Is that true: T2i body is not good enough to drive EF 35/1.4

[Xinca]

<p>As in subject.<br>

My upgrade plan is buy new T2i Body with EF 35/1.4. But I read a lot like the auto focus system of t2i is not good enough for 1.4 lens. I have to at least get 5D to do that.<br>

Is that true?</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

[kevin_b.2]

<p>no</p>

[tdigi]

<p>On a 5d you will get the intended focal length meaning your camera, with the crop factor, will make it appear more like 56mm but it should focus fine. </p>

[john tonai]

<p>Where did you read this?</p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>At close range my T1i was not great with a 50mm 1.8 wide open, but getting exactly what you want at 1.4 is a challenge for any AF camera (or MF for that matter). Depending on the distace from the subject, the depth of field for large apertures can be very thin. Focus and recompose is not going to work, but pre-setting AF points may do better. </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>No. But why do you want that lens on this body?</p>

[Xinca]

<p>Thanks a lot!.<br>

I want to invest more on Lens than body. And my budget limitation only allow me ether get 35/1.4 and t2i or just 5DMK2.<br>

I really want a lens which can be good in low light. Is it 35/1.4 best choice for me? 24/1.4 is over budget so only other choice is 50/1.2.</p>

 

[dogbert]

<p>Its your money but I would buy the 35 f1.4 for dof control, not low light. Even then I would not buy it if I were cash limited which you seem to be. <br>

Its only one stop faster than the 35 f2, which is the difference between 400 ISO and 800 ISO. Not sure that it is is worth paying 4 times as much for. Alternatively you could get the 35 f2 or sigma 30 f1.4 and the 50 f1.4 and the 85 f1.8.</p>

[ds_meador]

<p>Alex,<br>

The the high ISO capabilities of the 5D MkII, you might get better low light performance from the 5D MkII with the EF 35 f/2 than the T2i with the EF 35 f/1.4.<br>

The 1.4 is just a stop faster than the 2, but the high ISO usefulness may be more than 1 stop better on the 5D MkII than on the T2i.<br>

DS Meador</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>Is it 35/1.4 best choice for me?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[Xinca]

<p>Very interesting. I have 16-35/2.8 already and I never thought about use high ISO. I got a impression like never use ISO > 200 with DSLR.<br>

What's the usable ISO range of 5DMK2?<br>

I have a Rebel XT not and I feel anything more than 200 is not usable.</p>

[jeff_bubis]

<p>I use this lens on a 7D. Previously I had the 35/2. The ONLY advantage of the 35/2 is size and weight. I love my 35/1.4 and for me, it was worth the money. It has USM focusing, better build, and is a stop faster. However, I would only buy it if you're going to use the extra stop - otherwise, the 35/2 is an unbeatable deal and one of the true bargains in the Canon prime lens bin.<br>

With regard to high ISO this has been explored on numerous other posts. I think if you only shoot up to ISO 200, you're really missing out on a world of photographic opportunities.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Thanks a lot!.<br /> I want to invest more on Lens than body. And my budget limitation only allow me ether get 35/1.4 and t2i or just 5DMK2.<br /> I really want a lens which can be good in low light. Is it 35/1.4 best choice for me? 24/1.4 is over budget so only other choice is 50/1.2.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>If these are your goals, you'd be better off investing in the 5D2 and the inexpensive but fine EF 50mm f/1.4 lens. It will perform as well or better on the 5D2 than the 35mm L on the cropped sensor body in terms of IQ. (Angle of view coverage is similar, you'll be able to use higher ISO on the full-frame body, and you'll produce potentially higher line-pair/picture-height resolution.)</p>

<p>And I have to wonder what your special IQ requirements are that make you think that an expensive L prime is your only option. There are excellent reasons to select an L <em>zoom</em> , but the reasons for choosing an L prime over non-L options are much more <em>limited and specialized</em> . This is particularly true if your "need" is some sort of "better IQ" thing.</p>

<p>And, unless you are doing something unusual with the photograph such as regularly printing at very large sizes, you are unlikely to see any significant difference between formats/lenses in terms of IQ. There are significant differences in functionality - and quite a few people who get fixated on "sharpness" tend to undervalue them and overvalue the sharpness issue. For example, in almost all cases high quality zooms produce IQ indistinguishable from that of primes... but the zooms offer much greater flexibility.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

 

[Xinca]

<p>I think I like the DOF of 35/1.4.<br>

But I think I almost make up my mind - 5dMK2 is the way to go - at least for now.</p>

 

[matthias_meixner2]

<blockquote>

<p>I really want a lens which can be good in low light.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is the wrong starting point: You want a <strong>system</strong> which can be good in low light. Due to better high ISO performance a 5DMk2 + ef 50/1.4 should outperform the T2i + EF 35/1.4L.</p>

[mark_ethridge]

<p>In this situation, I would hands down go for the 5dMkII. </p>

[steven_f1]

<p>I think it should be noted that the 35mm on T2i will have about the same field of view as a 50mm on the 5D. So if you change bodies you might want to get a 50mm over the 35mm.</p>

[Xinca]

<p>Yup. 5D is the way to go.<br>

Should I wait for 5DMK3?</p>

[ralph_jensen]

<p>No.</p>