New Lens Or Body

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by bri|1, Aug 25, 2013.

  1. Hello,
    I have a dilema which I know is typical. I have a 50D and the 17-55 S f/2.8 and the 100-400L. I shoot a lot of birds and the like with the big lens, and oceanscapes with the 17-55. I want to go wider. I'm looking at the tamaron 11-16 f/2.8. But for the same price or less I could get a used 5D. I would then keep the 50D for birds, sell the 17-55 and get a wide for the 5D. So my question is, how much better IQ will I get out of the 5D compared to the 50D? I'm also starting to get an itch for some milkyway. I've used the 50D at 3200 and the noise is pretty bad. Is the 5D significantly better at that high of ISO?
  2. I am interested to hear the results of this discussion as well. I'm currently shooting a Rebel XTi. I can pick up a used 5d Mark I when they're available for $500 in the local ads and sell (i hope) my XTi for $150-200. The XTi ISO tops out at 1,600. Obviously newer cameras, crop and FF alike go up to 6400-12,800+ and I'd be missing out on that. But I don't need 20+ megapixels, video, wifi, or all the other mysticism imbued in today's cameras.
  3. Couple of things. There is no Tamron 11-16mm 2.8. There is a Tokina 11-16mm 2.8. If you buy a full frame body your 17-55mm 2.8 lens will not work on it. With those things in mind I would look at selling your 50D and getting the 7D - way better auto focus for birds with the 100-400mm and works great with the 17-55mm. You can get a refurbished 7D for under $1k. Then start saving for the 11-16mm or maybe the Canon 10-22mm which is a fantastic lens. The 7D will have much better image quality than the 50D, better autofocus, a faster frame rate and a much more solid sealed body. Good luck!
  4. Gil, thanks for the response. I meant to say the Tonika, not Tamron. I know the 17-55 is for crop, that's why I said I would sell it and get another wide if I get the 5D. I'm happy with the 50D for birds. What I want, is a wider lens for ocean/landscapes. So for the price of the Tonika, I could get a 5D, sell the 17-55 and get another wide for the 5D.
  5. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    There are a few questions to address.
    I think that, in regard to noise, the 50D will be better at ISDO3200 than the 5D. I have only used a 50D for a few hours but I am quite in touch with a 5D and I do use it at “H”, often.
    I expect that you’ll be looking at the EF17 to 40F/4 to replace the EF-S 17 to 55F/2.8. If this case – specifically for “milky-way” you might be disappointed.
    Not that I take “Milky Way” that often but I do take nightscapes – and for night scapes without star trails it is the speed and the FL (width) of the lens which is integral to this effort: and these two criteria tend to supersede the ISO capacity of the camera – so in reality you could be looking at an EF24/1.4 or for a more elegant price point the EF28/1.8. The rationale for this is: you are after the faster shutter speed AND the low ISO- and in reality the 17 to 40 doesn’t cut it because of the F/4 –AND – and also it is a zoom lens which adds the likelihood of Veiling Flare and also Ghost Images.
    For Oceanscapes and Landscapes (daylight / sunrise / sunset etc.): the 5D (at middling ISO) and the 17 to 40/4 will make you very happy – whether that will be “happier” than the50D and the Tokina I don’t know: only someone who has used both, would be able to address that question with some credibility, I think.
  6. I have taken some nightscapes with my T2i and 50mm f1.8 AND OTHER LENSES, a NEX camera that has high light sensitivity and low
    noise, and even a Rokinom 8mm with some success and agree that you don't need the highest ISOs. You need a dark place to shoot
    from with no light pollution or little of it foremost and first. Most of those photos are taken between 800 and 1600, 3200 if the
    environmental conditions are right- little light pollution. My 2ç ! I have not tried with my 50D be ause the fever is gone, i already did it and
    i don't like the prparation and waiting for the absence f clouds
  7. William, thanks for the response. If I go to the 5D, the lens I replace the 17-55 with will also be a 2.8 and at the very least, 17mm on the wide end. I know we're talking money there, but I'd go used or off brand. It depends how much I get for the 17-55 S f/2.8. As of now, milkyway shots are a tiny fraction of what I shoot, so I need to think realistically. But I'm only an hour away from certified dark skies. But ir's interesting that you think the 50D handles ISO 3200 better than the 5D. I feel like if I get the Tokina, I'm locking myself into crop. Which is not "bad", but I'm so tempted by FF. And at four to five hundred bucks for a used 5D, it seems so close.
  8. Maybe you could first try stitching together some oceanscape image into a panorama with your existing 17-55, before you invest in another lens/body. You may find that it will satisfy your needs.
