Switching from 1Ds2 with 24-70L to 7D with 17-55IS

[memento]

Hello everyone,

this is my first posting in this forum, though I am a long-time reader of LL. So, my name is Thomas and my photographic interests are wide-spread and cover landscape photography, travel, technology (automotive, aircraft events, sometimes documenting helicopter flights, stuff like that). Also I love photographing my friends which is mostly low light work. I also do some business photography, mainly products and people.

But macro photography (solely insects and related arthropodes of all kinds) is probably the one single topic that I am most devoted to.

Following some 1.3x crop 1D series Canons, for the last year I finally had a 5D2 followed by 1Ds2 and the lenses used were 24-70L and old 100-300L for 90% of the travel work, the 50/1.8 for the remaining 10% as well as people and low light, 90 Macro and 300/4, both with extension tubes and/or 1.4x converter for the macros, with the 300/4 being used for dragonflies and other big insects and the 90 for all the rest.

I am absolutely happy with the file quality that both these bodies provided and also happy with (almost) all of my lenses. I was NOT happy with the autofocus, the uncomfortable viewfinder view (in comparison to the 1D series) and the somewhat limited weather resistance of the 5D2 and thus changed "backwards" to a 1Ds2 which is in every way tremendous BUT for the following: No video, no live view, and general annoyances in the macro and tele department because of the need to often use the teleconverter or extension tubes for more reach.

Regarding the lenses, the 24-70L is adequate, my copy of the ages old 50/1.8 is absolutely great (which is the reason why I did not switch to a f/1.4 so far), the 90 Tamron Macro is great, the 300/4 is great. But the also ages old 100-300L is a compromise because it is in my opinion optically better than all other xx-300s that Canon makes (I had a 70-300DO and also tried the standard 70-300IS but they all disappointed me), also handling, AF and missing IS are weak points. But I DO need a xx-300 on a 24x36mm sensor. The 100-400L on the other hand is then way too hefty for my needs.

So then came out the 7D and I now consider to switch to this body. In sharp contrast to the 5D2, I already love the body itself, I find it neat and enjoyable and it feels like a miniature 1D series to me. It would allow me to omit the dreaded 100-300L and go for a beautiful 70-200/4L IS instead. It would omit the need for the 1.4x converter and also save me from using the extension tubes for macros in most if not all cases. It offers video and live view.

For a day, I already had the opportunity to check the 7D and so I know that I am gonna loose probably 1 stop of low light performance when compared to the 1Ds2 in my RAW workflow. For macro and landscape, that's no problem. Apart from loosing some low light performance I am absolutely happy with the 7D RAW data.

Also I am loosing my 50/1.8 as a "low light walkaround lens" cause it's too long on the 7D, but my secret long-term plans for low light and walkaround are to buy a Leica M series at some point or a future 24x36mm EVIL camera if it ever surfaces, and a nice 35 or 50 mm lens for that, because that would be the nicest way to do these candids.

My big, big *main concern* is loosing the 24-70L and having to switch to the 17-55IS. I have seen some studio comparisons and a lot of general comments that make me rather unsure about the 17-55IS, but it seems there's not much people out there that know these exact two lens/body combinations (24-70L and 5D2/1Ds2/3 vs. 17-55IS and 7D). From what I have seen of the new 15-85IS, I have already clearly dismissed that lens.

I want to travel as light as possible, so its no alternative to carry the 1Ds2+24-70L *and* the 7D+70-200L e.g. for my travel photography.

So my question is, can a photographer that is used to a 5D2/1Ds series and the 24-70L, switch to the 7D and 17-55IS without going amok after a while ....?

thanks for reading,
Thomas

[Ken Bennett]

Hi, Thomas,

The short answer is yes, you can.

I use 1D Mark II bodies at work, and 40D bodies at home. I have the 24-70/2.8 at work, and the 17-55/2.8 at home. (They cover exactly the same zoom range, btw, given the 1.3x crop of the 1D series.) Of course there are times I miss the AF performance and speed of the 1D2 when I am shooting personal work, but for the most part I'm happy with the 40D bodies. The 7D is of course as fast as the 1D and the AF performance should be better than the 40D and 5D2.

