5DII with fast primes

The23rdman

The23rdman

Messages
13,582
Name
Dean
Edit My Images
No
Can any owners who use fast primes give me some idea how they get on with the limitations of the outer points on the 5DII, please?
 
never use the outer points, i focus then compose! Im not sure how many focus points apart from the center are cross type which are better for low light and sub 2.8 lenses iirc.
 
How can that ever be accurate at f1.4 to f2.8?
 
abdabs said:
Me too I only use centre point and recompose
Click to expand...

Single point focus gives you precise control of the area you want to focus. For me as I only do portraits it's always the eyes
 
I find the outer points to be ok.... And only ok.

When light and contrast is good they perform well, even at f1.4 and even at close distances, but I have noticed they have a tendancy to front focus sometimes, with some lenses more than others.

I did some testing with my 135L because I thought it was front focusing, turns out with the outer focus points it front focuses maybe 1 out of 5 times consistently. The centre point is spot on with only small variations (i did these tests with my camera tethered at 200%) after focusing to infinity and focusing to 50x focal length.

Some focus points seem to be a bit better than others. Most of my shots are taken with the outer points and I think they are fine, if you pixel peep and want 100% absolute sharpness everytime you may be disapointed.
 
If I'm in rubbish light (e.g. at night in a dimly lit room etc), then outer points (even at f/1.2) are less likely to get me good results compared to the centre unless I hedge my bets and take about 3 shots - hopefully one will be in perfect focus. The lacklustre outer point AF is rather overplayed in my opinion - they work just fine in 90% of situations. That doesn't meant they're bad - there just happens to be better options if you rely heavily on them. I usually just use the centre point in such situations, but do not recompose, especially at f/1.2! (unless I can attempt to shift myself parallel to the focal plane rather than swivel the camera).

In any other light I've never had a problem with the outer points (although I still typically use only the centre one anyway - just out of choice rather than necessity as I've lots of pixels to crop with to get a desired composition if needs be).

Compared to the D700 (I've also had), there's a rather nice quality to the images from the 5DII and the fast L primes. In fact, the reason I switched back over from my D700 was for the 85L (and 135L). AF is a bit better on the D700, and I do like the plethora of AF points. I prefer the Canon images though.
 
Yeah, i've foudn the outer points take a little more time to lock and search more but generally foudn them ok to use for modelling etc.

Anything remotely fast paced though would be a no go.
 
The23rdman said:
How can that ever be accurate at f1.4 to f2.8?
Click to expand...

neil_g said:
personally i wouldnt use recompose method for shooting at 1.4, the dof is too thin and recomposing opens you up to out of focus shots. it can be very hit and miss.
Click to expand...

I am normally shooting static (ish) subjects at those apertures and do find i miss some but i just dont take one shot i will take a few and usally nail most of them but yes agree there is a certain risk involved in my method.
 
interesting to read this post. I hired a 135 f2 the other week and was really disappointed with the focusing on some shots but reading this confirms my suspicions that it was the outer focusing points not quite nailing it
 
I have to agree with the others here, if you are shooting at 1.8 or even 2.8 and move the camera to recompose - you could be out on the focus.

On a portait shot using a 50mm on a cropped body, if you focus on the eye and then move the camera to the left or right, you be 4cm further away.

Best to use the other focus points when you are that wide.
 
33L said:
I am normally shooting static (ish) subjects at those apertures and do find i miss some but i just dont take one shot i will take a few and usally nail most of them but yes agree there is a certain risk involved in my method.
Click to expand...

I Agree with 23rdman, at 1.4 or 2.8, your depth of field could only be a couple of millimeters. It does take a fraction longer, but well worth the effort of finding the correct focusing point, and it comes down to how well you know your camera...
 
ahh wide primes maybe but i tend to use the 135 & 85mm, i know there is not a lot in it, tbh i normally shoto around f/2 to add a little sharpness and as you say on a 50mm 1.4 is a bit thin in terms of DOF.
 
At f2.8 on non-tele primes I tend to focus recompose. I have the focus on the back AF button, and exposure on the shutter half press, so the camera meters after I've recomposed, which helps to iron out a few inconsistencies in metering.

If I'm shooting wide open at, say, f1.4 I will always try and use the outer points first and chimp the results on the LCD. If they are hunting too much or being too slow I will revert back to centre point and try not to recompose, but shoot a little wider so I can crop to the desired composition later (if possible).

