New Camera of New Lens??? - DPChallenge Forums

11/17/2010 02:10:35 PM · #1

I have been saving up my money for quite some time, and I am ready for a new purchase. I want to get as much bang for my photography as possible. So what would you get? I am looking at either purchasing the new Canon 5D Mark II, or the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM. Should I get the new camera, or stick with the old 5D....or should I get the lens. Thoughts.....

11/17/2010 02:16:15 PM · #2

I would normally said "get the lens". But due to the high ISO capability, you will probably get more use out of the new camera. I've had both and would say it's night and day. There is SO much you can do with 1250 ISO and no noise. Of course WITH the 1.2 lens you mentioned, you'll have a killer combo! ;)

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM for Nikon

11/17/2010 02:25:21 PM · #3

I would love to get both...but I can't afford it. So gotta pick one or the other.

Title is suppose to say: New Camera or New Lens.....oops

bohemka

Nikon D700

11/17/2010 02:26:13 PM · #4

I also would normally say get the lens. But since you've already got the 100mm 2.8, which is similar focal length and in my opinion quite fast already, I don't know how often you'd feel the need to switch lenses. I agree with Trollman. You should just get both.

Edit: Just get both is obviously a joke. had the decision been between the camera and a super wide angle or something you don't have anything like, again, back to recommending the lens. As it is it's a stalemate. That said, he seems to think you'd get a lot out of a camera he's used and I haven't so, listen to the experienced one.

Message edited by author 2010-11-17 14:27:56.

JamesA

Nikon D800

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G

11/17/2010 02:28:26 PM · #5

Originally posted by njsabs:

Same decision for me, only I currently have a 40D. I planned on getting the 85 1.2 but I dont think my sensor would do it justice.
I've decided to wait a little longer and get maybe a 5D Markiii

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

11/17/2010 02:29:43 PM · #6

I think either one would be a good choice. I'd go for the camera and maybe the 85mm 1.8.

The 85mm 1.8 is a great lens. Better than the 1.2L? no, but the $1600 price difference isn't getting you $1600 more lens.

The 5DmkII might just get you over the hump and into the ribbon winning level that so seems to eleude you. ;-)

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

11/17/2010 02:30:08 PM · #7

Consider that (other than bokeh) the low-light capibilities of the 85 1.2 on your 5D, and your current 100 f/2.8 on the mkII - should be about equivalent.. Speaking from expereince, the 5D leaves much to be desired, and the mkII delivers on almost every feature you can want (other than filesize, jeebus!)..

If it were me, the 5D mkII would be my purchase...

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

11/17/2010 02:43:14 PM · #8

Actually my 100 f2.8 has a beautiful large crack in the glass right down the center. I probably should take that lens off my list......I have not used it since.....gave me a stomach ache when I dropped it down cement stairs about a year ago. UGH

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

11/17/2010 02:48:02 PM · #9

Originally posted by njsabs:

I think that should be repairable... :) (hope)

Just out of curiosity, have you ever used a 200mm f/2.8L? You can get them pretty cheap, and they're one hell of a lens, it's surprising how few of them you see around considering the quality.. Although that does pretty much replicate the 70-200 you already have...

Dunno, if you're out on the 100, then I might consider the lens, but I'm with scarbrd, the 1.8 (other than some CA) is a damn nice lens at a superb price (~$350)... And the mkII is a killer body..

Message edited by author 2010-11-17 14:49:14.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

11/17/2010 03:13:45 PM · #10

Originally posted by coryboehne:

...Speaking from expereince, the 5D leaves much to be desired...

Huh???
OK, if you want/need video, well, it's not there. But seriously, the 5D produces beautiful files; there's very little not to like.
I'm personally in a similar situation to the OP, and I will not, at this point, upgrade to the 5DII. Why? The next iteration is due in a year or less.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

11/17/2010 04:02:23 PM · #11

you can get $900 for your 5D ... almost enough for a new 100/2.8L ... you won't get the shallow dof of the 85L, but you'll get "L" quality and almost the same focal range.

buy the camera

sell the old body

buy the 100L

... my opinion :)

(for the record, I agree with David regarding the 85/1.8 over the 85L)

spiritualspatula

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/17/2010 04:14:35 PM · #12

Originally posted by kirbic:

Why? The next iteration is due in a year or less.

