5D and fast lenses?

[jmoody]

Little bit of a pipe dream, I must admit, but I'm starting to lean towards a 5D

as the replacement for my well-used digital rebel...

 

A tad spendy yes, but to double my mega pixels, larger LCD, similar sized body

(ergonomics/batteries etc..), and what sounds like great high ISO performance...

 

So, the question is the following: Is having a "fast" lens really that

important if the camera itself is "fast" like this one seems to be?

 

I currently have the 24-105 f4 which is not terribly fast, but if I can shoot

ISO 1600 with no fear... am I missing something here or doesn't that make up a

little for the stop or two that a faster lens might give me?

 

Whether or not I go for the 5D, I'll probably want a longer lens to help me get

over the delirium tremens of no longer having my precious 1.6 crop factor. 20-

200 2.8 would be great, but 70-200 f4 would be more realistic I'd say.

 

thanks

[jmoody]

oops. that's supposed to read "70-200 2.8" :-)

[david_papas]

I shoot with a 5D and I often rent the 24-105L which I love to use. I also have a 135L f2

which is a beautiful lens, I love to shoot wide open (I just set f2 aperture priority) with it to

get some great out of focus effects. it is a good compliment to the other lens.

[PuppyDigs]

A 5D and fast prime seems like a match made in heaven. You can shoot in dark alleys and shifty bars with confidence. However, I used my EF 50 1.4 USM on my 5D for a week and was disappointed: the 5D revealed it wasn't very good until stopped down to F5.6 or more, although I loved it when "cropped" on my 10D. In fact, my EF 24-105 4L blew it outta the water at F4 50mm. You'll have to spring for some top glass like the EF 35 1.4L or 50 1.2L to get the most outta the large aperture. With that said, my humble EF 35 2.0 is actually a decent performer on the 5D, much better F2 to 4 than my old 50 1.4 and 50 1.8. My 1995 EF 200 2.8L USM has proved to be killer wide open.

[jmoody]

Rented the 200L 2.8 for my last european vacation and found that I only used it maybe twice. Granted, it was effectively a 320mm prime on my 300d, but I think I'd probably be happier with a zoom that gets me a few more mm's on the long end and doesn't cost much more as an IS, or a decent amount less without. Any experience with higher ISO's?

[leopoldstotch]

Just because there's little noise at ISO 1600, doesn't mean it won't be extremely grainy and low in detail. A fast lens will allow you to use ISO 100 (200 or 400 compared to f4) more often. Unless you're going for a particular effect, your goal should always be to use the lowest ISO possible. In other words, yes, fast lenses are stil needed.

[tom_murray2]

"Just because there's little noise at ISO 1600, doesn't mean it won't be extremely grainy and low in detail."

 

Nobody who's used a 5D or has a clue about digital imaging would make that statement.

[ncarnick]

There are times where small depth of field is critical. Furthermore, despite being able to shoot at 800ISO while maintaining image quality that is far better than 400ISO films...it doesn't mean you want to be shooting there. The performance on the 5D at 100 or 200 is still better than shooting at 800ISO.

 

There are many reasons to buy a 5D. There is nothing wrong with it. However, you should consider the following before you buy:

 

- Do you need the full image? Are you shooting a lot of wide angle and quite frustrated? Get the 5D.

 

- If you don't care about the 1.6 or 1.3 crop (depending on canon digital owned) then you might not experience a massive gain in quality of your shots. The 5D may not have dramatically more pixels when compared the same portion of the croped photo from your older system. If you shoot animals and wish you could afford a 1200mm then you likely are cropping out a lot of the image. The quality of what is left of your photo may not be dramatically improved by the 5D.

 

- New version of the 5D coming out soon?

 

Other than the last stupid comment, you really need to figure out if what you typically shoot is aided substantially by going with the 5D AND a fast lens. For example, I bought a 85mm 1.2 (old slower version) despite everyone screaming it focused too slowly, weighs too much, and is really awkward to attach. I wanted the lens for bokeh and tiny depth of field. As expected, it turned out to be the perfect portrait lens and one of my favorite tools. If I shot mostly sports or hiked a lot it would have been worthless.

 

My guess is you could spend more on a lens now and wait out the next release of the camera later.

[jmoody]

Don't mean to break up a good fight :-) , but that's largely the question. I can only count on maybe one hand the times I've gone up from ISO 100 on my 300d. Chances are, I would usually do the same on a 5d. However, since this is largely a break-the-bank purchase for me (with the idea that I'll wait at least as long or longer to "upgrade" (had the drebel for over 3 years)) I don't want to handicap myself lens-wise for those odd possible situations where I might get to shoot a theater event or a concert, or a night sporting event.

In other words, I feel that the 2.8 version of 70-200 is more money than I want to spend, and heavier and bigger etc..., but that I could compromise with the f4 model, and maybe make up for the difference with the higher ISO vs. Noise of the 5d

[bloosqr]

I think it depends on your shooting style .. from 4 to 2.8 is only one stop.. and a lot of bulk

that makes it not really a travel lens. I find it easier (and cheaper) to buy slower zooms for

traveling/daytime (like the f/4 IS) and fast primes (which tend to be much faster than 1 stop)

for night time / indoor situations.

