# Upgrading from sony to canon



## untitled10 (Oct 18, 2012)

Hey i'm finnally making the move from sony to canon what i've been using is:

Sony A33
18-55 3.5-5.6
70-200 f4.0
35 f1.8

I'm upgrading to:
5d mkii
17-40 f4.0
50 1.4
135 f2.0
Battery grip
16gb Cf card
spare Battery

My predicament is weather to buy a 430ex ii with a couple triggers or a Tameron 28-75 2.8
I mostly shoot longboarding, landscapes a little bit of portraiture low-light events, day time events and quite a lot of video, but I really want to experiment with flash but not sure I want to lose the focal range capability for video or lowlight shooting, recommendations?

Thanks, Harvey


----------



## Menace (Oct 19, 2012)

You have a decent amount of lenses already but no flash! So I'd suggest get the 430 Ex II as your next purchase 

Later, you can add the zoom lens to the kit.

My 2 cents


----------



## expatinasia (Oct 19, 2012)

I know you have not asked this question but I would get the 16-35 over the 17-40.


----------



## KevinB (Oct 19, 2012)

Great move Harvey !! I did the same thing about a year ago (Sony to Canon) I agree with Menace do the flash...


----------



## AdamJ (Oct 19, 2012)

Compare to Sony, Canon is blessed with a wider range of cheaper third party options. You might want to consider a flash from Yongnuo (565EX, 568EX, YN-468 II) and a pair of YN-622 radio triggers which together will give you equivalent functionality including off-camera E-TTL. Put the money saved towards the Tamron.


----------



## untitled10 (Oct 19, 2012)

expatinasia said:


> I know you have not asked this question but I would get the 16-35 over the 17-40.



oh I would if I could but alas my budget limits me unforitnatly 



AdamJ said:


> Compare to Sony, Canon is blessed with a wider range of cheaper third party options. You might want to consider a flash from Yongnuo (565EX, 568EX, YN-468 II) and a pair of YN-622 radio triggers which together will give you equivalent functionality including off-camera E-TTL. Put the money saved towards the Tamron.



Im quite determined to keep with canon on this one, but I may have a look into this, thanks


----------



## drjlo (Oct 19, 2012)

untitled10 said:


> Hey i'm finnally making the move from sony to canon what i've been using is:
> 
> Sony A33
> 18-55 3.5-5.6
> ...



Ironically, I have been thinking Sony is looking better and better, especially with the finally-NEX-I-can-live-with NEX6 and A99. Sony is bound to release a scaled-down full frame body to compete with 6D and D600, and the price is likely going to be much nicer.


----------



## gmrza (Oct 19, 2012)

untitled10 said:


> Hey i'm finnally making the move from sony to canon what i've been using is:
> 
> Sony A33
> 18-55 3.5-5.6
> ...



There were some comments about rather getting the 16-35 f/2.8. My view, rather is that you are missing a standard zoom. I would rather go for the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM than the 17-40mm. It is a little pricier, but the 24-105mm is probably one of the all-round most practical lenses. - Despite the fact that it is only a f/4, it is still very popular with wedding photographers. I would try to get the kit with the 5DII and the 24-105mm f/4L - that is very good value. The only downside of the 24-105 is that the bokeh is a little busy with certain backgrounds, and can be a little distracting.

Just another comment about the 17-40mm on full frame - for landscapes you need to use it around f/8 to f/11 to get any semblance of sharpness in the corners. This is an example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/specular-images/7524804780/#in/photostream - Even at the highest resolution I have uploaded to flickr, you can see that the corners leave a bit to be desired - this was shot at f/16, so I would have lost a little sharpness to diffraction again as well. - In a 100% crop, the corners are mush. - I'm not trying to say the 17-40 is a bad lens - just understand its limitations. It is however a very usable walkabout lens for a crop frame body as well.


