# A Random Roadmap: Lenses & Bodies [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 27, 2011)

```
<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/a-random-roadmap-lenses-body-cr1/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/a-random-roadmap-lenses-body-cr1/"></a></div>
I received a roadmap of sorts recently. The information went on to describe whatâ€™s going on with a few of the new lenses supposedly coming from Canon, as well as some camera body information.</p>
<p><strong>135 f/2L II

</strong>There is a replacement in development, and a prototype exists. However, it is not slated for release for a year or two. The current 135L sells well, and is very high performance.</p>
<p><strong>35 f/1.4L II

</strong>The prototype exists and is slated for a 2011 announcement.</p>
<p><strong>24-70 f/2.8L II

</strong>Apparently 5 versions of this lens exist. A few even have IS. It is slated for a 2011 announcement. The patent weâ€™ve seen says no IS.</p>
<p><strong>300 f/4L IS II

</strong>Expect this lens to arrive sometime in 2011 or early 2012. If what is mentioned next is true, then f/4 lenses may become more in demand as photographers aim to carry a lighter camera bag.</p>
<p><strong>APS-H & ISO</strong>

The 1.3 crop will be going away. All cameras going forward will be APS-C and full frame. The ISO performance of upcoming cameras from Canon will be industry leading. This is in part because of sensor technology advancements as well as DIGIC V.</p>
<p><strong>CRâ€™s Take

</strong>All of this is pretty plausible. I do expect Canon to have a couple of surprises up their sleeves. Weâ€™ve seen that recently with the zoom fisheye and the 200-400 with the 1.4 teleconverter built in.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong>
```


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 27, 2011)

Canon Rumors said:


> *300 f/4L IS II* Expect this lens to arrive sometime in 2011 or early 2012. If what is mentioned next is true, then f/4 lenses may become more in demand as photographers aim to carry a lighter camera bag.



Or, aim to carry a heavier wallet after buying a new lens...

Personally, instead of a refreshed 300/4 IS, I'd vastly prefer a 400mm f/5.6L with IS for under $2K, or better yet a 500mm f/5.6L IS for $2.5K.


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 27, 2011)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div id=\"fb_share_1\" style=\"float: right; margin-left: 10px;\"><a name=\"fb_share\" type=\"box_count\" share_url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/a-random-roadmap-lenses-body-cr1/\" href=\"http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php\">Share</a></div><div><script src=\"http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share\" type=\"text/javascript\"></script></div><div class=\"tweetmeme_button\" style=\"float: right; margin-left: 10px;\"><a class=\"tm_button\" rel=\"&style=normal&b=2\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/a-random-roadmap-lenses-body-cr1/\"></a></div>
> 
> The 1.3 crop will be going away. All cameras going forward will be APS-C and full frame. The ISO performance of upcoming cameras from Canon will be industry leading. This is in part because of sensor technology advancements as well as DIGIC V.</p>
> <p><strong>CRâ€™s Take



Well I do hope that the ISO improves as well with the increase in MP that we are no doubt going to be seeing. Usually they release cameras with bigger MP that matches or slightly edges the prior model, however this is barely "industry leading". I will welcome this industry leading technology as long as it doesn't smudge details like the 5D MII and looks natural if and when it does, like the 7D. Nothing quite ruins high ISO shots with heavy unnatural digital noise.


----------



## HughHowey (Apr 27, 2011)

This is why I check CR every day. You never know when you'll get a little morsel to chew on.

Surprised to hear about a new 135/2. I assume they're thinking of adding IS? I can't see any way to improve this gem. My absolute favorite lens.


----------



## endigo (Apr 27, 2011)

Canon Rumors said:


> The ISO performance of upcoming cameras from Canon will be industry leading.



This is the part that makes me tingle.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Apr 27, 2011)

HughHowey said:


> Surprised to hear about a new 135/2. I assume they're thinking of adding IS? I can't see any way to improve this gem. My absolute favorite lens.



The biggest improvement will be to Canon's profit. Call it a 135 L II and add 50% to the price.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Apr 27, 2011)

I'm looking forward to these releases to buy the 'older' and therefore cheaper versions.

