Wallet full of $100 bills

[neuroanatomist]

Sorry for bringing this up again, but I agree with Jon on this one.

Thing 1) Is it true that it make sense to compare APS-C vs FF for effective F and f or actual F and f? and

It makes sense to compare effective F and f becuase thats what you get as your end result when you take a picture. You have to compare with effective F and f, there's just no other way around it.

I agree as well - we're already on the same page here. My point was not that you shouldn't compare them like that (as you say, there's no way around it), but that you cannot compare them like that in a meaningful way by using different lenses. The best compromise would be to use a zoom lens on both cameras and change the actual F and f so they give the same effective F and f on the different bodies.


In other words, when comparing the systems it's unfair to compensate for the effect of sensor size by changing lenses to match effective F and f - you need to compensate for the effect of sensor size by changing F and f on the same lens, for the purpose of an IQ comparison. (For other purposes, sometimes you just cannot compare, i.e. you cannot get 85mm f/1.2 FF DoF on a crop body - there isn't a 50mm f/0.75 lens!)


Here's what I mean, based on the what's available from the body+lens combos in Bryan's comparisons (limited number of non-EF-S lenses tested on crop bodies):


EF 50mm f/1.2 on FF/1DsIII @ f/1.2 vs. EF 85mm f/1.8 @ f/1.8 on FF/1DsIII- similar effective F and f, but different lenses - invalid comparison


EF 28-135mmon FF/1DsIII@ 85mm f/8 vs. EF 28-135mm on 1.6x/50D @ 50mm f/5.6 -similareffective F and f, same lens - mostly valid comparison (but still not the same as comparing 5DII with 7D, for example).


In a valid comparison the IQ edge will still go to FF, of course. For sharpness, I think it's an edge only, not a blow-you-away 'huge' difference - that's apparent from the 28-135 comparison. ISO noise is another matter entirely - there the difference is major.


But the overall performance had damn well better go to FF - the 7D's sensor is essentially the same one used in the consumer-level T2i, meaning I could get that level of sensor performance for 1/3 the cost of a 5DII!

[neuroanatomist]

I reserve the right to re-bump this thread when the next bout of <span style="font-size:small;"]<span style="color:red;"]Lens <span style="font-size:small;"]<span style="color:red;"]Lust or Body esire strikes...

Ok, so I'm back with a re-accumulated gear fund. []


After some serious thinking and reviewing this and other threads, I'm inclined to purchase the 5DII. Reflecting on Jon's statement, "Consider the 5DII, dude. It would be like getting a whole new set of fast lenses," was one big factor. Another is an upcoming trip to China this winter, where I don't expect much wildlife but I do expect landscape/cityscape and portrait-type shooting, and likely a fair bit of ambient-light indoor shooting. As the saying goes, if you need it now, don't wait. I'm still not thrilled with the 5DII's AF specifications, but I'm not trading out my 7D, so if I need good AF performance, I can get it with that body. When a 5DIII is eventually released (I'm assuming Canon will finally update the AF system!), I can sell the 5DII.


Assuming I get the 5DII, my first thought was not to bring the 7D on the trip at all, followed immediately by the thought that I should bring it as a backup body, if nothing else. But,I suspect that in general my 7D will end up semi-welded to my 100-400mm. I'll be keeping the 17-55mm f/2.8, since that with the 100-400mm and 7D will make a versatile day-trip kit for wildlife/nature. But, if switching to the 5DII for portraits and landscapes, it makes sense to sell the 10-22mm and replace it with something suitable for FF. EDIT: Forgot to add, but I have the 24-105mm f/4L IS, so despite a bit of barrel distortion at the wide end, I do have a wide angle FF.


After subtracting the 5DII, BG-E6, and an extra LP-E6 (nice that I can use the same batteries in both bodies), and adding the prospective proceeds from selling the 10-22mm, I'm left with ~$2500 for new lens(es). That leaves me with several options for something wide...

1. EF 16-35mm f/2.8L - a direct focal length replacement for the 10-22mm on 1.6x; not sure that I need the f/2.8 aperture, though...
2. EF 17-40mm f/4L - close enough to the 10-22mm on 1.6x, since it will be for landscape and stopped down, f/4 is fine anyway, leaves lots of extra $ (new 70-300 L, for example); concerned a bit about corner performance on FF with this lens...
3. EF 14mm f/2.8L II - a great lens, but I already find it challenging to compose a shot at 16mm FF equivalent...
4. TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II - never tried a TS-E lens, but I'm intrigued
5. TS-E 17mm f/4L - as above, intriguing, would be a fun challenge especially with the wider angle, also good as a UWA prime even without TS
6. Something else?

