BUY 5d MkII now or WAIT for 5d MkIII????

[-zero-]

The 17-40 is an amazing lense but its going to be much wider and have a lot less reach than your 17-55 on aps-c (10.6-25mm)

That's not the way it works. You're saying the 17-40mm on APS-C is equivalent to 10.6-25mm (i.e. 17-40 / 1.6)?!? No. Focal length is a property of a lens, independent of the camera, and the numbers printed on the lens are the focal length(s). So a 17-40mm overlaps the 17-55mm for the entire range up to 40mm, i.e. on APS-C the 17-55mm delivers a FoV comparable to 27-88mm on FF, and the 17-40mm delivers a FoV comparable to 27-64mm.

Personally, I wouldn't call the 17-40mm an amazing lens on FF. It's a landscape lens...decent when stopped down to f/8 - f/11 or so, but wide open it's pretty mushy. I would not recommend the 17-40mm for a crop body.

I meant that you would need a 10.6-25mm on an aps-c to get the equivalent Field of View of a 17-40 on a FF
thank you for the clarification

the point I was trying to make is that if he buys a 17-40 with a 5DII he will not have the same FoV as his 17-55 on his aps-c camera

 

[neuroanatomist]

the point I was trying to make is that if he buys a 17-40 with a 5DII he will not have the same FoV as his 17-55 on his aps-c camera

Makes sense, thanks for clarifying. I missed that point becuase I'm used to thinking in terms FF-equivalent, not 'APS-C-equivalent.'

I think anyone who's happy with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens on APS-C will be even happier with the 24-105mm f/4L IS on FF - the latter is longer, wider, and faster (in terms of DoF for equivalent subject framing), since the FF equivalent of the 17-55mm f/2.8 is actually 27-88mm f/4.5.

 

[Haydn1971]

Neuro, could you be kind enough to explain the science behind the loss of aperture on APS-C - I understand the size difference, but generally assumed that a f2.8 would be the same on FF or crop - I've seen you mention this a few times now, but not noticed it said anywhere else.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Neuro, could you be kind enough to explain the science behind the loss of aperture on APS-C - I understand the size difference, but generally assumed that a f2.8 would be the same on FF or crop - I've seen you mention this a few times now, but not noticed it said anywhere else.

Happy to explain. It's not a real loss of aperture - f/2.8 is still f/2.8. The effect on apparent DoF is secondary to the effect on angle of view. For a given focal length, you need to further from the subject with an APS-C camera, compared to getting the same subject framing on a FF camera. DoF increases with increasing distance to subject. Thus, to get a similarly-framed shot on APS-C vs. FF, you'll have a DoF at f/2.8 on the APS-C camera that's equivalent to what you'd get at f/4.5 on a FF camera.

Alternatively, you could compensate for the different sensor size by using a different lens, i.e. a shorter focal length on APS-C, to get the equivalent framing without changing distance. But since focal length also affects DoF (which increases with decreasing focal length), the end result is the same, i.e. 1.3-stops deeper DoF on APS-C for the same subject framing.

There's a nice explanation with some illustrations here.

Note that there's no effect on exposure - the meter will give you the same reading on FF and APS-C, so you're losing a stop of light with the f/4 lens vs. f/2.8. However, since the FF sensor gathers more total light (same light per unit area, but a larger area), the ISO noise on FF is 1.6x lower (= 1.3 stops), meaning if you need f/2.8 for the shutter speed, on FF you can bump up the ISO to compensate with no penalty. The only thing you lose with the f/4 lens is the activation of the high-precision center AF point.

Hope that helps...

 

[Haydn1971]

Yes it does, not quite as onerous as I thought I might be, just down to simple maths really !

Thanks !

 

[Edwin Herdman]

The only thing you lose with the f/4 lens is the activation of the high-precision center AF point.

The only thing I have to quibble with in your post is this - of course, the center AF point will still be active, it just won't be "additionally sensitive at f/2.8" as you say. Whether some elements of the unit called an "AF point" don't register the additional light until f/2.8, or whether the whole unit is still in play below f/2.8, is not something I can speak to (the phrase Canon uses here is a bit ambiguous).

 

[neuroanatomist]

The only thing you lose with the f/4 lens is the activation of the high-precision center AF point.

