5D Mk2 buyers remorse..

<p>I just got my first full frame, the 5D Mk2. I've been shooting with a couple of 50mm (Canon 1.8 and Sigma 1.4) and can't seem to get consistently sharp shots. I've definitely gotten some very sharp shots but more fuzzy than sharp. I started googling (this can be unhealthy, I know) 5D Mk2 and focus issue and was a little overwhelmed by the number of unhappy users out there. I did some focus tests and it was a little all over the place but both lenses gave me pretty poor results. $2.5K is a lot of money for me and I am bit concerned that my keeper rate will be disappointing. What do you think? Is it a micro adjustment issue perhaps (seems unlikely since I've used two different lenses) or is it just a matter of getting to know my camera a little better?<br /><br />Would greatly appreciate any feedback you might have. </p>

<p>Keep in mind that f/1.4 (and f/1.8, for that matter) are going to give you <em>razor</em> thin depth of field, if you shoot wide open or close to it. Dependin on how close your test subjects are, you could be dealing with fractions of an inch of in-focus working area. That can easily produce that "out of focus" feeling if you were even the least bit on the wrong spot when locking focus, or drift your head by even a centimeter while shooting.<br /><br />Are you finding focus to be off regardless of the aperture you're using?</p>

<p>Have you viewed the focus points in DPP? (I don't know if current PS/lightroom does this)<br>

try with the center only focus point for starters</p>

I have not and I'm not familiar with "viewing" the focus points. I'm using lightroom.

 

Matt: you may have a point there. I haven't really gone smaller than f2. I'll give it a shot tonight.

<p>The Canon 50mm f/1.4 is not known for remarkable sharpness at f/1.4 - in addition to the usual issues with very narrow DOF at that aperture.</p>

<p>Before deciding that the camera has a problem you might want to do some careful tests from a tripod to eliminate some of the variables that might affect your results otherwise.</p>

<p>Also be aware that if you are looking at 100% crops and comparing them to a camera with fewer MP you are not doing an equal comparison - essentially you are looking "much closer" at a smaller area of the image - and it will seem less sharp, just as if you compared viewing a slide with 5X and 10X loupes.</p>

<p>It might be a micro adjustment issue, but my Mk II is dead on with all my lenses.<br>

If you Google any problem with virtually any product you will find a lot of information out there.<br>

Stop one of those lenses down a couple stops and see how well it works. Or concentrate on where you are placing the active focus point. If you are using <strong>all </strong>the points it may be very difficult to find where the camera is actually focusing.</p>

<p>Matt L pretty much sums it up. <br /> I remember feeling this way too at first. Full frame seems to make your lenses depth of field shallower then APS-C so its easier to miss when your shooting so wide open. I find using the center point to focus works best most of the time.</p>

<p>For what its worth I have gotten sharp photos with the 50 1.4 wide open but its very easy to miss.</p>

I used a tripod in my tests. Focusing on a newspaper and a little Buddha statue. A couple of shots (from a particular

distance) were decent and most others were pretty fuzzy compared to manual focus. I also set manual focus and switched

on autofocus and the focus definitely re-adjusted. Does this mean it's a lens issue?

<p>I always manually pick the desired auto focus point. If you let the camera choose the point for you, it has a 1 in 9 chance of choosing the correct one. Okay, its a better probability than that, but what I'm saying is that there is a possibility it will choose one of the 8 wrong AF points. If this happens, it will cause out of focus shots. Try manually choosing the points first then see how the results are. If your subject is something that you don't have time to choose points between every shot, then pick the middle point and keep the subject on it until you're ready to shoot, then focus and recompose. Also, be sure you're using the correct AF mode. If you use "al servo", the focus can get knocked off by the slightest movement. I always use "one shot" and lock focus just before pressing the shutter, unless I'm shooting sports or action, then I use "al servo." And last but not least, if you want to see if its a focus issue or just an unsharp lens, take one photo using the AF, then take a photo using manual focus and use Live View magnified 10x to manually get the precise focus (works best with tripod). Then compare the 2 shots. Make sure your focus point is on the exact same spot on both photographs.</p>

I used the center point in my tests and both lenses were a bit fuzzy compared

to manual focus.

