Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
50D moving to 5D MkII
- Thread starter ThunderRobot
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't shoot canon but it is likely that the 16-35 and 17-40 were made for two different purposes. The 16-35 is the wide 2.8 photojournalist's lens and is not for everybody. The 17-40 is f/4 and that's okay because it was probably designed to be a landscaper's lens and who shoots landscapes at anything less than f/8 anyways? It's not always good to have f2.8 and just because one lens is f2.8 doesn't make it better than another. If you're shooting in the dark (i.e. nightclubs or party) even f2.8 likely isn't going to be enough probably a fast wide prime would serve better for that purpose.
The OP mentioned wanting a body he/she will not need to upgrade for a long time, and concentrate all their cash into lenses. What's wrong with the current body? It's the latest generation Canon and you already think it's old and outdated? What are you going to do in the future when they make a 5DMk3 with more MP and better high ISO? I guarantee you that you will have the same thoughts, that you could get better pictures with that little bit of extra high ISO or those few more MP. Will you upgrade again? Then how much moeny will you have spent in bodies vs. lenses?
As I understand it correctly the OP will be giving up a 50D and some unknown lens(es) for a 5DMk2 and a 24-105. Yet I see that the OP wants to go wider by going FF, and he could reach the same goal of getting wider FOV by just simply buying a 17-40 or 16-35 now, for probably a lot less than doing this FF body upgrade (possibly even a 24-105 at the same time!), and still maintain lenses that are transferrable to a future (and superior) FF body purchase when he/she is ready.
I could ask the question again (and ask it seriously this time), how good is your tripod?
Just seems like a situation where the OP thinks better gear will better the photography. If you're in on a great deal financially maybe this upgrade makes sense, but IMO as far as equipment and needs and matching to your experience goes, it doesn't seem right.
Just my 2c
Ruahrc
The OP mentioned wanting a body he/she will not need to upgrade for a long time, and concentrate all their cash into lenses. What's wrong with the current body? It's the latest generation Canon and you already think it's old and outdated? What are you going to do in the future when they make a 5DMk3 with more MP and better high ISO? I guarantee you that you will have the same thoughts, that you could get better pictures with that little bit of extra high ISO or those few more MP. Will you upgrade again? Then how much moeny will you have spent in bodies vs. lenses?
As I understand it correctly the OP will be giving up a 50D and some unknown lens(es) for a 5DMk2 and a 24-105. Yet I see that the OP wants to go wider by going FF, and he could reach the same goal of getting wider FOV by just simply buying a 17-40 or 16-35 now, for probably a lot less than doing this FF body upgrade (possibly even a 24-105 at the same time!), and still maintain lenses that are transferrable to a future (and superior) FF body purchase when he/she is ready.
I could ask the question again (and ask it seriously this time), how good is your tripod?
Just seems like a situation where the OP thinks better gear will better the photography. If you're in on a great deal financially maybe this upgrade makes sense, but IMO as far as equipment and needs and matching to your experience goes, it doesn't seem right.
Just my 2c
Ruahrc
then again, there are few true wide-angle primes on APS-C, and that becomes a problem if the OP decides to get a shift lens. moreover, 16-35mm is a weird focal length range on APS-C, 17-40 is just ok, and neither are as wide as what he'd get on 35mm.
so go for the original 5D
then again, there are few true wide-angle primes on APS-C, and that becomes a problem if the OP decides to get a shift lens. moreover, 16-35mm is a weird focal length range on APS-C, 17-40 is just ok, and neither are as wide as what he'd get on 35mm.
so go for the original 5D
How about the 10-22? I hear it is rated well, and is wide like the 16-35 on FF. A lot cheaper too.
17-40 on 1.6 crop is pretty darn close to the universal standard 28-70 on FF. Don't really see where that's "just ok"...?
If the goal was to get wide there are better ways to do it with his current gear then spending big bucks on a FF body. Especially for someone who admits they're just starting out.
Ruahrc
I agree with this. In fact, there are instances in which the 17-40 is optically superior to the 16-35. f/2.8 is nice, but is one stop worth double the money? Maybe, but perhaps less so now with ISO 3200 being completely useable on the newest DSLRs (and even passable on my "ancient" 1DmkII, frankly). Sure, DOF is a concern, but to be honest I'm never close enough to my subject with my 17-40 to get very tiny DOF anyway.
For low light, I prefer fast primes anyway. My 17-40 is my cityscape/landscape lens.
