New body vs new lens (5D markII or 35mm/1.4)?

[chrbea]

<p>I use mostly primes when shooting lately, but each time I attach my 28-70L to the 7D, I realize that most photos turn out to be around 35mm. So I thought about buying a prime in the 35mm range.<br>

Another solution would be to switch the 7D with a 5D markII. The resulting field of view should be the same with a 50mm/1.4 (that I already own), than the 7D with a 35mm/1.4.<br>

When I first bought the 7D I shot sports and some wildlife, now I take more photos of landscapes, nature, street and people in general.<br>

Which choice will deliver the better results? Buying a new lens or a new body? Have I missed something?<br>

How are the performances of both combinations in low light?</p>

<p>Christian</p>

[matthias_meixner2]

<p>Judge by yourself:<br>

http://www.thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0</p>

<p> </p>

[eric merrill]

<p>How often are you limited by the max aperture of f/2.8 on your zoom?</p>

<p>I have both the 35/1.4 and the 24-105/4. I find myself using the 24-105 except in those cases where the light is so dim that I absolutely need an aperture larger than f/4. I, too, find myself using the 35mm setting on my zoom quite often.</p>

<p>Given the choice between a lens or a body, I'd go for the lens. In another 3 years, the body will have depreciated quite a bit, and the lens will hardly have depreciated at all. In fact, I could probably sell my 35/1.4 used for about the same as I bought it new since lens prices have been creeping up steadily. :)</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[chrbea]

<p>I shoot more and more on occasions, where I can't use a Speedlite, so I need the fast lenses. That's one of the main reasons, why I don't use the zoom any longer</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Given your shift from sports and wildlife to street, scenics, etc. I'd recommend keeping the 7D as a backup and adding a 5D MkII to your arsenal. I own both and find the high-ISO performance of the 5D2 pretty astounding, allowing low-noise street shots at night at ISO 6400. Also, the IQ is stunning at ISO 100 for scenics. "Expose Right" (to the right of the histogram) and the 5D2 will change your photographic life.<br>

Shoot a few weeks with your zoom on a 5D2, then decide if you "need" a prime in the middle of the range. Be sure to correct for the zoom distortions (CA, vignetting, geometric error, etc.) in RAW conversion, using a competent program such as DxO Optics Pro, LR or ACR. When corrected, Canon's excellent zooms produce IQ very close to their prime sisters.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I would go for the 5d2 over the 35/1.4 -- not only will the 5s high ISO noise allow you to use the 50/1.4 @ f2+ (where it's performance trumps the 35/1.4 @ f1.4), but your 28-70/2.8 will be vastly more useable also. Overall, it will extend your capabilities.</p>

<p>Unless you need the fast action capability of the 7D (which your comments seemed to indicate you did not) in FPS, AF capability, and narrowed FOV, there is no compelling reason to keep the 7D. OTOH, the 7D does have a popup flash ;-) ....</p>

<p> </p>

[h_._jm]

<p>I suggest as a third option; getting a 5D Mark I. You can get them from KEH (best used store in the world with some 3rd party warranty; I got mine from them). For 1/2 the price of a MKII and so it really can't depreciate much!. and it's images are clearly superior to my 600D. regards</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Difficult question Christian. I own the 7D, 5DII, 24-70, 50 F1.4 but only the 35 F2. Thus I have some experience with the equipment you are choosing between. Here are my first reactions:<br>

1 The 5DII is a fine camera and takes better quality images than the 7D, but the choice between the two cameras is not that easy. The 5DII is clearly better from ISO 800 to ISO 3200, it has a better range of wide angle lenses, works better with tilt shift lenses (the prism on the 7D is annoying) and has a slightly better viewfinder. The 5DII IQ between ISO 50 and 800 is better than the 7D but is only really apparent if you print very large. On the other hand the 7D has better AF and a faster frame rate, plus wireless flash control although I prefer the STE2. All that is to say that in general I will pick up my 5DII before my 7D as I shoot landscapes and people more often than wildlife and sport (but for sport and wildlife I generally choose the 7D or my old 1DIIN). <br>

2 In terms of lens quality I find the 50 F1.4 is a very good lens but only when stopped down. My copy is soft at F1.4 and still a bit soft at F1.8 so I use it from F2 an upwards. In terms of image quality I find it is better than my 24-70 but not materially (look at the digital picture crops as they show what I see). Thus I find that the 50 f1.4 gives me an extra stop (F2 vs F2.8) and a minimal improvement in IQ so I often take the zoom instead. Unfortunately i am disappointed with my 35 F2 which is a shame as I loved (and still use) the old FD 35 F2. The digital picture example performs like my copy and as you can see struggles against the 24-70 zoom. In your case it sounds like you like the 50mm focal length (I tend to shoot 35mm so on my 7D I use the 16-35 zoom or my 17 TS - although the flash is a nuisance with the TS lens on the 7D). I have not used the 35 F1.4 but I assume it is sharper wide open than either of the two cheaper lenses.<br>

So in summary the real world performance improvement of either choice is probably not that great (assuming the 28-70 performs like my 24-70). You will get slightly more speed (about 1 stop) at the same quality level (i.e. 50 F2 vs 50 F2.8 with the zoom) and maybe a little more with the 35 F1.4. Obviously the lens size and weight goes down and you do get the benefit of the prime (although I have the 16-35, 24-70 and two 70-200s I tend to use primes as much and prefer them in many situations). In general I would usually advise the purchase of a lens over a body but in this case it is more difficult. The 5DII and 7D make a great pair of bodys as their strengths are very different.</p>

 

[bill_dewberry]

