Real World 5D with wide angle lens performance

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by winhag, Oct 12, 2005.

  1. winhag

    winhag Guest

    Folks,

    I know this topic has been much debated on here. But I will ask the
    following question. Have any 5D owners yet come to a real world opinion
    of issues such as CA with let's say a 24mm lens on the 5D? I have used
    the Canon EF 24mm prime on a 20D and have seen some quite significant
    CA even with its smaller sensor. So I am wondering if any new 5D owners
    have any opinions based on what they have seen in real world
    experience?
     
    winhag, Oct 12, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. winhag

    winhag Guest

    BTW I am talking about the f/2.8 24mm below
     
    winhag, Oct 12, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. winhag

    Skip M Guest

    All I've done so far is shoot 2 weddings over the weekend, not exactly a
    place you'd expect to see overwhelming CA, but, that being said, no I
    haven't seen it on either the 16-35 or 24-70L lenses. But I don't have the
    24 f2.8 to check it with, either.
     
    Skip M, Oct 12, 2005
    #3
  4. The Canon EF lens is not likely to have been designed with digital sensors
    in mind, so it would be interesting to compare with the EF-S 18-55 kit lens,
    which is small sensor optimised.

    Ian

    Digital Photography Now
    http://dpnow.com
    Visit our discussion forum at http://dpnow.com/Forums.html
     
    Digital Photography Now, Oct 12, 2005
    #4
  5. winhag

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    That lens (the 18-55) won't fit that camera (the 1DsII).
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Oct 12, 2005
    #5
  6. Digital Photography Now, Oct 12, 2005
    #6
  7. winhag

    winhag Guest

    Folks,

    I looked some more at this issue. I was able to find a similar shot
    with the same subject that I had shot on 35mm film with the same EF
    24mm 2.8 lens.
    When looking in a similar part of the frame (the full frame that is) I
    saw what roughly appeared to be about the same amount of CA on the film
    shot and on the digital shot. It's just that the digital shot was so
    much cleaner that it is much more apparent (the CA that is)! The
    relatively fuzzy film grain tends to mask the CA.
     
    winhag, Oct 12, 2005
    #7
  8. winhag

    Chris Brown Guest

    This "optimised for digital" thing is bordering on superstition. A relevant
    datapoint. I recently acquired a Zeiss Jena M42 mount 35mm f/2.4 Flektogon
    for use with my 5D, via an M42-EOS adapter. Not only does it give excellent
    sharpness and resolurtion, with low CA right to the edge of the frame - it
    does a *better* job than many of my modern EF lenses. This from a lens
    that's 40 years old, and a design that's more like 80, and not remotely
    "optimised for digital", whatever that's supposed to mean.
     
    Chris Brown, Oct 12, 2005
    #8
  9. winhag

    Keith Baird Guest

    Isn't it the case that system lenses compatible with/originally designed
    for a 36mm x 24mm format (whether film or digital) present to smaller
    receptors only some central portion of their imaging potential? And
    isn't lens performance closer to the central axis better? It would seem
    a lens "optimised" for 35mm film would provide even better optical
    performance on a smaller digital sensor.

    --/<eith
     
    Keith Baird, Oct 12, 2005
    #9
  10. winhag

    Bill Guest

    From a resolution and sharpness point of view, that's mostly true.

    Some people have reported that older lenses do not have the same
    coatings as newer "digital" lenses, and as such they have more ghosting
    and/or flaring issues.

    However, I still happen to have the original Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM
    lense, which is about 10 years old. It obviously doesn't have any
    "special digital coatings", yet it works just fine on my digital camera.

    I don't know if I've just been lucky, or if people are discovering
    problems that always existed, but went unnoticed previously because they
    were not examining their scanned negatives at 100-200% on computer
    monitors.
     
    Bill, Oct 13, 2005
    #10
  11. winhag

    Bill Guest

    I concur.

    While nowhere near as ancient a lense, I've discovered the same thing
    with my 10 year old Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM. It doesn't have
    "digital" coatings, but it works just fine with my digital camera.

    I don't really use it much since I have newer and better Canon L lenses,
    but it's interesting to see how well an old lense performs on today's
    digital bodies.
     
    Bill, Oct 13, 2005
    #11
  12. winhag

    Skip M Guest

    I had a feeling it would be something like that...
     
    Skip M, Oct 13, 2005
    #12
  13. winhag

    Skip M Guest

    I'm afraid, small sensor or no, the 18-55 would suffer in comparison to
    either a 24mm fixed focal length or a 24-70 f2.8L.
    It might be more pertinent to compare an EF-S 17-85 f4.5-5.6 IS to an EF
    24-105 f4L IS.
     
    Skip M, Oct 13, 2005
    #13
  14. winhag

    Mark² Guest

    :)
    That is EXACTLY what I was wondering about, but I didn't have a good sample
    to compare/check.
    -Mark

    It's interesting how it's now *digital* sensors (rather than film) that are
    turning out to reveal the optical limitations of high quality lenses. -How
    many years did we hear things like, "What a waste...to use your expensive L
    glass on a digital body that can't possibly 'appreciate' it's quality...blah
    blah blah."
    :)
    This has been literally turned on it's ear.
    -Mark
     
    Mark², Oct 13, 2005
    #14
  15. winhag

    Mark² Guest

    Ha! Completely agree with that.
    -All it means is that they've made the best of the smallest piece of glass
    they could use to cover the smaler sensor. -So in that regard, it is better
    "optimized," but I think a more accurate word might really be "utilized,"
    since we're really just talking about getting by with less glass.
    Hee hee.
    Not surprised to hear that.
    :)
     
    Mark², Oct 13, 2005
    #15
  16. winhag

    Bruce Graham Guest

    it was probably computed by hand, so it was at least "optimised by
    digital"
     
    Bruce Graham, Oct 13, 2005
    #16
  17. winhag

    dj_nme Guest

    I think you meant to write: "optimised by _digits_" :)
    Digits, meaning fingers.
     
    dj_nme, Oct 13, 2005
    #17
  18. winhag

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Chromatic Abberation comes from the lens - not from the camera.
    And yes, the 24mm f2.8L shows significant CA (IMO).
     
    Ray Fischer, Oct 15, 2005
    #18
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.