# Best Lenses for the Canon 5Ds



## mackguyver (Feb 3, 2015)

I remember this being a very hot topic in the Nikon world, so let's get things started.

Looking at DxOMark's Sharpness scores, it seems that the best lenses assuming optimal aperture and perfect technique are going to be assuming Sharpness of 18+ on the 5DIII and 12+ on the 70D (no data for 7DII yet). I have also color coded the Top 10 on FF to see where they land on a crop sensor, which will probably be a better representation given the pixel density, which I'm guessing (I haven't done the math) will be diffraction limited around f/5.6:


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 3, 2015)

I'd expect that the best lens is on a existing FF will be the best on a higher MP FF. 

DXO numbers are meaningless, since they are black box numbers that add some sort of unknown factors to get their magic number. This also means that their numbers may not be in the same order for a new camera model and sensor due to the unknown factor in their number.

Regardless of this, if you like your existing lens, it will be capable of sharper images with a higher MP body.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 3, 2015)

But but ... there aren't any lenses, especially by Canon, that will resolve a 50MP sensor!!!! :


----------



## fegari (Feb 3, 2015)

Interesting ranking.

I'm surprised the 300 2.8 IS version I is ranked sharper than version II in a crop sensor..also that 500 F4 II is so low in the table. In addition, shouldn't the sharpest in FF maintain ranking order in crop?

Finally, having both the Zeiss 100 / 50MPs, to my untrained eye they seem both identical either in FF / crop, very very very close, unlike in DxOs ranking.


----------



## rfdesigner (Feb 3, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> I remember this being a very hot topic in the Nikon world, so let's get things started.
> 
> Looking at DxOMark's Sharpness scores, it seems that the best lenses assuming optimal aperture and perfect technique are going to be assuming Sharpness of 18+ on the 5DIII and 12+ on the 70D (no data for 7DII yet). I have also color coded the Top 10 on FF to see where they land on a crop sensor, which will probably be a better representation given the pixel density, which I'm guessing (I haven't done the math) will be diffraction limited around f/5.6:



I would expect a 22Mpix sensor resolving 21MPix from a lens would suggest the lens is more than 57Mpix with a "perfect" sensor, with a 50Mpix sensor I'd expect around 38Mpix effective.

Of course you also have to beleive DxO as well.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 3, 2015)

I'm looking at ratios. I doubt any lens will ever achieve 100% for ANY sensor. Seems everything achieves about 80% on Canon 5D3 sensors, including the Sigma 50 ART, according to our buddies at DxO. All else being equal, can we then assume similar numbers on a 50MP sensor? So will that same Sigma ART yield about 40MP? Nikon's own 85mm yields 80% on the D810. Otus 85mm at 90%. So even a sh!tty lens on a 50MP sensor yielding even just 65-70% resolve will out play an Otus + D810? Yeah see this is why DxO makes you wonder....


----------



## fegari (Feb 3, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> But but ... there aren't any lenses, especially by Canon, that will resolve a 50MP sensor!!!! :



I had an interesting discussion in a spanish forum on this. Can someone provide some evidence on that?

On my side I would assume that this new FF 50Mpx should put the same kind of "strain" on a lens than the 7DII, because of nearly identical pixel size, and I do get tack sharp pics on a 7DII (with some very high quality lenses)...it does not seem to me limited at all.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Feb 3, 2015)

I've been working more deeply with MTF data and this is my work-in-progress table of best resolving lenses for Canon EF mount. You might notice that the Canon 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM (mk-I) is not on my table because is only available second hand. I don't have any lens data on high-res sensors without AA filter so they could deliver sharper results...

OPE is what I call optical pipeline efficiency. It is how much detail can be resolved (perceived megapixels) divided by the maximum resolution of the sensor. I'm interested to see how close my modelling is to the full scale lab measurements when they eventually become available.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 3, 2015)

fegari said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > But but ... there aren't any lenses, especially by Canon, that will resolve a 50MP sensor!!!! :
> ...



They aren't. I was being completely sarcastic as some folks around here are lamenting the "lack" of 50MP capable glass. I wonder if some people have never shot anything more than 18-55mm kit glass...


