For the last 35 years I've been shooting 4x5 and Hasselblad. Using the best lenses in both formats (I class in Hassie).

Just recently I bought a new Canon 1DS Mk II with the 16-35 L, 24 L TCE and the 70-200 L Canon lenses. All purchased brand new from Calumet and B&H.

This past weekend I finally had time to run tests on the 16-35 and the 24 lenses. I am very distressed with the resultant POOR quality of these lenses compared to what I've been used to. Canon should be ashamed of these lenses!

I took a real workd scene - waterfall, rock cliffs, trees - and set the 1Ds up on a tripod. Using the remote I shot one frame of every aperture. Came home, downloaded the images into Lightroom and began to study the results.

I was disgusted to find there is no aperture for either lens that is sharp in the corners or across the borders!! Identical for both lenses.

Forget sharpening filters - it just can't be corrected properly.

Now, I do find the fidelity of the array in the 1Ds decent and I'm wondering if the 50, 100 and 150 I class lenses I have on a Hasselblad 503CW would work on the Canon. Has anyone tried this with success?

PS: I am so disgusted that I plan to add a page to my web site with cuts of the test images so anyone contemplating these lenses can have a look to see what they will get for their money. Give me a couple of weeks to get to this addition.
http://www.shadowsdancing.com

Many have found Canons wide-angle lenses lacking. There is a lot of valuable information available about using Zeiss/Leica/Oly/etc and MF lenses on Canon:

http://16-9.net/lens_tests/compatible.html

and on this forum:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55

Ah, pixel peeping. Where would we be without it!

There have been grumblings about the 16-35L for a while. It's why I got a 17-40 instead; prevailing wisdom seemed to indicate "don't waste your money."

You may also not be aware that Canon has already announced a replacement for the 16-35L lens. Some speculate that it may in fact be necessary because the resolution of some unannounced cameras would *really* show the limitations of the 16-35 on the wide end.

Ahh, 35mm Vs. Medium format...

I borrowed a V mount P25 for my Blad kit and went to the mountains to shoot some landscapes as a test, I was really surprised how soft the 40mm was in the corners and how good the 50 was, on film I was always happy with the 40, another surprise was that my 120 macro was not very good near the infinity end, not unuseable, but not impressive..

In some of the test shots I've seen with the P45 the Blad wide lens have soft corners as well..

Yes Canon need some better wides, but are we starting to expect too much from a 35 mm ?

Of course we are. I don't complain when my honda doesn't accelerate like a ferrari, no matter how big an engine they put in it.

That sounds really strange. I have the 16-35 and its not amazing but can deliver decent results stopped down around f8 -11 and in the 20 -35 zoom range compared to all the canon and nikon primes I have. It might be your camera body needs to be recalibrated or the AF is badly adjusted as its unlikely three lenses would be so awful. It did take me two versions of the 16-35 before I was satisfied I had a good one . I hear this isn't an uncommon experience.
I also run an older Hasselblad with a 22mp back and find the Canon files with a good lens and careful sharpening almost comparable in resolution terms.

Canon's QC is pretty poor. As a result, some people have lenses they swear by, and other people receive rubbish. I used to be a Canon fan but they lost me after too many bad experiences.

I think latest 40mm Hasselblad is a BIG step up (the IF lens) but expensive (and as the Zeiss designer points out, the distortion is way overstated.)

Also need to ask if wide open . Except for Leica, very few lens sharp in cornerns except stopped down 2+ stops.

I use hasselclad on my Contax amd even on My Leica R9/DMR and work great

the 30mm fisheye is good too.

regards
Victor

Perhaps you should try the lenses that are known to be excellent in the Canon line up.
85 1.2
135 2.0
200 1.8
If you try these lenses and still have misgivings, then so be it.

The two systems are not meant to compete against each other so perhaps your expectations are not realistic.
They are not even in the same price catagory, so I do not think most people would be surprised by your reaction to the cheaper setup. You are use to some of the best available equipment on the planet, what can compete with that?
AHAB

I know where you are coming from, but it isn't clear whether the QC is poor or whether the standards are too elastic. This is not symantics, but a real issue. For zoom lenses, the culprit is most probably alignment. I had to go into this with Canon for my 17~40mm L that I thought could have been better. Canon has formally defined ranges for the accuracy of alignment. There are visible differences in outcomes within the range that Canon would consider acceptable for an L lens. I strongly suspect the same applies to most lenses from most manufacturers. It would cost an absolute fortune in rejects and remakes to make everything as perfect as they can achieve. As usual, quality at a price.....................

Btw, using Hasselblad lenses on a Canon is a bad idea for many reasons:

- they are not so cheap
- they are large and heavy
- you must use stop down mode (if you can adjust the aperture at all! Been too long since I sold my Blad)
- they are not as sharp as some lenses designed for 35mm sensors

I honestly think you are much better off using Zeiss and Leica lenses on a Canon. Been there, done that.

