-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Man this thread is a hum-dinger! I can't believe there has been so much back and forth (of polar opposite ideas and beliefs) without the least bit of resentment or ill-will. That's a true testament to the members (ok, most of them) on this forum. Kudos to John and Jon for having a lively, entertaining and educational discussion for the rest of us to enjoy :-)
By the way, I agree with both of you! I think you've both figured it out but it appears that you're <span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]arguing about discussing two different things :-)
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
You're saying that the 85mm f/1.8 'wins' because it's slower, and becauseit's a longer focal length (no cropping).
I didn't mean that the intrinsically slower lens wins. All I'm really saying is that stopping down tends to improve image quality, especially stopping down from a very fast aperture. Cropping tends to make image quality worse (do you diagree? If you crop a picture, don't flaws get magnified?)
Lets forget specific lenses for a moment. Lets say you have two lenses, A and B. You take a picture with lens A and crop it, throwing away the outer 60%. Then you take a picture with lens B, but stop down 1 1/3 stops beyond the aperture you used to take lens A. Now compare the pictures. Do you agree that lens B has been given a huge advantage in this test? Even if lens A is intrinsically better, lens B may well come out ahead in this comparison. In fact, lens B would have to pretty much suck compared to lens A to lose this contest. Right?
Well, B's advantage in this contest is exactly the advantage you give to all your lenses by shooting full frame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
The other factor is that a system has many parts and features. The faster frame rate and better AF tracking are significant differences between the 5DII and the 7D. If the 5DII with it's better IQ misses a shot because the subject was running toward you too fast for the AF to track it, or misses the perfectly-timed action shot of the burst because it's frame rate is half as fast as the 7D, better IQ doesn't help.
I agree absolutely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
If 'better' means narrower angle of view to avoid the need to crop away resolution, the crop body wins, especially from a cost perspective at the supertelephoto end.
Yes, if the crop body has more pixel density (which they usually do, and in particular it is no contest between the 7D and 5DII).
If you aren't using your whole APS-C sensor anyway, FF does not help you, and you want smaller pixels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
We're
comparing an 8mp APS-C to a 21mp full frame, which is unfair, I
admit.
Yeah - PZ's wide open center MTF for the 85mm f/1.8 is 1813 with the 8
MP 350D, and 2267 on the 15 MP 50D.
Fair enough, but if
you scale up the 8mp scores (by looking at lenses that were tested on
*both* 8mp and 15mp that had similar scores on 8mp), the nifty fifty
still comes out ahead. I still believe the nifty fifty on FF would be sharper than the 85 f/1.2 on APS-C, provided you compare the lenses fairly. (The nifty fifty has other disadvantages, obviously... worse bokeh, far worse build quality....)
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
But, we can agree to disagree, 'eh?
Agreed.
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Elberson
I can't believe there has been so much back and forth (of polar opposite ideas and beliefs) without the least bit of resentment or ill-will.
It doesn't make sense to get mad at someone just because they have a different opinion or see things differently. Unless of course, you're married to that person [:)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Elberson
By the way, I agree with both of you!
What? [:|] Okay, tell me what John is saying that you agree with. Maybe you can make me understand his point of view. A fresh perspective might help us both :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Elberson
I think you've both figured it out but it appears that you're <span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]arguing about discussing two different things :-)
Do you mean
Thing 1) Is it true that it make sense to compare APS-C vs FF for effective F and f or actual F and f? and
Thing 2) Is it true that by comparing effective f and F instead of actual, the IQ edge goes to the lens on the full frame camera?
If that is what you mean, then I think you are right. Two separate points that we seem to be mixing up and arguing at the same time. We should keep them separate.
Okay, I've done enough babbling for today. I'm going outside to take some pictures.
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Okay, tell me what John is saying that you agree with
Agree with John:
I thinkit's unfair to compare the 7D with the 50 f/1.2 to the 5DII with the 85 f/1.8. If the the 85 f/1.8 is already sharper than the 50 f/1.2 on the same full frame sensor then of course it will be sharper than the 50 f/1.2 on a 1.6 FOVCF sensor.
Agree with Jon:
If you are buying a 50 f/1.2 specifically for the FoV and DoF on a 1.6 FOVCF camera then you would probably be better off with the 85 f/1.8 on a full frame camera. You and I share a similar philosophy in that I feel that wide-angle EF glass and exodicallyfast glass (50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2, 200 f/2) are much better served on a full frame camera.
The fact is, even though the 50 f/1.2 may have a similar FoV and DoF on a 1.6 FOVCF camera as the 85 f/1.8, there are many other factors that contribute to the overall IQ of a lens systemmaking itessentially impossible to evaluate them empirically. Given the option, I'd rather shoot with the 85 f/1.8 on a 5DII but that doesn't make it better than the 50 f/1.2 on a 7D nor does it make either setup "right". I thought it was interesting to hear the thought process of two very well versed photographers describing their point of view.
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Elberson
Agree with John:
I thinkit's unfair to compare the 7D with the 50 f/1.2 to the 5DII with the 85 f/1.8. If the the 85 f/1.8 is already sharper than the 50 f/1.2 on the same full frame sensor then of course it will be sharper than the 50 f/1.2 on a 1.6 FOVCF sensor.
Yeah, I admit that wasn't a good example because the 50 starts out less sharp than the 85.
