How should I spend my money?

[whatjaimesaid]

I'd love to get some advice on my next upgrade. My kit presently contains:

Canon T2i
Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Canon 50 f/1.8
Tamron 10-24

I almost exclusively use the Tamron 10-24. Wide isn't my thing... WIIIIIIDE is my thing. Also worth noting, I shoot about 30-40% of my photos at night. I am looking for a body that will have less noise when I shoot at night since that's what I enjoy doing most.

I am considering upgrading to the 5DMII and getting the 17-40 f/4L. My other two lenses will still work with the 5DMII, but I am guessing (and would love feedback) that I won't be overjoyed with the Canon 28-135 on a FF body, so essentially I will be down to a 17-40. I don't see that as a huge problem because I presently shoot with my ultrawide about 80% of the time.

I am also considering getting the 60D or the 7D and selling the Tamron in favor of the Canon 10-22.

Presently, my budget does not support Option 1 so there will be a wait. I can afford option 2 right away.

Any ideas for me? Thoughts? Things I haven't considered.

 

[K-amps]

I'd love to get some advice on my next upgrade. My kit presently contains:

Canon T2i
Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Canon 50 f/1.8
Tamron 10-24

I almost exclusively use the Tamron 10-24. Wide isn't my thing... WIIIIIIDE is my thing. Also worth noting, I shoot about 30-40% of my photos at night. I am looking for a body that will have less noise when I shoot at night since that's what I enjoy doing most.

I am considering upgrading to the 5DMII and getting the 17-40 f/4L. My other two lenses will still work with the 5DMII, but I am guessing (and would love feedback) that I won't be overjoyed with the Canon 28-135 on a FF body, so essentially I will be down to a 17-40. I don't see that as a huge problem because I presently shoot with my ultrawide about 80% of the time.

I am also considering getting the 60D or the 7D and selling the Tamron in favor of the Canon 10-22.

Presently, my budget does not support Option 1 so there will be a wait. I can afford option 2 right away.

Any ideas for me? Thoughts? Things I haven't considered.

I'd wait till I had some more budget

If you shoot at night a lot, the 17-40 might not be as fast for you. So either the 16-35f2.8 is what you need or the 14mm prime. Both are pricey!

If I were you, I'd get a 5D (not the mark2) and a 16-35mm lens; when you have more cash by next year, go to the 5D3 directly, bypassing the 5D2.

Another option is to get the 5d2 kit with the 24-105mm, this is equal to 15mm on your crop body, so pretty wide itself, if not ultra wide like the 16-35mm which is equivalent to 10-22mm on crop.

It it helps... plan the body around the glass, not other way around.

 

[briansquibb]

Another option is to get the 17-40 and put it on a 5D (classic) which would probably meet you budget requirements and as a bonus you would lose less on reselling

 

[mbiedermann]

I have traditionally spent more money on my lenses instead of the body because I know lenses will last me (much) longer than the body. This is particularly true these days for night or low light photographers since we may be on the cusp of MAJOR improvements over the next few generations of cameras. For example, the 1Dx is supposed to have outstanding low light abilities. If that is true, remember that the camera has been announced but not yet released, you can bet that this feature will trickle down to prosumer then consumer equipment soon.

So if you are serious about WIIIIDE angle photography, you might want to consider getting Canon’s 8-15mm f/4 which you can use today but also keep with your next generation body, especially if it’s a full frame one where this lens can also serve as a fisheye.

Exciting times for low light photographers…

 

[Loswr]

A 5DII is the way to go for the uses you describe. Don't bother with the 60D or 7D - they use the same sensor as your T2i, and the improvements in other areas aren't a big benefit for what you shoot.

For ultrawide on FF, you might also consider the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (aka Bower, Rokinon). It's fully manual (focus and aperture), but the IQ is quite close to the Canon 14L.

So if you are serious about WIIIIDE angle photography, you might want to consider getting Canon’s 8-15mm f/4 which you can use today but also keep with your next generation body, especially if it’s a full frame one where this lens can also serve as a fisheye.

The 8-15mm is a fisheye, no matter what body you use it on. It's a 'full frame' fisheye on all sensor formats (meaning the fisheye-type image fills the frame), and also a circular fisheye on FF. De-fishing an image really softens the corners - unless you're after the 'fisheye look', get a rectilinear lens.

 

[thejoyofsobe]

As budgets are a constraint keep in mind there are used 16-35mm f/2.8L mark I's available. You could put on of those on a 5D classic or wait for 5D2's to come down even further after the 5D3 is announced.

Would it be too much to assume the 5D classic will come down in price on the used market as well after the 5D3 is announced as it will no longer be one generation old but two?

 

[K-amps]

For ultrawide on FF, you might also consider the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (aka Bower, Rokinon). It's fully manual (focus and aperture), but the IQ is quite close to the Canon 14L.

+1: Put the Samyang 14mm on a 5D classic and for about $1500 you have a wiiiiddddeeee set up. About 8.75mm equivalent on APS-C

 

[AJ]

Tokina 11-17/2.8

 

[K-amps]

Tokina 11-17/2.8

They have a 11-17mm?

or is it 11-16mm f2.8?

and isnt that APS-C? OP already have a 10-24mm crop lens... he is looking to move FF. Or did you mean the 16-28mm F2.8 FX?