The 17-55 is a nice little lens. It's not as well sealed, and the zoom action isn't hidden inside the hood like the 24-70. It doesn't have the same smooooooooth zoom action, either, but it does have I.S. which is a huge advantage for my work. I often find myself bringing a 40D and the 17-55 to work to cover assignments where the I.S. is necessary. I'll bring a second 40D and put the 70-200/2.8 IS on it, and I really like the extra reach over the 1D series. I think I could do 80% of my assignments with those two bodies and lenses. If the low light quality of the 7D is better than the 40D, then I could shoot 90% or more with the 7D and those lenses.

Finally, for a walkaround lens, see if you can find a good used Canon 28/1.8. It's light and compact, and a pretty good performer on the crop body. I often walk around with just a 40D and the 28. Maybe stick an 85/1.8 in a jacket pocket.

Cheers,

Ken

[memento]

Hi Ken,

thanks for your input!

In the last days, I've seen some good and some bad comments on the 17-55IS (on various bodies) so I assume there is - as probably always - some sample variation, but a short check on the lens that I will actually buy should probably handle that.

I am still a bit worried about the mechanics of the 17-55IS, not that I am exactly abusing my gear, but will it stand the test of time during travel, in a similar way like the 24-70L? Will the missing weather protection be a problem in humid conditions with such a lens that is crammed of high tech IS and other electronic stuff?

As a walkaround lens, I am actually leaning towards the Sigma 30/1.4, due to its extra 2/3 f-stop in comparison to the Canon 28.

cheers,
Thomas

[Ken Bennett]

I am still a bit worried about the mechanics of the 17-55IS, not that I am exactly abusing my gear, but will it stand the test of time during travel, in a similar way like the 24-70L? Will the missing weather protection be a problem in humid conditions with such a lens that is crammed of high tech IS and other electronic stuff?

I don't think the 17-55 would stand up to anywhere near the level of abuse that my 24-70 gets on a daily basis. There's a reason why the L lenses are built to that standard, and why they cost so much.

On my list of features that I need for personal work, bomb-proof construction isn't near the top. For work work, it's at or close to the top of the list. So it really depends on what YOU need your cameras and lenses to do. With a little care, the 17-55 should last a long time.

Hope this helps.

--Ken

[stever]

the repair information made available on lensrentals.com website makes interesting reading - as i recall they find the 17-55 to be one of the few unreliable Canon lenses

[BernardLanguillier]

So my question is, can a photographer that is used to a 5D2/1Ds series and the 24-70L, switch to the 7D and 17-55IS without going amok after a while ....?

The answer to that question is probably yes, no my question in the long run is whether it makes sense at this point of time to go back towards APS.

On the positive side, the latest sensors are just as good DR and noise wise as the FF sensors we have just a few years ago, you'll get more DoF all other things being equal, a lighter and smaller package and more reach on the long end.

On the negative side, if you think that higher resolutions might be important to you further down the road, it seems clear that APS will run faster into diffraction limits than FF, and I anticipate the increase of resolution to slow down faster than FF bodies. Let's say that APS is likely not to much beyond 30 megapixels while FF will stop at around 50... your applications will drive this, but lens investement in either platform will make harder and harder to switch back and forth.

Cheers,
Bernard

[memento]

Hello Steve and Bernard,

thanks for your input. Moving from the 5D2 to the 1Ds2, the resolution available already went down from 21 to 16 MP and I found that these 16 MP are adequate for me, probably even in some years to come. Before that, I was using the 1D2 with 8 MP which is a bit low when doing large prints.

I realise that the 7D does push the envelope with 18 MP on the small sensor but I have tried this camera with my macro lens and the resulting RAW files are soo great for my needs!

And in addition, using the 5D2 with macro or telephoto lenses I found it sometimes hard to reach the desired magnification, lots of extension rings needed, or even a 1.4x teleconverter, also the mighty 70-200/4L is too short on full frame, driving me to use the rather sub standard 70-300 or 100-300 that are available.... this is all manageable but image quality, while remaining ample for my needs, is cut to a level that the 7D will give me with much less of a "fuzz".

But I am still worried about the standard and wide-angle situation as I love my landscape shots with the 24-70L on full format sensor!

