I always thought the 24-70 L was supposed to be one of canons best. (non telephoto that is).

well, I had it and sold it again, wasn't reakky impressed by it. (had three copies)

I had a great experience with my 24-70 before it was stolen. It was a bit soft at 2.8 on the wide end, but nothing I'd call dissappointing. But with a 1dsmkIII that might be a different story.

are there any adapters for all these contax and nikon and leica lenses that give me focus confirmation on the canons? i could not care less about metering and manually setting the f-stop but i usually only use focus confirmation with AF systems....

Mine is very nice on my 1Ds mkIII

No.
But a screen with split image is the very best confirmation...
(edit: oops... sorry! Didn't know about adapters supporting focus confirmation... just know about those without.)

del

Yes, there are some focus confirmation chips floating around. There's also Conrus who do some full AF conversions of some Contax lenses.

Edmund

i saw some on ebay...was wondering if they are any good....the prices are SO all over the place...the novoflex are 240 and are "dumb" and there are some for 30 that promise contacts....i guess they are just flimsy? if anyone has any actual experience i would be grateful.....

It is nice until you see a 28, leica or zeiss prime and when you are starting to wonder, why are you throwing away so much image quality. So my silution was the Leica 35-70. I know the range is not as wide, but the quality is up to every prime lens in that area.

There's tons of info on the different Leica to EOS adapters on FredMiranda's alternative forum. But I think the deal is some of them don't allow focus to infinity because they are too fat, some are not machined well and not parallel and some have the chips glued on poorly or where they will get knocked off.

I've got a couple of the happypageHK adapters, one for Leica to EOS, and one for Oly OM to EOS and they have worked fine for me. Neither look like high quality machine work but were considerably cheaper than cameraquest or fotodiox.

I think the suggestion to get individually coded ones is a great idea - when I go through my image catalogs I can tell which image was not shot with canon glass, but can't tell which lens was used.

I've had a lot of different glass on this camera and quite frankly the 24-70 is quite nice and if it gives anything away it by far makes up for it by actually working as designed for the camera and not bring hobbled like adapter lenses.

That in itself is worth a few lp/mm in pressure filled commercial shoots.

When you add in offset, its a moot point.

YMMV

This is a strange lens, because everyone has different impressions of it. When I was still trying to publish in magazines I had some shots published from this lens. Which I used because I was in a hurry and it got the job done. They liked them, I didn't.

Edmund

God I'd love a nice 18mm zeiss prime with AF for my 450D. I'd pay a lot for that.

Paul is right, it has to be plug and play with an application that allows the clients to scroll back, something like the gallery functions in I-photo.

It also has to allow the jpeg to go into the computer.

On set we just don't have the time to run over to 4 different clients and say, here do this, or do that, or double push this button.

This week on location I notice the clients get monitor fatigue. On location moving set to set there is just no place for them to always be comfortable and see the image. Sometimes it's great but as the day goes on they are trying to see the secondary monitor and not be in the way of the shot.

A hand held device would do wonders, but once again it has to be simple.

JR

I have two Contax to Canon adapters from happypageHK bought on Ebay which I use on 21mm and 60mm Macro lenses with excellent results. The focus confirmation works perfectly.

Here is a summery of what seems to be available from happy and others...my apologies if this link has already been referenced.


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

Plz Canon just give me a GOOD 28-70 or even 35-70 at 2.8 with IS and I will be so happy ;-)

I am certainly curious about using Zeiss lenses on the 1ds3, but I never get definitive answers why someone would go to this trouble. And are these landscape guys using these things, where they want to count the leaf blades from a mile and a half away? I just find that, with proper sharpening, the Canon files are just fine with Canon lenses. And with none of the PITA Factor, in terms of stop down metering, etc. And if someone wanted to be that anal, why wouldn't they just buy a P45 or an A75, and totally go for the gusto, if counting leaf blades was your cup of tea? Why would you settle on a CMOS sensor?

I'd just love to see a 100% mag side by side test. Something physical, to really see if it was worth the trouble.

And the other weird thing is, the same people who are screaming about resolution many times are shooting handheld instead of tripod, so doesn't that invalidate everything? How can you bitch about lack of resolution, and then in the same breath, ask for Image Stabilization, when you've got a mirror in there flopping around? Something just doesn't add up to me.