I guess I don't know how much of a difference is acceptable comparing manual to auto.

<p>You should be able to get sharp shots on autofocus. What auto focus mode are you in?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>...5D Mk2. I've been shooting with a couple of 50mm (Canon 1.8...</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>A gorgeous camera with a junky lens. Use a real Canon EF lens like the 85 1.8 or similar, or a quality L zoom and my guess your focus issues will disappear.</p>

I've been using one shot mode.

 

Well, the siggy is supposed to be sharp and both lenses were very crisp w manual focus.

<p>You should use the micro-adjust feature to optimize performance for each lens. Before you had this feature, you'd have to send the camera in to Canon to have it adjusted. It's very important to use this if you want to shoot with shallow depth of field. Fortunately, you only need to do it once for a given body/lens combination.</p>

<p>Also, keep in mind that even f/4 requires careful focusing to be really sharp. Just because the lens opens up to f/1.4 or f/1.8 doesn't mean that you have to use it that way.</p>

 

<p>If you previously used those lens on a crop-sensor camera, they might have been crappy all along, but the 5D MkII is finally demonstrating it to you. To find out, Resize your 5D2 images down to the size that your former crop-sensor produced and then compare.</p>

<p>The points about using the micro adjust are also potentially part of the problem.</p>

<p>I sent back my first 1dsmkIII for similar reasons and got a new body. I don't mind the micro focus for micro focus, but I want the camera close out of the box. I also sent back one of the 3 lenses I got.</p>

<p>Also, you will notice that this larger MP requires a little more sharpening in raw than a lower MP camera will.</p>

<p>I think it's obvious that the camera is a bust. I'll be another to post the obvious and banal response: send it to me and I'll dispose of it for you in an environmentally sound way.</p>

<p>There are many possible sources of "fuzziness" and unsharpness. Many of these are located on the near side of the viewfinder. Others are implicit in the nature of the lenses you are using. Making sure what focus points are on what when shooting is yet another.<br>

Sometimes minor adjustments are necessary. Some of these can be done by the user, others may require a trip to service. This kind of problem is by no means restricted to Canon or any other marque, but you need to do something about it.</p>

<p>My 5DII AF works fine and rarely misses. Like others have said, you should manually select the AF point if you need consistent focus. Otherwise the camera guesses. With that said, my 50 1.4 USM had quirky AF and missed all the time, especially in low light and was terribly soft larger than F2.8. AF is better on my EF 50 2.5 CM and 50 1.2L, but still not nearly as reliable as any of zooms such as the 17-40L, EF 24-105L or 70-200L.</p>

<p>You should try other lenses so you can isolate the problem.</p>

<p>Good info everyone, I appreciate it. I know the nifty is not the right lens for the camera and I sent the Sigma back since it's known to have pretty horrid focus issues - that's not what I need right now. <br /><br />Any suggestions for decent primes? I have about $1000 to play with. The 135L will arrive as a birthday present next month so what would make a good pair? Or triple? <br /><br />I've also considered the 24-70 but I'm hesitant to carry around a brick for street and candid stuff. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I guess I don't know how much of a difference is acceptable comparing manual to auto.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you can't tell an acceptable difference between your two shots, then there isn't a problem.</p>

Do you have any examples ? If I spent 2.5K on anything and I was dissapointed at the results, I would stuff the item back in the box and head for the nearest UPS.

<p>as for lenses, there is nothing wrong with the 50mm f/1.8, even on a 5D II. The 24-70mm f/2.8L is a great lens. The 24-105mm f/4L is also great, it just depends whether you want a 2.8 aperture or IS, more FL, and lighter weight. The 70-200mm L is a must as well. There are 5 versions now, just pick the one that best fits your budget/style/weight requirements. And for a super wide lens, the 17-40mm f/4L is very affordable.</p>

<p>Nathan, I'll post a couple of test shots tonight for comparison. </p>

<p>fwiw, here's a screen shot from dpp with af points "on". the boxes aren't exact, not rocket science, but another way to compare</p><div></div>