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 3, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> I've been working more deeply with MTF data and this is my work-in-progress table of best resolving lenses for Canon EF mount. You might notice that the Canon 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM (mk-I) is not on my table because is only available second hand. I don't have any lens data on high-res sensors without AA filter so they could deliver sharper results...
> 
> OPE is what I call optical pipeline efficiency. It is how much detail can be resolved (perceived megapixels) divided by the maximum resolution of the sensor. I'm interested to see how close my modelling is to the full scale lab measurements when they eventually become available.



Ok, I am damn intrigued. How did you come up with such measurements? 24-70mkII outranks the Otus prime?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 3, 2015)

Interesting to see how the Sigma 50mm Art, which costs less than $ 1000 is close to the performance of the Zeiss Otus 55mm.


----------



## raptor3x (Feb 3, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Ok, I am damn intrigued. How did you come up with such measurements? *24-70mkII outranks the Otus prime?*



Yeah, I'm not sure that one passes the sniff test.


----------



## sdsr (Feb 3, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'd expect that the best lens [...] on a existing FF will be the best on a higher MP FF.... _f you like your existing lens, it will be capable of sharper images with a higher MP body.
> 
> _


_

Exactly. I'm sure Canon (or Nikon or...) would like everyone to replace all their lenses when they buy the new 50MP cameras, just as Nikon seemed to want everyone to do when they bought their first D800, but this is just marketing nonsense, isn't it? I currently have FF bodies with 12MP (Sony) 20MP (Canon) and 36MP (Sony) and lenses ranging from old manual focus, through several Canon Ls to the two Sony/Zeiss e-mount primes; all of them make sharper, more detailed images on the 36MP sensor than they do on the 20 or 12 (which isn't to say the difference is immediately obvious); and I've not seen any reason to suspect that 50MP will be any different (the resolution difference between 36 and 50 is 18%, if Thom Hogan is correct - should that matter?). That's not to say, of course, that even better lenses with greater sharpness, better corners, fewer aberrations, etc., won't make even better images, but it's surely not the case that putting, say, an 85mm 1.8 on one of the new bodies is a waste of its sensor. But I guess we'll find out for sure soon enough...._


----------



## NancyP (Feb 3, 2015)

Raptor3x, that zoom was EF *200-400*not 24-70. 
It would seem that long telephotos enjoy an advantage here. Narrow field of view equals less refraction needed. 
Interesting that the Apo-Sonnar beats out the Oti - does focal length enter into your calculations?
Still, this is a fine list of lenses. I wonder how the Sigma Art 35 fares (just fine, I imagine).


----------



## StudentOfLight (Feb 3, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > I've been working more deeply with MTF data and this is my work-in-progress table of best resolving lenses for Canon EF mount. You might notice that the Canon 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM (mk-I) is not on my table because is only available second hand. I don't have any lens data on high-res sensors without AA filter so they could deliver sharper results...
> ...


What I posted are not measurements, they are calculated estimates. All my estimates are based on each individual lens' peak detail resolving performance at a particular focal length and aperture combination. For the 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM the optimum resolving performance is achieved at 24mm f/4. For the Zeiss Otus 55mm it is at 55mm f/4. Here is a screenshot of one dataset from DxOmark. (attached)

The sharpness of the Otus dips below the 24-70mm towards the corner of APS-C. (The APS-C corner is about 60% of the distance from centre to the full frame corner.) With some circle geometry you will see that the APS-C corner region generates a very significant portion of the resolving area on a full frame sensor. (attached)

Anyway, this is purely a paper exercise, what really counts is what people do in the real world. I'm sure sample variation, field curvature, chromatic aberration and some other factors can all affect the accuracy of the estimates. I'd happily agree that there are some outliers in the table but this is still a work in progress. With more data I'll be able to refine my model and hopefully correct for sample variation.

While the Otus lenses are remarkable in terms of their optimum sharpness, what is more impressive is how good they are (corner to corner) when shooting wide open.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Feb 4, 2015)

NancyP said:


> Raptor3x, that zoom was EF *200-400*not 24-70.
> It would seem that long telephotos enjoy an advantage here. Narrow field of view equals less refraction needed.
> Interesting that the Apo-Sonnar beats out the Oti - does focal length enter into your calculations?
> Still, this is a fine list of lenses. I wonder how the Sigma Art 35 fares (just fine, I imagine).