I am thinking if I should omit IS and f/2.8 from my wish list and probably lean towards the 17-40L. For real "low light" situations I'll have to get a fast prime, anyway. Not so sure about resolution on the 7D, though, but I'll probably have to try out. But it's probably more durable than the 17-55IS and also seems to have much less problems with flare?

Anyone out here who actually uses a 17-40L on the 7D or 50D ... and even prefers (or not) it to the 17-55?

cheers,
Thomas

[Ray]

I want to travel as light as possible, so its no alternative to carry the 1Ds2+24-70L *and* the 7D+70-200L e.g. for my travel photography.

So my question is, can a photographer that is used to a 5D2/1Ds series and the 24-70L, switch to the 7D and 17-55IS without going amok after a while ....?

Thomas,
Interesting question! I don't believe it's possible to give a definitive answer, but the the statement that you want to travel as light as possible suggests to me that the 7D with EF-S 17-55/2.8 might produce equally good results as the 5D2 with 24-70/2.8 at least some of the time if not most of the time, and occasionally even better results. How true this may be in practice really depends on your type of shooting.

In situations where you always have the equipment available to enable you to get the best possible image quality that the camera and lens are capable of, which is essentially a studio situation, then there's no question that a 5D2 with 24-70/2.8 will outperform a 7D with 17-55/2.8 in terms of everything that counts (resolution, noise, tonal range, color sensitivity etc).

However, in situations where you may not have the time to set up a tripod, or may not even be carrying a tripod, and you may simply be trying to get the best image which the less-than-ideal circumstances permit, you might get even better results with a 7D/17-55mm combination.

There are a number of points to consider. In circumstances without tripod where the subject is fairly still but the light is not too good, the shutter speed will be the greatest factor determining the sharpness of the image.

Both lenses have a widest aperture of F2.8 but the 17-55 has at least a 2-stop shutter speed advantage because of its IS. If you need to bump up ISO to 400 with the 5D2 to get a sufficiently fast shutter speed, it's doubtful that image quality would be better than the 7D at ISO 100, in any respect. The 5D2 shot might be marginally sharper. That would be an interesting comparison to make. But I don't believe the 5D2 image would be cleaner or have better tonality in those circumstances.

The DoF implications may or may not be an advantage. If shallow DoF is what you aim for most of the time, the 5D2 has a clear advantage. However, in circumstances where you want maximum (or extensive) DoF, the 7D has an advantage, and such advantage tends to cancel the other advantages of the 5D2 when shutter speed is a consideration.

In the above example where it was necessary to use the 5D2 at ISO 400 to get a sufficiently fast shutter speed at full aperture, the DoF will be noticeably shallower than the 7D shot. If that's what you want, then fine. The 5D2 still has the advantage even if noise, DR, tonality and image sharpness is no better.

But, supposing you didn't want a very shallow DoF and preferred the more moderate DoF that the cropped-format 7D produces at F2.8. To get that same DoF using the 5D2 you'd need to stop down to F3.5. The shutter speed at ISO 400 would then be too slow. You'd need to use something like ISO 1000 or greater. With equal DoF, I suspect the 7D image would be noticeably better in all respects.

A similar situation applies at the other end of the F stop range. If you are shooting a landscape that is not completely still, (leaves moving in the breeze etc), you may need to use ISO 400 at F16 with the 5D2 to get a sufficiently fast shutter speed, even with a tripod. The IS in the 17-55mm lens won't help freeze the leaves, but you will get the same DoF with the 7D at F10, so for the same shutter speed you can use ISO 125. Also, any good lens is sharper at F10 than at F16, so that fact tends to cancel any resolution advantage the 5D2 might have.

I don't own a 24-70 but I do have the excellent EF-S 17-55 IS. For me this is the ultimate 'walk-around' lens. A fixed prime is simply too limiting. I had problems with accurate autofocussing with this lens on the 40D. One of the reasons I upgraded to the 50D was because of its new feature of autofocussing adjustment.

My copy of the 17-55 really is impressively sharp at full aperture. However, if autofocussing is out of adjustment, then it's useless.