I disagree. It's not different purpose, it's different budget. Although 16-35 II is larger and heavier than 17-40, the differences aren't dramatic (nowhere near as dramatic as 70-200mm counterparts). Slight difference in focal length aside, 16-35 can fulfill every needs 17-40 can. Even if I had Steve Job's bank account, I can't think of a single reason to own both lenses.
Two words. Auto focus. Current Canon bodies have slow AF tracking and too few of AF points (at least not in the right places).
I'm assuming we're sticking to EF mount...
yes, but 28-70 is already a relatively short zoom length...losing the little bit on either end makes it a little less convenient, it's slow, and it doesn't stand up well against EF-S lenses.
Not if you want wide primes, shift lenses, or have a 50D, which costs the same as a used 5D.
where's the OP say that?
first, you're not the OP, and second, have you ever used a Canon SLR above a 500D? AF is not slow (or inaccurate), tracking is not slow, and AF point spread is only poor in 5D's.
I can agree with the fact that you probably don't need both. But if you are not intending to shoot the fast aperture (i.e. you're buying the lens for landscapes) then there is no reason to buy the 16-35 f2.8 just because it's 2.8. It's not better because it's 2.8 and the 17-40 is not bad because it's f/4. It's all about the right tool for the job, not if you can afford the most expensive/fastest lens in a given category.
Maybe so (I don't know as I said I don't shoot Canon), but it's not applicable to the OP's situation. Nowhere did he say "I'm upgrading from my 50D because I find it's AF can't keep up" and I don't think his architectural buildings are moving so fast he needs a 1DsMkIII to shoot them.
The point is we've started arguing about minutae between high end gear once again when none of it really applies to the OP's post. I'm probably just as guilty here this time as everyone else but IMO from what the OP has written both in his first post and subsequent replies it does not seem like the cost of the gear is justified given his (apparent) skill level. Perhaps he needs to reply with better and more detailed information about his skill level or experience, what and how he shoots, what his long-term intentions are, etc but from what I can see it does not seem like he's ready for the upgrade. It will only end up in lots of money spent and still poor pictures- followed by frustration because he spent lots of money and now maybe his pictures are now wider but not any better.
Don't forget that saying: "If you have to ask..." meaning, if you have to ask if a high end body like the 5DMk2 is right for you, then chances are it isn't. If you were an experienced shooter who knew exactly what his gear was doing for him (and what it wasn't) then the answer would be pretty obvious and either he'd have already bought the new gear, or decided he didn't need it and could wait for a better body down the road.
Ruahrc
"Auto focus" and AF tracking is slow on Canon bodies, and too few focus points? Where did you get those ideas from? Even on the Rebel XT, and old entry-level camera one can use AI Servo.
AF is one thing, and AF tracking is another. AF tracking works with the camera set to AI Servo, and AF focus works with any lens that has AF capability, regardless if the camera is on AI Servo or not.
AF Speed is dependent upon the LENS and the motor in the LENS, not the body. I'm SO tired of that argument from the Nikon users. The 5DII is not the fastest tracking nor does it have as many points, but it's not slow on general AF.
The dead horse about the 5DII isn't great for sports is also way past dead. It's not built for sports, plain and simple. There is a reason why the 1D MkIII dominates sidelines, it's built for sports. The 5DII is not, and never was.
Lastly - high ISO. I'm tired of Nikon fans touting how superior the noise is, but in reality it's so negligible and really only starts to show a difference around ISO 6400+ that no professional is their right mind is going to care - they're just not gonna shoot paid jobs in that range.
The stupid arguments over stupid points from both sides of the aisle (Canon and Nikon) is so dang annoying on here. Nikon users seem to be so hard pressed to prove something it drives me nuts. I'm not saying Nikon isn't building amazing cameras cause they are, I just think the fanboyism is getting really annoying. And Canon users refuse to believe that anyone could top Canon, which is also getting annoying. They're both on top, you can't go wrong either way, honestly.
</rant>
NOW.... OP - get the 5DII, let it challenge you and drive you to become a better photographer. If you can afford it, get it. It's a better camera. That said, you really need to consider getting L glass with it, cause it will for sure show every weakness on anything less. It's a very demanding camera, so you better pony up for what it wants. Personally, I'd get the 17-40 before the 24-105, the 24-105 is just unimpressive to me. I don't have a lot of experience with it, but what I have done with it wasn't all that impressive. It's more of a 'use it cause you need the range' lens than use it because of what it produces.
The dead horse about the 5DII isn't great for sports is also way past dead. It's not built for sports, plain and simple. There is a reason why the 1D MkIII dominates sidelines, it's built for sports. The 5DII is not, and never was.