The only thing I have to quibble with in your post is this - of course, the center AF point will still be active, it just won't be "additionally sensitive at f/2.8" as you say. Whether some elements of the unit called an "AF point" don't register the additional light until f/2.8, or whether the whole unit is still in play below f/2.8, is not something I can speak to (the phrase Canon uses here is a bit ambiguous).

Thanks for the clarification - yes, you have a center AF point no matter what lens you use, provided the max aperture is f/5.6 or wider (or even f/6.3, if your 3rd party lens is 'tricking' the camera). Also, the apertures above do not apply to 1-series bodies, where the center AF point is high-precision at f/4 or wider, and requires at least f/8 for standard precision.

It's the 'high-precision' part of the AF point that's not activated, i.e. there are elements of the high-precision center AF point that are f/2.8-sensitive, and other elements that are f/5.6-sensitive. Which elements depends on the camera model. In some older models, the high-precision cross points are a + shape, where one bar (usually the horizontal one, meaning the one sensitive to vertical lines) is f/2.8-sensitive and the other bar is f/5.6-sensitive. The 5DII falls into this category for it's single cross-type AF point (the remaining 8 selectable points are f/5.6-sensitive single-orientation sensors, and 2 of the 6 supplemental non-selectable AF points are also f/2.8-sensitive single orientation points). The 1-series cross-type AF points (e.g. 39 of the 1DIV's 45 AF points) are similar to the center AF point of non-1-series bodies described above. In most newer models (40D up, 7D), the high-precision center AF point is actually an f/2.8-sensitive X-shaped cross-type sensor superimposed onto the f/5.6-sensitive +-shaped cross-type sensor.

Probably more than you wanted to know...

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Thanks for confirming that - it's pretty much what I had remembered, but not accurately enough to say so precisely. It seems to me that what you said initially is probably as essentially helpful as simply saying what Canon does, that a point becomes "additionally sensitive" - there is still AF over the specific point, but the difference in accuracy and speed can be pretty remarkable when moving from f/2.8 to f/5.6 (for instance).

I'm somewhat curious as to what the design of f/4 sensitive points is. I thought those were only on older camera models, but from DPR's 1D Mark IV review:

"[...] 39 cross-type AF points (up from 19 on the previous model). However, they only behave as cross-type AF points when using a lens with a faster maximum aperture than f/2.8 and when selected manually. [...] With f/4 lenses, only the center point acts as a cross-type point, will all points reduced to horizontal sensitivity when using f/5.6 lenses or slower."

This seems to point to Canon having more than just two different grades of autofocus point, but I expect the cost and complexity of the AF sensor prevents them from making many more gradations possible, especially on cheaper cameras (in which they're still sticking with relatively old AF sensors anyway).

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm somewhat curious as to what the design of f/4 sensitive points is. I thought those were only on older camera models, but from DPR's 1D Mark IV review:

"[...] 39 cross-type AF points (up from 19 on the previous model). However, they only behave as cross-type AF points when using a lens with a faster maximum aperture than f/2.8 and when selected manually. [...] With f/4 lenses, only the center point acts as a cross-type point, will all points reduced to horizontal sensitivity when using f/5.6 lenses or slower."

In the 1-series AF sensors, the center point is high-precision cross-type with f/4 lenses, and retains horizontal line sensitivity up to f/8 (meaning you can AF with an f/5.6 lens + 1.4x TC, for example, and that's specific to 1-series bodies).

The rest of the situation with the 1-series AF is a little more complex, and DPR's language doesn't provide much clarity. On the 1DIV, all 39 cross-type points act as cross-type during manual AF point selection; when using automatic AF point selection, only 19 of the 39 cross-type points act as cross-type, the others act as horizontal line-sensitive only. The 38 other (excluding the center point) cross-type AF points are f/2.8-sensitive for vertical lines, and f/5.6-sensitive for horizontal lines. So, with f/2.8 lenses you have cross-type points and with f/5.6 lenses and variable aperture zoom lenses, you have horizontal-line sensitive sensors. With f/4 lenses, there's another layer of complexity (which DPR ignores) - the center AF point functions as a cross-type with all f/4 lenses; with some f/4 lenses, but not all of them, the other 38 points (or 18 points in auto AF selection) do act as cross-type. Those lenses are the 17-40mm, the 24-105mm, the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS (I and II) + 1.4x II/III, 200mm f/2 L IS + 2x II/III, 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM (I and II) + EF 1.4x II/III, and 400mm f/2.8 L IS (I and II) + 1.4x II/III. With other f/4 lenses (e.g. 70-200mm f/4L ± IS, etc.), the off-center points function as horizontal line-sensitive f/5.6 points.

