December 15, 2017, 11:24:04 AM

Author Topic: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)  (Read 52162 times)

dtaylor

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 841
Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)
« Reply #30 on: July 27, 2011, 12:01:08 PM »
While the 7D does have slightly more DR I would argue that the detail, better noise characteristics, and sharpness all are better with the 5D Classic. You don't even have to take my word for it.. See http://bit.ly/o75QZA

DxOmark ranks some DSLRs higher than medium format digital backs. And they can't get their dynamic range or noise tests right to save their lives. Anyone can personally disprove their DR results with a Stouffer transmission step wedge and about 10 minutes of time. I don't take them seriously, and neither should you.

See DPReview and Imaging Resource for accurate, reproducible and verifiable tests and results. DPReview's resolution chart test, and Imaging Resource's studio test (note the fabric threads), leave no question that the 7D out resolves the 5D. Color blotching is also noticeable in the IR 5D high ISO tests, but absent in the 7D tests. Color noise is death at high ISO. Luminance noise is much easier to deal with, and more pleasing where it remains.

Quote
For sharpness examples you can see Google.

Out of camera with neutral settings, FF images are sharper than APS-C images. But this difference is easily eliminated with slightly higher sharpening settings for the APS-C images, in camera or in post processing.

The 5D was a great camera, and continues to be a very good camera at the right price. But it's a bad recommendation against a 60D or 7D unless it's available at a much lower price. Typical used prices are excessive IMHO given the price of the 60D, though sometimes you can find a steal.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)
« Reply #30 on: July 27, 2011, 12:01:08 PM »

dtaylor

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 841
Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)
« Reply #31 on: July 27, 2011, 12:08:32 PM »
This whole debate is moot if the OP comes back and says the school wants her to shoot 35mm film for the first year or so...

I highly recommend the Canon EOS 3 in the event that the school wants her to shoot film for the first year. I love mine. The Rebels and Elans I've handled just don't compare in terms of build or feature set.

V8Beast

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1127
    • Stephen Kim Automotive Photography
Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)
« Reply #32 on: July 27, 2011, 12:09:44 PM »
For your needs, I agree that the 7D is a better choice over the 5D. If you don't need the 7D's blazing frame rate and fancier AF, a 60D might be a better option. IMHO, for people just starting out in photography it's best to learn on the least expensive body you can get away with. Nicer bodies - with their superior dynamic range, contrast, and high ISO abilities - tend to hide your mistakes. It's these mistakes that you'll learn from, and it's these mistakes that will help in refining your technique, whether it's something as simple as learning how to properly expose a frame, or something more complex such as learning how to position your lighting equipment at the ideal angles and setting their power outputs accordingly.

There's so much latitude with digital images, especially RAW files, that it's easy to become overly dependent on post production to correct simple mistakes that could have been avoided in the field in the first place. That's fine if you're just taking images for fun, but it can impede on your ability to make a living as a working pro. A common scenario I see all the time with hobbyists making the transition to gigs that pay money is they spend so much time in post processing, that it limits the number assignments they can take on. The massive competition these days amongst working photogs means that gigs don't pay as much as they used to, so you end up having to turn around greater volumes of work in a short durations of time just to pay the bills. The "I'll just fix it in photoshop" trap is something that needs to be avoided. IMHO, starting out with a less expensive body that's less forgiving of user error will help you recognize those mistake more easily, allowing you to refine your technique.

I suppose the extreme example of those would be learning how to shoot on color slides. I thought it was rather barbaric how one of my instructors made us do this, but in retrospect, it helped immensely in learning the very basics of photography. There's zero margin for error with color slides, and in that regard, it makes 1.6:1 digital cameras look like medium format Hasselblads.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 21837
Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)
« Reply #33 on: July 27, 2011, 12:10:07 PM »
but who really shoots at f1.2.. ok perhaps sometimes...  but realisticlly no...  most of my lenses are f2.8 so the sweet spot for the lens is around f4, which is where i normally shoot....

