5D MK II + New lens lineup?

[Edge100]

first of all, Edge001- Thanks for the kind words, I appreciate them immensely and it is just one more nail on the proverbial coffin confirming that I am putting my money towards an investment that will pay off ten fold in the next few years

Yup; you've gotta spend money to make money. And top-notch glass is a REALLY good place for a photographer to spend money.

I completely understand where you are coming from with the fast primes. I have loved every fast prime I have shot with extensively- Tamron 60 f/2, canon 50 f/1.4, canon 135 f/2. I love them. The sharpness of good primes is something to behold.

However, in a ROI/bang for buck perspective (in my current situation,) I think it would be a more wise decision to get the staple L zooms over and done with. I have been getting acceptable results (at my current budget pricepoint, at least ) with my 50D. Thinking of shooting with a 5DMKII and its ISO ability makes my mouth (and my potential clients mouths) water!

That being said, I am surely planning on adding some fast L primes to the lineup once I get more weddings under my belt and figure out my preferred focal lengths when shooting weddings! I simply think it is a smarter financial/business decision to get the zooms at this point.

If you're shooting in acceptable light (i.e. such that you seldom have to go above ISO 3200 to achieve suitable shutter speeds), then good f/2.8 zooms are a terrific investment. Again, I recommend you check out the new Sigma 24-70 HSM; it's 85% of the cost of the Canon, but appears to offer superior IQ, especially at f/2.8.

I probably should think about adding the sigma 50 1.4 right off the bat as well, for the mega-low light situations.

If you get a copy that autofocuses accurately, this lens is BY FAR the best bang-for-the-buck on the market today. It has lived on my camera since I got it (incidentally, I had a perfect copy right off the bat). The bokeh is stunning, and sharpness between f/1.4 and f/2.0 is terrific and f/2.8 is ridiculous. And with microadjust on both your 5DII and 50D, any AF accuracy concerns can be effectively dealt with.

 

[MattSepeta]

Yup; you've gotta spend money to make money. And top-notch glass is a REALLY good place for a photographer to spend money.



If you're shooting in acceptable light (i.e. such that you seldom have to go above ISO 3200 to achieve suitable shutter speeds), then good f/2.8 zooms are a terrific investment. Again, I recommend you check out the new Sigma 24-70 HSM; it's 85% of the cost of the Canon, but appears to offer superior IQ, especially at f/2.8.



If you get a copy that autofocuses accurately, this lens is BY FAR the best bang-for-the-buck on the market today. It has lived on my camera since I got it (incidentally, I had a perfect copy right off the bat). The bokeh is stunning, and sharpness between f/1.4 and f/2.0 is terrific and f/2.8 is ridiculous. And with microadjust on both your 5DII and 50D, any AF accuracy concerns can be effectively dealt with.

I had meant to ask if the 5dII has the same microadjust that my 50D had! Good to know that it does!

I take it that the microadjust can not compensate for a "bad" copy of a lens?


As for the sigma 24-70, is it really that important? What would the problem be with using my 50D + 17-55 f/2.8IS to cover that range?

I said before, I seriously am not a big fan of the mid-range zoom anyways, and find myself using wide to UWA or tele most of the time for event work like weddings... My current 50D + 17-55 fits the bill perfectly, giving me the same speed, a GREAT IQ, plus the IS.

 

[Apple Corps]

The current 24 - 70 f2.8 L is an outstanding lens - many positive reviews.

Optically speaking, no it is not. It's merely "okay." The Nikon 24-70 blows it away, and being released five years after the Canon version certainly helps. It's the same deal with the Canon 135/2, which is much better than the Nikon version.

You are obviously a Nikon fanboi - many reviews and REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE praise the current Canon 24 - 70 L.

It is an excellent lens and phrases like "xyz... blow it away" are simple hyperbole. We can all find some tech spec or review to justify our point of view. My comments come from my experience & images.

