Canon 350D/XT to 5D upgrade

idleberry

Apologies for hijacking this thread, but the title seemed to fit the question I have in mind.... I hope this is ok?

I want a Canon 5D (as well as world peace, a nice house, and a solid photography career...).

BUT I understand that I might need to upgrade my lenses too!

I currently have a bunch of lenses I love - mostly sigma - for my Canon EOS 350D which also fit my film SLRs of EOS3000 and EOS 5.

Is it true I'll need to get new lenses for a 5D? And if so, why?

If it helps, my lenses are:
Canon 28-135MM 3.5 - 5.6 IS USM EF
Sigma 10 - 20MM 4 - 5.6 DC HSM
Sigma 70MM 2.8 DG Macro
Sigma 70 - 300 4 - 5.6 DG

(Sorry if I wasn't meant to hijack - gentle nudge and I'll make my own thread.... just didn't want to clutter!)

mercphoto

idleberry wrote:

Is it true I'll need to get new lenses for a 5D? And if so, why?

If it helps, my lenses are:
Canon 28-135MM 3.5 - 5.6 IS USM EF
Sigma 10 - 20MM 4 - 5.6 DC HSM
Sigma 70MM 2.8 DG Macro
Sigma 70 - 300 4 - 5.6 DG

Do you *need* to upgrade the lenses? That's a difficult question to answer. However, the 5D has a very high resolution, so you will want a good lens. The Sigma's, in general, are not the greatest. Exceptions exist of course. Also the 5D is a full-frame sensor, so you do NOT want a lens designed for ASP-C format cameras. Those lenses will vignette so bad they won't be worth using.

That's the biggest issue though, the sensor size. If any of those Sigmas are designed for the smaller crop-body sensors then you will not want to use them with a 5D no matter how good a lens it might be.

ziggy53

I did create a new thread because it seems enough different from the other thread.

A definitive answer depends on how you want to use the 5D and whether you intend to keep the 350D.

idleberry

Hmm. Well if it helps at all, I'm a student. So I will keep my 350D. But I really wanted to get a 5D, for the full-frame capabilities. I've been saving all autumn, will save any cash I receive over Christmas, and hopefully will save all spring and buy one in the summer.

All this saving means that all I will be able to afford will be the body. I can't afford *at all* to replace any of my existing lenses at the same time - that will just have to wait until I can afford it (probably once I graduate).

Thing is, if it looks likely that none of those lenses will work with the 5D, then I will clearly have to reconsider my upgrade options. Heck, I know I can get adapters to use canon fitted lenses on Nikon bodies off tinterweb, so I might just change system altogether.

Plus then I can borrow my dad's and boyfriend's lenses (who both have Nikon cameras).

Tommyboy

Do you need a full-frame camera? Why?

You might consider a 40D. It's newer, very nice features, takes great pictures, and uses all the same lenses that your XT did.

I just did this upgrade and have been very happy with the results. YRMV. Good luck!

mercphoto

Tommyboy wrote:

Do you need a full-frame camera? Why?

Agreed. What is the reason you need the full frame camera? What "capabilities" of full frame are you wanting to take advantage of?

LiquidAir

There are two issues that can make a lens incompatible with a 5D: image circle and mirror clearance. Some lenses are designed with an image circle matched to an APS-C sensor and will vignette on the larger sensor of the 5D. The other issue is that some lenses (most notable, Canon EF-S lenses) don't provide enough clearance for the larger mirror of the 5D (or other full frame bodies).

On your lenses:

The Canon 28-135 was designed for full frame and it works quite well on the 5D. I put a couple sample shots of my 28-135 on my 5D in this gallery if you want to see what it looks like: http://gallery.liquidairphoto.com/gallery/2727216#144705496


I don't know your Sigma lenses, but according to Sigma's website, the 70mm macro and the 70-300 should work fine on a 5D. The 10-20, on the other hand, will likely mount on a 5D but you should expect significant vignetting as this lens was designed with an APS-C image circle.

ziggy53

idleberry wrote:

... Heck, I know I can get adapters to use canon fitted lenses on Nikon bodies off tinterweb, so I might just change system altogether.

Plus then I can borrow my dad's and boyfriend's lenses (who both have Nikon cameras).

