Jump to content

A good lens or a good camera body?


mario_saliba

Recommended Posts

<p>Dear all,</p>

<p>I am considering in investing in either a full frame camera body like the canon 5d mk2 or a good lens perhaps the 50mm 1.2 or the 80mm 1.2. I am focusing my work on portraits and weddings.<br>

Do these lenses give the same quality on my canon 40d body?<br>

Which is best solution ?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>When in doubt, always go for the glass. A 40D is capable of great things when paired with good glass. A 5D2 is capable of horrible things when paired with lousy glass.</p>

<p>Having said that, as previously observed, what is your budget and what do you already have?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It looks like you have a decent lens kit. Most of your lenses will work on the 5D with the exception of the 10-22mm. The equivelent on a full frame would be the 17-40mm or the 16-35mm. While the 50mm F1.8 has good quality for the price but the corners really don't look that good on a full frame, especially at F1.8. </p>

<p>I would look at a Sigma 50 f1.4 (I have a 5D MkI). I just purchased one and the build quality is equivelent to L and so far my images with it have been very good at f1.4. Currently the Canon 50 f1.2 is selling for $1,400 while the sigma is going for $450. Is the slightly wider aperture worth $900? </p>

<p>I would go for the 5D and then later get a good full frame wide and concider replacing the 50 f1.8.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hi Mario, you've got a pretty good kit listed here and considering your statement about going into portraits and wedding photography you don't have that for to go. If you cruise the wedding and event forum you'll hear that one of the main points for weddings is redundancy. Frequently there are no do-overs so it's important to have backup cameras, lenses, speedlights and whatever. With the 40D and 30D you've got the bodies covered, both are quite capable in that arena, and the only thing I see lacking is the gap between the 10-22 and the 24-70.<br>

For a 40D/30D wedding setup you might consider Canon's 17-55/2.8 or Tamron's 17-50/2.8. On these it would be equivalent to the 24-70 on a 5d. Also, instead of the f1.2 lenses listed you might consider getting the 50f1.4 and 85f1.8 and hen add Sigma's 30f1.4. The end result would be the full frame equivalent of about 50, 80 and 135 mm focal lengths. Less money and each of them a quality protrait lenght lens.<br>

Of course the other way to go is to get a 5D and use the 40d and 30d as backup. The 24-70 would fit the 5D and be the main setup. Then, depending how convenient it is, put the 10-22 on one crop body and the 70-200 on the other. Or swap the two on the same body as the need arises. From what I hear the 24-70 on the 5D, or 5DmkII, is the way to go if you're going to be spending the money anyway.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>A 50mm lens will be a very nice portrait lens on a 40D. I'm not sure that you have to go as far as an f/1.2, but that is a excellent lens by almost all accounts.<br>

On the other hand, a 24x36mm sensor body would also be really handy for weddings and portrait work where large prints are made. The 24-105mm IS L lens is a bargain with the body as a "kit". It's only f/4, but that's not too bad with the high ISO capabilities of the 5D2 camera body. You can always throw a 50mm f/1.8 in for practically nothing for the low light situations. You get video too.</p>

<p>Either way, you will may want at least a 430EX level flash. Remember that the 5D2 does not have a built in flash, not that a built-in would be too great for your applications, anyway.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>To answer the question in your subject heading, Mario, I would reply "both." Get the best body and glass you can afford. If you use a film body, the body is arguably less important than the glass (and the film). But with a DSLR, they are equally important; the quality of the sensor can make a huge difference in your images.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>With your current lens set, I'd add the 5D MkII body before adding a second 50mm lens. The 24-70mm comes into it's own with a full frame body and it's much more important to have redundancy with camera bodies than 50mm lenses. </p>

