Upgrade 7D + 17-55 2.8 to 5D MkII + 24-70?

Started Apr 13, 2012 | Discussions
zalle
Contributing MemberPosts: 618
Like?
Upgrade 7D + 17-55 2.8 to 5D MkII + 24-70?
Apr 13, 2012

I do mostly low light work, like weddings and stuff but also sports like surfing, and I really like my setup. The IS on the 17-55 is wonderful. I do not shoot studio work.

I also own 10-22, 70-200F4IS, 100-400 and 400 5.6L.

As far as I know, the 5DMKII is a stop better in low light, but the IS of the 17-55 probably makes compensates the difference. I can easily shoot at 1/20 with the 17-55 with max zoom (88mm equivalent). Not really worth shooting slower because people move. This would not happen with a 24-70.

The focusing system on the 7D is also better than the 5D.

In a couple of words: Is it really an upgrade for what I do?

Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 7D
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
jppentax
Regular MemberPosts: 118
Like?
Re: Upgrade 7D + 17-55 2.8 to 5D MkII + 24-70?
In reply to zalle, Apr 13, 2012

What do you shoot?

Do you need fast shutter speeds in low night?

Do you need the depth of field?

Are you willing to give up the extra reach with your 100-400?

You can also wait to see reviews of the Tamron 24-70 VR.

zalle wrote:

I do mostly low light work, like weddings and stuff but also sports like surfing, and I really like my setup. The IS on the 17-55 is wonderful. I do not shoot studio work.

I also own 10-22, 70-200F4IS, 100-400 and 400 5.6L.

As far as I know, the 5DMKII is a stop better in low light, but the IS of the 17-55 probably makes compensates the difference. I can easily shoot at 1/20 with the 17-55 with max zoom (88mm equivalent). Not really worth shooting slower because people move. This would not happen with a 24-70.

The focusing system on the 7D is also better than the 5D.

In a couple of words: Is it really an upgrade for what I do?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
snk666
Forum MemberPosts: 76Gear list
Like?
Re: Upgrade 7D + 17-55 2.8 to 5D MkII + 24-70?
In reply to zalle, Apr 13, 2012

zalle wrote:

I do mostly low light work, like weddings and stuff but also sports like surfing, and I really like my setup. The IS on the 17-55 is wonderful. I do not shoot studio work.

I also own 10-22, 70-200F4IS, 100-400 and 400 5.6L.

As far as I know, the 5DMKII is a stop better in low light, but the IS of the 17-55 probably makes compensates the difference. I can easily shoot at 1/20 with the 17-55 with max zoom (88mm equivalent). Not really worth shooting slower because people move. This would not happen with a 24-70.

The focusing system on the 7D is also better than the 5D.

In a couple of words: Is it really an upgrade for what I do?

I had the 17-55 with the 50D + 10-22 and 70-200 4 is
i sold efs lenses and 50d and bought 5dmk2 + ef24-70

you can feel the difference!24-70 is heavy!i easilly shot 1/20 1/15 with 17-55 at 55 now i can't.the is makes the difference imho. the quality of the 24-70 is good like the 17-55.
the quality of the camera is super. To me is enough.
i'm not a pro

 snk666's gear list:snk666's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
scsnospam
New MemberPosts: 19
Like?
Re: Upgrade 7D + 17-55 2.8 to 5D MkII + 24-70?
In reply to snk666, Apr 13, 2012

I'm struggling with this too, right now. Going from 50D to 5D2, that is.

1. My 50D's focus is hit or miss. I've tried the AF adjust, but not satisfied. Also, the pics are soft. I used to have a 350D which had much better quality, and even my old Oly 4000C had absolutely gorgeous output. I think just switching to "any' other body will help.

2. Full frame's perspective + depth of field. I took comparitive portraits with the 50D and the 5D2, similar field of view. The 5D2 pics have a more 3D look. I think the 50mm on FF gives more depth to portraits - its easy to see that the nose is in front of the face, ears are behind etc. Using ~ 31mm on the 50D doesnt quite do the same thing, even with my excellent 17-55. I have read extensively on this, here and other fora, but have not come across a good explanation for this effect.

