Moving to the 5DmkII - help me with lens choice

eoren1 · March 18, 2012

I have been trying to decide between sticking with the APS-C format (I currently have the Canon 50D) or move to full frame. Borrowed a friend's 5DmkII with 24-70/2.8 today and shot alongside my 50D and 17-55/2.8. I've always loved my combo but shooting full frame (literally) opened my eyes. Nice big viewfinder. Dynamic range seemed a bit better. Colors a bit better as well. Then I took it inside and shot my kid on our steps. ISO 400 looked as good as 100 on my 50D. 3200 is easily useable.

So I've decided to move to the 5D and am pretty sure I'll get the mkII. Just missed a deal for a new one for $1800 shipped today and will keep an eye out for the next one near that price. Just can't justify $3500 for the mkIII or the wait for the price to get down to $3000.

So, now the lens quandary.

Planning to sell my great EF-S 10-22 and 17-55
Will buy the 17-40/4 to use as ultrawide on 5D, wide/normal on 50D

Can't decide if I want the 24-70/2.8 mk I or the 24-105/4 IS. The 17-55 served me for 85-90% of my shots (landscape and portrait) and I have been thrilled with it. That equals the 24-70 focal range but I wonder if I would be better served with the 24-105.

I may add an 85/1.8 at some point. I have the 50/1.8 mk I which is rarely used and will see new life with the 5D.

Also have the 70-200/4 IS which will stay and am pleased with the reach I get on the 5D as far as landscape opportunities with it.

Appreciate any/all thoughts on the choice of the 17-40 (plan to use it mostly at f/8-16) and decision between the 24-70 and 24-105.

Thanks!

divamum · March 18, 2012

I have a love/hate relationship with my 24-70L. At its best, it takes wonderful images, with sharpness close to good primes and fantastic colour/contrast and "sparkle". But, even after coming back from Canon repair last month, it can still sometimes plotz and give me a weirdly soft image (and I know there's nothing wrong with the lens now). I find that happens more at the wide than the long end, and usually if I have stepped back to shoot from a wider vantage point; it's almost always perfect when I'm working at headshot distances, which is why I put up with it's, uh, idiosyncracies.

As a portrait-shooter, I really want 2.8, but if you don't need it for landscape work then go with the 24-105L OR check out the new Tamron 24-70 with stabilization (not sure if it's actually available yet, but it was released a couple of months ago). Or, of course, take out a loan/rob a bank/sell a child to get the 24-70L II which by all accounts is stunning, but $2k.

Sam · March 18, 2012

I might suggest thinking in terms of which lenses to get first, not limit yourself to a set number of lenses for all time.

Disclaimer: It really does depend on what YOU shoot and YOUR priorities.

The 24-105 IS 4.0 Is great all purpose walk around lens on a full frame body, and would be my first pick. While the 24-70 2.8 has great specks and some people love it I have tried very hard to love it but alas it just doesn't wow me.

The Canon 85 1.8 is a wonderful lens at a great price point. I recently sold mine and replaced it with the Sigma 85 1.4. That said I found my Canon 85 1.8 to be sharp at 2.0 to 2.2. I didn't care for the results at 1.8, but still this is a great lens.

The 17-40 4. is a solid performer at a good price point, but for landscapes you can't beat a good prime.

Them is me thoughts......

Sam

Overfocused · March 18, 2012

The 24-105 can have horrid corners on full frame, even stopped down. I tried 2 copies and both were unacceptably bad and even sent to canon for calibration. The center was sharp but about %60 of the data recorded in the frame was terrible from the edges in.

If sharp landscapes are a big thing make sure you get a decent copy first. I got sick of trying so I just got a 50mm prime and a 3rd party 28-70 for $800 less that had a more even plane of clarity.

Matthew Saville · March 18, 2012

Ehh, for a hobbyist / part time pro shooting more portraits and general photography than crazy wedding etc. photojournalism, I think you'll find that a 17-40 and 70-200 are your best friends. As others have said, neither the 24-70 nor the 24-105 are going to be as sharp as the likes of the 17-40 and 70-200's. (By landscape photography standards, at least. Yes, we use the 24-70 all the time at weddings and the central sharpness is just fine wide open.)

