Digital BW, The Print

Thanks, Claude. I take your point. And I don't disagree with it. But  
now I'm curious to know which lenses you'd recommend for getting the  
highest performance possible from the 1D Mark II instead. Perhaps the  
zooms are competitive for it, at least in the normal and higher  range?

Thanks again.
--
Sam
>For those who would demand the  highest performance possible from a beast
>such as a 1Ds mark II (I have a  1D mark II and a 20d), I would recomment 
the 
>50mm f/1.4, the 85mm f/1.2  L, and the 135mm f2.0, and the 200 mm 
>f/1.8 L lenses 
>as the  finest glass possible with that very demanding camera. Everything  
else
>is  an optical compromise  for the sake of convenience or  dollar savings.
>
>Claude Jodoin
>working  photographer
>Tech. Editor of Rangefinder Magazine

 
 
Since the well site pitch for both of the Mark II's is identical (or  almost 
so) with roughly 2x the sensor area for the 1Dsmk2 over the 1Dmk2, the  
optical demands are identical and the recommendation the same. The 1D's 1.25  factor 
means the sensor is smaller and avoid the corner aberrations of the  lenses, 
all other things being equal.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Is there a connection between the small aperture max (1.4, 1.2) and the sharpness?
Or what about the canon lenses that has max aperture 2.0 / 2,8 ??

Bjorn

> >For those who would demand the  highest performance possible from a beast
> >such as a 1Ds mark II (I have a  1D mark II and a 20d), I would recomment 
> the 
> >50mm f/1.4, the 85mm f/1.2  L, and the 135mm f2.0, and the 200 mm 
> >f/1.8 L lenses 
> >as the  finest glass possible with that very demanding camera. Everything  
> else
> >is  an optical compromise  for the sake of convenience or  dollar savings.
> >
> >Claude Jodoin
> >working  photographer
> >Tech. Editor of Rangefinder Magazine
>