3. Colors and detail, texture etc are better on the 5D2.

4. AF speed. I dont shoot sports much, so I'm hoping AF is a non-issue.

5. Low light. I hate to give up the f/2.8 on the 17-55, for the f/4 on the 24-105. But I'm hoping to make it up with higher ISO shooting. The f/4 on FF should give similar depth of field as the f/2.8 on the crop sensor.

6. Will have to give up on board flash. Its useful in a pinch, for snapshots, and for fill flash outdoors.

7. I actually thought about upgrading to the 7D, but its noise performance is not great.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
August_West
Junior MemberPosts: 27Gear list
Like?
Re: Upgrade 7D + 17-55 2.8 to 5D MkII + 24-70?
In reply to scsnospam, Apr 13, 2012

Just upgraded (my opinion) from a 7d to a 5dMKii a few weeks ago. Already had 24-105L, 100-400L, 135L, and just recently added the 100 2.8 non L.

Here is what I will tell you from my experience so far:

I was worried about the focus issue, but after having shot a kids soccer game and a volleyball game (indoor) I've become accustomed to the mkii and I am confident the slower AF is a small price to pay for FF images.

Wow, mount the 24-105 on the 5d and suddenly it's a wide lens! I understand now why people say the 24-105 and 24-70 lenses are meant for FF. The downside is I gave up quite a bit of reach with my 100-400L and my 135L. Not a real big concern since I don't do very much wildlife.

High ISO performance is stellar with the mkii, and this is one of the aspects I am slowly getting used to and learning how to take advantage of.

The price that the local store had the mkii marked down to made it too good of a deal for me to turn down, and I've wanted to shoot FF digital for years. So, for what it's worth, and from one person's perspective the 7d to 5dmkii with some good L glass is a great upgrade.

 August_West's gear list:August_West's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
zalle
Contributing MemberPosts: 618
Like?
Re: Upgrade 7D + 17-55 2.8 to 5D MkII + 24-70?
In reply to scsnospam, Apr 13, 2012

scsnospam wrote:

1. My 50D's focus is hit or miss. I've tried the AF adjust, but not satisfied. Also, the pics are soft. I used to have a 350D which had much better quality, and even my old Oly 4000C had absolutely gorgeous output. I think just switching to "any' other body will help.

Your 50D is probably damaged... I mean, I've got 350D, 20D, 7D, they are all similar in IQ. 7D is better, but hey, not that much. You can get fantastic shots with any DSLR with the right lens I guess.

5. Low light. I hate to give up the f/2.8 on the 17-55, for the f/4 on the 24-105. But I'm hoping to make it up with higher ISO shooting. The f/4 on FF should give similar depth of field as the f/2.8 on the crop sensor.

Now you've made me think. 24-105 on a 5D is probably the same as the 17-55 on the 7D... That makes sense. On the other hand, everyone raves over the 17-55 while the 24-105 sounds (by what I read in the forums) good but not spectacular.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tom Melanson
Senior MemberPosts: 1,214Gear list
Like?
Re: Upgrade 7D + 17-55 2.8 to 5D MkII + 24-70?
In reply to zalle, Apr 13, 2012

7D/17-55 combo is pretty darn spectactular. The 24-105 is, indeed "good".

IMHO, the 7D/17-55 edges out the 5DII/24-105. Now the 5DIII/24-105 is another matter. The best of that combo will be, I believe, the 5DIII/24-70 f/2.8L II

scsnospam wrote:

Now you've made me think. 24-105 on a 5D is probably the same as the 17-55 on the 7D... That makes sense. On the other hand, everyone raves over the 17-55 while the 24-105 sounds (by what I read in the forums) good but not spectacular.

-- hide signature --

(See equipment list under 'profile')

 Tom Melanson's gear list:Tom Melanson's gear list
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Peter 13
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,301
Like?
Re: Upgrade 7D + 17-55 2.8 to 5D MkII + 24-70?
In reply to Tom Melanson, Apr 14, 2012

Tom Melanson wrote:

IMHO, the 7D/17-55 edges out the 5DII/24-105.