The following shot was just a casual, hand-held shot at ISO 100, 400th sec and F2.8, taken in my garden, to give me an idea if there was an autofoussing problem. I can't remember now what point I focuused on, but I did at the time and there didn't appear to be a problem. This shot also gives one an idea of the quality of the bokeh, if that's important to you. The crop is a genuine 100% crop at minimum jpeg compression.

[attachment=20612:Full_image.jpg]  [attachment=20613:100__crop.jpg]

[memento]

Ray,

However, in situations where you may not have the time to set up a tripod, or may not even be carrying a tripod, and you may simply be trying to get the best image which the less-than-ideal circumstances permit, you might get even better results with a 7D/17-55mm combination.

Both lenses have a widest aperture of F2.8 but the 17-55 has at least a 2-stop shutter speed advantage because of its IS. If you need to bump up ISO to 400 with the 5D2 to get a sufficiently fast shutter speed, it's doubtful that image quality would be better than the 7D at ISO 100, in any respect. The 5D2 shot might be marginally sharper.

Now you mention it, I can confirm that I found myself using the 5D2+24-70L very often at ISO 400...800 even in daylight (especially in winter times) because I wanted to stop down to around f/10...11 for maximum corner sharpness and retain exposure time values of at least 2x focal length (e.g. 50 mm => 1/100 second) because otherwise there often was an ever so slight blurring to the image.

The DoF implications may or may not be an advantage. If shallow DoF is what you aim for most of the time, the 5D2 has a clear advantage.

I really *love* taking images with a shallow depth of field. But for that, I think that on the 7D I'll be using either primes or the 70-200L. On the 24-70L, the shallow depth of field was only of real interest to me in the ...70 mm range anyway. But as a 50 easily beats it there, it's probably not a real concern for my crop zoom lens.

The following shot was just a casual, hand-held shot at ISO 100, 400th sec and F2.8, taken in my garden, to give me an idea if there was an autofoussing problem. I can't remember now what point I focuused on, but I did at the time and there didn't appear to be a problem. This shot also gives one an idea of the quality of the bokeh, if that's important to you. The crop is a genuine 100% crop at minimum jpeg compression.

Thanks for the example. It looks really nice to me !

I have to admit that I am still not much further in my lens decision, though. I have now also seen samples of the 17-40L and they also look really, really nice. I'd be loosing the IS, though, which might reintroduce the problems with higher ISO even at daytime as I described above.

But, just another aspect.... the 17-40s are less expensive than the 17-55IS (I am a bit worried of buying a used 17-55IS while I would not hesitate to get a used 17-40L which means I'm looking at about 1/2 to 2/3rd the cost). This would mean that my new walkaround prime lens essentially would come for free (either Sigma 30/1.4 or Canon 28/1.8, in addition to the 50 and 90 primes I already have).

For those situations where the IS is really needed, I'm probably gonna prefer the even faster primes anyway.

It's not so easy if you change the sensor format of your camera system and have to re-think everything

cheers,
Thomas

[stever]

we have some similar interests and i would find it difficult to give up the 5D2 for a crop-frame camera (i have used and accumulated the 20D, 5D, and 40D).  there is no problem with images from the 20D and 40D (although the 40D is much nicer to use with no better images). the 5D was noticeabley better in high ISO noise and resolution (disproportionally to the pixel increase over the 40D).  the 5D2 is another step above in both noise and resolution with all lenses (the pixel density is the same as the 20D)

travel - i travel a bit and the 5D2 and 24-105 is a great walk-around combination - comparable in size and weight to a crop-frame with 17-55 but with a more useful zoom range - i don't miss the wider aperture with IS and low noise - dof is not that important to me-- keep in mind that dof at f2.8 with a crop frame is about the same as f4 ff.  a 50 1.4 is in the travel bag along with the 100-400 (tested and selected with some expenditure of time and money).  the 100-400 is heavier but not a lot longer (collapsed) than the 70-200 f4 and i find it much more useful (i tested the 70-200 and resolution is very good, but seriously degraded by the 1.4x).  on the 5D2, the 100-400 has the same resolution cropped as the 40D. the 17-40 is a good lens but i will probably replace it for travel with a Voigtlander 20mm -- i bought the 17-40 to replace the 17-85 underwater on my 20D - it's nice to have with a crop frame and ff camera, but the lack of IS limited zoom range makes it less than great as a walk-around crop-frame lens

macro - recently, my macro has mostly been underwater with 20D (i can't justify a new 7D housing) and 100mm - not a lot different than critters - need room to get some light in and not bother them.  the question is whether a 7D will provide anything better than a crop from a 5D2 -- would like to hear an informed comparison.  the DP review test of the 100 L was not encouraging.

