Upgrading from Canon 30D: 5D MkII or 7D?

kcui

I'm torn between dishing out some cash now for a 7D or saving up a bit more for a 5D MK II.

The reason I am considering going full-frame is I enjoy taking landscape and nature photos, and would like to get the most out of wide angle.

However, I own the following lenses

EF 24-105mm F/4.0 L
EF-S 60mm F/2.8 Macro USM
Tokina 11-16mm (Canon EF-S mount)

Unfortunately the latter two lenses I cannot use on a full frame. I don't use my Macro too much but I enjoy the Tokina. Also I'm not sure how much I'd be able to resell these for and I'd have to go through the trouble of finding someone to take them.

So is the 5D MK II worth the extra $1000 + hassle of replacing my lenses, or should I go 7D?

Or should I hold out on upgrading completely and wait for something more substantial?

dlplumer

I own both, but if I were to just own one it would be the 7D for its speed etc. and price. I basically only use the 5D2 for tripod shot landscapes. Both are great cameras. If you primarily shoot landscapes and portraits you might want to lean toward the 5D2. If you shoot action and especially wildlife you should lean toward the 7D. If you shoot it all, I would go with the 7D.

mercphoto

I think I'd have to really, really like wide angle to take the route and go full-frame. You already have an 11mm lens, which is roughly the same as 16mm on a full-frame camera. Granted, your Tokina 11-16 is not in the same league as a Canon 17-40 or 16-35, but you're talking a lot of money to make that switch.

Manfr3d

I'd get the 7D unless you are also planning to buy an expensive fullframe wide angle lens that comes close (on fullframe) to the performance your Tokina lens has on a crop camera.
By the way have you looked at the Sigma 8-16mm for crop ... I wish something like this was available at an affordable price for FF.

kcui

I'm just worried that the 1.6x crop will not be sufficient for shooting landscapes. I've been relatively happy with my Tokina on the crop sensor, but I can't help but feel like I'm missing out on the "larger picture" (literally and figuratively).

But I guess what I am trying to weigh is if the detail I gain in the wider frame worth the cost of having to replace lens and the extra grand for the 5D vs sticking with the 7D? Am I going to see an increase in image quality over the 7D as well, or just a wider area of capture?

Or should my Tokina be sufficient (for the time being) to fill in for missing out on a full frame?

Ultimately I may jump full frame but by the time I do I might have supplanted my EF-S mounts with something compatible, so I don't have to incur the cost of replacing things.

@Manfr3d:

I had considered the Sigma, but didn't need the extra 3mm and I wanted an the f/2.8 and from what I read the Tokina was slightly sharper.

mercphoto

kcui wrote: »

I'm just worried that the 1.6x crop will not be sufficient for shooting landscapes. I've been relatively happy with my Tokina on the crop sensor, but I can't help but feel like I'm missing out on the "larger picture" (literally and figuratively).

Why? The 11mm on a crop body is almost exactly the same field of view as 17mm on a full-frame body. What lens would you plan to buy if you did go full-frame?

kcui

mercphoto wrote:

Why? The 11mm on a crop body is almost exactly the same field of view as 17mm on a full-frame body. What lens would you plan to buy if you did go full-frame?

I'd probably WANT go with a EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM. I know the Tokina doesn't really compare to that. Being able to afford it is another issue....

But you make a good point about the 11mm on the crop. I guess I didn't really think about that.

Village Idiot

You could probably sell the lenses pretty easy on http://photography-on-the.net/forum/ . It's a huge site and everything I've listed has been spoken for within 24 hours of being posted.

I have a 30D and a 5D MKII. I don't miss the faster speed or any of that stuff. Granted, I mainly shoot people and concert photography, but I've never had an issue with the AF and AF speed in any of my shoots.

You could also look at the 17-40 f/4L. It's much cheaper than the 16-35 and is an amazing performer. I love wide angle portraiture and I use the 17-40 a lot.

mercphoto

kcui wrote: »

I'd probably WANT go with a EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM. I know the Tokina doesn't really compare to that. Being able to afford it is another issue....

You could save several hundred going with the 17-40. But you are talking some serious bucks to make this move. You won't gain any field of view, you will gain image quality. Now its just you reaching into you gut and asking yourself if the better image quality from the better lens and larger sensor is worth the hit to the wallet.

craig_d

I doubt the Tokina actually has an EF-S mount. It probably has an EF mount but just doesn't project a full-frame image circle at its wider focal lengths. You will probably find that it fills the frame on a 5D2 at its long end. This was my experience with Tokina's 12-24mm f/4 lens.

kcui

craig_d wrote:

I doubt the Tokina actually has an EF-S mount. It probably has an EF mount but just doesn't project a full-frame image circle at its wider focal lengths. You will probably find that it fills the frame on a 5D2 at its long end. This was my experience with Tokina's 12-24mm f/4 lens.

My mistake. what I meant to say was the Tokina just barely fills a FF @ 16mm.

kcui

On a somewhat related note, has anyone had experience buying used equipment on Craigslist? I just saw a used (barely) 7D on there for a really good price, and assuming the person is legit and the warranty is still intact I might take them up on it.

Village Idiot

I only ever do local transactions where I can meet people face to face on CL.