You won't have to shoot EF lenses wide open because you have two more stops of ISO compared to the M8. You can even use F2.8 zooms if you want to or cheaper F2.0 lenses set at F2.8.

looking at the op's list

"- Canon 5D mkII - $2700
- Canon 35mm f/1.4 L - $1180
- Canon 50mm f/1.4 L - $325
- Canon 85mm f/1.2 II L - $1870
- Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 II L - $1450
- Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS L - $1100"

I would think about dropping the the 50 (its not L by the way) get the 135L (thn you have the holy trinity) drop the 16-35 get the 17-40 and maybe add the 24-105.
Then he has aset of slower but IS zooms (ok not 17-40) and a set of primes which most people around here fall in love with.

mh2000 wrote:
you can also adapt Leica-R on a 5D...
Be careful here the wides MAY interfere with the mirror.

I hate carrying big lenses. Unfortunately, most of Canon's little light lenses are 2nd tier, and old, and not very good in the corners. The 35 f2 is a great little lens over 90% of the frame, even to the edges, but the corners suck so badly that it's a deal breaker. Here's my solution to that problem:

Wow, great input here! I will have to go to the local store tomorrow to check out weight and size, that will be the deal breaker. I have noted the stuff that you all said about the 50mm f/1.4.

brainiac wrote:

RalphJ wrote:
Outstanding shot! (So which Alt lens did you use for that?)

Thanks! It was the Oly 40 f2 on a 5D as shown above, a package which is very very nearly as small and light as the equivalent M8 setup, but better in low light.

One other joy of using manual focus screens on an SLR is that it releases you from the irksome and inaccurate focus-recompose method. Seeing depth of field correctly at all times, composing the frame, and focussing accurately on a way off-centre subject is a very quick and direct way of working, which returns few unpleasant surprises.

The 50/1.4 can be really fun to use if you're shooting B&W. It has a low contrast look wide open that is very flattering to skin tones. In color and in hard light, it looks a little antique until stopped down to f2.8. And agreed again that the AF and build quality are dodgy. If you want something cheap and AF just to have, honestly just get the 50/1.8. For a step up in quality with auto-aperture, look for the new Zeiss ZE 50/1.4 manual focus lens. Beyond that, there's the rabbit hole of alt lenses...

I have the 50/1.2 and I use it. However it's no 50 Summilux - minute focus issues abound when inspected closely. Wide open and particularly at the close focus limit, it has the hazy dreamy look of a vintage lens. At f2 it's blistering sharp. Bokeh is the best of the Canon AF lenses (IMO). But read carefully about the backfocus and focus shift problems that have been widely reported.

I have the 70-200 f4 IS and it's a blisteringly sharp lens and very light for its utility. Its fatal flaw (for some users) is harsh bokeh - it's certainly no portrait lens IMO. Consider the 135L very strongly if that's what you are thinking of.

Also consider the Zeiss ZE 21mm/2.8 that will be out next year over the 16-35/2.8II. I have the 16-35 and it's absolutely wonderful for on-the-run, reportage style shooting. For ultimate detailed landscapes and the like, wait for the reviews of the Zeiss or look up reviews of the Contax/Yashica 21mm/2.8 and prepare to be blown away

fourfa wrote:
The 50/1.4 can be really fun to use if you're shooting B&W. It has a low contrast look wide open that is very flattering to skin tones. In color and in hard light, it looks a little antique until stopped down to f2.8. And agreed again that the AF and build quality are dodgy. If you want something cheap and AF just to have, honestly just get the 50/1.8. For a step up in quality with auto-aperture, look for the new Zeiss ZE 50/1.4 manual focus lens. Beyond that, there's the rabbit hole of alt lenses...

I have the 50/1.2 and I use it. However it's no 50 Summilux - minute focus issues abound when inspected closely. Wide open and particularly at the close focus limit, it has the hazy dreamy look of a vintage lens. At f2 it's blistering sharp. Bokeh is the best of the Canon AF lenses (IMO). But read carefully about the backfocus and focus shift problems that have been widely reported.

I have the 70-200 f4 IS and it's a blisteringly sharp lens and very light for its utility. Its fatal flaw (for some users) is harsh bokeh - it's certainly no portrait lens IMO. Consider the 135L very strongly if that's what you are thinking of.

