Canon 5D mk II official owners/users thread, anything related to the 5D2

Okay, so this is probably a daft question, but given the 5DmkII's amazing quality at high ISO's, do we really need to pay out for fast (ie f2.8) zoom lenses? If I can get a good enough shutter speed to hand hold using the 24-105mm lens (@ f 4) with a high ISO and still get good quality, why pay out more? I know the depth of field will be different....but not that much, surely? Or am I being thick???
 
Okay, so this is probably a daft question, but given the 5DmkII's amazing quality at high ISO's, do we really need to pay out for fast (ie f2.8) zoom lenses? If I can get a good enough shutter speed to hand hold using the 24-105mm lens (@ f 4) with a high ISO and still get good quality, why pay out more? I know the depth of field will be different....but not that much, surely? Or am I being thick???

I think you're dead right. The high ISO capability of some new cameras is quite extraordinary. With my new 5D2 I have 17-40 4, 24-105 4 and 70-200 4 and I prefer them to the f/2.8 versions - they as sharp or sharper, much lighter, and much cheaper.

Low f/numbers are great for shallow DoF like you can't get any other way, but just for low light, give me higher ISO and IS any day. Shallow DoF is a pain in the bum most of the time. And carting around those great big lenses is also a pain when you only use them wide open once in a while.

And f/2.8 is only one stop more than f/4 - a difference, but not huge. If you want low light/shallow DoF, one of the many wonderful f/1.4 primes is a much better answer IMHO. That's three stops more - now you're talking :)
 
Okay, so this is probably a daft question, but given the 5DmkII's amazing quality at high ISO's, do we really need to pay out for fast (ie f2.8) zoom lenses? If I can get a good enough shutter speed to hand hold using the 24-105mm lens (@ f 4) with a high ISO and still get good quality, why pay out more? I know the depth of field will be different....but not that much, surely? Or am I being thick???

Totally agree! (y)
 
Okay, so this is probably a daft question, but given the 5DmkII's amazing quality at high ISO's, do we really need to pay out for fast (ie f2.8) zoom lenses? If I can get a good enough shutter speed to hand hold using the 24-105mm lens (@ f 4) with a high ISO and still get good quality, why pay out more? I know the depth of field will be different....but not that much, surely? Or am I being thick???

Have a read here for what canon say.


•f2.8 allows autofocus in lower light than f4 lens. Since all AF is done with the lens wide open, this is true no matter what shooting aperture is set to.

•f2.8 lenses may autofocus faster and more positively in low light than f4 lenses.

•f2.8 allows higher focus precision. Many EOS bodies have a high precision AF sensor which operates only with lenses having an aperture of f2.8 (or faster). The high precision sensors give AF precision of within 1/3 the depth of field. Normal precision sensors give AF precision of within the depth of field. To give an example, a 200m lens focused at a distance of 10ft with a high precision AF sensor at f2.8 should give a focus accuracy of +/- 0.4cm. With an f4 lens and a normal precision sensor, focus accuracy will be +/- 1.65cm

•f2.8 permits AF when a 2x TC is added, but and f4 lens does not. This applies to most EOS bodies (Digital Rebels, EOS 20D/30D/40D, EOS 5). Pro level EOS-1 series bodies (and the EOS-3) can AF at f8 and so will give AF with an f4 lens + a 2x TC.
 
Okay, so this is probably a daft question, but given the 5DmkII's amazing quality at high ISO's, do we really need to pay out for fast (ie f2.8) zoom lenses? If I can get a good enough shutter speed to hand hold using the 24-105mm lens (@ f 4) with a high ISO and still get good quality, why pay out more? I know the depth of field will be different....but not that much, surely? Or am I being thick???

depth of field and AF are what you miss, also when it gets real dark you will suffer. My 5dII has extended the point where I need to put my camera away to get stuff like crowd shots, upgrading my 70-200/2.8 to the IS one would extend that time further
 
This camera is just brilliant! What an improvement over my old 450d in every single area! Focusing, handling, colour reproduction, SHARPNESS (jpgs from the 5dii look better than processed RAWs from the 450d!), everything!

Well chuffed to say the least.
 
Hi all
I originally upgraded from the 40d to the 7d, superb camera but after a few days I became very dissapointed with the results from the 7d compared to the 40d. The images had a strange noise texture at low iso, a grainy subtle noise but it was there.
The pics also looked a tad softer than the 40d when peeping but that is being critical. The new ifcl system also seemed easily fooled with many over exposed shot taken.
Anyway it went back and I swapped it for a 5d mkII. What a relief , the image quality
difference was quite apparant straight away. Technically the 7d was the better camera but it's all about the image quality in my opinion so I soon forgave Canon for the lack of bells n whistles.
 
