m._scott_clay1

I have a 5D and 40D. The 40D has as good of IQ as the 5D up to a really large print size, but does not perform as well in low light, high ISO. I don't usually blow any thing up larger than the exec lent IQ of a 40D. Not sure about 10D, 20D, but have a friend that uses a 30D for portraits and weddings with outstanding results.

 

I use the 5D for weddings, portraits, low light and landscapes. I use the 40D for Sports and most anything else. The 40D makes an excellent back up for Weddings. I'm fairly sure I will always have one FF and one cropped. Each have their own niche, but you can use either of them to back up the other. If you ever shoot sports photography, you will probably prefer the 40D over the 5D. If I were going on vacation and could only take one, it would be the 40D. I've read the reviews on the 50D and it sounds good, but not worth the upgrade from a 40D. Not sure yet about he 5DMII. It could change my mind about what to take on vacation, especially with video capabilities.

If I understand your question correctly, you will only buy one or the other. I own both the lenses you mentioned and a

1.4 and 2x converters. The 70-200L 2.8 IS is my most used lens. It really depends on how much you need the 300 -

400 end of the 100- 400. I am in the process of doing my own side by side comparisons of these two lensed using

the 2x on the 70-200L. I've seen some comparisons on line and there really wasn't enough difference to warrant

buying the 100-400L. Of course I purchased one anyway. Just stubborn I guess. Once I've compared the two myself,

I would imagine I will sell or trade the 100-400 unless I see a really noticeable difference. If I could only have one, it

would be 70-200L 2.8 IS with the converters.

I was faced with the same decision a little over a year ago. We have a very good store in Orlando to compare good quality equipment. Most of my film equipment over the years had been Minolta and Mamiya. I went to the store to buy a digital Nikon, but when I compared them side by side, the Canon EOS system won. The reviews on the "L" glass were very impressive and I've not been disappointed with any that I own. I've looked at the latest Nikon offerings and they are impressive to be sure, but I still think I made the right decision. I'm very happy with my 40D and 5D. I doubt I'll upgrade any time soon.

 

Good luck and go Canon.

It's still just a matter of personal preference. Both are outstanding lenses. I've had both, kept the 24-105. Lately, I've been doing wedding stuff again and miss the 24-70. I'm sure eventually I'll own them both again. For the mean time, I prefer the 24-105 as my normal lens for the 5D and I do use IS at 105 in low light.

 

For you, if you are already lugging a 70-200 2.8 IS, you won't have any trouble lugging a 24-70, but if your out skiing, I would say the 24-105 would be a better fit. More distance and lighter.

 

This choice was one of the toughest I had to make. Most of the other lenses were easy to decide on. I'm not convinced there is a correct answer!

One correction from my previous post. The EFs 17-55 f2.8 IS is not sharper than the EF 17-40 L f4 that Bob mentioned, however IMO it is just as sharp plus is f2.8 and has IS. Some people will tell you that IS is not that important at that wide lens range, but I disagree. You will find you can get some indoor candid shots with the 17-55 that you can not get with the 17-40.

I would agree with purchasing 40D ilo the 50D. It's still fairly new technology and has a lot to offer.I would spend the

difference of $$ between the 40D and 50D on the EFs 17-55 f 2.8 IS lens. It is more money but is one of the best

walk around lenses for a cropped camera. I've owned all the lenses mentioned above and the EFs 17-55 is sharper,

has low light capability and IS (image stabilization).

 

Good luck Erdal.

I think you will be happy with the 24-105L, however the 16-35L or 17-40L are actually better for landscape.The 24-105L is my favorite walk around lens for my 5D and does well for landscapes also. I had a 24-70L (which is an awesome lens, especially if you do a lot of indoor existing light photography) but it's a bit heavy and a little short for me. I traded the 24-70L for a 24-105L and have not been disappointed. My copy is just as sharp as my 24-70L was, but lighter and has IS for low light.

Knowing your budget would really help. If I could only have one lens for this camera, it would be an EFs 17-55 IS 2.8. Then I would add a 70-200L 4.0 or 2.8 followed by a 24-105L. If "L" (canon's top of the line) is out of the budget, I'd still get the 17-55, then 75-300 followed by the 28-135.

The 5d will probably give you the width you are looking for with the 24-70L you currently own. If you are leaning toward purchasing the 5D, I take back my EFs 17-55 2.8 IS recommendation.

I don't normally promote EFs lenses, BUT since you are shooting with two cropped cameras, you might consider the EFs 17-55 2.8 IS. Although not an "L" it's a very sharp lens which works well in low light and has IS to boot.

Ken,

 

Why do you say "A lot more favorable". I tested the 16-35mII in a store and didn't see any improvement over my 17-55. My copy of the 17-55 was great on my 40D, so what's more favorable in a 16-35mII?

Hi Bill,

 

I've owned the XT, XTi and XSi. The XSi has a better control layout and more impressive features than the other two, but any of the 3 will take fine images and the glass you've chosen will not be wasted on any of them. I still prefer my 40D, but will probably get another XSi in a year or two when the price comes down just because it's so light and handles well. I can't say that about the XT or XTi.

 

Good luck, MSC

I too love my Tokina 12-24 for my 40D, but now that I have a 5D as well (and will use it for my wide shots) it's just not

necessary. I will be selling (or trading) the Tokina 12-24. I traded in my EFs 17-55 (one of the best lenses I've owned)

for a 17-40L. The 17-40L is great for landscape shots on a 5D. I don't necessarily agree that you should sell

your EFs lenses since you are keeping the 350, however, if money is a concern and you need to sell them to get

other lenses for the 5D, go for it. I've had the 24-70L and 24-105L. I agree with Thomas that the 24-70L is an amazing

lens, but with much internal debate, I sold the 24-70L and kept the 24-105L. Simple fact is (IMO) the 24-105L is a

better walk around lens for the 5D. I found the 24-70L too heavy and too short for a good walk around and it has no IS

to boot. Having said that, if I didn't have a 70-200L 2.8 IS, I would not have sold the 24-70L. It would have left me with

too many f/4's and no f/2.8's.

