Full frame versus reduced frame - wide-end lens choices?

I have a 10D and until today I was dead set on getting a 5D mkII.

 

However, the price puts me off somewhat and in a moment of clarity I am now wondering whether chasing after a

full-frame camera is even relevant. My photography isn't particularly unusual in subject matter - family,

landscapes, occasional candids, some macro - and I don't earn a living from it. So, I perhaps fit into the

'normal user' category as well as anyone.

 

I had assumed that the only way to get satisfactory wide angle photographs was to buy a FF body, and I had my

blinkers on, and hadn't really questioned that assumption. Perhaps I'm right, but now is the time to re-assess.

 

I use a 17-40/4L, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and 100/2.8 Macro. A modest lens selection but all quite capable.

 

I find that I often seek wider than the 17-40/4 can offer, and sometimes wish it was a tad more compact. On a FF

body it will be more than wide enough, but to 'keep up' with the latest in sensor technology it's going to be a

pricy business to get on the 5D mkII bandwagon.

 

So, I'm prepared to cast my mind to the possibility of a 50D and a dedicated wide EF-S style lens. I'm aware

this won't work with the 10D (which I'm keeping) and I'm aware that I'll continue to suffer the 'focal length

multiplier' effect, but I'd be quids in - saving AT LEAST £1000, which is more than enough to buy a very good

wide angle lens. The other way of thinking for me is: I can buy a 50D far sooner than a 5DmkII, and get benefit

NOW, rather than in the spring or summer of 2009, which was my 'go for it' target. Why then? Well, mainly

because I have just found out this week that I am going to be a Dad again next June or thereabouts and so a new

baby deserves a new camera, no? :-)

 

The video capability of the 5DmkII would sure be handy under those circumstances, but we have a modest DV cam

which we hardly use. On the other hand, my 10D is lacking when it comes to shooting moving targets indoors as a

new kitten in the house proves. So, a modern camera - FF or otherwise - will help enormously.

 

So, I'm meandering a bit here. What I mean to ask is:

 

(1) If I went down the 50D route, how much would I need to spend to get a lens that would replicate the range

17-40 as it would be on a full frame body such as the 5DmkII, and here's the crucial bit: I'm not willing to

trade ANY image quality from that 17-40, though I'm flexible on aperture and range. Though f2.8 throughout would

be nice :-)

 

(2) How does the 50D fare for low light photography indoors, particularly of the moving variety? The 10D is of

course old and feeble of AF, so hunts a bit and misses the shot more often than not, but equally I don't expect

miracles in comparison - a bit less hunting and more 'decisiveness' would go a long way toward meeting my objectives.

 

(3) What about noise at higher ISOs? I find that I like to shoot in 'found' light, and that means quite often

hand-held at high ISOs, which on the 10D don't cut it beyond 800. Is there a 'normalised' comparison between a

camera like the 10D and something modern like the 50D or 40D showing noise at different ISOs? I'd *hope* that I

can get ISO 1600 shots with less noise than 800 on the 10D, and 3200 with not much more noise than 800 on the 10D

- am I being realistic in expecting such an improvement?

 

(4) Lastly, has anyone been in my shoes on this? If so, what way did you go and why, and would you now do it

differently given what's available now?

 

Thanks a million for any help - I have had my 10D for over 5 years and I intend on its new companion to have

similar longevity!

 

John

Regarding ISO and noise, dpreview.com provides this with each review of a DSLR. I'd recommend checking it out. There's no direct 50D to 10D comparison, but you can compare each generation and get an idea of how things have changed.

<p>

Short answer: if you're going for the 50D with a good wide angle lens, such as Canon's EF-S 10-22mm (which is not FF),

you'd spend almost the same as you would when spending it on a 5DMKII body (you'd probably save about £300 I

suppose). For that kind of money I would certainly go for the 5DMKII, as FF is bliss, and the camera will have a much

better sensor than the 50D, especially at high ISOs. YMMV.

</p>

<p>

I am somewhat in your shoe, having a 30D at this moment, which serves me very well, but I really miss the wide end of

my lenses. I am probably waiting for the 5DMKII to come out, gives me some time to save money, and then buy a 5D

MKI if the price goes down and add a 17-40/4 to it later.

</p>

"(4) Lastly, has anyone been in my shoes on this? If so, what way did you go and why, and would you now do it differently given what's available now?"

 

I went from my first crop body (20D) to the full frame 5D, no regrets. There's more than the wide end choices: it's nice to have a 50mm behave the way it used to. The viewfinder's big and bright, lens like the 70-200 get down to near-normal perspective, etc.

I was going to say something similar to Martijn Houtman's response. To add a good wide angle to a crop sensor body doesn't save you much cash compared to going with the 5D2 and using your existing lenses.

You don't seem to do much with long telephotos so it seems like the 5D2 would benefit you the most. And it is one less lens to carry.

 

From preliminary reports and images it looks like the low light/high ISO performance of the 5D2 beats the 50D, but I have no idea if that is a significant difference.

