John Crowe

I have always preferred a crop body for telephoto subjects like sports and wildlife, since generally they have higher shooting rates and much denser sensors for detail. So, I have always tried to have a two body system because full frame cameras are much more appropriate for wideangle subjects like architecture and landscapes because the best lenses for this are made for full frame. Plus the added advantage of better dynamic range. I think the T5i and 6D II would be a good combo, although upon closer inspection the 6D II may outperform it even for telephoto photography with it's sensor and it's shooting speed. AF is never a big concern for me so that is the one area I have no opinion on. My landscape setup is a new to me 5DS R and 17 TS-E, and my sports setup is the 5DS R and 70-200/4 L and Sony A6000 with 35 year old 400/2.8.

Well, I have never heard of a camera selecting a shutter speed, aperture, or ISO that was not programmed into it. If there is no auto-shift for ISO then the camera will simply underexpose or overexpose if it can't reach the correct exposure. The images appear to be correctly exposed, but seem to show shutter drag of some sort. It could be the aperture is lagging behind but I don't think it would appear only at the side. Looks like a 50/1.2 AIS, which is generally the most desirable, but I would have to see the back of the lens to know for sure. The tell tale slot in the mount.

Once you get the camera repaired it would be nice to see some more images and your evaluation of the lens. Which 50/1.2 is it?

You could consider a good used one, still no warranty though. If you wait until it's replacement comes out the original should drop by $1000...that is how I bought my 5D II in 2011. Good luck.

Technical Pan. Nice to see Pan F is still available. Hopefully get back into 120 this year.

Judging by the test site. The original Canon EF 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 USM is one of those "sleeper" lenses, that is extremely good for what it is, and very cheap. Also much lighter than it's current alternatives. It easily competes with all the 70-300, and 100-300 lenses. Unfortunately IS, in the modern lenses degrades image quality substantially. The only one of these zooms that beats it at more focal lengths/apertures is the 70-300 L IS, but I would take the 70-200/4 L or 70-200/4 L IS over this lens everyday.

The only problem with the 17 TS-E and I highly suspect all the TS-E lenses is that they just don't make things like they used to, despite the extravagant costs. I bought mine in virtually brand new condition when it was just two years old in 2011. Last year the shift mechanism jambed and so far my local repair man has managed to have fixed it, though not as new. He did the repair for $200 CDN, it would have been $700 CDN, if he had had to get the original part from Canon. Canon does not sell individual pieces for the shift/tilt, they simply replace the entire assembly including the mount. I do admit that I use this lens extensively but I do believe there is a major design flaw in it. Until recently I had a 50 year old Nikon PC that still functioned perfectly, and I see many 40 year old Canon FD 35 TS lenses that appear to be in perfect working order as well. I had considered selling it, but there is just not another lens, from my research, that can replace it for what I want to do. I have since decided that if I do eventually have to replace the entire mechanism then at least it should last another 10 years. Otherwise it is still like new and the glass is pristine and they do hold their value.

I just noticed that it would be beneficial to have posted this in the Canon EOS forum. Do not re-post this, they do not like that here, but perhaps the moderators can move it?

The 24-105/4 L IS is much sharper than the 24-105 IS STM in the centre and middle but the IS STM is slightly sharper in the corners. Again, just based on the test site.

Just checking out the lens testing site, the difference from the 28-70/2.8 L and the 24-70/2.8 L II (so two improvements) is noticeable, mostly in the corners and also towards the telephoto range. The 24-105mm f4 L IS (original version) seems to be a bit sharper than the original 28-70/2.8 L especially wide open and also in the telephoto range. You may find a 24-105/4 L IS in your price range, since it has been replaced with the IS II version. The 24-70/2.8 L performs better than the 24-105/4 L IS, again on the same website.