Isn't that true of all Canon bodies? ;)

Really though, my own gut feeling is that I'd wonder how much you'd really use the 1.2 side of things. Do you shoot wide open that often? Do you really need to decrease your DoF? To me, your photography style doesn't necessarily ask for such narrow depth of field, so dropping the additional $1600 on the 1.2 may just be rather pointless.

pitrpan

Leica M8

Leica 35mm f/2.0 Summicron V4

11/17/2010 04:49:49 PM · #13

1.2?
Really?
How many times have you shot at 1.4 (or even 1.8) and thought to yourself.....
"gee I wish this lens had less dof"....
Is it really worth it for the kind of photography you do?

Message edited by author 2010-11-17 16:50:23.

11/17/2010 04:54:14 PM · #14

A 1.2 lens is not only good for shooting it at 1.2 :)

The point is that it is a faster lens at any aperture and thus more versatile under various conditions. You may for instance want to freeze the action at f8 and not able to do it with the 1.8 while you can with a 1.2. I'm not saying it is worth the additional big bucks though. But the 'wide open' argument for a faster lens is not relevant.

11/17/2010 05:02:02 PM · #15

Originally posted by TrollMan:

Whoa there Leica boy! F8 on the 85mm 1.2 and F8 on the 85mm 1.8 will not make any difference in freezing the action. F8 is F8, regardless of the widest aperture.

The difference is the L glass and perhaps the weather sealing, but F1.2 is esoteric at best. In the manual focusing days it had value because it gave you a bright image to focus on, but with auto-focus, there's not much value add.

Message edited by author 2010-11-17 17:02:57.

11/17/2010 05:10:27 PM · #16

Originally posted by scarbrd:

[quote=TrollMan]
Whoa there Leica boy!

Damn, you nailed me. I guess money can't even buy speed now'a days! :D

I should know this using light meters more often than not for indoor shooting. I suppose the only other difference would be a potential decreased quality shooting it wide open. In that case I suppose the 1.2 will be better than the 1.8 at 1.8. But for the price diff one woud hope so!

11/17/2010 05:27:27 PM · #17

Originally posted by TrollMan:

Originally posted by scarbrd:
[quote=TrollMan]
Whoa there Leica boy!

Damn, you nailed me. I guess money can't even buy speed now'a days! :D

I should know this using light meters more often than not for indoor shooting. I suppose the only other difference would be a potential decreased quality shooting it wide open. In that case I suppose the 1.2 will be better than the 1.8 at 1.8. But for the price diff one woud hope so!

I know a few people that have the 85mm 1.2L and they love it. Most of them had the 85mm 1.8 first. I've shot them both and I consider myself an image quality snob. Yes, you're right, wide open the L lens is a better performer. But, seeing as this is touted as a portrait lens, I can't imagine anyone shooting a head and shoulders portrait at 1.2. You focus on the eyes and the nose would be OOF. At 5.6 I doubt many people could tell the difference. You can always spend more money on a lens, but at some point there has to be a cost/benefit analysis. The 85mm 1.8 is a superb lens, but if the marginal quality difference at some rarely used apertures is worth $1600, then the 1.2L is the lens for you.

I had the 85mm 1.8 for a while. I sold it when I bought the 50mm 1.4 Zeiss (see, I AM an IQ snob). The first challenge I shot with it was this,

It was shot at 6.3 and I seriously doubt the 85mm 1.2L would have made much of a difference.

11/17/2010 05:40:15 PM · #18

Originally posted by scarbrd:

I had the 85mm 1.8 for a while. I sold it when I bought the 50mm 1.4 Zeiss (see, I AM an IQ snob). The first challenge I shot with it was this,

Great shot David. But according to the image info you used the 85mm 1.8. Could be you forgot to set it to the correct lens in the image details of course.

If anything your 50mm 1.4 Zeiss might have a somewhat smoother bokeh than the 85mm 1.2 due to an extra aperture blade in the Zeiss (85mm 1.2 has 8 while I think your lens has 9). I doubt it's possible to see much of a difference; if any though.

