Canon 5D Mark II - if you owned

[amatula15]

Hi!

The local camera shop has a used 5D Mark II. 

I currently have a Canon SL1 and was looking to upgrade.
I had been considering the Rebel T8i and the Canon RP (mirrorless full-frame).

I looked at the specs for the 5D II and they seem fine even though they do not have the latest and greatest of anything.

I handled it without battery and with the very light weight 50 mm F/12.8 lens and it did not feel heavy (but would want a heavier/longer lens than that one to help with stabilizing the camera) -- I am petite and use cameras hiking.

If you have owned and used this camera, what are your thoughts on it, especially for landscape?

I am also going to be working with ND (neutral density) filters and maybe seeing if I like astrophotography.

Thank you and all the best!

Annie

[amatula15]

Thank you, Trevor,

Yes; I do not think the 24 would be my most used lens on a full frame camera.  For the R series of cameras, Canon now has the RF 35 mm F/2.8 lens which gets good reviews and even has a level of macro ability.  It also has IS.

I like the idea though of the Sigma 18-35 mm F/1.8 that ebiggs mentioned (despite it not having IS) or the Canon 50 mm F/1.4 lens, also not stabilized.

The R is a a bit pricey but the RP is 999 USA dollars plus $450 or so for the RF 35 mm, so a good option there.

Annie

[Tronhard]

I think it is important to consider your purchase, not simply in terms of THIS camera or lens, but in the system  as a whole over time.  Equipment is not cheap and one does not want to end up having to re-equip necessarily.

The move to the new RF mount and R-series bodies poses a bit of a dilemma:

As people inevitably move across to the new mount and bodies a lot of good, used EF and EF-S mount bodies and lenses will come onto the market, offering some tempting deals.  If you have no asperations of moving to the new mount, then this could be a good deal.

On the other hand, if you intend to continue to purchase new gear on an on-going basis over time then this seems to be the time to look at making the move, as otherwise you will end up with legacy gear like the people in the previous paragraph.

Remember also that bodies change frequently, but your lens purchases can last for decades.

---

@amatula15 wrote:

Thank you, Trevor,

Yes; I do not think the 24 would be my most used lens on a full frame camera.  For the R series of cameras, Canon now has the RF 35 mm F/2.8 lens which gets good reviews and even has a level of macro ability.  It also has IS.

I like the idea though of the Sigma 18-35 mm F/1.8 that ebiggs mentioned (despite it not having IS) or the Canon 50 mm F/1.4 lens, also not stabilized.

The R is a a bit pricey but the RP is 999 USA dollars plus $450 or so for the RF 35 mm, so a good option there.

Annie

---

[ebiggs1]

"I like the idea though of the Sigma 18-35 mm F/1.8...(despite it not having IS) or the Canon 50 mm F/1.4 lens, also not stabilized."

If you think f1.8 or even f1.4 will eliminate camera shake you will probably be disappointed. Having a larger, faster, aperture will allow you to select a higher SS so that part will be good but the larger aperture brings its own conditions, baggage, too.

[amatula15]

Rodger,
Thank you so much!
I loved your comment,

" For the same generation of technology, the larger light collection surface of the individual cells provides lower noise at lesser levels of illumination but this might not matter to you if you typically shoot with plenty of light. "

I have not heard that previously.  One area I want to get better at is low light landscape, not just night photography, but general bad lighting conditions outdoors: dense trees, storm brewing, mostly dark except for where the light is coming through in small areas, fog....  That is one of 3 areas I want to expand into, the other 2 being:

- using an ND filter 

- astrophotograhy.

So... maybe that Canon RP or 6D is a good idea after all.

Currently I do get too much noise so need to work on that, a F/1.8 lens may help but better technique would too.

Thank you, again,
Annie

[Waddizzle]

---

@shadowsports wrote:

Annie,

Stay away from that 5D2.

As you said, you have an SL1 now and small hands.  You'll be a natural for a T8i.

Was the 5D2 an exceptional camera, yes it was.

You have APS/C lenses too.  Maybe not the latest, but they won't fit on a 5D2 either way.

I'm with ebiggs.  As he pointed out consider moving from your SL1 (Digic5) to something much newer Digic 8, which is more technilogically capable and advanced.  The 5D2 is Digic 4.  You get that in a 12 yr old package.  Newer isn't always better, but in the case of a 5D2...  Even Canon knows where it belongs.

If you didn't have a camera now, I'd say maybe.  But you do, and you have some APS/C) lenses too.  This is your chance for a meaningful upgrade.  Just in case there is still any doubt about which camera to buy, here is a side by side:

https://cameradecision.com/compare/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-vs-Canon-EOS-Rebel-T8i     

Will you pay more for the T8i, yes.  But it will be a do more, get more camera.  Now compare your SL1 to the 5D2... Whats the biggest difference?  The lens mount...  because performance wise from a IQ standpoint, (Digic 5 vs. Digic 4) they are nearly identical, and both are "older" by today's standards.  

---

Everything is in the Canon museum.

[amatula15]

Thank you, ebiggs. Is it silly to assume you can get a bigger print from full frame?
Yes, I am thinking of something to complement the SL1. I was originally thinking of replacing it, but the more I use it the more I like it. My other thought is the Canon RP, which looks like a full frame version of the SL1 and I might really like 🙂
Thank you for your help!

[ebiggs1]

"Is it silly to assume you can get a bigger print from full frame?"

Annie, sorta! There, again, is some baloney about a FF vs a cropper. You really need to consider the pixel count of each. I think it is something like 21 vs 24. I would guess yo ucan't tell the difference unless you pixel peep. Do you?

Just because it is FF, does not guarantee you better IQ, sharper and all that stuff, etc. You lens will have more to do with IQ than the camera, up to a point of course. If you changed the decision to, I have to use the T8i with the kit lens or I could use the 5D2 with my ef 24-70mm f2.8L, than 5D2 all day long. However, if you let me select a lens of my choice than the T8i wins every time.  You stick a lens like the fantastic Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens for Canon on a T8i not much else will out do it, if anything. Matter of fact my dream combo in a cropper is the 90D and the Siggy.

"Yes, I am thinking of something to complement the SL1."

That's not a bad idea but not instead of.

[amatula15]

Good info! Thank you, ebiggs.
I have wanted F/1.8 -- would be perfect for landscape. I think I looked over the Sigma you mentioned due to the lack of IS -- but at F/1.8 I don't need to the extent I would on a F/3.5+ lens. I can check that out! Thank you, again,

[Waddizzle]

Sometimes the question of upgrading to a full frame camera is not always about image quality.  

Believe it or not, for aome people is all about angle of view and availale lens selection.  I know that is why I upgraded from a T5 to 6D.  I like to shoot landscapes.  The FF angle of view was wider.  To assume the only raosn someone wants a FF body is fo image qualtiy is a very narrow minded opinion.

[ebiggs1]

"... for aome people is all about angle of view and availale lens selection."

Lens selection is far greater for a cropper than it is for a FF.

"The FF angle of view was wider."

Not necessarily.  You just need to select the correct lens.

A full frame camera can have some, or even a few, characteristics that are better than a given similar cropper but neither of these are them.