Going Full Frame

JustineLouise

JustineLouise

Suspended / Banned
Messages
65
Name
Justine
Edit My Images
No
Hello!

I had posted a couple of weeks ago asking about the Canon 7D and its pros and cons etc. but after much consideration have no decided to save for the Canon 5D Mark ii and keep my current body as a back up and one that I can take out with me.

I just wondered if going full frame makes much of a difference to the lenses you use and if I am going to end up not being able to use some I own, and also what the real advantages are of going full frame, if any.

I currently have:
70-200mm 2.8 USM which I know works fine with the 5D as its previous owner used it on hers before moving to Nikon
50mm 1.8
Tamron 28-75mm - This is the main lens I use for portraits and live music and being on the go.

Thanks :)

Justine
 
They look fine.

It's just Canon EF-S lenses and the small sensor only lenses from the third party people like Sigma DC that are only suitable for small sensor cameras.

As for advantages of full frame...you'll be able to report back to us once you've done it. :)

Better ISO performance? Greater dynamic range? Shallower DoF? :) Smugness factor :lol:
 
They'll all work nicely on the 5D. The 70-200 2.8 will work really nicely with the 5D :) I upgraded from the 50 1.8 to the 50 1.4 at the same time and haven't regretted it - a superb lens. if you had the cash that's the only thing I'd suggest with the lenses.

Other things, I'd get a second battery just for peace of mind when out on all day shoots. Also, get more memory cards. It's a bit extreme, but I was out last week at Goodwood and took over 1000 shots on one day and was just running out of space as the RAW files are huge!

Advantages of full frame ? All that Woof Woof said, and that extra 'magic' factor. Maybe it is just the dynamic range, but the full frame shots have a certain feel to them which I find hard to describe. You'll see as soon as you take a few shots.
 
whichever you went for you will need something sharper than the 28-75 as the 7ds high pixel density will show it up and the 5ds full frame will show its poor corners
 
wavefront said:
Advantages of full frame ? All that Woof Woof said, and that extra 'magic' factor. Maybe it is just the dynamic range, but the full frame shots have a certain feel to them which I find hard to describe. You'll see as soon as you take a few shots.
Click to expand...

absolutely.

Personally I'd sell the 28-75 unless the wide end is really needed. The 70-200 will be used more and the fifty can become the 'standard' lens.
 
I am sure you will be well satisfied with the 5DII, had mine since the begining of this year with no regrets. As mentioned you will need decent size memory cards, colour rendition of shots is fantastic. The 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM is fine as I also use this lens.
I bought a second bettery, and whilst it is a good investment I have not so far had the need to use the backup on shoots.. Enjoy
 
indeed but you do know that when you move full frame, that your fifty will only be a fraction narrower than the 28-75 would have been on your 30D at its widest setting dont you?

thats what i'm saying, your fifty can essentially become the wide end of your 28-75 and the 70-200 can cover the longer end. The cash you get for the 28-75 can help you out towards the camera or some memory cards etc.

On a full frame body a fifty becomes much less 'niche' because the focal length is designed from the ground up to be used on full frame. It's why its my only lens, when I moved full frame and saw the image through the VF I knew I wouldn't need anything else (not for a while anyway...). on a cropper it basically becomes an 80, which not everyone finds useful. Personally I didn't mind it either when I had a crop body, but it was much less useful than on a full frame camera.

These are things to consider.

if I misunderstood please say.
 
JustineLouise said:
I kind of want to keep the 28-75 just as the wide end is useful for smaller venues I shoot in that the 70-200 would just be too close for :)
Click to expand...

I have a 28-75 on a 5D2 and its excellent - the IQ is better than my Canon 17-40L ;) including edge sharpness
 
Full frame is about image quality. That's it really. Sharpness, dynamic range, low noise, high ISO. All because the sensor is about 2.5x bigger (it's not really about pixels).

You also get a bit over one stop less depth of field at equivalent f/numbers, but that's a minor point.

