Update or Upgrade? Full frame or not....

[Sheiky]

Hey guys and girls...


I would really appreciate your opinion on this one. I'm taking photos for about a year now. I use the canon 50D, 17-55 f2.8 IS, 100 f2.8 macro and the 70-200 f4L


I used the 70-200 quite a lot for shooting sports and action, but I kinda stopped with that. At least not so often anymore. And I rarely use my 70-200 these days. For wildlife it is too short and it lacks IS and isn't the best lens to use in low light, such as the evening in the woods.


I really LOVE my macro and my 17-55 though. The thing is: I'm not always super happy with the image quality from the 50D, so I was thinking to sell my 70-200, 50D and 17-55 and buy myself a 5DII and 24-105 combo and keep the 100mm of course. That's my first option. Going full frame.


Else I was thinking I could just sell the 70-200 and update my set. That's option 2


Maybe even buy a 70-200 with IS, so it becomes more handholdable and useable. Or updat my 100mm macro to L, buy a real wide-angle lens.


I don't really know what to do then. Help me out here please.


I really love to shoot a lot of things. I love nature, and macro is definitely my favorite type.


I also want a general purpose lens.


Thanks,


Jan

[Mark Elberson]

For wildlife it is too short and it lacks IS

Have you considered selling the 70-200 f/4 L and buying the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L?

Or update my 100mm macro to L

If you didn't already have the 100 f/2.8 macro I would consider the new IS L version but as far as IQ goes the original version competes extremely well. That would be the last upgrade I did, after you had all of the other glass that you wanted.

I really love to shoot a lot of things. I love nature, and macro is definitely my favorite type.

I think for wildlife and macro your current APS-C body would be preferable toa 35mm. Remember that you only take full advantage of a 35mm sensor if you don't crop.

I also want a general purpose lens.

On your 50D your 17-55 f/2.8 is as good as it gets!

[Sheiky]

Hey Mark,


yes I did consider the 100-400, but my main doubt is light... I'm afraid I will have to use high iso settings very often. And my doubt is still how much will I be going to use it. Maybe I will rent it someday to check it out.


I know about the IQ of the 100mm, I was thinking the IS would help to make it an even better portrait lens...and the ability to use extenders etc might be nice, but noit wouldn't be my first idea to buy. A nice 10-... lens or something is higher on the list :P


I'm not to sure about the 35mm and macro. Just like you say. I just want better IQ. The bigger sensor might help with that.


Yes the 17-55 is ......simply awesome! But I didn't really need the f2.8, so I bet the 24-105 on FF is going to be awesome as well..


Still in great doubt [:P]

[Mark Elberson]

Hey Mark,


yes I did consider the 100-400, but my main doubt is light... I'm afraid I will have to use high iso settings very often. And my doubt is still how much will I be going to use it. Maybe I will rent it someday to check it out.

I think that's a great idea. Giving a $1,500+ lens a test run before purchasing is never a bad thing!

I know about the IQ of the 100mm, I was thinking the IS would help to make it an even better portrait lens...and the ability to use extenders etc might be nice, but noit wouldn't be my first idea to buy. A nice 10-... lens or something is higher on the list :P

Good point, I know for indoor use it's often hard to get enough shutter speed with the non IS version when you're using it as a regular old 100mm instead of macro.


Good luck with your decision. I know it's a tough one! Let us know what you endup deciding to do.

[cian3307]

You say Macro is your favourite area, so have a think about this (and some one please correct me if my logic/understanding is flawed). In Macro work you will usualy be trying to maximise your DOF. With the 50D, your IQ will start to see the effects of DLA from f/6.7. Withthe FF 5D MkII, DLA doesn't become an issue until f/10.3 and the older MkI until f/13.2. It would seem to me that either FF or a lower MP crop sensor is better for Macro work from a DLA perspective???? Having said that, I notice that Bryan gives a DLA of f/9.3 with the new 1D MkIV due to its higher density sensor!