 

[Apple Corps]

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=5&sort=7&cat=27&page=1


http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-70-review.shtml

 

[flosseR]

You are obviously a Nikon fanboi - many reviews and REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE praise the current Canon 24 - 70 L.

It is an excellent lens and phrases like "xyz... blow it away" are simple hyperbole. We can all find some tech spec or review to justify our point of view. My comments come from my experience & images.

ok let's tone it down a little. He did mention the 5 year advantage of Nikon over the Canon and it IS true, it is showing it's age. That review you posted from luminous landscape is from 2003 and F & M is a collection over the years.
Is it a good lens, YES. Is it up to snuff on the 5D mk2? I'd say YES but can it hold up to Canon's newer L lenses in terms of output. I don't know. Glass does not get old but the optics advance and the camera bodies as well. What was great in 2003 is nothing now.
He might be a Nikon fanboy but he said nothing that was not true (fred Miranda mandatory link :))

Anyway, they are still both good lenses, in this case it's just newer = better.
My 2c

 

[Edge100]

I had meant to ask if the 5dII has the same microadjust that my 50D had! Good to know that it does!

I take it that the microadjust can not compensate for a "bad" copy of a lens?

If the AF accuracy is relatively minor AND unidirectional (i.e. back or front focus irrespective of focus distance), then microadjust can compensate nicely.

If the problem is big (assuming it exists at all, of course), then return the lens and get another copy. Or try it out in the store (using your own bodies) to make sure it focuses properly before you purchase.

Keep in mind that virtually all lenses could use a little bit of microadjust, and that the amount differs on different bodies. What is frustrating is when the amount (and/or direction) needed fluctuates with focusing distance.

I will reiterate that if you get a good copy of the Sigma 50, you will be getting 'L' quality glass for a fraction of the price. It's that good.

As for the sigma 24-70, is it really that important? What would the problem be with using my 50D + 17-55 f/2.8IS to cover that range?

I said before, I seriously am not a big fan of the mid-range zoom anyways, and find myself using wide to UWA or tele most of the time for event work like weddings... My current 50D + 17-55 fits the bill perfectly, giving me the same speed, a GREAT IQ, plus the IS.

The 17-55 will cover that range (and does have great IQ), but it wont work with the 5DII. The 24-70 will give you basically the same focal length range (on the 5DII), but has the advantage of working on both bodies, albeit with different focal lengths.

If I had a 50D and a 5DII, I'd put a 24-70 on the 5DII, a 70-200 on the 50D, and pick up an 85 f/1.8 to fill in the gap between 70mm and 112mm.

 

[luminosity]

I'm no fanboy. The plain reality is that the Nikon 24-70 is a much better and newer lens than Canon's version. Both companies have their winners. The Canon 135/2 is much better and newer than Nikon's 135/2.

The nikon 24-70 comes close to outresolving a 24 mp sensor. Canon's does not come close to that. A new version probably will.

 

[Edge100]

I'm no fanboy. The plain reality is that the Nikon 24-70 is a much better and newer lens than Canon's version. Both companies have their winners. The Canon 135/2 is much better and newer than Nikon's 135/2.

The nikon 24-70 comes close to outresolving a 24 mp sensor. Canon's does not come close to that. A new version probably will.

I've never shot a Nikon camera in my life, but from the reviews and images I've seen, I think you're absolutely right. The Nikon 24-70 appears to be a much better lens than the Canon. The new Sigma also appears to be better than the Canon.

Of course, the Nikon 24-70 is more expensive than the Canon and the Sigma.

That's not to say the Canon is a piece of crap; it just isn't as good as the Nikon or Sigma.

 

[Apple Corps]

It all depends on what "good" is. I referenced the newer 70 - 200 having better contrast and sharpness and lost the wonderful bokeh. Pixel peepers and spec junkies dwell on those things.

And - IMO - hyperbole about blowing things out of the water is what needs toning down. His quote "I wouldn't shoot Canon ." - sounds fanboy like to me.