There are plenty of people (me included) that do shoot at f/1.2.  Here are a couple thousand sample images for you.  Granted, that's only about 5% of the number of images posted at f/4...but then, there aren't that many lenses that open up to f/1.2.

I agree that f/1.2 is tough for portraits due to the extremely thin DoF, but I often shoot with the 85L in the f/1.4 to f/1.8 range.

On the subject of glass collection, I do need some advice. I'm looking for something that's fast, good for portraits, but has telephoto zoom (such as the 70-200mm f/2.8 [or 4] USM or 75-300mm) and is good for moving horse photography if I find I need to do it. IS is irrelevant to me. Are the ones I mentioned good options, or is there a better one I can get in the <$1600 price range?

I assume you mean in addition to a general purpose zoom?  A 70-200mm zoom on the 7D will be too long for many situations.  As a general purpose zoom, IMO the best option for a 7D is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.  That plus the 70-200mm f/4L would be a good combination, as awinphoto suggests.  For portraits, I highly recommend the EF 85mm f/1.8 - it's one of the best values in the Canon lineup in terms of cost vs. IQ.

In terms of the 7D's ISO noise, it's an issue - I'd set aside a small part of your budget for DxO Optics Pro, which really does a great job of reducing noise in your RAW conversions (much better than Canon's DPP).
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

dtaylor

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 841
Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)
« Reply #34 on: July 27, 2011, 12:22:19 PM »
On the subject of glass collection, I do need some advice. I'm looking for something that's fast, good for portraits, but has telephoto zoom (such as the 70-200mm f/2.8 [or 4] USM or 75-300mm) and is good for moving horse photography if I find I need to do it. IS is irrelevant to me. Are the ones I mentioned good options, or is there a better one I can get in the <$1600 price range?

Is $1600 the budget just for this lens, or for all your lenses?

You might want to consider a Canon 70-200 f/4L (around $500?) and a fast prime for portraits (i.e. Canon 85 f/1.8 or Canon 135 f/2L). At least with the 85 you would still be under budget and able to either save money or pick up another lens. If you really need the extra stop of the 70-200 f/2.8L it's worth it, no question about that. But it's also pretty heavy and expensive. The 70-200 f/4L's are feathers by comparison, and the non IS version is cheap (relatively speaking). While the 70-200 f/2.8 does make a good portrait lens, a fast prime makes an even better portrait lens while the 70-200 f/4L gives you a zoom for covering horses and other fast moving events.

That said, I find myself using my Sigma 50 f/1.4 a lot for portraits. It equates to about 80mm on crop and it seems to be a natural FoV, plus that lens has incredible bokeh. Something to consider.

awinphoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2088
    • AW Photography
Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)
« Reply #35 on: July 27, 2011, 12:50:32 PM »
On the subject of glass collection, I do need some advice. I'm looking for something that's fast, good for portraits, but has telephoto zoom (such as the 70-200mm f/2.8 [or 4] USM or 75-300mm) and is good for moving horse photography if I find I need to do it. IS is irrelevant to me. Are the ones I mentioned good options, or is there a better one I can get in the <$1600 price range?

Is $1600 the budget just for this lens, or for all your lenses?

You might want to consider a Canon 70-200 f/4L (around $500?) and a fast prime for portraits (i.e. Canon 85 f/1.8 or Canon 135 f/2L). At least with the 85 you would still be under budget and able to either save money or pick up another lens. If you really need the extra stop of the 70-200 f/2.8L it's worth it, no question about that. But it's also pretty heavy and expensive. The 70-200 f/4L's are feathers by comparison, and the non IS version is cheap (relatively speaking). While the 70-200 f/2.8 does make a good portrait lens, a fast prime makes an even better portrait lens while the 70-200 f/4L gives you a zoom for covering horses and other fast moving events.