It would be great if some one with some expert knowledge (Daniel) could confirm if I am correct as I keep my 10.2 MP 400D forMacro workfor this reason - DLA.

[Jordan]

Hi Sheiky!


I just signed up to the forums today (been a long-time fan of the site)!


My opinion on this matter is that you should NOT upgrade to FF as for wildlife and outdoorsy stuff, you'd be better off with your 50D. I have a 50D and a 7D and love them both! I take many outdoor shots too! I have a 100-400 and I LOVE that lens. You must realize that for outdoor photos, the fact that it's "slow" doesn't really matter. It takes shots plenty fast and pretty good quality. It CAN use extenders but I wouldn't. I have a 2X and you can't autofocus on it and the viewfinder is VERY dark... also quality is poor. I tried a 1.4x on it once and it was almost as bad. However, I would recommend getting the 100-400 and using it as is.


If you want to take landscape shots with your camera, you can get a super wide-angle that is made for APS-C bodies. I have used numerous lenses (from my lens rental place nearby) and would recommend renting first if you can. I have used the EF-S 10-22 and it's great for nice wide landscapes. I took it to France for three weeks. I am currently thinking about purchasing that, the Sigma 10-20, or the Tokina 11-16 or 12-24, just not sure which one yet (that's my current dilemma). Also, the EF 14mm f/2.8 is a BEAUTIFULLY sharp lens and is still somewhat wide on a APS-C body. But that's not AS wide and of course it's $2100... yikes!


I think that the 24-105 f/4 L is quite nice on the cropped body. Yes, it's not very wide and isn't meant for that body, but I own one and take great photos with it on my 7D and 50D! Plus, the 105mm on a cropped body is a nice reach when outdoors. I own an EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro and have rented the new 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro and find both to be great lenses. I think your 100mm Macro is just fine and I wouldn't update it at all - though the IS on the new 100 is GREAT!


The 70-200 f/4 L is a bit slow. My recommendation?! Get ride of it while you can! I would use the money to put toward either the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM (or the new one coming out soon) if you're doing sports stuff more, or the 100-400mm if you'll be doing more outdoors stuff. The former is the better lens but NO complaints here from the latter. I love that lens!





- Jordan Murphy


www.freshphotohawaii.com


Equipment: Canon 7D, 50D, EF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM, EF 100-400, Tokina 10-17mm fisheye, EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro, Kenko extension tube 3pc set, 2 430EXII Speedlites, Manfrotto monopod and tripod with video pan head.

[Keith B]

You say Macro is your favourite area, so have a think about this (and some one please correct me if my logic/understanding is flawed). In Macro work you will usualy be trying to maximise your DOF. With the 50D, your IQ will start to see the effects of DLA from f/6.7. Withthe FF 5D MkII, DLA doesn't become an issue until f/10.3 and the older MkI until f/13.2. It would seem to me that either FF or a lower MP crop sensor is better for Macro work from a DLA perspective???? Having said that, I notice that Bryan gives a DLA of f/9.3 with the new 1D MkIV due to its higher density sensor!


It would be great if some one with some expert knowledge (Daniel) could confirm if I am correct as I keep my 10.2 MP 400D forMacro workfor this reason - DLA.

<div>


I might be off and probably should wait for Daniel but but DOF increases with the crop factor. So at DLA of f/6.7 (10.7 on 1.6 crop) you are actually getting more DOF than the 5DmkII at 10.3.
</div>

[Daniel Browning]

The thing is: I'm not always super happy with the image quality from the 50D

What do you mean by "image quality"? Everyone has their own idea of what that means, and it's usually not the same thing. Is it contrast? Resolution? Noise in low light? Dynamic range? Thin DOF? Deep DOF? Bokeh? Something else?

Maybe even buy a 70-200 with IS, so it becomes more handholdable and useable.

The I.S. will help with still subjects for sure. Most sports wont benefit much from it (if you're already at or above 1/250), but you're not doing that much anymore. It will help sometimes with wildlife (evenings in the woods), but I find that most wildlife moves too fast.

