5D MK II + New lens lineup?

[Phrasikleia]

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?

I don't photograph weddings, but I have been doing a fair amount of event photography, and the second camera body for me is not just "backup." I don't know about most people, but I like having two options ready to go, without the need to change lenses. I often keep one on a tripod and use a wireless shutter release that I keep on a lanyard around my neck. Then I can roam around with the other camera, able to take pictures with both cameras no matter where I am. So there's lots of value in having both types of cameras.

I dont see any need to keep the 17-55f/2.8 OR buy the 24-70 with this lineup. Thoughts???

Honestly, for your needs, I don't really see how having IS will be really critical. I need it for my museum work, but a wedding photographer can probably get by without it. If you get the 17-40, that can be your normal zoom on the 50D.

 

[MattSepeta]

Honestly, for your needs, I don't really see how having IS will be really critical. I need it for my museum work, but a wedding photographer can probably get by without it. If you get the 17-40, that can be your normal zoom on the 50D.

You are mostly right. I do not need the IS on the mid range zoom, but I find it absolutely critical on the 70-200. I shot one with a 70-200 2.8 NON IS and it was terrible (relatively ).

About the 17-40, I agree totally, but if I were to sell off my 17-55, I would probably go with the 16-35 2.8 instead. I have been spoiled with nothing slower than 2.8 for a while and cant imagine my walk around/normal zoom being an f/4, especially if I have the extra money from selling off the 17-55.

 

[Edge100]

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???

This would be an excellent setup.

Think carefully if you really need the 135 f/2L when you already have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS; that money could go towards a 35 f/1.4L, which you might get a bit more use out of, since you don't have anything faster than f/4 at < 50mm. Then again, you might prefer the 135; you'll know after a few weddings whether you wish you had something a bit wider than than the 50 for some low light shots, or whether the stellar sharpness and bokeh of the 135 is better suited to you.

 

[HBOC]

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?

Well I wouldn't sell it right now. What I would do if I were you, would be to get a couple of primes and see how you like them. I can guarantee you that you will find 2.8 no longer fast!

If you MF quite a bit, the plastic fantastic may not be the best bet, as the focus ring isn't the strong point of the lens. It is sharp! And i mean sharp! You will be amazed what that little thing can do.

I had never had primes before 2 months ago. Now that is all I use. I "replaced" my 17/40 with a 24mm 2.0, 35mm 2,8 and a 50mm 1.4. When i went FF, i didn't know what FL primes to get. So i went through my aperture library and sorted the photos (smart folders) by focal length.

Theoretically you could replace the 24/70 with several primes; a 24mm, either a 35 or 50 and an 85. The 85mm 1.8 is a good little lens. Of course third party ones are out there that are just as good, and alternatives that are even better...

 

[MattSepeta]

This would be an excellent setup.

Think carefully if you really need the 135 f/2L when you already have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS; that money could go towards a 35 f/1.4L, which you might get a bit more use out of, since you don't have anything faster than f/4 at < 50mm. Then again, you might prefer the 135; you'll know after a few weddings whether you wish you had something a bit wider than than the 50 for some low light shots, or whether the stellar sharpness and bokeh of the 135 is better suited to you.

Great point. It would indeed be a bit silly to spend a grand on a prime covering a focal length that is already covered by a great lens.

I have my amazon shopping cart assembled, and am pretty set on my new kit. It will be as follows-

- 5DII
- 70-200 f/2.8L IS I
- 16-35 f/2.8L
- Sigma 50 f/1.4
- Canon 80 f/1.8
- Canon 100 f/2.8L IS Macro

This gives me rock solid zoom glass in my preferred focal lengths (Wide/UWA/tele) that will be fast enough when paired with the 5dII's ISO to shoot indoor weddings. If I run into bad low light issues, or are in a more controlled environment demanding optimal sharpness, I can use either of the three primes.

I will surely sell everything, including the 17-55 except for my 50D which will be my 2nd/backup body.

EDIT

 

[Edge100]

Great point. It would indeed be a bit silly to spend a grand on a prime covering a focal length that is already covered by a great lens.

I have my amazon shopping cart assembled, and am pretty set on my new kit. It will be as follows-

- 5DII
- 70-200 f/2.8L IS I
- 16-35 f/2.8L
- Sigma 50 f/1.4
- Canon 80 f/1.8
- Canon 100 f/2.8L IS Macro

This gives me rock solid zoom glass in my preferred focal lengths (Wide/UWA/tele) that will be fast enough when paired with the 5dII's ISO to shoot indoor weddings. If I run into bad low light issues, or are in a more controlled environment demanding optimal sharpness, I can use either of the three primes.

I will surely sell everything, including the 17-55 except for my 50D which will be my 2nd/backup body.

EDIT

Good call on the macro; forgot about that. That's a definite must for a wedding photographer (ring shots).

 

[MattSepeta]

Good call on the macro; forgot about that. That's a definite must for a wedding photographer (ring shots).

What about as a long portrait lens? I have heard some people saying that it doubles very well as a long portrait lens?

As far as a macro goes, I cant wait to use a longer macro with IS! Mmmmmmm.....

 

[Kronie]

What about as a long portrait lens? I have heard some people saying that it doubles very well as a long portrait lens?

As far as a macro goes, I cant wait to use a longer macro with IS! Mmmmmmm.....