Get either the 17-40 or the 16-35 mk2, depending on how much lightweight, f/16 type traditional landscapes you usually shoot versus low-light type stuff. (stars, night time lapses etc.)

Some may recommend "upgrading" the 70-200 f/4 L to the 2.8 L IS, but the f/4 is by far the sharpest 70-200mm lens ever made, even compared to any f/2.8 lens stopped down to f/4. It is just that flawlessly sharp. For packing light and shooting landscapes, you can't beat the 70-200 f/4's... Of course if you're still big on portraits and whatnot, then you could bypass the 70-200 2.8 option (heavy as two or three bricks, and expensive as a small GOLD brick) ...and just get an 85 f/1.8, or a 100 f/2, or a 135 f/2... Those are all killer full-frame portraiture lenses, just depends on what type of working distance you like, and number of subjects etc.

All in all, there you have it. Unless you do LOTS of "general shooting" in very poor lighting, ...you will find 24-70 to be quite overkill as a walk-around lens. You're much better of with just a 24-105, or personally for general photography I'd probably prefer to just carry a 28 1.8 + 85 1.8 combo. But that's just me, I like primes. a 24-105 would be great too if you don't mind the 2+ stops of aperture loss. A 24-105 + 50 1.4 is probably even more versatile, in some respects.

=Matt=

eoren1 · March 18, 2012

Thanks everyone - appreciate the help.

Definitely happy with the 70-200/4 IS and, if anything, it has an even smaller DOF on the 5D than I'm used to on the 50D so that's a nice plus.

The 17-40 seems a given as well. I may shot the odd star shot here and there but it's not worth the cost for the 16-35/2.8. And it should be a clean swap for the 10-22 as far as price with a gain of 5mm on the long end (taking into account the 1.6 crop). It also serves double duty as a possible walk around on the 50D.

As for the middle ground, I keep reading great and horrid things about the 24-70/2.8. It was definitely a beast of a combo compared to my svelte 50D/17-55. Before I settled on the three zooms, I had shot a ton of primes - Sigma 30/1.4 and Canon 50/1.8mkI. Can't decide if I would want to do that again and, if so, would just get the 85/1.8 for my 4 and 6 year old kids.

The 24-105 is interesting. Again, the f/4 on the 5D would be roughly the same as f/2.8 on my 50D over that range but, the benefit of moving up is to get a 'true' 2.8... My friend's copy seemed great and I'm looking a shot I took of my 6 year old on the stairs that is one of the reasons for my desire to move up to the full frame camera.

I wonder if I'm doing the right thing by simply trying to replace what is working for me now vs getting the 17-40 and seeing if I need the 17-55 equivalent anymore. Would be cheaper to go that path - only upgrade cost then would be the 5D body for about $2000 - with hopefully half of that being offset by the sale of the 17-55.

Matthew Saville · March 18, 2012

eoren1 wrote: »

...
I wonder if I'm doing the right thing by simply trying to replace what is working for me now vs getting the 17-40 and seeing if I need the 17-55 equivalent anymore. Would be cheaper to go that path - only upgrade cost then would be the 5D body for about $2000 - with hopefully half of that being offset by the sale of the 17-55.

Don't worry, it's safe to consider this "the right thing" for your type of shooting. While crop sensors are versatile in some respects, full-frame sensors are versatile in other respects. You'll thoroughly appreciate the improved image quality, if you do even the slightest bit of pushing the envelope with your photography. ;-)

The whole 24-70 vs 24-105 thing seems very simple to me: I shoot for a studio that uses the 24-70 2.8 every day, but man that thing is a beast and I hate it; I'd do anything to avoid it if I could. It's just nothing like Nikon's 24-70 which is slimmer, (though not any lighter, it just feels that way) ...and flawlessly sharp.