 

[Michael7]

note: *not* the same test as this one, that's testing a lens+body combination to get the exact same shot. my test above is a "you already own a lens, what body is better?" question...

Actually, I did that flavor of the comparison in this other one - same scene, same distance, 7D vs. 5DII, using both the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS and the the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS @ 400mm. Some reprocessing of the RAW files by others confirms that the 7D is the winner in that scenario.

Sure, if you can get closer to the subject or use a longer lens, instead of having to crop, the 5DII will produce better IQ. But that's from a reductionist standpoint - the IQ will be better assuming the 5DII can accurately focus and track the subject if motion is involved, and that the frame rate is adequate to capture 'the moment'. Here's a shot with my 7D that would have been a real challenge for a 5DII, perhaps too much of a challenge:


EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/1600 s, f/6.3, ISO 1600

That image has the soft, out of focus look that my 7d has.

 

[BlueMixWhite]

With the 5DmkIII rumors ongoing, will anyone willing to pull the trigger on the mkII now?

 

[Michael_pfh]

With the 5DmkIII rumors ongoing, will anyone willing to pull the trigger on the mkII now?

I was fed up with the wait for the 5D3 and spontaneously bought a 1D4 last weekend - love it!

 

[Astro]

i will definately wait a bit longer now.
im happy with my 550D and 7D.

have sold most of my EF-S glass already and when the 5D MK3 appears i make the jump to FF.
will sell the 7D but not the 550D. it´s nice to have the 1.6 crop for my 300mm f4.

 

[BlueMixWhite]

I'm going to wait out till end of feb. if still no news, I might go for mkII.

 

[aaronh]

I'm going to wait out till end of feb. if still no news, I might go for mkII.

That's my plan too.

 

[Dylan777]

If you NEED a full frame NOW, then buy it - as I did.

If you feel current the AF on 5D II is not for you, then save your money for III.

Otherwise....buy a used 5D II now, and sell it once 5D III in stock. You might loose $1 hundred or so, but still cheaper than renting it.

 

[kidnaper]

I see part of my answer addressed on page 7, but I'm not going to read all 7 pages just to be sure I don't repeat...
I'm in the same boat so here's my rationale...
I don't need a 5DII tomorrow. I'd like one yesterday but I can't justify buying 3 year old tech knowing that the new one should be dropping any day. I already missed out on the best price the camera has ever been at so I have little incentive to jump at it right now. I'd like better AF and FPS out of the Mk3, and would prefer a shared sensor with the 1Dx but will let the real announcement decide which camera I will plan for.
I guess to surmise, since I don't NEED a 5D at this moment, I'm not going to make any purchase until we know what the new camera will have, and for how much.

 

[K-amps]

My vote goes to... Wait for 5D3.

Purchases are about being happy with them. While current 5d2 owners are happy with their purchases, how happy will you be if by March there's a 5D3 with a good number of improvements over the 5d2?

The exception is; if you are losing money (or a gig) then go for the 5d2 now, you can always trade up later.

 

[aaronh]

I've been working as a second shooter for a wedding photographer for about a year now. I have my first solo wedding coming up in June and I need a second body for it (I've been using a single 60D as a 2nd shooter). I would like to buy something before June so I can get a good amount of practice with full frame before the wedding. Therefore, unless something crazy happens it seems pointless to wait around for a 5dIII for too long. Especially since my budget is a lot more conducive to a 5dII...

 

[K-amps]

I've been working as a second shooter for a wedding photographer for about a year now. I have my first solo wedding coming up in June and I need a second body for it (I've been using a single 60D as a 2nd shooter). I would like to buy something before June so I can get a good amount of practice with full frame before the wedding. Therefore, unless something crazy happens it seems pointless to wait around for a 5dIII for too long. Especially since my budget is a lot more conducive to a 5dII...

Why not get a 5Dc? many wedding pros prefer the 5Dc citing more natural Flesh tones. It's FF, and at a very reasonable price point right now.