Hi all
I originally upgraded from the 40d to the 7d, superb camera but after a few days I became very dissapointed with the results from the 7d compared to the 40d. The images had a strange noise texture at low iso, a grainy subtle noise but it was there.
The pics also looked a tad softer than the 40d when peeping but that is being critical. The new ifcl system also seemed easily fooled with many over exposed shot taken.
Anyway it went back and I swapped it for a 5d mkII. What a relief , the image quality
difference was quite apparant straight away. Technically the 7d was the better camera but it's all about the image quality in my opinion so I soon forgave Canon for the lack of bells n whistles.

Same reason I'm getting shot of the 50D, very unhappy with it and have been from it's first outing, one of those mistakes in which I rushed my upgrade choice & should have got the 5Dmk2 straight away!
 
I do feel that the 5D2 is a great sensor in a 2nd rate body. It costs more than the 7D and there is no way the sensor cost alone makes the difference. Basically Canon are charging a whacking premium for FF.

Having said that I am determined to keep hold of my 40D until a 5D3 comes out which I am sure will feature FF and the AF/tricks of the 7D.
 
I do feel that the 5D2 is a great sensor in a 2nd rate body. It costs more than the 7D and there is no way the sensor cost alone makes the difference. Basically Canon are charging a whacking premium for FF.

Having said that I am determined to keep hold of my 40D until a 5D3 comes out which I am sure will feature FF and the AF/tricks of the 7D.

I doubt it. I waited 2.5 years for that upgrade.
 
Been looking at the WA/UWA lens options for the 5D2, 16-35 mII seems way too expensive, the other option is the 17-40, but I've found a few comparisons of this with the Sigma 12-24 and although some say it's a bit soft at the edges (no surprise there), I prefer the shots I've seen with the Sigma. Even though the Canon edges it in the sharpness dept. the colours look wonderful on the Sigma and the CA is next to nothing.

Anybody used or own a Sigma 12-24 with the 5D2?
 
Last edited:
Ordered a 24-70L 2.8 today to compliment my new 5dmarkii body! Can't wait for it to arrive. I just couldn't be bothered to hang on for a possible IS version.
 
And the MKIII will be list price for it's first few months in any case.

You just have to fit into Canon's way of thinking and upgrade when they ease the list price a little.

The 24-70 is THE lens for this camera in my opinion. Add a couple of longer primes (135L an 200L plus 1.4x) and you have the basis of a great system. Well I have those lenses, but would like the 85L too.

I did give the 17-40L a go, but found it uncomfortably wide. The distortion was just too much. I guess that's the price of ultra wide angle. Clearly it depends on the type of subject matter you like to shoot. Mine is people, so distortion is not something that is welcome.

Graham
 
........... I am determined to keep hold of my 40D until a 5D3 comes out which I am sure will feature FF and the AF/tricks of the 7D.

I agree. I really would like to have a 5DmkII now, (and Kerso is currently doing a good price)...but I risk a divorce if I go ahead, :eek: so I too will wait for the 5D mkIII. I think another 18 months should see it here.
 
I did give the 17-40L a go, but found it uncomfortably wide. The distortion was just too much. I guess that's the price of ultra wide angle.

My thoughts exactly.. I picked up the 17-40mm last year for our holiday. There's no doubt you can get some spectacular wide-angle effects with it, but it doesn't give a "normal" look like a more moderate wide-angle focal length would, say 24mm. Anything near the corners is stretched and distorted, and don't go pixel-peeping around the edges and especially the corners, you'll be disappointed at the softness. But it's only to be expected, this sort of focal length in a zoom is pushing lens design to its limit.

On a recent city break, I took the 17-40mm but never used it - I preferred to stick with my 24-70mm, which was plenty wide enough for me, and as others have mentioned is a lovely lens to use with the 5D2.

The Sigma 12-24mm is a good lens, providing you can find a good copy. Lots of reviews mention copies that are soft one on side.. I suspect that if you return a lens for not being sharp enough, it gets put back on the shelf rather than returned to Sigma. Bear in mind that unlike the 17-40mm, the Sigma's front element is bulbous and prevents the use of filters.

A.
 
Last edited:
Just installed a GGS screen protector on the back screen to keep it pristine. Anyone know if there's something similar for the small LCD screen on the top?
 