Gotta love a bargain


----------



## Justin (Apr 27, 2011)

alipaulphotography said:


> I'm looking forward to these releases to buy the 'older' and therefore cheaper versions.
> 
> Gotta love a bargain



Well give it a year or two. Because at first, as others have indicated, we are likely to see 50%-80% price spikes on the new models. Which will, if anything, put upward pressure on used ver 1s. 



neuroanatomist said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > *300 f/4L IS II* Expect this lens to arrive sometime in 2011 or early 2012. If what is mentioned next is true, then f/4 lenses may become more in demand as photographers aim to carry a lighter camera bag.
> ...



Couldn't agree more. Light and less fast is fine for telephoto shooting. IS is eminently useful. 



endigo said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > The ISO performance of upcoming cameras from Canon will be industry leading.
> ...



I would be tingling more if I heard that Canon was focusing on dynamic range in addition to high iso performance.


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 27, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Or, aim to carry a heavier wallet after buying a new lens...
> 
> Personally, instead of a refreshed 300/4 IS, I'd vastly prefer a 400mm f/5.6L with IS for under $2K, or better yet a 500mm f/5.6L IS for $2.5K.



I think you mis-spoke, my wallet gets a lot lighter after buying a new lens 

The lenses you mentioned would be great, except that the minimum focus distance for the 400 and 500 could be shorter as well. Since that tends to make a lens longer, the shorter mfd won't happen. MFD on the existing 300mm f/4 is fantastic.

IS does help, but in the case of my 35mm L and 135mm L, I have not really needed it, I tend to need high shutter speeds for the 135mmL due to subject motion in any event.

Certainly, many users do want it and can benefit from it on shorter focal lengths. My 100mm L is a pleasure to use hand held for closeups at only a few inches from the subject. I tended to get a lot of moton blurred photos with the old 100mm USM. Part of it was due to the slow focus, I often found myself closing the shutter after 2-3 seconds, only to find that the lens still had not found focus. (AI-Servo)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 27, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Or, aim to carry a heavier wallet after buying a new lens...
> ...



Mine too, but my point was it would be a lot heavier after buying an f/4 lens than if you'd bought the equivalent focal length in an f/2.8 - I rather suspect the popularity of f/4 lenses is less due to their lighter weight and more due to the lighter impact they have on wallets.


----------



## nocojoe (Apr 27, 2011)

I wish Canon would update the 50 f 1.4.


----------



## DuLt (Apr 27, 2011)

nocojoe said:


> I wish Canon would update the 50 f 1.4.



I Wish canon would launch ef-s 15 f2.8 compact...


----------



## skitron (Apr 27, 2011)

I have $ allocated if they release a 24-70 II IS!


----------



## christopher (Apr 27, 2011)

DuLt said:


> nocojoe said:
> 
> 
> > I wish Canon would update the 50 f 1.4.
> ...



And a 50mm 1.2L II while we're at it.


----------



## Lawliet (Apr 27, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Personally, instead of a refreshed 300/4 IS, I'd vastly prefer a 400mm f/5.6L with IS for under $2K, or better yet a 500mm f/5.6L IS for $2.5K.



Lets assume the 300/4IS II performs as close to flawless as it gets - even with a TC1,4III. 

A 500/5,6 or 600/5,6 may get me more interested, depending on the price and performance of the 200-400/4-600/5,6...


----------



## distant.star (Apr 27, 2011)

Pretty much my thought too.

I can't imagine what they could do to make this better. Adding IS may be a feature that will generate some sales, but the IS would be just a luxury and not something you really need.

I'll be using mine later today, and damn glad I have it.




HughHowey said:


> Surprised to hear about a new 135/2. I assume they're thinking of adding IS? I can't see any way to improve this gem. My absolute favorite lens.


----------



## madvette (Apr 27, 2011)

So should i just buy the 135L I had been planning on buying for a few months now? Or wait for the II?


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 27, 2011)

madvette said:


> So should i just buy the 135L I had been planning on buying for a few months now? Or wait for the II?



Mine is wonderful, Adding IS will hwlp with slow shutter speeds, but it will likely end up like the 100mmL which is slightly less sharp than the non-IS version. One point here is that I use the lenses handheld, and if ou use a lens that way, the IS can help tou get sharper appearing images due to the lak of blur from shake. clamp them to a sturdy tripod, and the L is just a hair worse.


