m._scott_clay1

<p>I doubt you will be happy with a 20d after using a 40d, but this does sound like a good deal for you, not the other guy.</p>

<p>Normally, I reccomend getting the glass, but in your case, I would reccomend the 40d (50d if you can afford it). IMO there is a huge difference between the XT and 40d. Part of it has to do with how it feels in your hands. If you like the small body, the XT is fine, but if you want something more substantial, the 40d is the way to go. It is more important to have the extra body shooting weddings than to have an ultra wide lens. Switching between the XT and 40d will take getting used to, but it's not difficult. I only had my XT for a week and traded up for an XTI, then XSi and finally the 40d. I'm so happy with my 40d that I doubt I will upgrade to another cropped camera. I actually do weddings with a 5d (FF) and 40d (cropped). 5d for most stuff and 40d for long shots.</p>

<p>I don't know much about the Sigma 10-20, but I do have a Tokina 12-24 and have never used it at a wedding. It's great for landscapes, but if I were deciding on it or a new 40d, the 40d would win hands down.</p>

<p>Have you considered a used 5d. They are coming down in price since the 5dMKII's are out. The 5d will take your weddings to a new level. It's FF and works better in low light.</p>

<p>Now as far as the order of things: If you are going to buy both eventually, you need to decide what you are going to do first; weddings or the trip. The XT is fine for the trip and the 10-20 will come in handy for landscape and inside wide shots. However, if you are going to do weddings any time soon, I would suggest the 40d, 50d or 5d first.</p>

<p>Happy New Year!</p>

<p>Scott</p>

<p>Sorry, I guess you got the 5D and posted the reply while I was typing.</p>

<p>Congratulations! I don't think you will be sorry.</p>

<p>Scott</p>

<p>You should go to a camera store and play with a 5d for a few minutes. You will probably be sold by what you see through the lens alone.</p>

<p>The back screen is 2-1/2" on a 5d vs 3" on the 40d. The pixel count seems to be the same, but I can see better on the 40d. I'm sure the 50d has both beat in that regard.</p>

<p>I don't like the actual functionality of the 5d as much as the 40d. The 5d seems to be a little "clunkier" when you take an image. I've tried a few other 5d's just to make sure it wasn't just mine (since I bought it used) and they all seem to be that way. The 40d has more controls on top of the camera and is a bit easier to use in a fast moving situation. However, once you learn the functions of the 5d, it's like second nature.</p>

<p>Still, I think once you pick one up and look through it, you will be sold on the 5d. It's simply better for weddings (IMO), especially since it's FF.</p>

<p>I have a young friend who is really an excellent photographer for his age (20 something) who borrows my 5d whenever he shoots a wedding. He's just waiting for the flood of used 5d's that will be on the market when folk upgrade to the 5dMII and the prices come down.</p>

<p>This link will grow old soon. I would be interested to hear what you decided and how it works out for you. Please email me at scott@mscottclay.com after you've had a chance to use which ever camera you decide to buy.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Scott</p>

 

<p>Well, I will say the 5d doesn't have the bells and whistles the 40d or 50d does. It is older technology, but I wouldn't let that stop me. It's been one of Canon's biggest successes. As a practical walk around camera, I prefer the 40d with all it's cool stuff, but when I need a money shot (especially at a wedding) I'll always pull out the 5d.</p>

<p>IMO, there a huge difference between what you see through the lens of a 5d vs the 40d. The 5d has a much larger view and is better in lower light, but he 40d includes ISO in it's view (that's important to me).</p>

<p>Having one full frame and one cropped frame was my goal from the begining. It just makes more since than having two cropped (IMO). Two big things you will give up on the 5d are "Live View" (if that's important to you) I only use it in architectural photography, but I understand some folk use it a lot. I also understand it's been upgraded on the 50D. The other is auto "sensor cleaning".</p>

<p>It's alot to think about and a tough decision, but I still think the 5d is a better option for your circumstance, if you can trust the used one is in good shape.</p>

<p>I'm curious, have you ever used a 5d?</p>

<p>Scott</p>

<p>PS> "I shoot Weddings mostly".<br>

Definitely go for the 5d it's an awesome wedding camera and is FF. Because of the FF factor, you may be able to get a few wide shots you might have missed with the cropped camera. You might also consider getting a 24-70L ilo the 24-105L I mentioned earlier due to the 2.8 vs 4.0 factor.</p>

<p>I haven't actually used a 50d, but everyone I've talked to said it's not enough of an upgrade from a 40d to warrant the cost.</p>

<p>Diane,<br>

I have a 40d and 5d. Love them both. I usually keep the 70-200 on the 40D and 17-40 or 24-105 on the 5d. Your current lens line up will do well with the 5d, however, since the 17-55 won't work with the 5d, you might what to sell it and pick up a 17-40l or 24-105l. You will probably use the 5d for most of your "wide" photography. I doubt I will upgrade for a few years because this camera body combo does everything I need to do like; 5d for weddings, portraits, macro and low light and 40d for sports and nature.<br>

Best regards,<br>

Scott</p>

<p>I carry second smaller bag, that holds my 70-200, 100-400 and 580 EX II flash all side by side. Very compact and easy to leave in your vehicle to use when needed. When I do take it in my back pack, I usually put the 70-200 on the camera in the bag. Seems like it gives me more room. If you don't have a back pack, I'd recommend you get one. Do what ever you have to but don't leave that lens behind. Once you get used to it, you will love it.<br>