That said, I find myself using my Sigma 50 f/1.4 a lot for portraits. It equates to about 80mm on crop and it seems to be a natural FoV, plus that lens has incredible bokeh. Something to consider.

The 70-200 F4 is closer in the $650-700 range after the latest price increases but you can probably find a used one for cheaper on the used market... It's probably not a good general purpose lens so you will want either a fast prime or a 17-55 or 17-40 or look at the 24-105/24-70 plus maybe a 200mm 2.8 or other fast primes i listed in a prior thread.
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L IS, Canon 100L 2.8, Canon 85 1.8, 2 430EX 2's and a partridge in a pear tree.

awinphoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2088
    • AW Photography
Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)
« Reply #36 on: July 27, 2011, 01:02:21 PM »
There's so much latitude with digital images, especially RAW files, that it's easy to become overly dependent on post production to correct simple mistakes that could have been avoided in the field in the first place...

I suppose the extreme example of those would be learning how to shoot on color slides. I thought it was rather barbaric how one of my instructors made us do this, but in retrospect, it helped immensely in learning the very basics of photography. There's zero margin for error with color slides, and in that regard, it makes 1.6:1 digital cameras look like medium format Hasselblads.

I wholeheartedly couldn't agree more.  Back in the day, even negative film you had some room to budge with printing and developing and contrast filters... With slides, you had little to no room to fudge... You could ask the lab to push/pull the film to over/under develop but it could only do so much and it easily looked bad if not done perfectly.  It also cost you money to do corrections such as push/pull and so screwing up exposure cost you dearly.  As a student that was food money you were wasting away by not nailing exposure.  I cant vouch for anybody but my school, but they pounded exposure in our feeble minds so much in most situations we could ballpark exposures just by looking at the scenes... Studios you 100% needed light/flash meters and with film, anyone forget the little treat of reciprocity and reciprocity charts?  =)  2 second exposure turned into 1 minute exposures depending on your meter readings and what film you used. 
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L IS, Canon 100L 2.8, Canon 85 1.8, 2 430EX 2's and a partridge in a pear tree.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)
« Reply #36 on: July 27, 2011, 01:02:21 PM »

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 5-1500mm f/1.0L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 13750
Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)
« Reply #37 on: July 27, 2011, 01:41:49 PM »

I wholeheartedly couldn't agree more.  Back in the day, even negative film you had some room to budge with printing and developing and contrast filters... With slides, you had little to no room to fudge... You could ask the lab to push/pull the film to over/under develop but it could only do so much and it easily looked bad if not done perfectly.  It also cost you money to do corrections such as push/pull and so screwing up exposure cost you dearly.  As a student that was food money you were wasting away by not nailing exposure.  I cant vouch for anybody but my school, but they pounded exposure in our feeble minds so much in most situations we could ballpark exposures just by looking at the scenes... Studios you 100% needed light/flash meters and with film, anyone forget the little treat of reciprocity and reciprocity charts?  =)  2 second exposure turned into 1 minute exposures depending on your meter readings and what film you used.

I recall getting some pretty dark or washed out slides with that old ASA-10 slide film, but the ASA25 Kodachrome II was a huge improvement.  Still, I have a few that were not perfect exposures from the 1960's, and I really cannot fix them, the detail is gone.  In contrast, I inherited some 1930's and 1940's B&W negatives from my father, and the exposure latitude is wonderful.  The scan to make beautiful prints even today, and were from a relatively simple camera.

