Posted by Carson Wilcox on March 29, 2009 at 9:03 PM
Excuse me if I ramble a bit. I just got my 5D MK2 a couple of days ago and I'm converted to the full frame already. My question is, I upgraded to L glass 17-40 f4 L and 24-105 f4L while I was still using the 40D but was never quite happy with the IQ using this glass with the 40D. Now that I have the 5D the IQ is great with this glass. For some reason with the 40D I had better IQ with the EFS 17-85. I even sent the 40D and 24-105L back to Canon but they didn't find any problems.
Anyway I'd appreciate any comments on this. Just a bit confused.
1st at a given print size a lens on the 40D will need approx 1.6 times the resolution ( line pairs per mm) to deliver the same detail. This is an often overlooked advantage of FF over APSC.
Else the 5Dmk is focusing more accurately.
I had a similar experience with the 28-105 which on the 10D was too soft on the 5D it was acceptable.
Posted by Frank Winters on March 30, 2009 at 8:44 AM
I miss my 17 - 85. I sold it to help fund a 17 - 40L for use on my 20D but have never really felt good about the 'better' lens. The 17 -- 85 seems to fit both my style and the camera better. The 17 - 85 lens was made for the APS cameras so that's probably why it seems more comfortable.
I also have been gravitating more to point and shoot cameras -- for a while I used my G9 almost exclusively and was able to create images that sold and won prizes. I have even thought that maybe I should sell my SLR equipment and just use P&Ss. I just bought a Panasonic DMC FZ50 super zoom (35mm - 420mm) and so far like it a lot. I'm not very critical in a pixel peeping way so the IQ on the small cameras seems fine to me. My 12 by 18 inch prints (Epson 2200) are great and stand up to gallery exhibitions and contests.
I think equipment that fits one's style is extremely important. My hero -- Henri Cartier-Bresson used very simple gear to great effect. He took "photographs on the run" and might have been held back by more elaborate equipment. His use of mini-cams was ridiculed at first. So use the lens/camera etc that suits you even if it isn't 'L' or 'pro.'
Posted by Carson Wilcox on March 30, 2009 at 8:49 AM
MMmmmm very interesting. I appreciate your comments. I'm thinking the best thing for me to do is just use the 17-85 on the 40D which I'm keeping as my backup.
I was out all day yesterday up around the Suwannee River and I really love the 5D and full frame but there are times when I'll still use my 40D and the 17-85.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on March 30, 2009 at 8:26 PM
Frank, I have the 17-40mm and the 5D2 (sold my 5D to get the Mk II), and I have discovered something about the 17-40mm both by articles and by experience: The 17-40 is a great performer outdoors especially tripod-mounted taking long exposures. It arguably can stay in the game with the 16-35mm/2.8... but bring the 17-40mm lens indoors and shoot available light images, and you'll be quite disappointed. It's not a good low-light handheld lens, which is why wedding photogs pretty much exclusively use the 16-35mm/2.8. I'm considering selling my 17-40mm for that reason. I ordered a 50mm 1.4 for low indoor light to have something to shoot with (my 70-200mm/2.8 is too heavy and zoomy for indoor small rooms but the IQ paired with the 5D2 is superb). I bet Henri Cartier-Bresson would tell me the 50mm is all I need! Anyway, just some thoughts. I'd be quite happy if someone piped in and revealed how to get great IQ indoors with a 17-40. BTW, I shot images for this apartment complex using the 17-40mm, but it was tripod mounted and many of the indoors shots were 10 - 15 seconds of exposure at f/14, ISO 100. The lens worked wonderfully for that. I guess it just doesn't have great resolving power. Anyway, just my $.02!
Posted by Frank Winters on March 30, 2009 at 11:22 PM
Thanks, Paul. I think you are correct. i just used my 17 - 40L t take a series of indoor shots at an art exhibit and between my mistakes and the lens(?) I'm ready to try something new. I do have a Canon 50mm F1.4 and realized that many of my shots would have benefited from that lens.....
Discussion
5 repliesAnyway I'd appreciate any comments on this. Just a bit confused.
Thanks
Carson
1st at a given print size a lens on the 40D will need approx 1.6 times the resolution ( line pairs per mm) to deliver the same detail. This is an often overlooked advantage of FF over APSC.
Else the 5Dmk is focusing more accurately.
I had a similar experience with the 28-105 which on the 10D was too soft on the 5D it was acceptable.
I also have been gravitating more to point and shoot cameras -- for a while I used my G9 almost exclusively and was able to create images that sold and won prizes. I have even thought that maybe I should sell my SLR equipment and just use P&Ss. I just bought a Panasonic DMC FZ50 super zoom (35mm - 420mm) and so far like it a lot. I'm not very critical in a pixel peeping way so the IQ on the small cameras seems fine to me. My 12 by 18 inch prints (Epson 2200) are great and stand up to gallery exhibitions and contests.
I think equipment that fits one's style is extremely important. My hero -- Henri Cartier-Bresson used very simple gear to great effect. He took "photographs on the run" and might have been held back by more elaborate equipment. His use of mini-cams was ridiculed at first. So use the lens/camera etc that suits you even if it isn't 'L' or 'pro.'
I was out all day yesterday up around the Suwannee River and I really love the 5D and full frame but there are times when I'll still use my 40D and the 17-85.