It does not. The second combo is better in every respect unless you shoot sports (with those lenses?). On the other hand, I would not replace a crop body with the 5D2 only to replace the 17-55 with the 24-105.

Now the 5DIII/24-105 is another matter.

It is basically the same, except for tracking.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Peter 13
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,301
Like?
Re: Upgrade 7D + 17-55 2.8 to 5D MkII + 24-70?
In reply to scsnospam, Apr 14, 2012

scsnospam wrote:

I'm struggling with this too, right now. Going from 50D to 5D2, that is.

This is what I did.

1. My 50D's focus is hit or miss. I've tried the AF adjust, but not satisfied.

True to some extent, with fast lenses. If you have problems with f/2.8 or slower lenses, then, well, you have a problem.

Also, the pics are soft. I used to have a 350D which had much better quality, and even my old Oly 4000C had absolutely gorgeous output. I think just switching to "any' other body will help.

I owned the 350D as well. There is no way the 350D can be sharper. You are probably comparing them both at 100%, which is wrong.

2. Full frame's perspective + depth of field. I took comparitive portraits with the 50D and the 5D2, similar field of view. The 5D2 pics have a more 3D look. I think the 50mm on FF gives more depth to portraits - its easy to see that the nose is in front of the face, ears are behind etc. Using ~ 31mm on the 50D doesnt quite do the same thing, even with my excellent 17-55. I have read extensively on this, here and other fora, but have not come across a good explanation for this effect.

Because there is none. There are other elements of IQ that you may see.

3. Colors and detail, texture etc are better on the 5D2.

True.

4. AF speed. I dont shoot sports much, so I'm hoping AF is a non-issue.

For sports, the 50D is better. For static shooting, the 5D2 has better AF.

5. Low light. I hate to give up the f/2.8 on the 17-55, for the f/4 on the 24-105. But I'm hoping to make it up with higher ISO shooting. The f/4 on FF should give similar depth of field as the f/2.8 on the crop sensor.

...and similar noise at 1.3 stop higher ISO. You do not lose anything but you do not gain much in low light either.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
schmegg
schmegg MOD
Senior MemberPosts: 4,970
Like?
Re: Upgrade 7D + 17-55 2.8 to 5D MkII + 24-70?
In reply to Peter 13, Apr 14, 2012

Peter 13 wrote:

Now the 5DIII/24-105 is another matter.

It is basically the same, except for tracking.

61 AF points is way better - it allows you to minimise the amount of focus/recomposed you do which, in turn, improves the number of critically sharp shots you get. In fact, the 5D2 is basically not as good even for static subjects, even compared to the 7D, let alone the 5D3! (unless, of course, you put your subject in the middle of the frame all the time - LOL!)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Peter 13
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,301
Like?
Re: Upgrade 7D + 17-55 2.8 to 5D MkII + 24-70?
In reply to schmegg, Apr 14, 2012

schmegg wrote:

Peter 13 wrote:

Now the 5DIII/24-105 is another matter.

It is basically the same, except for tracking.

61 AF points is way better - it allows you to minimise the amount of focus/recomposed you do which, in turn, improves the number of critically sharp shots you get. In fact, the 5D2 is basically not as good even for static subjects, even compared to the 7D, let alone the 5D3! (unless, of course, you put your subject in the middle of the frame all the time - LOL!)

You missed the point. He was talking about the 24-105. It is an f/4 lens.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
schmegg
schmegg MOD
Senior MemberPosts: 4,970
Like?
Re: Upgrade 7D + 17-55 2.8 to 5D MkII + 24-70?
In reply to Peter 13, Apr 14, 2012

Peter 13 wrote:

schmegg wrote:

Peter 13 wrote:

Now the 5DIII/24-105 is another matter.

It is basically the same, except for tracking.

61 AF points is way better - it allows you to minimise the amount of focus/recomposed you do which, in turn, improves the number of critically sharp shots you get. In fact, the 5D2 is basically not as good even for static subjects, even compared to the 7D, let alone the 5D3! (unless, of course, you put your subject in the middle of the frame all the time - LOL!)