However, when I look at my old 35mm negatives from the 1950's and 1960's, its amazing what a simple point and shoot digital camera does by comparison.  and my old polaroid color prints are nearly faded away.  I need to get them all scanned, I should have scanned them 15 years ago.

awinphoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2088
    • AW Photography
Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)
« Reply #38 on: July 27, 2011, 02:08:38 PM »

I wholeheartedly couldn't agree more.  Back in the day, even negative film you had some room to budge with printing and developing and contrast filters... With slides, you had little to no room to fudge... You could ask the lab to push/pull the film to over/under develop but it could only do so much and it easily looked bad if not done perfectly.  It also cost you money to do corrections such as push/pull and so screwing up exposure cost you dearly.  As a student that was food money you were wasting away by not nailing exposure.  I cant vouch for anybody but my school, but they pounded exposure in our feeble minds so much in most situations we could ballpark exposures just by looking at the scenes... Studios you 100% needed light/flash meters and with film, anyone forget the little treat of reciprocity and reciprocity charts?  =)  2 second exposure turned into 1 minute exposures depending on your meter readings and what film you used.

I recall getting some pretty dark or washed out slides with that old ASA-10 slide film, but the ASA25 Kodachrome II was a huge improvement.  Still, I have a few that were not perfect exposures from the 1960's, and I really cannot fix them, the detail is gone.  In contrast, I inherited some 1930's and 1940's B&W negatives from my father, and the exposure latitude is wonderful.  The scan to make beautiful prints even today, and were from a relatively simple camera.

However, when I look at my old 35mm negatives from the 1950's and 1960's, its amazing what a simple point and shoot digital camera does by comparison.  and my old polaroid color prints are nearly faded away.  I need to get them all scanned, I should have scanned them 15 years ago.

At school we made and kept charts just for reciprocity and used them for almost every studio shoot...  tmax 400, meter 2 seconds, reality 45 seconds, meter 4 seconds, reality 1.25 minutes... etc... depending on the film we were using it would get brutal... set the camera on bulb, start the stopwatch, and go get a drink haha. God forbid you were bracketing exposures.  One time using ultraviolet woods filtered strobes I burned out my strobes multi popping my exposure trying to build up the exposure... set off the school fire alarms, fire dept, haha.  God bless film. 
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L IS, Canon 100L 2.8, Canon 85 1.8, 2 430EX 2's and a partridge in a pear tree.

lady

  • Guest
Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)
« Reply #39 on: July 27, 2011, 03:50:15 PM »
So I got an update from the school I'd attend next year (or 2013). I need a full frame dslr, the school provides all film cameras for us. My 7D is acceptable, and is the absolute least expensive model they will accept. They say that if I can, I should upgrade to the 5D mk ii because I will need it after my first semester. Right now I'm going with the 7D for temporary practice and to build up a lens collection. I'll probably have both before school starts (even if it starts next september).

I'm also potentially picking up the 7D tomorrow. Potentially.

I'm hoping they have used lenses in stock.

For your needs, I agree that the 7D is a better choice over the 5D. If you don't need the 7D's blazing frame rate and fancier AF, a 60D might be a better option. IMHO, for people just starting out in photography it's best to learn on the least expensive body you can get away with. Nicer bodies - with their superior dynamic range, contrast, and high ISO abilities - tend to hide your mistakes. It's these mistakes that you'll learn from, and it's these mistakes that will help in refining your technique, whether it's something as simple as learning how to properly expose a frame, or something more complex such as learning how to position your lighting equipment at the ideal angles and setting their power outputs accordingly. There's so much latitude with digital images, especially RAW files, that it's easy to become overly dependent on post production to correct simple mistakes that could have been avoided in the field in the first place. That's fine if you're just taking images for fun, but it can impede on your ability to make a living as a working pro. A common scenario I see all the time with hobbyists making the transition to gigs that pay money is they spend so much time in post processing, that it limits the number assignments they can take on. The massive competition these days amongst working photogs means that gigs don't pay as much as they used to, so you end up having to turn around greater volumes of work in a short durations of time just to pay the bills. The "I'll just fix it in photoshop" trap is something that needs to be avoided. IMHO, starting out with a less expensive body that's less forgiving of user error will help you recognize those mistake more easily, allowing you to refine your technique.