----------



## Flake (Apr 27, 2011)

It's deeply dissapointing to find no wide angle on the list. Telephotos which perform are relatively easy to produce, wide angles much more difficult. This is proved by the performance of Canons current wide angle zooms. The 17 - 40mm f/4 L should surely be a candidate for a refresh as its performance at the wide end is not good at all.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 27, 2011)

What you should do is find a good, used one today, and buy it. New is $1000 to $1100. I got a great used one for $700. This is not a lens a lot of people use a lot, so there are many, many used that probably haven't been on a camera 10 times.

Wait for the new one, and it will probably have IS, and they'll bump the price to $1500.

You can start taking magnificent pictures today, or you can waste a lot of time and six months or a year from now spend a lot more money to take magnificent pictures -- and I'll bet you won't see 10 cents worth of difference between the new and old lens.

...for what it's worth, which is just about nothing!






madvette said:


> So should i just buy the 135L I had been planning on buying for a few months now? Or wait for the II?


----------



## DJL329 (Apr 27, 2011)

nocojoe said:


> I wish Canon would update the 50 f 1.4.



+1 Couldn't agree more. That "micro" USM has to go.


----------



## DJL329 (Apr 27, 2011)

skitron said:


> I have $ allocated if they release a 24-70 II IS!



It's looking like the 24-70mm II won't have IS. I didn't think it would even _before_ seeing this (it's too short a focal length):

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,897.msg12095/topicseen.html#new


----------



## alipaulphotography (Apr 27, 2011)

DJL329 said:


> skitron said:
> 
> 
> > I have $ allocated if they release a 24-70 II IS!
> ...



Not 'too short' a focal length as such. The EF-S 17-55mm is the closest crop version featuring IS and can shoot as low as 1/2 a second at f/2.8! This could be really beneficial in an 'all rounder' such as this.


----------



## Mike Ca (Apr 28, 2011)

Canon Rumors said:


> 24-70 f/2.8L II Apparently 5 versions of this lens exist. A few even have IS. It is slated for a 2011 announcement. The patent weâ€™ve seen says no IS



I cannot imagine Canon would bother releasing a new 24-70 F/2.8 without IS. All the other Canon zooms anywhere close to this focal range already have IS. Even the EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 kit zoom lens now has IS.


----------



## autochrome (Apr 28, 2011)

christopher said:


> DuLt said:
> 
> 
> > nocojoe said:
> ...



What happened to the f1.0? Was it really worth it? I had the pleasure of having a M6 and a 0.95 Noctilux loaned for a week some years ago and that's something that left me a good impression (i was using HP5+ and getting decent photos in literally candle light, today i'm not sure if there's much meaning to it, one can boost the ISO up and still have noise that pales in comparision to the grain of HP5+ on Microphen and resolution that surpasses everything from the film days, even with extreme measures such as Contax RTSIII's vacuum pressure plate to hold the emulsion perfectly flat, and this coupled with *T lenses). Anyone here had hands on experience on the Canon 50mm f1.0 and insights that want to share?


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 28, 2011)

autochrome said:


> Anyone here had hands on experience on the Canon 50mm f1.0 and insights that want to share?



You should check fredmiranda.com. petcal has one, and is very good about answering questions about lenses. He is a very active poster, so he is checking every day. He loves his.


----------



## autochrome (Apr 28, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> autochrome said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone here had hands on experience on the Canon 50mm f1.0 and insights that want to share?
> ...



Thank you for the reference scaleusa, i wans't familiar with that website.


----------



## ronderick (Apr 28, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Or, aim to carry a heavier wallet after buying a new lens...
> 
> Personally, instead of a refreshed 300/4 IS, I'd vastly prefer a 400mm f/5.6L with IS for under $2K, or better yet a 500mm f/5.6L IS for $2.5K.



400mm f/5.6 with IS and weather-sealed would be nice. However, I somehow doubt Canon would introduce such a thing w/o a deep bite into our wallets... :'(


----------



## Sdiver2489 (Apr 28, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> madvette said:
> 
> 
> > So should i just buy the 135L I had been planning on buying for a few months now? Or wait for the II?
> ...



All the reviews I've seen show the 100L is just a bit sharper. Check out www.slrgear.com


----------



## John Smith (Apr 28, 2011)

DJL329 said:


> nocojoe said:
> 
> 
> > I wish Canon would update the 50 f 1.4.
> ...



