40D vs 5D3: ISO and lens question

[Jamesy]

I currently have a 40D with a 17-55. I am looking at getting a 5D3 with the kit 24-105 lens. I am also knocking around the notion of getting the 24-70 II instead of the 24-105 in order to maintain 2.8 aperture.

I am a hobbyist who likes to do portraiture, the odd event, vacations and the like. I also have an 85/1.8, 135L and 70-200/4/IS.

ISO question:
I never go above ISO 800 (unless I really need to) on the 40D - what would be an equivalent ISO on a 5D3 or even a 5D2 for that matter? 3200?

Lens question:
The 17-55 is on the camera 95% of the time. Based on the better ISO performance of the 5D2 or 3, if I boosted the ISO up to make up for the loss of a stop on the lens, do you think they would balance each other out from a noise standpoint (DoF issues aside). In other words, if money was not an issue, as a general everyday lens, if you were me would you get the 24-105 or the 24-70 II?

Thanks in advance!

 

[ippikiokami]

Jamesy

ISO Question:
I've never owned a 40d but I'm comfortable using 2000 iso for any of my clients. I've used 3200 and even 4000 before but personally I don't like pumping it higher if it's for work. For personal use I've done even higher! Judging from the examples and from a non pixel peeper point of view (What matters is if it's good enough for the clients right?) I'd go as far as 25600 on the 5d3!

Lens Question:
Yes it'll more than make up for the stop. I love the 24-105 and know a couple of working photographers who use that lens as their main money maker. The question would be more if you get the 24-70 is that the only lens that you will get for awhile? at 70 on a fullframe you really don't get that much reach.

You can't go wrong with either though

 

[Jamesy]

Jamesy

ISO Question:
I've never owned a 40d but I'm comfortable using 2000 iso for any of my clients. I've used 3200 and even 4000 before but personally I don't like pumping it higher if it's for work. For personal use I've done even higher! Judging from the examples and from a non pixel peeper point of view (What matters is if it's good enough for the clients right?) I'd go as far as 25600 on the 5d3!

Lens Question:
Yes it'll more than make up for the stop. I love the 24-105 and know a couple of working photographers who use that lens as their main money maker. The question would be more if you get the 24-70 is that the only lens that you will get for awhile? at 70 on a fullframe you really don't get that much reach.

You can't go wrong with either though

Thanks for the insight - I assume you are shooting a 5D2?

For reach, I also have the 85/1.8, 135L and a 70-200/F4/IS. I am heavily leaning towards the 24-105.

 

[Radiating]

I currently have a 40D with a 17-55. I am looking at getting a 5D3 with the kit 24-105 lens. I am also knocking around the notion of getting the 24-70 II instead of the 24-105 in order to maintain 2.8 aperture.

I am a hobbyist who likes to do portraiture, the odd event, vacations and the like. I also have an 85/1.8, 135L and 70-200/4/IS.

First off why are you doing the upgrade? Why do you need a different body?

ISO question:
I never go above ISO 800 (unless I really need to) on the 40D - what would be an equivalent ISO on a 5D3 or even a 5D2 for that matter? 3200?

In terms of cleaness, likely ISO 4300 on the 5D3. The 40D at ISO 800 would be as clean as the 5DII at ISO 2133 (this has been tested in lab conditions)

Lens question:
The 17-55 is on the camera 95% of the time. Based on the better ISO performance of the 5D2 or 3, if I boosted the ISO up to make up for the loss of a stop on the lens, do you think they would balance each other out from a noise standpoint (DoF issues aside). In other words, if money was not an issue, as a general everyday lens, if you were me would you get the 24-105 or the 24-70 II?

Thanks in advance!

I would get the upcoming Tamron 24-70mmm f/2.8 VC lens. That's the best of both worlds, image stabilization, and f/2.8. It's also reported to be very sharp.

The 24-105mm f/4.0 IS would look cleaner on the 5D3 than the 17-55mm f/2.8 on the 40D, if the DOF is the same. However they would be about equal with the 5D2, with only a slight improvement.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I currently have a 40D with a 17-55. I am looking at getting a 5D3 with the kit 24-105 lens. I am also knocking around the notion of getting the 24-70 II instead of the 24-105 in order to maintain 2.8 aperture.

