5D mk1 or L glass?

[richard_lyman1]

<p> Hi everyone, I'm considering getting a used 5D mk1. I realize it's older technology, but I'm very interested in getting a FF camera, because I mostly shoot landscapes and I'm tired of the limited options in the wide angle range, and the 1.6 conversion factor on L glass. I'm also interested in the higher ISO capabilities. I currently have a 50D and a 450D. My lenses are all EF (70-300 IS USM, 28-135,50mm 1.8, 50mm compact macro) with one E-FS the 17-55mm which I might or might not keep. Here is my dillema. Should I get the 5D or spend the money on better lenses? I currently don't have any L quality glass and my 17-55 may need adjustment, it's not particularly sharp. I'm afraid the 5D with middle of the road lenses would'nt improve IQ noticeably, but all the high quality wide primes I want aren't really that wide on a 50D. I want a FF for that reason alone. Would it be pointless to get a 5D without upgrading lenses too?</p>

[digitmstr]

<p>It sounds like you are good and ready for a FF camera! :)<br>

My suggestion would be to actually sell your cropped cameras and lenses and get the 5D with either an L wide zoom or prime.<br>

The 5D will definitely show your lenses' performance more than the cameras you currently own. Also, your widest lens would be the 28-135 which IMO is not that good for landscapes on a 5D. I sold mine and replaced it with a 24-70L and it's a BIG difference.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>"Should I get the 5D or spend the money on better lenses?"<br>

IMO you have pretty good lenses. The 17-55 should give you sharp photos. Are you sure its not user error? </p>

<p><br /></p>

[ken schwarz]

<p>The 17-55 should be very sharp, and the primes you have will perform much like "L" lenses when stopped down to f/4 or f/5.6. There is a huge jump in system cost if you switch to FF. The 10-22/3.5-4.5 is extremely fine and is not embarrassed by the 17-40 on full-frame. In fact, it goes noticably wider; to get the equivalent range you'd have to buy the expensive 16-35mk2. I'd sell the 450D, 28-135, and 50/1.8 and get the 10-22. On the other hand, if what you are after is shallow depth of field and wide-angle, then the 5D plus a 35/1.4 or 24/1.4mk2 would give you more to work with. You have to decide if that shallow focus look is what you are after. Sharpness should be well within reach with the high-end APS body and lenses.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Tough question. There are certainly fine deals on the original 5D right now, but I also suspect that you may not yet be getting the maximum from the current cropped sensor bodies. If that is the case, it might make the most sense to begin the lens acquisition process now that will set you up for an eventual move to a FF body, but to continue to use the cropped sensor bodies a bit longer.</p>

<p>Some of the lenses that could work very nicely for your photography on the cropped sensor body and then on full frame are not that much more expensive than equivalent cropped sensor only lenses. For example, the 24-105mm L zoom is not inexpensive, but it is effective on both systems. For landscape use the 17-40 will serve you just as well as the 16-35 on full-frame since there is no advantage to the 16-35 at stopped-down landscape apertures.(Though the 17-40 is not quite "great," at least not in my experience, on cropped sensor bodies for landscape - it is much better on FF.)</p>

<p>This is more or less the approach I took when I moved to FF - I gradually built a lens kit that functioned fine for crop but which was intended to be the core of my FF system. In this way, when I was ready to move the FF body I was ready to go in terms of lenses.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[jcolwell]

The 5D will emphasize lens distortion, vignetting and relatively low resolution in the image edges and corners. OTOH, the 5D has significantly lower resolution (i.e. pixel density) than the 50D, and so the 50D is more likely to show lens issues related to limited resolution and colour aberration in the images that it captures.

 

<p>The 5D is a dynamite landscape camera, especially with a relatively inexpensive "alternative" lens like the Contax Carl Zeiss Distagon 28mm f/2.8 - one of the best 28mm lenses available (period). It's a real bargain at about $275 to $350, including about $30 for the required Contax C/Y to EOS adapter.

