EOS 1DsII lens problems exaggeration

[finste]

Hi,

Is all the talk of problems (CA, vignetting etc) with lenses that surrounds the 1DsII an exaggeration (internet chat that is blown out of all proportion by people who do not own the camera or do and can't use it properly) or is it simply not that noticable. I ask because I'm contemplating a 1DsII or a 1DII. My lenses are all 'L', 17-35, 28-70, 70-200 and 300 and bought in the late 90's. I'm really not into replacing them with more modern counterparts if they will all show problems with the 1DsII and will simply settle for the 1DII. Has anyone got any experience with any of my lenses and an 1DsII?

FWIW, my 'type' of photography is mainly travel and still life. Please don't recommend the 20D because I already have the 10D and the 1.6x crop is simply too much to put up with.

Regards
Steve

[Tom W]

If you're going to have any lens troubles, it will be at the widest end. You aren't likely to have any real issues with the 28-70, the 300 prime, or the 70-200. The 17-35 may give you sharpness problems in the corners, and you may experience some vignetting at wide apertures. Reportedly, the 16-35 is an improvement over the 17-35. Fred Miranda's test on the Luminous Landscape bears this out:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml

Unfortunately, I can't base my opinion on my own experience - I'm essentially repeating what I hear from those that I have more trust in on the 'net.

[Longwatcher]

1 part research, 3 parts experience. (I have 1DsMkII, 16-35L, 28-70L, 70-200/2.8L IS)
I have personally found very little different in any aspect of the lens then would be expected from putting it on a film camera and using the best film possible. Yes there is some CA, but this is mostly at the very edges tending to be on the sides. The same place where it might show up on film. As to vignetting, I have only noticed it a very little on the 16-35, when wide open, Again in the same places I would expect to find it on film.
What I can't say is how much more it is showing it then film, because in 35mm I have not had this high of a quality lenses before. Several picky people who used film before digital have complained about the effects, some I actually think it is a problem for, others just seeem to be complaining without knowing what they are talking about. Just my impression on that topic though.

That said given the higher resolution of the 1DsMkII as opposed to 35mm color film, I allow for this and if it looks like it is a situation where it might get in the way, then I shoot the shot with the intention to crop.

Personally what vignetting shows tends to actually adds to the pictures I have taken, by putting more emphasis on the center of the shot. I personally have liked the effect so far. The CA artifacts tend to be somewhat annoying when the show up, but I can live with them for the most part and I am getting able to predict to some extent when they will occur.

I can't say wether or not it will be annoying to you or not, but I like my results to date, which beats worrying about little things every day.

Just my personal experience and opinion,

[HKFEVER]

Hi,

Is all the talk of problems (CA, vignetting etc) with lenses that surrounds the 1DsII an exaggeration (internet chat that is blown out of all proportion by people who do not own the camera or do and can't use it properly) or is it simply not that noticable.Steve

I have the almost the same setup, 1DsMKII & 1DMKII (previously), 16-35, 24-70, 70-200...
I find no problem at all. In fact film people can't smell their film at pixel level as digital.

[Scott J]

Yes the problems do tend to get exaggerated but they do exist. The new generation of top of the range DSLRs are merciless in exposing any weakness in a lens.

Other posters have hit the nail on the head by pointing out that the issue really only becomes a possible practical one with wide

As far as living the problem is concerned a solution is to shoot RAW and convert with ARC (Adobe Raw Converter.) ARC has both vignetting and CA tools that pretty much corrects any problem.

Far more serious IMO is the crop factor with the D20 -- as you say 1.6 is not liveable with.

1.3 is OK, IMO and 8.3 mpx is more than enough for 99 out of 100 uses. Also bear in mind that the 16 mpx for the 1Ds also has a down side in camera performance and hard disk place.

If you are going to get the most out of a 1Ds -- which presumably is worth doing if you decide you need 16 mpx -- you will want to shoot RAW and convert to 16 bit. I can't offhand remember the file size this ends up as but you are going to have problems here one way or another.

[MDJAK]

I have the 1dsmkII, 70-200F2.8IS, 24-70F2.8, 100mm macro, 17-40 F4, 70-300 DO IS, and the camera is simply amazing. I print up tp 17x24 with stunning results, even the 17-40 wide open.

As far as file size is concerned, it does not affect the camera's performance, and with gigabytes of storage being so cheap these days and getting cheaper by the day, that is not a consideration.

I was going to go to the 1dmII from my 20d, and while I know full well it's a giant step forward from the 20d, it's not quite the leap that the 1dsmII is. I don't regret it for a minute.

[ajmcdo]

Don't worry Finste,
I've used my 1DsMkII for six months now and shot lots of stuff with the 16-35 f2.8L and the problems talked about are more academic than real world.
If you can afford it and want to take the jump then go for it. You will absouletly definetly love this camera.
Wombat

[finste]

Thank you all for the help you have offered.

Regards...
Steve

[John57]

We've got a 1D II and a 1DS II with a variety of L lenses....... we have not noticed any problems at all. I take detailed stuff and my wife does it for a living. We are more than happy with the lenses on the 1DS II.

Cheaper lenses are shown up by the cameras but if you are considering a 1DS II you are unlikely to be trading your L lenses for Tamron ones and the L lenses are, on the whole, perfectly adequate!

[Mark Kemp]

If you ever find a lens that doesn't show some fall off of sharpness at the corners, some change in sharpness with aperture and maybe even a little vignette (especially with a filter) let us know - we will all buy one.

You must have seen lens test graphs in magazines and on the web, they all show changes in performance to some degree. These effects are usually pretty small and it is often a matter of what one person finds acceptable another person won't.

Lenses are not perfect at all apertures, all focal lengths etc etc - they are subject to the same laws of physics as everything else, whatever cameras you use them with.

Almost all modern lenses are pretty good, Canon is at least as good as anyone else for a similar price and often better. if you have the money L glass is very very good indeed.

So bottom line you won't get a better lens anyway, so why buy a lesser camera and hide the limits of the lens performance. Buy a camera that will get every last bit of performance out the lenses that you have. If that is beyond what you find acceptable, then learn what you do find acceptable and don't use the lens beyond that