You missed the point. He was talking about the 24-105. It is an f/4 lens.

To me it looks a lot like he was talking about the difference between the 5D2 with 24-105 and the 5D3 with 24-105.

I believe his point was that he believes the 7D/17-55 "edges out" the 5D2/24-105 but that the situation would be different if the 24-105 was mounted on a 5D3.

And I'd agree with him too. In any case, no matter how you look at it, it's certainly not "basically the same, except for tracking".

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Marcos Villaroman
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,181Gear list
Like?
Re: Upgrade 7D + 17-55 2.8 to 5D MkII + 24-70?
In reply to zalle, Apr 14, 2012

I have shot extensively with a 7D and 400/5.6L. I own a 40D, 10-22, 17-55, 5D2, 5D3, 24-105.

Personally I love the 5D2/5D3 for what a FF sensor brings: a bigger/brighter view finder that makes manual focus a joy. Better high ISO performance that gives me acceptable results.

I use external flash with light modifiers and higher ISO a lot. The 5D2 is great for this.

Using just the center AF, I have no complaints with the 5D2's AF.

it's in the area of sports and having a "free" 1.6x extender where I wonder if the 7D would be a better fit. I got lower keeper rates when shooting moving subjects at burst mode.

I really like the 24-105 on the 5D. Sure it would be nice if there was a 24-70/2.8 IS out there, but, I really like the focal range of the 24-105. You could go with a 24-70 instead of a 24-105, but, that extra half pound can be significant when you consider the combined weight of all of the other lens in your camera bag.

As for my 17-55, the IS finally broke after six years of use. Canon USA fixed it for $125 or so. The 17-55 is definitely my favorite lens on an APS-C sensor.

 Marcos Villaroman's gear list:Marcos Villaroman's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM +39 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tom Melanson
Senior MemberPosts: 1,214Gear list
Like?
Re: Upgrade 7D + 17-55 2.8 to 5D MkII + 24-70?
In reply to Peter 13, Apr 14, 2012

You are welcome to your opinion. It may be your experience; it has not been mine.

(I have 1DsMKII, 7D, 5DIII, 17-55, 24-105 &24-70)

The 17-55 has proven, in my experience to be superior to the very good 24-105 on the 7D.
YMMV.
--
(See equipment list under 'profile')

 Tom Melanson's gear list:Tom Melanson's gear list
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
schmegg
schmegg MOD
Senior MemberPosts: 4,970
Like?
Re: Upgrade 7D + 17-55 2.8 to 5D MkII + 24-70?
In reply to Tom Melanson, Apr 14, 2012

Tom Melanson wrote:

You are welcome to your opinion. It may be your experience; it has not been mine.

(I have 1DsMKII, 7D, 5DIII, 17-55, 24-105 &24-70)

The 17-55 has proven, in my experience to be superior to the very good 24-105 on the 7D.
YMMV.

I too have a 7D, 5D3 and both lenses, and I agree with your assessment completely.

But, as you say, others may feel differently - some of them might even own the gear being discussed! (though I know some don't)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Fog Maker
Senior MemberPosts: 1,100
Like?
Re: Upgrade 7D + 17-55 2.8 to 5D MkII + 24-70?
In reply to zalle, Apr 14, 2012

zalle wrote:

I do mostly low light work, like weddings and stuff but also sports like surfing, and I really like my setup. The IS on the 17-55 is wonderful. I do not shoot studio work.

I also own 10-22, 70-200F4IS, 100-400 and 400 5.6L.

As far as I know, the 5DMKII is a stop better in low light, but the IS of the 17-55 probably makes compensates the difference. I can easily shoot at 1/20 with the 17-55 with max zoom (88mm equivalent). Not really worth shooting slower because people move. This would not happen with a 24-70.

The focusing system on the 7D is also better than the 5D.

In a couple of words: Is it really an upgrade for what I do?

Someone needs to tell you the truth.

There is a reason no professionals use the 7D,
except for the occasional video (B camera).

the 5D II coupled with the 24-70 is a killer combo.

