Canon EOS 5D Mark II

I would I share most of the sentiments.

But, its not so much the AF being slow, its pretty fast and snappy. The shutterlag is really quite slow. Anticipation for sports is key here...

Its really not a camera for sequences, but somewhat more deliberate takes and anticipated shots. But I would say, it was a quantum difference in quality compared to the 40D even though it had much slower FPS.

 

5DII is just too slow. It's fortunate to have Cheung covered for better shot http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1300039&postcount=113.

 

Quantum as in a big jump...

Quite the contrary to my experience with the camera and lens. In my experience, my most often used lenses on the camera are the Sigma 12-24, Canon 24-70L, Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS L and in ascending order of focusing speed. (The distance limiter switch on the 70-200 does wonders for its tracking speed.)

Even the "slow" Sigma allowed me to take some extremely fast Ai-servo tracking shots in somewhat trying light conditions. Here's a sample of what I mean:



Those guys were basically going past me at 50-55 km/h. With me literally within 3 feet of the nearest rider. You have to imagine how fast that feels, extremely testing, even for the sharpest AF out there on tracking. It was just after a rain shower, clouds yet to be fully cleared.

 

Nice shot Gladius! Btw.. how do you like the sigma 12-24. I am currently looking at the same lens for my new 5DMK2. Nice lens line up also. Wished I can afford the 70-200 F2.8 IS.

 

You've cofirmed it..

..i think Cheung was comparing the AF speed of 24-70L with the 70-200 2.8L. Which you've confirmed w/your experience which puts the AF speed of 70-200 2.8L as faster than the 24-70L.

 

What I meant was that the 24-70L was anything but difficult to track focus with. A 'slower' Sigma 12-24 had little problems tracking action, and in comparison, the 24-70L was a much faster lens. No doubt slower than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS.

But it must be noted that the 24-70L has some undocumented wear and tear issues that plague it like what I had with mine. Basically, I sent my lens to Canon for some AF issues related to OOF pictures. Thought it was a simple calibration issue. Turned out there were some components which were damaged/worn out internally. Cost me SG$170/- to fix it. But the really nice thing about it was the return, it felt like a totally different lens then. Faster focussing and tack sharp images even wide open!

 

If you're into taking 'expansive' scenery, its like nothing out there!

But it has its learning curves, difficult to use without knowing its quirks, you get plenty of weirdly stretched shots if not used right. But used right... its fantastic!! Basically you get minimal, not not negligible/visible distortion even at the wide end, fantastic 'fun' perspective of things. A whole new range of possibilities in composition.

Its pretty susceptible to flare. Cannot take external filters. And not really 'weatherproof'. And more critically, quality variances can be huge. I had to send in mine to Sigma 3 times to fix focussing and element centering issues. Even then, it still had slight focussing issues at infinity. Thankfully, it can be fixed with micro adjust on the 5DmkII.

But do note, its not the best lens for indoors if you're not shooting with a tripod. A little 'dark' or 'slow' for that matter.

 

Thanks. I liked sigma lens but they do tend to get lots of QC issue.
I used to have the tokina 11-16mm on a 50d and that lens is awesome. Wished they make a Full frame version of that lens. Can't image a 12mm on a FF. I mean at 11mm on a crop was already super wide.

 

nikon 14-24/2.8 on ff is wider than tokina 11-16/2.8 on aps-c and it can be mounted on canons with a suitable adaptor. it can't take filters either but it is weatherproof. it's bulky and a pain to take on holidays but i'll keep bringing it with me until nikon comes out with a lighter f/4 ultrawide zoom.

 

That's a lovely lens 14-24./2.8. Just too bad it cost so much.

 

Well, you can actually use the Tokina on a FF, though from about 13~14mm onwards. You get an almost square FOV from about 13mm onwards as was shown by a guy on one of our local forums.

Haha... the 12mm perspective can be addictive. Its a totally different perspective to shooting, even compared to its nearest Canon offering, the 16-35L. But as I mentioned, it can be difficult to shoot too, mainly due to the perspective quirks..

 

Another testimony and pics..

..from another Canon 5D MkII user (pics taken at recent Brunei exhibition tourney). See his opinion on the camera @ the very bottom of the page:
http://shimworld.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/yonex-brunei-open-ike-shio-cup/

 

i do agree the 5D2 high iso performance is so good. its dynamic range has improve so much compare to 5D. as i am doing actual wedding photography, it is important to have high iso, thus can avoid using flash as it will cause 'flickering' to the videography (if u know what i mean). some videographer (VG) really hates it.

some of my actual day slideshow as below:
Link 1

Link 2

 

^^Especially the 2nd link..^^

..really shows 5D MkII's ISO capability. I notice, in most if not all of the 2nd link's pics, you really cranked up the ISO.

 

if u have it, flaunt it

 

these photos were taken by bc member janshim at iso6400:
http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1359745&postcount=38

 

yup and some photos are added with texture in post processing.

 

Photos of Swiss Open Semifinals - All photos taken with Canon 5D mk II.

flickr.com/photos/popeyee/sets/72157623551558675/