  9. I feel like if I get the Tokina, I'm locking myself into crop. Which is not "bad", but I'm so tempted by FF. And at four to five hundred bucks for a used 5D, it seems so close.​
    I have the Canon 10-22, which is what locks me into crop. BTW - I am super happy with that lens, and can warmly recommend it! But I am digressing, $500 for a 5D exudes a certain pull towards FF that I am feeling as well. But if I had a 5D, I would also want a 17-40/4 and a 24-105/4, and there $500 have turned into >$2,000! That weakens the pull to the point where it becomes easily manageable - for now ;-)
  10. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    My suggestion is that - if you buy a 5D (and not any new lens), you could have a play with the 5D and not lose too much money, if any at all if you choose to sell it, if you don't like it. Doing this, you could then have a direct comparison with your 50D. You could also test drive some EF mount W/A lenses, if you owned a 5D.
    Regarding my earlier comment - I am going on my memory of using the 50D and that was a few years ago: but the for theory of it - the 50D has about three years development on the 5D and (I think) two more iterations of Canon’s ‘DIGIC’ Imaging Processing. The 5D is a relatively old camera in the technology stakes, compared to the 50D, not that that fact worries me: I still quite like using my 5D, even though I have newer cameras: this is a set recently shot and all taken with the 5D.
    As much as uploaded images might assist you – I have chosen some which have a lot of shadows in them. You will probably find more from the 5D shot at 3200 if you fossick around my photos.
    The girl in the green hat (EF50/1.4) is about a 50% crop, that image shows the “typical noise” quite well. I don’t use Noise Reduction Post Production often – you’ll get better than “typical noise” if you do.
    The 5D is a fun camera.
    Here are some links:
  11. Brian, The 5D is an old old OLD camera now and buying one used is to me asking for trouble for any number of reasons. With full frame you will lose on the long end where you are shooting birds and be into expensive lenses on the wide end where a good Sigma, Tokina or Canon UW lens in the 10 to 11 mm range would serve you best for $300-700 range on the wide end of the crop camera and keep your long end. I use both formats - the T2i with 10-22mm, 17-55mm and 55-250mm, and the 6D with 17-40mm, 24-105mm and 70-200mm. I don't shoot anything longer. If I did it would most likely be with the T2i crop camera to get the extra reach. If you want full frame save a lot of money and get 5D II or later with some of those pricy wide and standard zooms. That's why to me it seems a no brainer that the 7D is the bomb for you with an added 10 or 11mm zoom to do everything you seem to want to do. Good luck!
  12. Gil, I have 500 to spend on a lens. So my thinking is, spend that on a 5D. Sell the 17-55 and get maybe the 17-40 f/4L. That gives me the wide end I want. I would keep the 50D for birds. So I won't loose the crop factor for birds. So I would have two cameras. The 50D for birds and wildlife, and the 5D for landscapes. Or, just get the Tokina 11-16. But that is another crop body only lens. Again, I don't hate my 50D or anything, and even if I get nothing, I will be happy with what I have. I have been shooting the 50D for 5 years now, and I have that itch for something different. But as you say, the 5D is OLD. So that is certainly a factor. It's just that they are so cheap now, it's very tempting.
  13. Frank, yes the new lens for a 5D is expensive, but I have a really well kept 17-55 S f/2.8 to sell, which would cover the cost of the 17-40 L. So that is a wash. I've been shooting with just the 17-55 for 5 years and it suits my needs. So the 17-40 would be fine, except I'd loose the 2.8. But the vast majority of what I shoot with it is going to be oceanscapes at f/11-22. I do want to do some milkway, so I really need 2.8 for that, but it would be a small percentage of what I shoot. I could rent a lens when I get the itch.
  14. William, thank you for taking the time to respond and posting pics for me. I really appreciate that. Very helpful.
  15. Paul, thanks for responding. I do some panos now, and the results are pretty good. But with waves and such, it doesn't always work well. Plus it's a little time consuming.
  16. [T]he 5D is OLD. So that is certainly a factor. It's just that they are so cheap now, it's very tempting.​
    Another idea worth considering is for you to wait till the 5DII drops further in price. With the extra pixels for rendering detail, it's a better body for landscapes than the 5D.
  17. I don´t think the 5D will be much of an upgrade for high iso usage and you don´t really need it to go wider as there are a few nice ultra wide lenses. the EF-s 10-22 is great, and though it is not an f/2.8 lens it is only 2/3 stop slower @3.5 on the wide end. Not too bad. I loved my 10-22 back in the day when I used my 30D.