With some quick research I am curious why Canon did not claim that 24-105 IS STM as an "L" lens. It does have some good glass in it, but it also has expensive IS and expensive STM. Some how the glass is still not up to their L quality. This lens is designed for video shooters in particular because the STM is a silent focusing system. The earlier L zooms you mention will be at least as good as the newer one or better. I suspect better, because at the time they were designed to be the benchmark Canon lens for a general purpose zoom lens. Having checked out the tests at digital picture .com (I don't trust them completely but they seem to be reasonably accurate from my experience) the older 28-70/2.8 L is in fact sharper than the newer IS STM (both on 1Ds III). When I get a chance I will do some more research on these lenses. You also missed one, the original general zoom was the 28-80/2.8-4 L dating way back to 1987-1992. I believe it too would beat the IS STM with respect to image quality. The changes Canon makes to a lens from one generation to the next are extremely minor, as their main objective is to sell more lenses. All of these lenses have USM as well which is important for superior AF and more resilient lens design. I would be remiss in not mentioning that for IS fans the 24-105 IS STM and the meriad of other IS L lenses do improve hand held photography in very dim conditions, like indoor gatherings. In these cases the IS can improve image quality by being able to use a lower ISO setting which will offset the L glass at a much higher ISO setting. So if you do find yourself shooting in low light situations on a very regular basis the IS lens may in fact be more useful. There are also a couple of versions of the 24-105mm f4 L IS lens as well that you should also be aware of. Generally not as well respected for image quality of the f2.8 zooms you are considering but does also have IS. As for longevity the most important thing to look for is the USM focusing system. The original focus system is not as reliable. The other major thing is the condition of the aperture but we are dealing with lenses that are only up to 30 years old, and I still use lenses with apertures that are 40 to 50 years old. The only other thing to watch out for is obviously the condition of the glass. A bit of dust is absolutely normal for any zoom and even the odd small mark towards the outside of a piece of glass can be unnoticeable in photos.

I just sold my 5D II that I bought in 2011 and bought a used 5DS R. You pretty much shoot how I shoot but 80%, if not more of my photos are taken with the 17 TS-E. I shift and stitch images together to get medium format sized images. I also use focus stacking to achieve maximum depth of field when I can. With the 5D II I easily printed to 24 x 36. Unfortunately I have not spent any time with the 5DS R yet. I did some quick tests with my original Canon EF 70-200 f4 L and I was shocked how much sharper the 5DS R made that lens. I had to check it twice and results came back the same. It looked awful with the 5D II, and I know I got superb results with that lens on the 5D II. I have been reading this nonsense of older lenses not being good enough for the new super hi res sensors for years. I will test my 1980 lenses in the spring on the 5DS R so I can put all that to rest. I have used my 1980 lenses on my 24MP crop cameras for years and they always look sharper than on the 5D II. The 24MP sensors essentially match the 5DS R for pixel density. Your lenses will be just fine! My vote goes to the 5DS R. I suspect the sales are leading up to the release of it's replacement. P.S. Is that price for real? Jump at it! I paid $100 dollars less for a used one! At B&H and up here in Canada the price is still the same as usual.

I hope to return to 6x6 shooting later this year (after a 15 year absence) and only since Velvia 50 is actually still available. I won't be shooting a lot so the price increase won't hurt much. Let's face it the film market is a tiny fraction of what it once was. I just hope Fuji can press forward with the few films that they do have.

I would like to see it compared to the 8/2.8 AIS. I came across an anonymous user on the internet who has both, but no review. I would make the switch if it is at least as good.

I started photography with an AE-1P for a couple of years and quickly got the T-90 in 1986 which got me past the EOS film stage. A couple of years before going digital I did a ton of FD research and determined the back up camera that I thought would be most useful and fun was the EF. I don't remember all the ins and outs, but it did more of what I wanted than any of the F-1 models, and with a one of the F-1 models I had to add so many optional pieces to get what I needed. I never did get one, so it is a joy that I missed.

I place no trust in online testing websites. I take them with a grain of salt. As you can see in your own photos, the step from 40D to M5 fulfills the mentioned criteria, and at very low cost.