But even if you start with a less sharp lens, it will become more sharp when you put it on FF.
How about comparing the 85 1.2 to the 135 f/2? Both are pretty sharp, right? Is that unfair?
According to photozone, "The Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 USM L II is one of the little wonders in the
Canon lens lineup - at least
on an APS-C DSLR. The center performance is nothing short of
breathtaking and the borders are only
slightly weaker."
I'm not trying to load the game with a weak lens on the crop side. But also according to photozone, MTF50's are as follows:
85 @ 1.2 on 15mp crop: 2400 center, 2075 border
135 @ 2 on ff: 3306 ff, 2769 border.
Not close.
(Oops, I said I was done babbling for the day. Shows you can't trust anything I say....)
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
How about comparing the 85 1.2 to the 135 f/2? Both are pretty sharp, right? Is that unfair?
Yep, still unfair. IMO, comparing different lenses and different bodies at the same time is just meaningless. Bryan's statement on his [url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx]About ISO 12233 Chart[/url] page ("Lenses should be critically compared to each other only with test samples from the same camera body as it is the combination that is tested,") and the PZ disclaimer near the top of every list of tested lenses ("Please note that the tests results are not comparable across the different systems,") both pretty clearly support that belief.
It makes sense if you think about it - the MTF number from PZ are in LW/PH. Different lenses have different numerators. Different sensors have different denominators. It still might work, with heavy use of correction factors, if the systems and their performance were linear - but optical systems are usually inherently nonlinear.
It's really not about 'loading the game' one way or the other - as you (at least, it may have been you - man, this is a lengthy thread and I'm losing track!) correctly pointed out, these are 'systems' = camera + lens. The only you can make valid comparisons is to hold one part of the system constant and vary the other. Sort of like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, except that I really don't want to drag this thread down into the nether regions of quantum physics.
Slightly tongue-in-cheek, I think it's unfair to use the 135mm f/2L in any kind of sharpness comparison. You could put that lens on an old[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_D2000]Canon D2000[/url] and it would still be razor sharp.
[quote=Mark Elberson]I thought it was interesting to hear the thought process of two very well versed photographers describing their point of view.[/quote]
Wow, thanks Mark! I certainly aspire to be a well-versed photographer...but I'm not there yet. [:$]
So, after much debate and flying pixels...here are my thoughts:
[b]1.[/b] The 50mm f/1.2 is out. All of my pixel peeping has convinced me that I'm just not going to be happy with it. That doesn't mean it's a bad lens, but I have a hard time abiding unsharpness, and I'd be using it at the widest and therefore unsharpest (not a word, I know) part of it's range.
[b]2. [/b]The 5DII is out. FF is still in my future...but as someone else pointed out in this thread (or maybe some other thread, or many other threads...did I mention I'm losing track and a little sleep-deprived in the bargain?) - the best camera/lens/whatever is the one that's available to you now. The 7D is available to me now, and more importantly, I'm quite happy with it. So, I'll wait a while longer and refine my lens collection, and see what the 5DIII is like. I'm hoping for some of the 7D's AF and fps to make it into that upgrade. To my way of thinking, lenses are long term investments, bodies will be changed out over time (in my case, I lasted 5 months between T1i and 7D - October, 2009 to March, 2010...and I promised myself that I'd wait until 2011 for another body). The 5DII is a great camera, but it's a year older in its product life cycle than the 7D, and IMO a replacement is likely next year (as mentioned by Vincent Laforet in his recent webcast). Also, I can't see any way to use the 72mm filter left behind from selling the 200mm f/2.8L prime directly on a 5DII.
[b]3.[/b] The 35mm f/1.4L is out, for now. I still think it's due to be replaced soon. But even if not, my shooting tests over the last few days resulted in an important insight for me - I do like and will definitely use the 35mm focal length indoors, but pertty much everything I shot at that length was a 'family memory' type of shot, and none really would have benefitted from f/1.4. My EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 with a bounced Speedlite consistently gave me the desired outcomes for those situations.
[b]4.[/b] The 50mm f/1.4 is out - for mostly the same reasons as the 35L. I could see using the 50mm length with a wide aperture (on 1.6x) when my 2 year-old is a little bigger. But by then, I'll most likely have a FF body for portraits and around-the-house shooting (keeping a crop body for wildlife) - in which case, 85mm will be ideal (and then I'll be looking for a 135mm f/2L for those tight shots - it's that whole mouse and cookie thing again, although maybe we've moved on to the moose and the muffin by now...).
[b]5.[/b] That leaves the 85mm f/1.2L II. I really love the 85mm focal length around the house, and could use the extra stop over the 85mm f/1.8. Also, looking at both PZ's numbers and Bryan's ISO 12233 charts (comparing the two 85mm lenses on the same cameras, of course, sorry for harping!), the 85mm f/1.2L II when stopped down to f/1.8 is sharper than the85mm f/1.8. So, I'm giving up a little in AF speed (not much, I think), getting a wider aperture for better low-light performance and thinner DoF (as good as it's going to get on my 7D, in that focal length range at least - and longer isn't feasible indoors), and not giving up anything on sharpness at the wide end of the 85mm f/1.8.
[b]6. [/b]Denise - here's where you say (again!), "I told you so..." [:)]
Thanks again to everyone for your input, and thanks especially to you Jon for sticking with the discussion!