BTW - how old was the lens design that Ansel Adams used on his plate camera?
Wonder how it would stack up to today's specs? How highly regarded are his images today?

 

[harcosparky]

Speaking of which... The 70-200f/4 IS has the 4-stop IS. Does anyone know what stabilizer is on the f/2.8IS 1st gen?

Not sure what you are actually going for but from what I have read the 70-200 f/4 IS L lens is sharper than the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS.

However the new 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is said to be sharper then the first version so it gives the f/4 some competition in sharpness. But as was mention it has a bokeh difference.

I owned a 70-200 f/4 IS L but I need more reach for what I do, so I sold it for a longer lens.

 

[Apple Corps]

Matt - another consideration is the body. The 5D Mk II has had some auto focusing issues - not sure if they are sorted yet. The 7D gives you the extra range of a cropped sensor and plenty of pixels to crop out unwanted stuff from your image.

Have you given as much thought to the body as you have the glass?

 

[Edge100]

Matt - another consideration is the body. The 5D Mk II has had some auto focusing issues - not sure if they are sorted yet. The 7D gives you the extra range of a cropped sensor and plenty of pixels to crop out unwanted stuff from your image.

Have you given as much thought to the body as you have the glass?

At high ISO, 5DII >> 7D.

The 7D is great for low ISO, where all those pixels can give you incredible resolving power. But at high ISO...it's a different story.

 

[Apple Corps]

The 5D MK II is generally given the edge in image quality - if in focus

My wildlife photography is becoming more and more of a focus challenge. Tend to use wide apertures - great bokeh but shallow DOF leaves little room for focus error. Too many of the critters pose perfectly until the shutter release is underway.

Weddings - dark / natural lighting probably favors the MK II

 

[Phrasikleia]

At high ISO, 5DII >> 7D.

The 7D is great for low ISO, where all those pixels can give you incredible resolving power. But at high ISO...it's a different story.

I have to agree, and I own both of those cameras. Unless the 5D Mark II was financially out of reach for a person, I wouldn't recommend the 7D straight away as a wedding camera. It can certainly do the job and do it well, but the 5D Mark II is just better geared towards those kinds of circumstances: high dynamic range (white dress, black tux) and low light (so high ISO). Plus with 21MP, you have lots of room for cropping--always helpful in uncontrolled situations like a wedding.

That said, I find the 7D to be a lot more fun to use as a handholding camera. Its features, its feel, and even the sound of its shutter make it my handholding camera of choice. I keep a grip on it and use it for handholding situations (and for when I need reach) and keep an L-bracket on the 5D Mark II for tripod work. But I'm not a wedding photographer and never will be; those of you in that line of work are brave souls indeed.

 

[chrono1081]

Holy Trinity of Zooms is the UWA (17-40 or 16-35,) the 24-70, and a 70-200, correct?

Regarding the prime, it is quite the difference between a 180 3.5 and a 35 1.4..... What would the appeal of the 180 be for weddings? I don't understand?

If I was to buy a prime, I think it would be the 135f/2L. I rented one, and it was GREAT.

Oops! I meant to write 135L NOT 180 haha. Sorry about that

Yes, the holy trinity is the 16-35, the 24-70 and the 70-200.

 

[OreoCookie]

Once you get addicted to fast primes, you never want to go back. In your line of work, wedding photography, I'd at least get one or two primes (~35 mm and ~85 mm on full frame), for instance. Even if you say, you don't like the shallow depth of field, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

Regarding a comprehensive list of your equipment, I'm missing a budget. Of course we can all tell you what's in our wet dream equipment bag, but that won't help if you have a budget. Also, you haven't told us why you want to upgrade (what's more important: increased resolution, better high-ISO performance, etc.).