More on panning. You will have to experiment for best settings individually for daytime and nighttime. If you want blurry "artistic" shots you need shutter speeds below 1/125, down to like 1/30. For sharp images with some blur in the wheels you need something between 1/125 and 1/500 depending on the speed of the car. My typical settings in full sun for blurry wheels I use ISO 100, 1/250, and f10. The deeper depth of field at f10 also helps if the focus is off slightly. Keep your motion as smooth as possible only rotating at the waist. I used to make the mistake of panning with a monopod and finally realized it was throwing off the smooth pivot, so go handheld unless shooting with a really huge lens. Yes the f2.8 zoom will get heavy. I finally switched to an f4 for this reason. The first mistake when I shot these cars in 1999, was using autoexposure for oncoming cars. Even in the day the headlights caused serious underexposure. I used film then so the week-end was almost a complete loss. Live and learn. With digital you won't make this mistake, but if you are wondering why your images are getting underexposed, this may be the cause. This would also be my concern for your night shots if there are some bright track lights lurking in your backgrounds. Wow, this will be my 21st year of shooting this series, ALMS, and now Sportcar, at Mosport.

I have been trying to arrange to get to this race for the past two years with no success yet. So I was hoping you would get some good responses from someone who has been there. For the few race tracks I am familiar with, your xx-300 zoom would be good for panning on your DX body and I think it should be ok at Sebring. I have watched races on TV to try to get an idea where to shoot from but it is difficult to tell. I am not sure If the 70-200/2.8 would be long enough. It certainly would get you an additional 2 stops less of ISO which would help with "grain" in the night shots. Also the f2.8 zoom is vastly sharper than your zoom. If you chose to rent it you could always add a 1.4x or even 2x for probably not too much more. My favourite shots are taking head on images of cars going into corners or coming out, but again not sure how Sebring is for this. For the most part this sort of shot requires at least 400mm on DX. I think overall I would rent the 70-200/2.8 with 2x, that way you do still have a superfast lens that will get you a shot in a pinch, or be able to go long if there is enough light. The 70-200/2.8 will AF a bit slower with the 2x but resolution will still beat your current zoom. You could try to check AF speed of the combo at the store before you rent it. You have paddock shots covered with your shorter zoom, a flash, if you have one available could help out here. Generally you can never have too much length at a race track. Unfortunately the first trip to a track that you do not know. is a huge learning experience that you put towards your next visit. Take the time to scour the whole track for shooting positions, do lots of experimenting, and take notes too. That way you will learn exactly what lens you need next time and also where to shoot from to waste as little time as possible. Though with this race time is not a big problem! My camera always worked best with centre single point continuous AF for panning so I would "grab" the car to start the focus procedure and keep my point on the car as best as possible and then start a burst as it gets closer to my ideal shot. This way the focus would adjust as it comes by me, once past of course the AF will anticipate incorrectly since the car starts moving farther away as it passes, and the shots will go out of focus. There should be some samples in my portfolio if you want to check them out. Have lots of fun and please be sure to let us know how you make out.

Dave: Ed already apologized, sort of, for the "flat earthers" comment. I rather enjoy the slight. I do disagree however, that it was not 15 years ago, it only occurred in 2012, when Nikon introduced the first 24 MP crop body and the first 36 MP full frame body. I almost exclusively shot K25, and Velvia 50 from a tripod, so it took digital a little longer to catch up for me. I had no idea how technical this thread had gotten. I got by just fine with f5.6 for all of my 35mm, 6x6, and 4x5 scanning that I described earlier. If there was a real problem it should have showed up with the 4x5 since I only used a 4x5 enlarger film holder in an attempt to keep it flat, and then proceeded to take 18 shots of it! I only chose f5.6 because that was the best rated aperture for my Canon FD 50mm f3.5 Macro, and it gave me a shutter speed that I was comfortable with. I hope soon to continue my "scanning" project with my new-to-me 5DS R, but first I will invest in a better light source, and then perhaps I could try f8. As for the "flat earther" thing I am very much planning to return to flat earth sometime this year when I will start shooting, on a very limited basis, 6x6 Velvia 50. As I mentioned in my post this film produces colour to me, that surpasses what a DSLR and ACR and Photoshop can do. I would not make the return if not for a very unique lens/camera combo that cannot be duplicated on my 5DS R.