(note: I reserve the right to re-bump this thread when the next bout of <span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="color: red;"]Lens <span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="color: red;"]Lust or Body http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4012/...78aa0eb5_o.pngesire strikes...)
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
5. That leaves the 85mm f/1.2L II. I really love the 85mm focal length around the house, and could use the extra stop over the 85mm f/1.8. Also, looking at both PZ's numbers and Bryan's ISO 12233 charts (comparing the two 85mm lenses on the same cameras, of course, sorry for harping!), the 85mm f/1.2L II when stopped down to f/1.8 is sharper than the85mm f/1.8. So, I'm giving up a little in AF speed (not much, I think), getting a wider aperture for better low-light performance and thinner DoF (as good as it's going to get on my 7D, in that focal length range at least - and longer isn't feasible indoors), and not giving up anything on sharpness at the wide end of the 85mm f/1.8.
85 1.2LII is melt in your mouth goodness!
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Bryan's statement on his [url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx]About ISO 12233 Chart[/url] page ("Lenses should be critically compared to each other only with test samples from the same camera body as it is the combination that is tested,") and the PZ disclaimer near the top of every list of tested lenses ("Please note that the tests results are not comparable across the different systems,") both pretty clearly support that belief. [/quote]
I believe they say that because 1) if your goal is to compare lenses (as Bryan's and PZ's reviews are) you shouldn't compare across different systems 2) you have to know what you're doing to compare across different systems and most people don't (think how much confusion the mere mention of DLA caused on Bryan's site). It's even possible that they themselves don't know (PZ anyway... I'm not one to doubt Bryan's knowledge)
[quote=neuroanatomist]That leaves the 85mm f/1.2L II.[/quote]
Okay, we can agree on that :) I'm all for the 85 f/1.2 II.
[quote=neuroanatomist]Thanks again to everyone for your input, and thanks especially to you Jon for sticking with the discussion![/quote]
Well, thanks for putting up with me [:)]
[quote=neuroanatomist](note: I reserve the right to re-bump this thread when the next bout of <span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="color: red;"]
Lens <span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="color: red;"]
Lust or Body
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4012/...78aa0eb5_o.pngesire strikes...)
As do I, the next time I have a wallet full of $100 bills. (Right now my largest bill is a $2).
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
I believe they say that because 1) if your goal is to compare lenses (as Bryan's and PZ's reviews are) you shouldn't compare across different systems
True.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
2) you have to know what you're doing to compare across different systems
Bryan actually specifically mentions comparing bodies, as well, and indicates that the same lens should be used to compare bodies (e.g. the 200mm f/2.8L or 200mm f/2L IS, since he's got shots with those lenses from a wide array of bodies).
But, when you talk about comparing systems (i.e. camera + lens), it's pretty straightforward to compare systems, I think. If you want to compare the 200mm f/2.8L on a 5DII with the 135mm f/2L on a 7D, you just need some test targets (resolution, color, three-dimensional for DoF, etc.) and you need a200mm f/2.8L, a 5DII, a 135mm f/2L, and a 7D. Simple, right? The complicated part comes when you try to compare those systems without the components that make up those systems, and instead start making approximations and assumptions, most of which are invalid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
I'm all for the 85 f/1.2 II.
Right. But, should I hang onto the 85mm f/1.8 too?!? [*-)]
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Sorry for bringing this up again, but I agree with Jon on this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Thing 1) Is it true that it make sense to compare APS-C vs FF for effective F and f or actual F and f? and
It makes sense to compare effective F and f becuase thats what you get as your end result when you take a picture. You have to compare with effective F and f, there's just no other way around it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Thing 2) Is it true that by comparing effective f and F instead of actual, the IQ edge goes to the lens on the full frame camera?
Yep, especially if you compare ultra-wides. The differance is huge.
It's about taking the shot at this particulare focal length, which is the best system for it? And the obvious answer is FF, I think John agrees with this. But to say that 1.6 crop is not that bad when using the same lens is not comparing systems and istherefore irelavant. Because it took a certain focal lenth to make that certainshot, and you cannot makethat ceratain shot without that certain focal length.[:)] There is always an equivalentin FF so it's a never ending story.
If you do not persue this thread any longer I don't blame you! But I hope Jon weighs in on this![:P]
No worries,
John.
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Glass
Sorry for bringing this up again, but I agree with Jon on this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Thing 1) Is it true that it make sense to compare APS-C vs FF for effective F and f or actual F and f? and
It makes sense to compare effective F and f becuase thats what you get as your end result when you take a picture. You have to compare with effective F and f, there's just no other way around it.
I agree as well - we're already on the same page here. My point was not that you shouldn't compare them like that (as you say, there's no way around it), but that you cannot compare them like that in a meaningful way by using different lenses. The best compromise would be to use a zoom lens on both cameras and change the actual F and f so they give the same effective F and f on the different bodies.
In other words, when comparing the systems it's unfair to compensate for the effect of sensor size by changing lenses to match effective F and f - you need to compensate for the effect of sensor size by changing F and f on the same lens, for the purpose of an IQ comparison. (For other purposes, sometimes you just cannot compare, i.e. you cannot get 85mm f/1.2 FF DoF on a crop body - there isn't a 50mm f/0.75 lens!)
