Help? Questions about full frame, switching brands and portrait photography

hamster

Hi folks,

I've exhausted the capabilities of my current system (4/3rds, Olympus E-620) and am considering switching to a full - frame Canon. I have the best glass that Olympus makes and I truly love it. The camera makes me angry, though. I have many more reasons that I would like to go to full frame, I won't bore you with details, though.

My most often used lenses on 4/3 are 14-54 f/2.8-3.5 for portrait and landscape (28-108mm equivalent)
50mm f/2 (portrait, 100mm equivalent)
35-100mm f/2 (portrait, 70-200mm equivalent, though I rarely get to the end of this lens)

I absolutely love the sharpness of the 35-100, but I find it to be a little too long. Also, it weighs almost 4 lbs.

I am considering the EOS 5d Mark II with the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens and a 50mm f/1.4. Is this a good combo for portrait photography and landscape? Is the 85mm 1.8 a better choice for portraits than the 50mm?

Can I get the kind of sharpness and narrow DOF (but not too narrow) that the 35-100 gives me from the Canon 24-105? This photo I've attached almost wants me to scrap the whole idea, but again, the camera and the weight of the lens make photography a less than enjoyable experience.



Thanks for your time. If I've left anything out, I'm sorry. I'm not asking anyone to decide for me, just looking for opinions!

ziggy53

For a Canon 5D MKII I really enjoy the combination of EF 50mm, f1.4 USM and EF 135mm, f2L USM for portraiture; the 50mm for full-length and 3/4 length portraits, and the 135mm for head shots and head-and-shoulders. The 135mmF2L is a particularly spectacular lens with excellent characteristics of being very sharp wide open and excellent bokeh throughout.

Landscapes may be photographed with literally any focal length lens. The EF 24-70mm, f2.8L USM and EF 24-105mm, f4L IS USM are both very nice standard zoom lenses on a Canon FF body and provide very good image quality. The 2 primes above are also competent in their focal lengths.

I also use an EF 17-40mm, f4L USM for vista landscapes and I find it very satisfying. That lens is also very competent for group portraiture.

Matthew Saville

The 35-100 f/2 is definitely a gorgeous lens; and if you want to truly surpass it in performance on full-frame, you're gonna hafta go all the way and get something like a 70-200 2.8... I guess a 70-200 f/4 would be pretty much the same, as far as DOF is concerned.

But anyways- Yeah, if you wanna switch and get the FULL potential out of a full-frame system, you're gonna want some pretty flawless zooms and some good sharp primes. A 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 (or 105 f/2) would be a "must" for portraiture, and a 24-105 would be a good start for landscapes.

Personally as a Nikon shooter though, I just don't really care for Canon's standards in wide angle sharpness; so if I were to use a 5D mk2 for landscapes for example, I'd be skipping L wide angles and getting something like the Zeiss 21mm. But that's just me. I could do a lot of damage to both landscape and portrait photography using just a Zeiss 21mm, a Sigma 50 1.4, a Canon 85 1.8, and 70-200 f/4. That'd be the perfect landscapes + portraits combo for Canon, in my opinion.

Good luck!
=Matt=

NeilL

My copy of the 24-105mm F4L IS USM II is a source of wonder. But I use it on a 40D (also a source of wonder!). Possibly with that lens on a FF body you might not be getting the longer options often desirable for portraits, similarly in the case of the other Canon lenses you mention?

For landscapes on a FF body, I think the 35mm f1.4L is worth considering.

Neil

hamster

Thank you ziggy, Matthew, and Neil for your replies - lots of goodies to consider! Sounds like if I do make the switch I should probably rent a few and see what I like best. I appreciate your time!

ThatCanonGuy

Hey Neil, I don't remember Canon Rumors ever mentioning a 24-105 mkII... how is it? Hopefully they improved the vignetting from the Mark I. Did Canon tell you when they're gonna release it?

