How much are you dying to get your hands on a 5D Mark II?

I had been anxiously awaiting the announcement of the 5D replacement for quite some time. However, when the 50D was announced, I decided to go with it because 1) it was significantly cheaper, and 2) I'm very, very fond of my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. If there was a full-frame lens that was truly comparable to my 17-55mm, I would have waited to upgrade to the 5D Mark II.


That said, I'm contemplating using the 50D for about 6-8 months, selling it, and purchasing the 5D Mark II. I'll also have to sell my 17-55mm lens to finance the purchase of a new wide-angle lens.


So, how many of you are planning on getting one? Are you as anxious to get your hands on it as I am? Bryan, I know you have one pre-ordered, so you'll be able to expound on the performance of the production model not long after its release.

I'm very much anticipating the 5D II arrival. I think it is a going to be an awesome camera. I'm expecting image quality at or above the 1Ds III - at a fraction of the price. The video side of things is going to be the biggest challenge for me. I'm not a video guy, but look forward to the learning curve (I love new challenges).


Canon really needs to make a 24-70 (or longer) f/2.8 L IS USM Lens.


As we are pre-public testing here right now, I might be your only response. :) It won't be long before we go live. David is working on some things - then we'll turnthe communityloose.

Based on the dpreview of the pre-production model, the images look very good even at (fairly) high ISOs. I'm with you on the video--it's foreign to me, and I look forward to utilizing my existing equipment in new ways. The only bad thing about video is that you have to manual focus, and since I'm terrible at manually focusing, I'm not sure I'll be the best at capturing video via the 5D Mark II. I look forward to trying, though. ;-)


Yes, Canon does need to update their 24-70 f/2.8 to include IS. I think it would be a hugely popular lens. Maybe they're afraid it would be too popular and replace many other lenses in a photographer's gearbag as it would be the ultimate primary lens. Could the reason we don't have a 24-70 f/2.8 L IS lens purely a marketing decision? I doubt there is any technical reason why we don't have it...


I'm looking forward to the community growing and allowing me to read what other like-minded Canon enthusiasts have to say.

I, too, am planning to get the 5D Mark II as soon as possible. Early indications are that the sensor is only slightly changed from the 1Ds Mark III, with a more transmissive CFA and 80 extra masked pixels. I would have purchased a D700 long ago if Nikon had any fast wide angle lenses like the 24mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4. Now I'm looking forward to a nice increase in resolution.


The video feature is also very interesting to me. I'm going to try and use it with my XH-A1, but I'm concerned about the poor manual controls and image quality issues (noise reduction, compression, moire, skew, poor headroom, etc.). I can't wait until the RED Scarlet comes out this Summer. I'm planning to get the 2/3" with an 8mm f/1.4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

If there was a full-frame lens that was truly comparable to my 17-55mm, I would have waited to upgrade to the 5D Mark II.

---

For me, the 24-105mm f/4 L IS is a far better lens. When light is ample, you can stop down to get the same deep DOF as the 17-55 on an APS-C and slow the shutter to gather more light in total (same light intensity over a larger area). If you don't mind having a thinner DOF, you can shoot wide open at f/4.


In low light situations, the f/4 L casts a half-stop more light than the EF-S (less light intensity over a larger area). The only time it will collect the same amount of light is if you stop it down to get the same deep DOF as the EF-S in low light, when you can't compensate with shutter speed. In that case, the sensor with higher quantum efficiency per area will gather more light, and the 50D is currently the highest Canon DSLR.


I don't know if that helps you feel any better about selling the 17-55 or not. :-)

Well, when considering the move to the 5D Mark II and selling the 17-55mm, I was considering the 24-105mm f/4 L IS, the 17-40mm f/4 L, or the 24-70mm f/2.8 L as a replacement. Because of the amount of money involved in upgrading cameras, I was probably going to have to start out with the 17-40mm.


I've really become accustomed to having wide apertures and image stabilization available, and it's difficult for me to let go of either one. On Saturday I'll be shooting a wedding, and I'll probably be glad to have both. Oh, and props to Bryan on the review of the Bogen 640B monopod. I got mine a few days ago and tried it out last night. It's a very solid piece of equipment, and doesn't seem to feel as heavy as it looks. And the Bogen 234 Swivel Tilt monopod head holds up my 50D, battery grip, and 70-200mm f2.8 L IS lens quite well. I plan on using the monopod a little bit during the reception when I can't use the flash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

I've really become accustomed to having wide apertures and image stabilization available, and it's difficult for me to let go of either one. On Saturday I'll be shooting a wedding, and I'll probably be glad to have both.

---

If that was your concern, then you can rest easy. The 24-105 has a *wider* aperture than the 17-55 at every equivalent field of view and perspective. For example, the aperture on the 17mm at f/2.8 is 6mm. The L at 27mm f/4 is 7mm: 17% wider aperture. The larger front element of the L points toward this fact too.

