Moving to full frame....maybe...

kennysarmy

kennysarmy

Yeah but can your army do this?
Messages
7,312
Name
Jeff
Edit My Images
No
My current kit line up is:

Canon 40d - 2nd user with 40k actuations.
Canon 10-22
Canon 17-55 f2.8is
Canon 70-200 f4is
Kenko 1.4TC

Mainly I shoot landscapes and grab shots of the children as well as indoor family events.

Whilst I have shot sports and wildlife they are not my main targets ;)

I am considering a move to FF and going for a 2nd hand Canon 5d mark II

Reasons for this are low light capabilities and generally being able to push the ISO a little more as we do live in a dark and gloomy country.
I appreciate for proper landscape work you should be on a tripod anyway, but I am just a hobbyist so don't always have ALL my kit with me.

Obviously the 5d mark ii will not take either of my wider lenses so they would have to be sold.

I would then need to purchase a walkabout lens, so thats either got to be the 24-70 or 24-105 which is probably the most asked question on photography forums.

So my questions are:

1. If I sell the two lenses in question and my body how much extra will I need to find to fund the purchase of the new body and lens.

2. I believe the batteries, remote shutter release etc are all compatible between the two models but might there be any other expenditure I have missed?

I already have the canon 580 EXII flashgun.

Any comments gratefully received, especially from anyone who has done this upgrade.

Cheers
 
I reckon another 250-300 quid if you go for the 24-105mm

Thought about it myself, I have an almost identical lens line up as you, but with a 7D and Canon 1.4 TC

Batteries are not compatible so add in another fifty quid if you go for a Canon battery

I spotted a good deal on the classifieds, but my daughter had been looking for one so got it for her
She bought a 17-40mm and a 24-105mm to go with it, landscapes being her main thing and has the use of my 70-200mm should the need arise

Few on there now for around the 950 mark, so seems like a good time to buy, I won't bother now, will just borrow my daughters for any special landscape stuff
 
Last edited:
I had a 50d and Canon 10-22 before upgrading to a 5d2.
My first thoughts are on your choice to replace your two current lenses with one walkabout. Although they are both excellent lenses that you have mentioned, if you are seriously into landscapes I suspect you may miss the the wide reach of the 10-22. The Canon 17-40 is fairly close on FF and it now my most used lens, where the 10-22 was before.
The battery life on the 5d2 seems a million times better than the 50d.
The cable release will work on the 5d2.
The only other thing I can think of is uv filters, if you use them.
The iso capabilities are better and the tonal range is a bit better also, but don't expect a massive difference in anything else from your current set up.
 
not sure how much, but above post seems to be in the right ball park.

I went from D3100 to 5D2, that was a massive shift, in the end I think I spent £800 in total. that's from Nikon crop to 5D2 with 17-40L and 24-205L, and 2 more cheap lenses. (50/1.8 and cheap 70-300mm). this was the best move I've made, never want to touch another peep-hole camera known as crop.

regarding which walkabout lens, get the 24-105L, it's almost as sharp, but you gain IS and longer range. it's really the perfect walk about lens.
 
Last edited:
40D battrys are diffrent to the 5d Mk2 as i have jsut found out
i got a couple of duracell type of amazon about £15 a piece i think and one lasted me a full day 600 pics in total i think and still ahd half battey life so wellhappy

te remote is the same too
 
Thanks for the replies.
Did nt realize the batteries were not transferable :(

I think I am tending towards the 24-105 for the IS and longer reach....

OUT
40d - sell for ~ £225
10-22 - sell for ~ £400
17-55 - sell for ~ £475
Total = £1100

IN
24-105 ~ £525
5dii ~ £900
Total = £1425

Cost to change ~ £325

PLUS 17-40 later @ £400ish

Hopefully my thinking is not way off....
 
If you are going to keep the 70/200 then I am not sure about the 24/105,you might be better off with a 17/40.
It depends on how much you use the wide end on your 10/22.
 
17-40 don't do well in low light, and not ideal for shooting people because of the distortion.

perhaps 17-40mm and a nifty fifty to step you over until you can afford a 24-105? or the new 24-70 f4 IS.
 
I went to FF a few months ago. I love my 60D, and 40D, 30D before that, and my old 17-55 f/2.8 IS was the reason i always said i would never give up crops.
I then got a 15-85 and this re affirmed what i had always said. Well, in a moment of madness i got a 5DMKIII and had to sell the 15-85 (the 17-55 went last year and couldn't find a good copy this year).
The loss of reach was a bit of a shock, even my 70-200 f/4 Is seems more like a normal zoom now, and the loss of a general zoom even more so as my real main option seemed to be a 24-105. I'd had 2 of them in the past and never warmed to them (still haven't).

I got mine for about £525 on here, that seems to be the going rate. Ill be selling mine after Christmas as i want a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC but i do find the 24-105 works better on a FF camera.

24mm on FF is the same as 15mm on a crop so you can go wider with a general lens than your 17-55. Maybe it will be enough not to need a proper WA lens.

Good luck with the change over, it will be worth it :thumbs:
 
Dave, thanks for your comments.

I am hoping the loss of reach can in some way be compensated with the ability to crop in more as the Mp is almost double from the 40d to the 5dmkii

Why specifically do you say "it will be worth it" ?
 
I used to own a 40D, then (and still) a 60D and now the 5DMKIII. A friend had a 5DMKII for a while and i had quite a few plays with it. IQ is indeed better, especially higher ISO. I did feel the MKII was a bit dated, but then im used to my 60D which is more up to date and has certain features that i missed.
I found the images from the MKII had something about them that i hadnt seen from any of my cameras before. Im not sure if it was because its a FF camera and images look different from these camera's, or because it has a better sensor, but they just seemed to pop a lot more, and needed less PP in LR to stand out. We did a few comparison shots and the 5D always seemed to have more detail, once you go looking for it or zooming in, and they looked more organic. Same lens by the way.
Compared to the 40D i think cropping will hold up very well and i agree, the lost of long reach shouldn't be too much of a problem for day to day stuff.

Im probably talking nonsense but these thoughts were what spurred me on to get the MKIII.
 
I had a 40D and bought a 5DII about 2 years ago, keeping the 40D as a backup. In all that time I have only ever used the 40D once, because the images from the 5DII are just so much better.
 
Well it's been an expensive night ;)

5dmkii and 24-105 picked up from the classifieds tonight.....

Need to get organised after the weekend testing with them and sell on the 17-55 and 10-22 :( going to be hard to let them go ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top