Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 16 Oct 2010 (Saturday) 11:51
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5DII - One Lens?

 
DetlevCM
Goldmember
Avatar
3,431 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 20
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Europe
     
Oct 20, 2010 10:37 |  #91

rioni wrote in post #11131264 (external link)
I still don't really get the 24-70 recommendation over the 24-105. The f/2.8 isn't fast enough for shooting indoors and you loose IS and the extra focal lens all while paying more for the lens. For me, it makes more sense to get the 24-105 and a "inexpensive" prime such as the 50 1.4 for low light. That or just get 3 primes to cover the range if you are going to spend 1200 on the 24-70.

The replacement has been anticipated for 1 or 2 years if not more now - you'll be kept waiting for a long time.
And about the 24-70 - not fast enough? It's fast enough - especially on the 5D MK II where ISO 3200 is very usable.

Indoors f2.8 is way more valuable than IS for example. Different people value different aspects - I had to chose between the 24-70 and 24-105 for my MK II and got the 24-70 as the 24-105 has no benefit to me.
I've lived without IS so far - hence I do not need it (on a standard zoom) and I can't do f2.8 on a f4.0 lens - while I can simulate the 105mm by croping.
Now you might say you want to shoot buildings at night - then the 24-105 is better for you.
In the end it's a choice of preference - would I give away my 24-70 - no. Would you give away your 24-105 - I'm sure not.

realmike15 wrote in post #11131340 (external link)
A lot of prime lovers would argue, you really only use the extreme ends of the focal length on a Zoom... so why not get primes and gain the benefit of Low Light shooting and Sharper Pictures.

On the other hand a good L zoom with High End Build Quality, and better AF Motor can be had for anywhere from $1000-$1,300 new. A $1,300 budget of Primes to cover a variety of focal lengths like a Zoom, will only afford you (3) Mid-Grade Lenses... so you lose the better AF Motor and Build Quality.

It's not an easy decision :cry:

If prime lovers argue you only use the extreme ends of a zoom then he/she has not used a zoom properly :)

There is actually and inclination to use the extreme ends - but then you generally are in a situation where you'd love to have a lens to swap to continue in that area.

The advantage of a zoom is that I can look at a scene at 24mm and at say 35mm and 50mm - then decide what I like best, or take several shots - alternatively, it might be that zooming to 56,5mm (the camera does measure ,xmm in the Exif unless I am wrong) exactly crops out some annoying aspect and improves the image.

So in a lot of scenes you'll be zooming in and out with a standard zoom to pick your favourite option.


5D MK II AF Satisfaction Poll | Reduced Kit List
A Basic Guide to Photographyexternal link | Websiteexternal link
Flickrexternal link | Artflakesexternal link | Blurbexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Mundty
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,125 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Bucks County, PA
     
Oct 20, 2010 11:22 |  #92

DetlevCM wrote in post #11131855 (external link)
The advantage of a zoom is that I can look at a scene at 24mm and at say 35mm and 50mm - then decide what I like best, or take several shots - alternatively, it might be that zooming to 56,5mm (the camera does measure ,xmm in the Exif unless I am wrong) exactly crops out some annoying aspect and improves the image.

So in a lot of scenes you'll be zooming in and out with a standard zoom to pick your favourite option.


Good point. One is being able to see different Focal Length perspectives at immediately. The other is either having to know what you want off the bat, or do a lot of swapping.

Ideally I think you'd down both. But that's down the road...


www.mikemundt.com (external link)
EOS 5D Mark II | Canon 24-70 f/2.8L | Speedlite 430EX II | Manfrotto MT293A4 & 494 Tripod
Interests: Environmental Portraits | Urban/Travel | Wildlife | Landscape | Celestial | Experimental

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nikmar08
Goldmember
Avatar
1,852 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 18
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Bangalore, India
     
Oct 20, 2010 11:33 |  #93

egordon99 wrote in post #11124651 (external link)
The Tokina is designed to only cover the smaller APS-C sensor, so it will vignette VERY badly at all focal lengths except maybe 15-16mm.

Also, the gap between 16mm and 50mm is quite large.

He would be better off (in your "scenario") with the Canon 17-40L in place of the Tokina. 17mm is very wide on a 5DII.

Yes, I realize my folly!! One thing you mentioned forced me into replying - when you the gap between 16mm and 50mm is quite large, did you mean that in the FF context or the crop context or both? Can you quote some examples for why you say that?