[DickArnold]

<p>I went from 1.6 crop bodies to the 5D. There is a notable difference in image quality with the full frame. It made my 17-40 a true wide angle performer. I still have an XTi also and it has it's uses but as a one time professional who used medium format I think the 5D comes closer to it than crop bodies. The shutter even clunks like my old Bronica. I have three L lenses but I have a consumer 28-105 3.5-4.5 that I use when don't want carry around an L brick. It weighs just under a pound. The pictures from that lens are perfectly acceptable and I don't see any lens flaws in them that would affect your viewing a processed enlargement. My 12 year old 50 1.8 works fine on the 5D. I paid 60 dollars for it used. If you cannot afford L lenses Canon produces some very high quality fixed focus lenses for reasonable prices that will work on the 5D. Some of the older EF fixed focus can be had quite reasonably and perform at their proper effective focal length. The great thing about the 5D is it's High ISO performance. It still amazes me when I shoot swimming at 3200 ISO with the 5D. I have always placed priority on lens purchases as that's where the best gain is but the 5D has been an excepton for me. </p>

[richard_lyman1]

<p> Thanks everyone,<br>

Yeah it's a tough decision, I love my 50D, but it's not the ideal camera for what I do and I'm bumping up against it's limitations, or my lenses are. Tommy, I have a post regarding the 17-55mm sharpness issue in this forum a few weeks back, I'm quite certain at this point it's not user error. Ken, I've been looking at the 10-22mm for awhile, but I have two problems with it a) it's an E-FS and I will move to FF eventually b) at f/3.5 it's not that fast. What I want is a fast wide prime (17-24mm equiv. f/2.8 or faster) on my crop sensor, but they don't seem to exist. I do like the shallow DOF look, but it's nice to have flexibility too.</p>

<p> Dan - that's a good strategy, and one I've been debating. My biggest hesitation with this approach is it doesn't solve my need for a true wide angle ( although a 17-40 would be roughly a 27mm not to bad). I could get the 17-55 tuned up, sell the 28-135 and 450D, and buy a 24-105 L, hmmm....</p>

<p>James- Yeah, I certainly noticing a bit more CA issues with the 50D. Images taken with 50mm prime are so sharp they hurt, but not so usefull on the crop body. I think the widest prime available is a 14mm L, pricey and I think it's actually a fish-eye (?) I wonder what that would be like on a crop body? I like the Carl Zeiss idea!</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Richard, I see the bind you are caught in. You dont' have a true wide angle (UWA) lens for the crop camera so getting FF would give you wider coverage. But at the same time the other lenses you have are not perhaps quite what you would want for FF landscape either, so you'd kind of like to replace them as well. Caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place.</p>

<p>One option could be to get the EFS 10-22 for now and continue to work with the cropped sensor body, upgrading lenses that would work in either format as you can. Then when you are ready to get the FF body either sell the 10-22 or keep it and a cropped sensor body as a second/backup body. Trust me, keeping a second body around is a Good Thing.</p>

<p>The Zeiss lens is an interesting prospect, but do think that through carefully. IIRC, you will lose pretty much all of the automated functions that you are used to with EF and EFS lenses - e.g. you'll be shooting pretty much in manual mode. And 28mm is still only a "normal" focal length prime on the current crop sensor body - and not really all that wide on FF either. I'm certainly not saying this is a poor idea, just that you need to understand what you gain and what you lose with such an option.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Upgrade to the 5D first. You won't need the 17-55 anymore, or the 450D. I know hind site is 20/20 but you would have had other full frame options if you had not purchased the 50D, ie. the 1DsII and 5DII. You will really enjoy your two 50s on the 5D. </p>

<p>I'm not sure if the 5D is as good as, or better, than the 50D for high ISO performance though.</p>

<p>The 14/2.8 is a rectilinear lens, not fisheye. When used on a 1.6x body it only gives the view of a 22mm lens on full frame. I was limited by this factor for two years when I first went digital and now can finally enjoy it's true abilities on full frame. </p>

[John Crowe]