I think you will find that any Canon lens to Nikon body adapter would not allow infinity focus, so any such adapter is likely most useful for macro and close focus. OTOH a Nikon lens to Canon body adapter "will" allow infinity focus.

Neither will allow autofocus or auto-apertute, so you are stuck in full manual mode and, if you mount a Canon EOS type lens on any other body you also lose the ability to set apertures as well.

LiquidAir

ziggy53 wrote:

I think you will find that any Canon lens to Nikon body adapter would not allow infinity focus, so any such adapter is likely most useful for macro and close focus. OTOH a Nikon lens to Canon body adapter "will" allow infinity focus.

Indeed. The issue here is the distance from the mount to the sensor. Canon EF mount is shallower than Nikon's mount system (or Pentax for that matter) so there is room to put an adapter between a Canon body and a Nikon lens and still have the lens at the appropriate distance from the focal plane. However, if you put a Canon lens on a Nikon body, the lens will be mounted too far from the focal plane which prevents focusing at a distance.

If you are on a budget and want a full frame digial body, you'll have a hard time beating the current price on a 5D anytime soon. Canon is just about to announce the replacement for the 5D (likely in February) so the older model is available at fire-sale prices. In the Nikon camp, my guess is that it will be a few years before they can bring down their full frame sensor manufacturing cost enough to put one in a $2500 body.

idleberry

cheers folks

the reason I want a full-frame camera? Well, because I want one.

Secondly, I don't actually fancy the 40D. I don't know why. I just think, if I'm going to go for an upgrade, I ought to try and get the best camera I can with my money. I try to buy the best I can afford at the time, and that won't want me wishing for another upgrade for at least a couple of years. I just want something that will last me a while. The 5D is a little more of a challenge anyway, financially, so it's something to aim for. Also, we have 20Ds and such like at college, but nothing higher than that (unless we go into medium format territory). Because of the demand on the cameras at college (four year groups) it means I can only borrow them out for short periods of time, and well, it's not the same as having your own camera.

I've already tried my lenses with my 35mm SLR (a Canon 5 - Maybe I like Cameras with the number 5 in the name?) and aside from some slight vingetting on the 10-20mm when it's really wide, they all look pretty much fine.

The 1D(s) ones are a little too steep for me price-wise. At least before graduating, and I'll be keeping an eye on what goes on with them anyway, in terms of Canon's recent recall and so on.

ziggy53

Idleberry,

You might be interested in this comparison of the Canon 40D and the 5D. Unless you need the greater DOF advantage of full-frame, the Canon 40D appears to be very much the equal of the 5D.

http://www.wyofoto.com/40D_Image%20quality/40D_shootout.html

Add the extra responsiveness of the 40D over the 5D and the slight advantage of extra weather seal the 40D provides what I think it is a very suitable image acquisition tool.

For sports, there is no comparison. If you want to capture sporting events, especially indoor or night-time sports, the 40D is the obvious choice.

Also, the Canon 5D:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.hugorodriguez.com/articulos/batalla_12_mp_01.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.hugorodriguez.com/articulos/batalla_12_mp_01.htm%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26hs%3DsFw

Canon 40D:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.hugorodriguez.com/articulos/batalla_12_mp_01.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.hugorodriguez.com/articulos/batalla_12_mp_01.htm%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26hs%3DsFw

mercphoto

idleberry wrote:

the reason I want a full-frame camera? Well, because I want one.

Wanting it is fine. Its your money. If you want it, get it by all means. But you did say you "needed" the capability of the full-frame body, and hence my question. Needs and wants are very different beasts. I, for example, have a rather expensive CD player in my stereo rack. I don't need it, I simply want it.

Secondly, I don't actually fancy the 40D. I don't know why. I just think, if I'm going to go for an upgrade, I ought to try and get the best camera I can with my money.

Nothing wrong with that either. However, I'm not sure you can blindly state that a 5D is "better" than a 40D, which is what you are doing here. They are different cameras with different abilities. While it is relatively simple to say a 40D is better than a 30D or a 20D, its not automatic that a 5D is better than a 40/30/20D, or vice versa. The 5D will offer the ability to get a more shallow depth of field, thanks to its larger sensor, for example, and for some that is better. The 40D will offer better auto-focus, especially in AI-Servo mode, and for others that is better.