The second generation big whites are outstanding, but I guess that's what you could expect at their price point.

The 135 Sonnar T* is a stunning lens corner to corner, it delivers sharper corners than the Otus lenses. The 85 Otus is sharper than anything in the centre, but the centre portion does not contribute much pMPX to the overall resolution of the sensor.

I posted the top 20 performers for which I have some form of data. The 35 Art is just slightly further down the list. I calculated it at about 42.0 pMPx. Not shabby at all


----------



## Arkarch (Feb 4, 2015)

Thanks for the charts. 

I can attest to the the 300 / 2.8 being beyond sharp; while I use it mostly for sports, I have used it on some clear day landscapes with surprising detail - I rented an A7R + EF metabones last year and could paint individual leaves a couple hundred yards away at 36 MP. Along with the 70-200, ZE 100/2, ZE 50 / 2 and TS-E 24 I should have a good match with the 5DS.

I did notice that only one wide, the TS-E 24, falls on the resolution chart. I know the Sigma 35, technically a wide, is not too far off. Seems like we have some catching up to do on wides.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 4, 2015)

Owning the 500mm L II, looking at how many lenses in the list are higher than it is, it is obvious that the rating system is flawed.

Flawed to the point that it is ridiculous.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 4, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> Owning the 500mm L II, looking at how many lenses in the list are higher than it is, it is obvious that the rating system is flawed.
> 
> Flawed to the point that it is ridiculous.



It's 18MP+ like everything else. 80-90% resolve on the 5D3... The differences between 1-20 all within 10% or so. Even the Second list it's in the top 10. Thats...pretty damn good for a telephoto length like that. What's the matter??


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 4, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Owning the 500mm L II, looking at how many lenses in the list are higher than it is, it is obvious that the rating system is flawed.
> ...



I own or have owned many of the lenses that are higher on the list. Again it's ridiculous.

What's the matter? Obviously at some point the data or tests used to arrive at the results are flawed. Or the data and tests were proper and the manner that the conclusion was drawn is flawed. You can decide which.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 4, 2015)

I don't think any of these lenses are more or less sharp than the others when you add in sample variation, testing procedures (distance to chart), etc. For example, I could show you a set of test shots that show my TS-E 24 f/3.5 II is far sharper than the next sharpest lens I own at that focal length, the 24-70 f/2.8 II. That's not what Roger form Lensrentals and other testers have shown, but it is a fact when looking at my own lenses.

The idea behind this post is that none of these lenses are likely to resolve 100% of 50MP, but these lenses, based on DxO measurements (not scores) are likely to yield the best results. Beyond that, as Nikon users have found, technique means everything, and keep in mind that stepping down to f/11+ is going to soften all of these lenses on this dense of a sensor.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 4, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



I would expect the model with the AA filter will be largely disappointing to most photographers. The video guys will love it, all other lack of features not withstanding. Every time Canon comes out with a higher res sensor, the images get softer. Take the 5DIII and 7DII as examples compared to lesser resolution models of the same sensor size. I would expect that in the end all of these in the chart will have the same soft appearance out of the camera and visually indistinguishable.

I think the real winner will be one without the AA filter...but we will be seeing a lot of post AA processing in our workflows.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 4, 2015)

East Wind Photography said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > PureClassA said:
> ...



I think even with the AA filter you will see some increase in resolution and most likely it will be similar to what you see out of the 7D II.

Nikon did away with the AA filter in the D810. Did they just not see the need? How will this relate to the 5DsR?
Many questions that I hope are answered on Friday.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Feb 4, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > I've been working more deeply with MTF data and this is my work-in-progress table of best resolving lenses for Canon EF mount. You might notice that the Canon 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM (mk-I) is not on my table because is only available second hand. I don't have any lens data on high-res sensors without AA filter so they could deliver sharper results...
> ...