I have the Nikon 8mm f2.8 AIS circular fisheye that I use both on DX and full frame. For the price of $700 that I paid for it about 10 years ago, I will likely never get rid of it. I do not use it often but for the price I can justify that. When I do manage to find a subject for it, a few times a year, results are spectacular. My first question, considering the investment, is how long do you plan to stick with DX format? For only $100 more the Nikon 8-15 is more flexible, but is more appropriate for full frame cameras.

I think you have answered your own question, but in review. The 40D is soft simply because it has nowhere near enough pixels. The higher the resolution the larger you can print. The M5 is going to make all of your lenses look significantly sharper. You have had a chance to actually use the M5 so now you know what is involved and you have one that you can buy at a reasonable price from someone you can trust. I chose to buy my A6000 a year ago for about the same price as your M5 simply because I wanted to try it, and because I had little to lose. I think the shots you posted here say go for it!

Well said Gary. I did not have the patience to describe your method. That is exactly how I determined the fps I needed in capturing on-coming race cars on the crest of a hill. 5D II was limited to 5 fps, and I realized I needed to get one more frame between those to get a much higher keeper rate. Got the Sony A6000 and problem solved. Not actually a higher keeper rate since I am throwing out double the shots but I am getting what I want. Sony mirrorless only fit my needs because I am using manual focus lenses on it. Optical viewfinders are much easier for following action. If I really concentrate and get in the flow, I can follow the action with a mirrorless, which only shows you the previous shot taken when in burst mode. You are probably right about a tennis ball needing the 20 fps. Not much action on this post yet so I will think right out of the box here. It is a steep decision, but if you are truly considering a full frame upgrade and an extremely expensive zoom, how about a dedicated sports camera/lens? The 6D is a very good camera for all your non-sports needs. What about one of the Sony full frame, or better yet, crop bodies capable of 20 fps and their 70-200/2.8 or f4 for that matter? I know...kinda crazy...especially if the next round of Canon mirrorless include 20 fps. These are likely at least a year away maybe 2. To re-iterate, if you try to use a Canon AF lens on a Sony, you do not get useful AF no matter how expensive the adapter.

I agree with the test/evaluation method above. I would not go to crazy with ISO settings since obviously the 40D will be significantly worse. What ISO did you use for these? Yes, the 40D will look as soft as it is, just not enough pixels. The M5, or any other 24MP crop body, will make all your lenses look sharper. M5 seems to easily beat the film, but yes adjust the test distance. You have heavily favoured the M5 here.

Sorry, the 80D has only 7fps but is still a very good alternative. 7D II has 10fps which is ideal, but lower resolution. Still better resolution than the full framers. Both of these cameras will be replaced likely within the year though. I would say get a used 7D II to get you through this year, then sell it at not much loss, when you can replace it with it's replacement.

My preference has always been to use full frame for landscapes and architecture and crop bodies for sports. The crop bodies generally have higher pixel density for higher resolution than all but the best couple of full frames and they have higher frame rates as well. Neither the 5D IV or RP have very high frame rates for what you are trying to do, and as far as mid-low ISO, they don't have the resolution of all the 24 MP crop bodies. If you can afford to keep the 6D to use as your other-than-sports photography and add a crop body, either DSLR or mirrorless, for sports, it is something to consider. Without doing a ton of research, I don't think Canon has a mirrorless yet that has the 10 to 20 fps that you need. The best Canon body for sports in my opinion is the 80D with its 24MP and 8 fps. While the 1DX II is superfast, the resolution is just too low. I would love to recommend one of the Sony mirrorless bodies but although you can get AF adapters for your Canon lens the AF performance will be no where near what the Canon cameras can deliver. Before spending the kind of money an R or 5DIV would cost, I would either wait for the next round of Canon cameras to emerge or go with the more affordable, and more sports appropriate 80D. My only concern is that it's 8 fps still may not be fast enough. I do think there are a few Canon upgrade cameras coming if you can wait a year or so.