Ditto for 35mm f/2


----------



## John Smith (Apr 28, 2011)

dilbert said:


> DJL329 said:
> 
> 
> > nocojoe said:
> ...



IMHO, the lenses would still significantly differ, e.g.

* The f/1.2 has metal body with weather sealing, where the f/1.4 has plastic body with no weather sealing.

* The f/1.2 has 8 circular aperture blades, while the f/1.4 has 7 straight blades.

* The f/1.2 has an aspherical element, the f/1.4 has none.


----------



## John Smith (Apr 28, 2011)

Canon Rumors said:


> The 1.3 crop will be going away. All cameras going forward will be APS-C and full frame. The ISO performance of upcoming cameras from Canon will be industry leading. This is in part because of sensor technology advancements as well as DIGIC V.



I'm not familiar with the APS-H line, but I find this a little curious.

Switching to FF will make the owner's lenses a little short[er], while switching to APS-C will make them a little long[er]. A need to buy new lenses with a new body sounds like an opportunity to switch brand.


----------



## HughHowey (Apr 28, 2011)

John Smith said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > The 1.3 crop will be going away. All cameras going forward will be APS-C and full frame. The ISO performance of upcoming cameras from Canon will be industry leading. This is in part because of sensor technology advancements as well as DIGIC V.
> ...



The difference is great enough to switch brands, not in my opinion. People move from 1.6 to 1.0 all the time and just add a new wide angle and they're good to go. Lenses that satisfy one function just plug another gap. You'll be buying a lot of the same lenses you already have. Besides, a 50mm going from 65mm back to 50 just means you take two steps forward. I don't see the issue being near as severe as the confusion from having three crop factors in one line. I'd much rather have a FF with crop options in-body. This should be standard, like choosing file quality. I'd also love to see selectable ratios with a custom function, so you could frame and shoot 2.35:1 images and see what they'll look like as if cropped in post-processing. These would be fun features to play with in the field. (Square and circular crops would be cool as well). If you don't like this stuff, don't use it.


----------



## pgabor (Apr 28, 2011)

John Smith said:


> IMHO, the lenses would still significantly differ, e.g.
> 
> * The f/1.2 has metal body with weather sealing, where the f/1.4 has plastic body with no weather sealing.
> 
> ...



You know the sad thing is that even the new nikon 50 f1.8 has an aspherical element. And its 200$ not 1600$...
Canon screwed this when they released the new 50 f1.2, because its became the worst L prime in the lineup, its so weak that even the 1.4 can match it. So canon can't (and won't) upgrade the 1.4 until the 1.2 is not getting its refresh. And its not coming soon...


----------



## docsmith (Apr 28, 2011)

HughHowey said:


> I'd much rather have a FF with crop options in-body. This should be standard, like choosing file quality.



Please forgive me if I am missing something obvious as I've never even considered this....but, other than file size on your CF card, how is this different from simply cropping a full frame image in post? ???


----------



## Ivar (Apr 28, 2011)

John Smith said:


> I'm not familiar with the APS-H line, but I find this a little curious.
> 
> Switching to FF will make the owner's lenses a little short[er], while switching to APS-C will make them a little long[er]. A need to buy new lenses with a new body sounds like an opportunity to switch brand.



If Canon doesn't want to fall behind Nikon in high ISO department (quite reasonable desire for a sports camera) they have no choice but go bigger (no smaller sensor can compete with bigger one in high iso), otherwise iso-sensitive (also IQ sensitive) people switch brand too? Also, there are many eagerly waiting their lenses to act as they were designed for. Counting pros&cons might not always be straightforward.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 28, 2011)

docsmith said:


> HughHowey said:
> 
> 
> > I'd much rather have a FF with crop options in-body. This should be standard, like choosing file quality.
> ...



There are two main reasons for the APS-H format. One is that it's substantially cheaper to produce than FF (APS-H is the largest size that can be imaged in one shot onto the silicon wafer during production, FF sensors require multiple passes). The second is that the smaller sensor size allows a faster frame rate - dual Digic IVs could not achieve 10 fps from a FF sensor. But, if an in-camera crop is applied, a smaller portion of the sensor could be used, allowing a faster frame rate. So a FF camera with a fast shutter could achieve higher frame rates that way, e.g. Nikon's D3 is 9 fps in FX mode (but that's only 12 MP, so a lot less data to manage than Canon's current 21 MP FF), but edges up to 11 fps in DX mode (1.5x crop).