I am a hobbyist who likes to do portraiture, the odd event, vacations and the like. I also have an 85/1.8, 135L and 70-200/4/IS.

ISO question:
I never go above ISO 800 (unless I really need to) on the 40D - what would be an equivalent ISO on a 5D3 or even a 5D2 for that matter? 3200?

Lens question:
The 17-55 is on the camera 95% of the time. Based on the better ISO performance of the 5D2 or 3, if I boosted the ISO up to make up for the loss of a stop on the lens, do you think they would balance each other out from a noise standpoint (DoF issues aside). In other words, if money was not an issue, as a general everyday lens, if you were me would you get the 24-105 or the 24-70 II?

Thanks in advance!

Get the 24-10 Kit, it is a really good match for the 5D series cameras. I almost bought a second one with my 5D MK III order. If it does not end up suiting you, you can sell it for over $800.

I've had 5 of the 40d's and loved every one of them. ISO 800 was pretty much my limit. Just now, i pulled some of my old ISO 1600 images into LR 4, and they really look good, so newer processing has changed things.

With the 5D MK II, I was limited at ISO 3200 originally, but with the better image editors, I can now use ISO 6400 in a pinch without too much noise. I expect to use ISO 12,800 or even 25,600 on the 5D MK III. Thats a really huge jump over my beloved 40D's.

Here is a theatre shot at ISO 6400 taken recently with my 5D MK II, I'm really enthused about the possibility of two more stops. I would have bought it for one more stop.

5D MK II, ISO 6400 135mmL at f/2

 

[Loswr]

It amuses me when people say they don't want to go FF because there's no equivalent to the 17-55mm for FF. They're correct - the 24-105mm f/4L IS is actually better. The FF equivalent of the 17-55mm is 27-88mm f/4.5, so the 24-105mm is wider, longer, and faster (in terms of DoF for same framing), and still has IS. It's true that you lose a stop of shutter speed, but the ISO performance of a FF sensor beats an APS-C sensor by 1.33 stops for an equivalent sensor generation, which more than compensates. The 5DIII compared to the 40D will be even better. So, comparing the 24-105/4 on FF to the 17-55/2.8, the only thing you're losing is the activation of the f/2.8 AF points.

 

[briansquibb]

The 24-105mm f/4.0 IS would look cleaner on the 5D3 than the 17-55mm f/2.8 on the 40D, if the DOF is the same. However they would be about equal with the 5D2, with only a slight improvement.

What makes you think that? On the surface it doesn't make sense.

I would say my 40D is 2 stops worse than my 5D2

 

[Jamesy]

First off why are you doing the upgrade? Why do you need a different body?

I love the 85 and the 135L I own and hope to use them more. I have also shot 5Dc and 5D2's and love the images they produce.

In terms of cleaness, likely ISO 4300 on the 5D3. The 40D at ISO 800 would be as clean as the 5DII at ISO 2133 (this has been tested in lab conditions)

I imagined it would be better - thanks for confirming it.

I would get the upcoming Tamron 24-70mmm f/2.8 VC lens. That's the best of both worlds, image stabilization, and f/2.8. It's also reported to be very sharp.

The new Tamron does indeed seem intriguing - any word on when it will be available?

The 24-105mm f/4.0 IS would look cleaner on the 5D3 than the 17-55mm f/2.8 on the 40D, if the DOF is the same. However they would be about equal with the 5D2, with only a slight improvement.

So, it would appear that the 24-105 kit lens would be a great addition to a new 5D2 or 5D3. Thanks for your insight.

 

[chrisrad]

I've had 5 of the 40d's and loved every one of them. ISO 800 was pretty much my limit. Just now, i pulled some of my old ISO 1600 images into LR 4, and they really look good, so newer processing has changed things.

With the 5D MK II, I was limited at ISO 3200 originally, but with the better image editors, I can now use ISO 6400 in a pinch without too much noise. I expect to use ISO 12,800 or even 25,600 on the 5D MK III. Thats a really huge jump over my beloved 40D's.