<devil's advocate>Also, it seems that you're starting from scratch: if you go full frame, none of the lenses you're using now (except for the rented 70-200) will work on your new body. So have you thought about getting a D700? I don't intend to start a flame war, but the D700 has excellent high-ISO performance and a much better autofocus system. Since you're shooting weddings, you need an AF system that reliably focuses in the dark. The 5D Mark II on the other hand uses essentially the same AF module that the Mark I uses (which was not top notch even when the Mark I first came out). I've recently went on a few photo safaris with a colleague who owns a 5D -- and in some situations, my puny D80 outperformed the 5D's AF.

Nikon has equivalents to essentially all of Canon's lenses (the converse is also true) so you can build your dream setup either way.</devil's advocate>

If you cannot afford to replace your whole setup right away and assuming you want to stick to Canon, I would advise perhaps the following:
(1) Keep the 50D and the 17-55 mm as backup bodies.
(2) Get a 5D Mark II or a used 1Ds Mark III.
(3) Get the 24-70 mm and a 50 mm f/1.4 (e. g. by Sigma) and a 85 mm f/1.8 (cheap and good). Since you rent the 70-200 now, you can continue to do that.

If you wish to stray from Canon, you can get the following:
(1) Get a used D90 or D200 as backup.
(2) Get a D700.
(3) Get the same lenses as above for Nikon.

 

[jabbott]

I'd like to throw in another recommendation for the Canon 24-70L, despite all the other naysayers. The lens may be older and slightly less sharp than the Nikon 24-70, but it doesn't have barrel distortion at 24mm like the Nikon does and it is tack sharp on my 18 megapixel T2i. I've taken about 2,000 shots with it since March, in nearly all lighting conditions and have been very pleased with its performance. The lack of IS can hurt at long focal lengths in low light when hand-holding it but that is expected for f/2.8.

 

[MattSepeta]

Once you get addicted to fast primes, you never want to go back. In your line of work, wedding photography, I'd at least get one or two primes (~35 mm and ~85 mm on full frame), for instance. Even if you say, you don't like the shallow depth of field, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

Regarding a comprehensive list of your equipment, I'm missing a budget. Of course we can all tell you what's in our wet dream equipment bag, but that won't help if you have a budget. Also, you haven't told us why you want to upgrade (what's more important: increased resolution, better high-ISO performance, etc.).

<devil's advocate>Also, it seems that you're starting from scratch: if you go full frame, none of the lenses you're using now (except for the rented 70-200) will work on your new body. So have you thought about getting a D700? I don't intend to start a flame war, but the D700 has excellent high-ISO performance and a much better autofocus system. Since you're shooting weddings, you need an AF system that reliably focuses in the dark. The 5D Mark II on the other hand uses essentially the same AF module that the Mark I uses (which was not top notch even when the Mark I first came out). I've recently went on a few photo safaris with a colleague who owns a 5D -- and in some situations, my puny D80 outperformed the 5D's AF.

Nikon has equivalents to essentially all of Canon's lenses (the converse is also true) so you can build your dream setup either way.</devil's advocate>

If you cannot afford to replace your whole setup right away and assuming you want to stick to Canon, I would advise perhaps the following:
(1) Keep the 50D and the 17-55 mm as backup bodies.
(2) Get a 5D Mark II or a used 1Ds Mark III.
(3) Get the 24-70 mm and a 50 mm f/1.4 (e. g. by Sigma) and a 85 mm f/1.8 (cheap and good). Since you rent the 70-200 now, you can continue to do that.

If you wish to stray from Canon, you can get the following:
(1) Get a used D90 or D200 as backup.
(2) Get a D700.
(3) Get the same lenses as above for Nikon.