First some of us settle on a CMOS sensor, because we need a camera which can be used for a lot of different tasks and still deliveres hq results. Not all of us can afford a good dSLR system and a good MF System. Why do some of us shoot handheld but bitch about Canon glass ? Well because even handheld you can see that Zeiss, Leica and now even Nikon show higher resolution and especially better corner performance. Canon has great lenses from 70 up to 1200, but the lower end just isn't very good. Yes there are some better ones, like the 35L/f1.4, but generally they suck. I mean what is wrong here ? A Nikon zoom (12-24) outperformes easly a Canon Prime .... Both the Canon 14L and 24L have no real chance against the zoom.

have you really looked at to different shots from a 1DsMk3 ? I mean handheld ( speed twice of the focal length ) and a tripod image with mirror lockup adn etc ? There is a small difference, but not really visible in a final print, but the difference between a Canon 28 and a Leica 28 is visible. (Edges are much cleaner and sharper)

For me, it's neither about being 'anal' or resolution.

If shooting at 21mm with almost complete lack of distortion is important to you, as well as taking sharp photographs (right into the corners) at 2.8, or if having no chromatic aberrations to try and correct in post is on your shopping list - then Canon simply don't have a lens to fit the bill. I personally wouldn't forgo coupled metering unless the results really justified it. The second hand price tag on this lens says alot about the quality of the optics you are buying.

Equally, does Canon produce a flat field lens with next to no barrel distortion and minimal aberrations for technical work at around the 50mm length?....no, hence the use of a Zeiss 60mm Macro.

It has to be said the resolving power of these old Contax lenses is excellent - but the reasons for investing go far beyond resolution. Both lenses help produce superb photographs, both technically and aesthetically.

If you have the opportunity and inclination do try them for yourself.

this might be a stupid question...but when you use leica (or any other brand) lenses on the canon via adapter....the f-stop obviously has to be set on the lens....does the f-stop close down? meaning does the finder go darker when i shoot at f8?

im looking for an old lens to stick on the front of my canon that flares badly. i like the look, but i still resonably sharp, but something i can point at a highlight and it flares like a cheap 60s 16mm movie camera.
so im going to use a canon to nikon adaptor, and try a really old nikon 50 1.4.

it might still be a bit too good, but its cheap to try.

can anyone suggest another fast, but old and imperfect lens to try?

paul

The Z21 has mustache distorsion.
Edmund

Which isn't really a problem as long as you are not shooting architecture and for that I would not use any slr ^^

That will not work with a nikon 1,4. That was one of the best lenses ever unless you get a very very old one. The nikon 1,2 50 or 58 mm on the other hand could do the trick. i often used on on my digiflex with CF39Mp back. This way you get a 22Mp 35mm back with an unsurpassed image quality and a perfect use of all possible lenses.

Yes. The finder goes dark.

That's what I meant by PITA Factor.

Imagine shooting people with that lens: Shoot; open lens; refocus; hope they don't move; stop back down; shoot.

Rinse and repeat, about a hundred times.

You might as well be shooting a view camera, and get the extra mojo out of the lens...

The only exception to the PITA thing would be if you were shooting wide open, and then at that point, it's just as fast as shooting a Canon lens that's talking to the camera body.

Yes it always depends on the use. I don't should people with third party lenses. I tend not to shoot people at all :-P

For landscape, cityscape and my type of work it doesn't bother me to much. Would I want to a nice Canon lens with AF ? Yes certainly, but I on some work I don't want to trade the best possible quality from my camera. On other projects I don't care to much about sharpness and I will shoot with my 24-105. It always depends on what I want to achieve.

hi, i realy ment the 1.2 50 (or is a 55mm). thanks for the example.

paul

I had the 50mm 1,2 but i think the 55 1,2 nis a bit "better" for the effect you want. You can also try russian lenses: succes guaranteed!!! On my Contax i used very old folding camera lenses mounted in pentacon-six tubes and a contax adapter: best flare and other softfocus effects .

Edmund,

Yes, this is why I used the phrase "almost complete lack of distortion" - the mustache distortion is slight, but nothing in comparison to the fully auto-everything, bendy everything, soft corner, chromatic aberration steeped Canon 'L' series wide angle lens offerings.

I would prefer to use a fully coupled Canon lens, but for me, it's the look of the final result as opposed to the tools I use to get there that matters.... unfortunately Canon seems unable to make decent wide-angle lenses. In fact they are so dismal that even the hassle of manually stopped down metering doesn't out way how duff they are.

I don't hold a flag for either Canon or Zeiss... if Zenit made a wide anle lens that behaved like the Zeiss 21mm you'd probably find that on the front of my Canon camera - and me on holiday spending the money I'd saved!

Agree with prior poster. I use/used Leica R, CY, ZF, Hassy Mamiya, CV, Nikon and, yes, EF on my EOS bodies and while I am as gear-agnostic as you can get, Canon needs to get its act together in the non-sport focal lengths (with a couple of exceptions) and in QC.

A good alternate lens and adapter(<$100) can breath a new life into your sensor - for not always big $$.