Lastly - high ISO. I'm tired of Nikon fans touting how superior the noise is, but in reality it's so negligible and really only starts to show a difference around ISO 6400+ that no professional is their right mind is going to care - they're just not gonna shoot paid jobs in that range.
The stupid arguments over stupid points from both sides of the aisle (Canon and Nikon) is so dang annoying on here. Nikon users seem to be so hard pressed to prove something it drives me nuts. I'm not saying Nikon isn't building amazing cameras cause they are, I just think the fanboyism is getting really annoying. And Canon users refuse to believe that anyone could top Canon, which is also getting annoying. They're both on top, you can't go wrong either way, honestly.
</rant>
NOW.... OP - get the 5DII, let it challenge you and drive you to become a better photographer. If you can afford it, get it. It's a better camera. That said, you really need to consider getting L glass with it, cause it will for sure show every weakness on anything less. It's a very demanding camera, so you better pony up for what it wants. Personally, I'd get the 17-40 before the 24-105, the 24-105 is just unimpressive to me. I don't have a lot of experience with it, but what I have done with it wasn't all that impressive. It's more of a 'use it cause you need the range' lens than use it because of what it produces.
actually, no. the AF sensor on the body does have an influence on the AF speed and accuracy of a lens.
but yeah, the 5D's AF was never slow, servo or otherwise.
No, it won't. AF speed is dependent on the speed and accuracy of the motor in the lens, or in the case of some older cameras, on the lens mount.
AF speed is defined by the amount of time it takes for the lens to "catch up" to the target plane that the AF program tells the lens to move to.
In older Nikon bodies, (especially true in the film days), most of Nikons lineup was dependant on the AF motor built into the camera body for AF, and in the lower end cameras, the motors were not as quick as the motors in the better bodies, and this would have an impact on the AF speed of the lenses used.
The complaints about the 5DII's AF "speed", is the lack of AF point spread across the viewfinder, and the cameras ability to track moving subjects that aren't static to a AF point.
There is, nothing wrong with my current body. At no point did I say it's old and outdated.
What I said was this - unexpected - opportunity had come up to trade in the 50D against the cost of the 5D Mark II.
When I purchased the 50D the 5D Mark II was not available. It had been announced but there was no street date or price.
Had there been an affordable full frame body at that point, that's what I would have purchased. The lack of FF is the only real thing I lament with the 50D.
(obviously the 5D was available second hand but not retail at that point. At least not near me. And when I was spending my money I wanted a warranty.)
The other thing in my mind is whilst the 50D is the current tech, if the 6 and 7D's are announced or release the resale value of the 50D may be reduced so if I'm going to take advantage of this offer, this may be the time.
Sure, I could do that and that was what my trip into the camera shop in the first place was for. However, as I said, this unexpected opportunity has arisen and I was curious what others thought would be the pros and cons. Obviously I have my own thoughts.
Not sure the relevance? Perhaps you're trying to gauge how seriously I take my hobby? In either case I'd consider my tripod pretty damn good.
Manfrotto 055CXPRO3 Legs
Markins Q-Ball M10-L Head
Currently a Markins P-50D QR Plate which I would obviously have to change.
I certainly don't think better kit makes me a better photographer. However I don't think there's any doubt that better kit produces better photographs as long as the photographer knows what they're doing.
I never said that? I said that my technique could do with improvement. But then whose couldn't?
I started with SLRs in 95 shooting and developing my own films until about 2000. I then stepped away from serious shooting. I came back around 2006 shooting with a borrowed / shared 350D before purchasing the 50D around 10 months ago.
Currently I attend some classes at my local camera club to help improve my technique.
I don't sell my photos and it is purely a hobby, but it's a hobby I take seriously.
I'm not sure I agree with this thought. I don't think there's ever a point where asking people who use something you may or may not buy is a bad thing. Reviews are excellent, but they tend to use review models which are brand new. I'm looking for thoughts and opinions of people who use the body day in and day out for a period of time.
And of course, the thoughts of people who have been shooting for longer than I have.
If I make this step then I will be moving to the best lenses I can afford - hopefully L's where they are the best option. Every review of the 24-105 I've read is pretty good (including a lot of the 24-105 / 24-70 comparison threads here and at at FM). But I am curious why someone would find it less impressive?
I am leaning towards doing the trade in - even with the excellent points raised by Ruahrc. However I've not commited 100% so any other thoughts would be welcomed.