I've been photographing things for years on manual settings with various compact camera models. I tested the 60D out for a day, but it felt far, far too cheap to work for me. The ergonomics were wrong, the photos were not being taken at the speed I would have liked, and the entire thing felt like plastic. I mean no offense to people who start out with the 60D, it's just that the 60D is not enough of an upgrade from my compact camera. When I rented the 7D I was in heaven, the entire thing just responded to me and did exactly what I wanted it to do. I have yet to fully try out the 5D Mk ii. The 7D is the cheapest one I will accept, and I do need it for the fast shutter speed (yes, even if I had the 5d I would need it).

Also, I very rarely need to correct error in photoshop when I shoot. Unfortunately now the problem I'm running into is that any of my cameras in my collection are just not professional enough to do what I want. I don't have enough control over them (with regards to aperture, iso, lens, etc) to get the effect I both desire and know how to achieve. My photography isn't perfect, not by a long shot, and I'm far from being pro, but trust me when I say the 60D would be a complete waste of money. Money that I cannot afford to waste.

Keep in mind the price difference. Even if you must shoot hand held at dusk, a 7D + 30 f/1.4, purchased with part of the savings, will easily beat a 5D mkII + f/4 zoom (for example) in low light.

Ah yes thank you, very helpful!


I assume you mean in addition to a general purpose zoom?  A 70-200mm zoom on the 7D will be too long for many situations.  As a general purpose zoom, IMO the best option for a 7D is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.  That plus the 70-200mm f/4L would be a good combination, as awinphoto suggests.  For portraits, I highly recommend the EF 85mm f/1.8 - it's one of the best values in the Canon lineup in terms of cost vs. IQ.

In terms of the 7D's ISO noise, it's an issue - I'd set aside a small part of your budget for DxO Optics Pro, which really does a great job of reducing noise in your RAW conversions (much better than Canon's DPP).

I already own a 17-40mm. After extensive testing and comparison I found it to do significantly better than the more expensive 17-55. This isn't just for portraits, I do need the zoom in the lens to shoot action from a distance. The EF 85mm seems like a great idea, though. Thank you!


Is $1600 the budget just for this lens, or for all your lenses?

You might want to consider a Canon 70-200 f/4L (around $500?) and a fast prime for portraits (i.e. Canon 85 f/1.8 or Canon 135 f/2L). At least with the 85 you would still be under budget and able to either save money or pick up another lens. If you really need the extra stop of the 70-200 f/2.8L it's worth it, no question about that. But it's also pretty heavy and expensive. The 70-200 f/4L's are feathers by comparison, and the non IS version is cheap (relatively speaking). While the 70-200 f/2.8 does make a good portrait lens, a fast prime makes an even better portrait lens while the 70-200 f/4L gives you a zoom for covering horses and other fast moving events.

That said, I find myself using my Sigma 50 f/1.4 a lot for portraits. It equates to about 80mm on crop and it seems to be a natural FoV, plus that lens has incredible bokeh. Something to consider.

No, it's $1600 max per lens right now (with taxes). The 70-200 f/4L is not something I thought of, though! I forgot about that model entirely. I'll test it at the photography shop today if I can. I'm possibly picking up my 7D tomorrow.

The sigma? Hmm I'll see if they have that in stock as well to give it a try, and I'll let you know.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2011, 03:53:38 PM by lady »

awinphoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2088
    • AW Photography
Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)
« Reply #40 on: July 27, 2011, 04:41:48 PM »
Wow... they require a full frame camera... granted when I was at school full frame digitals were rare... the original canon 1ds was your only offering... I dont recall if the nikon d1x was full frame or not... be that as it may, the 7D will definitely get your skill level up and when your in school and ready for your second class you will be more than ready for the 5D mark III =)  As i've mentioned before in other posts, from spending almost a decade with various canon digitals (10d, 1d, 30D, 50D, etc...) this was the first camera where I actually had to learn and sharpen my game a bit to fully utilize it to it's fullest potential.  You should also be able to resell it for a good chunk when your ready or keep it as a second backup camera. 