I would concur with the other posters about the need for a flash. Something to think about is the fact that Canon's 4x0 series flashes do not rotate through 360 degrees, which can be a problem when using bounce flash indoors.
I know it is a very expensive option, but also think about Canon's radio triggering system with the 600-EX-RT - it is an impressive system, just getting one Speedlite and a trigger already costs a bomb. - It may be worth considering taking the path of first buying a third party flash to get started, and then saving for a 600-EX-RT. That path, however, sees you committed to the Canon radio trigger system! - Make an informed decision, and understand the consequences of your decision. ;-)

One obvious gap in moving from your old kit is at the long end. Your 70-200mm on the Sony is equivalent to a 320mm at the long end on the 5DII.


What you probably need to consider is which aspect of your photography to concentrate on first. That will allow you to spread your purchases over time. If you can afford to keep your old camera while you start building up your new system, that may help you to still enjoy all aspects of your photography, even though your new system does not cover all of your interests.


----------



## untitled10 (Oct 20, 2012)

gmrza said:


> There were some comments about rather getting the 16-35 f/2.8. My view, rather is that you are missing a standard zoom. I would rather go for the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM than the 17-40mm. It is a little pricier, but the 24-105mm is probably one of the all-round most practical lenses. - Despite the fact that it is only a f/4, it is still very popular with wedding photographers. I would try to get the kit with the 5DII and the 24-105mm f/4L - that is very good value. The only downside of the 24-105 is that the bokeh is a little busy with certain backgrounds, and can be a little distracting.
> 
> Just another comment about the 17-40mm on full frame - for landscapes you need to use it around f/8 to f/11 to get any semblance of sharpness in the corners. This is an example:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/specular-images/7524804780/#in/photostream - Even at the highest resolution I have uploaded to flickr, you can see that the corners leave a bit to be desired - this was shot at f/16, so I would have lost a little sharpness to diffraction again as well. - In a 100% crop, the corners are mush. - I'm not trying to say the 17-40 is a bad lens - just understand its limitations. It is however a very usable walkabout lens for a crop frame body as well.
> ...



I never really shot that long any way, thanks for pointing that out though, and the main aim of the 17-40 is for the wideangles needed for longboarding be it filming or photography

I did not know this about the 430ex what 3rd partys with ttl have 360 rotation if anybody knows?


----------



## gilmorephoto (Oct 20, 2012)

Proper flash is a game changer regardless of brand. It's what I recommend almost as strongly as a better lens. We capture light. Being able to control light is a powerful thing.


----------



## gmrza (Oct 21, 2012)

untitled10 said:


> I never really shot that long any way, thanks for pointing that out though, and the main aim of the 17-40 is for the wideangles needed for longboarding be it filming or photography
> 
> I did not know this about the 430ex what 3rd partys with ttl have 360 rotation if anybody knows?



Just a question: do you need to go as wide as 17mm for longboarding? Keep in mind that the 17-40mm on full frame is roughly equivalent to a 10-22mm on a crop body.

If you do want to use the 17-40mm for action, you need to consider that wide open, in the corners it doesn't provide anything vaguely resembling sharpness:







At f/4 at 17mm the 17-40 can't even achieve corner resolution of 1200 line widths per image height!

At f/4, the 16-35 is considerably better:






At f/11 the performance of both lenses, in terms of resolution is pretty close - so for anyone shooting landscapes, it is pretty much a wash. However, for anyone shooting action, the 16-35mm is the better choice -albeit at a much higher price.

If you don't need the extreme wide angles of those lenses, you could rather look at something like a 24-105 f/4L IS USM, or Tamron's new 24-70 f/2.8. (I would be hesitant to recommend the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II unless you are shooting professionally. - We've just got one for my wife's business, but it is really expensive, and you really need a good reason to spend that much money on a 24-70mm lens.)

BTW: The MTF charts above are from Photozone - http://www.photozone.de - They have some pretty good lens reviews, which may be worth reading before you make your final choices.


----------



## untitled10 (Oct 21, 2012)

gmrza said:


> untitled10 said:
> 
> 
> > I never really shot that long any way, thanks for pointing that out though, and the main aim of the 17-40 is for the wideangles needed for longboarding be it filming or photography
> ...



Yeah, ive used 18mm on full frame once and it was perfect , 18 on crop was wayy to long

I did not realise quite how bad the corners were, would use at f11/16 be good enough for landscape do you think?


