Wallet full of $100 bills

[HDNitehawk]

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

[realityinabox]

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.


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.

[Jon Ruyle]

Congrats on your new 5DII, John! Can

[neuroanatomist]

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

[HDNitehawk]

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?

[Jon Ruyle]

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?

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 []

[HDNitehawk]

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.

[Jon Ruyle]

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.

[neuroanatomist]

I'm hoping the lens/flash rebates will start soon...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.

The rebates have begun. Lucky for me, they actually put a rebate on the TS-E 24mm II (and TS-E 17mm). [] Unlucky for me, my rebates would have been doubled if I'd waited to purchase the 5DII along with the new lenses. [8o|] Ah well, that's life...

[bob williams]

I'm hoping the lens/flash rebates will start soon...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.

The rebates have begun. Lucky for me, they actually put a rebate on the TS-E 24mm II (and TS-E 17mm). [img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img] Unlucky for me, my rebates would have been doubled if I'd waited to purchase the 5DII along with the new lenses. [img]/emoticons/emotion-39.gif[/img] Ah well, that's life...
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

John, I was curious, Why are you interested in a T/S lens. Is it the benefits they offer for architectural work or other genres that you need to correct the vertical and horizontal lines, or perhaps that "artistic" OOF look they can provide for some types of shots.


Again, Just curious,


Bob