 

And, I suggest you buy the new gear BEFORE the baby arrives, else it's going for diapers! ;-)

I am going through same dilema. Right now, I have Canon XT, pleased with the outcome as I am amature & photography is just a hobby. Lenses are 17-40/f4 L, 50 macro & 70-200 f/4 L. The converage is quite good enough for my need and hobby. But I always wanted a FF like 5D II, as I believe that quaility would be far superior with 5D II (FF) compared to 50D. My another challenge is that I am a short person with short hand & holding 5DII on long & travelling need would be difficult. Moreover, video feature in 5DII is quite uselss for me.

 

1) So should I still go for 5D II or just upgrade with 50D?

 

2) Will I lose a lot in quality for not having 5D?

Once you try the Full Frame, you leave the crop factor camera for specific purposes as telelenses and sports. I have a 40D and a 5D (I bought it later) and 95% of the time I use the second one. I am an amateur and use it for family and some specific non photographic works. (Exhibitions without flash)<div></div>

If you want to save money, consider getting a 5D right now or soon, perhaps a lightly used one. It'll cost you less than a 40/50D with a good wideangle for it, and the image quality will be at least as good (likely better). The 5D Mark II has better resolution, but with the 17-40 the higher resolution may just result in more of the lens' shortcomings becoming visible.

I think that UK prices for the 5D MK II and 50D are extremely misleading. For reasons best known to Canon, launch list prices are ridiculously high (perhaps they love the reviews that say great camera, but lousy value based on price...). For example, the 1000D was launched at £499 - but now is commonly available at around £330. I'd expect 5D MK II prices to settle closer to Nikon D700 levels rather than being almost as expensive as a D3 - and the 50D will be closer to the D300. Net result: the price difference between the bodies will be less than you assume, and the wallet hit also somewhat less. Lens prices are unlikely to change much. £450-500 for a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 or a Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5. Of course, next you'll be thinking about the video capabilities (how many TB of storage do you have?)

Your 17-40 will become quite a different animal on a 5D of any flavor. Edge sharpness will suffer and distortions and vignetting will be quite a bit more pronounced. And in order to get a standard zoom of similar quality (as the 17-40 on your 10D) I'd say you will have to get a Tamron 28-75, Canon 24-70 or a Canon 24-105.

 

To me, Tokina's new 11-16/2.8 looks really exciting (and it will work on your 10D). Having said that, I'd also be tempted to get a 5D Mark I, perhaps used, and see whether I really need a standard zoom. You have those nice primes already and they are all absolutely top notch, unlikely to be surpassed by ANY zoom. It depends a bit on your photographic style.

 

As far as noise is concerned I don't think you need to go all the way to 5D to see real improvement. The 40D should be fine and perhaps even a 20/30D will do. It does for many of us even though we drool over higher ISOs.

I would rather have a 5D Mk I and a 17-40 than a 50D and a 10-22.

John

Take a good look at the Sigma and Tokina wide angle lenses (10-20 and i cant remember the Tokinas focal length). They have both received very good reviews in many forums and will both provide good results on a 50D body. I personally use the Sigma 10 - 20 . Coupled with a 50D body they are very good price and performance alternatives to the 5DMKII

Thanks, everyone. Reading the responses, it seems the consensus is in favour of waiting for a 5D mkII, or perhaps getting a common-or-garden 5D, rather than say a 50D and buying another lens. I must admit, the reason I don't do a lot of long lens work is largely because I don't have a long lens, rather than any subject matter choice- as a hobbyist, I can't justify spending large bucks on a whim, and the lenses I have have been built up over the last ten or twelve years, so I don't make these sorts of decisions lightly.

 

All of that said, I am extremely tempted to buy a 70-200/4L (the non IS version, as though I am sure the IS version is better, the non IS version is heavily discounted and therefore within reach).

 

One thing I wanted to pick up on was the suggestion (by more than one of you) that the 17-40/4L might not cut it on a FF body. Is this a particular criticism of my lens or of all wide-angle zooms in general? I am not so wedded to this lens that I wouldn't replace it with (say) an 18mm and a 24mm lens, though to be honest I actually like the convenience of a zoom and would prefer to stick with one for the wide stuff at least. My 50 and 85 will remain (though I rarely get satisfactory shots with the 10D and 85/1.8 for some reason) and of course I'd keep my Macro.

 

So, I guess I'll bide my time with the 10D for the next eight months or so, then plump for that 5DmkII, maybe getting the 70-200/4 in the meantime ;-)

John, you should also consider a Canon refurbished 5D MkI. True your 17-40L will face some challenges RE

vignetting, but also remember that a bit of software processing can quickly correct such 'ills' - bear in mind

too that the 17-40L was designed for film cameras (i.e full frame) and is a solid performer in that medium (I use

it on my film EOS occasionally). It becomes super-wide in the film (or 5D :)) format, and the vistas are

absolutely superb! It is also pretty darn sharp.

<p>I'm no expert on lens tests and such, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that your current lens cache would

not be far off brilliant on a 5D. I'm considering a Canon refurb'ed MkI myself, so I'm not preaching water and

drinking wine here ;)