Thanks


____O
__( \ \_
((_)/ ((_)
Nikhil | Gear List & Market Feedback | Flickr (external link)
Support POTN by donating here: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
10,247 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philly 'burbs
     
Oct 20, 2010 12:26 |  #94

nikmar08 wrote in post #11132214 (external link)
16mm and 50mm is quite large, did you mean that in the FF context or the crop context or both? Can you quote some examples for why you say that?

Thanks

The difference between 16mm and 50mm is the "same" (in terms of percentage difference in field-of-view) for both formats.

Since you shoot crop, you should be able to see the difference between 16mm and 50mm with your current lenses.

To see the difference between 16mm and 50mm on a full-frame body, try shooting at 10mm and 31mm with your current lenses.

Remember, the difference between 10mm and 15mm (on a crop for example) is MUCH bigger than the difference between 200mm and 205mm, even though both are only 5mm apart ;)

EDIT - Noticed you only have a 50mm and the 70-300. It would benefit you greatly to pick up a cheap 18-55mm IS as you can learn A LOT about composition/persective​/subject-camera distance by shooting in those wider angles.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rjx
Goldmember
Avatar
2,670 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Santa Clara, California
     
Oct 20, 2010 12:49 |  #95

nikmar08 wrote in post #11132214 (external link)
Yes, I realize my folly!! One thing you mentioned forced me into replying - when you the gap between 16mm and 50mm is quite large, did you mean that in the FF context or the crop context or both? Can you quote some examples for why you say that?

Thanks

The gap from 17mm to 50mm (33mm) is more dramatic than the same mm gap would be in a 200mm+ range. The difference is much more noticeable in the lower mm range. Applies to both FF and crop.

Crop 17mm

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'


Crop 49mm
IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'



Crop 201mm
IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'


Crop 234mm
IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'



FF 17mm
IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'


FF 49mm
IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

"It doesn't matter what camera you have if your photography has nothing worthwhile to say"
“Photos are everywhere. You just have to know how to look.”

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
czar2000
Member
66 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2009
Location: CT,USA
     
Oct 20, 2010 14:50 |  #96

sigma 50 + canon 100/f2


Gear list

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
trickydan
Member
177 posts
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Oct 21, 2010 10:34 |  #97

czar2000 wrote in post #11133324 (external link)
sigma 50 + canon 100/f2

^this combination seems to be fairly win actually! i know when recommending 'awesome primes' some recommend 35, 85, 135 (for good reason) but i think sig 24, sig 50, can 100 is a great 'cheaper' combo! and happens to lie on more rounded numbers (ie ~25, 50, 100 haha) not that that should make any difference in shooting..


trickydan's website! (external link)
gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nikmar08
Goldmember
Avatar
1,852 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 18
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Bangalore, India
     
Oct 21, 2010 14:39 |  #98

egordon99 wrote in post #11132483 (external link)
The difference between 16mm and 50mm is the "same" (in terms of percentage difference in field-of-view) for both formats.

Since you shoot crop, you should be able to see the difference between 16mm and 50mm with your current lenses.

To see the difference between 16mm and 50mm on a full-frame body, try shooting at 10mm and 31mm with your current lenses.

Remember, the difference between 10mm and 15mm (on a crop for example) is MUCH bigger than the difference between 200mm and 205mm, even though both are only 5mm apart ;)

EDIT - Noticed you only have a 50mm and the 70-300. It would benefit you greatly to pick up a cheap 18-55mm IS as you can learn A LOT about composition/persective​/subject-camera distance by shooting in those wider angles.

Thanks for your explanation. Well, I am saving for a WA... So, taking your suggestion about buying one more lens with a pinch of salt ;-)a Appreciate it though, makes sense to me.

rjx wrote in post #11132606 (external link)
The gap from 17mm to 50mm (33mm) is more dramatic than the same mm gap would be in a 200mm+ range. The difference is much more noticeable in the lower mm range. Applies to both FF and crop.

Images...

Thanks for posting those pics and showing me how big a difference that small a focal length range can have.


____O
__( \ \_
((_)/ ((_)
Nikhil | Gear List & Market Feedback | Flickr (external link)
Support POTN by donating here: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
deadpass
Goldmember
Avatar
3,353 posts
Joined Jun 2006
Location: phoenix, az
     
Oct 21, 2010 14:42 |  #99

I find the brick too front heavy on the 5D, go with the 105.


a camera
http://www.deadpass.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MNUplander
Goldmember
2,534 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 133
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
     
Oct 21, 2010 15:01 |  #100

Im with those that say to try out a different body. If money is tight, there is no sense blowing your budget on a 5DII. If youre budget conscious and want something that retains its value for years to come like youve said, buy lenses not bodies. Someone will buy your 5DII off you in a few years for 50% or less of what you paid for it, but your lenses might retain 80% of their new value.