Funny how I thought the same thing about the 17-40 vs 17-55 on my original tests... I got the 17-40 because it's forward compatibility but others swear by the 17-55 but it is a personal preference.  I'd definitely look at the 70-200 F4 IS and non IS... the non is around $700 and the IS is closer to 1200... something to consider on a budget.  Good luck and let us know how it goes.  =)
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L IS, Canon 100L 2.8, Canon 85 1.8, 2 430EX 2's and a partridge in a pear tree.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 21837
Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)
« Reply #41 on: July 27, 2011, 04:59:17 PM »
I already own a 17-40mm. After extensive testing and comparison I found it to do significantly better than the more expensive 17-55.

Funny how I thought the same thing about the 17-40 vs 17-55 on my original tests...

Interesting - how was it significantly better?

I tried out a 17-40mm and definitely preferred the 17-55mm from an optical standpoint - especially stopped down to f/4, the 17-55mm is sharper across the frame, and the EF-S lens, surprisingly, has less barrel distortion at 17mm than the 17-40mm, despite a broader zoom range and the 'sweet spot' effect of using an EF lens on a crop body.  The only place the L lens won was less vignetting.  From a build standpoint, the L lens is definifely better, of course.

I ended up getting the 16-35mm f/2.8L II instead of the 17-40mm for use on FF (as good or better at comparable apertures), and the 17-55mm on the 7D outperforms the 16-35mm II on the same body, from my own testing.  I shoot a fair bit of wildlife with the 7D and a telezoom, and bring a standard zoom along 'just in case' - in the rain, I bring the 16-35mm II, but otherwise I grab the 17-55mm lens, and in fact, I hung onto that lens after getting the 5DII for just that reason.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

awinphoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2088
    • AW Photography
Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)
« Reply #42 on: July 27, 2011, 05:14:37 PM »
I already own a 17-40mm. After extensive testing and comparison I found it to do significantly better than the more expensive 17-55.

Funny how I thought the same thing about the 17-40 vs 17-55 on my original tests...

Interesting - how was it significantly better?

I tried out a 17-40mm and definitely preferred the 17-55mm from an optical standpoint - especially stopped down to f/4, the 17-55mm is sharper across the frame, and the EF-S lens, surprisingly, has less barrel distortion at 17mm than the 17-40mm, despite a broader zoom range and the 'sweet spot' effect of using an EF lens on a crop body.  The only place the L lens won was less vignetting.  From a build standpoint, the L lens is definifely better, of course.

I ended up getting the 16-35mm f/2.8L II instead of the 17-40mm for use on FF (as good or better at comparable apertures), and the 17-55mm on the 7D outperforms the 16-35mm II on the same body, from my own testing.  I shoot a fair bit of wildlife with the 7D and a telezoom, and bring a standard zoom along 'just in case' - in the rain, I bring the 16-35mm II, but otherwise I grab the 17-55mm lens, and in fact, I hung onto that lens after getting the 5DII for just that reason.

It's hard to say... when I did my testings I tested it against the sigmas and tokinas (my local store didn't sell tamrons so i couldn't test their version which has gotten good reviews) as well as each other...  I dont know... I just felt when I did my unscientific tests, the 17-40 locked focus a tad faster, felt more robust (i need my gear to keep up and be ok if it has a little bang here and there)... the L had weathersealing and  IQ i felt was close but not near enough to warrant the price difference.  The 2.8 would have been nice but that wasn't a driving factor because I was ok with my cameras ISO if needed.  For what I do and how I shoot, that's how I made my choice.  BTW, the sigma and tokina lenses tested were horrid in focusing in low light.  The 17-40 I was able to focus almost in the dark without even needing the AF lamp...  I'm sure under certain conditions the 17-55 could produce sharper images but I've been pleased with my lens. 
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L IS, Canon 100L 2.8, Canon 85 1.8, 2 430EX 2's and a partridge in a pear tree.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)
« Reply #42 on: July 27, 2011, 05:14:37 PM »

lady

  • Guest
Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)
« Reply #43 on: July 27, 2011, 05:57:08 PM »
I already own a 17-40mm. After extensive testing and comparison I found it to do significantly better than the more expensive 17-55.

