Updgrade Time

urdygurdy

urdygurdy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
618
Name
Darren
Edit My Images
No
have have a canon 7D & am thinking its time for an upgrade, would you consider the 5Dmk2 as an upgrade to my current camera ??

I own the following Lens's
70-200mm MK2 F2.8 IS L
24-105mm L
24-70mm L F2.8 (may sell this)

thanks for any input given

Daz
 
almost anything & everything lol but Mainly people / street & landscapes & cityscapes, and almost never sport or wildlife if that helps :-)

cheers

Daz
 
Then 5D2 is just the ticket for that, if higher IQ is what you're after. 7D is better for action/wildlife. Together they make a great pairing.
 
Personally I'd sell the 24-105mm and replace it with a wide angle, a macro or a fast prime or better still all three as you don't seem to have any. You seem to be leaning rather towards selling the f2.8 zoom but personally I wouldn't use a 24-105mm f4 on an APS-C, or a FF for that matter.

Wide angle, macro (or at least close up) and wide aperture shooting are all IMVHO much more interesting than mid range f4 zooms, but that's just me.

Something to think about?
 
I have no interest or patience in macro photography lol maybe the wide angle idea would be good as i also use a sigma 10-20mm which i realise i cant use on the 5dMK2

As for 24-105mm i literally bought it last week as i am sick of the weight of 24-70 that i use as my walk around lens

Daz
 
Last edited:
urdygurdy said:
As for 24-105mm i literally bought it last week as i am sick of the weight of 24-70 that i use as my walk around lens

Daz
Click to expand...

Yup. And for that reason when I had an APS-C camera my "standard" zoom was a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8.

When using FF lenses on APS-C cameras you are carrying glass, plastic and metal about that you simply can't use.
 
Yes, a wide-angle for landscape is missing. 17-40L is the obvious choice, and takes the same 77mm filter size as the 24-105 and 70-200 2.8. A fast prime and macro would round out the set nicely, though personally I find tubes on my 70-200 a more versatile macro solution.
 
woof woof said:
When using FF lenses on APS-C cameras you are carrying glass, plastic and metal about that you simply can't use.
Click to expand...

mmmmmmmmm interesting thoughts, what exactly do ya mean by that then?

Cheers

Daz
 
urdygurdy said:
mmmmmmmmm interesting thoughts, what exactly do ya mean by that then?

Cheers

Daz
Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought you knew the difference between FF and APS-C.

An APS-C chip is physically smaller than a FF chip and therefore APS-C lenses can be physically smaller than FF lenses of the same equiv field of view, mostly, as the image circle they need to produce is smaller. FF lenses need to be bigger simply because they need to be bigger. So, if you have FF lenses and use them on APS-C cameras the lenses are providing an image that's bigger than the sensor... and therefore... you simply can't use the additional glass, plastic and metal. Simples. Or nearly simples :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
APS-C lenses can be physically smaller than FF lenses of the same equiv field of view, mostly, as the image circle they need to produce is smaller. FF lenses need to be bigger simply because they need to be bigger.
Click to expand...
Not that simples really. If you are going by fov, yes but if you are wanting subject image size then you want focal length & APS-C lenses can only be made noticeably smaller than FF at shorter focal lengths e.g. the Olympus Zuiko 300 2.8 for 4/3 (even smaller sensor than Canon APS-C) is still nearly 300mm long & still weighs over 7lbs
 
Last edited:
Have a 24-105 on a 7d & really like it. Great combo.
 
heidfirst said:
Not that simples really. If you are going by fov, yes
Click to expand...

So what I said is (mostly) correct, as I said - mostly.

Thanks for taking the time :lol: and a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is still more compact and lighter than a Canon 24-70mm f2.8? Must be some sort of wierd coincidence going on there! :naughty::lol:
 
I recently went down this route after I dropped my 7D in the sea. I mainly shoot landscapes and portrait, so thought the 5D II was a worthwhile upgrade and to be fair so far I haven't seen enough difference to justify the expense.

I previously had a 7D, Canon 17-55 and Sigma 10-20.70-200 f4 IS I then upgraded so the 5D MKII, Canon 17-40, 24-105, and still kept the 70-200 as I managed to keep that out of the water. I was as happy with the shots I was taking with the 7D setup as I am with the 5D MKII, I actually preferred my 17-55 over the 24-105.

So it would be worth looking hard at what you shoot and determine if the 5D MKII will give you anything different to justify the extra expense, as the 7D is a great camera and not just for fast moving targets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top