So unless you find yourself constantly shooting low-light fast-action candids where zooming is ABSOLUTELY necessary, (first dance, cake cutting, boquet toss, that's what we use them for) ...then skip the 24-70. Low-light photography is much easier with a 28 1.8, 50 1.4, or 85 1.8 anyways. A 24-105 and a 50 1.4 make a much better combo. Even then, I dunno how often you'll need that mid-range anyways, what with the 17-40 going all the way to 40mm, and then the 70-200 at your disposal.

=Matt=

ThatCanonGuy · March 18, 2012

The Canon refurb store has 5DII's for $1760 + tax.

I would start with the 17-40 and see if you miss the 40-70mm gap. If you do, you might try a 50 1.8 - totally underrated lens. At f4 it's about as sharp as my 70-200.

eoren1 · March 18, 2012

Matt-
Hopefully, this will allow me to push the envelope some more - both for personal photography of the kids and my semi-pro landscape work.

You raise some good points about the 24-105 and that does have an awful tempting range plus IS. That plus my old 50mm and maybe an 85 in the future would make for a very nice kit.

CanonGuy -
I just missed a deal today for a new 5D body from a top online dealer (ie reputable) with USA warranty for $1799 - no tax/free shipping. After seeing that deal, I plan to hold out for something similar in the near future...

And I do have the original 50mm/1.8 that I have rarely used (it's attached to my old 350D for my wife to grab when she wants to shoot the kids). The 5D may well breath new life into that lens.

Thanks again guys.

ziggy53 · March 18, 2012

I do use the Canon EF 28-80mm, f2.8-f4L USM for the occasional landscape. In situations where you follow a deer trail, and where your location versus the scene may not be optimal (because of dense scrub or hazard) a zoom may be preferable. This old 28-80mm standard zoom is valuable in that regard, and I see sharpness equal to contemporary zooms. Focus is also pretty fast and accurate, despite the lack of a constant aperture.

Sadly, repairs would be a problem as Canon no longer services this lens. For that reason alone, I cannot recommend this lens except for the "adventurous" few among us.

Otherwise, I agree with the others in the recommendation of primes except for the EF 17-40mm, f4L USM, which I also use for landscapes.

Once again, I will additionally recommend the use of "stitched" images to yield very high levels of detail for static scenics and landscapes. A panoramic head and a short telephoto macro design prime lens can be used to generate the individual overlapping images, and you can even use open source/freeware to do the stitching.

The angle of view that you can realize will depend mostly on the number of images, and any motion or change in the scene, including cloud movement, etc., will cause problems.

Still, it's a valuable strategy and technique for those times that it's appropriate. Indeed, our own Baldy used the technique to produce a cityscape of San Francisco with incredible detail "and" size. Do check out the best panoramic thread ever:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=101529

Results:

http://dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=990541&postcount=274
http://dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=994328&postcount=293

Be sure to see what Baldy did here:

http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1039964&postcount=362
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1039966&postcount=363

DeVerm · March 18, 2012

I would *not* sell the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, *not* buy the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM and do get the EF 24-105mm f/4 IS USM.

Do this: put the 17-55mm away like if you don't have it anymore. You'll find yourself in agony, so keep it!

We put the 24-105mm on the 5D2 often and it's really wide. I do have the 17-40mm but often notice that I'm working it longer than 24mm. The 24-105 is also wonderful on APS-C; we put it on a 7D often.

The tales of 24-105mm problems were solved a long time ago (correct me if I'm wrong) so only early copies were involved. It is a tack sharp lens and used by many pro's for their top rated shots.

Somebody might sell a 5D2 with the 24-105mm as kit lens...

jmphotocraft · March 18, 2012

17-40 is an easy recommendation, considering the value and size/weight. 24-70/2.8 is the other. Seriously, if you want to realize the DOF and speed benefits of FF, don't fool around with the 24-105/4. Your 17-55 was already giving you f/4.5 in terms of FF DOF, so if you go to an f/4 lens as your primary walk-around, you won't see much difference. And, f/2.8 is twice the light of f/4, and it activates the high precision mode of the 5D2's center sensor. Done deal. Don't worry about the IS.