Its a lovely portrait lens and on a full frame its not long at all. Personally I cant stand the 85mm FL. I have the Sigma 50 and the 100L and just don't see the need for an 85......but I don't shoot weddings....

 

[MattSepeta]

Its a lovely portrait lens and on a full frame its not long at all. Personally I cant stand the 85mm FL. I have the Sigma 50 and the 100L and just don't see the need for an 85......but I don't shoot weddings....

I feel the same way. I cant imagine I use that FL too often, I will check when I get home today though. The only reason I had been considering it was for an additional Fast Prime, but I could surely live without it, making the 50 1.4 work in place of it...

The 85mm is the first in line to go.

 

[Phrasikleia]

What about as a long portrait lens? I have heard some people saying that it doubles very well as a long portrait lens?

As far as a macro goes, I cant wait to use a longer macro with IS! Mmmmmmm.....

It makes a great portrait lens. I enjoy being able to change its length by switching camera bodies, but on the 5D Mark II it's not all that long. Here are a couple of photos from events I've done, using exactly the combination you're considering: 5D Mark II and 100mm f/2.8L IS at low-light events, wide open and with high ISO...and with a 580EX II camera left for the second one...

(both clickable)

I hope you find these samples helpful.

 

[MattSepeta]

Thanks!

It makes a great portrait lens. I enjoy being able to change its length by switching camera bodies, but on the 5D Mark II it's not all that long. Here are a couple of photos from events I've done, using exactly the combination you're considering: 5D Mark II and 100mm f/2.8L IS at low-light events, wide open and with high ISO...and with a 580EX II camera left for the second one...

(both clickable)

I hope you find these samples helpful.

Thanks a ton, that is helpful! I love the intensity you captured in the 2nd one, and you nailed the lighting!

Is there any chance you have any full-size originals uploaded anywhere of high-ISO shots?

OT: What lighting did you use for this? I LOVE the shots in your GLOWING album, they are fantastic. Gels were used?

 

[jabbott]

---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....

I recommended the 24-70 because I think it offers better image quality and higher reliability than the 17-55, as well as the option of using it on crop or full-frame bodies due to its EF mount. I also wanted to provide a counterpoint to all the 24-70 naysayers. That said, being that you already using a 17-55 on your 50D, and you don't shoot mid-range that often, it probably makes the most sense to keep what you already have and augment it with the new setup you've suggested. Best of luck with your purchase!

 

[Phrasikleia]

Thanks a ton, that is helpful! I love the intensity you captured in the 2nd one, and you nailed the lighting!

Is there any chance you have any full-size originals uploaded anywhere of high-ISO shots?

OT: What lighting did you use for this? I LOVE the shots in your GLOWING album, they are fantastic. Gels were used?

Sorry, I don't have any full-size originals uploaded anywhere, since I'm not doing Flickr or anything like that. But if you just want to see the high-ISO capabilities of the 5D Mark II, you'll find examples galore on POTN (gazillions of 100% crops). Easy to find.

Thanks a lot for the props on my "Glowing" gallery! It seems like most people prefer the more traditional daytime landscapes and whatnot, so I love hearing when someone likes that gallery; it's my pet project right now. On that one shot you linked to, I used two Speedlites, each gelled with CTO and otherwise bare. On most of the others, I used up to four Speedlites plus an LED flashlight, all gelled. I use CTO mostly for these outdoor shots, but I occasionally slip in a special effects color (such as this shot, where I had a Speedlite with a red gel on a stand inside the machine gun bunker).

 

[Jason Beck]

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.

Oh okay thanks. That really cleared it up in my head. I had a general... understanding of primes, but you helped nail it. I can say I understand the perspective being different and such. That was a good explanation. Had to really pay attention to it to catch it but I got it now! Thanks for the valuable info.

Yah I am really interested in getting that 50 to play with, even doing some portraiture with. The 24-70 has been such a trooper with me since day one. Love that lens.

In any case good looking out and thanks for the straight-forward explanation to that issue for me. Sorry for hijacking the thread LOL. I can't wait to get some primes!!!

 

[OreoCookie]

I have my amazon shopping cart assembled, and am pretty set on my new kit. It will be as follows-

- 5DII
- 70-200 f/2.8L IS I
- 16-35 f/2.8L
- Sigma 50 f/1.4
- Canon 80 f/1.8
- Canon 100 f/2.8L IS Macro

Your lens selection seems very reasonable and it's within your budget.

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.

I didn't know video would be that crucial. This immediately disqualifies the D700 and Canon 1 series bodies.

Good luck with your purchase, I hope you'll be happy with your new gear

 

[OreoCookie]

I don't photograph weddings, but I have been doing a fair amount of event photography, and the second camera body for me is not just "backup." I don't know about most people, but I like having two options ready to go, without the need to change lenses.

Good point. I have never used two bodies simultaneously, so I always thought a backup is just a backup.

 

[OreoCookie]

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.

No, you don't need expensive L primes if that's what you're thinking. In some instances, third party lenses are better: Sigma's 50 mm f/1.4 is a great lens with better built quality than Canon's own 50 mm f/1.4 (I've heard the latter suffers from AF problems). The Sigma's built quality is very good, not quite pro Nikkor/Canon L-level quality but a significant step up from plastic lenses.