Wallet full of $100 bills

[Jon Ruyle]

Your feedback is neither 'pestering' nor just 'humoring you'

Okay, as long as you don't feel pestered.

I'd want FF because an f/2.8 lens on FF is 'better' than an f/2.8 lens on a crop body, not FF so I could use an f/4 lens instead of an f/2.8 lens on a crop body.

The real reasons for going full frame are first, that the IQ is better (especially on the fast end, but I'd be shocked if the 25-105 didn't have better IQ on full frame than the 17-55 on the 7D) and second, for many lenses there is- unlike the case of the 24-105- no 1.6x counterpart. For you I would add a third: you have a lot of lenses, and each will become like a new lens when coupled with a bigger sensor (some will turn into something similar to a lens you already have [], but probably most wont )


Fast lenses really have dramatically better IQ on full frame. I mean, just compare the 85mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2 to the 135mm f/2 @ f/2 or the 50mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2 to the 85mm f1.8 @ f/1.8


In each case, the much cheaper slower lens is clearly better even before cropping... just imagine how much different they are after throwing away 60% of the f/1.2 image. Not that I'm telling you anything you don't know already, but why pay a large premium for a small speed and/or iq increase when you can get a large speed and iq improvement on all of your EF lenses by getting a larger sensor? It seems to me that anyone considering buying an f/1.2 lens for a cropped body either for better IQ than the non L counterpart or just for the extra speed would drooling to have a camera that would make the 85mm f/1.8 perform about like a 50mm f/1.2, but with IQ that is far better yet... or if that isn't enough, make the 85mm f/1.2 perform like a 50mm f/0.75.


Sure, there are times when you want the reach and the autofocus of the 7D. But there are times when you don't. In fact, I'll bet most of the times you want to use really fast lenses are times when you don't need that reach and af as much.


I'm not saying there aren't good reasons to put a 50mm f/1.2 on a crop body. But for those of us with a more general lust for lens speed, full frame makes a lot of sense.


I've said it before, but I can't help repeating myself: it's too bad canon doesn't make a reasonably priced ff camera with a very high end af. I would gladly play the price of a 7D + the price of a 5DII for a 5DII with a 7D-like af.


Okay, that's enough pestering for one day []

[Keith B]

Thanks, Keith. Great point (one I've made to others) about listening to the EXIF data. I think some testing might really help - shoot for a day around the house with the 17-55mm set to 35mm, a day with it set to 50mm, and a day with the 85mm f/1.8, and see what I think.

I put a spec of gaffers tape on my 70-200 at the 85 mark just for this reason (since it didn't have a 85 designation). I wanted to make sure it wasn't just the romance I was spending $1900 on.

I'm still a little concerned about the 50mm lens selection, if that ends up being the focal length of choice. I'm not sure I'd be happy with the Canon 50mm f/1.4 - as you say, build quality and especially the micro USM/clutch for FTM, as well as softness wide open. I'd also be worried about the Sigma's reported AF issues - did Jan just get lucky? The Canon 50mm f/1.2L has the focus shift issue - but then, I'd likely be shooting at f/1.2 anyway so that may be a non-issue.

Jan said he bumped the micro adjustment to +9 and has been happy ever since. If I though 50 was my sweet spot, I wouldn't think twice about getting the 50 1.2L. I am the perfect case scenario for idiosyncrasies of that lens. I've always preached character over perfection.

[Sheiky]

I'd also be worried about the Sigma's reported AF issues - did Jan just get lucky?

I was asking myself the same question [A] Perhaps the Sigma's from Europe are just better [:P]

Jan said he bumped the micro adjustment to +9 and has been happy ever since

Correct, but truth to be said, Canon lenses need adjustments as well. Perhaps not that often, I haven't done it yet, but I heard different from others.

If I though 50 was my sweet spot, I wouldn't think twice about getting the 50 1.2L

50 is my sweet spot, but I still couldn't justify a) the price of the 1.2 and b) the enormous price-difference towards the 1.4 and the amount of "better"lens you'd get for it. If I had the budget to buy the 50mm 1.2, I'd still buy the 11.4 and add an additional other lens [A]


Hopefully the weather gets better soon so I can use my gear more often [H]

[neuroanatomist]

Fast lenses really have dramatically better IQ on full frame.

Here comes my reverse pestering... []


I won't argue that FF offers better IQ in terms of substantially lower noise even at relatively low ISO settings. But in other ways, IQ probably suffers a bit even with good lenses (since sharpness and light both often fall off as you move to the edges of the image circle projection, and distortion increases at the periphery, and 'corner' on a crop sensor is 'mid-frame' for the image circle of an EF lens.


Here's an example of what I mean, from photozone.de distortion tests of a lens we both have:


EF 24-105mm f/4L IS @ 24mm on 1.6x crop body EF 24-105mm f/4L IS @ 24mm on full frame body





To me, the 1.8% barrel distortion at 24 mm with the 24-105mm on a 1.6x crop is not ideal, but tolerable (about the same as the EF-S 17-55mm @ 17mm). The 4.3%"massivebarrel distortion"(PZ's words, not mine)at the wide end of thethe 24-105mm on a FF body is why, if I go full frame, I'll be using a 24-70mm f/2.8 and not a 24-105mm f/4 (and why I said earlier that the release of a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS is so important to me) - the 24-70mm lens suffers much less distortion.


