Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 12, 2010, 11:50 AM   #11
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark1616 View Post
I wasn't suggesting you got the 7D as well who would be crazy enough to do that lol
now i wonder who would be THAT crazy
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 12, 2010, 1:01 PM   #12
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hards80 View Post
now i wonder who would be THAT crazy
Answers on a postcard!!
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2010, 5:55 AM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 90
Default

My minds made up Mark, it's the 5D2. I'm far from being an expert when it comes to reviewing new gear, but it really surprised me that Canon didn't improve the AF system, unless it was to keep the price down, as compared to the Mk1 when that was launched the Mk2 does seem good value for what you get.
Gypsyrico is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2010, 6:00 AM   #14
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

I think a lot of us would have loved a better AF but would have brought it even closer to the spec of the 1Ds mkIII. Don't get me wrong, it's not bad AF just an ugp would have been nice.

I know you will love the 5D mkII for sure, I just didn't want you to go ahead without double checking your needs and considering the AF issue and the reduction in reach with your lenses by going full frame. It's better to cover all bases rather than having remorse.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 14, 2010, 5:58 AM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 90
Default

I'll keep my 20D for the sports Mark, in an ideal world the 300mm f2.8 would be nice, but I'll just dream on. Slightly off subject, I was also thinking of swapping the 24 - 105 for a 24 - 70 f2.8. Would that be much of an upgrade?
Gypsyrico is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 14, 2010, 6:18 AM   #16
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Not in my book.

Check out the reviews at slrgear.com.

For the purposes of this post: 24-105 ==> Baby, 24-70 ==> Big

Baby:
  • 3-stop IS.
  • 24,35,50 sharp at f4-f14.
  • 70mm - avoid altogether.
  • 105mm - sharp f5.6-f14, usable at f4. Note that DOF 105mm f4 is the same as 70mm f2.8.
  • Lighter.
  • Cheaper.
Big:
  • f2.8 available, but not terribly sharp.
  • 70mm sharper than Baby.
  • No IS.
  • Smaller range.
  • Heavier.
  • More expensive.
Even if the two lenses were the same weight and cost I would still prefer the Baby. Given the large differences in weight and cost I don't think it's even worth considering the Big.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 14, 2010, 6:27 AM   #17
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

Craig, I've just learnt something I've never known and was about to correct you as I would have sworn I was right (but you don't often make mistakes so I went to check). I believed 100% that the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 had IS, I would have bet my life on it..... how did I get this incorrect information?!?! It might be that using the 24-105 myself I assumed that the more expensive option would also have IS.... anyway, I'm glad I read that and I've learnt something today.

Simple answer is then stick with the 24-105mm f4 (I love mine) and if you want a standard zoom f2.8 then go for the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 HSM.

Wow, I feel educated LOL.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 14, 2010, 7:35 AM   #18
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 90
Default

Why don't I come on this forum more often????? That information astounds me to be honest, as I've been led to believe the big baby was the bees knees. I've also read in some of the monthly mags, that the baby is only so so, but I'll take your advice and keep mine.
Gypsyrico is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 14, 2010, 7:50 AM   #19
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Some of that could be sample variation and QC issues, too. For example, you'll see this in the verdict section of the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L review at photozone.de:

"The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L proved to be a worthy representative of the pro grade lens league ... if you can get a good sample. During the last two years four lenses has seen the lab with only one within spec..."

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/18...review?start=2

But, from what I can see from most reviews, the new Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM is going to outperform it. Here's one review of the Sigma that also includes comparisons with the Canon, Nikkor and Sony/Carl Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses:

http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?tes...wu&test_ob=172
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 14, 2010, 8:31 AM   #20
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Also I would add the 24-70 2.8 is one of the lenses Canon users have been asking for an upgrade to. Given how widely the lens is used, I think you'll see a new version in the next 2 years - especially given Sigma's new version. So, bide your time a bit.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:40 AM.