not include a lot of other IS gen.1 lenses like the 300 f2.8 or 400 f2.8 which certainly have enough resolving power to benefit from the new sensor



Cut off could also be for lenses that Canon still offers for sale.

The EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM isn't listed for example.

Any which way people will use whatever lens will operate with the body whether Canon recommends it or not.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you sure ? I mean if the Sensor is bigger the angular movement for the same angle is more
> ...



Exactly what I said ... Won't quote myself now


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 1, 2015)

dolina said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > well maybe the pixel density is above the limit of the IS of the 70-200 f4 IS ... see above.
> ...



I don't remember the EF 1200 being a superior design IQ wise ... only its focal length is unique... anyway that lens was never on any official Canon sales list afaik. It was built to order only with waiting times of two years or so


----------



## GuyF (Jul 1, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I hope you enjoyed this factual interlude, we now return you to your regularly scheduled speculation.



Cough, splutter, _facts_?? Whatever made you think we would recognise or accept fact over speculation, hearsay, rumour, misguided opinion and blatant lies? You're on the wrong site if you want to cloud debate with your facts.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > Cut off could also be for lenses that Canon still offers for sale.
> ...



And IS MUST work with all pixels in the frame not only the ones of the APS-C image circle ... otherwise that image would have a hefty sharpness decline towards the border of the frame and I don't mean the already visible imperfections every lens has anyway due to the more extreme bending of light towards the outer edges of the frame ...


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 1, 2015)

kraats said:


> I guess it is time for the canon 24-105 f4 lI is?



It's called 24-70 f4.0 IS ...


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> The increased pixel density might put a higher strain on IS capability in some lenses but then why hasn't this been declared and issue with earlier cameras of similar pixel density?



bc. this is the first 50.6 MP FF sensor ... 

It is very easy to understand if I use a real world example: 

Imagine you are on a little boat - its bow moves up by 5% ... you don't even realize it a lot (that's the APS-C sensor)
Now imagine you are on the Queen Mary 2 ... and again her bow moves up 5% ... now you jump 60ft into the air (that is a really really big sensor) ... 

basically the bigger the boat the bigger the jump ... same goes for sensors and the IS MUST work against this ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 1, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> Are you sure ? I mean if the Sensor is bigger the angular movement for the same angle is more



A 200mm lens has a (diagonal) AoV of 12.3° on FF. If you have a shake of 0.3°, that's 2.4% of your AoV. Put that lens on an APS-C camera, the AoV is 7.7° and the same 0.3° shake is now 3.9% of the AoV. Of course, I'm talking about angular motion in the 'pitch' and 'yaw' axes. 

Your statements and your diagram suggest that you believe Canon's lens-based image stabilization corrects for camera rotation (angular motion in the 'roll' axis, i.e. in the plane of the sensor). Sorry, but you may want to rethink your argument, as it appears to be based on an incorrect assumption.


----------



## dolina (Jul 1, 2015)

Red Glow are lenses from the 80s and 90s. With green glow is from 00's

Zoom Lenses

2011 EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM
2015 EF 11-24mm f/4L USM
2014 EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
2012 EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM
2012 EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM
2010 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
1999 EF 70-200mm f/4L USM <= must be an error, probably be the IS version from 2006
2010 EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM
2014 EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM
2013 EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM EXTENDER 1.4x

Wide Angle Primes

2009 TS-E 17mm f/4L
2009 TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II
2008 EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM
2012 EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM
2012 EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM
2012 EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

Standard Primes

2012 EF 40mm f/2.8 STM
2007 EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
1993 EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
1990 EF 50mm f/1.8 II < must be an error, probably be the STM version from 2015
1987 EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro

Telephoto Primes

2006 EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM
1992 EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
1991 TS-E 90mm f/2.8
1991 EF 100mm f/2 USM
2000 EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
2009 EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
1996 EF 135mm f/2.0L USM
2008 EF 200mm f/2L II USM
1996 EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
2011 EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM
2011 EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM
2015 EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM
2011 EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM
2011 EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM
2008 EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Jul 1, 2015)