    The tokina 11-16 /2.8 looks very interesting as well, so if I were you I´d look into those two lenses and not worry about a used 5D. If you want a new body I´d either wait for a 7D mkII (whenever that will come around) or just get the 70D.

    Another thing - the 17-55 /2.8 IS is nicer than a 17-40 L, a good reason to stick with your current aps-c system.

    good luck.
  18. There are a lot of people who are happy with the 17-40L as an ultra-wide on a FF body, but I have yet to meet anybody who really likes it as a mid-range zoom on APS-C. I believe the reasons are tat it's slow, lacks IS, and is very short on the long end - all minor issues for a ultra-wide, but vexing in a mid range zoom! If you swap the 17-55/2.8 for the 17-40L, you'll lose a good mid range zoom, and for most folks that's their most used lens.
  19. I think that, in regard to noise, the 50D will be better at ISDO3200 than the 5D​
    This is completely incorrect in my experience. I shot with both side by side for ~ a year, doing weddings, and the 5D @ISO 3200 is worlds better than the 50D at iso3200. Noisewise they aren't even in the same league. I would say (at a guess, I don't know specifically) 2+ stops.
    While the 50D had time, and pixels, on it's side, it was quite poor side by side when compared w/ the 5D. I often had to use copious amounts of NR to get 50D RAWs to something akin to what came straight out of the 5D. Though obviously it was twice as fast ;-) .... 6.3FPS makes up for poor high ISO noise performance if shooting birds!
  20. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    "This is completely incorrect in my experience. . . .​
    OK. Thanks for that, Marcus.
    As mentioned, I did not use the 50D for a long period of time.
  21. Your 17-55 is a great lens. You've basically been shooting the Ff equivalent of 24-70 f2.8 with IS. Until recently, that combo for full
    frame has been sorely lacking. I think you will miss the lens more than the 50d!

    Another interesting note. The 50d has found a new life (and increased value) as the magic lantern team has been able to unlock video
    (including raw video).

    I think you have FF in mind now. My advice would be to dump the 17-55 and could get close to $800. And also dump the 50d and
    you might get close to $500 with the ML hype. Add to that your $500+ you're considering spending on that Tamron lens and you now
    have over $2000 to reboot (keeping the 100-400L of course).

    For that you could get a used 5d2 ($1200), used 17-40 ($525) and a new Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f2.8 ($325). now you've got a nice FF setup for wide, ultra wide, cleaner high iso, you keep MFA, sensor cleaning, larger rear display, etc, You may miss having a pop up flash though.

    Then save a bit longer and be shrewd and you can find a used t2i for $250 or used t3i for $350 and you'll have a great cropper for
    that 100-400L. I would think the newer 18mp in the t2i/t3i would be quite close to if not better than the 50d in terms of noise.

    Or get the rebel first and the 14mm later.

    If you don't like fussing with buying and selling used then this plan is probably not for you. And although these prices are realistic, they won't all align on the same day so it will take some time.
  22. The 5D is far better at high ISO (3200) than the 50D. The 50D is outperformed even by the Canon 40D. The 5D was one of the best cameras Canon came up with. Now since is pretty old you might have a problem in getting one in a very good shape that will allow your further shooting trouble free.
    As it has been said, you may consider selling the 17-55 and the 50D for a 5D2 (or even a 7D). Than 17-40 would allow you to go wide enough for the time being.
  23. Go and buy Canon 5D, the camera that you will never leave. Yes it is an old old camera but its image quality up to ISO 800 better better than most newer ( it is almost same as 5D II but at lower resolution ).
  24. Thanks again everyone.
    There are some new factors in this equation. I was given a gift of 1K for this endeavor. I have sold the 50D and 17-55 for a total of $1105.00. Plus my $500. So I have $2605.00 and maybe a couple hundred more to spend on a new rig.
    I'm now considering a new 6D and a used 17-40L. With 2 cards and an extra battery it would come to 3K. Or canon has a refurb for 300 less.
  25. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    In my mind - the equation for that comparison is simple:
    What is the warrantee on the refurbished model?
    If different to a new camera's warrantee, is that difference worth $300, to you?
  26. William, the refurb comes with at 1 year warrantee. I'm leaning towards the refurb. But I'm also thinking about a 7D. I hate this. I shoot landcapes and birds/wildlife. I like the FPS and 1.6x, but I want the wide and FF for landcape. I keep going back and forth in my mind. I could get the 7D and the 10-22.
  27. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    Life is full of choices!
    I had forgotten the finer details of this tread: I just re-read it.
    OK so you are back to 'one camera only' and you have a 100 to 400L.
    What I think you also have to consider is the 7D IQ at 400mm VS. the IQ of the 6D at 400mm, but then cropped to get the equivalent FoV.
    I haven't used a 6D. You can compare pixel densities of the two cameras and do some maths.
  28. So I decided to go with the refurbished 6D, used 17-40L, 2 32GB high speed cards, extra battery. If I don't like how the 6D handles my birds/wildlife, I'll get a used 7D in a couple months. Thank you everyone for your input.

Share This Page