lenses or new camera

[christina_hoffner]

<p>I currently have a Canon 50D and am looking to either upgrade to a 5dmkii or 5dmkiii. I have also contemplated keeping my 50D and just buying some more lenses. The current lenses I have are 100mm Macro IS, 50mm 1.8, EFS 18-55mm, and EFS 55-250mm. In the lens department I was looking to buy 24-70mm (not sure if the new one is worth the extra price?), 70-200mm 2.8 IS II, and a 16-35mm. If you were in my shoes and had $7000 to spend would you upgrade your camera or get new lenses? And any other options/opinions for Canon bodies or lenses would be awesome. I mainly shoot portraits and landscapes. Thank you for your time!</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>If I had $7000 to spend I'd keep my cameras and buy a motorcycle.</p>

<p>Seriously, WHY do you want to "upgrade"? What do you expect your new camera and lenses to do that your current ones don't? What's the largest print size you normally make?</p>

<p>I'd maybe get an 85/1.8 or 50/1.4 for portraits and a 10-22 for landscapes if you feel you are lacking in the areas of a fast lens and a wideangle.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>50D is a pretty good version. I'd only get the 5D mkii, for example, if I could still keep the 50D.</p>

<p>I'm with Bob on the primes, and would only suggest that you also also look at the Sigma 10-20mm lenses for wide on the 50D. Like the 10-22, they are only for APS-C, however.<br>

To get something that is ultrawide on the APS-C bodies and will work on the 35mm sensor (if you later go that way) you have to spend more money on something like the Sigma 12-24mm lens.</p>

[christina_hoffner]

<p>The reason I want to upgrade is the fact that I originally wanted a 5D but was not able to afford it. Now I finally can, I have been saving for a while. However maybe I am just wanting it and not NEEDING it? You could be right. Everyone has always told be that full frame is better for portraits and landscapes. <br>

@Bob Atkins lol my husband said the same thing about the motorcycle. The largest print size I have taken so far is 13x10. I would like to go bigger. The 70-200mm would replace my 55-250mm. The 18-55mm is not wide enough for my on APS-C. <br>

@JDM I will most likely keep my 50D as backup </p>

[esfishdoc]

<p>Yes.... both.<br>

Why?<br>

I really like what a FF camera does for me. I like the images much better than the 7D and 450D I had before the MKII. I like the low light abilities of the MKII.... <br>

I don't have what I have because I "need" them as much as I want them and I have them because I can. Purchases for business are different than spending expendable income on toys. <br>

At B and H a MKIII, 24-70L and a 70-200 2.8 IS II can be had for under 7500. Those are two of my favorite lenses. I own a 24-70 and have rented a 70-200 on two occasion for "jobs". <br>

I like primes but I find zooms more useful and practical for me.<br>

So... If I was ready to spend 7000 and couldn't go over budget I'd get a MkIII new and lightly used lenses. <br>

But that is me. I'm frequently wanting good performance at iso 1600 and also shoot birds and other moving objects so the AF of the MKIII appeals to me. <br>

Since you are shooting landscapes and portraits I think the money saved on getting the MK II and using it elsewhere would be the way to go.<br>

It is always a pleasure to spend others money.<br>

Richard</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The "do you really need full frame?" question is always one to consider, but it sounds like you had that one figured out before you got the 50D as a temporary solution. </p>

<p>For the subjects you mention (portraits and landscape), I don't feel that the 5D3, as excellent is it is, offers compelling advantages over the 5D2, especially given the current much lower prices on the 5D2.</p>

<p>Regarding the lenses, there are a few things to think about. The 16-35 is a fine lens on full frame, but if you mostly anticipate using it for landscape (generally unlikely to shoot portraits at sub-24mm focal lengths on full frame) you should look at the 17-40 L as well. For stopped down landscape shooting the 16-35 has no real advantages. </p>