I certainly agree with all who said the 16-35 f4 is a replacement for the 17-40.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 1, 2015)

It's amusing that the 16-35 f2.8 L II and 35mm f1.4 L aren't listed and yet pups like the 50mm f1.2 L are. The 24mm f1.4 L II is nearly as sharp as the 35mm f1.4 L so there's no reason the 35 isn't on the list. 
The 50L? Well I could write a book about that lens.
The 16-35IIL was a surprise, it's mostly used for landscapers (generalisation) who stop down to f8-16. It's certainly sharp enough when stopped down!


----------



## deleteme (Jul 1, 2015)

kraats said:


> I guess it is time for the canon 24-105 f4 lI is?



Exactly. Mine is responsible for 80-90% of my work and while it has its strengths absolute sharpness is not among them.

I would love a version inspired by the 24-70 2.8 II.


----------



## deleteme (Jul 1, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> It's amusing that the 16-35 f2.8 L II and 35mm f1.4 L aren't listed and yet pups like the 50mm f1.2 L are. The 24mm f1.4 L II is nearly as sharp as the 35mm f1.4 L so there's no reason the 35 isn't on the list.
> The 50L? Well I could write a book about that lens.
> The 16-35IIL was a surprise, it's mostly used for landscapers (generalisation) who stop down to f8-16. It's certainly sharp enough when stopped down!



I wonder if they are taking into account the current penchant of shooting wide open irrespective of the application?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



And if you then make a same sized reproduction out of the two images the crop camera image, and it's same distance blur, is enlarged 1.6 times as much, so is 1.6 times worse.


----------



## lux (Jul 1, 2015)

At first I saw this and was upset…my 300 2.8 L IS is not on the list…I bought it used of course and in no way could afford a new 300 2.8 L II. I also have a 85 1.2 L (first generation). Then I realized that probably they wouldn't include the lenses that aren't sold on the list and that I should be fine…Then I realized that I wasn't going to be able to afford a 5dS/R anyway and I stopped worrying


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 1, 2015)

lux said:


> At first I saw this and was upset…my 300 2.8 L IS is not on the list…I bought it used of course and in no way could afford a new 300 2.8 L II. I also have a 85 1.2 L (first generation). Then I realized that probably they wouldn't include the lenses that aren't sold on the list and that I should be fine…Then I realized that I wasn't going to be able to afford a 5dS/R anyway and I stopped worrying



Lol. 

In my case, I find that 10 of my 16 lenses have made the cut. Of the remaining six, three are EF-M and one is a 3rd party lens, leaving only the 35L and MP-E65 as compatible Canon lenses that are 'not recommended'. 

So...it looks like I've got a great set of lenses to use on a camera I have no intention of purchasing.


----------



## ghaack (Jul 1, 2015)

What about the 14mm 2.8 L II? That's a pretty big omission as well.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 1, 2015)

ghaack said:


> What about the 14mm 2.8 L II? That's a pretty big omission as well.



Anybody that has used the 14 MkII and the 11-24 knows leaving the 14 off is a given, the two lenses don't compare in IQ, the 14 looks like the $2,000 milk bottle bottom it always has been.


----------



## mangobutter (Jul 1, 2015)

This is awesome. All the lenses I own happen to be on this list. I wish though that all the lenses on the list are the lenses I owned. =(

My lineup of Canon:

16-35 F4 IS (got it on launch day), 50 1.4, 50 1.8 II, 70-200 F4L, Canon 100mm F2. I plan to add the 35 F2 IS some day and the 50 STM.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> And if the 70-300 IS USM is on the list, it definitely isn't because of image quality as that lens is really soft at the long end.



It's the L version on the list.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 1, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Lots of wildly unfounded speculation here, mixed with a healthy dose of misinformation (which is the norm anytime dilbert participates in a discussion).
> ...