[leopoldstotch]

<p><i>"Nobody who's used a 5D or has a clue about digital imaging would make that statement.</i></p>

<p>Is that so? Its a well known fact that a low ISO will have a much finer grain that ISO 800 or 1600.

Also, if you read Norman's post he says: "The performance on the 5D at 100 or 200 is still better than shooting at 800ISO.", which supports my statement. Tom, you may also want to read <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/Sensitivity_01.htm">this article</a>. I think you're the one that needs a clue about digital imaging.

[jmoody]

Thanks Norman, one of the better, nice thought-out and informative answers I've gotten here at p.net.

 

Here's my dilemna... I don't "need" to upgrade, but would REALLLY like to :-)

 

I like the way the 30d looks and feels, but feel like I'd be short changing myself a little on the mp's etc...(I'm no "pro", but occasionally show in galleries and coffee houses and would like to look into stock, or other "paying" possibilities) Don't really care that much about going full-frame, but wouldn't mind getting the extra umph out of the 24mm on my current lens when needed

 

So, do I wait for the elusive 40d to appear? Would like to, but will possibly be moving to Europe by November or so & will then have no more money coming in for a while, nor nearly as many options of where to purchase :-(

 

So, the idea is to get the best camera out there that I can while still on US soil without breaking the bank... maybe add one more lens (again without breaking the bank), and be set for a hopefully a long while without having the upgrade bug jump up and bite me again.

 

What I really want to avoid is getting the 30d and seeing that it's next incarnation is only a couple hundred bucks more, but comes with all the bells and whistles that a replacement should

[William Michael]

>>> I'm starting to lean towards a 5D as the replacement for my well-used digital rebel <<<

 

 

First premise: Is the rebel failing you?

 

>>> Is having a "fast" lens really that important if the camera itself is "fast" like this one seems to be? <<<

 

 

Yes, but only if you use the speed of the fast lens, if you are using your lenses at F5.6 or F8 IMO it would be wasted money.

 

 

 

>>> I can only count on maybe one hand the times I've gone up from ISO 100 on my 300d. Chances are, I would usually do the same on a 5d. <<<

 

 

OK, so you shoot low light infrequently.

 

 

>>> I don't want to handicap myself lens-wise for those odd possible situations where I might get to shoot a (theatre) event or a concert, or a night sporting event. In other words, I feel that the 2.8 version of 70-200 is more money than I want to spend, and heavier and bigger etc..., but that I could compromise with the f4 model, and maybe make up for the difference with the higher ISO vs. Noise of the 5d <<<

 

 

 

No, thinking a F4 lens for sporting or theatre low light is not an option IMO, it will not be fast enough to freeze the action in many circumstances, even at 1600ISO, or perhaps even at 3200 ISO.

 

 

 

Also it is no use buying a 70 to 200mm zoom lens, just to use it at 200mm (which you do not actually state, but it is a reasonable conclusion to draw from combining your comments).

 

 

 

Bottom line consideration: if the rebel is working OK then why not spend less and get a fast lens (or two) and use them on the rebel.

 

 

 

If you think the speed will be used at the telephoto end: then consider the 100mm F2, 135mmF2L or 200mmF2.8L.

 

 

After all, you were quite emphatic you don`t go faster than 100 ISO often: buying a 5D, if your rebel is giving good results, seems an awful lot of money to place into a tool which is ideally suited for the task of low light, which you will infrequently use, and lose the value of the increased field of view of the APS-C sensor.

 

 

Buying a fast prime or two, you can secure those odd occasions of low light shooting with fewer dollars spent and gain a resultant more flexible lens cache.

 

 

WW

[images_in_light_north_west]

Yes a 24-105 f4 and 70-200 f4 will work great on a 5D, if thats what you want buy it, I will be doing the same shortly. Speed is not what counts on a 5D it is lens quality

[keith_lubow]

Having a fast lens gives you way more over all versatility than a zoom, and takes away nothing (except $$$ from your pocketbook). I shoot my lenses wide open with 800 or 1600 film, often pushed several stops, for at least 50% of what I shoot. I would not be able to take some of my favorite types of pictures without my 50mm 1.4 and 55mm and 85mm 1.2 lenses.

 

So, it really depends on what you like to shoot. The 5D is not a magic camera, and all previously existing photographic concepts and techniques apply to it. My friend shoots with one all the time in low light with his 50mm f/1.8, touting its clean high ISOs...but I still think my pushed high-speed Fuji Press with a lens a full stop faster looks better and more natural. The 5D has clean high ISOs, but for shooting in TRULY low light, it is still noisy due to unavoidable underexposure.

 

Keith

[sheldonnalos]

I love the 5D and fast glass. I have the 24-105mm lens and only use it rarely, when I need a "Do it all" lens and can't take the rest of the gear.