Since full frame works your lenses less hard than crop format (needs less resolution for same standard of sharpness) your Tamron will deliver more punch overall (higher contrast) but you'll be seeing the edge sharpness, or lack of it, for the first time. Give it a try. Some cheaper lenses really spring to life on full frame, because they were not designed to be used on a cropper.
 
david1701 said:
if we're talking tamron mine was a soft flarey monster on a 50d, not used one on ff but it generally makes lenses worse not better
Click to expand...

Better in the middle, worse at the edges. Depends on the balance overall.
 
aaaah didn't know that my biggest issue was the flat white contrast killing type of flair it was really susceptible to
 
I too am thinking about moving up from a 30D to a 5D Mk II. I've got a 70-200 f4 L that I know will fit but I don't think my other lenses will.

They are: Canon 17-55 f2.8, Tokina 12-24 and Sigma 105.

Given that I'm going to keep the 30D that's not too much of a problem but if you could pick one more lens for the 5D what would it be?
 
The Tokina will vignette at anything below 17mm and I kept hearing rumours about the shutter hitting the back of the lens etc, so I sold mine. Oh and I use a Tamron 28-75 on my 5d mk1 and it's great.
 
The Sigma 105mm will be ok as it's a DG lens. The Canon 17-55mm is EF-S and APS-C only.
 
FF replacement of the 17-55 would be the 24-105 for not much more cash.
 
24-105 is f4 isn't it?

If going full frame I think I'd go for a 24/28-70mm f2.8. Possibly the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 the forum has been talking about recently.

As I'm retiring in three weeks time (at the ripe old age of 49) I've been very tempted to treat myself to a retirement prezzie, but I have short arms and deep pockets so I do wish everyone would stop talking about new gear.
 
It is f/4, but DOF wise that's about equal to 2.8 on crap crop sensors and the much higher ISO allowance of FF makes up for it too.

Slow lenses actually seem to be getting more common and are becoming viable alternatives for their faster counterparts because of the capabilities of modern bodies.

70-200 f/2.8 -> 70-200 f/4
16-35 f/2.8 -> 17-40 f/4
28/24-70 f/2.8 -> 24-105 f/4

People only need the faster alternatives if they're an action shooter in low light or like me have bodies with p' poor ISO performance.

Congrats on retiring... I've got ages to go yet.
 
Bruja said:
I too am thinking about moving up from a 30D to a 5D Mk II. I've got a 70-200 f4 L that I know will fit but I don't think my other lenses will.

They are: Canon 17-55 f2.8, Tokina 12-24 and Sigma 105.

Given that I'm going to keep the 30D that's not too much of a problem but if you could pick one more lens for the 5D what would it be?
Click to expand...

Sigma will be fine. The lens you're missing is the 24-105L (or 24-70L). And a 17-40L. You'll be wanting a decent super-wide to make the most of the 5D2, and then all your lenses will fit both cameras. Sell the others.

Then sell the 30D because you'll never use it ;)

Edit: BTW Old Bacon Chops above makes a good point about f/numbers. Unless you really need them for shallow depth of field effects, they are becoming less useful with the high ISO you get with digital, particularly something like a 5D2, and of course IS. In DoF terms, the 24-105L delivers depth of field equivalent to f/2.5 on a cropper (f/number x crop factor).
 
what do you shoot?

I've got full frame and really miss the crop of my 1D's :(
 
trencheel303 said:
indeed but you do know that when you move full frame, that your fifty will only be a fraction narrower than the 28-75 would have been on your 30D at its widest setting dont you?

thats what i'm saying, your fifty can essentially become the wide end of your 28-75 and the 70-200 can cover the longer end. The cash you get for the 28-75 can help you out towards the camera or some memory cards etc.

On a full frame body a fifty becomes much less 'niche' because the focal length is designed from the ground up to be used on full frame. It's why its my only lens, when I moved full frame and saw the image through the VF I knew I wouldn't need anything else (not for a while anyway...). on a cropper it basically becomes an 80, which not everyone finds useful. Personally I didn't mind it either when I had a crop body, but it was much less useful than on a full frame camera.

These are things to consider.

if I misunderstood please say.
Click to expand...

I disagree, the 28-75mm should come into it's own with full frame, providing a useful range (wide to medium tele), and the 70-200mm is there if more length is required. 28-200mm without a gap should be great.