But, if you insist on having the latest and greatest tech instead of a nice set of lenses, I do have this advice - buy the lenses you really want or they'll be for sale on the Used board before you know it. If you're a prime guy - which you've stated you are - buy primes...dont spend the money on the 24-70 because you'll want to try primes in 5 months.


Lake Superior and North Shore Landscape Photography (external link)
Buy & Sell Feedback
R6, EF16-35 f4 IS, EF 50 1.2, EF 100 2.8 IS Macro, 150-600C

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mundty
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,125 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Bucks County, PA
     
Oct 22, 2010 15:02 |  #101

MNUplander wrote in post #11139925 (external link)
Im with those that say to try out a different body. If money is tight, there is no sense blowing your budget on a 5DII. If youre budget conscious and want something that retains its value for years to come like youve said, buy lenses not bodies. Someone will buy your 5DII off you in a few years for 50% or less of what you paid for it, but your lenses might retain 80% of their new value.

But, if you insist on having the latest and greatest tech instead of a nice set of lenses, I do have this advice - buy the lenses you really want or they'll be for sale on the Used board before you know it. If you're a prime guy - which you've stated you are - buy primes...dont spend the money on the 24-70 because you'll want to try primes in 5 months.

Even with the cheap Nifty Fifty, the difference in my images between the T2i and 5DII is staggering. I'm confident I made the right choice, sorry if you disagree. As I tried to explain dozens of times, it's not that I cannot afford a good lens for my 5DII... it's that this very minute (10/22/10 4:00pm eastern), I cannot afford a good lens collection.

I appreciate your advice, but if I had any doubt what huge benefit FF was going to be I would have gone with lenses first. However, my results thus far with my new camera and this cheap lens have been nothing short of amazing. Going from a T2i to a 5DII has been as much if not more of an upgrade than shooting with the 24-70, 35L, 50L, 24-105L, 70-200L and countless other lenses I've had the opportunity to try in person. As I said, I'm confident I made the right choice. The AF performance reliability along was worth the upgrade.


www.mikemundt.com (external link)
EOS 5D Mark II | Canon 24-70 f/2.8L | Speedlite 430EX II | Manfrotto MT293A4 & 494 Tripod
Interests: Environmental Portraits | Urban/Travel | Wildlife | Landscape | Celestial | Experimental

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wimg
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,896 posts
Likes: 156
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Netherlands, EU
     
Oct 22, 2010 15:40 |  #102

Hi Mike,

realmike15 wrote in post #11146331 (external link)
Even with the cheap Nifty Fifty, the difference in my images between the T2i and 5DII is staggering. I'm confident I made the right choice, sorry if you disagree. As I tried to explain dozens of times, it's not that I cannot afford a good lens for my 5DII... it's that this very minute (10/22/10 4:00pm eastern), I cannot afford a good lens collection.

I appreciate your advice, but if I had any doubt what huge benefit FF was going to be I would have gone with lenses first. However, my results thus far with my new camera and this cheap lens have been nothing short of amazing. Going from a T2i to a 5DII has been as much if not more of an upgrade than shooting with the 24-70, 35L, 50L, 24-105L, 70-200L and countless other lenses I've had the opportunity to try in person. As I said, I'm confident I made the right choice. The AF performance reliability along was worth the upgrade.

If you find that this is for you the right solution, you could actually go for a bunch of other lenses, rather than just a single L.

I'd suggest the 24 F/2.8 or 28 F/1.8, and the 100 F/2 or 100 F/2.8 Macro to start with. 24/28 - 50 -100 is a great succession in FLs, and those lenses will perform really nicely on the 5D II. If you have any money left, you could consider an upgrade to the 50 F/1.4.

FWIW, for me it was mindboggling, the change from APS-C to FF. I finally gave in to get a 5D, when I still had the 40D. The latter never got any use anymore, and when I upgraded to the 5D II, unfortunately the same happened to the 5D classic :D. To me the difference between FF and APS-C is looking with pleasure at the IQ even of photographs that don't make the grade. If I had known all of what I know now about digital photography when I got my first dslr, the 350D, I would have gone straight for a 5D, rather than the long path it took me now (350D, 400D X 2, 40D, 5D), and it would have cost me less too :D.