Or more likely, it's a typo and they forgot to write "IS" next to the 70-200 f/4 and the 300 2.8 IS and such ARE fine, but are no longer in production and so not on the chart.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> GuyF said:
> 
> 
> > Cough, splutter, _facts_?? Whatever made you think we would recognise or accept fact over speculation, hearsay, rumour, misguided opinion and blatant lies? You're on the wrong site if you want to cloud debate with your facts.
> ...



I hate to say it, but this time I think you are off-base and neuro is on base. (Although some suggest you are the same person, paid, to drive up thread counts ;D so maybe you are both on and off base at the same time, kinda like in quantum mechanics).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 1, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I hate to say it, but this time I think you are off-base and neuro is on base.





dilbert said:


> Is [it] a coincidence? I doubt it.



I doubt it, too. ;D


----------



## snowphotographer (Jul 2, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> snowphotographer said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Says you, Lensrentals says it's the other way around and I agree even though I realize I could have been just lucky/unlucky with my copies. Same goes for you.


----------



## dolina (Jul 2, 2015)

Source: http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/eos_5ds_and_5dsr_recommended_lenses.do

I corrected one typo... namely the EF200mm f/2L II USM to EF200mm f/2.8L II USM

Zoom Lenses 

2011 EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM
2015 EF 11-24mm f/4L USM
2014 EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
2012 EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM
2012 EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM
2010 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
2006 EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
2010 EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM
2014 EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM
2013 EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM EXTENDER 1.4x

Wide Angle Primes

2009 TS-E 17mm f/4L
2009 TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II
2008 EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM
2012 EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM
2012 EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM
2012 EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

Standard Primes

2012 EF 40mm f/2.8 STM
2007 EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
1993 EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
2015 EF 50mm f/1.8 STM
1987 EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro

Telephoto Primes

2006 EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM
1992 EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
1991 TS-E 90mm f/2.8
1991 EF 100mm f/2 USM
2000 EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
2009 EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM
1996 EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
2008 EF 200mm f/2L IS USM
2011 EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM
2011 EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM
2015 EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM
2011 EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM
2011 EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM
2008 EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM


Canon's recommendation could indicate lenses that are not expected to be updated within 3-5 years?


----------



## meywd (Jul 2, 2015)

snowphotographer said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > snowphotographer said:
> ...



If you check the comparison tool at TDP you will see that the IS version is sharper, and it's clearer on 70mm than on 200mm


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Jul 2, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> Canon has released their list of recommended lenses according to The-Digital-Picture.</p>
> <p>Notable omissions from the list are the EF 35mm f/1.4L, EF 70-200mm f/4L IS, EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, TS-E 45mm f/2.8 and EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS. Oddly enough, all of these lenses are on the “to-be-replaced” soon list (“soon” is always a relative term with lenses).</p>
> <p>A couple of other oddities are the EF 50mm f/1.8 II appearing on the list and not the brand new EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, as well as the EF 50mm f/1.4 making an appearance.</p>
> <p><strong>Zoom Lenses</strong></p>
> ...



more proof that bodies die long before lenses. Long live the lenses. It don't matter what the list lists, lenses out live bodies any day.


----------



## snowphotographer (Jul 2, 2015)

meywd said:


> snowphotographer said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Yes you found on the internet that different reviewers have different opinions, maybe someone is more right, I don't know. We can leave it at that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 2, 2015)

snowphotographer said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > snowphotographer said:
> ...



Says TDP, Photozone, SLR Gear, and Canon's published MTF charts for the two lenses, too. I do really trust Roger's (Lensrentals) testing, but I can't find any results from him comparing the 70-200/4L IS vs. non-IS – would you mind sharing a link to those data?


----------



## pwp (Jul 2, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> No 16-35 L II must mean Canon knows it really needs an update! Proof the v III lens will be out in the next 6 months, probably with the 1DxII.


Yes the exclusion of the 16-35 f/2.8II was the one that jumped out at me too. Much like many other photographers copies of that lens, mine barely passes muster. I was set to replace it with the L 16-35 f/4is which has a great rep, but darn...I do like that f/2.8 option. Maybe I'll sit tight a while longer and see if the 16-35 f/2.8 III makes an appearance. 