Here's what I mean, based on the what's available from the body+lens combos in Bryan's comparisons (limited number of non-EF-S lenses tested on crop bodies):
EF 50mm f/1.2 on FF/1DsIII @ f/1.2 vs. EF 85mm f/1.8 @ f/1.8 on FF/1DsIII- similar effective F and f, but different lenses - invalid comparison
EF 28-135mmon FF/1DsIII@ 85mm f/8 vs. EF 28-135mm on 1.6x/50D @ 50mm f/5.6 -similareffective F and f, same lens - mostly valid comparison (but still not the same as comparing 5DII with 7D, for example).
In a valid comparison the IQ edge will still go to FF, of course. For sharpness, I think it's an edge only, not a blow-you-away 'huge' difference - that's apparent from the 28-135 comparison. ISO noise is another matter entirely - there the difference is major.
But the overall performance had damn well better go to FF - the 7D's sensor is essentially the same one used in the consumer-level T2i, meaning I could get that level of sensor performance for 1/3 the cost of a 5DII!
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Ok, so I'm back with a re-accumulated gear fund. [:D]
After some serious thinking and reviewing this and other threads, I'm inclined to purchase the 5DII. Reflecting on Jon's statement, "Consider the 5DII, dude. It would be like getting a whole new set of fast lenses," was one big factor. Another is an upcoming trip to China this winter, where I don't expect much wildlife but I do expect landscape/cityscape and portrait-type shooting, and likely a fair bit of ambient-light indoor shooting. As the saying goes, if you need it now, don't wait. I'm still not thrilled with the 5DII's AF specifications, but I'm not trading out my 7D, so if I need good AF performance, I can get it with that body. When a 5DIII is eventually released (I'm assuming Canon will finally update the AF system!), I can sell the 5DII.
Assuming I get the 5DII, my first thought was not to bring the 7D on the trip at all, followed immediately by the thought that I should bring it as a backup body, if nothing else. But,I suspect that in general my 7D will end up semi-welded to my 100-400mm. I'll be keeping the 17-55mm f/2.8, since that with the 100-400mm and 7D will make a versatile day-trip kit for wildlife/nature. But, if switching to the 5DII for portraits and landscapes, it makes sense to sell the 10-22mm and replace it with something suitable for FF. EDIT: Forgot to add, but I have the 24-105mm f/4L IS, so despite a bit of barrel distortion at the wide end, I do have a wide angle FF.
After subtracting the 5DII, BG-E6, and an extra LP-E6 (nice that I can use the same batteries in both bodies), and adding the prospective proceeds from selling the 10-22mm, I'm left with ~$2500 for new lens(es). That leaves me with several options for something wide...
- EF 16-35mm f/2.8L - a direct focal length replacement for the 10-22mm on 1.6x; not sure that I need the f/2.8 aperture, though...
- EF 17-40mm f/4L - close enough to the 10-22mm on 1.6x, since it will be for landscape and stopped down, f/4 is fine anyway, leaves lots of extra $ (new 70-300 L, for example); concerned a bit about corner performance on FF with this lens...
- EF 14mm f/2.8L II - a great lens, but I already find it challenging to compose a shot at 16mm FF equivalent...
- TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II - never tried a TS-E lens, but I'm intrigued
- TS-E 17mm f/4L - as above, intriguing, would be a fun challenge especially with the wider angle, also good as a UWA prime even without TS
- Something else?
In addition to the above, I will almost certainly be getting the 135mm f/2L - I really love the 85mm f/1.2L on my 7D, and the 135L is that on FF (but with much faster focusing). With options 1/2, I'd just get it now; options 3-5 would mean a delay (but still probably purchase before the trip).
As always, any and all opinions and/or comments (such as 'dude, forget the 5DII, you're only a few hundred $ away from a 500mm f/4L IS') are welcome!
Thanks,
--John
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
[*]EF 17-40mm f/4L - close enough to the 10-22mm on 1.6x, since it will be for landscape and stopped down, f/4 is fine anyway, leaves lots of extra $ (new 70-300 L, for example); concerned a bit about corner performance on FF with this lens...
The corners are only bad if you can't stop down. If you can get to f/8 or f/11, it's fantastically sharp. It's perfect for landscapes, I would definitely recommend it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
n addition to the above, I will almost certainly be getting the 135mm f/2L
Ooh, you're going to love it -- I think it's the best portrait lens evar. The bokeh is so nice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
You might consider the 24mm f/1.4 II if you haven't already. (Of course, I have to mention it since it's my favorite lens.) On the 5D2, people can easily mistake the photos for Medium Format film, because the DOF is so thin at such a wide angle of view -- except that you can do it in extremely low light, unlike film or those $20,000 MFDB.
It's really fantastic for low light indoor photography such as environmental portraits. If you're shooting folks that can stand pretty still, you can shoot f/1.4, 1/60, ISO 6400 (or 1600 with -2 EC), and come out with pretty nice shots. Of course, it's a problem if the environment doesn't add anything to the photo. I like using the thin DOF to slightly blur the background, so that you can still make out what it is, but without distracting from the main subject.
It's very sharp when you stop down, so you can still use it for landscapes, but the fixed focal length will be more limiting than an ultra wide zoom.
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Something else?