----------



## gmrza (Oct 22, 2012)

untitled10 said:


> Yeah, ive used 18mm on full frame once and it was perfect , 18 on crop was wayy to long
> 
> I did not realise quite how bad the corners were, would use at f11/16 be good enough for landscape do you think?



Shooting at f/11 to f/16 you should get reasonable corners using the 5DII. Pixel-peeping you will notice some softness, but it is still good enough for printing.
If ultra-wide angle landscapes are your thing, then, in the longer term you may be better off looking at getting a 17mm prime.


----------



## hbeevers (Oct 22, 2012)

I'm using the 17-40 on a 5D 2 for landscapes at the moment. I'd say don't stop down any more than f/11 really, at f/8-11 it really is as sharp as you need it to be especially if you're not as wide as 17mm. It's sharp at f/4 from 35-40mm anyway. at 17mm f/4 you'll be hard pushed to get a subject in the corners anyway so it's not too much of a problem that it's not sharp there.


----------



## sandymandy (Oct 22, 2012)

drjlo said:


> Ironically, I have been thinking Sony is looking better and better, especially with the finally-NEX-I-can-live-with NEX6 and A99. Sony is bound to release a scaled-down full frame body to compete with 6D and D600, and the price is likely going to be much nicer.



Do u really think Sony will be on par with Canon and Nikon? I doubt so. Their management just doesnt seem to make smart moves anymore. There last awesome product was the Playstation 2. Their Alpha cameras were nice but thats all. They never generated any heat like the 5D mk3 or the D800.
Perhaps the body price will be nicer but that doesnt help when they dont offer the same range of lenses u can get with Canikon.


----------



## wayno (Oct 22, 2012)

gmrza said:


> untitled10 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, ive used 18mm on full frame once and it was perfect , 18 on crop was wayy to long
> ...



I must have a good copy of the 17-40 but I get exceptional sharpness across the whole image at F8. 17 is not quite as stunning but a bit longer and it's great.


----------



## hbeevers (Oct 22, 2012)

same, mine's sharp at f/5.6 at most focal lengths and pin sharp at f/8. higher than f/11 and diffraction starts to set in and everything softens up.


----------



## gmrza (Oct 22, 2012)

wayno said:


> gmrza said:
> 
> 
> > untitled10 said:
> ...



Are you using it on a full frame or crop body? The soft corners only really become an issue with full frame.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 22, 2012)

untitled10 said:


> Hey i'm finnally making the move from sony to canon what i've been using is:
> 
> Sony A33
> 18-55 3.5-5.6
> ...



Good decision. Whilst Sony has better sensors, Canon has some of the best Lenses around. Especially they're prime selection.


----------



## untitled10 (Oct 24, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> untitled10 said:
> 
> 
> > Hey i'm finnally making the move from sony to canon what i've been using is:
> ...



The glass wsa the main reason along with video that im moving to canon
also, om the length issue I was going to go for a sigma 120-300 2.8 OS in the distant future


----------



## preppyak (Oct 24, 2012)

drjlo said:


> Ironically, I have been thinking Sony is looking better and better, especially with the finally-NEX-I-can-live-with NEX6 and A99. Sony is bound to release a scaled-down full frame body to compete with 6D and D600, and the price is likely going to be much nicer.


And they still have weak lens selection for both lineups. The NEX line barely has 10 lenses, and that says nothing of whether they are any good. Same is true of A-mount, especially if we are talking for full-frame; the cheap primes just really aren't there. You have to go third-party in many cases.


----------



## untitled10 (Oct 27, 2012)

preppyak said:


> drjlo said:
> 
> 
> > Ironically, I have been thinking Sony is looking better and better, especially with the finally-NEX-I-can-live-with NEX6 and A99. Sony is bound to release a scaled-down full frame body to compete with 6D and D600, and the price is likely going to be much nicer.
> ...



Although they did have nice cheap crop primes, a £120 RRP 35mm 1.8 and a £100 RRp 50mm 1.8 but only worked on crop were loverly lenses although they were extremely plasticity and had terrible polygonal apertures :s


----------

