Upgrading from a Rebel Xti

[KeiLo]

Hello,


I've been a long time reader on this website. Im currently using a rebel xti, i consider myself an advanced amateur. Im looking to upgrade. I your average joe who as been saving money on the side and ive saved about like 4k from partime job, im currently a multimedia student. ok enough about my background.


Right now im in a debate of wheter to get the 5D Mk II with the 24-105 f/4 L or getting a 50d with the efs 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6, the 15mm fisheye, and the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L. The main things i end up shooting are urban scenes and events like dance competitions and whatnot. Thats why im leaning towards the 50d with the 3 lenses and the fps, but the full frame and the video really intrigues me. Im not planning on getting anymore bodies after, i would just end up saving for lenses and other accesories.Thanks for the input in advance.

[Stefan Stuart Fletcher]

Hi KeiLo,


FWIW, I went from the 400D (European name for your
model, I think) to the 40D, which some argue is still better than the 50D (read the dpreview report),
and just purchased a 5D mk2.


Firstly, your lenses: my copy of the 24-105 flared a lot, especially in nighttime, urban shots and it was also slow (the IS doesn't help much shooting dancers). In your place, I'd probably look for a cheaper 40D and buy the 24-70 f/2.8 L. I preferred to save up and buy L glass (the 70-200 f/4 is simply beautiful and quite cheap, but the f/2.8 with IS is serious money, which I preferred to spend on the 5D mk2). Your EF-S lenses won't fit on your 5D. If by urban you also mean wide-angle, I found the EF-S 10-22 was a much better lens all round than the 17-40 L I had to buy for the Canon 5D mk2.


You sound like a more proficient shooter than me, so what I have to say may not apply to you. I progressed from the 400D to the 40D before taking a leap with a really serious camera, which may be a little too serious for me at my stage in my photographic "career". FF is a huge plus, but the viewfinder still isn't 100%. I'm happy I traded in the 400D and kept the 40D, if only for the fps (like you) and the extra reach provided by a cropped-sensor body. If you do go for the 5D mk2, low-end (cheap) lenses - even if they fit - will be a disappointment. 21 Mp are a lot of pixels to show up a cheap lens' weaknesses. You need some serious resolving power for this kind of body.


If money is really the most pressing issue, I think I'd go retro and save quite a lot in the process. The original 5D must be going for a song and the 40D together give you the best of both worlds.


The video still strikes me as gimmicky on the 5D mk2, if only because the audio is really poor.


I hope these ideas offer some help, but I suspect I may have added to the confusion!

[Vlad Xp]

1. Start with a 5D Mk II body only, and a 24-70 f/2.8 L.


2. Fall in love with that camera, the full frame images, and this lens combination.


3. Get a 70-200 f/2.8 IS L


I promise, you won't have any regrets.

[KeiLo]

what im worried about getting the 24-70 is the weight, because i read that 24-105 is a great walkabout lens, because i usually just walk around cities and take pictures of graffiti

[KeiLo]

i suppose if i do get the 5d i pretty much wouldnt have any nice lenses other than the kit lens, i do have the 50mm f/1.8 but since that is a cheap lens its going to be a disappointment

[Vlad Xp]

From Bryan's review of the 24-70 lens:
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"]The biggest downside of the 24-70 L (in my opinion) is it's size and weight.
With its large lens hood, this lens is not small or light when used as a walk-around lens.
I quickly got over this downside after reviewing my results.



I know, carrying the 5D Mk II, and the 24-70 around may be attracting a lot of attention, but I'd have to agree with Bryan that the great results in the end will make it worth the effort. I definitely would not carry around the 70-200 one. I tried to do a photoshoot in the park with it, and it definitely wore me out afrter about 1 hour of holding it.

[Stefan Stuart Fletcher]

The 24-70 isn't significantly heavier or less noticeable than the 24-105. If you do buy the 5D, you'll find the camera already much more substantial than your Rebel.

[Daniel Browning]

The 5D2 and full frame lenses cost much more than a 50D and EF-S lenses. You should be *certain* of the reason you're going to pay all that extra money. If it's because of the resolution, features, video, etc., I think that would be a mistake.

The me, the only significant advantages are:


Fast wide angle lenses
Thin DOF
Low light performance




These are the inherent advantages of any full frame camera. Other things like resolution, video, live view, LCD resolution, etc. will be upgraded in the 60D and Rebel. If you buy the 5d2 just for one of those features, you might feel disappointed when a $900 camera comes out that surpasses your 5d2.

Even the original 5D is still superior to the 50D in wide angle/thin DOF/low light.

To me, those three full frame advantages were important enough to me that I bought the 5d2. But are they that important to you?

[peety3]

Either body upgrade will give you an increase in ISO range and frame rate. The 5D2 provides less frame rate but even more ISO range (usable and not), as well as video.


The 24-105/4LIS is a good lens, but you may find yourself limited with it nonetheless. The 18-200 AND 70-200 sounds like extreme duplication to me, and you WON'T use the 18-200 if you have the 70-200.


Why not slowly eat into your savings with new lenses, one at a time, and add a body when you feel that's the next best addition to your kit? Faster glass will improve your photography and stay with you into new bodies (except for EF-S lenses). My XTi is quite an impressive camera when I keep the ISO to 800 or lower; fast glass lets me do that. It was a very impressive aquarium camera with the 85/1.2.


Consider renting one lens at a time and seeing if it fits your wishes and needs. I started with an XTi kit, a 1D3, and a 24-105. A few weeks later, I had so many great opportunities that I rented the 16-35/2.8I, the 70-200/2.8IS, and the 100-400. I knew that I liked the 16-35, I wasn't crazy about the 100-400, but fell in love with the 70-200; I owned one soon after. I went through a longer "shopping" process on the wide end (girlfriends can make these things SLOW), retrying the 16-35, trying the 17-55EFS, trying the 17-40, and then making an executive decision to get the 16-35/2.8II. I can tell you that even with ~10 months between similar uses of the 16-35/2.8I and 16-35/2.8II on sailing trips, I recognized a difference immediately. That said, do NOT rent the 85/1.2 unless you are ready to buy it, with express shipping, so that the purchased lens arrives before you HAVE to return the rented one. :)

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

I'm always into putting your money in goodglass [:)].


40D: $800
17-40 f/4L: $620
24-70 f/2.8L: $1040
70-200 f/2.8L IS: $1500


Total is $3960 [:D].Price is adjusted for rebate so act fast before the rebate ends this Saturday

[KeiLo]

thank you everyone for the input, i think i will prolly end up investing in some glass first

[zerowindez]

I've been travelling with my 400D (Rebel Xti) and the 24-70 f/2.8 L USM.


I didn't think that the 24-70 f/2.8 L USM was a burden to me at all.


Of course, hanging it over your neck for a long time would give you aches. [:D]





I've never regretted purchasing the 24-70 f/2.8 L USM.

[bassmangtk]

I borrowed a 28-70 f/2.8L USM (precursor to the 24-70) from a professor to shoot an event for him, along with a 180 L macro and a 100-400 f/4L. I was using a Rebel XT body. The 28-70 was by far the best performing of the group. It was a little longer than the 18-55 that the camera came with and not all that much heavier feeling. The sharpness was astounding. After about 4 hours of shooting I was only tired of carrying the beast of a 100-400 (the macro was in the car). The 28-70 just felt right.