-pw


----------



## snowphotographer (Jul 2, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> snowphotographer said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



http://blog.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/03/the-best-lens-bargains


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Jul 2, 2015)

pwp said:


> PhotographyFirst said:
> 
> 
> > No 16-35 L II must mean Canon knows it really needs an update! Proof the v III lens will be out in the next 6 months, probably with the 1DxII.
> ...



Since we might be seeing a new 1dx in the next year, I imagine they could update the 16-35L II. It's hugely popular with journalists and sports photographers. If they got rid of some vignetting, made it sharper, and had better coma control, it would sell really well with landscape photographers who want a one lens solutions for daytime and nighttime shots.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 2, 2015)

snowphotographer said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > snowphotographer said:
> ...



Interesting, thanks! He supports that statement in the comments as well. I don't think that's the norm, especially given the theoretical MTF curves (close, but the IS version is clearly better) and other reliable tests out there, but glad your copy is great!


----------



## dolina (Jul 2, 2015)

Unlisted L lenses that may have new versions within the year or two.

2007 EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
- Canon may come out with a Series III or better yet an IS version

2004 EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
- Nikon came out with their own in 2010

2007 EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM
- Like the 15/2.8 FE the 14 has been sidegraded by the 11-24/4.0

1998 EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
- Series II to compete with Sigma Art & Nikon's marketed in 2010

1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
- Nikon came out with a PF (Nikon's equivalent to DO) in 2015.

1996 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
- Waiting for Nikon or other company to offer a lens like this


----------



## AlanF (Jul 2, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> snowphotographer said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



It is a bit odd. Roger makes the bald statement that the non-IS is sharper without the measurements to back it up, whereas Photozone has MTF charts with the the IS version much sharper and TDP also has it sharper.


----------



## sanj (Jul 2, 2015)

I am interested in knowing what happens if I use a non recommended lens? How will the picture be inferior?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 2, 2015)

sanj said:


> I am interested in knowing what happens if I use a non recommended lens? How will the picture be inferior?



Your camera will melt. Best buy some new lenses!


----------



## Pinchers of Peril (Jul 2, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I am interested in knowing what happens if I use a non recommended lens? How will the picture be inferior?
> ...



Yeah it's a built in "self destruct" function. That's what the "s" stands for.


----------



## Eldar (Jul 2, 2015)

Shit, non of my Zeiss lenses made it ... I guess I have to get rid of them ...


----------



## snowphotographer (Jul 3, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> snowphotographer said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Yes when I had it and compared to the IS I could not understand why anyone shooting sports would pay the double to get in practice about the same IQ. I thought I was upgrading but could not see it in the pictures. If you get a chance, try it and compare but as you said, it was maybe just me being lucky. In the end I sold the IS and then the f/4 non-IS to get the f/2.8. Enough OT for now, saw that the list was corrected to include the IS and not the non-IS anyway =)


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 3, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> snowphotographer said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


I have both version of the 70-200mm f4L (non & IS). MTF charts aside in real world photography I can't tell any difference and given I usually use this focal length on a tripod the IS 95% of the time is redundant. Perhaps their "recommended list" is the best Nyquist match, equally it could be better controlled Color fringing, lateral chromatic aberrations who knows, certainly better control of any type of aberration is better for a high resolution camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 3, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> I have both version of the 70-200mm f4L (non & IS). MTF charts aside in real world photography I can't tell any difference and given I usually use this focal length on a tripod the IS 95% of the time is redundant. Perhaps their "recommended list" is the best Nyquist match, equally it could be better controlled Color fringing, lateral chromatic aberrations who knows, certainly better control of any type of aberration is better for a high resolution camera.



Their 'recommended list' is merely a shopping list, the 70-200/4 IS is newer and more expensive than the non-IS version. I suspect IS with focal lengths above 100mm is not redundant for many people, even if that's the case for you. The most time my 70-200mm has spent on a tripod is for AFMA.


