HELP Body first or Lens

[christianrafael]

<p>

<p >My background is that I don’t consider my self a pro shooter, but I believe I depend on my camera to make a living (well sort of…) I build and sell houses, and just about a year ago bought a 5D Mark II, been happy with it when it comes to shooting indoors and tight corners, even took it with me travelling and really didn’t had any problems with it until recently when it started to get a lot of err 30, (I posted about that about a week ago) and now its with Canon and I'm still waiting for a run down on what really is the problem. But that is another discussion</p>

<p > </p>

<p >My problem now is that after 8 months of work I have just finished a house and needed to take pictures so that we can start selling it. Its really a pain when I have to use my old Canon G9 to take pictures on tight areas and the results are not that really impressive compared to my 5DII but for now it will have to make do.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I was about to get a 24 - 70 and a 580 ex II and 2 more 430 ex II (I had a post about this about a month ago where my 430 ex went kaput) and the budget is scheduled to be released next month ( … how I love my wife and her schedules) but right now I'm thinking if this is right for now or should I just get another body. The 5D Mark II is still under warranty and Canon assured me that they will fix it or replace it. My current equipment right now includes 17 - 40 f4, 70 - 200 f4 IS, and the nifty fifty plus a few accessories like extra batteries and wired shutter release and stuff</p>

<p > </p>

<p >My dream camera which I (well really the wife … ) really scheduled to get next year is the canon 1D Mark IV, I thought that when I get another camera might as well be something that will complement my 5D Mark II, which I don’t really plan on replacing until it will die on me, and the 1.3 crop is a big help on the long end but not really a problem on the wide end.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Im not really interested on the 7D as im shooting 80% wide and the 1.6 crop will force me to get efs lenses that will not work with my 5DII ( although i love the 17 - 55 on 7D)</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Now the question …. Getting a 1D Mark IV right now will push my budget and still push it further to at least get a single 430 ex II (to replace my 430 ex that died). My thought about this is that ill be getting an effective 22 - 52 f4 when I use my 17 - 40, for me thats enough to replace the 24 - 70 f2.8 which I'm planning to get, loosing only f2.8 which to me will be helped by the fifty when on low light situations</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I have a scheduled trip to Shang hai for the World Construction Expo (which opens May 1 but ill be there a little later) and if by that time canon cant fix my 5dII ill I will have no choice but to get a new camera but thinking Canon is efficient (well hopefully) it will be on time and ill be able to use it in China</p>

<p > </p>

<p >What's bugging me is that I don’t always need two cameras at the same time, the weight of the 5DII with my 3 lenses is not that hard, I just don’t know what's its gunna be when I carry 2 cameras with 3 lenses, the main reason I thought of getting the 24 - 70 is that sometimes I just want to make it simple and carry just a single lens and body, especially when I travel.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Im usually a "lens first" kinda guy and I know a lot of people here will recommend lenses first especially that I'm no pro, but given my situation would you reconsider otherwise. Granting that Canon fixes my 5DII on time would you buy 24 70 and flashes and just make do with your G9 when problems arises and save a whole lot of money or would you just get it over and just get the 1D mark IV and argue with the wife after. Im leaning towards the former given that canon fixes my 5DII but its just a pain when you bought something for a specific purpose and when that purpose has come you end up not using it because its not there. And I don’t want that to happen again.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Thank you for reading the whole post and I would greatly appreciate it if we just stick with either options I have given. My head already hurts thinking of these 2 options I don’t really need the "what if you get a 7D, another 5DII or 5DI… unless you have jokes that will make me take off some of the stress thank you again for reading</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Christian</p>

<p > </p>

<p >PS I tried cutting out some information to trim this down but if you have questions regarding anything just shoot, thank you</p>

</p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<h1>HELP Body first or Lens</h1>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I just skipped your overly long text and concentrated on the heading. Get a good lens first. Bodies are 'disposable'.</p>

[robert_dale]

<p>Bodies come and go, glass is forever.</p>

[christianrafael]

<p>@ peter and robert my thoughts exactly thanks for the advice</p>

[otanslatco]

<blockquote>

<p>… unless you have jokes that will make me take off some of the stress thank you again for reading</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My wife talks less than you ! ( ... wait ... that's not a joke, it's true). Anyways, go with the lens IMO.</p>

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>I guess I would get a lens too but not the 24-70 2.8. I have shot houses and 16-35 did a better job for me. I also didn't use any flash, I use a full frame with 16-35 with wire release on a tripod and it came out awesome. The 5D mark II is a rock solid camera and after Canon gets it back to you, you should enjoy it for a long time. Good luck, v/r Buffdr</p>

[christianrafael]

<p>@otan - took off some stress even if you didnt consider it a joke hehehe. thanks<br>

@buffdr - on the ultra wide end i'm satisfied with my 17 40, wide open its already as sharp as i needed it to be and 17 is almost always enough, unless maybe 16 35 has less distortion on the wide end ill consider it (maybe ill go look at more samples in the net)<br>

the idea of getting a 24 - 70 is when i travel and usually 24 is enough, needing more light as i dont really like to bring a flash when travelling i figured f2.8 and 70 seems to be ok hence the decision.<br>

thank you both for the input<br>

christian</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Christian, have you considered the 24-105/4 IS L for travel? I have both the 24-70 and 24-105, and use the 24-70 mainly for indoor shooting, and the 24-105 for walkabout use. While their IQ is very comparable (the 24-105 exhibits more linear distortion at 24mm), the 24-105 is lighter and more compact, and has IS.</p>

<p>With the 17-40, 24-105, and 70-200/4 IS L, my travel lens kit covers 17-200mm with lightweight, high quality optics.</p>

[martin_engineer]

<p>If you're going to carry your camera for long periods of time, consider the 24-105 as it weighs considerable less than the 24-70.<br>

The 24-105 is 670g while the 24-70 is at 950 grams.</p>

[christianrafael]

<p>@ mark and martin - actually i did consider that before, but i figured i was shooting wide most of the time and available light, thats why i decided to go with 24 - 70. my travel kit will just include my 5DII and 24 - 70 only, and im not planning of bringing my fifty even. but now that you both suggested this ill look into it again while im waiting for my camera. thanks <br>

christian</p>

[ed_v.]

Since I didn't see anyone else mention it yet, would you consider renting a replacement 5DII to photograph the new construction in the meantime, until yours is fixed? Or--perhaps rent a 1DIV to show it off to the wife...