Canon 5D MkII and 300 f/2.8L

phototrek · Mar 19, 2009

I am thinking about getting the 5D2 and the 300 f/2.8L IS lens. I will be using this lens to take landsacpe and/or wildlife photos. I also might get the 1.4 converter. I know this is a great lens but is it good for landscape photos or should I get other lenses? I already have the 24-70 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/2.8L and the 100-400 f/2.8L.

tsaraleksi · Mar 19, 2009

Given your lens lineup I think a 300/2.8 would be a good addition. If you need the focal length, that lens is about as good as it gets.

bdavis · Mar 19, 2009

Usually landscape photographers want something a bit wider than 300mm dont they?

250Gimp · Mar 19, 2009

I wish the 100-400L was 2.8!!

Anywho, 300mm is a bit long for landscape,but would be a great low light wildlife lense.

Montana · Mar 19, 2009

I have shot landscapes with lenses anging from 17mm all the way up to 600mm. Its not always about being wide. Its about getting the comp and perspective. I agree that the 300 would fit in nicely. It will be a little short for wildlife, especially on a full frame sensor. The teleconverter will help, but personally I only use them if I have too.

davebmck · Mar 19, 2009

The 17-40mm f/4L is a better landscape lens for the 5Dmk2. One of the lowest cost L class lenses.

usayit · Mar 19, 2009

For landscape (non moving subject, generally good light, on a tripod) would it not make more sense to get the 300 f/4L? I know it isn't as ooooo.. and aaaahhh as the f/2.8 glass but it is lighter (half the weight) and easier to pack. Landscape photography is all about getting to a location.

Oh and yes... the 300mm is a bit short for wildlife.

uplander · Mar 19, 2009

Montana said:
I have shot landscapes with lenses anging from 17mm all the way up to 600mm. Its not always about being wide. Its about getting the comp and perspective. I agree that the 300 would fit in nicely. It will be a little short for wildlife, especially on a full frame sensor. The teleconverter will help, but personally I only use them if I have too.

Just explain to me why the 300 would be short on a full frame as opposed to a crop sensor?

The image is the same but only the edges are cropped. Splain Lucy!!!

usayit · Mar 20, 2009

uplander said:
Just explain to me why the 300 would be short on a full frame as opposed to a crop sensor?

The image is the same but only the edges are cropped. Splain Lucy!!!

'

Yes you are correct BUT on a full frame, you need a longer focal length to fill the frame with the same subject.

Montana · Mar 20, 2009

Yep, what usayit said. For the type of wildlife shooting I do, 300mm is way to short on crop sensor as well.

KvnO · Mar 20, 2009

Personally, I'd go for something on the wide side. You've already got the telephoto end covered pretty well. For landscapes, I think you might be better off/happier with something wider than 24mm.

phototrek · Mar 20, 2009

Yeah, I was also thinking about getting the 16-35 f/2.8L. The reason I was thinking about the 300 f/2.8L and the 1.4 converter is because I can't afford the 500 or 600 f/4L lenses.

Overread · Mar 21, 2009

usayit said:
'

Yes you are correct BUT on a full frame, you need a longer focal length to fill the frame with the same subject.

true - but with something like the 5DM2 and its 20MP sensor one has a lot of cropping capacity availble - so one can crop the shot down without losing too much image quality or detail in the final image nor reducing its usability for printing.

usayit · Mar 21, 2009

Overread said:
true - but with something like the 5DM2 and its 20MP sensor one has a lot of cropping capacity availble - so one can crop the shot down without losing too much image quality or detail in the final image nor reducing its usability for printing.

* Beyond sensors size and megapixels, lenses have a limited ability to resolve. Cropping increases IQ loss.
* In terms of just pure Megapixels and sensor size:

- Pixel density of 5D MII = 2.4 MP/cm^2
- Pixel density of 50D = 4.5 MP/cm^2
- Sensor size of the 50D = 3.32 cm^2

If you crop the 5D MII to the size of the sensor in the 50D, you end up with the equivalent of about 8MP versus the 15MP in the 50D. For any given focal length, you are better off with the 50D with the smaller sensor than a 5D and cropping (which reduces the amount the information collected and amplifies the IQ loss). For wildlife photos, you want to fill the frame with the subject.

soylentgreen · Mar 22, 2009

usayit said:
* Beyond sensors size and megapixels, lenses have a limited ability to resolve. Cropping increases IQ loss.
* In terms of just pure Megapixels and sensor size:

- Pixel density of 5D MII = 2.4 MP/cm^2
- Pixel density of 50D = 4.5 MP/cm^2
- Sensor size of the 50D = 3.32 cm^2

If you crop the 5D MII to the size of the sensor in the 50D, you end up with the equivalent of about 8MP versus the 15MP in the 50D. For any given focal length, you are better off with the 50D with the smaller sensor than a 5D and cropping (which reduces the amount the information collected and amplifies the IQ loss). For wildlife photos, you want to fill the frame with the subject.

I dunno. I have cropped some insane shots with the 5D Mark II. Well past the safe margin I had on the 40D. The resolution and detail is all there. There is no discernible noise on this sensor until you past ISO 1600. Pixel density does not hold all though. The 5D's pixel are larger in comparison I think, hence the disparity in density. But the larger pixels are what gives it the low noise and dynamic range.

As to the original topic. Get the 17-40 or 16-35 for landscapes. The 16-35 will provide better edge resolution on the FF 5D Mark II.