Funny how I thought the same thing about the 17-40 vs 17-55 on my original tests...

Interesting - how was it significantly better?

I tried out a 17-40mm and definitely preferred the 17-55mm from an optical standpoint - especially stopped down to f/4, the 17-55mm is sharper across the frame, and the EF-S lens, surprisingly, has less barrel distortion at 17mm than the 17-40mm, despite a broader zoom range and the 'sweet spot' effect of using an EF lens on a crop body.  The only place the L lens won was less vignetting.  From a build standpoint, the L lens is definifely better, of course.

I ended up getting the 16-35mm f/2.8L II instead of the 17-40mm for use on FF (as good or better at comparable apertures), and the 17-55mm on the 7D outperforms the 16-35mm II on the same body, from my own testing.  I shoot a fair bit of wildlife with the 7D and a telezoom, and bring a standard zoom along 'just in case' - in the rain, I bring the 16-35mm II, but otherwise I grab the 17-55mm lens, and in fact, I hung onto that lens after getting the 5DII for just that reason.

It's hard to say... when I did my testings I tested it against the sigmas and tokinas (my local store didn't sell tamrons so i couldn't test their version which has gotten good reviews) as well as each other...  I dont know... I just felt when I did my unscientific tests, the 17-40 locked focus a tad faster, felt more robust (i need my gear to keep up and be ok if it has a little bang here and there)... the L had weathersealing and  IQ i felt was close but not near enough to warrant the price difference.  The 2.8 would have been nice but that wasn't a driving factor because I was ok with my cameras ISO if needed.  For what I do and how I shoot, that's how I made my choice.  BTW, the sigma and tokina lenses tested were horrid in focusing in low light.  The 17-40 I was able to focus almost in the dark without even needing the AF lamp...  I'm sure under certain conditions the 17-55 could produce sharper images but I've been pleased with my lens.

This, on top of the fact that I only had to pay $600 for the 17-40mm because they had a used model. The 17-55mm was $1200 and did not have the weather sealing that the 17-40mm did. I also didn't really like the 40-55 zoom range on it and would rather get a 50mm prime (which is what I'm doing) because the sharpness on the 17-55 just wasn't up to my tastes. in the 17-40 I didn't notice any barrel distortion what-so-ever. I pulled up the images next to each other on a 30" monitor in the store and there was no visible distortion at all. It may have been my settings, or it may have just been that you got a bad model. I'm not sure why someone would see barrel distortion on that lens.

I'm trying to stock up on EF lenses right now, not EF-S. That's a huge thing. I do plan to get one or two EF-S lenses, but for now I'm alright with the 17-40. In the future I'm thinking of the 10-22mm mostly.

The 16-35mm I drool over, on a completely unrelated note.

And on another one.

Could someone please explain to me the point of fisheye? I always thought it was a phase because I never really liked the way certain photos looked with fisheye lenses. Is there a valid use for it besides deceptive real estate advertising?

awinphoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2088
    • AW Photography
Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)
« Reply #44 on: July 27, 2011, 06:06:12 PM »
Could someone please explain to me the point of fisheye? I always thought it was a phase because I never really liked the way certain photos looked with fisheye lenses. Is there a valid use for it besides deceptive real estate advertising?

It's a niche effect lens... It's used often in skating magazines and other extreme sports where people are moving fast and may be out of frame in a split second so they use that to ensure they capture it when close up... Some people love it, some people dont.  I tried it a few times but not anything I would use professionally. 
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L IS, Canon 100L 2.8, Canon 85 1.8, 2 430EX 2's and a partridge in a pear tree.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)
« Reply #44 on: July 27, 2011, 06:06:12 PM »