Dilemma, new 5D or new lens?

S

samcox89

Suspended / Banned
Messages
261
Name
Samuel Cox
Edit My Images
No
Right, im in the fortunate position to get a nice new 16-35mm L soon which will sit along side a 24-105 mm L, 70-200mm L and a sigma 50mm macro.

But, with the 5D mark II (hopefully) coming out soon, do you think that it would be worth upgrading to that instead of the 16-35mm.

I've got a 40D atm.
 
Spend the money on glass unless there's a specific feature you need that the 40D can't do and that the 5D can.

And also think about a 10-22 instead - its a great lens
 
mobilevirgin said:
Spend the money on glass unless there's a specific feature you need that the 40D can't do and that the 5D can.

And also think about a 10-22 instead - its a great lens
Click to expand...

Yes it is, but AFAIK it won't attach to the 5D (unless Canon change the lens mount on the new 5D) as it's EF-S.

I would spend money on L glass if you can :)
 
It's a tricky one, but having the 24-105mm, would you REALLY need the 16-35mm at the minute?
 
Little Man said:
It's a tricky one, but having the 24-105mm, would you REALLY need the 16-35mm at the minute?
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking - there's an overlap with the 24-105. My original laconic reply had that in mind, but didn't spell it out. Hence the reason why I suggested the 10-22.

Either way, glass is likely to be a better investment and is more likely to result in better pictures than a new body.
 
Little Man said:
It's a tricky one, but having the 24-105mm, would you REALLY need the 16-35mm at the minute?
Click to expand...

The thing is, im always finding myself at 24mm end of things, and the 2.8 would help when im shooting gigs.

But then i think if i get a 5D, the 24-105mm would adapt due to having no crop on the 5D.. i guess its swings and roundabouts.
 
I getcha. I'm in a simlar position, i've got a 400D which I love, but I'd like to upgrade to a 40D. If I do that, i'll have to stop spending on my 400D to afford one, but as you said, swings and roundabouts, theres nothing wrong with my 400D, so I could spend the money on lenses etc instead.

Personally mate, i'd go with what YOU feel might be best for you.
 
Personally I'd get the body. You've obviously got a hankering for the 5D and that's not going to go away. What it will do though is redefine how your existing lenses work for you. You'll be able to say whether or not you need wider/longer and decide from there rather than buying something which never gets used later. Just my opinion :)
 
The 24-105 would actually offer a slightly wider AOV on the 5D than the 16-35 would on the 40D.

I had a similar quandry, ! had the 5D and wanted a longer option than the 100-400mm lens I had, I bought a S/H 1.4 converter and a 30D body. This gives me a top end AOV of 896mm with the 400mm, much cheaper than buying a specialist lens.
 
Also the new 5D will probably be over £2k, you can pick up a 5D now for about £1200.

Having seen the results from my 5D with a £25 28-90mm compared directly to the 24-105mm F4L IS, I would say contrary to everybody else that the glass isn't such a big deal. And 24mm is really wide on a FF body anyway.

Personally I'd get the 5D and look towards getting a couple of fast primes for your low-light gig photos :)
 
i would go with the 16-35mm - just out of interest is it the mk1 or mk2?
 
EdBray said:
The 24-105 would actually offer a slightly wider AOV on the 5D than the 16-35 would on the 40D.

I had a similar quandry, ! had the 5D and wanted a longer option than the 100-400mm lens I had, I bought a S/H 1.4 converter and a 30D body. This gives me a top end AOV of 896mm with the 400mm, much cheaper than buying a specialist lens.
Click to expand...

Interesting, another bonus for getting the 5D is that it would give me a "back-up" camera.

sportysnaps said:
i would go with the 16-35mm - just out of interest is it the mk1 or mk2?
Click to expand...

It will be the mk 2 if i did buy the 16-35.
 
samcox89 said:
Interesting, another bonus for getting the 5D is that it would give me a "back-up" camera.



It will be the mk 2 if i did buy the 16-35.
Click to expand...

I think you'll soon find the 40d will be your back up camera;)
 
I decided against the 16-35 simply due to cost. How often do you need f/2.8 on a wide angle?

Personally I would buy the 17-40 f/4 for half the price and put the savings into the Canon 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top