To the OP: The camera makes you angry. I remember feeling that way about my old camera... is it too slow? If speed is what you want, you may want to consider a 1Ds Mark II (see this thread). It's about the same price (used) as a 5DII. The 5DII sensor is newer and performs better in low light, but the 1DsII is rugged, has super-fast AF, and responds instantly. When I go FF I think it will be the 1DsII... I just don't know if I can handle the 5DII after using my fast 1DII. Then again, you mentioned weight... the 5DII is much lighter.

For a landscape lens, the 17-40 is a great lens for wide-angle stuff. However, you don't always use WA for portraits. I remember shooting landscapes with my 70-200. I guess it depends on what type of landscapes you do.

As for a portrait lens, 35mm, 50, 85, 100, 135 are all useful focal lengths for portraits. I'm more of a 35/85 guy than a 50, just me. Ziggy and other DGrinners sold me long ago on the 135 and 17-40. Anyway, for portraits/general walkaround stuff I'd want an 85 1.8 and a 35 1.4L. The 35 f2 is a cheaper option. Sounds like 135 may be a bit long for your uses.

As for "not too narrow" DOF, you can always stop down a f/2.8 lens to f4... but you can't make an f4 lens 2.8 . The 24-105 will probably give you the bokeh you're used to. The 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 will give you the option for creamier bokeh, but you can always stop down. 70-200 is also excellent for portraits.

Honestly, right now I'm really digging my 28-105 USM for walkaround stuff. It's dirt cheap (got mine for under $100), has pretty fast ring USM, acceptable image quality, and good bokeh. For me, it's been a very good investment If you don't mind me posting images in your thread...

hamster

That picture of the little girl you linked is exactly why I want to go full frame. Weight of the camera is important to me, and I love the feel of the 5D with a vertical grip.

CanonGuy, thank you for your help. I appreciate all the info.

Sam

Hamster,

I noticed your in the peoples republic of California. Are you near the San Francisco Bay Area? If so I have a fair amout of Canon gear you have a look / try with.

Sam

NeilL

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

Hey Neil, I don't remember Canon Rumors ever mentioning a 24-105 mkII... how is it? Hopefully they improved the vignetting from the Mark I. Did Canon tell you when they're gonna release it?

Well, TCG, I'm grateful to have given you some amusement, but aren't I correct that the 24-105L crashed upon release and was quickly revised? If so there is an issue of them with issues, the first.

Neil

hamster

Sam wrote: »

Hamster,

I noticed your in the peoples republic of California. Are you near the San Francisco Bay Area? If so I have a fair amout of Canon gear you have a look / try with.

Sam

Sam, I am indeed in PRC. I live near Sacramento, so not too far (coincidentally I am very familiar with San Jose, I grew up there!).

Thank you for the kind offer. I am fairly certain I will pick up the camera soon, but trying out some of your lenses would be great! Do you get up to SF very often?

jhefti

ziggy53 wrote: »

For a Canon 5D MKII I really enjoy the combination of EF 50mm, f1.4 USM and EF 135mm, f2L USM for portraiture; the 50mm for full-length and 3/4 length portraits, and the 135mm for head shots and head-and-shoulders. The 135mmF2L is a particularly spectacular lens with excellent characteristics of being very sharp wide open and excellent bokeh throughout.

I second these recommendations! I shoot a 5DII in all non-sports situations--especially candid portraiture--and love the 50/1.4 and especially the 135/2.0. The latter is great for street shots, where you want a little distance; the former is great in low light indoor candids, such as in bars or jazz clubs.

sethny

only 1 alternative (I'll get to it at the end of this post)

If you set the standard as a stabilized body and the best tele-zoom today available (35-100) then the 24-105 (even if stabilized) won't make it.

you could consider the 85 1.2 (but no stabilization) or the Nikon 85 1.4 (again no stabilization) or the 135/2L (no stabilization). The tele-zooms (both Nikon and canon) will be as heavy as the (beautiful) zoom that you have now.