I had never considered switching to Nikon simply because I have been shooting Canon since my first canon 35mm SLR ten years ago. I am not too keen on relearning a new line of cameras. On top of that, the 5DII is nearly identical to my current 50D in terms of ergonomics, button placement, etc... On top of THAT, Not one of my friends shoots Nikon, and I would like to be able to continue swapping lenses and whatnot with them

I did consider the 7D but I have been meaning to upgrade to fullframe (ISO abilities primarily, more MP for cropping as I am an avid cropper, and I actually film snowboarding in the winters so I wanted video) so I am pretty sold on the 5DII. The 1DsIII looks awesome, but it is also more than twice as much. I would love to consider selling the 50D and bumping the 5DII to backup getting a 1D for main in a few years when things really start going though

Great question about the budget, too guys. I am looking to spend $5000-$6000. This is most of the money I will be making from weddings I have booked already throughout the end of this year and next summer. I look at it as being a very direct investment. Luckily I have a "real" job too!!!

-------Side note: Everyone knows that Canon makes nice gear and Nikon makes nice gear and yada yada yada. No point in pissing away about "Canons 24-70 is suxorz, Nikon Rules!" or any of that. I hate presuming to speak for other people, but no one really wants to hear it.

Back to the 5DII, specifically, the "focus issue." If I understand correctly, the 5dII essentially uses the same AF as my 50D? 9 point AF, but the 5DII has "6 invisible points" making it at least somewhat better than my 50D's focusing? I have had no problem working with my 50Ds autofocusing, so I am not too concerned about that. My main concern is the increased ISO capabilities.


---Back to lenses----

I still dont understand why people are advising me to get a 24-70 to put on 5DII? I will have the 17-552.8IS (Arguably the same or better quality due to IS) permanently on the 50D for my mid-range zoom (Again, I am no fan of the mid range focal lengths, I shoot wide or tele more often.) What would the purpose of a nearly identical lens (when on the 5D) be? I would rather spend the money on getting a L prime I think....

 

[Jason Beck]

Since this is sort of on topic... Hey I have the 24-70, and my kit lens. I don't have any primes yet. Should I save up and get a decent one or do you think the plastic one would be good to learn on? I use my 24-70 for pretty much everything I can... but everyone and peers are steering me to add some primes to my arsenal.

Would the nifty 50 be a good purchase to start practicing moving with my feet to get my shots? I'm just so used to zooms ahahha. I am going to be bumping into things! I like some of the shots people pull off with that lens. I also have not shot with anything beyond 2.8 so that will be cool too. Thoughts?

 

[Edge100]

I still dont understand why people are advising me to get a 24-70 to put on 5DII? I will have the 17-552.8IS (Arguably the same or better quality due to IS) permanently on the 50D for my mid-range zoom (Again, I am no fan of the mid range focal lengths, I shoot wide or tele more often.) What would the purpose of a nearly identical lens (when on the 5D) be? I would rather spend the money on getting a L prime I think....

I think the assumption was that you'd prefer to have lenses that work on both of your cameras. If you like shooting wide, then why give up on one of the main advantages of a full-frame camera (i.e. really wide angles)? Something like the 17-40L or 16-35L would be great because it would allow you to get VERY wide on your 5DII, but could still be used on the 50D.

That said, if you're ok with keeping the 17-55 and accept that you're only going to use it on the 50D as an f/2.8 mid-range zoom, then you could take that ~$1000-1200 you were going to spend on the 24-70 and buy a prime or two.

 

[Kronie]

I still dont understand why people are advising me to get a 24-70 to put on 5DII? I will have the 17-552.8IS (Arguably the same or better quality due to IS) permanently on the 50D for my mid-range zoom (Again, I am no fan of the mid range focal lengths, I shoot wide or tele more often.) What would the purpose of a nearly identical lens (when on the 5D) be? I would rather spend the money on getting a L prime I think....

To each his own but I would think you would want the 5D/24-70 and then 50D/70-200.

 

[Edge100]

Would the nifty 50 be a good purchase to start practicing moving with my feet to get my shots? I'm just so used to zooms ahahha. I am going to be bumping into things! I like some of the shots people pull off with that lens. I also have not shot with anything beyond 2.8 so that will be cool too. Thoughts?