Kind regards, Wim


EOS R & EOS 5 (analog) with a gaggle of primes & 3 zooms, OM-D E-M1 Mk II & Pen-F with 10 primes, 6 zooms, 3 Metabones adapters/speedboosters​, and an accessory plague

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
.mark.
Goldmember
Avatar
1,038 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Jersey, Channel Islands
     
Oct 22, 2010 16:50 |  #103

wimg wrote in post #11146527 (external link)
Hi Mike,

If you find that this is for you the right solution, you could actually go for a bunch of other lenses, rather than just a single L.

I'd suggest the 24 F/2.8 or 28 F/1.8, and the 100 F/2 or 100 F/2.8 Macro to start with. 24/28 - 50 -100 is a great succession in FLs, and those lenses will perform really nicely on the 5D II. If you have any money left, you could consider an upgrade to the 50 F/1.4.

FWIW, for me it was mindboggling, the change from APS-C to FF. I finally gave in to get a 5D, when I still had the 40D. The latter never got any use anymore, and when I upgraded to the 5D II, unfortunately the same happened to the 5D classic :D. To me the difference between FF and APS-C is looking with pleasure at the IQ even of photographs that don't make the grade. If I had known all of what I know now about digital photography when I got my first dslr, the 350D, I would have gone straight for a 5D, rather than the long path it took me now (350D, 400D X 2, 40D, 5D), and it would have cost me less too :D.

Kind regards, Wim

This man talks a lot of sense. Only thing I would add is consider the sigma 24mm f/1.8 - I've seen some great results from it.


5DIII :: 15FE :: 16-35LII :: 24LII :: 50L :: 85 1.8 :: 135L :: 100-400L :: 430EX2 :: 580EX2 :: YN560II x2
flickr (external link) :: twitter (external link) :: 500px (external link) :: Facebook (external link) :: Gear list :: Project365 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ppucci
Senior Member
Avatar
376 posts
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Brazil
     
Oct 22, 2010 19:05 |  #104

jumping in a little late, but my 2c... I DO have the 24-70 as my single lens for my 5D2 and I just love it, really flexible. Just bought a 85mm 1.8 but if I had to choose only one, the 24-70 is my weapon of choice.


Canon EOS 5D Mark II (gripped) | Canon EOS Rebel 2000 (EOS 300) Film SLR | Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L | Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 | Canon 430EXII | Canon SX210 IS | Fujifilm X100
Flickr
 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mundty
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,125 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Bucks County, PA
     
Oct 22, 2010 20:18 |  #105

wimg wrote in post #11146527 (external link)
Hi Mike,

If you find that this is for you the right solution, you could actually go for a bunch of other lenses, rather than just a single L.

I'd suggest the 24 F/2.8 or 28 F/1.8, and the 100 F/2 or 100 F/2.8 Macro to start with. 24/28 - 50 -100 is a great succession in FLs, and those lenses will perform really nicely on the 5D II. If you have any money left, you could consider an upgrade to the 50 F/1.4.

FWIW, for me it was mindboggling, the change from APS-C to FF. I finally gave in to get a 5D, when I still had the 40D. The latter never got any use anymore, and when I upgraded to the 5D II, unfortunately the same happened to the 5D classic :D. To me the difference between FF and APS-C is looking with pleasure at the IQ even of photographs that don't make the grade. If I had known all of what I know now about digital photography when I got my first dslr, the 350D, I would have gone straight for a 5D, rather than the long path it took me now (350D, 400D X 2, 40D, 5D), and it would have cost me less too :D.

Kind regards, Wim

Thanks Wim,
Yea I've been wondering if I should go with the a collection of Mid-Grades. And then gradually get the L Prime Equivalents one at a time. I did go to the camera store and shoot a 35L and 50L today... they are awesome lenses. But for the money, I can only afford one at a time. Which means whatever focal length I choose, I have to shoot with for exclusively til I can afford another. However if I go Mid-Grade, I can quickly acquire something like the 3 you mentioned and at least have some options when I'm shooting.


www.mikemundt.com (external link)
EOS 5D Mark II | Canon 24-70 f/2.8L | Speedlite 430EX II | Manfrotto MT293A4 & 494 Tripod
Interests: Environmental Portraits | Urban/Travel | Wildlife | Landscape | Celestial | Experimental

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

14,933 views & 0 likes for this thread
5DII - One Lens?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Irony
702 guests, 232 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.