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Jul 3, 2015)

dilbert said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I am interested in knowing what happens if I use a non recommended lens? How will the picture be inferior?
> ...



I like my old 50 1.8 mk1 its like a aged wine it still brings out some photos that I find enjoyable.
having posted that the old 1.8 is very much like the old 1.8 fd lens and mine only stopped down to f 16 on a ftb-n body that Dilbert is holding on to the past


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 3, 2015)

Eldar said:


> S___, non of my Zeiss lenses made it ... I guess I have to get rid of them ...



How much ?


----------



## wallstreetoneil (Jul 3, 2015)

I have the 5DSR and I have tested it with my 70-200 F4 IS, 70-200 F2.8 IS II and the 100-400 IS II. There is no difference, tested on a tripod between the 70-200 F4 and the 2.8. The 100-400II at 200mm is sharper than both the 70-200s tested at F5.6.

The 70-200 F4 IS lens is a great lens mated to the 5DSR as a 3rd camera wedding portrait lens at 200mm - so much lighter and tack sharp at F4 through F8.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 3, 2015)

wallstreetoneil said:


> I have the 5DSR and I have tested it with my 70-200 F4 IS, 70-200 F2.8 IS II and the 100-400 IS II. There is no difference, tested on a tripod between the 70-200 F4 and the 2.8. The 100-400II at 200mm is sharper than both the 70-200s tested at F5.6.
> 
> The 70-200 F4 IS lens is a great lens mated to the 5DSR as a 3rd camera wedding portrait lens at 200mm - so much lighter and tack sharp at F4 through F8.



Well that comes back to the main purpose of the 70-200 IS II being f2.8 (bc. sometimes you really need that) and I already had to shoot 200mm f2.8 at ISO 6400 at the limit of what was still handhold able... however it does not happen too often


----------



## Calaverasgrande (Jul 4, 2015)

kind of ironic that they exclude the F4 24-105L. 
That has been the kit lens for all their full frames until now!
I wonder if that means there will be a more suitable L series kit lens to start shipping?
I also wonder what the eff is wrong with the 24-105L?
Mine is pretty darn sharp, though a bit distorted at the wide end.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 4, 2015)

Calaverasgrande said:


> kind of ironic that they exclude the F4 24-105L.
> That has been the kit lens for all their full frames until now!
> I wonder if that means there will be a more suitable L series kit lens to start shipping?
> I also wonder what the eff is wrong with the 24-105L?
> Mine is pretty darn sharp, though a bit distorted at the wide end.



It was introduced with the original 13 MP 5D in 2005, and it is a sharp lens when used well, at least everywhere bar the extreme corners. On a 20-21 MP camera I'm not seeing a great difference in resolution between the newer 24-70 IS and the older lens. However the 24-70 IS does have higher resolution potential, and I think you'd see this difference on the 5Ds.


----------



## meywd (Jul 5, 2015)

wallstreetoneil said:


> I have the 5DSR and I have tested it with my 70-200 F4 IS, 70-200 F2.8 IS II and the 100-400 IS II. There is no difference, tested on a tripod between the 70-200 F4 and the 2.8. The 100-400II at 200mm is sharper than both the 70-200s tested at F5.6.
> 
> The 70-200 F4 IS lens is a great lens mated to the 5DSR as a 3rd camera wedding portrait lens at 200mm - so much lighter and tack sharp at F4 through F8.



I don't have the 100-400 II so I can't compare copies, but from the reviews at lenstip Canon EF 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM, Canon EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS II USM you will see that in the center the 70-200 is sharper, in the corners the 100-400 is sharper


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 5, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> Calaverasgrande said:
> 
> 
> > kind of ironic that they exclude the F4 24-105L.
> ...


If my examples are anything to go by then the EF24-70mm f4L IS USM is not better than the EF24-105mm f4L IS USM lens. Ive done a more scientific test of my EF24-70mm f4L IS USM and it should not be recommended for the 5DS.