I'm doing stage shots with a 500D/24-105L and can only get to iso1600. I'm using DPP for processing. Any advice on better image processors would be most welcome.

Thanks

 

[Jamesy]

Get the 24-10 Kit, it is a really good match for the 5D series cameras. I almost bought a second one with my 5D MK III order. If it does not end up suiting you, you can sell it for over $800.

I am leaning towrds the 24-105 but now also considering the new Tammy 24-70 VC

I've had 5 of the 40d's and loved every one of them. ISO 800 was pretty much my limit. Just now, i pulled some of my old ISO 1600 images into LR 4, and they really look good, so newer processing has changed things.

With the 5D MK II, I was limited at ISO 3200 originally, but with the better image editors, I can now use ISO 6400 in a pinch without too much noise. I expect to use ISO 12,800 or even 25,600 on the 5D MK III. Thats a really huge jump over my beloved 40D's.

Here is a theatre shot at ISO 6400 taken recently with my 5D MK II, I'm really enthused about the possibility of two more stops. I would have bought it for one more stop.

5D MK II, ISO 6400 135mmL at f/2

Nice shot for ISO6400 - great example of the capabilities of the 5D2 and 135L. Thanks!

 

[Jamesy]

It amuses me when people say they don't want to go FF because there's no equivalent to the 17-55mm for FF. They're correct - the 24-105mm f/4L IS is actually better. The FF equivalent of the 17-55mm is 27-88mm f/4.5, so the 24-105mm is wider, longer, and faster (in terms of DoF for same framing), and still has IS. It's true that you lose a stop of shutter speed, but the ISO performance of a FF sensor beats an APS-C sensor by 1.33 stops for an equivalent sensor generation, which more than compensates. The 5DIII compared to the 40D will be even better. So, comparing the 24-105/4 on FF to the 17-55/2.8, the only thing you're losing is the activation of the f/2.8 AF points.

Thanks for the insight.

When you say "the ISO performance of a FF sensor beats an APS-C sensor by 1.33 stops for an equivalent sensor generation" - the 5D3 is not the same generation as the 40D therefore I would expect well beyond the 1.33 factor - do you agree?

 

[Loswr]

When you say "the ISO performance of a FF sensor beats an APS-C sensor by 1.33 stops for an equivalent sensor generation" - the 5D3 is not the same generation as the 40D therefore I would expect well beyond the 1.33 factor - do you agree?

Definitely.

 

[Jamesy]

When you say "the ISO performance of a FF sensor beats an APS-C sensor by 1.33 stops for an equivalent sensor generation" - the 5D3 is not the same generation as the 40D therefore I would expect well beyond the 1.33 factor - do you agree?

Definitely.

Thanks. That supports the case for a 24-105. It adds $800 to the body price of wither the 5D2 or 5D3. The Tamron also looks very interesting - I look forward to hearing what people say about it oncereleased in the wild - also I didn't get an accurate lock on pricing. One Australian report mentioned $1400 but that may be Aussie dollars.

Anyone know how much the Tammy will be?

 

[Radiating]

The 24-105mm f/4.0 IS would look cleaner on the 5D3 than the 17-55mm f/2.8 on the 40D, if the DOF is the same. However they would be about equal with the 5D2, with only a slight improvement.

What makes you think that? On the surface it doesn't make sense.

I would say my 40D is 2 stops worse than my 5D2

The 40D is more like 1.5 stops worse than the 5D2 based on testing, so close enough. considering that the DOF is going to be 1.33 stops shallower... at the same DOF the 5D II is going to be a .17 stop improvement. That's my definition of "a slight improvement".

 

[DzPhotography]

When you say "the ISO performance of a FF sensor beats an APS-C sensor by 1.33 stops for an equivalent sensor generation" - the 5D3 is not the same generation as the 40D therefore I would expect well beyond the 1.33 factor - do you agree?

Definitely.

Thanks. That supports the case for a 24-105. It adds $800 to the body price of wither the 5D2 or 5D3. The Tamron also looks very interesting - I look forward to hearing what people say about it oncereleased in the wild - also I didn't get an accurate lock on pricing. One Australian report mentioned $1400 but that may be Aussie dollars.

