5d Mark II or 16-35mm 2.8/L II - What would you do?

<p>So I have shot a 30D for a while with 24-70 2.8/L and have missed having the wider end... I have the money to upgrade, but the question is should I spend 1600 for the 16-35mm or spring the extra 1k and go for the 5d and still get down to 24mm with the 24-70mm I currently use...? I've wanted to upgrade to full frame eventually, but I've heard of some AF issues on the 5d II and I was curious what people thought and what you would do in this situation. Oh, and I do have enough $ for the 5d II now.</p>

<p>Thanks for your opinions.</p>

<p>Chris</p>

<p>If you eventually will buy a FF camera, then the 16-35mm doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I mostly use such a wide angle lens for scenics, archetectural subjects and people. The 5D2's focus issue may or may not impact you a lot, depending on your use.</p>

<p>I have no trouble at all focusing scenics, people, including kids in motion with my 5D2. OTOH, trying to focus a mallard at speed or a red tailed hawk coming straight at me at low level challenge my 5D2. I'm going to get a 7D for bird photography for the extra reach of the 1.6 sensor and superior AF, but the 5D2 will be my main camera, I think.</p>

<p>If I was going to go FF soon, why wait? I just got a 5D MKII. I have a 40D but I also had 16-35, 20, and 15 Canon lenses and missed shooting wide. I have been thrilled with the 5D. No issues with focus speed, though I am shooting portraits, landscapes, weddings, city stuff, etc and not shooting sports, air shows, or faster than light wildlife. The 5D has stellar IQ. It is a gem.<br>

If you want to go wider for less money, a used 20mm prime is a great lens. Used it goes for about $350. It will give you dramatic vistas and sharp images at a great price.</p>

<p>Not knowing what you shoot or why you would need either if it was 1 of those 2 to choose this is 1 time that I would take the camera over the lens. I have used my 5D2 to shoot wildlife ( birds flying over head etc ) and I had no issue with focusing.<br>

<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/9242974&size=lg<br>

<br /> You will have to be a bit more careful with depth of field because the full frame sensor will make it thinner but it may make a 17-40 more then enough for ultra wide.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'd say, go for the 16-35mm now and start saving up for an FF camera; it won't be long before Canon announces a new FF camera with the new AF system implemented in the 7D (that's just my opinion). I'd rather get that new one than the 5d Mark II.</p>

<p>I would probably get the body - normally I would always suggest a lens but the 5DII is a massive upgrade over the 30D. The 24mm on full frame will give you better performance than the 16mm on a crop body - even I suspect the 7D as while the 16-35 F2.8 II is a very good lens it is not a great one. I have had the Mk II for about 8 months now and I use it a lot and like it but it is a solid performer not a stellar one. Indeed I find that I use the 16-35 and 70-200 F2.8 a lot more than the 24-70 F2.8. If I only take two zooms it is usually the 24-70 that gets left behind. I have been using the 5DII since Christmass and I am very happy with it. The AF is slower than I would like but properly set up is really not that bad - I suspect that the 30D AF will possibly be worse. I have actually shot a lot of sports with the 5DII and had no real problems so long as you use only the center or center and invisible assist points. The sports i shoot have high contrast targets but the light can be very poor. The two sports I have regularly shot are ski racing and ice hockey (kids). A lot is made of the 5DII focus issues but I have not had real issues - for Ice hockey about 90%+ are in focus and ski racing will be more than 95%. the area where it is clearly weak is when a target suddenly appears - the AF takes a while to lock on. I have spent several years prior to the 5DII shooting 1Vs and 1NRS and while the 5DII is not as quick it is fine for most uses. I cannot decide if the issues others have had are camera variations, slow lenses or poor setup / unrealistic expectations. I do not own any crop bodies and have only shot the 40D (someone elses) and did not find a significant improvement over the 5DII - this does not surprise me as the AF systems are similar. The APS-C bodies have more cross type sensors but I understand the center sensor of the 5DII is more accurate. Looking at reviews Bob Atkins and the digital picture did not see major AF issues with the 5DII.</p>

<p>Popular Photography has the 40D and 50D being about 0.1 second quicker in low light AF tests than the 5DII (for example at LV 2 the 5DII is 0.81 sec vs 0.69 for the 50D at LV6 this is 0.64 vs 0.54) with the 1DIII being at least ) 0.1 seconds quicker than that. They also state that the first 5D had better AF than the 20D (which shares the 30D AF system). As a high resolution camera with low ISo perofrmance for weddings, landscape, studio and portrait the 5DII is hard to beat. For sports the 50d and 40D are better - slightly better AF and better frame rate but the 5DII is very usable. It is possible that a combination of low light and low contrast sport use is the problem for the 5DII AF but I cannot confirm this as winter sports while low light are high contrast. I suspect to get a real world improvement in AF over the 5DII you really have to buy a 1 series or possibly the new 7D.</p>

I would lean towards a 5D2 but Chris, what do you shoot mostly?

