Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
It might also have to do with the design of the 24-70 f/2.8, which by many accounts is a stellar lens (I haven't had the opportunity to use one in the field yet). You can't just take an existing lens and plop in an image stabilizer...it requires additional lens elements and the circuitry takes up space. Adding IS to the 24-70 f/2.8 could quite easily have detremental effects on the image quality.
Daniel...that is a super helpfull discription of a full frame advantage that i never thought of. I am a wedding photographer and have been hesitant on upgrading to the 5D mk II, but the low light capabilities with a 24-70 2.8 vs my 50D with the 17-55 2.8 are very convincing.
Thanks, you are very welcome.
By pure dumb luck, K&S Photo in Palo Alto, CA had one on the shelf when I stopped by before Xmas. I actually went in looking for the 5D, only to have the sales guy tell me all they was the mark II. Needless to say I jumped on it, and have been very pleased with it. I am not a pixel peeper, so I couldn't tell you if my 5D suffers the same ills as others have demonstrated on other forums. I do have some pictures up, if your curious in seeing what the 5D MkII & the 24-105L lens are capable of. I use a program called SandVox on the Mac that makes it easy to post pics, but I do not know what type of image compression they do when building html and web pages. So that said, any compression or other nasties you see in the picture are not the 5D's fault, as once you see the images on your computer, I have no doubt you'll be impressed with the image quality.
http://www.rjfimage.com/featured_gallery/
after seeing how every Canon rebel and 50d etc.. has tanked in price within a few months of release - I can not in good concious purchase until i see some discounts :)
I really want this for the AF microadjust (my lenses are really annoying me with front focusing)and FF sensor, but I'll wait for Bryan's review and DPR's reviews first