Better outer points is top of my wish list for improvements. It's not that they're bad, I'd just expect a bit better at this price point.
 
I use centre point to get somewhere near and tweak manually which is great with USM/HSM but if the lens doesn't have it I go manual.

I must admit to a bit of bafflement that people focus and recompose with wide apertures as there are occasions when you can't even do this at much smaller apertures. If you're only printing small, are happy with a small image or if your subject is small in the frame you will possibly get away with focus and recompose but when doing that you mustn't blame the lens, as so many people do :)
 
*sigh* It is much as I thought then. To get everything I want from a camera it will have to be either a 1DsIII or 1DIV.
 
The23rdman said:
*sigh* It is much as I thought then. To get everything I want from a camera it will have to be either a 1DsIII or 1DIV.
Click to expand...

I was rather impressed by the 7D when I handled a friends earlier this year. By all accounts it seems to have a superior AF implementation compared to the 5D, and is quite high res. 1.6 crop factor though of course.
 
The23rdman said:
*sigh* It is much as I thought then. To get everything I want from a camera it will have to be either a 1DsIII or 1DIV.
Click to expand...

Dean, you say your budget is around £3500 - why not find yourself a second hand 1Dmk4, or maybe an import (Kelso?), I'd have thought you'd have enough left over for a 50mm f1.4. Then with the proceeds from all the excellent images I know you will produce you can save up and get the other lenses you want. I know its not ideal, but I also remember a time when all you had to work with was a nifty fifty and that never stopped you from producing some of your best ever work.

I went through much the same process as you are doing now, when I decided to upgrade. I went back and forth trying to justify each body/lens combo and kept coming back to the 1Dmk4. The whole point in the end was that I should get the very best I could and not compromise on the quality of kit. I always thought I'd be happy with a 5Dmk2 (x 2) but when I looked closer at the specs I realised it would not cut the mustard. The 7D is also a cracking camera for the price but it is not a cheaper alternative to a 1D body (in my opinion).

Honestly, I feel a top of the line body and lens combo is all that will satisfy your needs. Top line glass is a must I know, but on a body that won't measure up I feel you won't be happy. Get the body you want, a decent starter lens with the option of better glass later on as money permits.

Plus of course, if you get one we'll have a matching pair :D
 
So what is the best more accurate way to focus for example kids who are always on the move. With still objects you obviously can take your time even use manual focus.
I was taught always to use centre point and recompose no matter the aperture and all the lit I've read have never mentioned not to use single point and recompose if it's wide aperture.
I'm now confused
 
Ste Manns said:
Dean, you say your budget is around £3500 - why not find yourself a second hand 1Dmk4, or maybe an import (Kelso?), I'd have thought you'd have enough left over for a 50mm f1.4. Then with the proceeds from all the excellent images I know you will produce you can save up and get the other lenses you want. I know its not ideal, but I also remember a time when all you had to work with was a nifty fifty and that never stopped you from producing some of your best ever work.

I went through much the same process as you are doing now, when I decided to upgrade. I went back and forth trying to justify each body/lens combo and kept coming back to the 1Dmk4. The whole point in the end was that I should get the very best I could and not compromise on the quality of kit. I always thought I'd be happy with a 5Dmk2 (x 2) but when I looked closer at the specs I realised it would not cut the mustard. The 7D is also a cracking camera for the price but it is not a cheaper alternative to a 1D body (in my opinion).

Honestly, I feel a top of the line body and lens combo is all that will satisfy your needs. Top line glass is a must I know, but on a body that won't measure up I feel you won't be happy. Get the body you want, a decent starter lens with the option of better glass later on as money permits.

Plus of course, if you get one we'll have a matching pair :D
Click to expand...

Bro, there are no second-hand 1DmkIV's around. I have found a 1DsIII though for a decent price... I'm not sure I can do the work I need to do any more with a 50mm -need something wider and longer too.
 
The23rdman said:
Bro, there are no second-hand 1DmkIV's around. I have found a 1DsIII though for a decent price... I'm not sure I can do the work I need to do any more with a 50mm -need something wider and longer too.
Click to expand...

I know what you're saying but I have faith in you!