<p>Regarding the 24-70 f/2.8... This is reportedly a fine lens in both the old and new incarnations. The new one is reportedly significantly improved in some ways... but also a great deal more expensive. The 24-105 is also worth considering for its IS and larger focal length range and very good image quality. In fact, the 24-105 plus a large aperture prime or two might have some advantages as a system over the 24-70 only.</p>

<p>The f/2.8 70-200mm is clearly a very fine lens. However, are you thinking mostly of using this focal length range for landscape? If so, consider the also-excellent f/4 IS version of the 70-200 which provide extremely good image quality at a lower cost, smaller bulk, and lighter weight.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I think you should buy <em>both</em>. w/ a 7k budget, you could get a 5D2 plus a 70-200/2.8 plus a 24-70/2.8 (mkI) plus a couple of primes, or a 17-40. or... you might need some lighting?</p>

<p>However, given what you shoot, you may not need all that very very expensive glass. For example, the 70-200/2.8 IS can be found used for $1000 less than the mk2. The difference between the two is marginal (at best). or... As G-Dan points out a 70-200/4 is going to be nearly as versatile, & lighter.<br>

Also, the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC USD seems to be optically very much the equal of the 24-70/2.8L but it also has VC (aka IS) - something not even the mk2 has (though not a red ring). <br>

I guess in the end it is, of course, your money, but there is a<em> lot</em> of opportunity to get <em>more</em> gear, which will allow you to explore<em> more</em> photographic opportunities, then those you've limited yourself too. 7k is a big chunk of change, and, frankly, right now you've got about $1500 worth of equipment. instead of blowing it all at once, I'd start slow. a 5D2 + a 24-70/2.8 would be a great start - adding a reasonably priced 70-200 will complement it nicely. And work from there. It'll help you see what is going to be most cost effective for you to spend your money on.</p>

<p>...just keep it away from your hubby's motorcycle fund....;-)</p>

[matthias_meixner2]

<p>Switching to full frame you would have to replace the EFS 18-55mm and EFS 55-250mm anyways. Therefore, I would suggest to start with upgrading the lenses.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I have a 5DII and a 50D and really appreciate the advantages of a dual format system. However, if I were buying a full frame body today, I'd get a 5DIII over a 5DII for its superior AF system alone, but that's just me. I doubt that the image quality of the newer body would be much if any better for portraits or landscapes.</p>

<p>As for lenses, I have replaced all my wide angle and standard zooms for faster, optically superior primes (24/1.4 L II, 35/1.4 L, 50/1.4, 85/1.2 L II). But, again, that's just me; your needs may be different.</p>

<p>The one zoom from which I'll never part is the 70-200/4 L IS. Although I have both the 135/2 L and the 200/2.8 L, I virtually never use them; the zoom is <em>that</em> good. I was briefly tempted to acquire an 70-200/2.8 L IS II upon it's release, but because of it's additional weight and bulk I decided to keep it's slower cousin. (I use my 70-200 exclusively outdoors while walking about.) But you might want to consider the f/2.8 zoom.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I'm with Ian and Dan. If you're serious about making the FF switch, then I'd suggest getting a 5D and a 24-70 (Canon or Tamron, per Marcus' recommendation). I'd also suggest keeping the 50D so that you can have dual format capabilities. You can bank most of that $7000 for later -- either for lens/body acquisitions or to pay the electric.</p>

[matthijs]

Mostly just +1 to what G Dan says.

 

But I would consider the 5D3 kit with the 24-105 lens. It's mostly for the responsiveness (less lag, fast AF) and the 100%

viewfinder that I say this. (plus minor improvement in other areas) If those don't matter go 5D2.

 

M.