My 5D2 is for sale, btw. Ping me. I'm selling my 7D (sold) and 5D2 for a 5D3.

jmphotocraft · March 19, 2012

My experience has been different...

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Ehh, for a hobbyist / part time pro shooting more portraits and general photography than crazy wedding etc. photojournalism, I think you'll find that a 17-40 and 70-200 are your best friends.

17-40 is not long enough for portrait duty, and 70-200 is limiting indoors. The two do make a nice combo though, and I have gone whole weekends at the family lake cabin shooting just the 17-40 and 70-200 and leaving the 24-70 in the bag. But the 24-70 is the one lens you bring when you can only bring one (or only want to bring one).

As others have said, neither the 24-70 nor the 24-105 are going to be as sharp as the likes of the 17-40

I have not noticed a significant difference between my 17-40 and 24-70. I love my 24-70, it's very sharp.

Some may recommend "upgrading" the 70-200 f/4 L to the 2.8 L IS, but the f/4 is by far the sharpest 70-200mm lens ever made, even compared to any f/2.8 lens stopped down to f/4.

I agree I would not trade the f/4 for the f/2.8 Mark 1, but the above statement is not true anymore. The 70-200/2.8II is slightly sharper than the f/4L IS in the center, and definitely sharper across the whole frame. I had the latter, now I have the former. The f/4 was awesome for sure, and its size and weight are a lot more convenient, but the f/2.8II is sharper. But that's a $2300 issue for a later day.

Again, the 24-105 might be a nice focal length range, but I just think that one of the big reasons to go FF is to finally have true f/2.8 in a walk-around lens. I went from a 17-55 on crop to a 24-70L and I did not miss the 18mm of reach.

eoren1 · March 19, 2012

Dammit Jack - it's like you're on a mission to get me to spend every last dime

Not only do you have me second guessing the 24-70 vs 24-105 argument, you even have me second guessing the mkII vs mkIII argument. Guess it's not really thread-jacking if I do it to myself so here goes...

As background, I have the 50D and have been shooting with it since Jan 2009. In that time, I have 25,000 photos in my LR catalog from that body that I have kept (shutter at 85000 - I'm pretty strict about deleting). I shoot my 4 and 6 year old kids half the time and spend the rest with landscape photography - mostly in my town where I am lucky to have seascapes, old architecture, etc. Do enjoy HDR work and often shoot 2 sets of brackets to get a proper range. Also getting into long exposure photography. Occasional night/star work.

After trying out a 5D mk II the other day, I made the decision to go FF. I plan to sell my 10-22 and 17-55 to help fund that jump and the lens choice as above may well start out at 17-40 and my current 70-200 with the 50 prime to cover the middle. I'll decide on the 24-70/24-105/or primes in the future.

The 5DII can be had for 1800-1900 and is tried and true for landscape and portrait work. I did not have any misses in my hour or two of playing with it including shooting a sequence of my kids walking around (not running/biking). Flag football starts soon and soccer after that and I can't predict how athletic these kids will be in the next 3-5 years.

The 5DIII is 3500 and may settle at 3200 in a few weeks or with a sale. I figure that, in 3 years, the 5DII will sell for 500-700 at most; the 5DIII for 2000-2500 so the 'cost of ownership' is likely to be the same. Though obviously with a larger upfront capital investment. The 5DIII does offer me newer tech, better exposure bracketing, much improved AF (if the kids do take up sports). But it is twice the money...

So Dgrin, what say you? Is the 5DII too good to pass up at the current price or is the 5DIII worth the investment? Of course only time will tell and I'll be anxiously awaiting the first reviews here and online to confirm the 5DIII really does deliver but this is a fun exercise (for me) in the interim.

