5D Mk2 buyers remorse..

[chris_clarke3]

<p>Jakob,<br>

I think you may have realised that we all love our 5D2's!<br>

Personally I love using my L primes with the 5D2. I'm less impressed with my zooms but they have a role.<br>

I used to be all zooms then I got the 50L. For a $1000 I'd maybe explore a Canon 50 1.4 or save up a bit for the well loved 35L.<br>

Primes on this camera just blow away zooms. I have the 24L, 50L and 100L and I love using them.<br>

Oh and stick with centre-point AF or go MF with an EG-S focusing screen.</p>

 

[osfania]

<p>Ditch those lenses and get yourself a Zeiss ZE 50/1.4 and manual focus that baby. Much better than the Canon and Sigma offerings in this focal length. You won't be disappointed.</p>

[jakob_lagerstedt]

<p>Hmmm...yes the 35L has certainly been on my mind. I'm basically stuck btw:<br>

24-70, 50mm 1.4 and 135L<br>

or <br>

35L, 85 1.8 and 135L</p>

[tdigi]

<p>it all depends on what you plan to shoot. What you value ( versatility/quality/size etc ) its all a trade off .</p>

[jakob_lagerstedt]

<p>Mainly portraits, especially street candids. Some architecture and travel as well. 24-70 owners seem to swear by their lens but it's a 1 kilo monster. I love the speed and size of primes but maybe I've been reading too many prime purist blogs.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Have you tried any of these lenses? I honestly cannot see shooting street candids with a 24-70. I am sure others may disagree but even with a 24-105 I feel like I stick out like a sore thumb. I always hear how great the 35L is ( probably my next lens ) but you may want to try a 35 2.0, 28 1.8 or a 50 1.4 before you get an L prime. Much easier to handle, more discrete and much cheaper. I find my non L primes match or exceed my L zooms so its good enough for me.</p>

[jakob_lagerstedt]

<p>No, I haven't. That's good advice. I can pick the 35 2.0 at B&H and return it for the L if I fall in love with the view. </p>

[tdigi]

<p>Don't get me wrong the 24-70 is sweet, I have long considered getting one but I don't think I would use it as a travel or street lens but its a great range to have 2.8 and on the 5D2 I don't think you need to be much faster. </p>

[dan_south]

<p>EVERYTHING looks fuzzy in lightroom unless you sharpen it a LOT and view it as 1:1 (or as part of a slide show).</p>

<p>Trying opening your images in DPP.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Jakob - when you use AF make sure that you only use the center Af point and re-compose, I find this the most effective way with my 5DII and like others have had no significant Af issues with my 5DII. Before you perform AF microadjust make sure that you have a real problem. A simple test is to focus manually then move to AF and see if the lens changes focus.<br>

Like others I find my 50 F1.4 rather soft below F2. I have the 35 F2 and find it rather disappointing. I do not shoot street candids but I use the 24-70 and find it performs very well. With the lens hood on this is quite a big lens however and could never be regarded as discreet. In B&H take a few test shots with the 35 f2 and 35 f1.4 at F2 and compare them. If my 35 F2 is representitive than you will probably end up with the F1.4 lens (so perhaps this is not a good idea!)<br>

Apart from it's size and weight I love my 24-70 (On full frame I rarely use it on my 7D or 1DIIN) and prefer it over the 24-105 it replaced.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Actually, the cost of the "nifty fifty" has nothing to do with its optical quality. It's a decent lens, even if a little better on APS-C cameras than on the 35mm-sensor cameras. You can spend a lot more money than it costs to get a much better lens to be sure, but you can spend a lot more money and get something not even so good. It's cheap, but it's not "junky"</p>

<p>The wider the lens, the more you are paying for speed, not IQ as such. Thus, it would be astonishing if a f/1.2 lens were as sharp wide open as a cheap f/1.8 lens is wide open. If you stop down the f/1.2 to f/1.8, it might beat the cheaper lens (if you have to know, you can look at results on <a href="http://www.photozone.de/all-tests">Photozone.de</a>, where they test for this sort of thing). The astonishing thing about the f/1.2 is its speed (and its "bokeh" and thinness of focal depth).</p>

<p>The important variable in any case is how well the tool serves its purpose, not what it costs. A $1000 will buy one of a fair number of L lenses, but there are lots of really good lenses in the lineup that cost less and don't have a red ring on them (which may fall off anyhow).</p>

<p>I don't think your problem is the lens. Not even the Sigma.</p>

[tudor_apmadoc]

<p>a $2500 camera and using a $99 lens? </p>

<p>If you are going to invest in a full frame 20+MP body, you need to invest in good glass - I would highly recommend sticking with the "L" series lenses</p>

<p>It's easy to test your lens and focus. Set the focus point to be just the center spot. Get a tape measure and extend out 3 feet (1M) of tape and lock it in place - then put the center spot on the 2ft mark and take a photo. Shoot at the widest aperture. Then when you get it on the computer screen verify that the 2ft mark is in focus.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Ken and Tudor really don't like the "plastic fantastic". Too bad, but, yes, a $99 lens can be a very nice lens on any camera, even a $5K one.</p>

<p>You can stick with L glass and be pretty sure that you are getting good value. You can also buy lots of non-L lenses that do the job just as well or even better on occasion, <em>depending on what you're trying to do.</em></p>

<p>Buying <em>only</em> L glass is a lot like the rich Texas lady of recent wealth who only buys from Neiman-Marcus because she's afraid otherwise she won't get things with "good taste" and will reveal her hill-country background.</p>

[jakob_lagerstedt]

<p>I honestly couldn't care less if it said L or Z on my lens; I'm just looking for consistent output. I'm going to run another test. </p>

[jakob_lagerstedt]

