5D +28-105 F4 L +50 F1.4

[eigtball1]

Ok so I am almost set with my choice. I currently have an Elan 7E, with the

28-105 F3.5-4.5 and 50mm 1.8. I have had this for almost 5 years. I am quite

happy with the setup, but I am so into digital, scanning slides and film is

getting too cumbersome.

 

I am in the market to replace and upgrade my current setup. I have been tossing

back and forth over the past 3 weeks. I have settled on the 5D +28-105 F4 L +50

F1.4. I have a 430EX so flash is taken care of. I originally though 17-40 F4L

then a 70-200 F4L about 4 to 6 months later, but changed it to the 24-105 after

reading several reviews and comparisons.

 

My question is am I making a mistake with the 5D vs the 40D. I know the

difference is significant, and the IQ is very close but to upgrade the glass I

rather go to the L class of lens. Is there another benefit with sticking to the

40D?

 

This is my last road block.

[bob_osullivan]

If you get the 40D you wont have any wide coverage. The 24 is 39 on the 40D. So either get the 5D with the 24-105 or get a 40D with a 17-55 to accomodate the 1.6 crop factor.

[jonny_mac]

I would get the 5D if you can. I have the 24-105 with a Rebel XT. The coverage would be much nicer on a 5D. I have the 10-22 for wide angle but on a 5D the 24-105 is a nicer one-lens solution for most photos.

[m_barbu1]

The 40D has a larger buffer and it's shutter speed is twice as fast. It also has DIGIC III, a larger rear LCD, LiveView, the anti-dust technology, among other new features. It's also about half the cost of the 5D. You could just about buy two 40D bodies for the price of a 5D. If those things are not as important to you as having a body with a full-frame sensor (like the Elan 7E), then get the 5D.

[manuel_zamora_morschhaeuse]

If you're coming from a film (and so from a full 35mm frame) background, by all means,

get the 5D! I was in a similar situation and made the mistake of getting the 30d. Not that

the 30d was bad, not at all, but it didn't felt right, the images felt... not right. The dof is

different, the focal lengths are different and _for my style of shooting_ it was the wrong

choice. The more tele work you do, the better APS-C can work for you. But if you are not

into sports, birding, wildlife but more into social events, low light, photojournalist-style

shooting - full frame is the answer. Use primes at their intended focal length, have the dof

you are already used to and get it at the "correct" aperture. Even if the 40d is the

technically better camera (screen, fps), it's the sensor that matters. The 5d can everything

my EOS 3 could do, but digital and with better results, image quality wise. And that's what

I wanted and I think, that's what you probably want. The 5D and the 24-105mm are a very

nice combination, I can assure you that you'll love it.

[eigtball1]

Should I go with the 17-40 with the 50mm as a viable replacement. My ONLY issue is that I do a lot of nature/landscape as well as street. Will the 24mm be enough or should I say give that dramatic feel? I mean I am used to 28mm from film, but something appeals with the 17-40 range. I generally stay within the 28 to 50~70 range. I do however like the extra distance the 105 gives. I mean I can afford to go to the 70-200 4L but the 70-200 IS 2.8L is really nice and is something I'd rather get vs the 70-200 4L.

 

Just noticed my title should say 24-105. LOL.

 

Thanks for the confirmation on the 5D.

[myworkshop]

If you take mostly landscape photos then you will definitely benefit from a ultra wide angle like the 17-40L. It's a great lens but the focal range is somewhat limited. You'll need another zoom for more range and the 24-105L is a good choice if the F4 doesn't bother you. If your street photos are of unsuspecting people in dark corners then a faster lens like the 24-70 2.8L might be a better choice. You won't need to use the flash as often and you will be less conspicuous because of it. If you ask me I will always choose a faster lens over a longer range one. IS is nice for waterfalls but it won't do much for a fast moving child in dim light. If I were you I would buy the medium range zoom first, then the wide angle, then the long range zoom. Get the L glass and go as fast as possible on the aperture. And of course go with the 5D, you'll need that full frame for the wides.

[joe_ethridge]

Perhaps only you can answer this question. Do you need/want full frame or is the 1.6X

crop factor what you need/want.

 

The 5D is the best camera I've owned. It's going strong after three years and no problem.

 

I definitely need/want the full frame for the wide angle advantage.

 

They are both great cameras, with the 40D being 3 years newer. The question is, do you

want wide or long?

 

Cheers.

[JDMvW]

Barbu and Joe are exactly on target. Both are fine cameras. But if you're willing to spend the money, you can get ultrawide angle for the 40D or half-again longer telephotos for the 5D. The latter definitely has a major advantage if you use TSE lenses.

[howard_slavitt2]

Get the 5D. I just sold my rebel xti and decided to get a second 5D. I've had my original one since they first came out. They're fantastic cameras. I was hoping Canon would upgrade it at PMA and I could buy the newer camera, but at this point I'll buy a second one. I need two bodies. I much prefer the way the full frame camera "draws" to a crop sensor -- depth of field is shallower, the dimensionality is different. Also, Canon's primes are designed for full frame, not crop sensor bodies. The 24-105mm is a great lens, as is the 17-40mm. For the weight, money, and flexibility, these lenses and the 5D is still, IMHO, far and away the system to beat.

[tholte]

"It's also about half the cost of the 5D. You could just about buy two 40D bodies for the price of a 5D." You can get a 5D with the 24-105 for about $2400. On the 5D group at flickr yesterday an enterprising lad bought the 5D, 24-105 combo on Amazon for $2,350 and sold the 24-105 on e-bay for $930.00. His outlay for the new 5D body ended up being under $1400, which is the price for a new 40D body. It gets down to do you want a full frame body with few bells and whistles or do you want a 1.6 sensor with quite a few bells and whistles? A woman in a photo organization I belong to here in Milwaukee recently bought a 5D, 24-105 package at Best Buy for $2,400. B&H shows the package for about $2,700. Good luck with whatever you do, both are good cameras.

[m_barbu1]

Actually, the <a href="http://tinyurl.com/2rqqm4">40D on Amazon</a> is only $1126, with free shipping. If you pay with their credit card, you get an additional 3% back, so you're now looking at a total of only $1,092. But, that is enterprising of him indeed. :)

[eigtball1]

I have considered the 17-40 for landscape. For street I usually mount my 50mm 1.8 as its the fastest I have. Right now I am looking for FF for the wide angle dramatic shots. I have heard 24mm is just as dramatic as the 17 due to softness at the corners which you either crop or keep. The 40D is good, but mostly for the long end of things. Wide I am stuck using the 10-22 which is a nice lens but not L quality.

 

I am still reading, decisions are not final yet, but all the information you have given really helps. I do have more reading to do.

 

Cheers,