What no Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon T* ZE Lens ? The TS-e 24mm f3.5L or the Ziess thats my question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L - a direct focal length replacement for the 10-22mm on 1.6x; not sure that I need the f/2.8 aperture, though...
Good choice, I do not use mine much since Ibought the 35mm 1.4L and the 24mm 1.4L II. But of all the zoom's I have had the 16-35L gave me the closest IQ to the primes I use now. I actualy bought the 14mm f/2.8L and used it for two days then sent it back and got the 16-35L because 14mm was sooooo wide........
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
As always, any and all opinions and/or comments (such as 'dude, forget the 5DII, you're only a few hundred $ away from a 500mm f/4L IS') are welcome!
Now thats an idea, but carrying that monster to China is a job in itself. But I would put my application in for the job of taking mine.....in fact if you can get an extra ticket for me I will bring it for you to use [:)]
I don't think you will be dissapointed with the 5D mark II.
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
After some serious thinking and reviewing this and other threads, I'm inclined to purchase the 5DII.
I think you're going to be a happy camper. [:)]
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
On the 5D2, people can easily mistake the photos for Medium Format film, because the DOF is so thin at such a wide angle of view -- except that you can do it in extremely low light, unlike film or those $20,000 MFDB.
I'm finally sold on the idea of fast wide lenses- for a long time I didn't really want one. But the picture in the press release for the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 really convinced me of how the effect can be used to advantage (so I guess the picture really did it's job... only it made me want the canon 35 f/1.4 or 24 f/1.4, not the Zeiss). I've also been noticing the effect over and over in movies.
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
John,
I think that the 5DII and the 135mm f/2L will be a very welcome addition to your kit. I can
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
I've also been noticing the effect over and over in movies.
I notice it more often in stills than movies -- although cinematographers have awesome lenses like the 14mm f/1.2 and 16mm f/1.2. Plus they can get even thinner DOF with anamorphics. (The distortion on the wide angle anamorphics is pretty bad, but for some movies, it's a a desired "look"). And of course there are the times when films actually shoot 5D2 cameras, like Iron Man. [:D]
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
John,
I am also in favor of the 5D II, I have never regretted getting mine. With an opportunity like your upcoming China trip you should
not wait. You can then go with the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L and the EF 135mm
f/2L or the EF 17-40mm f/4L and the EF 135mm f/2L and more souvenirs from you trip, and be within your lens budget.[:D] I think you will be very happy with either combination. I would also definitely take the 7D, failures happen. In addition it is always nice to have a second option without a lens change, win-win.
The 17-40 and 135 f/2 are my next acquisitions. I was already to order the 17-40 and I had I little issue with my kitchen. Let's just say that every morning when I get my coffee and see the new sink and it's accompanying plumbing I see a Ef 17-40mm f/4 USM. Really, I do. [:'(]
Chris
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
As always, any and all opinions and/or comments (such as 'dude, forget the 5DII, you're only a few hundred $ away from a 500mm f/4L IS') are welcome!
yes John, that's what I want to say, seriously. basically you are taking some travel pictures and what's wrong with your 7D? is it not good enough to take travel pictures?especially you already have bunch of good lenses. take the 7D with you to China and take bunch of pictures and come back, post some pictures and tell people here that those pictures were taken with 5DII see what they are going to say.
go get the 500mm 4.0 now, go out and shoot hundreds maybe thousands of pictures, then if you are not going to say "I should have had this baby a lot earlier", please sell this baby to me !( <span style="font-size: xx-small;"]at a discounted price of course, oh, the 5DII too, if you decide to get one)[:D]
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Thanks for the comments so far!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
I think you're going to be a happy camper.
I expect that I will. And thanks! (For your earlier advice, and also for not saying now what I'm thinking of myself...the thick-skulled brain scientist has finally seen the light of reason [I] ). [;)]
Still pondering the lens choices...reading reviews, getting more interested in the TS-E. 24mm? 17mm? Or just a wide 'regular' prime? I do share the concern thatHDNitehawk expressed...14mm is really wide!
Hmmmm...
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
dude, forget the 5DII, you're only a paypal transaction away from making me one happy camper!
Okay, but seriously, I rented the 135 f/2 for a wedding this weekend, I'll let you know how it does on my 5DII. I'm excited, the only prime I've shoot with is the nifty-fifty, so it should be a real treat.
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
I am most definitely going FF asap! I was on a nature walk this morning with my 7D and 100-400mm on my camera & a bag of lenses on my back. Every time I wanted wide angle for landscape shots I had the 100-400mm on and when I put the wide angle on I needed reach. All I could think about was how a two camera hike would be AWESOME!! So I think a FF camera is at the top of my list and the new 70-300mm moved down a notch!
All I want for Christmas is Neuro
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddt0725
All I want for Christmas is Neuro's wallet!
Getin line, Denise
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
I totall ADORE my 5D2, for some reason the skin tones are amazing and there
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor
I totally ADORE my 5D2
I suspect I'll feel the same when mine shows up at my door in a few days. [:D]
I'm still thinking about the 135mm f/2L, but I want to see how the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II does on the 5DII before making a final decision on that. The 135mm f/2L on FF will most closely approximate the results from the 85mm f/1.2L on crop in terms of focal length and DoF wide open, but the 70-200 II should make a really nice portrait lens on FF, too!