<p>Btw, JDM, if you think you know what the issue is, please do share. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Well, jakob, I guess I said it too subtly in my first post (and second, too). I thought I had "shared" fairly clearly <em>before</em> responding to the nifty fifty hater's club.</p>

<p>I think that in 90% of cases like yours the problem is, as HAL in <em>2001</em> said, "Human Error". There <em>are</em> are real issues sometimes with cameras but in the vast majority of cases, "unsharpness" is the result of one of a plethora of issues with either how the camera is being used or the results interpreted.</p>

<p>For example, your earlier statement in response to some of these was</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not familiar with "viewing" the focus points. I'm using lightroom.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This does not inspire confidence that you are completely up to speed in how to use the camera yet. If it makes you feel better return the camera or get it fixed, but that may be an extreme response to rather ordinary problems often encountered by people who are new to a particular machine.</p>

<p>Is that clear enough for you?</p>

[jakob_lagerstedt]

<p>JDM, no reason to be subtle, I'm looking for constructive feedback which is effective when given direct and to the point. You can feel entirely confident that I know what a focus point is...I was referring to viewing focus points in DPP. I wasn't aware of the functionality.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>OK- here's some direct, unsubtle advice.<br>

Under no circumstances should you buy any more lenses until you have determined what the "unsharp" problem is. No amount of long distance advice can help you-- you need to experiment with the camera and lenses as you have started to do. Be sure to control variables as you proceed. <strong>One step at a time</strong> is the answer to diagnosing difficulties.</p>

<p>If the camera is off, get it fixed or adjust the microfocus (e.g., <a href="http://inancy.wordpress.com/writings-index/microfocus/">link</a>).</p>

<p>By all means see if the problem is solved by using other lenses, if you can, but don't spend a lot of money for that purpose until you know the old lenses are really 'bad'. If a 50mm f/1.8 is unsharp, it is unlikely that buying a 50mm f/1.2 L lens will solve the problem. New lenses will at best have a 'placebo' effect unless you really narrow down what the problem(s) is(are).</p>

<p>The focus system on the 50mm f/1.8 is the oldest one on any Canon EOS lens (with a metal mount it was the first EOS lens), but it works adequately in good light for everyone I know, and I personally use the lens a lot on a 7 different EOS cameras from an EOS 650 to a 5D (mk i).<br>

I don't have the Sigma lens in question, but I do know that there is more talk about "focus problems" on Sigma lenses than there are actual focus problems. I have two AF Sigmas, and both work just fine, as they do for most people.</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>I have a few of these cameras, no focus problem. Do you use a tripod?</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Jakob</p>

<p>There is a simple process of elimination<br>

1 shoot the 50 F1.8 in MF and at say F11 and see if the image is aharp - use a tripod, live view and zoom in on the screen. Check the picture is sharp right across (your target will need to be flat - say a newspaper on the wall)<br>

2 Try the same test but at a narrow aperture say F1.8. you may find the edges are less sharp and this is the lens becomming soft (my Canon 50 F1.4 is soft at the edge until F20<br>

3 Now switch to AF and F11 - you picture should be OK due to the large DOF - if it is not you have an Af issue on the body. Set the Af on one shot and center Af point only.<br>

4 Now focus the lens manually as in 2 with it set to F1.8 - then carefully switch of live view and set the lens on Af - half press the shutter and see if the lens rotates. If it rotates a small amount then you will need to use micro-adjust.</p>

<p>Try these 4 tests and let us know.</p>

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>I know the first time I went full frame I thought the same thing. When I started shooting I couldn't help but to adjust everything I was doing to take the picture. On my 30D and 40D, it's like shooting a .22 caliber and the full frame was like a .44 when the shutter moved, it moved my hands. That was one of my reasons of getting fuzzy shots. Just my 2 cents. I also agree that you should place it on a sturdy tripod and shoot at F4 or 5.6 just to help you troubleshoot. Good luck v/r Buffdr </p>

[jakob_lagerstedt]

<p>Ok so I am pretty confident there's no focus issue. I don't believe my previous test was done correctly - although I did use a tripod, lighting was all over the place, too short of a distance (1.5 meters) and camera and object weren't lined up. This time I used a tripod, good lighting, perfect alignement and 2.5 meter distance. Wide open, the Canon did surprisingly well and there was little difference from manual focus (using live view) and autofocus - I could actually barely tell which one was manually focused. The Sigma did much better after a microadjustment of +17. It was decent at 1.4 and at 1.8 sharpness was about the same as the Canon. The Sigma required a lesser micro adjustment as I increased the distance. At 5 meters, it was sharpest with no microadjustment. This is consistent with a lot of Sigmas apparently. The Sigma got dramatically sharper at 2.2 - 2.6. As expected, both lenses were very sharp at 5.6. <br /> So in sum, this was most likely user error and a dose of Sigma QC. As many of you pointed out, the shallow depth of field takes some getting used to and shooting wide open definitely reduce the keeper rate. The Sigma was by no means terrible but it should beat the nifty fifty at 1.8 for 5 times the cost, bokeh and construction aside. I may give it another shot. <br /> Thank you for everyones feedback.</p>

[talon99]

<p>Ive had great results with the Sigma 50 1.4. As a matter of fact Ive bought two. my son a combat photographer in the Marines borrowed my first one and would not give it back. I always use the center focus. I don’t know how your testing or shooting but remember the closest focus with this lens is 33 inches. </p>

 

[15sunrises]

<p>I essentially exclusively use manual focus now on my 40D, while autofocus is often sufficient, there's still a small amount of quality to be gained form using MF with my setup.</p>

<p>That being said, doing focus tests is a recipe for finding problems that might not exist. What are the results from the camera in everyday shooting conditions using center point focus?</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Jakob - do you still have buyers remorse?</p>