----------



## canadiannewbie (May 5, 2016)

Hello All!

Fairly new to the forum and since i can't start a new thread, i think this one is the most likely to have an answer.

I currently own a 7D and will most likely go to full frame in the next year or so. After many debates and second guessing, I come to the conclusion that the best body for me would be the 5DSR. I do a bit of everything bust mostly landscape, architecture, macro and travel. 

Since the only 2 lenses I own that could work on a 5DSR are my Tamron macro and the nifty fifty, I'm looking for lenses as well.

I would like the thoughts of 5DsR owners on the lens i'm looking at:

Canon 16-35 f4 for wide angle
Canon 100-400 II for zoom

and as a general walkaround lens either the Canon 24-105 or the sigma art 24-105

Eventually maybe a prime or two or the sigma 24-35 f2 but that depend on budget/needs

Would there be a better combo to cover the same area? 

P.S. I know usually the 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f 2.8 are the prefered lens but i don't think i could afford it from the get go.

Thanks for your help!


----------



## j-nord (May 5, 2016)

I have some serious issue with this list, some of these lenses are not sharp enough to pair with the 5DSR. Some are missing. I think using DXO to look at lenses p-mpix metric when mounted on a 5DSR is the best comparison tool out there.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 5, 2016)

You don't lose sharpness because of a higher MP sensor. For example if lens A is really sharp on a 22 MP sensor it isn't less sharp on a 50 MP sensor. That's absurd.


----------



## j-nord (May 5, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> You don't lose sharpness because of a higher MP sensor. For example if lens A is really sharp on a 22 MP sensor it isn't less sharp on a 50 MP sensor. That's absurd.


I must be missing where someone said anything of the sort...


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 5, 2016)

j-nord said:


> I have some serious issue with this list, some of these lenses are not sharp enough to pair with the 5DSR. Some are missing. I think using DXO to look at lenses p-mpix metric when mounted on a 5DSR is the best comparison tool out there.



I guess we could start with this one. I don't know what you mean by "not sharp enough to pair with the 5DsR." Just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.


----------



## j-nord (May 5, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > I have some serious issue with this list, some of these lenses are not sharp enough to pair with the 5DSR. Some are missing. I think using DXO to look at lenses p-mpix metric when mounted on a 5DSR is the best comparison tool out there.
> ...


Resolving power of a lens vs. the sensor. In my opinion, there is no point in pairing those 2. No where did I say the lens magically gets less sharp... You are just pushing the glass to its limits, there are much better options to pair with the 5DSR.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 5, 2016)

Ok, but, no matter what, you still will get more resolution. No matter how crappy the lens.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 5, 2016)

Singling out this lens or that lens as 'being sharp enough' for a certain sensor entirely misses a basic understanding of system resolution, just as 'pushing a lens to its limits' is incorrect (in the context of the lenses and systems we are talking about), so here goes.



> _Cut and pasted from a similarly misinformed thread in March last year, and September, and many others I haven't seen or commented in._
> 
> System resolution can be broadly shorthanded down to this equation, it isn't perfect but pretty close.
> 
> ...



Now if you grasp that basic explaination you can't fail to stop with the _"this lens isn't sharp enough for this sensor nonsense"_ because it is nonsense.

Any lens put in front of a higher resolution sensor will give you more resolution, how much is moot, if it is 'enough' is also moot, but every lens will give you more resolution put on a 5DSR than a 5D MkIII however modest a lens it is.


----------



## j-nord (May 5, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> Ok, but, no matter what, you still will get more resolution. No matter how crappy the lens.