Best regards,<br>

Scott</p>

<p>I'll toss the Tokina 12-24 into the mix. I've been very happy with it on my 40D and it's much less expensive than the Canon 10-22. I would say the Canon 17-40L is the best wide lens for the money, but 17 is not really that wide on an XTI. You might also consider the Canon EFs 17-55. It's not an "L" lens, but is optically as good, is 2.8 and has IS. I know several photographers who live with this lens on thier 30D's and 40D's.</p>

<p>I wonlder why you need to turn it off on the 100-400L IS, but not on the 70-200L 2.8 IS? I haven't acutaly read the manual (though I probably should), but everyone I've talked to (including the sales man at the camera store) said you don't need to turn off the IS on a 70-200L 2.8 IS when it's on a tripod.</p>

<p>As stated above, the 100-400 is a bit better for this one trip circumstance. However, if you do get the 70-200 2.8 IS and 1.4 converter you will be happy on this trip and much happier later. I have both and use the 70-200L 2.8 IS much more often than the 100-400L.<br>

Who knows, maybe Santa will bring you both tonight!</p>

<p>I've never used the Sigma, but have always been happy with my <strong>Canon </strong> 50mm 1.4. It's a great lens on my 40d and 5d.</p>

<p>Good point Hendrik. I had forgotten how heavy the 24-70L is. I've owned the 24-70L and 24-105L. Kept the 24-105 for IS, range and weight and sold the 24-70L.</p>

<p>Scott</p>

<p>It really depends on what you plan to use in the future. If you are going to switch to a FF, you probably should go with the 24-70L. However, 24 is not very wide on a cropped camera. I know a couple of photographers who live with their 17-55 on their 30Ds and 40Ds. They swear by it. I had one for awhile and really liked it, but moved on to a 5D and it was useless.<br>

You might also consider that the 17-55 has IS. I know some say it doesn't matter on a wide lens, but I disagree. I found it very useful in low light situations. Unfortunately, IS won't help if the subject is moving and band members seldom stand still. If you plan to use the camera for landscapes, you will find the 17-55 more usefully as well. Both are excellent choices.<br>

Best wishes,<br>

Scott</p>

<p>I have the Stofen diffuser and Gary Fong Lightshpere. The Lightshpere is awesome and has never let me down. It really spreads the light, especially in a crowd.</p>

<p>Scott</p>

 

I had this problem with my 40D when I first purchased it. It was because I had inadvertently set one or more of the custom settings incorrectly. Once I "reset" them to the factory setting the problem went away. It's worth a try at least.

If I could only have one lens for my 40d it would definitely be the EFs 17-55 2.8 IS. This lens will do most of what you

mentioned in your post very well.

Oops! I didn't see the part of the message that said you budget was too tight for the 5D. In that case, consider the Tokina 12-24. Very sharp, good lens for much less. It's the only non-Canon lens I've owned but have been very pleased with it.

 

I agree with Yakim that the EFS17-55 is a better solution for you 400D if you really don't need the ultra wide. Everyone I know that uses the EFS17-55 absolutely loves it, but remember, you won't be able to use it on a 5D if you upgrade later.

If you are getting the 5D, get the EF 16-35. You will probably do most of your wide shooting on the 5D once you get it. You won't be able to use the 10-22 on the 5D, but you can still use the 16-35 on the 400D. When I got my 5D I chose the 17-40L and have been very happy with it. I don't usually use it for low light shooting so the f4 didn't matter to me. I've put my Tokina 12-24 that I did use on the 40D out for sale.

 

Best of luck.

 

Scott

If the XT you have is in good shape and takes good pictures, you would be better served to spend the money on upgraded glass. Having said that, I purchased a new XT, kept it for 3 days then took it back and traded up for the XTI. I thought there was enough difference between the two to pay the extra money.

 

Best of luck,

 

Scott

I'm ready to move past the safety (E-TTL) and the limitations of my ST-E2 and move on to radio triggers for my 580

EX II and two 430 EX's. Are Pocket Wizards still the best bet? I know there is newer technology out there and some

less expensive models as well, but are they as reliable as I have "read" the Pocket Wizards are? I've already spent

most of my equipment budget on "L" glass and bodies. I'd like to get out cheaper than $800 for 4 units, but don't

want to waste money on "cheaper" equipment that will fail in the field. If necessary, I'll buy two now and a couple

more in the future.

 

The system will be used in weddings, indoor special events (where flash and set up is allowed) and general outdoor

photography. I will be using a 40D and 5D.

 

Thanks in advance for your comments. I've come to lean heavily on Photo.net Canon user opinions.

 

Scott

Puppy Face: Did you upgrade from a 40D? If so, is it worth it?

I've owned the 24-70L and 24-105L. Kept the 24-105L because of IS, being much lighter and that little extra length. I

do miss the 24-70L when shooting weddings and will probably get another one if they ever put IS in it.

 

Another thing to consider on the 17-40L vs 16-35L is the filter size. 77mm for the 17-40L as is with 24-105L, 70-200L

2.8 and others. I own the 17-40L and am very happy with it, but usually shoot at f8 or above with it. I only buy the

best filters so not having to buy another polarizer in 82mm was a plus for me when deciding between the 17-40L and

16-35L. Like you, I would prefer to use fast primes for indoor shooting so the 2.8 on the 16-35L wasn't a factor. There

is just too much difference in price between 17-40L and 16-35L if you are not going to use the low light capability.

Tokina 12-24. Good price for good IQ.

Have you looked at the Tokina 12-24? Excellent IQ. It's the only non Canon lens I own and works great on a 40D

however, I'm not sure I would call it cheap at $495 or so.