----------



## Ivar (Apr 28, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> The second is that the smaller sensor size allows a faster frame rate - dual Digic IVs could not achieve 10 fps from a FF sensor.



In my understanding the DIGIC processing is in no way related to sensor size?

Thus, it is fully capable of FF 10fps assumed the megapixels number retains the same.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 28, 2011)

Ivar said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The second is that the smaller sensor size allows a faster frame rate - dual Digic IVs could not achieve 10 fps from a FF sensor.
> ...



Agreed - perhaps I should have stated 'a current Canon FF sensor.' Especially since it's highly unlikely that a future 1DsIV would have anything but _more_ MP than the current 21 MP.


----------



## airdima (Apr 28, 2011)

35L II with weather sealing and more controlled vignetting / better borders performance wide open, would really get me hyped


----------



## traveller (Apr 28, 2011)

Canon Rumors said:


> 24-70 f/2.8L II
> 
> Apparently 5 versions of this lens exist. A few even have IS. It is slated for a 2011 announcement. The patent weâ€™ve seen says no IS.



Is it normal for manufacturers to produce 5 different, fully functional prototypes of different designs for a new lens? Surely in this age of computer design and modelling, lens manufacturers can just settle on one design and tweak it? Is anyone else a touch suspicious about this?


----------



## dstppy (Apr 28, 2011)

traveller said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > 24-70 f/2.8L II
> ...



Apple does the same thing, though to obscure announcements. Guess what I spend my days doing besides waiting for Canon to release things?


----------



## docsmith (Apr 28, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > HughHowey said:
> ...



Ok, that makes sense and I can see the benefit. But honestly, at least for me, that is pretty far down my list of desires. Better dynamic range, less noise at high ISO, etc.


----------



## WarStreet (Apr 28, 2011)

docsmith said:


> Ok, that makes sense and I can see the benefit. But honestly, at least for me, that is pretty far down my list of desires. Better dynamic range, less noise at high ISO, etc.



But it is on top of the list for others, while still expect the better Dynamic range and noise at high ISO too


----------



## Justin (Apr 28, 2011)

pgabor said:


> John Smith said:
> 
> 
> > IMHO, the lenses would still significantly differ, e.g.
> ...



Yeah sad. Buy sigma and bring it back to the store five times before you get a good copy.


----------



## Justin (Apr 28, 2011)

dstppy said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



Me too brotha. Oh that and working and having fun and eating and stuff. But lots of mac and canon and photography rumors.


----------



## pgabor (Apr 28, 2011)

Justin said:


> pgabor said:
> 
> 
> > You know the sad thing is that even the new nikon 50 f1.8 has an aspherical element. And its 200$ not 1600$...
> ...


Thats the problem. I don't want to buy sigma, or any other 3rd party lens, i want to buy a GOOD canon 50mm, but they don't offer one : ( I have the 1.4, but it has it's limitations (and it's AF started dying nowadays)
(btw i don't know with what i deserved this attitude... i don't know why you have to be offensive)


----------



## Justin (Apr 29, 2011)

pgabor said:


> Justin said:
> 
> 
> > pgabor said:
> ...



I was agreeing with you. What attitude?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2011)

pgabor said:


> Canon screwed this when they released the new 50 f1.2, because its became the worst L prime in the lineup, its so weak that even the 1.4 can match it. So canon can't (and won't) upgrade the 1.4 until the 1.2 is not getting its refresh. And its not coming soon...



What, specifically, is 'weak' about the 50mm f/1.2L?


----------



## lol (Apr 29, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> What, specifically, is 'weak' about the 50mm f/1.2L?


I'm guessing it is the relative lack of sharpness in border regions on full frame, from a quick glance at Photozone results. Seems to fall off significantly there. Not an issue on crop sensors. It doesn't sound like an issue in real world shooting, since if you're getting the f/1.2, you're wanting the current shallowest DoF at that length and unlikely to get everything sharp in frame anyway. There is the even older f/1.0 it replaced that's even softer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2011)

lol said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > What, specifically, is 'weak' about the 50mm f/1.2L?
> ...