My main concern at the moment is the wide end. I'm debating between the 17mm and 24mm TS-E lenses, but I will also probably want an ultrawide zoom for more typical landscape shots and more versatility. Since I would primarily be using an UWA zoom stopped down, it seems logical to get the 17-40mm rather than the 16-35mm... In fact, I may even do that first, and check out 17mm vs 24mm there to help me decide which TS-E I would prefer.
I agree that 24mm is sort of an 'in-between' focal length, but it is a useful one and I like the idea of a razor-sharp-to-the-corners 24mm lens (as opposed to the 17-40mm or 24-105mm lenses at 24mm, or even the 24mm f/1.4L II prime). Also, some of the TS-E effects on DoF (specifically the ability to make it ultrathin) are masked by the FOV of the 17mm lens. Finally, I'm a bit concerned about that beautiful but bulbous front element...
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor
I totally ADORE my 5D2
I suspect I'll feel the same when mine shows up at my door in a few days. [img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]
Wow I missed out I see [:O] Start saying goodbye to your 7D, that 5D is going to rock your socks off [:D]
Seriously it sounds like a great idea. (At least if you weren't looking to buy a 500mm f4 or so in close future) That 5D is brilliant. I think you're going to appreciate your current lenses a lot more now. That 24-105 is going to be a great walk-around lens and the primes....I rented a 70-200 f2.8 about a week ago. In the past I used the f4 version on a crop and I didn't see much use for it, but for sports. However having used one of a FF camera...it makes a lot more sense! It's absolutely great for portraits. I loved the results. Hope you do the same.
About those TS-E's ... I'm already looking forward to some results [:D]I personally would think 24mm would be a minimum on FF. I'd like 17mm better I think, given the field of view of that lens and the purposes it serves. I can live with 24mm being the widest I can go on FF, but with a special lens like the TS-E's I think I would like to go even wider.
Good luck and have fun with your new toy [Y]
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Congrats, John!! I am very much looking forward to hearing your opinions of this camera for it is at the top of my future purchase list!
Enjoy!
Denise
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
My main concern at the moment is the wide end. I'm debating between the 17mm and 24mm TS-E lenses, but I will also probably want an ultrawide zoom for more typical landscape shots and more versatility. Since I would primarily be using an UWA zoom stopped down, it seems logical to get the 17-40mm rather than the 16-35mm... In fact, I may even do that first, and check out 17mm vs 24mm there to help me decide which TS-E I would prefer.
I agree that 24mm is sort of an 'in-between' focal length, but it is a useful one and I like the idea of a razor-sharp-to-the-corners 24mm lens (as opposed to the 17-40mm or 24-105mm lenses at 24mm, or even the 24mm f/1.4L II prime).
I think you are on the right path. This is a quote from Bryan's TS-E 24mm review, and I find myself suffering from it "<Buyer's Remorse Protection>Owners of the not-much-older Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 L II USM Lens can rest assured that their 24mm lens is a match physically and comes very close optically at equal apertures. The EF 24 L II has a much wider aperture available - and it has AF (autofocus).</Buyer's Remorse Protection> " I think deciding between the TS-E 17mm and 24mm is how wide do you go.
Personally I am thinking about either the TS- 24mm or the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon for landscapes for myself.
After the poker game last Sunday night I had the $100 bills in my wallet to buy one or the other, but last nights game left me a few bills short, so I am still deciding.
After you have a few weeks of first hand experience with your new 5d mark II I will be curious to hear how you feel it compares to your 7d
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Neuro,
I second shot a wedding this last weekend with my 5DII, 24-70L, and a rented 135L. I was very impressed with the 135, it was super sharp, even when shot wide open. It definitely shines as a head and shoulder's portrait lens, but the results from further out weren't quite as stunning. I think that for my personal style, the 85L or the 70-200 2.8 are higher up on my list, but since you already have both, I'd say go for the 135L.
Here is a shot of my wife from the 135L (can't post any of the wedding til the first shooter gives me the go ahead). This is shot wide open.http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4130/...7e3e7872_z.jpg
Wish I could help with the TS lens debate, but I don't know anything about them, other than I'd love to own one at some point.
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Congrats on your new 5DII, John! Can
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Well, I've had it for all of about 2 days now...but so far, so good!
(I wrote the following in a PM conversation, but it pretty well sums up my first impressions so I'll just repost most of it here.)
OK...first impressions, especially compared to the 7D. Build is very similar, both feel quite solid. CF door is a little looser on the 5DII (less sealing, maybe?). Button placement is overall similar, except for the On/Off switch and the Live View button. That will make switching back and forth pretty straightforward. Convenient that they use the same batteries - means I now have 2 chargers and 4 batteries when I need them!
Only 9 AF points (I know I've complained about the 5DII's AF!), haven't tried it for tracking performance yet, but I do notice that in AI-Focus mode it seems to take longer to pick up on the fact that the subject (my daughter in this case) has started moving, compared to the 7D. One nice feature is simpler use of the 'joystick' controller - instead of using it to drive around the array of 19 AF points, the 8 directions exactly correspond to the 8 outer AF points so I don't need to really look to see which AF point I've selected.