 

[AaronCR]

Fisheye

 

[smirkypants]

I generally don't upgrade unless it's significant, so I'd sit tight and gather my nickels and dimes. Option 2 doesn't seem to get you much benefit in the short-term. It's better but it doesn't change your game. I like the 5D/16-35 option as an upgrade that really pops, otherwise you're just wasting money fiddling at the margins.

 

[whatjaimesaid]

Thanks for the advice everyone. Currently scouting 5D classics to see what is out there.

 

[92101media]

If it were me, I'd get the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, and sell the Tamron 10-24, for minimal outlay, while you save for a FF & UWA lens. With the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, you'd gain 2/3rds of a stop of low light capturing ability over the Tamron 10-24 at the wide end --> the same as you'd get if you went for a FF with an f/4 lens. The t2i has the same sensor as the 60D & the 7D, so no real benefit in light capturing abilities specifically, though there obviously are other improvements i.t.o. ergonomics, ease of access to manual controls, additional info LCD on top, battery life, build quality etc. But if your primary shooting style is low light, you may want to save the money you would have spent upgrading your t2i to a 60D or 7D towards a full frame body instead. Incidentally, though the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is designed as an APS-C lens, I believe it works at 15-16mm on an FF body without vignetting.

 

[AJ]

I meant Tokina 11-16/2.8. Thanks

 

[dr croubie]

The Samyang/Rokinon/Bower/etc 14mm f/2.8 is wonderful for the price (as are most of their lenses, for the price), but it does have a hefty degree of barrel distortion. Great for landscapes, don't use it around the city or buildings will look wobbly. Or you can correct the distortion in post, but if you're going to do that you can also correct the distortion from a fisheye (straightened-fisheye will have softer corners though).

The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 has been mentioned, wonderful lens currently sitting around $500-600 on fleabay, still cheaper than the Canon 10-22 which goes for $600-700 second hand. Hyperfocal distance at 16m f/2.8 is only 5m or so, so you can shoot wide open and still get everything in focus.
Also consider the Sigma 8-16 f/5-5.6 and a tripod. You can't get wider on a crop body, but it's the slowest zoom lens around these days, so night shots will need a tripod, roughly the same price as the Tokina.

Or a second-hand 5D mk1 goes for the same price-range again, $600-900 on fleabay, then you'll need another lens, I'd go the 16-35 f/2.8L over the 17-40 f/4L, especially on full-frame where the soft-corners of the 17-40 will show up more. Or go this route with the Samyang 14/2.8 for a bit more than $1k.

One of the best routes may be the Sigma 12-24 (mk1 for no barrel distortion, mk2 for barrel but better (centre) IQ), you can use it on your current crop for ultra-wide, then if/when you get a FF it will also work on that, for extremely-insane-ultra-wide...

 

[bobthebrick]

I'd sell your current wide, then buy a 5d classic with a 16-35f/2.8L. And I think you're underestimating the 28-135 lens on FF, I prefer it (as do several others) to the 24-105 f4L!!!!!!!! It's lighter, got a better zoom range than the L, so as Ken Rockwell puts it 'unless you spend all your time looking at images at 350%, or you need something to brag about that isn't being skilful, get the 28-135'. It's an awesome, underated lens.

Hope I helped,
Thomas.

 

[K-amps]

I'd sell your current wide, then buy a 5d classic with a 16-35f/2.8L. And I think you're underestimating the 28-135 lens on FF, I prefer it (as do several others) to the 24-105 f4L!!!!!!!! It's lighter, got a better zoom range than the L, so as Ken Rockwell puts it 'unless you spend all your time looking at images at 350%, or you need something to brag about that isn't being skilful, get the 28-135'. It's an awesome, underated lens.

Hope I helped,
Thomas.

True for the money the 28-135 is pretty good, but I had both tested them both, the 24-105 is sharper, higher resolution, cleaner. In his case he wants wider... thats where the 24 has it beat hands down.

 

[whatjaimesaid]

I am happy with the 28-135 on my crop body. Just assumed it would disappoint on FF.

 

[smirkypants]

I think you're underestimating the 28-135 lens on FF, I prefer it (as do several others) to the 24-105 f4L!!!!!!!! It's lighter, got a better zoom range than the L, so as Ken Rockwell puts it 'unless you spend all your time looking at images at 350%, or you need something to brag about that isn't being skilful, get the 28-135'. It's an awesome, underated lens.

I accidentally grabbed my 28-135 instead of my 17-40 for a shoot with my 1d4. At the site I realized my mistake and shot with my siggy 50/1.4 for most of the shots but I needed wider for a few. The 28-135's shots just looked sort of washed out by comparison. It's a serviceable lens, but don't confuse it for something you can trust for photos that wow clients.

Now as a travel lens, it's great.

 

[katwil]

I’ve been using my Sigma 8-16mm f/ 4.5-5.6 for about a year now, and getting good results. The range of 8-16 is interesting as towards 8mm I can get a lot of really creative shots. Above 10-11mm it acts like a normal wide angle lens. That combination worked well from me, as I wanted the wide angles, which I got, and wanted to see what happens at ultra-wide ranges without going the fisheye route. And yes, it is a rectangular lens. The only potential downsides are the convex element at the front of the lens (no filters allowed), and the fact that it’s very slow. The latter point would be an issue unless you can employ a tripod for your night work.

Of course, you will do better with a FF camera and L lens package, but probably not for $700.