Very interesting, I will also wait for the answer


----------



## K-amps (Feb 4, 2015)

Did they test the 180mm L? It's the sharpest lens I owned, it is not on the list, where as most lens I have now are on that list and the 180 was the sharpest lens I shot with.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 4, 2015)

K-amps said:


> Did they test the 180mm L? It's the sharpest lens I owned, it is not on the list, where as most lens I have now are on that list and the 180 was the sharpest lens I shot with.


DxO has tested it, but it didn't rank too highly. I own one and would agree that it's mighty sharp, but again, there are so many variables.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 4, 2015)

Actually Sony did away with the AA filter. Nikon just said "Yeah ok. We're desperate. Whatever"

Lens sharpness is to a degree subjective. There are SO many variables it's not even funny. Can we all agree that a Canon 135L is sharper than a 70-300 non-L at 135? Uhhh yeah. At least I'd hope so. Can we debate the merits of sharpness on a given particular shot from the Sig 35ART to the Canon 16-35 f4L at 35? ... YES. I own both. Both yield superb results if stopped to same apertures, otherwise the 35 has a style all its own that cant really be compared at 1.4. I never even use profile corrections on it at that ap.

Will all these lenses resolve beautifully on a new 50MP sensor? Hell friggin' yes. I think we have become so spoiled by so many excellent products nowadays that we have really started nit picking too hard on what amounts to almost nothing in real world terms. I look forward to the 5DS and I'll be surprised if I dont pre-order the minute it hits. I've been extremely happy with my 6D and it's detail crushing AA filter...


----------



## StudentOfLight (Feb 4, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> I don't think any of these lenses are more or less sharp than the others when you add in sample variation, testing procedures (distance to chart), etc. For example, I could show you a set of test shots that show my TS-E 24 f/3.5 II is far sharper than the next sharpest lens I own at that focal length, the 24-70 f/2.8 II. That's not what Roger form Lensrentals and other testers have shown, but it is a fact when looking at my own lenses.
> 
> The idea behind this post is that none of these lenses are likely to resolve 100% of 50MP, but these lenses, based on DxO measurements (not scores) are likely to yield the best results. Beyond that, as Nikon users have found, technique means everything, and keep in mind that stepping down to f/11+ is going to soften all of these lenses on this dense of a sensor.


I agree. With the correct conditions/lighting/shooting/sharpening techniques you can get very good detail with any of the listed lenses.


----------



## Machaon (Feb 4, 2015)

fegari said:


> On my side I would assume that this new FF 50Mpx should put the same kind of "strain" on a lens than the 7DII, because of nearly identical pixel size, and I do get tack sharp pics on a 7DII (with some very high quality lenses)...it does not seem to me limited at all.



I agree that the sensor offers a similar pixel pitch. However, APS-C sensors sit in the centre "sweet spot" of the lens image circle, whereas a FF sensor will reveal the poorer, peripheral optics of these (excellent) lenses.


----------



## Machaon (Feb 4, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> I think we have become so spoiled by so many excellent products nowadays that we have really started nit picking too hard on what amounts to almost nothing in real world terms.



You are absolutely spot-on. We are privileged to be photographing in an age when we nit-pick over degrees of excellence.

Imagination, composition and control of light will matter far more than any optical deficiency in superb, top-end lenses.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 4, 2015)

Machaon said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > I think we have become so spoiled by so many excellent products nowadays that we have really started nit picking too hard on what amounts to almost nothing in real world terms.
> ...


Very true, and the reality is that a great 3MP shot will trump a lousy 50MP 

I'm fortunate enough to own several of Canon's sharpest lenses but that doesn't mean I'll stop using my "lesser" lenses, even when I move to a 50MP sensor.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 5, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



I agree you will see some increase in resolution. However my point was that with the addition of an AA filter with such a high pixel count, you wont be able to distinguish one lens from another in StudentOfLight's top 10% OPE lenses (notwithstanding corner sharpness, CA and whatnot). The MTF data gets thrown out with the bath water so to speak once you add a "fuzzing" filter in front of the sensor. 

Take a look at any production 7DII raw image taken with one of the high end lenses and you will see what I'm talking about. Now with the 5DsR we could start seeing what the lenses are REALLY capable of.


----------