I suspected that might be the perceived issue. Everything in photography involves tradeoffs and compromise. Want a faster shutter speed in low light? Fine, open the aperture and sacrifice DoF, or raise the ISO and add noise. Tradeoffs. In the case of the 50/1.2, Canon's designers chose to produce a lens with superior bokeh. The way to do that is to intentionally undercorrect speherical aberration, meaning sharpness is reduced a bit. But the lens is intended for portrait work ("_Taking advantage of shallow depth of field allows the photographer to capture subjects with impact, such as for wedding portraits_," from Lens Work III) - as such, especially with such a wide aperture, bokeh is critical - and in most portraits, it's ok for the resulting image to lack razor sharpness (all the portrait picture styles, from Canon and in 3rd party software, have the sharpness set lower than for general shooting for a reason).


----------



## Lawliet (Apr 29, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> What, specifically, is 'weak' about the 50mm f/1.2L?



The focus shift is an annoyance. Raw performance doesn't matter if systematic errors spoil the game. That puts both the 50/1,2L and the Sigma 50/1,4 rather low on my list.
For example the difference between a 50/1,2 and the Nikkor 50/1,4 is for the connoisseur, but flawed focussing ruins the picture for everybody.


----------



## epsiloneri (Apr 29, 2011)

Lawliet said:


> The focus shift is an annoyance.



Sounds like the solution is to not step down this lens. The argument can be made that if you're stepping it down anyway, you might just as well use the 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 (or a zoom at f/8). Of course it would be nice if you had the flexibility to use the 50/1.2L for smaller apertures as well. It shouldn't really be so difficult for Canon to calibrate the focus shift in software, I think. I wonder why it's not done.


----------



## Lawliet (Apr 30, 2011)

F/1,2 only would be a bit to constrained for my taste. 
At least its less severe with the more peripheral sensors of the 1D(s), but with the 5D(II) you just replace systematic error with randomness.

Well so much for why it is the weakest of the fast prime Ls - the others don't have such real life weaknesses.


----------



## epsiloneri (Apr 30, 2011)

Lawliet said:


> At least its less severe with the more peripheral sensors of the 1D(s), but with the 5D(II) you just replace systematic error with randomness.



I assumed the focus shift was due to the intentional spherical aberration (to get a nicer bokeh). That should give you a systematic shift as you step the lens down, because the focus distance for different radii from the central optical axis of the parallel beam will be different, and when closing the aperture you are selectively ignoring the outer parts of the beam. 

But you seem to imply that the focus shift is _random_ (for the 5D2 anyway), which doesn't make sense if the focus is still always retrieved at the same aperture. Can you explain what you mean by the sensors being more peripheral on the 1Ds?


----------



## lol (Apr 30, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> It shouldn't really be so difficult for Canon to calibrate the focus shift in software, I think. I wonder why it's not done.


I'd love that. For my style of fast prime shooting, focus shift is a significant hindrance.

As to why... I'd guess the technology wasn't in place when the lens came out. When did AF micro adjust come in? Assuming it wont be retro-fitted into lenses, a body could do it using a built in lookup table in a similar way to peripheral illumination correction.


----------



## Lawliet (Apr 30, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> But you seem to imply that the focus shift is _random_ (for the 5D2 anyway), which doesn't make sense if the focus is still always retrieved at the same aperture. Can you explain what you mean by the sensors being more peripheral on the 1Ds?



I suspect that field curvature and focus shift cancel each other out. 
With the 5D2 that effect applies at well, but the focus points are not accurate enough to nail the focus.


----------



## skitron (Apr 30, 2011)

Lawliet said:


> The focus shift is an annoyance. Raw performance doesn't matter if systematic errors spoil the game. That puts both the 50/1,2L and the Sigma 50/1,4 rather low on my list.



The newer "smooth finish" Sigma 50 is apparently much better in this regard. I have not tried the old one but took a chance on the new one when I saw good reports on it...tested it and found it has very little shift at all. My 50 tested to look virtually identical to the focus charts for the Sigma 85 at photozone.de.


----------



## epsiloneri (May 1, 2011)

skitron, how consistently does your Sigma 50/1.4 focus over different distances? I have the problem that my ("old") copy focuses well on near distances (within 5 meters, say), but inconsistently further away, which is extremely annoying because I think the lens is splendid optically (with lovely bokeh). On the other hand, I have tended to use it indoors mostly, which normally limits it to close distances, so it hasn't been a huge problem for me yet, but if there is a better AF performing version I would trade in an instant.


----------