The only alternative is a sony a900 (or 850) and a zeiss 85 1.4 (stabilized body and a lens capable of matching the performance of the (heavy) combo that you have now. Plus you'd get the best of both sides: a 25MP raw and a great bokeh/sharpness/colors and even more bokeh out of a 1.4 first-class glass like the Zeiss.

ThatCanonGuy

sethny wrote: »

only 1 alternative (I'll get to it at the end of this post)

If you set the standard as a stabilized body and the best tele-zoom today available (35-100) then the 24-105 (even if stabilized) won't make it.

you could consider the 85 1.2 (but no stabilization) or the Nikon 85 1.4 (again no stabilization) or the 135/2L (no stabilization). The tele-zooms (both Nikon and canon) will be as heavy as the (beautiful) zoom that you have now.

The only alternative is a sony a900 (or 850) and a zeiss 85 1.4 (stabilized body and a lens capable of matching the performance of the (heavy) combo that you have now. Plus you'd get the best of both sides: a 25MP raw and a great bokeh/sharpness/colors and even more bokeh out of a 1.4 first-class glass like the Zeiss.

But Zeiss is manual focus only.

davemj98

A900 and CZ 135 1.8, Sony 50 1.4, CZ 16-35 2.8 CZ 24-70 2.8, Sony 70-200 2.8 and others I have are all stabilized in camera and autofocus.
Dave

sethny

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

But Zeiss is manual focus only.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/463922-REG/Sony_SAL85F14Z_SAL_85F14Z_Telephoto_85mm_f_1_4.html

it says "auto focus" right in the name ... the glass is a planar T* class.

I did a direct comparison between my 85 1.2L mark I (on a 1Ds Mark II) and the Zeiss 85 1.4 on a sony a900 and they are both excellent. The Canon is faster but heavy (much havier) than the Zeiss. The sony combo gives the better overall results. The zeiss is also a little shorter than the canon : for example if the canon sits on 85mm the planar looks more like 83mm (or so)

A note about the stabilization: while the canon 85 1.8 doesn't allow me to shoot handheld below 1/160th of a second I can easily shoot the 1.2 L at 1/60th : both on the same camera (1Ds Mark II) . The reason is (for me) hard to explain but that's how it is (at least in my -shaky- hands)

Beside that the difference between the 1.8 and 1.2 is substantial , also in terms of colors and clarity. But the difference in bokeh between 1.8 and 1.2 is huge.

One last thing to consider when using any fast 85mm prime on a FF body is the need of a tube to get headshots (the MFD won't allow to fill the frame with the heads).

In any case the sony a900 gives a beautiful sensor and a beautiful built-in stabilization. And that's something to consider when shooting hand-holding is the standard.

ThatCanonGuy

I didn't think that Zeiss made any AF lenses. I looked on the B&H site; it looks like Sony makes the lenses and brands them CZ? Because the product description says Sony, and the Zeiss lenses for Canikon aren't AF.

davemj98

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

I didn't think that Zeiss made any AF lenses. I looked on the B&H site; it looks like Sony makes the lenses and brands them CZ? Because the product description says Sony, and the Zeiss lenses for Canikon aren't AF.

Here is a link to the Zeiss web page. I have three of the six that they offer, and two are autofocusing zooms that should be used to believed.

https://photo-shop.zeiss.com/en/Products/9999-001

and here is a date base link with 72 user reviews, and 10 links to web reviews;

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Carl-Zeiss-Planar-T*-85-F1.4_lens317.html

davemj98

I do believe that these are indeed made in Sony factories, but that they are designed by CZ, and construction is monitored by CZ engineers & C Q staff to earn the CZ badge. The OP expressed his desire to upgrade to FF and this is a possible alternative that is a lot less costly that the Canon/Nikon alternatives. I have been wrong about things before, and will no doubt be so again in the future, but I like how we can learn here on the forums.

cab.in.boston

sethny wrote: »

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/463922-REG/Sony_SAL85F14Z_SAL_85F14Z_Telephoto_85mm_f_1_4.html

it says "auto focus" right in the name ... the glass is a planar T* class.