The 50 f/1.8 is a decent prime to start with, if only because it costs so little. It's not the best lens in the world, but its price/performance ratio is very good, again because of its low price.

Something you should be aware of, however, is that "zooming with your feet" with prime lenses is not the same as using a zoom lens. Perspective (the relationship between near and far objects) changes as a function of subject-to-camera distance, NOT focal length. For example, let's say you have a 24-105 zoom on your camera and you zoom it to 100mm to take a portrait from 10 feet away. Now, swap out that lens for a 50mm prime; in order to get the same framing, you have to move twice as close to the subject (i.e. 5 feet away).

Do these two shots look the same?

The answer is 'no', because you've changed the subject-to-camera distance, and thus the perspective; near objects (e.g. noses) will look much larger relative to far objects (e.g. ears) in the second photo versus the first. Yes, the framing will be the same, but the perspective will be totally different. In order to get the same framing AND perspective, you need to shoot with a 100mm prime from 10 feet, not a 50mm prime from 5 feet.

"Zooming with the feet" is not the way to replicate a zoom lens; using multiple prime lens is. I'm all for using primes, but only when the right primes are being used.

 

[Edge100]

To each his own but I would think you would want the 5D/24-70 and then 50D/70-200.

That's what I would take, with an 85mm prime thrown in to make up the focal length gap.

 

[OreoCookie]

I had never considered switching to Nikon simply because I have been shooting Canon since my first canon 35mm SLR ten years ago. I am not too keen on relearning a new line of cameras. On top of that, the 5DII is nearly identical to my current 50D in terms of ergonomics, button placement, etc... On top of THAT, Not one of my friends shoots Nikon, and I would like to be able to continue swapping lenses and whatnot with them

I would still encourage you to look at all options and just try a D700. Nikons have a very good automatic wireless flash system which is very easy to use, for instance, and the D700 is a very fast camera with a top-of-the-line autofocus system.

Don't worry, I won't follow up on this suggestion as I don't intend to start a flame war. I just thought since nobody had mentioned switching to Nikon, I'd just do it. The best camera is the one you like using and I have just suggested switching since the D700 also fits some of your criteria and you would have to start from scratch lens-wise anyhow.

Back to the 5DII, specifically, the "focus issue." If I understand correctly, the 5dII essentially uses the same AF as my 50D? 9 point AF, but the 5DII has "6 invisible points" making it at least somewhat better than my 50D's focusing?

No, the 5D Mark II uses a different AF system (the 50D has 9 cross-type sensors, the 5D Mark II only has one cross-type sensor in the middle). It is -- if at all -- a very minor upgrade of the 5D Mark I's AF system which wasn't up to date when it was first released (dpreview calls the AF performance `pedestrian'). This can be an issue if you're taking pictures in a dark environment (e. g. a church during the ceremony). In practice this means that you may be limited to the central AF sensor in difficult lighting. If you are a focus and recompose guy, this won't matter much, but especially on the long end when your depth of field is in the range of a few centimeters, you actually cannot use focus and recompose if you want optimal sharpness.

I don't want to start a lengthy discussion here where other members chime in with `oh, but I'm very happy with the 5D's autofocus systems, yadda, yadda, yadda:' you want to use the camera as a professional tool and for your specific set of circumstances. So the lackluster AF system may disqualify the 5D Mark II -- or it may not. If I were you, I'd try to borrow one for a weekend or so and take pictures in difficult, but realistic conditions.

I have had no problem working with my 50Ds autofocusing, so I am not too concerned about that. My main concern is the increased ISO capabilities.

Unfortunately, any conclusions you've drawn from your experience with the 50D's autofocus system do not carry over to the 5D.

I still dont understand why people are advising me to get a 24-70 to put on 5DII? I will have the 17-552.8IS (Arguably the same or better quality due to IS) permanently on the 50D for my mid-range zoom (Again, I am no fan of the mid range focal lengths, I shoot wide or tele more often.) What would the purpose of a nearly identical lens (when on the 5D) be? I would rather spend the money on getting a L prime I think....