<p>In reference to G Dan Mitchell's recommendation of sticking with the crop bodies for now, I would simply add that apparently there are some good superwide primes made by the likes of Sigma and Tokina, perhaps there are others as well, that do work on full frame bodies for when you do go full frame.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>My recommendation is to get the 5d. It will work with enough of what you have. For several years I have avoided going to EF-s lenses planning to go to full frame. There was an excellent, obviously unbiased, study by a western college professor comparing the noise properties of the 5DII, 5D, and the 50D. It was posted on PN and for the life of me I can't find it. The professor used a panel of experts to judge those results and they came to the basic conclusion that the 5DII had the best high ISO noise properties followed closely by the 5D and not so closely followed by the 50D. My own anecdotal experience agrees with that although it is hardly scientific but my 3200 swimming photos have very little noise compared all others bodies have used if they are exposed properly. Your 28-135 IS will work as a mild wide angle on it and produce decent pictures and will make a good walk around lens. I used a 28-70L on Canon film bodies for several years at weddings without having to go wider. I have printed and exhibitied large photographs which won awards from a 6.3 MP D60. I find, with quadprocessor and plenty of RAM the files from the 5D are as big as I want to regularly handle although 22MP would be sometimes useful. I don't subscribe too much to comparing megapixels, however. Whatever works. I kept a 400d because with a 50mm or 35mm it is small and light. I also use my 100-400L on it once in a while. I do not regret buying a three year past introduction 5D with 12.8 MPS. I did a great number of weddings with a Bronica system that I kept for well over twelve years.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Simple Question really. Don't take a step back from your 50D and get the old 5D. Invest in a good lens then wait for a new 5D2 or 5D3 when the time's right.</p>

<p>You list 4 lenses, only one of them is any good (the 50mm 2.5 macro).</p>

<p>You'd LOVE the EF 16-35 if that's in your budget. Just do it!</p>

[richard_lyman1]

<p>Dan- Thanks for your thoughtful replies. You understand the predicament. My options seem to be to sell the 450D and 17-55, which would be close to the 5D, but still leave me lacking in wide department. Sell the 50D, 450 D and the 17-55 which would get me a good lens, but I have no back up and I'm buying a used camera. Or as you suggest forget FF for now and get another E-FS lens, which certainly be the least expensive alternative, but I'm afraid except for an extra 7mm I haven't improved anything. If I got an L quality lens at least I have a good base to build a FF system around, and if I get a 5D then I just need one or two lenses. As far as the Zeiss, I don't mind the manual functions, but good luck finding one! I went to their website and even the manufacturer is out of stock!</p>

<p>John- Thanks, that 14mm would solve the problem, 22mm is pretty wide, but damn they're not cheap! I think the body would do me more good in the long run. I can't find any wide enough primes by other manufacturers, although they would be wide enough on FF.</p>

<p>Dick- Thank you for your thoughtful posts. You're hitting the nail on the head with the ISO issue. I'm getting pretty noticeable noise at 800-1000 on my 50D. Not that I need it often, but occasions do arise. Useable ISO to 3200? That eliminates the need for an extra stop and/or IS, potentially saving big money when it comes to lenses. Suddenly the 17-40L /4 looks a lot more attractive. Also the 70-200 f/2.8L is $600 less without IS. I agree the 12 mp's is more than enough. The 28-135 would be a decent but not true wide angle, and a fast prime would be more effective on a FF, to get the wide shots.</p>

<p>I'm leaning towards the body right now. Am I correct in assuming a fast prime not of L designation would be close to equivalent IQ of an L zoom? I sell the 450D and the 17-55, which more or less balances the cost of the 5D body. Then I'm only a few hundred short of a non-L prime. Say the EF 20mm 2.8 which would be wide enough and fast enough for low light/ indoor situations and I'm hoping be the equal of an L zoom or at least close. Or get the 17-40L which although not fast, with high ISO performance would be suitable for some low light situations. A little out of my budget, but only by a few hundred not a thousand.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>wyofoto.com/EOS_IQ_shootout_2008/EOS_shootout_2008.html. <br />This is the address for the study I cited above. Wyofoto conducted it and it is one of the more thoughtful reviews I have seen. I really like the 17-40 on my 5D. I had a 20-35 3.5 Canon that I gave to my sister because I thought it made dull pictures. I also believe that Canon makes some pretty good fixed focus wide angle. I took a lot of pictures of churches in New England this winter. I bent a few steeples at 17mm so I backed up some to straighten things out a little. Below is a sample. You can see some of those churches my PN gallery. I attached a swimming picture take last week with the 5D at 3200. I don't think L lenses are a religion and there are other very sharp less expensive lenses. </p>

[DickArnold]

<p>Somehow I could not attach the photo. It's in my PN gallery. The guy doing the freestyle. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>When I switched to Canon EOS in 2006, I bought the 5D and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and the 24-70 f/2.8, both "L" lenses.</p>

