Canon 7DMKII vs Canon 5D MKIV - Image quality

[conropl]

Good points; I'm hoping that Canon will release a new version of the 50 1.2 L and or the 85L at some point. I had a Sigma Art lens but did not get the same results as I do with the 35.

Just out of curiosity, why are you looking for a new version of the 85L? What needs improving? It is a lens I have been contemplating, and it sounds like most are very pleased with it. Looking at shots taken with it... it seems to be a lens that produces real interesting results.

The 50 1.2 L I understand it is not the sharpest... which could be improved (but some users would disagree with that and think it is part of the look it produces). But other than slow focus on the 85L, I have not read much bad about it.

Just wondering what your thoughts are on it.

Beautiful shot above, by the way. You do an excellent job and can get a lot out of what you have (probably more than your typical competition). There is no real compelling reason for you to upgrade given your current results. However, maybe a FF may allow you to push your creativity a little further than the crop body. I think that would be the business decision here, and the FF may help give a slight edge to separate you from the competition and compete at a higher level.

Good luck

Pat

[Photog82]

Hi, thank you for the compliments- cake smash sessions are our favorite sessions.

The 85 1.2 II does produce some excellent images, however, for toddlers, I need a fast auto-focus and that's where the 35 1.4 really shined for me. It's possible the the 85 would fair better on the MKIV, I suppose I could wait for someone else to test it out or rent it again.

[Photog82]

I thought that I'd update the thread. I kept the 5DMKIV when it came in, I really liked the IQ and FF. Down side is, my favorite portrait lens (35 1.4II) isn't my favorite anymore and have been using the Canon 100 2.8 L macro lens as a substitute right now.

I rented the 85 1.2 and really liked it but am wondering if a version II is coming out? I'd like to get a 50 1.x or 85 1.x lens (Canon, not Sigma) but don't want to invest in the older lenses as the 85 took great shots, just the contrast was off a bit (I can fix that but takes time) and the AF was slower).

I'm looking at the Canon 24-70 2.8 II lens, but may need to rent it first, I like prime's for portraits but having the zoom capabilities is nice. Why does Canon have to give us so many options? If I went with the 24-70 would I still want my 24-105 f4 for landscapes? I need to see if I shoot a lot @ 70+ for my landscape photos to determine that.

Everyone was right, the bokeh/background blur is much much better on FF. One thing I never realized was on a crop, if you're using a 1.4 lens it's actually 2.24.

The first two photos are examples of the nice background on FF, just playing around with the frost cover we had:




This was taken with the 24-105 f4 L on FF:


This was taken with the Canon EF35mm f/1.4L II USM @ 1/4 for 10 seconds and 1250 ISO.

[Kayaker72]

James....congrats. ....and I am sorry.

I am glad to hear you like the 5DIV so much. The 5DIII is already a remarkable camera and it seems Canon made many improvements for the 5DIV.

Regarding lenses. If you loved the 35 L II on crop, I would really think about 50 mm. You could start with a less expensive and very capable 50 f/1.8 or 50 f/1.4. I've owned both. I found the 50 f/1.8 to be remarkable from about f/2.8 on, but it was the AF that lost me (which is now improved). I upgraded to the 50 f/1.4 and was very happy shooting it from f/2.0-2.2 and up. Crazy good sharpness. But I decided I wanted more sharpness down to f/1.4 and got the Sigma. Bigger, heavier, but a remarkable piece of glass.

Granted, it sits a lot as the 24-70 II is on my camera pretty much all the time.

Regarding your dilemma, let me assure you, it is a real one. I have starred at and pixel peeped enough images to have convinced myself that I can see a slight improvement with prime lenses over the 24-70 II. But it is very slight with the most significant difference being vignetting (and associated adjustments in LR) at f/2.8-f/4 (other than having f/1.4-2.8), distortion, and I also like the "rendering" of primes a bit better in some instances.

But, are those slight differences worth the investment in a full prime lineup? Honestly, I can see people going either way...prime or high end zoom. I think both groups will take some amazing images. I think the high end zoom will be for those that want to ultimately pay less and prefer convenience, less weight and flexibility. For those that go with a primes, I think they'll ultimately spend more (~2-3 primes vs 1 zoom), packing the kit will take more room and weigh more, but there will be a slight benefit in IQ and they'll have apertures faster than f/2.8.

Both great, just different.

As for me and the way I shoot.....the convenience and portability of high end zooms far outweighs the benefits of multiple primes. So I have taken to a philosophy of basing my kit on high end zooms and supplementing with primes where there is a definite need.

[jamsus]

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

[peety3]

I thought that I'd update the thread. I kept the 5DMKIV when it came in, I really liked the IQ and FF. Down side is, my favorite portrait lens (35 1.4II) isn't my favorite anymore and have been using the Canon 100 2.8 L macro lens as a substitute right now.

I rented the 85 1.2 and really liked it but am wondering if a version II is coming out? I'd like to get a 50 1.x or 85 1.x lens (Canon, not Sigma) but don't want to invest in the older lenses as the 85 took great shots, just the contrast was off a bit (I can fix that but takes time) and the AF was slower).

I'm looking at the Canon 24-70 2.8 II lens, but may need to rent it first, I like primes for portraits but having the zoom capabilities is nice. Why does Canon have to give us so many options? If I went with the 24-70 would I still want my 24-105 f4 for landscapes? I need to see if I shoot a lot @ 70+ for my landscape photos to determine that.

Hi, thank you for the compliments- cake smash sessions are our favorite sessions.

The 85 1.2 II does produce some excellent images, however, for toddlers, I need a fast auto-focus and that's where the 35 1.4 really shined for me. It's possible the the 85 would fair better on the MKIV, I suppose I could wait for someone else to test it out or rent it again.

You're confusing the daylights out of me. Canon released an 85/1.2 II back in the mid-2000s, and you even acknowledge that it exists.

If you need fast AF, get the 85/1.8. That's why it exists in the lineup.

On the 24-x topic, I started with a 24-105 (on 1.3x crop, actually). I followed with a 70-200/2.8IS, then a 16-35/2.8 II. Once I rented a 24-70/2.8 (old model), I was instantly sold and picked up one shortly thereafter. The 24-105 became a hand-me-down to my wife (bumping out her 28-135), and it has become extremely rare that I reach for the 24-105 except as a remote camera lens or to be able to have one camera set up for "BYOL" studio flash and another for natural light. Now that I've added a 24-70/2.8 II, I'd reach for the old 24-70 before I'd reach for the 24-105 in almost all cases. However, I do think my whole perspective is based on having a 70-200 or other long option; the 24-105 was a great first lens, no doubt.

[peety3]

Just out of curiosity, why are you looking for a new version of the 85L? What needs improving? It is a lens I have been contemplating, and it sounds like most are very pleased with it. Looking at shots taken with it... it seems to be a lens that produces real interesting results.

The 50 1.2 L I understand it is not the sharpest... which could be improved (but some users would disagree with that and think it is part of the look it produces). But other than slow focus on the 85L, I have not read much bad about it.

As hinted in my other reply above, I want to ask these same questions: what on earth is so bad about the 50/1.2L or the 85/1.2LII? We've had an 85/1.2 II for about 2.5 years, and my only complaints would be the sheer size and weight: it forces a distinct caution when using, and only works in limited slots in my bag. We added a 50/1.2L and a 135/2L in March, and I find both to be absolutely fantastic. Since both are lighter and easier to hold than the 85L, they seem to get more use than the 85 does (at least for me...maybe it's the novelty of new lenses?).

[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.

[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