I'm going to a full frame camera and starting over with glass after a theft. I do photos and video, so the 17-55 2.8 IS has been my most widely used lens (with my former 7D body). Photography wise, I have used it extensively for event photography. For instance, in clubs and low light events like wedding dances, I use second curtain sync flash at 2.8 and shutter speeds as low as 1.5-0.5 second range.
The 2.8 and the IS mode are equally important in this case, and have allowed me to do some great shots I couldn't really duplicate easily with any other full frame combo I know of. Since I sometimes zoom or twist the camera while the shutter is open, the zoom is also important, so one of the new medium primes with IS is also out.
I want to go full frame, but I feel like without a 2.8 zoom in this range with IS, that matches the image quality of the 17-55, I will miss a ton of great shots I'm kind of known for. Any advice here?
Here are some sample images with the combo I had before:
I'm trying to wrap my head around if increasing ISO (compared to what was useable on the 7d) with the 5D iii or 6D will offset the loss of speed from the lens if I go with say, the 24-105L. My gut says, yes...and no.
The 2.8 and the IS mode are equally important in this case, and have allowed me to do some great shots I couldn't really duplicate easily with any other full frame combo I know of. Since I sometimes zoom or twist the camera while the shutter is open, the zoom is also important, so one of the new medium primes with IS is also out.
I want to go full frame, but I feel like without a 2.8 zoom in this range with IS, that matches the image quality of the 17-55, I will miss a ton of great shots I'm kind of known for. Any advice here?
Here are some sample images with the combo I had before:
I'm trying to wrap my head around if increasing ISO (compared to what was useable on the 7d) with the 5D iii or 6D will offset the loss of speed from the lens if I go with say, the 24-105L. My gut says, yes...and no.