I agree you get more resolution but it doesn't guarantee significantly more perceivable detail. It's a case of diminishing returns.

example:

(Worst lens DXO has tested on the 5DSR)
6D + 70-300 DO = 9 p-mpix
5DSR + 70-300 DO = 10 p-mpix
11% more perceivable detail


6D + 24-70 f4 IS = 14 p-mpix
5DSR + 24-70 f4 IS = 21 p-mpix
50% more perceivable detail


6D + 24-70 f2.8ii = 17 p-mpix
5DSR + 24-70 f2.8ii = 32 p-mpix
88% more perceivable detail


6D + 300 f2.8ii = 21 p-mpix
5DSR + 300 f2.8ii = 45 p-mpix
114% more perceivable detail


----------



## j-nord (May 5, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Singling out this lens or that lens as 'being sharp enough' for a certain sensor entirely misses a basic understanding of system resolution, just as 'pushing a lens to its limits' is incorrect (in the context of the lenses and systems we are talking about), so here goes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't disagree with the more resolution, I do disagree with your dismissal of the subjective component. 'Sharp enough' is subjective and varies from person to person. I personally think using a 24-70 f4 IS, for example, is a waste of time and potential for the 5DSR.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 5, 2016)

j-nord said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Singling out this lens or that lens as 'being sharp enough' for a certain sensor entirely misses a basic understanding of system resolution, just as 'pushing a lens to its limits' is incorrect (in the context of the lenses and systems we are talking about), so here goes.
> ...



That is why I specifically included the comments _"how much is moot, if it is 'enough' is also moot"_, those subjective elements are moot. However, anybody claiming something as definitive as _"I personally think using a 24-70 f4 IS, for example, is a waste of time and potential for the 5DSR"_ has zero credibility unless they can post something that gives that opinion some substance and validity, and some context of your personal output size expectations and quality demands would give relevance. Delivering 30,000 images a year means nothing other than you could give us some workflow pointers if they are passport sized images, if, for instance, you don't see a difference from the 24-70 until you go above 14" x 21" prints then that gives context.

Though all in all the use of the 5DS is overstated from a resolution point of view, sure it is there for some of the pixel peepers, but real world tests to non photographers don't care.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/canon_5ds-print-comparison.html

Oh, and read the conclusions here.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/canon_5ds-old_lens.html


----------



## RGF (May 5, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> The exclusion of the 70-200mm f/4L IS is rather surprising.



So are the lack of macro lens


----------



## j-nord (May 5, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> That is why I specifically included the comments _"how much is moot, if it is 'enough' is also moot"_, those subjective elements are moot. However, anybody claiming something as definitive as _"I personally think using a 24-70 f4 IS, for example, is a waste of time and potential for the 5DSR"_ has zero credibility unless they can post something that gives that opinion some substance and validity, and some context of your personal output size expectations and quality demands would give relevance. Delivering 30,000 images a year means nothing other than you could give us some workflow pointers if they are passport sized images, if, for instance, you don't see a difference from the 24-70 until you go above 14" x 21" prints then that gives context.
> 
> Though all in all the use of the 5DS is overstated from a resolution point of view, sure it is there for some of the pixel peepers, but real world tests to non photographers don't care.



Now, apparently, we are arguing about arguing. I automatically assume people with 5DSRs are pixel peepers and/or want huge prints and/or want to crop heavily so I can't fathom why I need to mention this in every single post on the subject. To me, it's a given.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 5, 2016)

j-nord said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > That is why I specifically included the comments _"how much is moot, if it is 'enough' is also moot"_, those subjective elements are moot. However, anybody claiming something as definitive as _"I personally think using a 24-70 f4 IS, for example, is a waste of time and potential for the 5DSR"_ has zero credibility unless they can post something that gives that opinion some substance and validity, and some context of your personal output size expectations and quality demands would give relevance. Delivering 30,000 images a year means nothing other than you could give us some workflow pointers if they are passport sized images, if, for instance, you don't see a difference from the 24-70 until you go above 14" x 21" prints then that gives context.
> ...



And again you reply with nothing to back up your opinion of the unsuitability of the 24-70 f4 on the 5DS/R, or any context as to what you consider _"huge prints"_..............


----------



## j-nord (May 5, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



It's not that I disagree with your critique of how to properly present an argument. I feel there is enough context that I don't have to go further.


----------