<p>Those alone served me well for over a year, before I started to get a prime here and there. (I really love the 24mm f/1.4 L.) </p>

<p>I have to say, though, that the 5D with those two quality zooms was really a very powerful and versatile combination. I still have them. I may never get rid of them, no matter what else I might buy.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>The wideangle Canon primes do not seem to get reviewed very well. For one stop of light I think the 17-40/4 L on the 5D would be the better solution. Alternatively you could consider a used Canon EF 17-35/2.8 L for about the same price as a new 17-40 or a used Canon EF 20-35/2.8 L for under $500 USD, when you can find one.</p>

<p>The off brand lenses I referred to were zooms like the Sigma 12-24 for full frame.</p>

[john_bolton2]

<p>Dick, thanks for the link to that shootout. It's very interesting reading. He did all the tests with NR turned off on each camera. I would've liked to have seen the differences with it on standard, too, as NR is much better on the 50D than it was on previous xxD bodies--probably better than the 5D's, too (the NR algorithm, that is).</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>Am I correct in assuming a fast prime not of L designation would be close to equivalent IQ of an L zoom?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely. If you are interested in looking very closely at resolution, in many cases a decent prime will be as good as or better than a very good zoom in terms of resolution. Obviously you trade off versatility for this.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[richard_lyman1]

<p> Thanks everyone, I'm pretty sold on the the 5D, I'll do more research for exactly which lens to pair it up with. Johns C's suggestion of the 17-35 2.8 sounds fantastic, I'll have to look and see if I can afford it. I'll have to research the Sigma 12-24, sounds interesting. The 17-40L sounds good too, just in the realm of affordability. A non L prime may be the stop gap solution for now though. Only around $500 and I have some zoom capability with the 28-135. That's probably the least expensive way to get fairly wide and corner to corner sharpness. I tried to look at your link Dick, but it required a password, and a second attempt said "page not found". I did enjoy the swimmer, that's 3200! Wow.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Richard, for shooting landscapes, you'd be hard pressed to find a better combination than the 17-40/4 L on a 5D or 5D Mark II. A second walkabout zoom you should consider down the road is the 24-105/4 L, and a third is the 70-200/4 L. I've never found the speed of f/4 zooms to be a limitation outdoors.</p>

[michael j hoffman]

<p>One option no one has mentioned is to get the Tokina 11-16/2.8 AT-X Pro lens. I have three cropped sensor bodies (a 10D and two Rebel XSi). The Tokina lives on one of those. The images are extremely sharp and distortion is minimal. The lens can also function at the 16mm setting with no vignetting on a FF camera, if you get one down the road. The Tokina lens satifies your need for a super wide angle on a cropped sendor body. I say keep the cameras you have, and get the Tokina; its a relatively more affordable and workable solution when compared to your other options. Get the 17-55 checked by Canon; there customer service is awesome! You might sell off your other lenses save for the 50 macro, and start rebuilding your lens arsenal, maybe with an eye toward going FF down the road. Personally, I like my cropped sensor bodies.</p>

<p>Here is a photo I made with the Tokina 11-16/2.8 at an event in Baltimore back in January:</p><div></div>

[derrickdehaan]

<p>A slightly side note....</p>

<p>Have you tried the lens adjustment via the 50D body controls for the 17-55? Just curious.</p>

<p>Derrick</p>

[mercedes1]

<p>I had the same issue a wee while ago. I was using a 20d and 10-22 ef-s for landscapes. Although the 10-22 is a great lens, the shadow noise with the 20d was a challenge to get around. The lenses I had at the time were 10-22, 50 1.4, 28-135 and 100-400L. The choice was either sell the 20d and go for a 50d or ditch ef-s altogether and buy a 5d and 17-40L. I hear all the arguements about the newer electronics in the 50d and so on, but there is something about the smooth tones and noise control in the 5d that really works well.Sometimes the spec sheets don't tell the whole story.<br>

One thing the FF does though is use more of the lens image circle so if there is any real weakness in the out image the camera will show it.<br>

I sold the 28-135, 10-22 and 20d and bought the 5d and 17-40L. I'm very glad I went into FF and wish I had done it earlier.</p>

<p> </p>