cmedin
Well-known
I shoot primes mostly (can't get away from my Leica roots) I currently have a 35/2 and an 85/1.8 which can handle just about everything I come across. I could exchange them for equivalent FL's for APC but I do lose the F2 with the 35 because NO ONE MAKES A &%&#(ing FAST 35 EQUIV. PRIME FOR APC DSLR!!! (sorry pet peeve).
While not cheap, Canon has a 24/1.8 that is not far from what you want.
As far as L glass goes, some people think they are sprinkled with magic fairy dust and that nothing else is good enough. Right. Canon's 85/1.8 is spectacular and cheap, the 50/1.4 is very good (just don't let it rest on its front ring or the AF motor might poop out!), and the 35/2, 24/2.8, 15 fisheye etc are very nice lenses too. I own a 1Ds II and a 50D (and some L glass, in fact), and have noticed that for most all of my shooting, the 50D places a much higher demand on the glass. You keep hearing about the APS-C "sweet spot" blah blah yada yada but frankly it's a pile of BS with today's high resolution sensors. They demand VERY good glass, period. What I am saying is that if you go FF rather than APS-C, your camera will likely perform far better with lenses that aren't absolute top of the line. My 1Ds II cranks out very nice results even with older and cheaper glass that the 50D just turns into mush because of its far higher pixel density.
As for cameras, the 5D is always a nice choice as long as you don't plan to shoot much action stuff and can live with a body that isn't particularly well sealed to the elements or can handle a lot of abuse. If you want something tougher with excellent AF a 1Ds or 1Ds II is worth a look; the former is definitely an older digital body with a serious lack of amenities, but performs excellent even today from a pure image quality standpoint. The latter is STILL (5 years after its introduction) a wonderful picture making machine that holds its own with the best of them.
The odd and quirky FF option would be a Kodak SLR/c, but make sure you REALLY know what you're getting into before getting one. It can produce outstanding images (14mp and no AA filter) but is not the most user friendly beast on the market, nor is high ISO anything worth writing home about. Cheap, though!
jmooney
Guy with a camera
Not a bad combo but there are two things there that won't cut it for me.
1. I need AF, it's easier to capture the kiddies with it but I have arthritis issues with my hands and manual focusing can be a problem sometimes.
2. 34/1.4 would give me an effective FL of 50 and I'm in the 35-is-my-normal camp. Lord knows I've tried to use a 50 but me with a 50 = square peg in round hole.
It's funny I always though something was wrong with me because a 50 never felt right till I got into RF's and learned that a 35 is a normal for some and I tried it and it was like a revaluation. Even funnier is that I ran one of those tools on my folder of images that graphs the FL's you use and out of 18,000 or so digital images shot with cameras that had zooms on them, 70% of them were shot at the 35mm FL. 15% were shot at 85mm, 5% at wide angles (24-28) and the rest were sports and wildlife shot at 200-300mm.
Jim
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
I would not hesitate to buy a FF camera. Be that Nikon, Canon, or Leica (if I could afford it). I want to use my lenses as they were intended.
Mudman
Well-known
24 f1.4 for the win... if you don't mind selling a kidney
jmooney
Guy with a camera
24 f1.4 for the win... if you don't mind selling a kidney
Yea no kidding, it'd solve the problem and I'm sure my 24/1.4 and I will enjoy living in my van down by the river when my wife kicks us both out....
user237428934
User deletion pending
You don't need L-lenses to benefit from the 5D. It sounds like all other lenses would bring down performance of a canon full frame. I have the 24/2.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8. All of bring a lot more detail on the 5d and even on the 5dII than on the 40D I had before.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Well there is a Sigma 30/f1.4, which gives you a 45 on the Nikon and may be too long; or there is a Nikon 28/f1.4 which is unaffordable and may be too long as well; or you get a used 24/f2 for $180 which is manual focus; or you get a 24/f2.8 for $350 which is autofocus, admittedly not really fast, but on a Nikon body you can let your camera's high ISO capability take care of the rest; or there is the new 24/f1.4 which is 36mm equivalent, excellent, and looks like it might be exactly the lens you're looking for except that it costs $2000, but hey, that's the price for a fast prime that is pretty much the best in its class.
But you can't really say there are no options!
aizan
Veteran
since you prefer to use prime lenses, i recommend full frame and the pentax k7, which is the only manufacturer that has a full line of prime lenses for aps-c. the lenses are one stop slower than traditional specs, but the high iso performance and image stabilization more than make up for it.
jmooney
Guy with a camera
Well there is a Sigma 30/f1.4, which gives you a 45 on the Nikon and may be too long; or there is a Nikon 28/f1.4 which is unaffordable and may be too long as well; or you get a used 24/f2 for $180 which is manual focus; or you get a 24/f2.8 for $350 which is autofocus, admittedly not really fast, but on a Nikon body you can let your camera's high ISO capability take care of the rest; or there is the new 24/f1.4 which is 36mm equivalent, excellent, and looks like it might be exactly the lens you're looking for except that it costs $2000, but hey, that's the price for a fast prime that is pretty much the best in its class.
But you can't really say there are no options!
LOL....ok how about options for mere mortals then
The Sigma is supposed to be nice but I've got that brand only hang up....