ISO noise? Better than the 7D, but that's not a surprise - that's a big reason I got the 5DII in the first place! Color, contrast and dynamic range seem a little better with the 5DII. Metered exposure seems a little darker with the 5DII (not quite 1/3 stop) in low ambient light - that might account somewhat for the richer colors.
To me, the noise performance at higher ISO is a big deal, since much of my indoor shooting around the house is in the evening (which is getting longer and longer) and with ambient light. Many of the shots at f/2.8 were in the ISO 800-1600 range, with shutter speeds around 1/100 s (i.e. sufficient to stop motion of a mostly static subject). I consider 1600 to be tolerable on the 7D, but on the 5DII it's pretty clean.
The focal length effect (lack of crop factor) is a big difference too - I think my 70-200mm will see a lot more use around the house now. I might be re-thinking the 135L in the short term - f/2.8 gives pretty good subject isolation in the 135-200mm range. I'll have to use the 70-200mm a while longer to see how that goes. I expect that when dance recitals, etc., start happening for my little one, I'll want the faster shutter speeds that are only possible with the wider aperture, so the 135L would get used a lot for that. The 85L has some added versatility indoors, too. With that lens on the 7D, even backing up as far as I can in a room it's not possible to get much more than a torso. On the 5DII I can back up to get a full body shot, or move in tighter for a torso shot. Head shots could work, but the 135L would be better for those.
On the wide end, I tried out the 17-40mm (which I borrowed from a colleague). With f/4, it's is not going to be so good indoors. My indoor ambient light shots on the 5DII at f/4 were metered at ISO 2500-3200, and I think I'd prefer the extra stop of f/2.8 to get them to 1600 or below and/or have a reasonable chance at stopping motion. So, I'm leaning toward the 16-35mm f/2.8 as a UWA zoom lens (thinking back, that's probably no surprise, since I had the same choice previously with the 70-200mm, and I decided to pay the cost/size/weight penalty for f/2.8). I think I'll stick with the 24-105mm f/4L for now, mainly because of the IS. Even at wide focal lengths I find the IS on the EF-S 17-55mm helpful. If Canon ever really does come out with a 24-70mm f/2.8L with IS, I'll almost certainly get that (probably still keeping the 24-105mm for outdoors if I can afford to at that point, but maybe not given the undoubtedly steep cost of a 24-70 IS). But for indoor use, the 35L is something to consider as well.
I walked around work at sunrise yesterday morning with the 17-40mm. Even right before sunrise, I was able to shoot wide handheld at f/9 and ISO 400-800 and get some crisp shots - so for outdoor use, the much cheaper f/4 lens would work. Shots of trees were nice, but shots of some of the buildings had quite noticeable perspective and barrel distortion. That's something the 16-35mm won't completely solve, although by 20mm it's reportedly better than the 17-40mm. I haven't done much architecture photography, but we're going to China early next year and architecture photos will be a significant part the trip, so I'll probably get a TS-E lens. I was able to determine with the 17-40mm that a 24mm TS-E should work for me - that's good because I'd be nervous about that bulbous front element on the 17mm, and I would like the opportunity to use filters on the lens, too - primarily to blur out people, but that means a strong ND filter, and with an 82mm thread that seems to mean a Singh-Ray Vari-ND or Fader ND Mark II (Sean, if you're reading this thanks for your comments on the Fader ND in other threads - since that would be an 'occasional use' item for me, paying half the cost of a Singh-Ray is appealing, and the AF issue you mention would obviously not be a problem on a MF lens).
I'm hoping the lens/flash rebates will start soon - even though they've already launched a body (±lens) rebate,historically they've run a lens/flash rebate starting around now. The 16-35mm is usually included in that (at least, it has been for the last 3 years). I doubt the TS-E 24mm II will show up on the rebate list, but they did rebate the TS-E 45mm and 90mm earlier this year. I can wait a few days to find out...
This weekend looks like a good opportunity for me to do an outdoor portrait session with the 5DII. I'm expecting goodness... [:)]
So...there you go. Overall, no real surprises - the 5DII is great, and it's going to be better for indoor shooting, and for portraits and landscapes. The 7D is also great, and it's going to remain the choice for birds and wildlife, and sports if/when I start shooting that.
Thanks again for the feedback and support from everyone!
--John
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
So...there you go. Overall, no real surprises - the 5DII is great, and it's going to be better for indoor shooting, and for portraits and landscapes. The 7D is also great, and it's going to remain the choice for birds and wildlife, and sports if/when I start shooting that.
Neuro
Congrats on your 5D, I think you will really enjoy it. I do mine.
I was wondering somthing about the 7D
I can see the benfit of the 7D with the faster frame rate for moving wildlife and sports. With my 5D I have always said I choose the better IQ over the frame rate...that said is my logic flawed:
Everyone always talks about crop factor. Would it effect IQ. I would think it wouldn't but the only comparison I have is between the 50D I used to have and the 5D Mark II. In that case I don't think it did at all. For instance in this example, if I took my 500mm F4L and put it on both cameras and took a picture of cardinal 30 feet away, If I took the 5D Mark II picture and croped it to have the same view and sizeas the 50D, the 5D Mark II would have better IQ than the 50d. After all the lens is putting out the same picture on both sensors, the part croped just spills to the outside of the 50D sensor and is not captured. I did some testing along this line, but not alot as I thought the logic wassound.....Or is my thinking flawed, does the crop cameras sensor have a denser pixel count that the larger full frame?