 

I keep the 24-105L on the 5D (unless shooting landscapes) and the 70-200L 2.8L IS on the 40D. I have the same set

up as Robin, without a couple of the primes and with a couple more zooms.

 

Now in answer to question number 2: The 12-24 will work, but like Mark said, it's only usable at 19mm or longer. If I

you can't get the 17-40L AND a 24-70L or 24-105L, I'd keep the Tokina and go for one of the 24-?L's. You can

always get the 17-40L later and sell the Tokina. The reason I say 24-?L, is because it's simply a matter of personal

preference between the two. There have been many threads on this forum discussing the difference. They are both

GREAT lenses.

 

Good luck, MSC

Short answer is the 40D is better for weddings and events, BUT all of the previous posts bring valid points. There is a lot to consider before you delve into shooting weddings. Remember, that's someones' "memories" forever. Having said that, don't let anyone on this forum dash your photography hopes, dreams and passion. I've seen some posters almost get offended when someone new talks about "beginers" shooting weddings.

 

There are really only two reasons to buy a XSi instead of a 40D. It's cheaper and it's smaller. For some, smaller is better. You probably would not notice the IQ difference between the two if you used them both properly and have good glass, but you will see a difference in functionality. If you stick with it (wedding photography that is), you are going to want a 5D sooner or later. Once you learn the control layout and functionality of the 40D, using the 5D will become second nature for you. Not so with the XSi. The 40D will then become your backup.

 

Good luck!

I use my Lightsphear in the hot shoe of my 40D and 5D and have not had any problems. It's by far, the best "gadget"

I've used and does take the edge off the direct flash. I took 60 head shots recently at a church and they all turned out

well.

Extension tubes do work and are less expensive, but they have a very short focus range and you won't get 1:1. Still, they are much better than not being able to macro.

I would agree with the others that you need to be very familiar with your equipment when shooting a wedding. Things

tend to change quickly. I've owned the XT, XTI and XSi. The XSi has much better control locations and functionality

than it's predecessors, but it's really not what you want as your primary body for a wedding. Not saying it won't work,

but the 40D is much better. Not necessarily better image quality by itself, but much better for controlling the settings

of the camera in a hurry, which will improve the quality of your images. If you purchase by Saturday with the current

rebates, you can get a 40D with a kit lens for not much more than the XSi. With the rebate I paid less than $1200 for

a 40D kit with an "ok" EF-S 17-85 lens, two batteries and a bag. I'm much happier with my 40D than I ever was with

any of the Rebel series. I agree with David that I would never shoot a wedding without a back up body, even if I had to

borrow or rent one.

 

Having said all that, the XSi will work, but I would imagine you will "out grow" it quickly and be sorry you didn't get

the 40D. Good luck!

If you make it up to Orlando while you are in the Florida, you can get pretty much anything at Colonial Photo and Hobby. Their prices are not as good as B&H's, but you don't have to worry about shipping and you can try it out before you buy it. It's where I have purchased the majority of my lenses and my 40D.

I'd go for the package with the 24-105L. I've owned the 24-70L and 24-105L. They are both great lenses and each have their pros and cons.

 

If you are only going to have one lens for now, the 24-105L is the one. It's a great walk around lens. When I decided to sell one or the other, the 24-105L stayed and the 24-70L went.

Canon 580 EX II

That is a good deal. I paid substantially more than that for my Tokina 12-24 and it's worth every penny. Even though I

have a wide variety

of lenses now, I generally carry three with with me at all times. Tokina 12-24, Canon 24-70L and Canon 70-200 L 2.8

IS. This trio covers the vast majority of what I shoot and I get great images with the all of them on a 40D.

Hi Danny,

 

I was in the same situation a awhile back. I chose to purchase the 40D now and

wait for the next version of the 5D. I've always known I would own both cropped

and FF cameras at the same time so it was really a matter of keeping the XSi or

upgrading to the 40D now. For me, the 6.5 FPS (and a host of other differences)

made the decision easy. Since I knew I would eventually buy a 5D, it just wouldn't

do to have a 5D now with some lesser features than the 40D. I'm banking on the

next version of the 5D to have more speed and many better features than my 40D

(and yes I know the current 5D does things the 40D won't). Good luck!

Had a 450D and really liked it. Have a 40D and love it! Go 40D if you can afford the difference. 450D if you have small hands and don't need the extra speed of 6.5 frames per second. Just a thought.

Sounds like you are on the right track. I would add that you should look into a Gary Fong C4 Lightsphere II for the 580 EX II. I was very skeptical until I started using one. You will also find more day to day uses for it. I would prefer two 580's for increased output and cycle time, but currently use a 580 EX II and 430 EX now with good results.

If the 350D is "feeling tiny" the 450D won't be any different. I've had a 350D, 400D and 450D. The 450D was definitely the best of the 3 and has may noticeable upgrades over the 350D. When the rebates came out I upgraded to the 40D and love it. The 40D will do some things the 450D won't and it does "feel" better (to me), but I can't say it will actually give you better pictures. For me, the 6.5 FPS, custom set up, higher ISO and general layout of controls in the 40D was enough for the $$ difference.

 

I second the canon 100f/2.8 USM macro lens if you are going to do a lot of macro, however, if you are only going to do "some" macro shots, you might consider an extender to use with your current lens and save some $$.