I'm so in love with this lens...
It's ridiculously expensive for a reason. Ihate the weight and hassle of toting it around, but dang it sure shoots great pictures.
Canon 5D MKII, EF400 f/2.8 L IS USM, Av, f/2.8, ISO-100, 1/2500
I'm so in love with this lens...
It's ridiculously expensive for a reason. Ihate the weight and hassle of toting it around, but dang it sure shoots great pictures.
Canon 5D MKII, EF400 f/2.8 L IS USM, Av, f/2.8, ISO-100, 1/2500
Nice picture. How do you like the AF performance on the 5d II? Can you compare it to the 1D series?
I think I might be able to get over the weight issue if I was puting out images like that haha. Nice shot!
AF performance is an interesting question...
I own 4 Canon bodies (XT, XTi, 1D MK II, 5D MKII) and use 3 additional Canon cameras (XT, XSi, 1Ds MKIII) at work. I feel like Ihave pretty broad experience with the different bodies. I sure have a feel for what each onedoes well.
The answer everyone would expect is that the AF performace and frame rate of the 5D MKII is inferior to the 1-series and not well suited for sports, but that just isn't my real world experience. I wish I had a 1D MKIII or a 1D MKII N to add to the comparison, butwith the bodies I own and use, the 5D MKII is the best sports camera. I really like the frame rate of the 1D MKII, but I don't find itfocuses more accuratelythan the 5D MKII. I'm surethat the 1D MKIII gets some shots at 10 frames per second that I'm missing, but the5D's high ISO capability combined with the insane level of cropping its images support makeit the camera of choice for me.
I know there are lots of technical reasons the 1DMKIII should be a better sports rig; weather sealing, faster frame rate andmore AF points come to mind, but I prefer the 5D MKII in all circustancessavepouring rain.My personal experience with the 5DMKII has me tossing about 5% of my shots due to focus and that isabout the same level I get with theID MKII.
The big advantage of the 5DMKII is the quality obtainable at high ISO which allowsaction freezing shutter speeds through long lenses on pourly lit fields.
I've used the 5DII and 1DIIN, and it seems to me that the 1DIIN focuses faster on a moving target and is more responsive (perhaps just shutter lag). However, I have not noticed that the 5DII focuses less accurately, and seems to work in lower light.
One thing: the further away the subjects are, the greater the DOF and the less quickly focus has to change as the subjects move. So it might be that sports photography with long lenses is actually less demanding on autofocus speed than taking pictures of say, a kid 10 feet away who is running around or on a swing.
When I first got the 5DII I thought I would still use the 1DIIN a lot in situations when speed and focus accuracy were important. Turns out, I use the 5DII almost exclusively.
Very nice pic by the way. I'm just glad I don't do sports photography, because if I did the tension between lust for the 400 f/2.8 and the $7000 would be very painful.
Originally Posted by Dallasphotog
It's expensive because it is a 5 1/2 inch piece of fast exotic glass. (Several pieces). Wish those things were cheap []
Neat!
Has any of you had any experience with the non-IS version of this lens (ie. 400mm/2.8L) ?Is it on par with the IS version or inferior ? Is it worth a buy (second hand, good condition) ? Thanks.
Przemek
Great picture.. and good to hear you don't complain too much about the AF as some people do.
I'm looking at picking up a 5DII in the near future to make the jump to FF over my 40D Cropped. And then pickup some more Lens
Great picture.. and good to hear you don't complain too much about the AF as some people do.
I'm looking at picking up a 5DII in the near future to make the jump to FF over my 40D Cropped. And then pickup some more Lens
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
People smarter than me said the following...
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"]Autofocus
One of the differences between the two cameras is the autofocus performance. The 1Ds is running an autofocus system that seems more sophisticated and certainly more complex with its 45-point TTL, 19 cross-type points, and 26 assist points than the newer 5D Mark II’s 9-point system. However, autofocus is a fairly challenging and ambiguous feature to evaluate. Autofocus so depends on pattern, type and look of the subject, shooting conditions, as well as simple preferences of the photographer, so it’s hard to objectively compare the performance of two such highly evolved and effective systems. If you had a system that was clearly just bad, and one that was workable, you could make a clear determination. In our testing of the autofocus systems we are hard-pressed to point to a clear winner, in spite of the very strong opinions being posted on various online sources. Our best determination is that, of the two systems, the 5D Mark II may be, by virtue of its overall higher level of development and its simplicity, more effective for more applications, but it really depends on the user to make that determination.
I just know what works for me in the real world where I shoot.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote