Am I making the right decision?

[frogdog_frenchie]

<p>Well here's the thing , I have sold my 350D and kit lens, wanting to upgrade to a camera with larger viewfinder en more reliable autofocus.<br /> <br /> I'm by now means a professional,my interest are concert photography, travel and street photography.<br /> I own the following lenses: <br /> <br /> 50 1.8<br /> 85 1.8 <br /> 28 - 105 3.5 - 4.5 USM<br /> 70 - 210 3.5 - 4.5 USM<br /> <br /> My first idea was to buy a used 5D and a 28 1.8 USM ,giving me all the focal lengths I need for the concert photography . <br /> For walk around and travel I have the 28 - 105 and 70 -210 ( telezoom is mainly to capture pics of my dogs running on the beach ) <br /> For the street photography is use a SD880 IS compact or Olympus Trip35 ( film)<br /> <br /> Am I making the right decision? or am I better of with a 40D or 50D + 17-55 IS and sell the 28-105 lens? <br /> As a walk around lens I'm think the 17-55 will be a better choice compared to the 28 -105 on a 5D , but for concerts,will a 17 -55 2.8 IS give same or better performance than the 28 1.8?<br /> Other suggestions are welcome!<br /> <br /> thanks for the input people!</p>

[joe_oconnor3]

<p>I cannot speak to the other cameras I would expect that they are excellent. I can speak to the 5D. The 5D is built solid it does not take EFS lenses and it is a great camera. I have had mine for a number of years now and I don't see ever replacing it. Like yourself I am by no means a pro and the 5D is more than enough camera for me. I do want to make 2 warnings about the 5D.<br>

1) The 5D needs good glass - if there is light falloff on the edges you will get vignetting<br>

2) The 5D is solidly built but that means it is big heavy, if your hands are small you may want to go elsewhere.</p>

<p>JPO</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I think either will do just fine but given a choice I would most always take a full frame body for the better low light performance and wide angle.</p>

<p>As to the primes. Any of those primes on a 5D should do well at a concert or low light setting. I would suspect the 17-55 would give comparable results to the 28 1.8. but keep in mind the 28 1.8 is much smaller and discrete. </p>

[images_in_light_north_west]

<p>Go handle the cameras and see how they feel, you will probably be fine with a 40D if the VF is acceptable to you.</p>

[evphotography]

<p>Kind of depends on what you want, 40D is much more feature rich camera, but 5D will have the highest IQ, but not by a lot.</p>

[terry_smith2]

<p>All of your lenses were introduced back in film days, so there would be no problem from that standpoint about getting a 5D.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p dir="ltr">IMHO the 17-55/2.8 IS is a good enough reason to get an EF-S camera. I have it and really can't praise it enough. This lens transformed the way I think. From "Should I buy an EF-S lens because I may move to FF in the future" to "I must have this lens as there is no FF equivalent so if I move to FF it will be an addition, not a replacement". This lens made my <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/607298/0">35/1.4</a> and <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/717198/">50/1.4</a> redundant so I sold them. Yes, it is that good. </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Since then I added the 60/2.8 and 10-22 and recently purchased the EF 12 II to be able to use it with them. My Kenko set is EF only. </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim. </p>

<p dir="rtl"> </p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"wanting to upgrade to a camera with larger viewfinder en more reliable autofocus"</em></strong><br>

<br>

I find difficulty in understanding what the rationale is, for your priorities. <br>

If you do want a larger viewfinder, is that because of low light shooting? - then a 5D is really the only option of camera from those you list.<br>

Regarding the more reliable AF: that is a function of the lens as well as the camera: especially the lens’s maximum aperture.<br>

And, if you are shooting low light, then you really need to quantify the fastest aperture you might need, for your given ISO limit. <br>

IMO the 5D has ISO1600 acceptable and ISO3200 manageable, for a full crop image to 10 x 8 at arm's length. I'd reckon the 40D is about 1 stop less; and I have no comment / experience with the 50D.<br>

<br>

<br>

<em><strong>"but for concerts, will a 17 -55 2.8 IS give same or better performance than the 28 1.8?</strong></em><br>

OTOH, as Yakim says, the EF-S 17 to 55F2.8IS is a magnificent lens: but if you need F1.8 (or F2), for concerts, then this zoom will not do that.<br>

<br>

Without a more definitive outline of your shooting environment, IMO it is difficult to give a recipe to suit it. . . <br>

<br>

If F2.8 max aperture does measure up for your uses, then I one option would be to get an APS-C body, the 17 to 55F2.8IS, sell both the zooms you have and get a 70 to 200F2.8L IS . . . that will give you much better AF, from 17mm to 200mm. (equivalent FoV 27mm to 320mm)<br>

<br>

WW<br>

<br>

<br>

</p>

<p > </p>

 

[frogdog_frenchie]

<p>thanks all for your comments, really appreciated!<br /> <br /> In reply:<br /> <br /> Handling of the camera's : I have tried the 5D, 40D and 50D in the store. All feel really good in my hands. More solid than the 350D and the rear wheel is really useful.The larger size is fine with me. For the 350D I had the batterygrip,but I think I wont need that for the either of them.<br /> The VF of the 40D is already a huge improvement compared to the 350D, and the 5D is even larger, but I cannot compare them in really low light situations to determine whether the 40D will already be sufficient. <br /> <br /> @ Terry, so I should be confident both lenses will not have light falloff on the edges and vignetting?<br /> <br /> @ Yakim, I have read a lot of very positive reviews on the 17-55, which made me doubt also to stay with a crop body.Do you shoot concerts as well? <br /> <br /> @ William, the gigs I shoot most of the time, have really bad light. So the 1.8 aperture and ISO1600 is really necessary. <br /> <br /> So at this moment I think a 5D would be the best option. I can use the primes at the normal focal lengths. A big plus since the 85mm I need most, is a far better lens on FF than the 50mm on a crop body.<br /> No I only need to find a nice refurb 5D or a used one at a trusted dealer, because I'm not 100% comfortable buying it from someone I do not know.</p>

[kari v]

<p>All lenses have some light falloff but it's not that big deal, easily corrected in post and in low light concert photography it's a non issue imo.<br>

5D will serve you very well here.</p>

<p>17-55 IS looks like a great lens but even with the IS for easy handholding it's only f2.8. Even one stop can make a huge difference in low light shooting. Energetic band... 1/60 vs 1/125...</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>Do you shoot concerts as well?</p>

</blockquote>

<p dir="ltr">Yes. I shoot concerts with my 17-55/2.8 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS. Many times I've taken other (faster) lenses but they always saw little to no use. </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"@ William, the gigs I shoot most of the time, have really bad light. So the 1.8 aperture and ISO1600 is really necessary." <br /></em></strong><br>

<strong><em></em></strong></p><div></div>

[frogdog_frenchie]

<p>I see what you mean William. Sometimes the lighting I have to work with is even less. Than it's just a matter of taking lots of pics and hope to have a least a couple of sharp ones.<br /> So far I have not made up my mind yet. But thanks again you all for the input!</p>