Also consider the Zeiss ZE 21mm/2.8 that will be out next year over the 16-35/2.8II. I have the 16-35 and it's absolutely wonderful for on-the-run, reportage style shooting. For ultimate detailed landscapes and the like, wait for the reviews of the Zeiss or look up reviews of the Contax/Yashica 21mm/2.8 and prepare to be blown away

As mentioned in passing statements, the 135L is good, great, the best, etc. Yes the 50mm is incredibly pleasing bokeh, and the 135 is the only lens mentioned that equals it. This is the best investment you can make in optics. It is incredibly sharp wide open and only gets better through the range, and the background bokeh is unparalleled.

I have an M8 with the
WATE (16-21mm f4)
28mm f2 Summicron
50mm f1.4 Summilux
75mm f2 Summicron

I also have a brace of 1DsMkIII's and
14mm f2.8LII
15mm f2.8 fisheye
16-35mm f2.8LII
24-70mm f2.8L
24mm f1.4L
24mm f3.5L TS-E
35mm f1.4L
45mm f2.8 TS-E
50mm f1.2L
65mm Micro
70-200mm f2.8L IS
85mm f1.2LII
90mm f2.8 TS-E
100mm f2.8 macro
135mm f2L
200mm f2.8L

So I'm pretty familiar with both systems.

The M8 is the best travel & reportage camera I've ever used. Compact, discrete, great glass, nice files with tremendous dynamic range, and the whole kit fits in a small black A&A bag that doesn't scream "Tourist!" or "Steal me!" I've made beautiful 40-inch prints from this system that rival the Canon files. Sure, you can pixel-peep a difference, but when you're looking at them side by side on the wall, you'd be hard pressed to know which was which. And sometimes the way the images were created is as important as the tools used to create them.

That said, I use the Canons exclusively for the money shots (that's how I make my living). The 35, and 85 are my favorite primes and perform every bit as well as their Leica counterparts, even wide open. But both the 70-200L2.8 new 16-35LII are zooms that produce files worthy of the Big Chip, as well. I create and sell a lot of large prints, and the extra control of a DSLR, the better noise handling and the more reliable AF (among many other features that make a difference, such as the ability to micro-adjust the AF on every lens) make this system more usable for my needs. YMMV.

It's a big move to completely switch formats. Going to Canon from Leica you will immediately notice the larger dent in your shoulder. Also, you've heard all about Canon's low noise at high ISO, but what also must be noted is that the larger file size masks the noise even more, simply because at any given size the 21MP files don't have to be enlarged as much as 10MP files.

As an earlier poster noted, it might be better if you eased into this before completely dumping one system for another. Everybody has an opinion, but the only one that really matters (to you, anyway), is your own.

Hi, I had a Leica M8 with the 28 summicron, 50mm 1.5 zeiss, and a 90 mm elmarit. I sold the lot and switched to the Canon 5d for financial reasons. Lets just say i wanted camera equipment and a new bathroom! Have to say the 35l and the 85l are pretty amazing and are great in low light, you won't be disappointed. I would say the 85l is second to none and the 35l is close to the summicron.

I don't think you lose anything in IQ and you gain with autofocus, what you do lose is Leica's advantage in size and weight. The M8 is like carrying around a larger point and shoot digital, the 5d and the 35L probably are at least three times the weight of the M8 and the Summicron. That being said, my shoulders and arms are getting stronger! its quite a workout. I ended up selling the 35L and I am now shopping for a 35mm f2 which is much lighter.

It's definitely bigger than the M system, but the 5D/35L combo really isn't that heavy. time to hit the gym

Why not consider the Nikon D700 and the Voigtländer SLII 40/2 as a walk around combination with manual focus and auto aperture. It is as small as the Canon 5d with the little Zuiko 40/2, but quicker to use.

You then have the choice of the highly regarded 14-24/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 zooms, plus, say the 135/2 for when you want a fuller, heavier set. You also have the choice of all the fully auto aperture Zeiss manual lenses, which should be almost on par with the Leicas.

Why not the 5d MII so that you can then use the 14-24 nikon and the 24-70 canon, say the 135L when you want....

yeah, so the mount of canon takes canon nikon, manual, etc, unlike Nikon.

I haven`t used the M8, I base my findings on the Leica M series lenses purely on the m6ttl and IMHO those lenses really did need some beating(at any aperture)

I use Canon cameras and only after aquiring some Contax manual focus lenses along with Leica R lenses via the usual adapters did I start to see results like the Leicas used to give me. Of course the gear I carry around now is enough to break the camels back so it is quite refreshing at times to just stick my Canon 24-105 IS on my 1dsmk2 and enjoy the AF and the zoom although it`s back to CA with any Canon lens I`ve used below 50mm ( I don`t use the 24-105 on my 1dsmk3, just can`t get the IQ)

I`d certainly need to see the results from the proposed new 5Dmk2 before placing an order and I`d try to get a Canon(if thats what you are set on) and one or two lenses before letting the Leica stuff go.

