Canon 7DMKII vs Canon 5D MKIV - Image quality

[Photog82]

Can I make an observation about a point?

"One thing I never realized was on a crop, if you're using a 1.4 lens it's actually 2.24."

That is not correct. The f aperture of a lens doesn't change with the sensor.

If I use a f1.4 lens in a scenery that resolves a 1\1000 - 100 ISO - f 1.4 on a FF Camera on my APS-C Camera the numbers are still the same, i found this concept a bit confusing on internet sometimes.

If i take a picture and i crop it, the light remains the same.

The DoF changes because of the "circle of confusion" (i dont know how do you call it in English sorry!) calculated via Focal Range \ Lens Aperture \ Distance from Subject \ Sensor Size.




Edited after a "terminology" check

I've read several articles on this and this video goes over it as well, it makes sense but could be wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5zN6NVx-hY

peety3: It was a typo, I meant version 3 of the 85 1.2.

Basically what I'm trying to do is get some good portrait lenses. My 100 Macro is good but I really want a good 50 1.2 lens from Canon. I could go with the 85 1.2 II but it is a little slow on the AF side. I may have to rent the 24-70 2.8 II lens for portrait use. I found that I do use the extra reach for my landscapes. I found that the majority of the focal length for the 24-105 is at 24-35 and 85-105.

[peety3]

Basically what I'm trying to do is get some good portrait lenses. My 100 Macro is good but I really want a good 50 1.2 lens from Canon. I could go with the 85 1.2 II but it is a little slow on the AF side. I may have to rent the 24-70 2.8 II lens for portrait use. I found that I do use the extra reach for my landscapes. I found that the majority of the focal length for the 24-105 is at 24-35 and 85-105.

IMHO, you're absolutely dreaming if you think an 85/1.2L III would actually be "fast" to focus. IIRC, v2 has eight elements, and seven of the eight elements move for focus (that rear element is quite obviously parked in place; I can't imagine trying to make it move so close to those contacts).

Back to the use case, it already is a good (err...great) portrait lens. I use mine in AI Servo and although I can hear and feel it constantly tweaking focus as I breathe and so does my subject, it's spot-on once it's in the general zone. What is so bad about the 50/1.2? What's bad about the 85/1.8? What's bad about the 100/2, 135/2, 70-200/2.8 non-IS, 70-200/2.8 IS II, or heck, either of the 70-200/4 variants? Heck, both the "old" Zeiss 85/1.4 and new Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4 include electronic focus confirmation, as do both variants of the Zeiss 100/2 Makro, the Zeiss 135/2 variants, and apparently the TS-E 90 as well.

With all of those great options on the market, we own several (50/1.2, 85/1.2 II, 100/2.8 IS Macro L, 135/2, 70-200/2.8IS v1, 70-200/4IS, 70-200/4), and yet, for my new passion in headshot work, I'm using the lowly 70-200/4 non-IS at f/5 and about 90mm for essentially all of it.

[Photog82]

IMHO, you're absolutely dreaming if you think an 85/1.2L III would actually be "fast" to focus. IIRC, v2 has eight elements, and seven of the eight elements move for focus (that rear element is quite obviously parked in place; I can't imagine trying to make it move so close to those contacts).

Back to the use case, it already is a good (err...great) portrait lens. I use mine in AI Servo and although I can hear and feel it constantly tweaking focus as I breathe and so does my subject, it's spot-on once it's in the general zone. What is so bad about the 50/1.2? What's bad about the 85/1.8? What's bad about the 100/2, 135/2, 70-200/2.8 non-IS, 70-200/2.8 IS II, or heck, either of the 70-200/4 variants? Heck, both the "old" Zeiss 85/1.4 and new Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4 include electronic focus confirmation, as do both variants of the Zeiss 100/2 Makro, the Zeiss 135/2 variants, and apparently the TS-E 90 as well.

With all of those great options on the market, we own several (50/1.2, 85/1.2 II, 100/2.8 IS Macro L, 135/2, 70-200/2.8IS v1, 70-200/4IS, 70-200/4), and yet, for my new passion in headshot work, I'm using the lowly 70-200/4 non-IS at f/5 and about 90mm for essentially all of it.

I just found that in certain situations the 85 1.2 II lens AF was off more than the new Canon 35 1.2 II that I own. Granted, I did capture some excellent photos with the lens, I just thought it was a bit off in some cases- some of which could have been my fault.

As for the 50 1.2, that thing is so soft in 90% of the photos that I took when I rented it, focus was super slow too. When they release a newer version, I'll be in line to order if the reviews are good.

[peety3]

As for the 50 1.2, that thing is so soft in 90% of the photos that I took when I rented it, focus was super slow too. When they release a newer version, I'll be in line to order if the reviews are good.

What aperture were you at? It's known to create quite a love/hate relationship, as the plane of focus tends to bow a bit between f/1.4 and perhaps f/4 (if for no other reason than DoF is taking over at this point). Admittedly it's a pain to ONLY shoot wide-open or f/4 and beyond, but I find the results are so visually pleasing that it has become a really fun lens for me. I think Bryan is the one who originated the "love/hate" comment, though I see it (or think of it) more often when I read Roger's Take on this lens at LensRentals.com.

[jamsus]

I've read several articles on this and this video goes over it as well, it makes sense but could be wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5zN6NVx-hY

It doesn't have too much sense.

If you "sum" the total number of photons that are captured by the sensor, obviously the result will be higher - the sensor is bigger - but the aperture of the lens is still the same.

If you shoot f2, 100 ISO and the time for a +0 exposition is 1\100, if you go on an APS-C camera the result is still the same.

That is a common misconception that i found a lot of times on the web.

The depth of field obviously changes.

http://neilvn.com/tangents/full-fram...epth-of-field/

The aperture of the lens is still the same