Likewise, according to PZ's numbers with the EF 85mm f/1.2L II, it has 1% barrel distortion and 1.8 EV of vignetting @ f/1.2 on a full frame body, but just 0.2% (negligible) and 0.8 EV of vignetting @ f/1.2 on a 1.6x crop body. Now, that small amount of barrel distortion isn't a big deal, and vignetting on a portrait lens may not be a negative - but, my point is that even an excellent fast prime like the 85mm f/1.2L II has a 'sweet spot' that a crop body exploits.

Fast lenses really have dramatically better IQ on full frame. I mean, just compare the 85mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2 to the 135mm f/2 @ f/2 or the 50mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2 to the 85mm f1.8 @ f/1.8

Here, I have to say that your examples don't seem to illustrate your point - how does a shot of an ISO 12233 chart with an 85mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2 using a FF body, being less sharp than a shot with a 135mm f/2 @ f2 using the same FF body, show anything about comparing crop sensor IQ with FF IQ. In other words, an 85mm f/1.2 lens on a 1.6x crop is not the same as a 135mm f/2 lens on a FF body - they are different lenses with different characteristics.


You would have been better served by pointing me to a comparison of the 200mm f/2L IS on the 5DII vs. the 7D - that comparison shows a slightly better IQ with that fast lens on FF, but I wouldn't call it dramatically better. Had you pointed me to that comparison, I would have probably pointed you to a similar comparison, the200mm f/2L IS on the 7D vs. the 1DIV, where the 7D has slightly better IQ than the 1DIV, and then I'd have been patting myself on the back for getting slightly better IQ with a camera that costs $3400 less!!


Ok, that's probably enough overanalyzing for one day.


Anyway, I've said before and I'll say again that I'm almost certain I'll get a FF camera at some point in the future. But for now, I'm thrilled with my 7D so I'll build out my lens collection. I'm not adding any more EF-S lenses to that collection, and the two EF-S lenses that I have are ones for which there is no FF equivalent. I added the 24-105mm to fill a specific current need - an outdoor walkaround lens with weather-sealing for 'family memory' type of shots - if/when I go FF, I'll likely sell that lens in favor of a 24-70mm (did I mention that I want IS on that?!?). I'm keeping future use on FF firmly in mind as I round out my lens collection.


Thanks again for the great discussion, Jon - feel free to 'pester' more tomorrow!!! []

[ddt0725]

So, more choices in the $1400-1800 range:


1) EF 35mm f/1.4L


2) EF 50mm f/1.2L


3) EF 85mm f/1.2L II (and sell the 85mm f/1.8...or not?)


4) EF 50mm f/1.4 + EF 135mm f/2L


5) Just wait - Mk II versions of the 35mm f/1.4L and/or the 50mm f/1.4 will be announced for Photokina, and I'll kick myself in the butt if a new version is released so soon after buying one


Thoughts and suggestions will be appreciated!


--John

Getting back to your original questions and being the totally non-analytical person that I am, I think you should at least narrow your choices down to #3 & #5. First off, you know you are going to want the Mk II as soon as it hits the stores and your going to have one sore butt after kicking yourself so many times if you don't wait it out! As for #3, I LUST for this lens and it is on my never will be able get list! Well, maybe never!

Denise

[Brendan7]

Hey John, I know the 85L is awesome and all but it has a weird focus mechanism (yeah, I don't known the tech photo term) that makes it AF much slower that than non-Ls including the 85mm 1.8. the 50mm f/1.2 is weather sealed and doesn't have the crap AF of the 85L. To me, it's between the 50 and 85L: which focal length do you prefer? The 135 f/2 is now not as valuable, now that you have the 70-200 II.


Waiting for the Mark II versions is not a good idea. the best gear is the gear available to you NOW.


Good Luck!


brendan

[Keith B]

doesn't have the crap AF of the 85L.

I guess that would explain all the raving reviews.

[Keith B]

I'd also be worried about the Sigma's reported AF issues - did Jan just get lucky?

Just to be clear that was John's comment.


I was asking myself the same question [img]/emoticons/emotion-13.gif[/img] Perhaps the Sigma's from Europe are just better [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]

Jan said he bumped the micro adjustment to +9 and has been happy ever since

I know Canon lenses need MA. My 70-200 needed +15. Infact the only lens I have that didn't need any was my 16-35II.


Correct, but truth to be said, Canon lenses need adjustments as well. Perhaps not that often, I haven't done it yet, but I heard different from others.

If I though 50 was my sweet spot, I wouldn't think twice about getting the 50 1.2L

50 is my sweet spot, but I still couldn't justify a) the price of the 1.2 and b) the enormous price-difference towards the 1.4 and the amount of "better"lens you'd get for it. If I had the budget to buy the 50mm 1.2, I'd still buy the 11.4 and add an additional other lens [img]/emoticons/emotion-13.gif[/img]


Hopefully the weather gets better soon so I can use my gear more often [img]/emoticons/emotion-11.gif[/img]

I meant this speaking from John's perspective. Personally, Jan you made me a believer in the Sigma 50 1.4 for the price It fits nicely in between my 35 and 85.

[ddt0725]

Waiting for the Mark II versions is not a good idea. the best gear is the gear available to you NOW.

Usually very true but since John just purchased a couple very nice lenses, spending time enjoying them should make the wait less painful than purchasing the 35mm or 50mm now & having improved versions come out in September.


Denise

[crosbyharbison]

Waiting for the Mark II versions is not a good idea.

Unless your losing money or potentialclients, for example:

• you don't have a long enough lens for your sports photography
• you need a 1.2 lens for low light indoor wedding receptions

then there is noinherentreason to not wait forsomethingyou'd rather have. Plus as long as you have your general range covered you can always rent what you need for special occasions.