Research on Canon 5D Mark IV - WTW: Hi, I have been things about purchasing the 5D M IV, so I have started review Youtube videos and various reviews on this unit. Based on my research...

baygolf Loc: DMV

Hi, I have been things about purchasing the 5D M IV, so I have started review Youtube videos and various reviews on this unit. Based on my research, for now, I have two questions/statements that I would like some feedback on:

1. I read that based on the levels of image improvements, one can get away with not using fast glass,i.e., f/2.8, f/4 will provide one with similar results. Have the improvements in the current crop of cameras reduces the need for a fast lens, e.g., f/1.4, f/1.8, and f/2.8?

2. It appears that in order to take full advantage of the 5D M IV, one would have to replace all their old lens with the Mark II version of the Canon lens. Some of the 5D M IV feature set will not work on non-Mark II lens. Makes me wonder if the 6D M II will have the same requirement?

Anyway, I would welcome any comments or feedback.

P.S. Currently I have 70D.

Haydon

More importantly to ask, do you own or are you willing to buy EF lenses instead of EF-S because EF-S lenses on Canon's will not fit on full-frame cameras like the 5D series.

baygolf Loc: DMV

Haydon wrote:

More importantly to ask, do you own or are you willing to buy EF lenses instead of EF-S because EF-S lenses on Canon's will not fit on full-frame cameras like the 5D series.

I knew at some point I would get a full frame Canon Camera so the only lens I purchased were EF lens.

Thanks for the feedback.

SS319

baygolf wrote:

1. I read that based on the levels of image improvements, one can get away with not using fast glass,i.e., f/2.8, f/4 will provide one with similar results. Have the improvements in the current crop of cameras reduces the need for a fast lens, e.g., f/1.4, f/1.8, and f/2.8?.

That is true and you can put used oil in your Lamborghini.

Fast lenses are to give you greater photographic control. Higher quality of lenses are more to increasing resolution and eliminating distortion.

Were I a salesman, and you wanted to buy the 5DM4 so that you could hang lesser lenses on it, I would tell you that you are wasting your money on the camera, and may even refuse to sell it to you.

baygolf Loc: DMV

SS319 wrote:

That is true and you can put used oil in your Lamborghini.

Fast lenses are to give you greater photographic control. Higher quality of lenses are more to increasing resolution and eliminating distortion.

But, unless your fast glass is the mark II version, on the 5D M IV, aren't you just putting used oil in your Lamborghini?

Thanks for the feedback.

Haydon

Putting quality glass is always a good choice but this discussion has also been presented with the 5Ds/r with it's extra 20 megapixel image size. In most cases I don't believe you will have to be too concerned. Example, the first version of the 70-200 2.8L will still resolve well on the that body.

I don't think that faster apertures have so much as a bearing either. Canon actually recommended the 16-35 F4L over the 16-35 2.8L II for the 5Ds/r.

baygolf Loc: DMV

Haydon wrote:

Putting quality glass is always a good choice but this discussion has also been presented with the 5Ds/r with it's extra 20 megapixel image size. In most cases I don't believe you will have to be too concerned. Example, the first version of the 70-200 2.8L will still resolve well on the that body.

I don't think that faster apertures have so much as a bearing either. Canon actually recommended the 16-35 F4L over the 16-35 2.8L II for the5Ds/r.

Thanks for your feedback.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Haydon wrote:

Putting quality glass is always a good choice but this discussion has also been presented with the 5Ds/r with it's extra 20 megapixel image size. In most cases I don't believe you will have to be too concerned. Example, the first version of the 70-200 2.8L will still resolve well on the that body.

I don't think that faster apertures have so much as a bearing either. Canon actually recommended the 16-35 F4L over the 16-35 2.8L II for the 5Ds/r.

Of course, it is a much improved lens! Now the better one is the 16-35/2.8 III !

Haydon

speters wrote:

Of course, it is a much improved lens! Now the better one is the 16-35/2.8 III !

Interestingly, they talked about only a small improvement over the v2 of the 16-35 2.8L II. According to reviews I've read, there is a noticeable amount of vignetting when shooting wide open with only a marginal improvement in sharpness in the corners. Overall the consensus suggests the better lens to be the 16-35 F4L regardless of it being a stop slower over the 2.8.

Many sites were in praise as of late with Canon's efforts on UWA lenses (16-35 F4 & EF-s 10-18) but that changed once again on the v III.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

baygolf wrote:

Hi, I have been things about purchasing the 5D M I... (show quote)

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

oops accidently pressed send

baygolf Loc: DMV

baygolf wrote:

But, unless your fast glass is the mark II version, on the 5D M IV, aren't you just putting used oil in your Lamborghini?

Thanks for the feedback.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

I have "L" lenses and "EF" lenses not the3 latest. I went to the 5D IV for improvement is better pictures at higher ISO ( as I hand hold HDR) and I am thrilled with that. It is a great camera but if I look hard I can find something wrong with it.My 5D III was great but this is better FOR ME. Go to a store and try one.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

baygolf wrote:

Hi, I have been things about purchasing the 5D M I... (show quote)

I went from a 6D to a 5DIV last year and I can't really think of anything that I miss from the 6D. I also have a 7DII that I only use for BIF or some action sports, preferring the 5DIV for everything else. Even for auto races I usually prefer the 5DIV. The image quality, to my eye, is better even with a 1.4 extender on my 100-400 L II and I can use all my focus points. Unless depth of field or very low light are issues, I can do as much or more with my f/4-5.6 100-400 L II on my 5DIV as I can my 70-200 f/2.8 L II on my 7DII. The only time I feel any need for a 2.8 lens on the 5DIV is, as stated, for depth of field or very low light.
I don't know what you are referring to about losing features on non-MKII lenses. My 35mm f/1.4, 24-105 f/4 and 24-70 f/4 are all Mk I and all work excellently without any loss of features that I have noticed. My one non-L lens is an 85mm f/1.8 and it also gives me beautiful results.
If you are serious about upgrading and don't mind the cost then all I can say is "Go for it".
One thing: The 70D has an articulating screen. The 5DIV does not. If that feature is important to you then you may want to wait and look at the 6DII when it comes out. I understand it will have an articulating screen.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

SS319 wrote:

That is true and you can put used oil in your Lamborghini.

Fast lenses are to give you greater photographic control. Higher quality of lenses are more to increasing resolution and eliminating distortion.

Were I a salesman, and you wanted to buy the 5DM4 so that you could hang lesser lenses on it, I would tell you that you are wasting your money on the camera, and may even refuse to sell it to you.

When it comes to lenses, "high quality" doesn't necessarily mean "fast"... and vice versa.

In fact, many times you'll find the less extreme, smaller aperture lens has better edge-to-edge sharpness and more even illumination across the image area. For example, compare the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 (with IS) with the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 (without IS). Also compare EF 24-70mm f/4 IS with EF 24-70mm f/2.8.