That is confusing. Because under the Specifications tab, it says:

"Autofocus No "

Judging on all the reviews that rave about its AF, B&H should update their specifications...

henryp

cab.in.boston wrote: »

That is confusing. Because under the Specifications tab, it says:
"Autofocus No"
Judging on all the reviews that rave about its AF, B&H should update their specifications...

Whoops. Looks like our error. Thanks for catching this. I submitted a correction request.

ziggy53

henryp wrote: »

Whoops. Looks like our error. Thanks for catching this. I submitted a correction request.

Thanks Henry. You and B&H are awesome. thumb

henryp

ziggy53 wrote: »

Thanks Henry. You and B&H are awesome. thumb

Thanks. I know I give Brad Pitt a run for the money, but I think I'll have to defer to B&H as far as "awesome" goes. :-)

harjtt

Hey Hamster

I know your thinking about switching to FF .. Nikon/Canon/Sony.. its all cool but I was wondering if you'd thought about picking up an E-3 at least or possibly and E-5 esp as you have possibly one of the best ever zooms made by any manufacturers. I understand your "pain or more like headache" on deciding what to do as I have the same lens setup to yourself but I've had the E-3 for 2.5 years now and for me right now I need to improve my lighting skills, esp on location so upgrading or switching won;t be happening for at least another 12 months or more.

Now I'm mainly a street and fashion shooter, more fashion/beauty these days and for that my E-3 with the 35-100f2 is still a pretty solid setup.. minus the CAF which is totally useless in my hands and possibly everybody elses. The E-5's supposedly better but by how much I'm not sure but for sure the E3's CAF isn;t up to par esp when compared to Nikons. You'll find the 35-100f2 balances much better with the E3 and I regularly do 8 hour fashion shoots with that combo. The OVF is also 100% or slightly larger, not as good as or as big as a D700's or 50D but a big step up from the E620.

You already know that the F2 is a cracking bit of glass, so here's a few example pics from the E3 + 35-100F2 in studio..I''d like to get an E-5 just to test and see how it compares with the SHG

















And some thing . not so fashionable...







See if you can rent/hire an E-3 or E-5 and see whether its enough or not and if not, then you can switch to D700 or 5DMk2 etc .. The nearest equiv to the 35-100F2 , are the 70-200F2.8's from Nikon and Canon, although at least one ex Oly Pro sports shooter that has shot with both Nikon/Canon versions (he's a Canon shooter atm) thinks that the SHG is better than both. If I were to switch I'd be looking at FF with just two lenses - 24-70f2.8 + 70-200F2.8 thats all I think I'd need.

Cheers

Harj

NeilL

Harj, SHG, CAF = ?

Neil

harjtt

Hey Neil..

Sorry for the abbreviations.. !!

SHG - Super High Grade Zukio ZD's, Olympus's top pro lens range. The SHG lenses are usually F2 lenses apart from 90-250 F2.8 and the 300mm F2.8. The 35-100F2 was Oly's stab at a 70-200 equivalent to go head to head with Nikon's and Canon's 70-200 f2.8's. The only negative is that they don't have USM motors and the 35-100f2 is the same size and weight as the Can/Nik's. I;d love to get the 14-35F2 (its sharper than the 35-100f2 which is simply crazy) but only until Oly make a firm commitment to the E-system/Four thirds otherwise, I'll have to make a decision on which way to go.

CAF - Continous Auto focus..The E-3's CAF is practically unusable, and in my hands at least worse than crap so its good I shoot fashion/beauty and nothing that moves. The early batch of E-3 had AF issues so if Ham decides to pick one up, then he needs to test the AF to make sure that there are no front focusing issues. I noticed recently with mine that removing the UV filter from the 35-100F2 in studio that I had 1-2% of images that were slightly out of focus, where in every other previous fashion shoot, I'd be looking at 10% being badly front focused. The E-5 and the E-30's AF is supposed to be improved but its obviously not as accurate or as reliable as any of the Nikons.