<p>Also, with the 40D and 5D MkII you have the benefits of both crop and full frame sensors. You could add the very good and inexpensive 85mm f1.8 as a portrait lens for the 5D MkII and not be too far off the results of a 50mm f1.2L with your 40D.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Sorry, I missed that you already had a 28-70mm lens. I like the 24-105 a lot, but if you don't need that, it would make the new body even more attractive for all the reasons John points out above.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Lenses are always the better investment, because you'll keep them through numerous body upgrades (if they're good).</p>

<p>However, your first question should be one of format. Do you want full frame or crop? If I were you, I'd consider the 5D (Mk I) as an affordable entry point in full frame. I would consider this camera far superior to the 40D for weddings and portraits. (I own both cameras.) Don't forget that you will need to consider your lenses a bit differently for the two formats, but you probably know that.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Lenses are always the better investment, because you'll keep them through numerous body upgrades (if they're good).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

<p>Not necessarily. What if your needs change? In the 19 years I take pictures I had 4 bodies and tens of lenses.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Is the slightly wider aperture worth $900?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If that was the only difference, no it probably isn't. But that's not the only difference. The corner softness on a full frame body with the new Sigma 50 f/1.4 is completely insane. It's not that great on a crop sensor either.</p>

<p>Is a half stop more speed combined with better resolving power and a very much flatter image plane worth $900? And that "build quality is equivalent to L" comment... Are you sure? How would you know? I don't know that, but I doubt it's true.</p>

<p>The difference between the Canon 50 f/1.2 and the Sigma 50 f/1.4 is more than just $900.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>hi Steven<br />Have you had the chance to compare your 5d with the new 5d ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No Mario, I have not and I am currently not planning to. I don't need the added resolution and don't see any compelling reason to upgrade at this time. If my 5D died tomorrow I would probably get the MkII but hopefully that won't happen.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And that "build quality is equivalent to L" comment... Are you sure? How would you know? I don't know that, but I doubt it's true.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ed I own 4 L lenses (17-40mm, 24-105mm, 70-200mm F4 IS, and 100-400mm) and as I stated I just purchased the Sigma 50mm 1.4. The focusing system is the same, metal mount, no loose parts or noise, and it came in a very nice nylon case. Canon just supplied cloth bags for the 17-40, 24-105, and 70-200. Only the 100-400 came with a nice case. I don't see any significant differences in build quality.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is a half stop more speed combined with better resolving power and a very much flatter image plane worth $900?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ed as you stated you didn't know about the build quality of the Sigma. How do you know about the resolving power and image plane? Prior to my purchase I read every review of the Sigma, Canon 50mm 1.4, and Canon 50mm 1.8 I could find. All stated the same thing, The Sigma out performed the 2 Canon lenses especially with the aperture wide open. I also barrowed a 50 1.8 from a friend and looked at the Canon 1.4 in a store. On my 5D the 1.8 was really bad in the corners and what I saw of the 1.4 in the store confirmed what I read on line. The Sigma 50mm 1.4 is the better lens. As I stated I didn't look at the Canon 1.2L because of the cost. But I also did look at its revews and found very few scientific test done on it and most of what I read was mostly "Great lens!".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The corner softness on a full frame body with the new Sigma 50 f/1.4 is completely insane. It's not that great on a crop sensor either.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As I stated I have a full frame camera and I have tested the Sigma. You have clearly indicated that you haven't even seen the Sigma 50mm 1.4. Ed for, Mario's benefit, I suggest you post replies based on your own experience with the lens (if you have any) rather then just posting your uninformed opinions. I have posted a sample photo of the Sigma 1.4 and the Canon 1.8 <a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Stly">here</a></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>How do you know about the resolving power and image plane?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those are very accurately quantified in tests. Build quality is not.</p>

<p>You can say many things about my opinions, but not that they are uninformed. :)</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>If that was the only difference, no it probably isn't. But that's not the only difference. The corner softness on a full frame body with the new Sigma 50 f/1.4 is completely insane. <strong>It's not that great on a crop sensor either.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I disagree with the last sentence. <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/717198/">Here's why</a>.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...