Its like suggesting everyone ditch their kit lenses and just get 35mm primes, for the majority of people thats not going to be very convenient.
 
dod said:
what do you shoot?

I've got full frame and really miss the crop of my 1D's :(
Click to expand...

I shoot Candids, street and abstracts/details generally (plus whatever the 52 throws up :D)

Bought the 105mm for Macro but macro doesn't really turn me on.

Use the wide angle very occasionally but mostly use the 17-55 and 70-200
 
Trencheel, Thank you, I've been a workaholic in the past so a life change is necessary.

I read a comment on Luminous Landscape that said the following about APS-C...

"This appears to be the sweet spot for balancing depth of field and light levels."

Although this comment is about motion picture capture this quite succinctly sums up what I've begun to think about APS-C still capture, I think that it can make sense as a choice in itself and not just either as a cheaper and inferior choice when compared to full frame or as a means of aiding bird or macro photography and cropping.

I still fancy a full frame camera though.

Here's the piece I read, the comment is in the "Sensors - how big is too big?" section.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/gh1.shtml
 
Blue Eagle said:
I disagree, the 28-75mm should come into it's own with full frame, providing a useful range (wide to medium tele), and the 70-200mm is there if more length is required. 28-200mm without a gap should be great.

Its like suggesting everyone ditch their kit lenses and just get 35mm primes, for the majority of people thats not going to be very convenient.
Click to expand...

You'll have to excuse me... perhaps I'm just blinkered... :)
 
woof woof said:
"This appears to be the sweet spot for balancing depth of field and light levels."

Although this comment is about motion picture capture this quite succinctly sums up what I've begun to think about APS-C still capture, I think that it can make sense as a choice in itself and not just either as a cheaper and inferior choice when compared to full frame or as a means of aiding bird or macro photography and cropping.
Click to expand...

Many people also think the same about 4/3rds. Personally after moving to full frame I'd be hard pushed to move back to a smaller format, but, it helps that I don't do long lens photography.. It's not even as if FF has to cost much either, if you're willing to sacrifice some megapickels and a review screen as good as your neighbours new plasma TV (seriously, it's getting ridiculous for something which should essentially be used as a histogram check and 2 second chimp), then you can pick up an FF body for less than a 7D. I think 5D classic goes for about £600 and from the limited bits of info I've researched on it, it will give even quite recent APS-C offerings a run for its money in the ISO department. When you weigh up these benefits, quality included, FF really doesn't seem that expensive at all.
 
Bruja said:
I shoot Candids, street and abstracts/details generally (plus whatever the 52 throws up :D)

Bought the 105mm for Macro but macro doesn't really turn me on.

Use the wide angle very occasionally but mostly use the 17-55 and 70-200
Click to expand...

Abstracts /details probably won't significantly benefit from full frame. Candids/street might but not necessarily.

Have you considered a 1D variant? The 1.3 crop might be the ideal compromise especially as you haven't mentioned a video requirement?
 
I know DOD but I want one :dummy: :D

And, probably for the last time in my life, I can afford one. (Honest guv :suspect:)

So I really need to know what lens will best complement the 70-200 f4
 
Bruja said:
I know DOD but I want one :dummy: :D

And, probably for the last time in my life, I can afford one. (Honest guv :suspect:)

So I really need to know what lens will best complement the 70-200 f4
Click to expand...

Jill, if it helps, there are three lenses known as the Holy Trinity. Most manufacturers have them and with Canon we are fortunate to have both an f/4 set and f/2.8, of the finest quality (and all weather-proofed).

17-40L 4
24-105L 4
70-200L 4 IS

and

16-35L 2.8
24-70L 2.8
70-200L 2.8 IS MkII

IMHO that's what you should look at getting, and only deviate from those choices for very good reason. Cost is the only reason I can think of! Then supplement that list with a macro, a couple of fast primes, super-tele or whatever according to your speciality :)
 
John.D said:
The Tokina will vignette at anything below 17mm and I kept hearing rumours about the shutter hitting the back of the lens etc, so I sold mine. Oh and I use a Tamron 28-75 on my 5d mk1 and it's great.
Click to expand...