I really love to shoot a lot of things. I love nature, and macro is definitely my favorite type.

If you need improved noise in low light, consider the 7D. For wildlife, I suggest the 100-400.

In Macro work you will usualy be
trying to maximise your DOF. With the 50D, your IQ will start to see
the effects of DLA from f/6.7. Withthe FF 5D MkII, DLA doesn't become
an issue until f/10.3 and the older MkI until f/13.2.

That is all correct.

It would seem to
me that either FF or a lower MP crop sensor is better for Macro work
from a DLA perspective????

Actually, it's the opposite. Check out what the camera reviews have about DLA:
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"]DLA does not mean that narrower apertures cannot be used. And in fact, higher resolution sensors generally continue to deliver more detail well beyond the DLA [...]



Let's compare DLA with something else: Camera Limited Aperture (CLA). On the Canon D30 (a 3.1 MP camera from ten years ago) the pixel size is a huge 10.5 microns, so the DLA is f/16. On the 7D, the pixels are much smaller at only 4.3 microns, so the DLA is f/6.8. This means that if you shoot them both at f/16, the D30 will deliver the full expected 3.1 MP resolution, while the 7D will be severely hampered. Instead of the full 18 MP resolution, it might only give you about 14 MP worth. Of course, 14 MP is still a lot more than 3 MP. So DLA does not mean the D30 would be better.


If you look at in terms of CLA, it goes like this: the pixel size of the D30 is so bad that almost *all* apertures are limited by the camera itself. You have to stop down past f/16 before there is anything else that is worse than the camera. But on the 7D, the camera is so good that it doesn't take much, just f/6.8, before other things start to be the limitation. The CLA is much better.


Another factor to consider is that whenever DOF is the same, diffraction is the same. Having a higher DLA on full frame is no advantage, because you *have* to use that higher f-number just to get the DOF to be as deep as the APS-C camera. And when you do that, your diffraction becomes the same as well. f/10 on APS-C is the same DOF and same diffraction as f/16 on Full Frame. So for macro, it's usually better to go with smaller pixels, because even when you are diffraction limited they offer improved detail, and that's very important, especially when cropping for magnification.

[wickerprints]

The DOF changes as a function of format size mainly because in order to maintain the same framing, one would change their working distance or focal length, thereby changing DOF.


So, if you were to shoot the same subject with two bodies (one 35mm and one APS-C sensor) at the same MFD with a 100mm macro @ 1:1, you would find that the DOF is also the same and the diffraction blur is the same. The fact that the pixel density may be different does not directly relate to the DOF or the amount of diffraction. It does relate to whether you have the resolution to observe the amount of diffraction that is always there, at all f-numbers.


I haven't done the calculations to determine whether the effects of working distance/focal length versus diffraction offset each other. I think that it's not easy to decide from a theoretical standpoint because (1) diffraction losses are gradual, and (2) there are other variables that come into play in a real-world comparison.

[Brendan7]

Hey Sheiky,


have you considered the 300 f/4L? I am not flush with $$$ and shoot macro and wildlife so it was a nice compromise for me. Better image quality than the 100-400, f/4 at 300mm instead of f/5.6, with focus distance of 5' and usable IS, for less dough. You could sell your 70-200 and buy the 300 f/4l, and then upgrade to 7D. I realize these two changes will cost about $2500 if you sell your 70-200, but you can pick which is more important to you. I just think the 300 L is a bit superior in many ways (I have used the 100-400 too) if you like macro too. It's sort of a hybrid between a super-telephoto and macro. Since you said f/2.8 is not needed, I am assuming f/4 is fast enough.


I am going against the grain here, suggesting that the 300 f/4 is superior. I just think you will be more satisfied.


If the 50d's so-so image quality (what exactly is the problem?) is the big problem, and not your 70-200, Maybe you might want to buy a 7D first.


If you decide to go FF, the 100-400 might be the better choice, though.


just some thoughts.


brendan