Many thanks to everyone who has already contributed to a most interesting thread.
Oh dear. I think both of you might be wrong. Ever heard of something called a focus screen that you can switch in the camera? That helps with focusing. So it's more of a combination of the AF Motor + camera's focus screen. If you've never switched a focus screen before, usually the lighting is affected in the focus screen, depending on how "dark" or "bright" it is. You have to switch the settings on the camera itself to make sure that it knows which focus screen is being used, so it can focus properly. Either that, or you can manually "alter" the settings.
I know, because when I first switched my focus screen in my 5D Mark II, it wouldn't focus properly. Since I usually don't read manuals, I was worried that I screwed something up in the process. But I read the manual, and boom, says focusing won't work properly unless the settings on the camera are switched to the right focus screen.
So now you two can stop arguing.
BTW OP, the 24-105mm is amazing. Very crisp image quality. Why? Because I own it, AND the 5D Mark II. I have it on about 50% of the time. My all time favorite general purpose lens. I'm planning on getting the 24-70mm later down the line, but not anytime soon. Don't listen to wheezy about what he thinks. I've got both the 16-35mm and 24-105mm. Both are EXCELLENT lenses. I use both very often, but my 24-105mm gets used the most often.
ok, first, I completely understand what you're saying. however, if the AF speed is dependent only on the lens, then why is there a difference in speed and accuracy of lenses on different bodies?
the only conclusion is the AF speed of the lens is simply the fastest that the camera/lens combination can focus.
the focusing screen has nothing to do with the AF system of the camera. it is simply for you, the photographer. the AF mirror sits behind the main mirror, while the focus screen sits above both mechanisms, at the beginning of the tunnel leading to the viewfinder.
the custom setting related to the focus screen is just to correct for metering.
In theory, perhaps you are right about Canon having good enough AF. But in practice (having played with a borrow copy of 5D II from a friend few times), I found both position of AF points (mostly in the center) and number of points (mere 9) to be highly limited. I could live with servo tracking speed, which I found to be sufficient, just not what I expected given 5D II's price level (compared to Nikon D300, which flies).
I am really hoping 7D will address my concerns.
I am really hoping 7D will address my concerns.
This is what I was thinking (as I had mentioned once before) if the deal was financially good then perhaps that is why you would want to upgrade.
The tripod question was intended to get a feel for what level you were at. As was talked about in Thom Hogan's D3x review, you really need to be shooting on a good support system to fully take advantage of the resolution of the 5DMk2. Many times I see people shooting too good of bodies on inadequate support and that will just lead to frustration and dissapointing results. BTW the Markins M10 is a great ballhead isn't it? I use it myself and it's probably my favorite piece of kit
.I apologize if I have come across a little strongly. I had mentioned earlier that prior to your recent posting there was not much information in the thread regarding your specific skill level or reasoning behind upgrading. Now with more information you seem like you have a good handle on gear, and if the conditions are right then maybe it's a good opportunity. The points I have raised I feel do still apply in general and might help others reading the thread and contemplating their own gear upgrades though as I often feel like on this forum (and many others) there is this mentality that if it's not FF or not f/2.8 it's no good- which simply isn't true. And while many experienced shooters use and benefit from high end gear, the newcomers to photography see that and think that they can't get pictures just as good because their gear is subpar. Also many times inexperienced users don't realize that serious DSLRs require a serious approach to technique in order to fully utilize the advantages the high end body has. This involves using good lenses only, a tripod whenever possible, stopping down to the optimal aperture, using mirror-lock up or a remote release, etc.
AF speed does depend on both body and lens. There will be cases when the lens can slew faster than the AF can process, and vice versa. However, as wheezy has said if you're buying a 5dMk2 for sports or wildlife you've bought the wrong camera.
Ruahrc
Having been briefly responsible for managing the White House Photo database, I can tell you that those days were long gone even just over 20 years ago.
I'm sorry if I came across harsh on the lens, I was still in a tiffle over the rant above it.
The 24-105 is a good lens, it's an L lens, it has fantastic quality, I just don't like it, but then again my first and still favorite L is my 135F2L, which is one of Canon's best lenses, period, so I have a personal high bar to compare against and I would pick my 135 over it anyday, and if I had to go wide I'd just put on my 17-40, which is also fantastic. So, I'm more personally biased against it, and I apologize if I came across calling it crap.
Dang, that was a long, run on sentence. Hope it made sense.
Oh, and bottom line... I"m jealous you can jump on a 5DII, my 20D serves me well but man I'm hungry for something newer.