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
Everyone always talks about crop factor. Would it effect IQ.
It is easy to answer that question. Start with a picture taken with the 5D, and then crop it. Does the IQ get better, worse, or stay the same?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
I thought the logic wassound.....Or is my thinking flawed, does the crop cameras sensor have a denser pixel count that the larger full frame?
Well, I can think of two possible objections to your logic (and mine above). The first, as you say, is pixel density. Of course, unless you are viewing the cropped picture beyond 1-1, this should not be a factor.
The other objection is that when you take a picture with the 500 f/4 and then crop it, you are getting a different picture. If you start with 500 f/4 on your 5D and crop by a factor of 2, you get a picture indistinguishable (in terms of dof, perspective, photon noise, and angle) from a pic taken with 1000mm f/8 on the full frame camera.
So it depends on what you are asking- are you asking "do I get better IQ with the full frame than if I use the *same lens* with a crop camera?" (IMO, an often irrelevant question, since you are getting a different picture), or are you asking "do I get better IQ with full frame than I would taking the *same picture* on a crop camera?" This latter might seem more relevant, but some would argue that it is a badly posed question since you necessarily must use a different lens (or a zoom with different settings) to get the same picture, and using different lenses makes the comparison unfair. (I do not agree with this position.)
You could read a bit earlier in this thread for more on this, but I recommend against it [:)]
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Well, I've had it for all of about 2 days now...but so far, so good!
Nice to hear. What I'm wondering is, how do you like your new 53mm f/0.75? [H]
What you had to say about waiting on the 135 f/2 makes sense. You've got that covered already: on the 5DII, it will be like the 85 f/1.2 on the 7D. Put it on the 7D, and it is about like the 200mm f/2.8 on the 5D (sans IS and zoom, and... dare I say it... with lower IQ). When I first got the 5DII, I was momentarily cured for my lust for fast lenses. For a long time I was happy with f/4 zooms and f/2 primes.
Interesting what you say about picking up a TS-E for your trip to China. I spent a month in Taiwan about a year ago, and pretty much used only the 24-105. It was a lot of fun taking night shots with no tripod. :) Yes, I got some distortion in some pics, but it didn't bother me much. Of course, it was a family trip, not a photography trip, so the photography was "trip photography", if you know what I mean. I didn't usually have time to stop and switch lenses, nor could I haul around a tripod, so the incredible versatility of the 24-105 trumped other factors.
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
So it depends on what you are asking- are you asking "do I get better IQ with the full frame than if I use the *same lens* with a crop camera?" (IMO, an often irrelevant question, since you are getting a different picture), or are you asking "do I get better IQ with full frame than I would taking the *same picture* on a crop camera?" This latter might seem more relevant, but some would argue that it is a badly posed question since you necessarily must use a different lens (or a zoom with different settings) to get the same picture, and using different lenses makes the comparison unfair. (I do not agree with this position.)
You could read a bit earlier in this thread for more on this, but I recommend against it [img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img]
Well would it be true that it would be a diffrent picture though. If you were taking the picture at the same distance, with the same lens, at the same appeture and you croped the 5D Mark II picture to the size of the 50D (crop frame), wouldn't the 5D picture have the same dof charicteristics and be the same pic as the 50D. And yes that is the question wouldn't the 5D Mark II have better IQ.
From everything I have seen the FF frame gave me better IQ even when croped, but I only tested this a little. What I was trying to find out is if everyone sees it the same way.
I do crop alot and print large (13x19) so the IQ is important for how I shoot.
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
If you were taking the picture at the same distance, with the same lens, at the same appeture and you croped the 5D Mark II picture to the size of the 50D (crop frame), wouldn't the 5D2 picture have the same dof charicteristics and be the same pic as the 50D. And yes that is the question wouldn't the 5D Mark II have better IQ.
That circumstance definitely applies to focal-length-limited applications (such as bird photography), and in that case, yes, the 5D2 definitely has less noise than the 50D. However, the 50D will have a ot more pixels (15 MP vs 8 MP), which is about 40% more resolution. So in that case the 50D would be preferred for bright light, and the 5D2 for low light. (A 1.4X TC might be enough to give the 5D2 more resolution than the 50D, even after you factor in the aberrations added by the TC, but it may sacrifice autofocus speed/functionality.)
That said, if you change the 50D for the 7D, the comparison changes -- the 7D will be superior no matter the light level (more resolution and the same or less noise than a cropped 5D2).
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
That circumstance definitely applies to focal-length-limited applications
That's a good way to think about it. On the other hand, if you are "speed limited" (ie, you can never get a fast enough lens), then the 5DII has the clear advantage.
I think the area of disagreement is- what if you aren't limited by lens specs? (That is, the lens with the focal length and f/ number is available with either camera). Then which gives better IQ? Of course the answer depends on specific lenses involved, but the real question is, which is inherently easier- to make a lens with given effective specs and IQ for EF or for EF-S? Put another way, for a given price, which lens will have better IQ?
-
Re: Wallet full of $100 bills
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
but the real question is, which is inherently easier- to make a lens with given effective specs and IQ for EF or for EF-S? Put another way, for a given price, which lens will have better IQ?
EF hands down, I think.