[dcstep]

<p>For $7000, I'd get the 5D MkIII with the "kit" 24-105mm lens and add the super duper EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. That kit would be stupendous for landscape and portrait shooting.</p>

[christina_hoffner]

<p>Wow thank you all so much for all the wonderful responses. It surely is a lot to think about! I appreciate everyone taking the time to respond to my question. <br>

@David Stephens the 24-105mm and the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM would be good for portraits? I had been looking at those but thought I would need an aperture of 2.8 or better. However most of my portraits are outdoors. But winter comes around and its time to be indoors mostly. I guess the 50mm 1.4 would be good for indoors? I am leaning towards the setup you suggested as it is so much cheaper too!</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Christina, the 70-200mm f/4L IS is super sharp and a wonderful portrait lens.</p>

<p>The high-ISO capabilities of the 5D MkIII will change your life. Shooting at ISO 6400 will be second nature to you. The 50mm 1.4 will be handy at times, but you won't miss it if you don't already have it.</p>

<p>I guarantee that you'll be overjoyed with the MkIII, combined with a couple of stellar L-series lenses.</p>

[matthijs]

At F2.8, 100mm and up, full frame, medium to close range the eyes will be sharp and the ears and nose won't.

 

Yes, very fast lenses are cool but they're not essential for portraits.

 

You should experiment for yourself I guess.

 

One other note: the 70-200/2.8 is big and heavy while for example the 85/1.8 is tiny and great for portraits. (or the 100L

which is also a macro)

Personally I'd get the 70-200/4 IS plus a fast prime.

 

Have fun! Matthijs.

[matthijs]

Post scriptum: the 50/1.4 at wide apertures does portraits pretty well. (say between F2 and F4)

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>Personally I'd get the 70-200/4 IS plus a fast prime.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's what I concluded I should do long ago (and for the same reasons), only my fast prime is a 100/2 (very similar to the 85/1.8). I'm very happy with this setup. My 70-200/4IS is wonderful for the candid portraiture I do (very sharp, nice bokeh, well balanced), and my 100/2 comes out when I need a larger aperture than f/4 (which is seldom). I'm also very happy with my 24-105/4 and glad I didn't get the 24-70. The weight and lack of IS would bother me. Other people admittedly tolerate weight and bulk better than I do.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I was underwhelmed by the 24-105. In good light outdoors it was fine, but in less than optimal light the images it produced for me seemed tonally flat and lifeless. My 24-70 was optically better, but it's weight and bulk put me off, and that's why I now use primes only at normal and shorter focal lengths. </p>

[dcstep]

<p>Mark, are you shooting in RAW and correcting your lens' error in RAW conversion? I was less than impressed with my 24-105mm when I first bought it in 2008 and was still mainly shooting jpeg. I was ready to send it back to Canon, but then tried DxO Optics Pro for RAW conversion and totally changed my opinion of the lens. (LR, DPP and some softwares offer similar corrections). It shoots like a prime now.</p>

<p>I don't think that you can evaluate a lens/camera combination without also consider the third leg, the software. The digital world is very different from our old film world.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Yes, David, I shoot only in RAW, and use DPP for tweaking and conversion. When I shot images under similar conditions (same f/stop, shutter speed, ISO, and focal length) with my 24-105 and my 70-200, the former didn't compare favourably with the latter even in optimal lighting. This was the case whether I was using my 5DII or 50D.</p>

<p>I've always been happy with the image quality of my primes, however, and I am intrigued to see how well the uber-expensive 24-70/2.8 L II stacks up against them.</p>

[jim_larson1]

<p>I like the answers later in this thread.</p>

<p>I also would NOT get the F2.8 zooms. For everyday stuff, the F4L zooms (70-200/4L-IS and 24-105/4L-IS) are great. And don't forget how *$& heavy the 70-200/2.8L is to carry. With the money you <em>save</em> by not buying the F2.8 zooms, you could <em>add</em> some really great primes for the portrait work (i.e. a 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 100/2: Buy two!)</p>

<p>PS: Don't forget a wide lens like a 17-40/4L. . . .</p>

<p>PPS: If you stick with your current camera, buy the same lenses, but swap out the 17-40/4L-IS for the 10-22/EF-S.</p>