Thanks for all the help above

Overfocused · March 19, 2012

eoren1 wrote: »

I figure that, in 3 years, the 5DII will sell for 500-700 at most

Maybe if its broken for parts

The 5d classic is still $800-1200 and it is 7 years old now

Honestly, for where you're at, I think the MKII will suit you perfectly. What you're saying is you're basically not too serious about sports and you use a tripod the rest of the time. So, the MKII is perfect for you. Get skilled at timing in sports with the lower fps and you'll be that much better later if you really get into sports. No use wasting $1500+ for features you will definitely not fully utilize yet. Once you're ready to the price will probably be down a lot more and you'll have a more reasonable number instead of $3500.

And, the F4L is definitely the lens you want to keep for sharpness/clarity. Mine is so sharp it's a prime zoom with sharpness to the edges in full frame, and it nails focus with a very high success rate, even in lower light

divamum · March 19, 2012

I'm glad you're posting this thread, since I'm a similar position. I've been telling myself to hold out for the III (in the same way I held out for a 7d), but I suspect your projected figures are right, and it will STILL be too expensive for me even by the end of the year.

When I planned my upgrade from xsi->7d, I knew I wanted a 7d - not an xxd - but went via a 50d for a couple of months when I needed a 2nd body (always knowing I would sell it to fund a 7d); with the recent price-drops, I'm beginning to wonder if the 5dII might serve a similar purpose for me as a "stepping-stone" upgrade. I've held off the 5dII simply because I'm spoiled by the 7d's AF BUT, I do know that the II's clean high ISO will offset some of that. I would sell my xsi + Tamron 17-50 (which would be the most painful sale I've ever made - that lens has been wonderful!!) which would leave the rest of the lenses in my bag EF, up to FF resolution, and able to go on either body (24-70/70-200 f4/50 1.4/85 1.8/135L.

In any case, just a longwinded way of saying :lurk. And enjoying following the rationale and comments

jmphotocraft · March 19, 2012

eoren1 wrote: »

Dammit Jack - it's like you're on a mission to get me to spend every last dime

Not only do you have me second guessing the 24-70 vs 24-105 argument, you even have me second guessing the mkII vs mkIII argument.

Ha, not sure how I did that, but basically I would not worry about the 5D3 unless you need the AF. The AF of the 5D2 center point is actually pretty darn good, and capable of sports, just with a lower overall keeper rate than say, the 7D. But it seems better than the 40D I had. This is fine when you are just shooting your own kids, but it is not good enough for shooting a whole team or league for pay where you have limited time to get good shots of every player.

Here are a couple sports shots of mine with my 5D2 and 70-200/4LIS:

Honestly if I did not make my photography pay for itself, the 5D3 would be out of the question, and the 5D2 at $2200 new or $1800 used would be very tempting. It so happens that I had built up my side business to the point of owning a 7D and 5D2, so I can sell those to come within about $500 of the 5D3. That's a much easier decision for me.

After trying out a 5D mk II the other day, I made the decision to go FF. I plan to sell my 10-22 and 17-55 to help fund that jump and the lens choice as above may well start out at 17-40 and my current 70-200 with the 50 prime to cover the middle. I'll decide on the 24-70/24-105/or primes in the future.

Sounds like a good plan if you use your 10-22 more than your 17-55. But if your 17-55 lives on your 50D most of the time, I would go for the 24-70 now and add the 17-40 later. Or if you are looking to change gears and dive into wide angle shooting, then the 17-40 + 50 + 70-200 will be a nice kit.

Matthew Saville · March 19, 2012

jmphotocraft wrote: »

Ha, not sure how I did that, but basically I would not worry about the 5D3 unless you need the AF. The AF of the 5D2 center point is actually pretty darn good, and capable of sports, just with a lower overall keeper rate than say, the 7D. But it seems better than the 40D I had. This is fine when you are just shooting your own kids, but it is not good enough for shooting a whole team or league for pay where you have limited time to get good shots of every player.

Honestly if I did not make my photography pay for itself, the 5D3 would be out of the question, and the 5D2 at $2200 new or $1800 used would be very tempting. It so happens that I had built up my side business to the point of owning a 7D and 5D2, so I can sell those to come within about $500 of the 5D3. That's a much easier decision for me.