The 24-105 is a slow, dull and boring (kit) lens.

The focal length may be tempting for some,

but save your money and get a real lens instead.

F*ck you gonna shoot anything moving at 1/20.

If you shoot weddings you will not miss the 17-55.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
schmegg
schmegg MOD
Senior MemberPosts: 4,970
Like?
Re: Upgrade 7D + 17-55 2.8 to 5D MkII + 24-70?
In reply to Fog Maker, Apr 14, 2012

Fog Maker wrote:

Someone needs to tell you the truth.

There is a reason no professionals use the 7D,
except for the occasional video (B camera).

I'll leave it to you to tell the the five or six photographers walking around in the pits at the formula one with 7D's that they aren't pros then. I'm pretty sure they think they are!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Peter 13
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,301
Like?
Re: Upgrade 7D + 17-55 2.8 to 5D MkII + 24-70?
In reply to Tom Melanson, Apr 14, 2012

Tom Melanson wrote:

You are welcome to your opinion. It may be your experience; it has not been mine.

(I have 1DsMKII, 7D, 5DIII, 17-55, 24-105 &24-70)

The 17-55 has proven, in my experience to be superior to the very good 24-105 on the 7D.

But not on the 5D2. We are talking about

7D&17-55 vs. 5D2&24-105

not

7D&17-55 vs. 7D&24-105

In the first case, the second combo is much better; in the second, it is the first one that wins. Size matters!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
schmegg
schmegg MOD
Senior MemberPosts: 4,970
Like?
Re: Upgrade 7D + 17-55 2.8 to 5D MkII + 24-70?
In reply to Peter 13, Apr 14, 2012

Peter 13 wrote:

Tom Melanson wrote:

You are welcome to your opinion. It may be your experience; it has not been mine.

(I have 1DsMKII, 7D, 5DIII, 17-55, 24-105 &24-70)

The 17-55 has proven, in my experience to be superior to the very good 24-105 on the 7D.

But not on the 5D2. We are talking about

7D&17-55 vs. 5D2&24-105

not

7D&17-55 vs. 7D&24-105

In the first case, the second combo is much better; in the second, it is the first one that wins. Size matters!

Ah-hem ...

Tom Melanson wrote:

7D/17-55 combo is pretty darn spectactular. The 24-105 is, indeed "good".

IMHO, the 7D/17-55 edges out the 5DII/24-105. Now the 5DIII/24-105 is another matter. The best of that combo will be, I believe, the 5DIII/24-70 f/2.8L II

I highlighted the relevant bit seeing as how you seem to have missed it - despite having replied to that particular post.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Peter 13
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,301
Like?
Re: Upgrade 7D + 17-55 2.8 to 5D MkII + 24-70?
In reply to schmegg, Apr 14, 2012

schmegg wrote:

Peter 13 wrote:

schmegg wrote:

Peter 13 wrote:

Now the 5DIII/24-105 is another matter.

It is basically the same, except for tracking.

61 AF points is way better - it allows you to minimise the amount of focus/recomposed you do which, in turn, improves the number of critically sharp shots you get. In fact, the 5D2 is basically not as good even for static subjects, even compared to the 7D, let alone the 5D3! (unless, of course, you put your subject in the middle of the frame all the time - LOL!)

You missed the point. He was talking about the 24-105. It is an f/4 lens.

To me it looks a lot like he was talking about the difference between the 5D2 with 24-105 and the 5D3 with 24-105.

I believe his point was that he believes the 7D/17-55 "edges out" the 5D2/24-105 but that the situation would be different if the 24-105 was mounted on a 5D3.

And I'd agree with him too. In any case, no matter how you look at it, it's certainly not "basically the same, except for tracking".

In terms of AF, it is. There is no such thing like "critical sharp shots" that you may miss with the inferior AF system of the 5D2 with that lens . It is a slow (for FF standards) standard zoom. You can pretty much leave in on the green square mode, and it will still focus well. OK, this was a hyperbola but you get the idea. There are zero problems with F&R as well, and in fact, you do not even need to F&R, the outer AF points are good enough with that lens .

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads