5DII and non-L glass

[arthur_reyes1]

Fellow photograhers.

Currently I'm still shooting film (Elan IIe). I've also invested in quite a few lenses. 20-35, 28-235IS, 100mm macro, 50

1.8, 70-300IS. Even though its not L glass, I've been extremely happy with the lenses and the results they have given

me. So even though its not the L-glass I would love to have, the lenses have more than satisfied my photographic

needs. Most of my photograpy is vacation pics, family events, outdoor photos while hiking, etc. 95% of my prints are

4x6 with the occasional enlargement to 8x10 or larger for B&W prints that I'll print myself in the darkroom.

I will eventually switch to digital but was waiting for full frame. Never went the APSC route because I didn't want to

deal with the crop factor, especially with my 20-35. Now that the 5DII has been released I think the time to switch to

digital is near. However from what I've read the 5D (and presumably the 5DII) is so good that it really brings out the

flaws with non-L lenses. So my question is, am I really setting myself up for some serious disappointment given the

lenses I have? Will my photos now be pretty bad? Does anyone have any photos taken with the 5D and/or 5DII using

any of the lenses I have above that I can see as examples? Thanks. -Arthur

[ujwal]

At the sizes you will be printing, you probably wont see any flaws with those lenses at all unless u deliberately

shoot in very high contrast areas to see color fringing with lesser of the lenses.

you wont have any problems at all with 100mm macro, 50mm 1.8, no matter how big you print....and maybe slight

softness will be seen with 28-135 and 70-300 IS...but u should be OK with what u have. Go ahead mate, go digital!

[Brad_]

>>> So my question is, am I really setting myself up for some serious disappointment given the lenses I have? Will my

photos now be pretty bad?

 

No. With respect to making good photographs, your vision, ability to exploit nice light, and composition skills will FAR out

weigh any subtle differences between lenses.

[colin carron]

I agree with both the above posters. The quality of your images is much more to do with you than with the lens or the camera. having said that, lenses do vary a lot but you have quite a good collection there. From my experience the 100mm Macro is a very sharp lens, as is the 50mm. The 70-300 4-4.6 IS is also pretty good but you would notice the improvement with say the 70-200 f4 L with better sharpness and colour.

 

The ony one of the above which I would consider replacing would be the 28-135. Here the 24-105IS L would show an improvement.

 

Have a look at the Fredmiranda scores which I find pretty accurate when there are a high number of reports :

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=27&page=1

[mike_earussi1]

Fixed non L are pretty much equal to L zooms in quality so you're fixed lenses are fine.

[PuppyDigs]

The danger is you might turn into a pixel peeper like half the posters on photo forums. Then you'll be really unhappy,

especially with the corners. A few years back the 5D causes me to sell all my crappy lenses and replace them with L

optics. Damn you Cinema Display! Curse you Costco for those dirt cheap 12x18 prints! Of course if you only view on a

small screen and make small prints you'll think you died and went to friggen hog heaven.

[sattler123]

Quote: "95% of my prints are 4x6 with the occasional enlargement to 8x10 "

 

You don't need a 5DMKII or any decent glass if the above quote is true and you want to continue printing mostly 4x6. The cheapest DSLR available will be more than sufficient. What's the point of having all these MPs if you print tiny photographs?

[hawkman]

Arthur,

for what you describe (4X6 and 8X10) 5D MKII is a huge overkill, it is like buying a Ferrari putting Toyota tires on it and going to the grocery store, it will work but it's a waste. Start with something like a Digital Rebel or a 20/30D and once you are ready upgrade to a 5D MKII.

[mattb1]

How about a used or new 5D? There is a lot of hype on the 5D mark II right now, but the 5D should still be an excellent camera for years. I was also waiting for a FF camera, and I'm on a waiting list for the 5D mark II. But, I'm a pixel peeper and like to print large. So, its worth it for me to get the mark II.

 

I do not own the first 5D, but it is suppose to have excellent image quality. On par with the 1D line. It sounds like a good fit for you.

[sbp]

Agree with the above posters. If you do not intend to print above 16x20, the original 5D should provide all the resolution you

require. What you will get with the 5D2 is HUGE files, especially if you shoot RAW.

 

The lenses you have should produce good results on the 5D (original), but agree that the 24-105L is probably a better choice than

the 28-135. welcome to digital

[arie_vandervelden1]

"I didn't want to deal with the crop factor, especially with my 20-35"

 

The crop factor is not as scary as it sounds. You can get a 40D (or 450D) plus a 10-22 ultrawide for much, much less money than a 5D2. If you like your 20-35, you'll absolutely love 10 mm (16 mm equivalent). Heaps of fun. The 40D and 450D are very capable cameras - they are very well suited for your intended subjects and they make stunning 13"x19" prints.

 

As pointed out, the 5D and 5D2 are capable of showing flaws in lenses, but only when you make big prints (e.g. 12"x18" and larger). Your existing lenses are just fine for 4"x6" and 8"x10" prints. A 5D2 for 4"x6" prints is akin to buying a 1-ton duallie V10 pick-up truck for getting groceries. Certainly works but it's overkill. But if you really want a 5D2 then by all means go for it. Looks like it'll be a nice camera.

[dogbert]

If you keep the same lenses, your photos won't get worse just by having a higher resolution camera. It is really a case of what is the weakest link. A higher resolution camera may make your lenses the weak link, but it doesn't make them worse.

 

The 450D is enough to make nice 13"x19' prints and as others have said technique is far more important than lenses or cameras.

[Ian Taylor]

Just take photos and don't worry about it.

[geoff_doane]

I like Matt's advice. Let someone else take the hit on a 5D MKII, and look for a new or lightly used 5D.

 

The user interface between the Elan II and 5D is similar, and your lenses will work the same way that you're used to. I've been using a 5D as my primary camera for almost 3 years now, and see no compelling reason to "upgrade". I have noticed some problems with flare or internal reflections on digital that weren't a problem when all I shot was film. This is caused by the digital sensor reflecting back more light than film would, and is roughly the same for all digital cameras, not a problem that will be solved by the MKII.

 

In other words, if your present lenses are adequate for the prints you are making now, they will continue to be adequate with any full frame digital camera you care to buy.

[squareframe]

> Will my photos now be pretty bad?

 

if your images were poor before, they most likely will be as poor (though more highly-resolved) with your new 5DII.

if your images were good before, they most likely will be as good (though more highly-resolved) with your new 5DII.

...

 

most of these types of threads have little to do with photography, and much to do about a compulsion to own the latest.

 

I believe there is a strong underlying correlation at work here ...

 

dt

[arthur_reyes1]

Thanks for the replies. You all make some valid points. I too have thought that the 5DII might be overkill for my needs. But I think that's probably a function of me waiting so long before going digital, and technology is always progressing. So by the time I do make the switch, whatevers out there will probably have a ton of new features. Some of which I probably do not need. It sounds like I should be fine with the lenses I have, so I think my worries have eased. But I guess I should consider the 50D. After thinking about this, what I really want is the functionallity of the 50D (it fits my needs), but I want it to be full frame.

[arthur_reyes1]

I had to ask. Any rumors as to when I'll see a full frame 50D?

[squareframe]

consider full-frame 'a state of mind' ... and just be happy with something smaller and considerably cheaper. make it work for you. soon, the 'larger-than-full-frame' folks will be crying for more. slap a lens on the camera, compose in the view-finder and suck the image in. since full-frame is an arbitrary definition, really, ignore it. you might have to adjust your lens selection somewhat .. but I am betting you won't. in fact, it might force you to look at an old theme with new eyes. make lemonade!

 

don't worry ... be happy!

 

cheers ...