The trick when shopping for alternate glass is to see above the various Leica, OM, CZ and now sadly Zeiss ZF so-called 'fanboy' BS that praises every lens ever made by ____ and pounds on anyone who offers a more balanced critique.

The funniest example of this being a couple of ZF cheerleaders on FM who just took to task (unknowingly) the designer of the jaw-dropping Coastal Optics 60mm F4 APO UV, IR (amongst others) over his technical critique of the new 18 ZF vs the 21 CY. The fact that they continued to push it when they knew he was a designer took it from funny to plain sad.

Nothing degrades someone's manners faster nor enhances their 'expertise', ego and bravery more than internet access and a forum nom d'guerre (sic?).

The trick is not too look for the praise a lens gets, but any critiques. One of those will tell you more than 101 useless 'it's awesome and a bargain' responses to your query.

You'd think photogs that use alternate glass would be more agnostic, but give people an excuse.....

Actually,almost all the alternative glass I've used has beaten the originals I think what's happening is the profit margins on modern glass are too big.

The Canon wides are the worst offenders, I think they can be beaten by almost anything else. I've used the Nikon 17-35, Leica 21, Zeiss 21, anything alternative I have used has beaten my Canon 24-70 and Canon 24. I one told some Canon Inc guys this, it was obvious they were aware that all is not as good as it should be.

I don't think the Canon guys are dumb, I think they've been forced to hold down costs. The 24 shift is a particularly bad offender, which is a pity because it is a good physical design and very convenient to use; so convenient in fact that it cannot be replaced. The 50/1.8 is also less good than it should be, whereas Nikon recommend their own 50 as one of their best lenses. Canon has let their range of primes rot. I'm really looking forward to Leica or Sony/Zeiss bringing better glass into the equation of 35mm or equivalent modern systems.

As for tricks when shopping, why bother ? Most of the 42mm screw-thread lenses can be found for less than $100, Contax 28mm idem, old manual Nikon or Olympus glass is also almost worthless now. It's a buyer's market as long as you don't need Leica glass or the really rare Zeiss pieces (21mm).

Frankly, when shooting as a hobby, I don't care much, but back in the days when I showed people full-page published editorial images and they remarked about missing sharpness, I must admit I was ashamed

I'm going to get an Alpa TC for my Phase back for travel - it'll be an update on the Zeiss 21 Nothing else could beat that lens.

Edmund

As well as cost constraints, I believe that latter day lens designers are also up against EC ruling that won't allow them to produce lenses with glass containing Lead or any other 'banned' substance. As I understand it, the optical properties of glass containing Lead were more efficient in earlier wide angle lens design than later incarnations.

I feel certain that if Canon could do the job cost effectively with the available (allowed) materials right now then they would.

I like the Canon products - their system is top-grade consistent, usable and flexible. But it now lacks "flash" or fun factor; Canon used to be the BMW of cameras but it has turned into Mercedes - reliable but a bit stodgy. Nowhere near cutting edge.

Edmund

That's a fair statement Edmund. Perhaps a bit understated because there is value in consistent, dependable performance. Canon does an excellent job in delivering a system that can handle a very broad range of conditions.

the canon wifi adapter can actually also be a http server....so it can run a website with all thumbs and previews (full size must get slow...)....which can be accessed by any iphone or ipod touch!....i will have to look into that but it seems like you might have your solution....

Paul . . . thanks,

I'll try it if we have time. I don't know about wi-fi for raw files, it seems to me like it could be slow.

Last week we were in Miami on location, this week NY.

Most of these two jobs I've shot with the Canon, some with the Contax Phase, all tethered.

The 1ds3 is kinda strange tethering. If you shoot slow, it runs for a long time though the previews get slower and slower shooting raw and small jpeg. Finally you just it a buffer, kind of like the old 1ds1 and you just have to wait.

It works out, but is annoying to wait.

Medium format on the other hand just tethers so easy and fast. The previews may run behind but you never really hit a buffer and the whole system is so much more professional than Canon's tethering.

Still, there is a few things the Phase needs. Higher ISO, I've said it a lot but for the last two weeks, there are times I go to 640 to 800 iso and need it very clean and the Phase (both my p21+ and P30+) just hits a wall at anything above 400 iso.

Second is 3.78's previews. They just look too sharp and crunchy (for lack of a better word).

It's interesting if you go from the Phase to the Canon the Canon files looks soft, but if you go the other way around 3.78 looks over sharpened and somewhat brittle. V4 pro can not come out a minute too soon.

Previews on screen are so important. It's just the first thing everyone sees and to see it big and film like is so important.

Anyway, used the camera that worked for the job and everything is good, other than tonight I am way tired.

Sent to me today from on-set



Shot by the Hair Artist with his I-phone and e-mailed to me.

I know this is a very small file, but imagine being able to e-mail a preview like this from the camera, or to wi-fi it to everyone's I-phone or I-pod?