As far as I understand you, the 50D is supposed to be a backup body and not a primary. What's the value of a 5D (or whatever new camera you're going to get) if you continue using the old body?

 

[MattSepeta]

I think the assumption was that you'd prefer to have lenses that work on both of your cameras. If you like shooting wide, then why give up on one of the main advantages of a full-frame camera (i.e. really wide angles)? Something like the 17-40L or 16-35L would be great because it would allow you to get VERY wide on your 5DII, but could still be used on the 50D.

That said, if you're ok with keeping the 17-55 and accept that you're only going to use it on the 50D as an f/2.8 mid-range zoom, then you could take that ~$1000-1200 you were going to spend on the 24-70 and buy a prime or two.

Spot on- I am still planning on getting the 17-40 or 16-35 (leaning towards 17-40 pretty much for the price) to use on the 5DII.

I do realize the virtue and benefits of having the 70-200 on the 50D, but that would force me into the 2.8 IS in order to use it indoors.

So, lets talk primes......

If I were to go the prime route, how about
- Sigma 50 f/1.4 - $450
- Canon 85 f/1.8 - $350
- Canon 135f/2L - $900
- Canon 17-40 f/4L - $700
- Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS I - $1500
- 5DII - $2500

=$6,400

Assuming I can sell all my current gear but the 50D, I can realistically fetch $2,000. In essence, for $4,400 I will have a totally new, totally compatible lineup with 3 acclaimed fast primes, as well as the high quality L zooms.

I could keep the 70-200 on the 50D primarily for extra long stuff, and rotate the others on the 5DII. I dont see any need to keep the 17-55f/2.8 OR buy the 24-70 with this lineup. Thoughts???

No, the 5D Mark II uses a different AF system (the 50D has 9 cross-type sensors, the 5D Mark II only has one cross-type sensor in the middle). It is -- if at all -- a very minor upgrade of the 5D Mark I's AF system which wasn't up to date when it was first released (dpreview calls the AF performance `pedestrian'). This can be an issue if you're taking pictures in a dark environment (e. g. a church during the ceremony). In practice this means that you may be limited to the central AF sensor in difficult lighting. If you are a focus and recompose guy, this won't matter much, but especially on the long end when your depth of field is in the range of a few centimeters, you actually cannot use focus and recompose if you want optimal sharpness.

I don't want to start a lengthy discussion here where other members chime in with `oh, but I'm very happy with the 5D's autofocus systems, yadda, yadda, yadda:' you want to use the camera as a professional tool and for your specific set of circumstances. So the lackluster AF system may disqualify the 5D Mark II -- or it may not. If I were you, I'd try to borrow one for a weekend or so and take pictures in difficult, but realistic conditions.

Unfortunately, any conclusions you've drawn from your experience with the 50D's autofocus system do not carry over to the 5D.

As far as I understand you, the 50D is supposed to be a backup body and not a primary. What's the value of a 5D (or whatever new camera you're going to get) if you continue using the old body?

Switching to Nikon is pretty much out of the question still, for the reasons I have listed earlier. If the Nikon was more in the $1700 range, I would strongly consider it though. Again, friends with canon gear, I know canon gear, I have a nice canon flash already, I plan on using the video abilities (I forgot to mention, my day job involves shooting greenscreen footage with seprate audio, the 5d would tear that apart) and lastly, I focus and recompose about 95% of the time. I always have since day one of using digital cams, and I cant see myself changing that any time soon.

As for the backup thing, I will be using the 50D in conjunction with the new cam. Like I said in my last post, possibly keep the 70-200 on the 50D for long shots, utilyzing the 1.6 crop and the telephoto, and switch the other lenses between the new cam. The 50D will also be the backup, just in case something goes wrong with the new cam.

Now of course, for everything besides weddings, I will use strictly the new cam.