<p>It comes down to personal preference, but mine would be for a 5D II with 24-70 over a 30D with 16-35. </p>

<p>5D II AF will outperform 30D AF. In fact, I agree with Tommy that the AF performance of the 5D (mk I) is not as bad as people make out - it's a case of internet whispers where one person says "The 5D isn't as good as..." which the next person repeats as "The 5D is bad at...". I'm sure that many of those on the net saying that the 5D can't cope with wildlife have, in fact, never used one for that. The additional assist AF points around the centre point make tracking birds in flight somewhat easier than other bodies at times. I find myself happy enough with its performance for now: <a href="http://www.askisaac.com/images/5d/_MG_1483.jpg">1</a> <a href="http://www.askisaac.com/images/5d/_MG_0552.jpg">2</a> <a href="http://www.askisaac.com/images/5d/_MG_1579.jpg">3</a>. Is it as good as my EOS 3 was? Not quite. Is it as bad as my D30 was? Nothing like. </p>

<p>I switched from the 30D with the 17-55 zoom as my main lens to the 5D2 with the 24-105 as my main lens. A big improvement of the new set up is that it goes significantly wider with a single lens. You would get the same benefit by moving to the 5D or 5D2, so if that matters to you, I think it's worth it. I have found focus on the 5D2 much improved over the 30D, but this may have more to do with the micro-adjust feature than anything else.</p>

<p>My mistake for not putting photography types in here... I pretty much shoot everything, except that I do not have any intention of shooting birds or sports. The only sports I might shoot would be my own kids' (3-4yr old) games. Not exactly the most fast moving stuff... I like my 30D - it has been a good camera and if I got the 5d II I would not get rid of it - not worth the few hundred bucks I'd get for it. I've shot some weddings, landscape, etc. and kids portraits, etc - mostly with natural lighting. Anyway, I'm probably classified as an advanced amateur but I like quality equipment. Hopefully that makes sense... Thanks for you opinions!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Chris, you'll love the 5D2, given your shooting types. Make all your lens buying decisions with that in mind. You'll be perfectly happy with the AF and burst fps rate of the 5D2.</p>

<p>Chris for what you shoot you will love the 5D2. </p>

<p>How about getting a new or refurbished 5D Mark I? Or the <em>excellent</em> EF-S 10-22 for your 30D?</p>

<p>Chris, I had the same question asking myself 1000 times before I bought 5DII and it's just been a week I bought a new body and was just playing around with the new toys. Not only 5DII.. I bought 16-35 L II also... but not tried out extensively. I'll be putting my 5DII in use this Saturday for a B'day party. With the test I made using both 24 - 70 L and 16 - 35 L the image result is simply INCREDIBLE... I do own 40D.. I can bluntly say Image captured in 40D at 100 ISO is equal to Image captured in 5DII at 800 ISO (The noticeable difference of 5DII noise at higher ISO is razor thin). Your application factor is important whether you need the extra wide of 16mm<br>

I strongly suggest to shell out extra xxx$ to own a 5DII and use same 24-70L</p>

 

<p>Chris, I am very similar to you in regards to shooting types and equipment interests. That being said, I started with a 50D (which I really like), added the 5d2 and the 1d2 at the same time. I buy bodies used when I can since their value does not hold up like lens values do over longer periods of time. Since you don't plan to shoot a lot of the subjects I bought the 1d2 (which I will use only for speed situations and also for its durability/build) for, I would just go with the 5d2. While this is a pretty new to me body, I really like many aspects of the camera and its performance. It does not focus as fast as my 50D, but based on your comments, I don't think that will matter much to you. The picture quality is excellent with the 5d2.</p>

<p>Why not try the EF-S 10-22? This will give you real wide angle and is much cheaper than your other two options.</p>