landscape - i'm not happy with any zoom lenses for landscapes as the edges aren't really sharp even stopped down.  i'm concerned that the pixel density of the 7D will limit resolution for even good primes.

wildlife - used the crop frame cameras with 100-400 to get 640 equivalent (400 just isn't enough) but found no difference to the 5D2 and an equivalent crop (and with anything shorter the 5D2 is better).  Intend to try a 7D with 400 f5.6 in a month or so and see if there's a useful improvement -  anybody tried this?

[memento]

Hi Steve,

as the guy who sold me his 7D has erroneously given me wrong bank details (well, this kind of things can always happen....) I still haven't got my 7D yet which - in addition to having a slight cold right now - leaves me with some more days of reading reviews and test reports of lenses.... instead of going out and trying out things for myself ....

the 5D2 is another step above in both noise and resolution with all lenses (the pixel density is the same as the 20D)

I absolutely agree on the high ISO *but* I had the opportunity to do some shots with a 7D some time ago with my Tamron 90 macro and I must say, to all intents and purposes, at low ISO they just look absolutely identical on a 100% level to those of the 1Ds2 (I had also made the same shots with the 1Ds2). There's the same amount of details, no difference that I could ever see. And the 1Ds2 itself I did compare to the 5D2, again - to my eyes - same quality at 100% level. So it's just 16 vs. 18 vs. 21 MP, well 18 vs. 21 is not really a difference that I care for.

The 7D loses big time in the high ISO department - again *but* it wins big time, at least when shooting macros - in the depth-of-field department. So for all my macro work I am really sure I will end up with the same file quality (resolution, noise, everything else....) than what I've got with the 5D2 - save, of course, for the little 21 vs. 18 MP difference.

For telephoto stuff the 5D2 would again win with, say a 500/4 vs. the 7D with a 300/4 - because if I have both lenses at f/4 and the same shutter speed on both cameras, the 5D2 high ISO quality is better. But I will probably never ever have a 500/4 lens, it is way to expensive and also way to big and heavy.... so what I'd ended up is having a 300/4 plus 1.5x converter on the 5D2, and in effect that means losing all the theoretical 5D2 advantages over the 7D.... I then have only f/5.6 or so, I have some image quality loss due to the converter, I don't get any better files than what the 7D with the plain 300 without converter can give me.

OK you can argue, the 7D does - on the other hand - *not* give any image quality improvements. But for me, it's just so much easier to work with it. I can get macro down 1:1 size - thats 22x15 mm (instead of 36x24 mm) without any need for extension rings, converters or the like. Without any attachments, the 300/4IS focuses down to 1:4 size - and again 1:4 is a very different story on the 7D than it was on the 5D2. That way I can shoot happily e.g. all dragonflies without any extension rings or the like.

That's all sooo much less fuss than it was before.

5D2 and 24-105 is a great walk-around combination - comparable in size and weight to a crop-frame with 17-55 but with a more useful zoom range

the 100-400 is heavier but not a lot longer (collapsed) than the 70-200 f4 and i find it much more useful (i tested the 70-200 and resolution is very good, but seriously degraded by the 1.4x).

the 17-40 is a good lens but i will probably replace it for travel with a Voigtlander 20mm --

I have thought and looked back at all the images that I've taken with the 24-70L on 5D2 / 1Ds2 so far. In fact, I found myself always carrying the 24-70L *and* the 100-300L, because the 24-70L lacks any telephoto range. The 17-55IS might be a little longer but its lacking again. I guess most of my shots are either (on full frame) 24-50 mm *or* they are at 100 mm or above. Apart from dedicated portrait shootings (which I sometimes do for work) I'm almost never using the 50....100 mm range. With the 24-70L I of course have taken some shots at 70, but often cropped those afterwards.