JR

Hi James
I know this is off topic but what type of boots do you wear. We both have a boot collection.
Thanks Denis

i am getting my canon tomorrow and will try to look into the wifi gizmo a little when i get my hands on one....
it really sounds promising though.....raw files would be way too slow and not really necessary anyway...but from the manual (and what i have seen on the web...) you can set it up so anyone can access the files in the camera (cf or sd slots) via any web browser, like a little thumbnail gallery....so if you shoot small jepgs to one card all day long it should never fill up and anyone can check out the small jpegs on their iphones....the larger the files the longer this would obviously take, but this really isn't about large files anyway....

do you use C1 or the canon software to shoot tethered?

Denis,

I have a lot of different brands.

Tony Lama
Luchessi
Justin
Dan Post
Nocona
and a some from the smaller hand made boot companies.

Use to be just Dan Post but now there are so many good ones

Paul,

I use the Canon Software for the 1ds3. It's kind of clunky but it works.


Paul Jones,

One trick for a lens that flares is visit the beach.

I use to have one Canon 50mm 1.4 that I kept cappped up from a day at the beach.

That fine mist after about 4 hours would make the most beautiful look to the lens, it will still hold sharpness, but also was very nice for flared and soft out of focus areas.



Another is some of the older Russian Lenses. They flare nice and I think there is adapters for all of them.

JR

Make sure you buy the WIFI device from a company that'll take it back, no questions asked. Everyone that I know that's bought one has returned theirs, and I'm talking about super-savvy technical people. It's a great idea in theory, but for some reason, it seems to give problems in the real world, which is where I live. Dropping connection; shutting down; just plain not working. For me, it worked in my living room, which is where I tested it, but anytime under pressure, it simply malfunctioned half the time. If it was ALL the time, I'd think it might be the user, but when it's half the time, that just introduces doubt, and no one needs doubt in a job.

Maybe by the third generation, it'll actually work.

getting back to the original topic

its pretty obvious what Leica are going to do - announce some new format with an area just larger than 36x24, based on an economic wafer yield analysis. if you map out the wafer carefully and find you can trim (eg) 4mm off the end and add 2mm height and get higher yield, et voila - its a new format!

after all there really is no reason why sensors should still be 36x24, and as Leica was the one that came up with that, we can expect them to widely promote themselves as establishing a new format for the 21st century.

Actually, I'm quite happy for manufacturers to use different formats, as long as they ensure that there is a good spread of lenses in focal lengths that make sense for that sensor size/shape. It's something that consumers take for granted - consumer digicams come with sensors of all sorts of sizes, although nearly all are 4:3 aspect ratio, but the lenses are always matched in focal length to provide approximately a wide angle of 35mm or so in 35mm film equivalence. This is totally the reverse of medium format digital, until Mamiya and Hasselblad finally released their respective 28mm wide angle lenses. Up until then, photographers were restricted to 40mm or 35mm ultra-wides that were designed originally for 6x6 or 6x4.5 film.

I love my square 36mm x 36mm sensor, and I dare say that it would have been more successful as a sensor product had there been a decent selection of wide angle options for it, rather than people trying to use a 30mm fisheye that was designed for 6x6cm on a 3.6cm x 3.6cm sensor.

Which brings me to the point of how silly it is really to use millimeters to specify a lens' main characteristic, when what we really want to know is the angle of view, which is far more relevant and tells me much more. Grrr!

So I really hope that they ensure that there are decent wide options for it (the new Leica "larger than 35mm sensor" I mean), and in my mind, it will likely be a good selection of lenses in a timely manner that will make or break the format.

Leica tries to act like it's Medium Format by simply copying the pricing model:

http://tinyurl.com/5nnx2c

Leica went a little crazy ....

They did... they just labelled it a "24-70"...

If you don't use it at the 24mm setting, it's a pretty decent lens (although it isn't remotely comparable to the Nikon 24-70).

I didn't realise the nikon 24-70 was so good. I really wish someone would make a good AF 28mm prime for either nikon or canon, it would have me changing systems. Hey, while were at it, give me a new 5D with hardly any AA filter, a slightly thicker file, at least 16MP and a great sharp 28mm AF prime and I'd be pretty happy. Fingers crossed for Photokina.

The Nikon zoom Lens is off the scale sharp. I loathe zooms but I bought their last two. If there new primes are even close then they will have something.

JR

I hate zooms too, big heavy things, if I want to shoot wide, I get a wide lens, I don't suddenly change my mind mid shot. If they took all that fancy tech they put into making good zooms into primes they could do something outstanding I'm sure. Anyone know who's promising new primes?

the canon 28mm 1.8 usm is really sharp, at least the copy I had was....