In addition to the above, I will almost certainly be getting the 135mm f/2L - I really love the 85mm f/1.2L on my 7D, and the 135L is that on FF (but with much faster focusing). With options 1/2, I'd just get it now; options 3-5 would mean a delay (but still probably purchase before the trip).


As always, any and all opinions and/or comments (such as 'dude, forget the 5DII, you're only a few hundred $ away from a 500mm f/4L IS') are welcome!


Thanks,


--John

[Daniel Browning]

[*]EF 17-40mm f/4L - close enough to the 10-22mm on 1.6x, since it will be for landscape and stopped down, f/4 is fine anyway, leaves lots of extra $ (new 70-300 L, for example); concerned a bit about corner performance on FF with this lens...

The corners are only bad if you can't stop down. If you can get to f/8 or f/11, it's fantastically sharp. It's perfect for landscapes, I would definitely recommend it.

n addition to the above, I will almost certainly be getting the 135mm f/2L

Ooh, you're going to love it -- I think it's the best portrait lens evar. The bokeh is so nice.

1. Something else?

You might consider the 24mm f/1.4 II if you haven't already. (Of course, I have to mention it since it's my favorite lens.) On the 5D2, people can easily mistake the photos for Medium Format film, because the DOF is so thin at such a wide angle of view -- except that you can do it in extremely low light, unlike film or those $20,000 MFDB.


It's really fantastic for low light indoor photography such as environmental portraits. If you're shooting folks that can stand pretty still, you can shoot f/1.4, 1/60, ISO 6400 (or 1600 with -2 EC), and come out with pretty nice shots. Of course, it's a problem if the environment doesn't add anything to the photo. I like using the thin DOF to slightly blur the background, so that you can still make out what it is, but without distracting from the main subject.


It's very sharp when you stop down, so you can still use it for landscapes, but the fixed focal length will be more limiting than an ultra wide zoom.

[HDNitehawk]

Something else?

What no Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon T* ZE Lens ? The TS-e 24mm f3.5L or the Ziess thats my question.

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L - a direct focal length replacement for the 10-22mm on 1.6x; not sure that I need the f/2.8 aperture, though...

Good choice, I do not use mine much since Ibought the 35mm 1.4L and the 24mm 1.4L II. But of all the zoom's I have had the 16-35L gave me the closest IQ to the primes I use now. I actualy bought the 14mm f/2.8L and used it for two days then sent it back and got the 16-35L because 14mm was sooooo wide........

As always, any and all opinions and/or comments (such as 'dude, forget the 5DII, you're only a few hundred $ away from a 500mm f/4L IS') are welcome!

Now thats an idea, but carrying that monster to China is a job in itself. But I would put my application in for the job of taking mine.....in fact if you can get an extra ticket for me I will bring it for you to use []


I don't think you will be dissapointed with the 5D mark II.

[StapledPhoto]

Since we

[Jon Ruyle]

After some serious thinking and reviewing this and other threads, I'm inclined to purchase the 5DII.

I think you're going to be a happy camper. []

[Jon Ruyle]

On the 5D2, people can easily mistake the photos for Medium Format film, because the DOF is so thin at such a wide angle of view -- except that you can do it in extremely low light, unlike film or those $20,000 MFDB.

I'm finally sold on the idea of fast wide lenses- for a long time I didn't really want one. But the picture in the press release for the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 really convinced me of how the effect can be used to advantage (so I guess the picture really did it's job... only it made me want the canon 35 f/1.4 or 24 f/1.4, not the Zeiss). I've also been noticing the effect over and over in movies.

[Richard Lane]

John,


I think that the 5DII and the 135mm f/2L will be a very welcome addition to your kit. I can

[Daniel Browning]

I've also been noticing the effect over and over in movies.

I notice it more often in stills than movies -- although cinematographers have awesome lenses like the 14mm f/1.2 and 16mm f/1.2. Plus they can get even thinner DOF with anamorphics. (The distortion on the wide angle anamorphics is pretty bad, but for some movies, it's a a desired "look"). And of course there are the times when films actually shoot 5D2 cameras, like Iron Man. []

[Chris White]

John,





I am also in favor of the 5D II, I have never regretted getting mine. With an opportunity like your upcoming China trip you should
not wait. You can then go with the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L and the EF 135mm
f/2L or the EF 17-40mm f/4L and the EF 135mm f/2L and more souvenirs from you trip, and be within your lens budget.[] I think you will be very happy with either combination. I would also definitely take the 7D, failures happen. In addition it is always nice to have a second option without a lens change, win-win.


The 17-40 and 135 f/2 are my next acquisitions. I was already to order the 17-40 and I had I little issue with my kitchen. Let's just say that every morning when I get my coffee and see the new sink and it's accompanying plumbing I see a Ef 17-40mm f/4 USM. Really, I do. [:'(]


Chris