I'll stick my neck out here as I don't think the 5d iii will come with a much improved af unless we see a big jump in AF of the new 1ds when it comes out. Canon will gaurd sales of it's top of the range FF by always curbing 5d features.
 
I'll stick my neck out here as I don't think the 5d iii will come with a much improved af unless we see a big jump in AF of the new 1ds when it comes out. Canon will gaurd sales of it's top of the range FF by always curbing 5d features.

1Ds4 will get the AF from the new 1D4, which is already a step ahead of the 7D, so it fits Canon's master plan :)

I think the 5D3 will also get a pop-up master flash.
 
Having had my 5DII for 5 months, I'm not totally sure why everyone calls it primitive. True, I went from a 450D that I'd had a year, but even so...

What is it i'm missing that the 7D is so much better at? I tend to shoot mostly landscapes if that's any help...
 
What is it i'm missing that the 7D is so much better at? I tend to shoot mostly landscapes if that's any help...

For what you do, nothing. The 7D has a better autofocus system and faster frame rate, which is better for sports and such like. For what you shoot the 7D will not be able to get anywhere near. It used to have an advantage of 24p when shooting video, but the 5D2 firmware has now sorted that.
 
What is it i'm missing that the 7D is so much better at? I tend to shoot mostly landscapes if that's any help...

I think this explains why, the AF, the FPS of the 7D are not exactly going to be that important for those tricky fast moving landscapes !

The conclusion seems to be:

landscapes, studio = 5D
action, wildlife, sports = 7D

To be fair I would love either, but a 7D body with a 5D sensor would be a legend !
 
It used to have an advantage of 24p when shooting video, but the 5D2 firmware has now sorted that.

Think the 24 frames/sec firmware update is still to come. 30fps only for now.
 
1Ds4 will get the AF from the new 1D4, which is already a step ahead of the 7D, so it fits Canon's master plan :)

I think the 5D3 will also get a pop-up master flash.

I kinda like the small housing where theres no pop up, means my tripod collar can spin 360 degrees n it can;t on a 7d(70-200L)
 
Thanks :)

dated yesterday so I was only just wrong lol

edit. looking at that link it is a 'pre announce' not actually available yet so i was right :)

I had read it was coming.
More audio control looks good too.
 
Last edited:
I'd have been more excited about some firmware changes to the stills side, the auto iso feature is useless in anything other than full auto.

I want to be able to set an iso range and have the camera adjust the iso to match my shutter and ap as much as possible during manual shooting. :)
 
I've shot more video than stills since I got mine. Bought Sony Vegas for editing. More stuff to learn. Think I'm getting better at it. 24 frames and audo level meters sounds good to me :)

Not been on any outings to make proper use of the stills side yet.
 
Looking forward to the 24fps but you're right, a decent Auto ISO would have been the icing on the cake.
 
In manual for some reason, 'auto ISO' sticks at 400, and can only be budged by setting it manually. Pity, as it actually being auto in manual would enable the user to set aperture and shutter speed for DoF and freezing the action in a BIF shot for instance, and the camera picks the ISO to match...

Metering seems generally OK, and it's very easy to compensate either way with the thumb dial and re-take if it's out
 
In manual for some reason, 'auto ISO' sticks at 400, and can only be budged by setting it manually. Pity, as it actually being auto in manual would enable the user to set aperture and shutter speed for DoF and freezing the action in a BIF shot for instance, and the camera picks the ISO to match..

Agreed.. it's a pity Canon haven't picked up on this and included it in a firmware update. It's not as if it would be particularly difficult to implement..

Maybe in the next firmware version?! :wave:

A.
 
That seems a pain, does it work on shutter priority?

Yes, and A/P as well.

Auto ISO isn't actually that bad, certainly not unusable - it just defaults to the lowest shutter speed the camera thinks you can get away with handheld, i.e. 1 over the focal length, and doesn't take IS lenses into account.

That might be OK at longer focal lengths, but I wouldn't want to risk camera shake shooting at 1/25 sec with a 24mm lens..

A.
 
Last edited:
And if you stick a flash on the default is 400, now that's not so bad given it's noise handling ability, but being able to select the ISO would be nice.
 
Mine seems to do some weird things with my Nissin flash (could be the flash mind)

Set to P, everything hunky dory, ISO can be changed, but not aperture etc like usual

Set to AV, dial on narrow aperture, horrendous under-expose, yet flash barely fires i.e. can be corrected when used in manual rather than TTL - surely this is precisely what TTL is for?

Only answer I found was to set shutter to 60, aperture to choice, then trial and error with flash compensation (or use flash in manual)
 
Back
Top