P
Peter S
Guest
Realize you do not like manual focus, but Leica R lenses with an adapter are a stunning combination with a 5D. If you really like 35mm fov, then you should maybe shell out for the Canon 35 1.4, some say the best L lens out there.
Last edited by a moderator:
jmooney
Guy with a camera
The 35L is on my list for sure.
I know about the R lenses and I keep telling myself they don't exist
I've danced with Lady Leica before and she's a ruthless mistress
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
That would be my guess for Canon gear as it applies to the old manual focus lenses I use on the D700. If you were happy with the performance of your EF glass with film or cropped sensor, My guess is that they will do fine on FF Canon too. That is your cheapest route into FF digital, by using the the glass you have. You can always donate a kidney to get L glass later if you really need it. Just make sure that Canon is the system you wish to be married too as it is costly to change systems.
Bob
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I made them on an HP Z3100 using Qimage - my standard process. Don't et me wrong, the 1Ds3 print would be considered fine in most every circumstance, but side by side the Mamiya print was nicer. No doubt I'll repeat the exercise sometime - it's always possible to get things wrong, but there was nothing obviously wrong with the canon file at 100% (unlike Michael Reichmann's 1Ds3 vs D3x vs M9 test files...)
The key issue was the ability to scan Ektar at 4000dpi and then to be able to apply enough sharpening to clean up the detail without making the (very minimal) grain obvious. The print files were at about 160dpi for the Canon and 400dpi for the film before upressing to 600dpi and print sharpening through Qimage.
FWIW, I've done 33 by 22 canon prints and shown them to colleagues who have been completely stunned by what they contain. I'm also not suggesting that even 'magical' ektar delivers as much information per pixel as a 1Ds3, but the was a visible gap on that image...
Mike
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Yes, the 5D has an AA filter, albeit one that is apparently less 'aggresive' than some others. I've had mild moire on brides veils at times. In terms of comaprison with the M8, I think the overall conclusion would be that they're close to equal at low iso and the 5D is much better at high iso.
Agreed, the 5D would not make a useful IR camera unless you remove the IR filter. There again, you don't get funny blacks... and you do get AF
Mike
PatrickT
New Rangefinder User
Get the 5D. It is an AMAZING camera....
No frills, exceptional image quality and not too bulky. I personally use mine with old Zuiko glass and it is phenominal. For the proces they're going for now (~$1k) it's a steal.
I am primarily a digital shooter with my main camera the 5D. I stepped up to that from a Canon Rebel XT and there is really no comparison. The 5D produces gorgeous files!
Any other info you need, ask. I've been using mine (which I got used a year ago for $1k) almost every day.
No frills, exceptional image quality and not too bulky. I personally use mine with old Zuiko glass and it is phenominal. For the proces they're going for now (~$1k) it's a steal.
I am primarily a digital shooter with my main camera the 5D. I stepped up to that from a Canon Rebel XT and there is really no comparison. The 5D produces gorgeous files!
Any other info you need, ask. I've been using mine (which I got used a year ago for $1k) almost every day.
Matus
Well-known
There is one more advantage to full frame that gets sometimes overlooked until it is to late - the viewfinder. The one on APS-C cameras is just way too small - little chance to get reliable results focusing manually fast longer lenses without a focusing (split) screen.
I had my Minolta 7D (still a decently sized viewfinder for an APS-C camera) side by side with the 5D MkII. No contest. The 5D viewfinder was nearly as good as the one on the Minolta 7 (35mm film) ...
I had my Minolta 7D (still a decently sized viewfinder for an APS-C camera) side by side with the 5D MkII. No contest. The 5D viewfinder was nearly as good as the one on the Minolta 7 (35mm film) ...
Fujitsu
Well-known
Although I was one of the first owners of a 5D and later a D700 let me tell you, "full frame" was fun as a gimmick but it hardly made my photos better.
We photographers tend to look at an image with focus on technical aspects. The major audience does not. They dont know what a "35mm on full frame" means, they wont even give you a mention for achieving super shallow depth of field. The image is striking or not because of subject, color, composition, moment in time. Being full frame or not is something, only photographers and nerds care about.
That said, if you´re used to think and work in certain formats, you may have to relearn for others. But the difference between APS-C and classic 35mm is not that big. With Micro Four Thirds it was harder for me, "rethinking" a 35mm lens as a 70.
Fujitsu
Well-known
True. The future though is "liveview" on any camera. Kids these days dont even know how to handle a viewfinder anymore...
I have spent the last weeks with a Panasonic GF1 and now the Sony NEX. You can get used to focusing on a screen. I find it almost awkward looking through a classic finder again.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I forgot the viewfinder too. I really haven't liked the APS-C cameras I've tried for that reason alone.
I agree that many of the image quality differences are overhyped, but sometimes they will matter. I was once asked to include a few guests pictures in an wedding album and whatever I did I couldn't get them looking like the 5D/1Ds3 images. On the other hand, I suspect the client never noticed...
At present I find myself interested in the EP2, but until I've tried one for a sensible time with the viewfinder and a couple of lens variations I won't commit.
Mike
gdi
Veteran
Again regarding resolution...
I performed tests of the Mamiya 7ii with 65mm against both a 5D with L lenses ( and Contax Zeiss lenses) and an M8. I scanned on a Nikon and there was no comparison - the digitals were far behind the 6x7. But you can get by with smaller prints, f you don't compare side by side.