Sounds like a good plan if you use your 10-22 more than your 17-55. But if your 17-55 lives on your 50D most of the time, I would go for the 24-70 now and add the 17-40 later. Or if you are looking to change gears and dive into wide angle shooting, then the 17-40 + 50 + 70-200 will be a nice kit.

Just to provide an alternate opinion; personally having grown so accustomed to flagship AF, I'd prefer by far to have a 5D mk3 with some f/4 zooms, than a mk2 and any f/2.8 zooms. But, that's because I often shoot in extremely tough lighting conditions with flare and other issues that just kill AF.

I still think you should keep it simple though. As it has already been noted, if you don't shoot THAT much sports and your favorite shots are made on a tripod, then get the mk2 and you'll be very happy.

Regarding the 24-70 2.8 vs alternatives:

Again, all I can say is that for all the personal, casual photography I do, I've never needed a 24-70 2.8. As versatile as it is, it's just so damn heavy and obtrusive, it's ridiculous. If you can't possibly shoot a casual family gathering or friends-day-out with a 35 f/2 and an 85 1.8, there's something wrong with your shooting habits. Your neck, shoulders, back, and wallet will thank you. The only time you'll really want a 24-70 2.8 is if you're getting all hardcore photojournalist while your kids open christmas presents, and you simply MUST get both a wide shot of the whole sceene, and the close up look in their faces, within 3 seconds from shot to shot. Or at a wedding in a similarly fast-paced situation.

But, to each their own. Personally if I shot what you shot, I'd have a 17-40, 70-200, then a 35 f/2 or 28 1.8, 50 1.4, and 85 1.8 or 100 f/2. That's it. Happy camper 'till kingdom come. But, that's just me. I like to think I'm one of those types who really does try to shoot EVERYTHING, from children's gymnastics and theater to landscapes / star trails on a tripod; but maybe I'm still quite different from others...

=Matt=

jmphotocraft · March 19, 2012

Oh I mostly agree about the primes. Since getting my 35L I've not used my 24-70L very much. But if the question is 24-70 vs 24-105, I will take f/2.8 every time.

eoren1 · March 19, 2012

So I went through my LR3 catalog and did some metadata searching.
In 2011 and 2012, I took 11,600 photos with the 50D. Of those 10% were with the 10-22, 52% with the 17-55 and 38% with the 70-200. The last one surprised me actually.
Seems my favorite focal lengths from that more detailed breakdown are 10mm, 17mm, 28mm, 55mm, 70mm and 200mm. There's a pretty flat curve between extremes of the zoom ranges but it seems I favor the short and long of each one...
When it comes down to my posted landscape work, the 17-55 again rules with 226 images vs 95 for the 10-22 and 131 for the 70-200.
Not sure that helps me at all but does seem to suggest I would use that 24-70 (or 24-105) for the bulk of my images.

Also had a bit of fun with math:
I've kept 25136 images (of the 85000 taken with the 50D) over a span of 3 years. If I take the cost of a new 5DmkIII and assume the same number of images taken kept the next 2-3 years, that comes to just about $0.14 per image taken. Of course the 5DmkII would come in at half the cost (a paltry 7 cents). And if I play devil's advocate and claim that even a third of the images that weren't kept were due to focus isses, the keeper rate for the 5DmkIII jumps up and the cost drops.
I don't know if that is just playful math but it does put things into a very different perspective for me. When I look at images of my kids or landscape shots, I would not hesitate to say that they were each worth at least a dime...

Overfocused · March 19, 2012

eoren1 wrote: »

This that and the other

I'll sell you my MKII with a grip for $2k once I get my MKIII. Lol.