Something else to check on the E-3's is the LCD housing, some have a tendency to split apart, not good for a weather sealed camera.

NeilL

harjtt wrote: »

Hey Neil..

Sorry for the abbreviations.. !!

SHG - Super High Grade Zukio ZD's, Olympus's top pro lens range. The SHG lenses are usually F2 lenses apart from 90-250 F2.8 and the 300mm F2.8. The 35-100F2 was Oly's stab at a 70-200 equivalent to go head to head with Nikon's and Canon's 70-200 f2.8's. The only negative is that they don't have USM motors and the 35-100f2 is the same size and weight as the Can/Nik's.

CAF - Continous Auto focus..The E-3's CAF is practically unusable, and in my hands at least worse than crap so its good I shoot fashion/beauty and nothing that moves. The early batch of E-3 had AF issues so if Ham decides to pick one up, then he needs to test the AF to make sure that there are no front focusing issues. I noticed recently with mine that removing the UV filter from the 35-100F2 in studio that I had 1-2% of images that were slightly out of focus, where in every other previous fashion shoot, I'd be looking at 10% being badly front focused. The E-5 and the E-30's AF is supposed to be improved but its obviously not as accurate or as reliable as any of the Nikons.

Thanks Harj, interesting!

Neil

hamster

Thank you for weighing in, everyone. I have purchased the 5D Mark II, a 50/1.4, and an 85/1.8. I am renting a 135/2 this weekend. Still completely undecided on which wide angle to go with. I have a super takumar 28mm with the M42 screw mount and I was going to try that but it seems that won't work on the 5D. I am not against manual focus/legacy lenses for landscapes. That is not the bulk of my work so I have time to find what I want. I am a serious hobbyist, and do some portraits on the side - I am a graphic designer by trade.

I've also decided to keep my Olympus body and the 35-100 and 50mm. I just can't give those lenses up. I'll re-asses if I need to later on.

Harjtt, wonderful, wonderful work. I am an Olympus fan, and you are doing great work with a great product. I may take your advice on trying an E-5 out with that lens.

I am loving full frame, btw!

-Cherie

ziggy53

hamster wrote: »

... I have a super takumar 28mm with the M42 screw mount and I was going to try that but it seems that won't work on the 5D. I am not against manual focus/legacy lenses for landscapes. ...

Old Pentax, and other, screwmount/M42 lenses will work with any Canon EOS camera using an adapter. I highly recommend an adapter with a "chip" which allows focus-confirmation and metering. It's not a perfect solution, but for occasional use it can be fine.

Here is the Pentax SMC 50mm, f1.4 on a dRebel:



100 percent crop from above:



An old Vivitar 500mm, f6.3 tested on a Canon 5D MKII:



(Link to Full-resolution image of above, large file)

I've tested an old Soligor 28mm, f2.8 M42 with the same adapters and it works fine, but I don't have any image samples.

An example of an adapter that should work:

http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Adapter-Dandelion-Confirmation-cameras/dp/B003GE490E/ref=pd_cp_p_2

hamster

Ziggy, I have been reading that this particular lens won't work because the mirror hits it.

http://www.panoramaplanet.de/comp/

Edit: actually, only the Multi-Coated one is not usable. How can that make a difference?

ziggy53

henryp wrote: »

Whoops. Looks like our error. Thanks for catching this. I submitted a correction request.

I see that the features are now correct.

ziggy53

hamster wrote: »

Ziggy, I have been reading that this particular lens won't work because the mirror hits it.

http://www.panoramaplanet.de/comp/

Edit: actually, only the Multi-Coated one is not usable. How can that make a difference?

I don't know what to tell you. I suppose that it would be better to be safe than sorry.

I do enjoy using the Canon EF 17-40mm, f4L USM as my wide-angle zoom of choice on the Canon 5D MKII body.