The focal ratio (not aperture) is one stop narrower (f/4 vs f/2.8), so the light intensity per area is twice as dim. However, the total amount of light is more than double, thanks to the much larger area and wider aperture. So you can up the ISO or use -1 EC to get the same shutter speed as with f/2.8 and still collect a half-stop more light in total. The resulting image will be superior to the 17mm on the 30D, and only slightly better than on the 50D.

I hope that help. :)

Thanks for the additional info. However, I'm a little bit confused. The point of having wide apertures (for me, at least) is enabling a small depth-of-field, lowing the ISO needed, or permitting to use faster shutter speeds. If I take a picture using the 17-55mm on a 50D, at 20mm and f/2.8, won't I be letting in twice the amount of light than if I take the same picture with the 24-105mm, at 32mm and f/4 (at these settings, the 1.6 multiplier means the subject is framed exactly the same for both shots)? Are you saying that because I'm using a 1.6 crop sensor, the equivalent aperture on the 50D would be narrower on a full-frame sensor? You also said that the front element of the 24-105mm is larger, but I'm not quite sure what you mean and how that's relevant? I'm really lost on this one. Do you have a site that I can check out that maybe goes a little more in-depth?





17-55mm f/2.8


Filter Size 77mm


Groups/Elements 12/19


Length 4.4" (110mm)


Max Diameter 3.3" (84mm)





24-105mm f/4


Filter Size 77mm


Groups/Elements 13/18


Length 4.2" (110mm)


Max Diameter 3.3" (84mm)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

Thanks for the additional info.

---

It's my pleasure. One day I learn something from you, the next it's vice-versa, sharing knowledge is fun. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

The point of having wide apertures (for me, at least) is enabling a small depth-of-field, lowing the ISO needed, or permitting to use faster shutter speeds.

---

Agreed. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

If I take a picture using the 17-55mm on a 50D, at 20mm and f/2.8, won't I be letting in twice the amount of light than if I take the same picture with the 24-105mm, at 32mm and f/4 (at these settings, the 1.6 multiplier means the subject is framed exactly the same for both shots)?

---

Kind of. Yes, at f/2.8 you will be letting in twice the amount of light *per area*, but the total amount of light captured will be much smaller. For example, the lens on a very tiny 1/1.7" Digicam with a 7mm f/2.8 lens also has the same perspective/FOV as your 20mm, and it also captures the same amount of light per area, but the total amount of light falling on the sensor is much less. In fact, f/2.8 on a digicam is the same amount of light as f/14 on your 50D! (And f/19 on the 5D2.) It's no wonder digicams struggle in low light. The reason is sensor area.

In the same way, a full-frame f/4 lens focuses more light than an f/2.8 APS-C lens: it's just spread out over a wider area. So the full-frame camera has about a 1/3 stop advantage in low light at f/4: you could upgrade to the 5D2 and 24-105 f/4 and still get all the same DOF, noise level, and shutter speed. In fact, it's more than a 1/3rd stop better at f/4.

Of course, if you take it even further, and go with f/2.8 on the 5D2, then you'll have a 1.4 stops thinner DOF, and that much more low light power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

Are you saying that because I'm using a 1.6 crop sensor, the equivalent aperture on the 50D would be narrower on a full-frame sensor?

---

Yes. To get the same depth of field on a full frame sensor, one must stop down approximately 1.4 stops. Since f/4 is only 1 stop, shooting the 24-105 wide open will give you less depth of field (and more total light).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

You also said that the front element of the 24-105mm is larger, but I'm not quite sure what you mean and how that's relevant?

---

I shouldn't have mentioned it: the front element just confuses things. But since I did, I should explain. The front element is the entrance pupil, i.e. the big piece of glass that your brides see on the front of your lens. Generally, the aperture (not focal ratio) determines the size of the front element. A 400mm f/5.6 has an aperture of 71mm (400/5.6=71), just like the 80mm f/1.2 (80/1.2=70), so the front element of both lenses will be a certain size. Sometimes they are larger for higher quality (less vignetting) or other optical design reasons. If you compare the front elements of the 17-55 and 24-105, you'll see that the L has a bigger one. Generally, this means that it is longer, faster, or has a bigger image circle. In the case of the L compared to the 17-55, it is longer, slower, and a bigger image circle. Clear as mud? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

I'm really lost on this one. Do you have a site that I can check out that maybe goes a little more in-depth?

---

Yes! I'm glad you asked. There is one web page that explains all of this, and more, in excrutiating detail.

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

But I would be happy to answer any additional questions about this topic.

--
Daniel

Thank you very much, Daniel. I fully understand what you're saying now. I won't hesitate to go to the 24-105 f/4 L IS when I finally upgrade to the 5DM2...besides, if I really need faster glass I can always use my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS (and the lens won't be as long as it is now, so it should be a little more useful for everyday shooting).



Again, thank you for your patience. Sometimes it takes some effort to bore through my thick skull. ;-)

You're welcome!