Matthew Saville · March 20, 2012

eoren1 wrote: »

So I went through my LR3 catalog and did some metadata searching.
In 2011 and 2012, I took 11,600 photos with the 50D. Of those 10% were with the 10-22, 52% with the 17-55 and 38% with the 70-200. The last one surprised me actually.
Seems my favorite focal lengths from that more detailed breakdown are 10mm, 17mm, 28mm, 55mm, 70mm and 200mm. There's a pretty flat curve between extremes of the zoom ranges but it seems I favor the short and long of each one...
When it comes down to my posted landscape work, the 17-55 again rules with 226 images vs 95 for the 10-22 and 131 for the 70-200.
Not sure that helps me at all but does seem to suggest I would use that 24-70 (or 24-105) for the bulk of my images.

Also had a bit of fun with math:
I've kept 25136 images (of the 85000 taken with the 50D) over a span of 3 years. If I take the cost of a new 5DmkIII and assume the same number of images taken kept the next 2-3 years, that comes to just about $0.14 per image taken. Of course the 5DmkII would come in at half the cost (a paltry 7 cents). And if I play devil's advocate and claim that even a third of the images that weren't kept were due to focus isses, the keeper rate for the 5DmkIII jumps up and the cost drops.
I don't know if that is just playful math but it does put things into a very different perspective for me. When I look at images of my kids or landscape shots, I would not hesitate to say that they were each worth at least a dime...

Indeed, most all of my images are taken at those focal lengths. Either wide, (24mm on full-frame) medium tele, (85mm) ...or more tele. (200mm)

...But that doesn't necessarily mean you need to lug a 24-70 around. I cannot stress enough just how much I hate heavy, obscene lenses for personal, casual shooting. It's just not worth it to me. Right now on my full-frame body, all I use for personal work are a 24 2.8, a 50, and an 85. That's all I really need.

Like I said, if you feel compelled to shot everything like it's a war zone or a wedding, even casual personal GTG's or other misc. events, then you really can't beat a 24-70. But I don't use one unless I absolutely need too.

Good luck deciding!

=Matt=

eoren1 · March 20, 2012

You're right Matt. I only used the 5d/24-70 combo for an hour and really appreciated the weight. It actually might be really fun to shoot primes again. I do think starting with just the 17-40 and my current 70-200 makes the most sense. I may borrow the 35/2 from the same friend and see how I like it compared to the 50/1.8 I have. I'll just need to rent/borrow the 85 for the final decision on which 2 primes work best for my style.

Surprised you didn't comment on my justification-math

I realize that's all it is but the numbers do get pretty interesting when you put them into perspective of cost per kept shot.

bloomphotog · March 20, 2012

My favorite lens on the 5D is the 50L 1.2. Gem of a lens, no pun intended.

jmphotocraft · March 20, 2012

eoren1 wrote: »

So I went through my LR3 catalog and did some metadata searching.
In 2011 and 2012, I took 11,600 photos with the 50D. Of those 10% were with the 10-22, 52% with the 17-55 and 38% with the 70-200.

Unless you are really horny to dive into wide angle photography, the above numbers seal the deal for the 24-70. You are in a good position to go for the 24-70 because you have 2 valuable lenses you can sell. People coming from crop cameras and worthless kit zooms have a much harder time passing up the discounted 5DII + 24-105 kit. It is almost stupid for them not to buy it. You're not in that situation. You already had f/2.8 on crop. If you go to f/4 on FF, what will you gain? A bigger viewfinder and one stop of ISO (2 if you really pixel peep).

Also had a bit of fun with math:
I've kept 25136 images (of the 85000 taken with the 50D) over a span of 3 years. If I take the cost of a new 5DmkIII and assume the same number of images taken kept the next 2-3 years, that comes to just about $0.14 per image taken.

You know this reasoning will not fly with the boss.

When I look at images of my kids or landscape shots, I would not hesitate to say that they were each worth at least a dime...

When my photo business built up enough revenue, I sold my 70-200/4LIS and bought the f/2.8II, right after it came out for full retail. Days later, I got this shot at my daughter's first dance recital. Right then I considered the lens to be paid in full.

Matthew Saville wrote: »

...But that doesn't necessarily mean you need to lug a 24-70 around. I cannot stress enough just how much I hate heavy, obscene lenses for personal, casual shooting.