Have you asked Kerso what his mk4 price is? (if you do, don't tell me, please :gag:)

Could you stretch to a siggy/tamron 24-70 f2.8 with a 1D body? As far as I can tell reading and watching reviews, sharpness is good with both but the AF is a bit slow compared to an L. Just a thought.
 
I'm getting a D700 and waiting till the 5DIII or D800 comes out.



Probably.
 
Thanks for that. I can always get another should I wish.

I'm still not impressed with Nikon lenses though and the prime range is poor.
 
Scott, the 1DIV is the equal of the D700 in ISO and superior in any other aspect except functionality. I did a side by side test with Ste Manns' camera.

I've had problems with 35mm f2, 50mm f1.4D and 1.4G, 35-70 f2.8, 28-70 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8.

I'm also not over the moon about the resolution. I like to crop most of my images unless head shots and often have to upsize for prints and canvases and find 12mp doesn't give enough detail.
 
from what ive seen the d700 is a little better at higher iso and it hold colours better at high iso, thats a lot of lenses i love my 28-70mm 2.8 and the 70-200mm i had and my 50mm 1.8. as for resolution i have had any probs with printing regular at 30x20 and if need bigger is no probs. i have cropped bird pics and printed 18x12 with lots of detail.
i wish you luck in witch ever you go with mate, i went sony once lasted a week.
 
Weirdly, to my eyes the D700 beat the 1Dmk4 on the jpeg screen previews, but once you look at the raws its about equal, with maybe the 1Dmk4 in front slightly. I haven't changed any of the defaults yet though, don't know what you had the D700 set up for on previews Dean?
 
Ste Manns said:
Weirdly, to my eyes the D700 beat the 1Dmk4 on the jpeg screen previews, but once you look at the raws its about equal, with maybe the 1Dmk4 in front slightly. I haven't changed any of the defaults yet though, don't know what you had the D700 set up for on previews Dean?
Click to expand...


How can you judge anything on jpeg screen previews?

I have seen 8mb cameras produce A1 size prints in fantastic detail.

The Nikon D700 and up can produce stunning results at those sizes and higher - so can the Canon range. Do you think wedding and high end portrait togs could get away without being confident in their equipment. Most use the d700/d3 or a 5d I & II or a 1ds model.

They would not be able to sell their prints if they did not look great.

I think you are too picky Dean and want perfection at cost not affordable to your type of shot.

Be realistic is all I am trying to tell you.
 
I'm too tired or lazy to plough through every word of this thread thus far but I use fast manual focus primes on my 5DII including a 55mm f/1.2 (yes f/1.2 not f/2.0) and now use manual mode and live view for exact focussing. Zoomed up to 10x mag is fairly effective and my oof rate with mf lenses has diminished to a small small minority.
 
tikkathreebarrel said:
I'm too tired or lazy to plough through every word of this thread thus far but I use fast manual focus primes on my 5DII including a 55mm f/1.2 (yes f/1.2 not f/2.0) and now use manual mode and live view for exact focussing. Zoomed up to 10x mag is fairly effective and my oof rate with mf lenses has diminished to a small small minority.
Click to expand...


Can you do all that when shooting wriggling kids?

You must be an ace shot.
 
tiler65 said:
How can you judge anything on jpeg screen previews? you can't, but you can in Lightroom. ;)

I have seen 8mb cameras produce A1 size prints in fantastic detail.

The Nikon D700 and up can produce stunning results at those sizes and higher - so can the Canon range. Do you think wedding and high end portrait togs could get away without being confident in their equipment. Most use the d700/d3 or a 5d I & II or a 1ds model.

They would not be able to sell their prints if they did not look great.

I think you are too picky Dean and want perfection at cost not affordable to your type of shot.

Be realistic is all I am trying to tell you.
Click to expand...

I take you opinion, Tom, but I disagree. I've extensively tested with various extrapolation tools and I'm simply not prepared to compromise on upsizing quality. If you think an A1 from 8mb is good enough then that's fine, but as far as I'm concerned if I'm charging a premium price for a print of that size it should be as good as possible. I don't think the upsized prints I've been getting are.

12mp is fine for most wedding photographers because they don't generally go above 12x8 or 18x12 at a push. Once you've cropped and it's down to 8mp you're compromising absolute quality.

I don't want perfection, I want the best IQ possible so I can trust my tools. If you think that's unrealistic, fine. You do business your way, I'll do it mine. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top