How much would expect to pay for a 5D and a 24-70mm 2.8?

Messages
2,835
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
Although im not even sure im aloud to ask such a question but i'll try.

Also, am I right in saying the sigma 17-70 wont work on the 5d?
 
Agree £1700 is Ok. the 17-70 is crop only.
 
I have the 50D, in hindsight I wish I had saved a bit more and just got the 5DII. From what I have seen, full frame is the way to go when it comes to portraits and people pictures unless you need the speed of the 50D for sports.

Also the 5DII will let you have plenty of fun with video, which is something I know you are into as well.
 
I have the 50D, in hindsight I wish I had saved a bit more and just got the 5DII. From what I have seen, full frame is the way to go when it comes to portraits and people pictures unless you need the speed of the 50D for sports.

Also the 5DII will let you have plenty of fun with video, which is something I know you are into as well.

true, but then thats £1000 more which is just beyond me right now.
 
Sorry I meant the canon lens.

Or should I save £300 and get a 50D and a 17-55 2.8 IS?

I shoot portraits, weddings mainly and general photography

Having the right tools allows you the freedom to produce the very best quality work for yourself and your clients. It won't make you any better, but it won't hold you back either.

Your competition is going to be using them so I would treat it as an investment in your business. It might just be the difference between being successful and not. Certainly the £300 is not a huge sum in the great scheme of things.

Graham
 
£300 isnt much at all if the result is better than the cheaper option.
I suppose that the resell value on a lot of camera gear stays the same.

Just wish I could play with a 5D and get a feel for it.
 
I'd be reluctant to use the 17-55 IS as a professional lens. I've owned it and it is extremely good, but it is closer top typical Canon consumer build quality. The 24-70 2.8, despite it not being a favourite of mine by any means, is at least built to take some strain from heavy use.
 
I'd be reluctant to use the 17-55 IS as a professional lens. I've owned it and it is extremely good, but it is closer top typical Canon consumer build quality. The 24-70 2.8, despite it not being a favourite of mine by any means, is at least built to take some strain from heavy use.

Any reason its not your favourite?
 
The 24-70L is big, heavy and lacks IS!

For people photography, my personal preference is for full frame. The 5D is a fantastic camera for weddings and portraits.

Are you thinking of buying used? If so, then you should be able to pick up a 5D and 24-70L for closer to £1,500 than £1,700.

MPB have currently got a 5D in for £849 and a 24-70L for £799, but I have seen them cheaper.
 
Any reason its not your favourite?

Usability is one: big, heavy, clumsy, people stare at you. For street shooting generally a small prime gives a nicer experience. Second, IQ can be excellent in its sweet range around 35-50mm, but 24mm isn't anything to write home about if it's your wide angle on a FF, likewise 70mm. Softness at 2.8 is also an issue for some. The usual fan boy response is that it's the user, but just check the number of threads over the years. No other lens gets so many similar comments (apart from the 100-400mm or Sigma 30mm). So if you get a good copy and don't have to lug it around all day then could be fine. It's a good and many love it, but I'd question for a typical amateur if it's really good enough to justify the premium price. For a professional who needs a tough work-horse I see the logic more, doubly so if you have good lenses to fill in at the wider and longer ends. I sold mine. Just didn't add any value to my shooting.
 
I got the 50D and in hindsight i wish i saved for the 5DII. I will be getting the 24-70L as one of my workhorse lenses but since its on crop i have to carry around the 10-22mm just incase i need to get wider.
 
Back
Top