I know this is a Canon forum but I second an earlier poster in saying that I`d be seriously looking at the Nikon 700 with in mind that Ziess have some great glass out for that system (and then there is the 14-24 to consider)

Out of interest my Contax 21 2.8 and humble Contax 35-70 is about as close to my old Leica M series lenses as makes no difference.

Again as has already been said you should try out some of the Canon primes that are not super fast (35 f2, 50 1.8 mk2, 85 1.8) and that might allow you to keep the M8 for those rangefinder days.

Lastly after many years of being a photo judge I can tell you that ultimate IQ was rarely the thing that actually won the day for me over the actual content so go with what feels right in your hand and you`ll capture shots that you will feel happy with.

Good Luck with your choice

Dave

pardon me for stating the obvious, but the merits of a rangefinder are what they are. OP-- decide if you want to shoot with a rangefinder (or not). By the sounds of it, your looking at value (priceerformance), which is a no-brainer... To each their own.

I use my m7 almost as much as my ds3.

The 85/1.8 (non L) is also a very fine lens which you might wish to consider as an alternative, perhaps if you choose to get the 50/1.2 instead of the 1.4. The 35/1.4 is a very fine lens. Also the 24/1.4 unles you specialize in shooting test cards.

RyanFlynn wrote:
It's definitely bigger than the M system, but the 5D/35L combo really isn't that heavy. time to hit the gym

Comments like these make me chuckle. I hit the gym quite a lot (and effectively...) and still wouldn't want to carry around the kit the original poster quoted.

There's nothing wrong with keeping both systems. That's what I'd do and am doing. The Canon SLR for some situations, like fast moving situations and telephoto, the M for other kinds of shooting. I'll probably end up getting a zoom for the Canon like a 24-70L since that plays into SLR strengths.

I can tell you that shooting ultra wide angle is so much more satisfying with my M that I sold my 17-40 recently. An M6 + CV 15mm is such a tiny package compared to the Canon...

Obviously dSLRs are very different shooting. But the advantages are: Much better hi ISO/low noise so that all your lenses are at least 1 stop (or more) "faster" compared to Leica M8. Good AF with the 5D series (better with 1D series) and (with the new bodies) micro AF adjustment.

If you like big prints then the FF Canons will do very well for you. Really wide lenses are now possible-don't leave out the extremely sharp 15mm Fish Eye (a real Ultra WA) a bargain @ about $600.

But do leave out the 50mm F1.4 if you intend to use it at F1.4/1.8 because it's very low contrast there (dull washed out-apparently not sharp) there. Your 50mm choices would be the very expensive but super IQ (@ F 1.4-2.0) 50mm F1.2 or the cheap but sharp 50mm F1.8 (at F2.8 +). Or a many MF alternatives because the Canons huge EOS lens mount accepts most SLR and some bigger format lenses with inexpensive adapters. I like the MF "Focus by Wire" of my 85L F1.2 Mk I so much I didn't buy the Mk II and seldom mount my 50L.

The 135mm F2.0 is a real hero (compact and reasonably priced) and will have special IQ and a two stop advantage over the F4.0 zoom-for 189mm buy the 1.4x TC (works well with the 135). Most all of these lenses are available used on the FM Buy Sell forum.

You can (when the time comes) rent/buy and mount the "Great Whites" which would be the 200mm f2.0 (currently my favorite lens), 300mm F2.8, 400mm 2.8 etc. All these lenses have super fast AF and unexcelled IQ wide open. Good Luck!

Funny, I've just gone the other direction - well, without selling my Canon (working) gear. What about a middle path - keep the M lenses, and get a used Epson R-D1 body for those? I actually prefer it to the M8, all things considered - esp for noise at high ISO, and the 1/4 cost of purchase!

So after selling the M8, get a 5D (original), 24L, 35L, and 85 1.8 to save a bit more, and just skip the zooms unless you really need the length? Then you've got a foot in each camp, plus a backup camera (of sorts)...
R

From personal experience the 85L II and 70-200 f/4L IS are stunning wide open.

The 85L might improve a hair stopping down but DOF is so narrow it's kind of a moot point. The 70-200 F4 IS seemed to have a hair more contrast when stopping down, but I used it wide open with impunity.

instead of going with the 16-35 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/4 IS, i would go with the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 17-40 f/4

I'd go for a 5D mk1 and a bunch of Leica R lenses with decent adaptors.

buy Oly alt lenses, incredibly similar in many characteristics to the leica M "look".