Upgrading to the 5D Mk II

[klsphoto]

<p>Looking for some input. I'm thinking of upgrading to the 5D MkII from a 40D. I shoot landscapes, nature & wildlife. I have 17-40L 4.0; 400L 5.6; 28-135IS 4.0; 75-300IS 4.0 lenses. Also have a 550EX Speedlite. What will I like (and what won't I like) if I do this? I appreciate your opinions. Karen</p>

[ken schwarz]

<p>Hi Karen. I looked at some of your pictures (the landscapes) in your portfolio. I think the main thing that will change for you is that your 17-40 will become an ultra-wide, and that will give you some new perspectives to explore. Of course, you could achieve the same with a 10-22 zoom on your 40D. Otherwise, I don't think you would get a very different end-result, unless you are blowing up your pictures to large size, in which case the 5D2 will have more detail/texture. If you are like me, you'll be glad to have the 28-135 behave as a wide-tele zoom rather than being cropped in the 40D; it becomes much more versatile. You won't have to switch lenses as often.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I think you'll really like the 5D2 viewfinder. It's going from a wee peephole to HD TV. Suddenly the glory of the scene is a lot more apparent through the VF. The high rez LCD is nice along with more zoom for checking sharpness. You'll probably love the silky smooth rendition and detail of large prints. And another stop or two of fairly clean high ISO over the 40D.</p>

<p>You seem to already have all the right lenses for the 5D2. You'll probably like you 17-40 more as it's now an ultra wide landscape lens rather than stuck in a tiny zoom range on APS.</p>

<p>A minor gotcha is the 550EX. It will work fine but most of the options will be grayed out in the 5D2 flash menu. No biggie as you can control manual mode and 2nd curtain sync from the flash.</p>

<p>In terms of operation and menu interface, the 5D2 is very similar to the 40D. So a quick learning curve. 5D2 Quick Screen control is better implemented and, of course, video is a whole new world.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I still shoot my older APS-C cameras, a lot. If you can, keep the 40D and use it for places where less-expensive, smaller, and smaller sensor (X1.6 factor) are useful.<br /> I do like my old 5D a lot, and everything they say about having a larger viewfinder is true. I'm absolutely confident that the Mk ii is even better. :)<br /> There's no learning problem, as Puppy Face has said. Except, of course, for the video.....</p>

[matthijs]

The image quality is subtly better. You might think it's small but in the end you'll just plain prefer the 5Dii.

 

It's less snappy than my 50D so probably it'll be a tad slower than your 40D as well. (Reaction to the shutter and

sometimes AF speed)

 

Every now and then the increased weight and size are a bother.

 

The ISO 3200 crispness and as others said the performance of the 17-40 are great.

 

By the way, the crop-tele advantage of your 40D is negligable and the 5D has better per pixel performance so for high

quality (non action?) tele shots the 5Dii will be the one to grab. (10mp x1.6 x1.6 = 25.6mp versus 21mp is practically

zero difference)

 

My guess is you'll be very happy with the 5Dii, though maybe you'll want to keep using the 40D for certain shots.

 

Regards, Matthijs.

[wgpinc]

<p>I think you are going to like the 5D Mark II for all the reasons listed so far. The only camera out there that has higher image quality is in the $8k price range. Here is a sample image I took yesterday the first time out after getting over a virus. 5D Mark II 70-200mm 4.0 IS. Good luck! <br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12210291-md.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>You may want to prepare for an upgrade from the 28-135 to something like the 24-105/4L at some point in the future; it seems pretty common for users who have been satisfied with the 28-135 on lower-resolution and/or APS-C cameras to find that the 5D II exposes some weaknesses. I've also heard that the 17-40 is perhaps less satisfying (in terms of imaging performance) on full-frame bodies than on APS-C bodies.</p>

 

<p>Disclaimer: I've never had a full-frame digital body. My 28-135 experience is on film and APS-C, and my 17-40 experience is almost entirely on APS-C. So I'm going here from what I've read that others have posted over the years, not from personal experience (other than my personal experience of finding the 24-105 superior to the 28-135 on APS-C).</p>

[ejchem101]

<p>I can tell you that my 5D + 17-40 is my landscape setup of choice. The wide angle end of it opens up a whole new perspective. I would imagine the same would be true with the mark II. However, remember that you can get a similar perspective with your 40D and 10-22.</p>

<p>If getting the Higher ISO and bigger viewfinder is important to you, go for the 5D II.<br>

However, if you don't print very large, don't do much low light shooting, and do a bit of sports and action shooting, I dont know that you would see a very large difference between your 5D II and your 40D (actually for sports your 40D will likely be faster).<br>

If the above is true I would go for keeping the 40D and adding the 10-22 lens instead.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I love the 28-135 as a versatile and cheap (and light) zoom on FF. On the APS-C sensor the range was way too tight, but as others have mentioned, IMHO it's possibly one of the best <em>consumer</em> zooms ever produced for FF, simply for it's range, IS, and great color. If you start using it a lot though, the lens hood is a necesity not a luxury. <br>

I noticed that you have no 50. I'd pick up even a 50 1.8 to broaden your capabilities. once you've got one fast prime though, you'll have to have them all ;-)</p>