- Status
J
Jettatore
Guest
If you put the 70-200 on the 30D it becomes a 112-320 while you have a 5DIII on the other shoulder with a 50mm attached. Would be more expensive but this is the route I would shoot for combined with a good two camera carrying system given your intended purposes.
If you need wide on top if this, already more expensive suggestion, a good, used, 17-40L or the original 16-35L Mark I might do quite nicely for you, works well on either camera and you can wait first to see if the 50 on the full frame is wide enough for your needs. That is not to say that the 16-35II isn't great but this suggestion is already over budget....
If you need wide on top if this, already more expensive suggestion, a good, used, 17-40L or the original 16-35L Mark I might do quite nicely for you, works well on either camera and you can wait first to see if the 50 on the full frame is wide enough for your needs. That is not to say that the 16-35II isn't great but this suggestion is already over budget....
Upvote
0
I've always gone the lenses route. In 10 years I've only owned two bodies, the first Rebel and the 5DMKii in 2010. During that time I've owned a bunch of lenses (and sold a few too.) This year I'm upgrading my flash system with 3 600EX-RTs and controller, but no new body. I might get a Zeiss lens too, if I'm ready for it.
Upvote
0
B
BaconBets
Guest
Funny enough, I was in your situation exactly - a 30D and a 50 1.4
Here is the way to look at it:
1. The people who say that glass is a better investment than bodies WERE correct, because in the past digital bodies were a new technology, while glass was mature. That meant that spending a large amount of money 5-10 years ago on a digital body was an expensive proposition, because digital bodies were evolving so quickly that what was state of the art became run of the mill very quickly, and the value dropped fast. The same thing has been (and still is) happening with memory cards. You can get a memory card for $50 now that was $500 very recently. But digital bodies are maturing now, and we won't see the huge advances in a short period of time like we did in the past. From now on, we are likely to see fine tuning and subtle refinements. Many who are buying the 5d3 have stated that this will be all the camera they will need for the next 10 years. In other words, it's a lot safer. (Canon knows this, which is one reason why the price of new glass is going up, and they are charging decent margins on the 5d3 and 1dx)
2. The 50mm 1.4 on a full frame is a very different lens than a 50mm 1.4 on a crop. Not just a wider angle, but also a shallower depth of field. This will apply to every lens you are thinking about buying.
3. Everything is relative, the gains for someone shooting a 5d2 may not be worth spending $3500 on a 5d3.
The gains for someone shooting a 30D will be enormous, and you will therefore benefit more from the leap to the 5d3.
4. Do you need the pro AF and faster fps for your shooting style/subjects? If not, perhaps a 5d2 and more pro glass will net you more returns for the same investment. Remember, going from a 30D to a 5d2 is still a huge jump
5. You won't see someone running around with a 1dx and a crap lens....it doesn't make sense. At some point, if you haven't already reached it, it won't make sense for you to be running around with an arsenal of L glass and a 30D.
There will always be new cameras coming out in the future...there will be a 5d4, and then a 5dV....but if you wait for Canon to announce their "final" model, you'll be waiting forever. There has never been a better time to buy a FF camera, and you have more than 1 option. It's not 2004, and your new body will not be worth half of what you paid 12 months from now.
Here is the way to look at it:
1. The people who say that glass is a better investment than bodies WERE correct, because in the past digital bodies were a new technology, while glass was mature. That meant that spending a large amount of money 5-10 years ago on a digital body was an expensive proposition, because digital bodies were evolving so quickly that what was state of the art became run of the mill very quickly, and the value dropped fast. The same thing has been (and still is) happening with memory cards. You can get a memory card for $50 now that was $500 very recently. But digital bodies are maturing now, and we won't see the huge advances in a short period of time like we did in the past. From now on, we are likely to see fine tuning and subtle refinements. Many who are buying the 5d3 have stated that this will be all the camera they will need for the next 10 years. In other words, it's a lot safer. (Canon knows this, which is one reason why the price of new glass is going up, and they are charging decent margins on the 5d3 and 1dx)
2. The 50mm 1.4 on a full frame is a very different lens than a 50mm 1.4 on a crop. Not just a wider angle, but also a shallower depth of field. This will apply to every lens you are thinking about buying.
3. Everything is relative, the gains for someone shooting a 5d2 may not be worth spending $3500 on a 5d3.
The gains for someone shooting a 30D will be enormous, and you will therefore benefit more from the leap to the 5d3.
4. Do you need the pro AF and faster fps for your shooting style/subjects? If not, perhaps a 5d2 and more pro glass will net you more returns for the same investment. Remember, going from a 30D to a 5d2 is still a huge jump
5. You won't see someone running around with a 1dx and a crap lens....it doesn't make sense. At some point, if you haven't already reached it, it won't make sense for you to be running around with an arsenal of L glass and a 30D.
There will always be new cameras coming out in the future...there will be a 5d4, and then a 5dV....but if you wait for Canon to announce their "final" model, you'll be waiting forever. There has never been a better time to buy a FF camera, and you have more than 1 option. It's not 2004, and your new body will not be worth half of what you paid 12 months from now.
Upvote
0
E
EvilTed
Guest
I got the 5D MK3 with a 24-105, 70-200 F/2.8 II and a 16-35 II F/2.8.
I really have nothing good to say about the 24-105, having come from shooting prime lenses on a D7000.
I personally think the IQ of the D7000 + 50mm F/1.4G is significantly better!
Mine is going to be sold immediately and I'll replace it with one or more primes.
I guess once you've tasted prime there's no going back?
ET
I really have nothing good to say about the 24-105, having come from shooting prime lenses on a D7000.
I personally think the IQ of the D7000 + 50mm F/1.4G is significantly better!
Mine is going to be sold immediately and I'll replace it with one or more primes.
I guess once you've tasted prime there's no going back?
ET
Upvote
0
EvilTed said:
Ted, there is such a thing as a bad lens, if your 24-105mm L is not sharp, it might need replacing. Also note that some experts have found that DPP is producing soft images for some unknown reason, so don't discount that, use the RC1 release of ACR or DNG and see if it looks better. Also check to see if the lens needs micro adjust of the focus. I may be just lucky, but my 24-105mm L is great. Of course, it does not beat my 35mmL or a 70-200mm f.2.8L MK II, but it is good.
As to a crop camera looking better, this is a common complaint of those used to the large depth of field a crop camera gives, and percieve it as being sharper. Some prefer the extra depth of field, and some like the shallow. Both are correct, because its what they like that counts.
Here is my 5D MK II with my 35mm L. some think its not sharp due to the extreme shallow depth of field.
Good luck with your new camera, I'm anxious for mine to arrive next week.
Upvote
0
- Status