The one exception is if you plan to use a shift adapter for the Blad lens which will allow you to take advantage of the larger image circle.

I posted a similar question here is the link http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=15181
but I have to say I am not surprised or disgusted by Canon they are just good lenses not certainly the best, but just good. If you get a chance to use Hasselblad on Canon I will appreciate your response.

I was advised on Leica R lenses, many seem to agree but to me Hasselblad Lenses are cheaper, what do you think?

Best regards

Do I preserve all the functionality of the Canon lenses - electronics etc. or if I put a Leica lens on a 1Ds I am then confined to using the camera as a manual device? How does one fit Leica lenses to a Canon 1Ds?

Hi!

Not having Canon and just looking at MTF-curves...

My personal experience has been with Minolta 20 1:2.8 and Pentax 67 and 45 1:4.5 (?) lenses. Both these lenses were quite unsharp in the corners at apertures larger than 1/11.

I have looked at MTF curves for quite a few wide angle lenses and zooms and I would say that a very sharp drop of MTF at the corners is essentially the rule with wide angles for SLRs. I think that this is mostly due to the need of retrofocus design.

Wide angles for rangefinders (like Leica) don't have this behaviour. There are a lot of discussions about using oddball lenses like "Olympus 18 mm" and Zeiss-Jena Flektogon on Canon and that may work, but that would mean manual operation.

A lens which has a good reputation when used on Canon is the Sigma 12-24 full frame zoom, but quality seems to be uneven.

One recommendation that I would have is that you compare the four corners. If some corners are sharp and some are not it would indicate a decentered lens.

If you are looking at "actual pixels" the view would correspond to something like an 1.5 m enlargement. Can you see the unsharp corners in print?

Here is the MTF for Canon 16-35/2.8 II
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...8&modelid=14907

and here is the one for the 24 TS
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...56&modelid=7328

Sean Reid has a good site on this issues:
http://www.reidreviews.com/reidreviews/

It is a pay site, but I think it's worth the few dollars he asks...

Best regards
Erik

Well you might not like my answer, but...

After seeing what people go through to get the best image quality out of their Canons, it makes me wonder why they stick with Canons at all. Using a Leica body like an R9+DMR with the Leica lenses is a much better experience and I personally prefer the results from the Leica to any other 35mm DSLR. The colours and shadows are good right out of the box. You always need to massage Canon files into shape.

The upcoming R10 should be very interesting indeed.

If you're a sports shooter, this won't apply. Canon is still great for rapid frame rate and high ISO performance.

OK, I see where you are coming from - just use Leica lenses on Leica bodies. That clarifies things - I was beginning to wonder whether you were suggesting to use Leica lenses on Canon bodies and how one does that with functionality.

No, I have no problems with your answer. Canon isn't the be-all and end-all for me; quite the contrary. It's a tool, not a marriage. I'm using Canon because at the time I went digital it was the best game in town, but if they've been eclipsed relative to my needs I'm prepared to sell it all off and buy what is better - but after a lot of homework!

Stiff competition is the best thing that can happen to Canon, because there are serious attitude problems in that company.

I spend nothing more then a few seconds in C1 with the images I send to my clients from 1DSII's and they seem happy enough to keep booking me, I would like a better wide angle and I hope the new 16-35 is just that, but I couldn't be happier with the overall quality of the system..

Like Mark, if some new system came out next week that did everything better than Canon I would consider changing over..

I don't think Canon quality is bad at all, it is just that it could be improved in certain areas. By then we can mix and match until they produce better, otherwise if we are talking about telephoto applications they are the standard and the best by far. So I believe they know where their strength is and slowly they are coming with new products, good for all.

DITTO

Except 24L, I don't think you are fair with Canon. Forget about zoom. Try the best prime in the range of 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, try to step down to f4 o f5.6.

You can't "forget about zoom" - they sell these lenses - the L ones in particular - for quite a bit of money. The sample you buy may be either great, good, fair or poor because as I said above Canon's tolerances for "acceptable" quality have a range within which there is noticeable difference from one end of the range to the other. The real problem is that as long as Canon tells you the lens is within the acceptable range, they won't exchange it and you are stuck with what you got, unless the dealer you bought it from has other copies and is willing to let you try and exchange. Canon's policies being what they are, the only protection you have is the deal you set-up with your retailer.

No, Canon's quality control is very uniform. For people coming from the spoiled land of LF or MF, all zooms are equally poor.

This is incorrect. Canon's quality control is uniform within given ranges of acceptability (to them), but the results from one area of the range to the next are not uniform, and a proportion of their L zooms are excellent.

Wait a minute!