This - and the worry about long-term reliability - has again brought me back to the 17-40L. It covers the full frame 24-50 range anyway for me. It's not a low DOF specialist but what the heck, there's always some little spare space for a prime.

The alternative would be a 18-135 or something like that which would be a *really* nice zoom range but then the quality of lenses like that, sadly, is not what I am looking for.

Now that you mention that Voigtländer lens, I've never heard of that one.

Regarding the 100-400L, I've never tried one so far. I guess it'll be to heavy for me. I had some opportunity to use a Canon 70-200/2.8 and Tokina 80-200/2.8 and frequently found myself leaving them at home. If I am willing to carry such a heavy lens, I'd probably rather take the fixed 300 then.

wildlife - used the crop frame cameras with 100-400 to get 640 equivalent (400 just isn't enough) but found no difference to the 5D2 and an equivalent crop (and with anything shorter the 5D2 is better).  Intend to try a 7D with 400 f5.6 in a month or so and see if there's a useful improvement -  anybody tried this?

My guess is you'll never find any cases where the 7D will deliver *better* IQ than a 5D2.

The point is - at least to me - there are a lot of cases (some of which I've described above) where the 7D will give *the same* IQ but with more convenience. It's not just the crop factor which eliminates the need for extension rings, or teleconverters, it's of course also the nice 7D body with the - to me at least - more comfortable viewfinder (big EOS 1 series viewfinder design - the 5D2 is more "20D" style where I found myself frequently smearing my nose against the rear screen), also the advanced autofocus, stuff like that....

That's why I now am switching to the 7D.

I was always perfectly happy with 5D2 or 1Ds2 IQ and not looking for more quality. But I am definitely looking for more convenience, less weight in the camera bag, yet still achieving the same picture quality.

The only thing where I really see the 7D in advance even regarding image quality, is that you can now enjoy using the 70-200/4L .... which is a so much better lens than the 70-300DO or all the other Canon xx-300s on the full frame bodies.

cheers,
Thomas

[memento]

Here is an example that I shot with 7D and 1Ds2 some time ago. (The 7D I used for these shots was a friends camera that I could try out for a day.)

The insect is about 20 cm long. I did a series with various ISO settings on both cameras. All images on both cameras were taken with the Tamron 90 Macro, I changed the distance to the insect to at least roughly get the same size.

Also the insect is of course under glass, it might smudge some of the very faintest details, so this is no "scientific" test but for my needs it is sufficient to show that I'll be getting the same file quality with my macro shots with either of these two cameras.

This is the complete image (downsized) taken with the 1Ds2
[attachment=20715:_I4M1502.jpg]

Here the same situation with the 7D
[attachment=20716:IMG_0251.jpg]

This is a 100% crop from the 1Ds2 image at ISO 100
[attachment=20717:_I4M1504_crop.jpg]

And this is the 100% crom from the 7D at ISO 100
[attachment=20719:IMG_0250_crop.jpg]

Again a 100% crop, this time 1Ds2 at ISO 1600
[attachment=20721:_I4M1501_crop.jpg]

And finally the 7D at ISO 800
[attachment=20720:IMG_0252_crop.jpg]

Why did I compare ISO 800 vs. 1600? In fact, I should have even compared ISO 640 on the 7D with ISO 1600 on the 1Ds2: Because the higher depth of field due to the 7D sensor size means that I can get the same depth of field at about 1 1/3 f-stops more open. Photographing the field, and trying to achieve the same d.o.f. and the same shutter speed with both cameras, this will translate into selecting 1 1/3 ISO steps lower with the 7D.

This thoughts about ISO obviously *only* apply to macro photography, not to standard low light photography.

Oh and I should mention all the above were taken in RAW, processed with Lightroom. At the time (November 2009) I had to first convert all the 7D files into DNG before I could load them into Lightroom. Taking this into account and also that I have plenty of experience in RAW development of 1Ds2 files, but no such experience at all with the 7D so far, I would only assume that the 7D files I'll be getting when I really own and use that camera, will probably even come out a bit better than those shown here.

cheers,
Thomas