Tokina does vignette under 17mm but that doesn't matter much. 17mm FF is WIDER than 12mm apsc. Under 17mm it can be cropped to 5x7 or 8x10 ratio and is still useful. The IQ is actually much higher than 17-40 at the wide end (read that canon!).

re: tamron. give it a go. If you don't like it you can then get canon. 70-200 should become the main portrait lens.
 
It's interesting that the 24-105mm gets mentioned so often. I wonder if considering CA, distortion and softness in the corners views would change if it didn't carry an L designation.

Admittedly I've only experienced one of these, but the owners comments and views seem to be the same as mine and I've read reviews which point out the same weaknesses so it doesn't look like that one was just a bad copy. It has a good zoom range though.
 
dod said:
Abstracts /details probably won't significantly benefit from full frame. Candids/street might but not necessarily.

Have you considered a 1D variant? The 1.3 crop might be the ideal compromise especially as you haven't mentioned a video requirement?
Click to expand...

Bruja said:
I know DOD but I want one :dummy: :D

And, probably for the last time in my life, I can afford one. (Honest guv :suspect:)

So I really need to know what lens will best complement the 70-200 f4
Click to expand...

For the shooting you do, I honestly believe that the 7D will cater for you, without the need to go FF. However, if you just love the image quality and tonal range that FF delivers, go and buy it anyway :lol:

Both the 24-105 and the 24-70 are excellent on a 5D. My mate has both and the IQ is ace.

Steve
 
woof woof said:
It's interesting that the 24-105mm gets mentioned so often. I wonder if considering CA, distortion and softness in the corners views would change if it didn't carry an L designation.

Admittedly I've only experienced one of these, but the owners comments and views seem to be the same as mine and I've read reviews which point out the same weaknesses so it doesn't look like that one was just a bad copy. It has a good zoom range though.
Click to expand...

It gets mentioned a lot because it's damn good, there's nothing better, and the range is unique. Apart from that... :thinking:

The 24-70L might edge it on IQ but I'm not sure about that and it's really a quite different animal.
 
:thinking: Well, apart from that there's the CA and distortion and softness in the corners which I noticed immediately and the owner and some reviewers confirm. Maybe the zoom range was a stretch too far? Maybe "better" involves a less sexy zoom range.

I mention this not to annoy fans of the lens but because I'm thinking about getting a full frame camera and will be looking for a standard zoom. I think I'd be tempted to keep my Siggy 12-24mm for the wide end and maybe go for a 24 or possibly 28-70mm f2.8 for less CA and distortion, but a little softness probably wont worry me too much.
 
HoppyUK said:
It gets mentioned a lot because it's damn good, there's nothing better, and the range is unique. Apart from that... :thinking:
Click to expand...

It is indeed a very fine lens; it's very difficult to fault it. I did find the CA and distortion at the wide end to be of a minor annoyance, even though it's easily fixed in software.

HoppyUK said:
The 24-70L might edge it on IQ but I'm not sure about that and it's really a quite different animal.
Click to expand...

That's why I've found myself moving over to this more and more, to the point where it doesn't leave my camera really.

But is has been said many times before - they are both excellent, and in the end it probably comes down to personal preference.

Though if you're on a FF body, slam on a 50mm f/1.4 and you'll find it difficult to use any other lens! ;)
 
gnom said:
Though if you're on a FF body, slam on a 50mm f/1.4 and you'll find it difficult to use any other lens! ;)
Click to expand...

Definitely. Although I just wish mine actually knew how to focus in anything but perfect light - I'm sick of this psuedo USM tosh :lol: ... Sigma 50mm upgrade imminent I think!

Woof woof, there are very few lenses which have really good edges on full frame, especially wide open. You have to remember that on APS-C cameras the crop sensor doesn't see to the edges of the frame. Most full frame lenses now are a ton better than they were 20 years ago; I've got a Haminex 80-200 that even on crop was absolutely ghastly in the corners. I'm pretty sure at one point full frame corners wide open were near enough black!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top