If I have a product that I'm selling to customers and I put my "L" label on it, and I tell the world that "L" is the designation for the best I do, should the customer then have to pick and choose to find out which one of my "L" class products is worth a flip? Even to the point of having to take 10 of the same lens out and find out which one is acceptable.

That's Canon's job, not mine.

That approach is to my mind a totally unacceptable business ethic.

Loyality is admirable, but only when it is earned. Canon has not earned mine. I purchased the 1DSMKII, a 16-35L and a 70-200L. A substantial investment for me and most others. I went on the premise that the "L class lens was what they claim it to be - Professional.

Frankly, I feel that I was lied to.

Jack

Jack, "loyalty" for me is a non-issue. Things either work the way I expect them to or they don't, and if they don't the company should fix it or I move on. You won't find me blindly supporting one brand name over another unless there is technical substance behind it.

As for business ethic, how do you define what is ethical from what is not? They set ranges of performance standards for their lenses and they have policies for dealing with what falls outside the range. My experience with Canon is that if you bring a lens to them you are not totally satisfied with - and I'm talking L lenses, not "walk-around" lenses - they will test it to see whether it falls within their range of acceptability. If it falls within the range, the dialogue with them is over-with. From their perspective nothing is unethical about this - they are simply following their own rules and telling you so. Take it or leave it.

Now, there are two problems with all this. (1) The customer doesn't matter. It is all driven by their own rules and policies. Some may call it corporate arrogance and disregard, others may call it rational corporate behaviour. Each to his/her own. (2) The "width" of their acceptable range for critical quality parameters may be broader than to the liking of you or me. I'm sure they know that. What they also know is that if they narrow the range the reject rate would be higher and the prices much higher. I have no doubt they can manufacture lenses consistently to meet the narrowest standards the industry has ever defined, but you can probably count on your fingers and toes the number of people prepared to pay the price. Think of it roughly this way - if the reject rate is one in ten, the other nine are priced to recover the costs of the one, so from a zero reject rate the price goes up about 11%. If the reject rate is one in three, the other two are priced to recover the one, so the price goes up 50%.

OK, beyond all that reasoning, I personally think Canon needs to pay more attention to their high end customers who are not CPS members and behave more flexibly, but they demonstrate over and over again that they don't. Fine, we know the situation and we play accordingly. For me it is straightforward: (1) Don't buy anything that has known issues which may trouble you, and (2) for everything else buy where the retailer will absorb the risk of returns and exchanges.

All that said, I'll still buy Canon cameras and lenses because on balance, what they offer still meets my needs best. Every one needs to come to their own determinations based on a balanced evaluation of what are their needs and expectations relative to what the various brands deliver - and I'd hazard a guess you won't find any within these price parameters that are systematically guaranteed to meet your every expectation - I don't have any studies to support that hypothesis, but it wouldn't stand to reason otherwise.

thanx for the tip. I will check them out.

Folks, here is an update:
Purchased the Canon 1DS Mk II, a 16-35L and 70-200L lens middle of November, 2006 from Calumet. Bought the 24TSE from B&H middle of Feb. 2007.

Been dealing with health issues and only 3 weekends ago was I able to get out to run some test on the 16-35 and the 24 TSE Lenses.

B&H was excellent and allowed return of the 24TSE - I sent them a CD with the RAW files on it indicating the poor quality of the lens. No problem with them, they were great, professional.

Called Canon this past Thursday, General Office, and defined the problem for them on the 16-35 L. They said that I'd have to work with the dealer. I expressed that it was not the dealer that produced the problem, but Canon, and I felt they should be the ones to resolve the issue with an exchange. They again said NO.

Call Calumet and defined the problems. They promptly offered to exchange the lens for the new 16-35L II when it is available! Just asked that I return defective lens and all packaging and they would deal with Canon. Said they've had a lot of issues with Canon and just because I bought an L class lens does not mean Canon lived up to what a buyer would expect.

In short, I found both dealers excellent to work with, but totally disgusted with Canon and their attitude. They didn't even offer an apology for the inconvenience they have caused me!

Never again will I purchase from Canon.

Jack

Jack, this fits within the parameters of what I described and suggested in my previous post.

As well, normally retailers can't be expected to accept return merchandise for full refund or replacement once you've had it longer than 30 days, but given your exceptional circumstances and the fact all you did was test it since you bought it, sounds to me as if Calumet could have been more forthcoming. As difficult as Canon may be, Calumet would have more clout dealing with them than would you. Obviously they don't want the hassle.

It really is essential to buy lenses from retailers who give you easy return and exchange privileges because fighting with Canon and their standards is a waste of time. I've been there, done that, with a 17~40 L which is "OK" but not the best an L can be. The chap at Canon was very friendly and forthright with me about how their policy works, but they didn't yield an inch, and at the time it wasn't logically possible for me to deal with returns and exchanges through retail. So henceforth, forewarned if fore-armed.