I went from a 17-55 to a 24-70 and found the difference in this regard to be insignificant. 24-70 is half a pound heavier. 17-55 is still a big lens. Only way to appreciably cut weight without sacrificing performance is to go to primes.

It's just not worth it to me. Right now on my full-frame body, all I use for personal work are a 24 2.8, a 50, and an 85. That's all I really need.

That's a good kit. Similar to my Pentax MX kit (28, 50, 135). I too find it's all I need when using it, but I know I spend more time swapping lenses and that I miss some shots.

Like I said, if you feel compelled to shot everything like it's a war zone or a wedding, even casual personal GTG's or other misc. events, then you really can't beat a 24-70. But I don't use one unless I absolutely need too.

See this is the whole prime vs zoom debate, and I don't think that's relevant to the OP...? The question was 24-70 vs 24-105.

jmphotocraft · March 20, 2012

eoren1 wrote: »

It actually might be really fun to shoot primes again.

Ahh, I see. It is, but this is a whole other discussion.

I do think starting with just the 17-40 and my current 70-200 makes the most sense.

I don't see how, since you only use your 10-22 10% of the time.

I may borrow the 35/2 from the same friend and see how I like it compared to the 50/1.8 I have.

35/2 is a much better lens than the 50/1.8. I found the AF on the 35/2 to actually be reliable. And in general I like 35mm better than 50mm. Tells a better story by including more context, without distortion. 50mm cuts out too much of my peripheral vision, but at the same time isn't long enough for portraits. It's kind of in no-man's land, imo.

I'll just need to rent/borrow the 85 for the final decision on which 2 primes work best for my style.

I would go 35 and 85. Add a 24 later.

divamum · March 20, 2012

Eoren, here's my suggestion: Get the 5dII. In 3-6 months, when "new camera on the market" mania has started to settle down and the price on the III has stabilised, sell the gently-used II to me at a great price and buy the III

It will feel like less money split in two halves

eoren1 · March 20, 2012

divamum wrote: »

Eoren, here's my suggestion: Get the 5dII. In 3-6 months, when "new camera on the market" mania has started to settle down and the price on the III has stabilised, sell the gently-used II to me at a great price and buy the III It will feel like less money split in two halves

Not a bad plan

Anxiously awaiting the 5DmkIII reviews but I do know in my heart (and pockets) that the mkII is the wiser choice.
Maybe Jack will just gift me his 24-70 so he can buy the new mkII for himself

divamum · March 20, 2012

Seriously, the more I think about it, the more I'm considering the "stepping stone" approach I outlined earlier. Given that the only thing that's stopped me jumping on a 5dII in the last year is my love for the 7d's AF (and concern over the 5dII's) it seems odd to think I'll now shrug and say, "whatever", but a 5dII SOON followed by a 5dIII sometime in the next 15mos might not be such a bad idea. Of course, if the headshot shoots continue to roll in as they have so far this year (word of mouth seems to be getting around - thanks to Heatherfeather and others who showed me just how much can be generated simply by posting teasers to Facebook and letting friends and friends-of-friends spread the word!) then I may be able to justify jumping to the III right away...

chrisjohnson · March 20, 2012

Eoren, none of us have eternal life. You know you want the Mk3 - think of that in-camera HDR. Make the maths work for you - you'll keep it for the next 10 years and write half of it off against tax as a business owner. That makes it 5$ per month, rounded down and calculated over the difference with the Mk2 which you had intended to buy already. I think I'll be going for the 24-70 bread-and-butter zoom too, but then I already have some primes and a tele. I'll be keeping the new lens for 20 years so it is basically free.

Sounds like a bargain? You know it makes sense

eoren1 · March 20, 2012

The voice of reason! Thanks Chris

Anxiously awaiting the first reports on here about the 5D III
I don't think I'll do a stepping stone approach as divamum mentions - would rather choose now and stick with that choice for 4-5 years
I'm happily sitting on the fence here but will need to get off at some point...

Moving to the 5DmkII - help me with lens choice

Comments