Another advantage with a faster lens is that the viewfinder is brighter making it easier to focus in low light conditions. But between a 1.8 and 1.2 the differences are small of course here also. This is mostly valid for manual focusing, but my 5Dm2 hunts often in the dark in autofocus as well.

ETA: Of course now I see that you probably meant the first challenge you shot with the 85 1.8... Yes... it IS very late here in Norway and I AM slow, thank you! :)

Message edited by author 2010-11-17 17:45:56.

Samsung Galaxy S24, S24+, S24 Ultra

11/17/2010 05:46:52 PM · #19

Originally posted by TrollMan:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

I had the 85mm 1.8 for a while. I sold it when I bought the 50mm 1.4 Zeiss (see, I AM an IQ snob). The first challenge I shot with it was this,

Great shot David. But according to the image info you used the 85mm 1.8. Could be you forgot to set it to the correct lens in the image details of course.

That was taken with the 85mm 1.8. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I was just making the point that I don't have it anymore since I bought the Zeiss.

ETA - too slow!

Message edited by author 2010-11-17 17:47:30.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/17/2010 05:53:59 PM · #20

LOL, good thing about the ETA, Are... I was about to say you misread David. But I'm too slow for both of you...

R.

11/17/2010 06:08:41 PM · #21

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

LOL, good thing about the ETA, Are... I was about to say you misread David. But I'm too slow for both of you...

R.

:D Seriously, I don't know why I'm not going to bed. Wife is in bed already and it's now past midnight. Alarm is set to 0515.... And I'm talking about a bunch of things that I clearly know nothing about. But NOW I'm hitting the sack before I start talking about rocket science or something along those lines. LOL

Artifacts

11/17/2010 08:47:16 PM · #22

Originally posted by njsabs:

I am looking at either purchasing the new Canon 5D Mark II, or the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM. Should I get the new camera, or stick with the old 5D....or should I get the lens. Thoughts.....

This is a more difficult choice than it seems on the surface.

Normally it is a no brainer - get the lens. Its super terrific glass and as anyone knows pictures are no better than the lens you take it with.

However, there is more to it than just that. The 5DII is a major hardware/software upgrade from the 5D. It is not a cosmetic upgrade. The 5DII has a state-of-the-art DIGIC 4 brain whereas the 5D has an old DIGIC 2 processor. It has a whole new menuing system and many other desirable hardware and software features you are sure to prefer over your 5D. Everything about it is better than the 5D.

But as kirbic says, there is a rumored upgrade to the 5DII that may be worth waiting for. If you think you can save for a new camera body next year when the new one comes along then get the lens now and buy a new body later, either the new body or the sure to be cheaper "old" 5DII body. Rumors have the new body still using the DIGIC 4 processor(its with dual processors though).

You have to be careful about getting the body and a little slower f/ratio lens. There is more to a lens than just f/ratio. you need to know the number and quality of the elements that make up the lens. Those slightly faster lenses are more expensive for a reason - they have more high quality fluorite lens elements which makes a big difference in overall image quality.

Of course, there is also the question whether or not you need a second camera body that is better than your old 350D. That has to be figured in as well.

Good luck with your decision. It would be a tough one for me.

Message edited by author 2010-11-17 20:48:46.

11/17/2010 10:33:03 PM · #23

Originally posted by pitrpan:

1.2?
Really?
How many times have you shot at 1.4 (or even 1.8) and thought to yourself.....
"gee I wish this lens had less dof"....
Is it really worth it for the kind of photography you do?

I rented the 1.2 for 4 days two years ago. Two of these images were shot at 1.2.....and I loved it. I did shoot a bunch at 3.0 as well....the sharpness and light control was amazing.

So I have had a taste at what this lens can do....and ever since I have wanted to purchase one. I have not looked into the 85mm 1.8....but I will do that. Also considering the 50mm 1.2...it costs about $500.00 less but performs the same. As far as performance for portraits the 85mm 1.2 I have read cannot be beat. Decisions Decisions.

I didn't knew that there could be an upgrade to the 5D II....I am itching at the bit to get something upgraded. Argh.

Message edited by author 2010-11-17 22:34:48.