new job means use of a 5dii, what to do

So long story short...my temporary/seasonal position turned into a permanent job. For this job we have a 5dii, which I will be the only one that ever uses it and only use it on 5 or so occasions a year. Which means I have access to this camera year round and as long as I dont break it, can use it whenever I want.

Which is great because its a heck of a step up from my 50d. But that's where my question starts.

The dilemma is this,

My personal gear is
50d
17-55mm 2.8
100-400mm

work gear is:
5dii
28-135(You can probably see where the issue is already.)

I think it makes sense to keep using the 50d for all my wildlife photography if not only because of the 6fps. Although it seems silly to use the 50d for landscapes and people(which I'm shooting more and more of) when I have access to a 5dii. Problem is that the only lens we have for the 5d is the 28-135mm (which leaves something to be desired) and obviously my efs 17-55 won't work. So since I will be in this position for the foreseeable future, should I sell the 17-55 and get something that will work on the 5d? I think so, but what? I love my 17-55.... f2.8 is awesome to have and I also use the IS a lot since I often use this lens in low light . Obvious choice is the 24-70mm but I wonder if I will miss the IS. I also sometimes wish I didn't have such a big gap between my lenses from 55mm-100mm, and the 70mm on the full frame will feel like an even bigger gap. so maybe I should consider the 24-105? but then I loose a stop of light.


What else should I be considering? (I've thought about primes but it would take a lot of convincing to get me to actually make the switch) The budget is also limited to what I can sell my 17-55 for, give or take a little.

How cool for you!!!.

Seems to me the 24-105 is way on up there in the priority list. The trade off w/ the 24-70 is 1 f-stop and $500......

It sounds like a very good problem to me.

Given that you have the 50D at home, I can understand that it wouldn't be easy to part with the 17-55. If you have the patience I'd suggest starting out with the 28-135. It would give you the chance to cover the focal length ranges of the 24-70 and the 24-105 to get a better idea of which might be better suited to your needs. Landscapes can be done well with either, while f4 for portraits might be too narrow and 70mm might come up short depending on your preferences. The time spent evaluating just might give you the opportunity to save enough for a secondhand copy of either. Once the 24-70 II comes out, I'd think that there might be enough of the initial version being sold off to drive the price down a little bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrw

It sounds like a very good problem to me.

Given that you have the 50D at home, I can understand that it wouldn't be easy to part with the 17-55. If you have the patience I'd suggest starting out with the 28-135. It would give you the chance to cover the focal length ranges of the 24-70 and the 24-105 to get a better idea of which might be better suited to your needs. Landscapes can be done well with either, while f4 for portraits might be too narrow and 70mm might come up short depending on your preferences. The time spent evaluating just might give you the opportunity to save enough for a secondhand copy of either. Once the 24-70 II comes out, I'd think that there might be enough of the initial version being sold off to drive the price down a little bit.

---

Thats probably good advice. Ive already played around with the 28-135 and just not impressed by it, but using it to experiment with what focal lengths I really need might be good.

whatever I do decide to get will be secondhand. I've bought most of my gear used and had good luck with it so I will probably continue to do so to help keep costs down. And waiting for the 24-70II to come out to see a price drop is also probably a good idea.

You know the 24-105 is a great lens. I don't personally have it but many do. Bryan loves it. You will probably get the stop back in iSO performance going from a 50D to the 5DII, so I wouldn't see the issue in going from the 17-55 to the 24-105. I have the 24-70 and sometimes wish I would have purchased the 24-105 instead because of the range. IS can be compensated by using good technique. Forgot to mention that your 2.8 lens on your 50D with the crop factor is more like an f/4+ on a FF anyway, so DOF wouldn't really be that different.

24-135 is OKAY lens. 5D mark II such a good camera, you can complement it only by putting some really good lens and I dont think 24-135 fits that category, instead you can spend 100 bucks and get canon 50MM f 1.8 II, which can give too good pics with mark II .Just my 2 cents

Also 24-105 is not a great lens, especially it does a bad job during low lights. I had it for several months, after getting primes like 24mm, 50mm, 100mm and 135mm Iam not even touching the 24-105, having said that when there is plenty of light it can give really sharp pics and nice bokeh as well.

I agree with Jayson.

I've been using FF bodies for some time now. 24-105 I use as a general purpose lens. The limitation for me is the minimum aperture of f4. have tried the 24-70 but I found that the deciding factor between them is the IS. It allows me to handhold with longer shutter times than I could possibly obtain with the 24-70. A greater depth of field, but more shots are usable. If used for portraits, you will definitely have more than just the eyelashes of the subject in sharp focus which may, or may not, be what you prefer. By selecting locations where the subject can be further away from background objects you will be able to have enough blur to separate the subject, just not as much as a wider aperture.

In terms of IQ, neither is perfect and both of the lenses have their issues revealed in the ISO charts. In the real world there are many people using them to deliver high quality images. It just comes down to choosing amongst aperture, focal length range, and IS to best suit your own needs.

3 stops of IS provides a net 2 for subjects that aren't moving.

Looking the ISO crops - unless there is a real need for the extra stop for moving subjects, the 24-105 gets my vote

yeah, 24-105 is probably the better choice. I hadn't thought about the DOF being different on a full frame...that along with the improved ISO performance, I think f4 will be fine for most scenarios.

.....congrats on the job!! :D

And the 5DII is a nice little bonus.

The 24-105mm actually has slightly thiner DOF on FF than the 17-55mm, f/2.8 becomes f/4.5 on a FF.

John.