Anyone know how much the Tammy will be?

1300-1400$ imho. I saw preorders here in EUR for about 1000€

 

[K-amps]

It amuses me when people say they don't want to go FF because there's no equivalent to the 17-55mm for FF. They're correct - the 24-105mm f/4L IS is actually better. The FF equivalent of the 17-55mm is 27-88mm f/4.5, so the 24-105mm is wider, longer, and faster (in terms of DoF for same framing), and still has IS. It's true that you lose a stop of shutter speed, but the ISO performance of a FF sensor beats an APS-C sensor by 1.33 stops for an equivalent sensor generation, which more than compensates. The 5DIII compared to the 40D will be even better. So, comparing the 24-105/4 on FF to the 17-55/2.8, the only thing you're losing is the activation of the f/2.8 AF points.

Applaud !

 

[Tijn]

It amuses me when people say they don't want to go FF because there's no equivalent to the 17-55mm for FF. They're correct - the 24-105mm f/4L IS is actually better. The FF equivalent of the 17-55mm is 27-88mm f/4.5, so the 24-105mm is wider, longer, and faster (in terms of DoF for same framing), and still has IS.

How does their corner sharpness compare? I always understood that the full-frame sharpness quality "bar" is set a bit less high in the corners, because it's just hard to get it perfect there due to the larger sensor. As such I always imagined that the step from 17-55 f/2.8 on crop to 24-105 on FF would be a (small) step backwards for corner sharpness. Of course as a whole it is still a big upgrade (except for light-critical situations), but I'm curious if it's actually an upgrade in all other aspects, or just most (and not the corner sharpness).

People are generally very positive about these L lenses, such as the 24-105, though when I look at the figures it is not quite sharp across the whole range (particularly in corners). Then a new lens is released, the 24-70L II, which I expect to show that perhaps the quality bar has indeed been set a bit low for FF zoom lenses in the past... Being happy with them is one thing, being uncritical about them is another. I'd want to know about corner unsharpness even if that's just a part of the package and the whole package is still great.

Edit: looking at some chart sample images, I'd say they perform pretty similar even when comparing them both at f/4. Guess I was a bit too mesmerized by looking at photozone.de graphs. In them, many FF L-zoom lenses appear to take a bigger 'dip' in the corners than crop lenses do.

 

[MikeHunt]

If you rarely shoot above ISO 800 and you're not bothered by the need for reach, get the new 24-70mm 2.8L II if you can afford it.

 

[briansquibb]

The 24-105mm f/4.0 IS would look cleaner on the 5D3 than the 17-55mm f/2.8 on the 40D, if the DOF is the same. However they would be about equal with the 5D2, with only a slight improvement.

What makes you think that? On the surface it doesn't make sense.

I would say my 40D is 2 stops worse than my 5D2

The 40D is more like 1.5 stops worse than the 5D2 based on testing, so close enough. considering that the DOF is going to be 1.33 stops shallower... at the same DOF the 5D II is going to be a .17 stop improvement. That's my definition of "a slight improvement".

From thst point of view I understand - however the shutter speed will be 2 stops faster therefore motion blur disappears .....

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The 24-105mm f/4.0 IS would look cleaner on the 5D3 than the 17-55mm f/2.8 on the 40D, if the DOF is the same. However they would be about equal with the 5D2, with only a slight improvement.

What makes you think that? On the surface it doesn't make sense.

I would say my 40D is 2 stops worse than my 5D2

I see close to 2 stops looking at my old 40D 1600 ISO jpeg images versus my 5D MK II raw images at ISO 6400.

Unfortunately I was using jpeg much of the time with my 40D because I did not have a good processor for raw. I did look at some ISO 800 images taken using the 40D and Raw, and they are at least 2 stops better with the 5D MK II ISO 3200, maybe a bit more.

I have not tried to match my 17-55mm EF-s at f/2.8 ISO 1600 with my 24-105mm L ISO 6400 on the 5D MK II. ISO's, I don't think its worth it to track them down, and I now use primes in low light with a wider aperture than f/2.8.