 

I primarily shoot with the 35mm f/1.4 L, 50mm f/1.4, and 85mm f/1.8, and often shoot wide open or very close to it. The 50mm isn't quite as good wide open as the other two, but is still a great tool.

 

For me, the biggest draw of the 5D is the fact that the depth of field is noticeably shallower at equivalent apertures when compared to a 1.6 crop camera with a lens giving the equivalent field of view. This, combined with the excellent high resolution/high ISO performance, gives a noticeably better result than the 20D I shot with before (using the same glass).

[christian deichert]

Grain is only one factor in using the higher ISO speeds on the 5D. There is a world of difference in image contrast between 100 and 800 ISO. Last fall, I was on Malta shooting the inside of a dark church, so I used 800 ISO to help out. I then failed to change the ISO back to 100 when I got back outside. The result was a set of very flat images. I have not yet tried for 1600 ISO on the 5D, though I really should experiment; that said, I imagine the contrast will be even less impressive.

[ncarnick]

The 5D is $2,569.95 today on bhphoto.com. The XTi (400D) is $679.95. I personally find the 1.6x crop annoying. Even the 1.3X on my 1D mkII caused me to abandon using my favorite lens (24 1.4) moving me to a far lesser quality 17-40.

 

Canon clearly needs to jump the pixels on the 5D to get me to buy. My concern basically boils down to full frame at 12.8 megapixels is essentially 8 megapixels in the same area as the $679.95 XTi has 10.1. Sure is not a fair comaparison as the cameras have different sensors and processing capabilities...and certainly I am not claiming the XTi is a better camera. I however have personally decided that I would rather spend more on lenses now and wait out the next 5D.

 

Looking at it another way, the XTi with the 70-200 f 2.8 is $2,378.95 before a refund from Canon for the lens ($100). You would be stuck with the 1.6 crop but you would have a good (but heavy) lens and a body that will not go down as much on next release.

 

On the fast vs slower lens debate, if you are moving to full frame you should try to keep your lens quality as high as you can afford. The issue is not so much speed but edge sharpness. As the bodies get better and better the flaws in the lenses get more and more obvious. Edge sharpness is an issue with full frame which cropping hides.

[tom_murray2]

"Is that so? Its a well known fact that a low ISO will have a much finer grain that ISO 800 or 1600. Also, if you read Norman's post he says: "The performance on the 5D at 100 or 200 is still better than shooting at 800ISO.", which supports my statement. Tom, you may also want to read this article. I think you're the one that needs a clue about digital imaging."

 

I agree with Norman, 'The performance on the 5D at 100 or 200 is still better than shooting at 800ISO'. But your original statement was 'Just because there's little noise at ISO 1600, doesn't mean it won't be EXTREMELY grainy and low in detail.' (Caps added by me for emphasis) so I stand by my earlier statement that either you've never shot a 5D @ ISO1600 or are clueless about digital imaging. In fact if you do want "grain" in ISO 1600 images from the 5D you have to use film-emulation plugins to get it.

[beaglefur]

Another thing to consider is that AF performance for moving subjects improves in AI Servo if your lens is f/2.8 or faster as there are 6 more AF sensors that kick in.

 

I really love my 85/1.8 and my 28/1.8 on my 5D...

[leopoldstotch]

Tom, if you had simply provided your rationale for your statement in the first place, I would have been kinder. Now that you've explained how I exaggerated. I guess my definition of extremely grainy differs from yours. I have shot with both a 5D and 1Ds(mk.I) before, and still found it to have the same grain as any other Canon body I've used. Sorry this lack of communication led to this misunderstanding.

[Ian Taylor]

I'm using the 5D + 35/1.4 combo for a lot of stuff and it's incredible.

[john_oster]

Just a reminder that the "crop factor" really does not give you more magnification of the image. Or bring you "closer" to the subject.

Your 200 mm lens will give you the exact same angle of view in both the 20D/Rebel or 5D.

It is that the sensor size "crops" the image the lens delivers.

You get to see and use more of your 200mm lens image on a 5D than a Rebel but if you choose to crop the 5D image you will have the exact same picture as you would get with the Rebel uncropped.

[tom_murray2]

"I have shot with both a 5D and 1Ds(mk.I) before, and still found it to have the same grain as any other Canon body I've used."

 

I still don't know what the h you're talking about. Digital cameras don't have grain. They have digital noise. And the 5D has very little of that at any ISO, though certainly more the higher you go. It most definitely has a lot less noise at the same ISO's than the 1DS-I, or any of the 6MP 1.6-crop bodies, and I dare say even a bit less than the 1DS-II. The only bodies that are almost as noiseless as the 5D are the 20D/30D/XT/XTi.

[leopoldstotch]

Grain and noise are 2 completely different things. Any camera with ISO 1600 and no noise will still have grain. If what you're saying is true, noiseless ISO 1600 will look exactly like ISO 100 (Which it doesn't). Why don't you go ahead and start your own thread about this in the casual conversations forum if you think you're right.

 

Jeff, sorry you had to be in the middle of this.