<p>Purcahse a 35 2.0 and keep your 7d, your equioment is fine.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I forgot to add - if you are looking for IQ on a budget you can consider older MF lenses. I use the Contax 50 F1.7 for example and it is a great performer - much better than the Canon 50 F1.4 but you have the usual issues of MF on an EOS body. The Contax 50 F1.4 is an even better lens and their 35 F2.8 is not too shabby.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>For the price of the 35/1.4 you could add a used 5D instead. If you can afford to get the 5DII and keep the 7D that would be ideal. I know I will be stuck for sometime with a crop body and a full frame body to cover the subjects that I like to photograph. </p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I have bot the 7D and 5D2, but seem to reach for the 5D2 most of the time. If you make large prints, 5D2 IQ is a lot better than the 7D and I find the larger VF easier to compose with. I do miss some of the feature of the 7D but for my style of landscape shooting the 5D2's simpler AF is actually preferable. Love the 5D2/50 1.2L combo as a walkaround.</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>Wait for the 5D III to come out and then make your decision.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Lenses are "forever" while digital bodies a fleeting notion...</p>

<p>I buy my EOS system that way. lenses come before bodies... sometimes I believe I can justify putting off upgrading my body (skip a generation) with a new lens purchase. Then.... maybe not.</p>

<p>And, what Mike said, wait for the 5D3... it's already late in the 5D2's digital cycle... Sony already surpassing many Canon innovations!</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>I continue to see the same bad advice whenever this topic comes up. I presume it's because people prefer to parrot myths and rules of thumb rather than actually test their assumptions.</p>

<p>* The 7D has better IQ in every respect than the original 5D. The original 5D may be cheaper than the Canon 35 1.4, but it's much more expensive than the Sigma 30 f/1.4 which will give you the FoV / aperture you desire on a 7D.</p>

<p>* The 5D mkII offers no real IQ advantage from ISO 100-800 over Canon's APS-C 18 MP sensor. This has been debated ad nauseam and proven time and time again. They're different sensors and therefore take different settings to achieve a desired result (i.e. level of sharpness or contrast). People who realize this can't distinguish between 24" prints from the two. People who do not blame processing caused visual differences on the bodies. The only real difference in this ISO range is that the 5D mkII has a little wider DR (about 1 stop) and is a little more forgiving of underexposure.</p>

<p>* At higher ISOs the 5D mkII does offer less noise and more fine detail. But you have to make larger prints to appreciate it. That said, I would consider the highest usable ISO on the 7D to be about 3200, and the highest usable ISO on the 5D mkII to be 6400. In a pinch you could go a stop higher on either for a small print, especially if converting to B&W.</p>

<p>* With the exception of T/S lenses (which are expensive and which most people never own), full frame is not automatically better for landscapes. There are WA lens options for crop which can match any landscape a FF system can produce. What's still missing on crop, besides T/S lenses, is a full frame FoV equivalent to the 24 f/1.4, which acts like a 35 f/1.4 on crop. If you want to go wider and keep a max aperture larger than f/2.8, you're out of luck. Not many people have to have this.</p>

<p>* Fast, solid AF is quite useful for street and general people photography.</p>

<p>With all of that out of the way...</p>

<p>Put a Sigma 30 f/1.4 on your 7D and don't look back. It's the most cost effective way to achieve what you want. A FF camera is not going to magically change your photography.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>If you're not going to use the high-ISO performance of the 5D2, then I agree that you can do what you want with the 7D and the right lens.<br>

I didn't realize how much shooting at ISO 6400 would change my approach to street shooting. I love going out at night when I visit other parts of the world. No longer do I finish shooting at sundown. It really changes your outlook.<br>

That said, I do 90% of my shooting with my 7D and tele lenses. At ISO 800 the detail is superior to the 5D2, but that's due to pixel-pitch and it's very small. When noise is not an issue, the 7D can produce superior results.</p>

[Brad_]

As someone who currently owns a 5DII and 35/1.4 (the only combo I shoot with), and who once owned a 7D, if your goal is superior I/Q

and shooting under low-light situations, I'd recommend a 5DII and either a 50/1.4, or 35/2.0 (if funds are limited for the 1.4). If neither is

true, I'd probably get the 35/1.4 with the goal of upgrading to FF someday, and then being able to really

appreciate the combination of the 35/1.4 on a FF body. That really is a special combination...

 

The 5DII offers superior I/Q over the whole ISO range over the 7D. Where it really shines is for ISOs at

800 or over. 7D owners will say that with extra tweaking in post, I/Q can approach 5DII levels. While

ignoring that 5DII images can also gain from extra tweaking, but really never needs to be done. That's

the main difference I found. 5DII image files are robust right out of the camera. 7D images fall apart much

sooner.

[JDMvW]

<p>In film, the "body doesn't matter" idea made a sort of sense.<br>

I think that the body is at least equally critical to digital success, as the sensor, hardware, and software play so important a part in the final result</p>

[dcstep]

<p>The 7D actually has superior IQ detail, it only falls down in high-ISO performance. Exposed correctly, the 7D produces super detail, which is one reason it's so popular as a bird photography body.<br>

Use the 7D when detail is the goal and cropping is probable. Use the 5D2 when high-ISO is the goal.<br>

Noise is only one parameter of IQ. Detail production is at least as important to many of us.</p>

[alwin_lai]

<p>Just get a 5dc. It is every bit as good and in some sense better than the 5d2 in terms of IQ. It's more organic. No plasticky nor over saturated. Keep the 7d. Now you have a great FF camera for stills and a 7d for fast movers.</p>

[chrbea]

<p>Thanks everybody for your advice. I think I will get the 35mm/1.4 now and maybe upgrade to FF once the 5D mark III is available.</p>