# Should I move up to FF or get more lens



## squarebox (Mar 13, 2012)

Probably a ton of other posts like these here already, but I thought I'd ask specifically for my situation.

I currently have the following gear

550d
aluminum tripod
10-22mm EF-S
18-55mm EF-S
18-200mm EF-S
30mm 1.4L EF
50mm 1.4 EF

I mainly enjoy shooting landscapes, buildings and night photography. I've only been serious shooting for about 6 months. I don't make money of my pictures as this is just a hobby. And moving to FF, in particular the 5dmk3, interests me for low light performance as the biggest issue i have is with my night shots and AF in low light.

What I wanted to ask, would you recommend that i just get the 5dmk3, where I could only use the 35mm and 50mm. I'd be pretty limited by my glass, and after dropping $3500, it'd be a while before i could get more glass. Though eventually i'd like to get the 24-70mm mk2

Or would you recommend I spend more money on gear and glass to make the move to FF lens painful when it happens? That and i could work more on my shooting skills and get more experience.

If i picked up more gear, I'd be looking at

ND filter
6xx Flash 
lightroom
possibly a macro lens

Picking up the 5dmk3 would be a stretch financially, but doable, and the gear no sweat.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Mar 13, 2012)

Personally, I'd sell the 18-55mm and 18-200mm, use the money to buy a 70-200mm lens, ride the next few months using the 10-22mm, the primes in the middle and the new 70-200mm, then look at trading the 10-22mm in a local store against a 5DIII with 24-105mm kit lens. The only issue then is covering the ultra-wide, which a 17-40mm or if you feel flush, a 16-35mm would cover and you could look at that a year or so down the line or before the 5DIII

The 550D isn't a bad camera, but of course, if its limiting your output, then a 5D is a logical step up.


----------



## Jim K (Mar 13, 2012)

^ +1


----------



## sweetcancer (Mar 13, 2012)

well, in landscapes and buildings (where you focus manually on your tripod using live view and low ISOs), you wouldn't see that much improvement. In night photography (where you use AF, high ISOs, fast shutter speeds and fast prime lenses) you could see great improvement on the AF performance and noise if you went for the 5D mark III.

I'm just guessing here as i don't know exactly how you like to shoot.

Personally I would buy photoshop CS5 (if you don't have it already), some fun filters and a vertical grip. I would also sell the 18-55 and probably the 18-200 and buy the EF-S 15-85. ( I would probably also sell the 10-22, but that's just me, i don't do much of ultra wide angle and the 15mm would be plenty wide for my shooting preferences)

The biggest reason why i would upgrade to 5D is that i would get the full advantage from those primes and get shallower DOF more easily. Then again, i would save money and go for 5D mark II (and with the money I save i would get a 85mm prime.)


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Mar 13, 2012)

Looking at your lens inventory, the first thing that comes to my mind is if you move up to FF right now, then three of your lenses will be useless (on a second reading of your post it appears that you know that). Definitely, 5D markIII is a fantastic camera and going from 550D to 5DIII will be a great update. But, my photography philosophy says that the quality of our photograph depends to a large extent on the quality of the glass that we use. If I was in your position I would sell of 18-55 and 18-200 EF-S. First, they are EF-S and second they are slow and third as much as I have read they are optically quite poor performer. 10-22 apparently is a better glass and since it suits 550D, I would keep it. So now you have a 10-22 to cover the Wide Angle side. A 35mm (I think your 30mm 1.4L is a typo) to cover the normal angle of view and a 50mm for the short telephoto angle of view. Then I would look at the photographs that I have taken and see which focal length have I been using most for my landscapes most? If I have been using my 18-200 more for my landscapes and that also the longer side of it, then I would buy 70-200mm 2.8L IS II. I could have gone for f4 but then for night photography it would be pretty limited. On the other hand, if I have been using 18-55 more for my landscapes then I am in a bit of dilemma. The best wide-normal zoom for 550D would be 17-55 2.8 IS, but that is EF-S. Then I will use the logic that photography is my hobby and I do not earn much from it (may be nothing at all) and so will go with the 17-55 2.8IS. Therefore, although I will not have the "grand" 5DIII, but I will have five of the fantastic quality lenses that canon has to offer -
10-22 EF-S
17-55 EF-S 2.8
35mm 1.4L
50mm 1.4
70-200 2.8L IS II
Then towards the beginning of next year (or end of this year) I will check again and see (reevaluate) where my photography stands. If I have money I would upgrade to a better cropped sensor (still all my lenses remain good for it) - may be 70D, may be 7DII if it comes out. Gradually I would gather funds/save for the 5DmkIII and the 16-35EF (which you will have to buy for wide angle on FF) - it will come, but not just right now.

my 2cents.


----------



## lexonio (Mar 13, 2012)

I say you'd better sell your EF-S glory and go for 5D mkIII kit. 24-105mm is a fantastic lens and will complement your primes for low-light photography. I'm in the similar situation, I've sold my 17-70 Sigma and bought 24-105mm a couple of months ago to soften the financial blow 5dmkIII will strike.


----------



## squarebox (Mar 13, 2012)

By far the funniest/most used lens I have is the 10-22mm. I don't touch the 18-200mm unless I'm shooting something I'll know I will need the reach. It was also the very first lens I bought and then regretted buying 2 months later. But as people pointed out, if I picked up the 5Dmk3 I'd def. sell the 18-55 and the 18-200. 

My biggest worry is not having a good UWA lens. From what I read the 10-22mm seems to be better than the 16-35mm and I wouldn't have the dough to buy that either after an upgrade. Though I would probably keep my 10-22mm on my 550d for when i want to use that lens even if i got the 5d, until i had the money to pick up a good replacement.

Though Haydn's idea seems really good.


----------



## agierke (Mar 13, 2012)

its a difficult dilemma for someone in your position and one that i have run across with my students countless times. i have always steered my students clear of the EFS lenses for this simple reason....they are useless if you upgrade. regular EF lenses are compatible across platforms and are a much better investment (even with the crop factor consideration).

my recommendation would be to forego a mark 3 and look at used mark 2 prices if you really want to get into FF photography. you would save a boatload of money, still get much higher performance than what you are getting now, and be able to invest the saved money into replacing the EFS lenses. the mark 2 is still a stellar camera and would be the smartest investment for someone in your position considering all the factors you mentioned.

the lenses i would target for you would be the 16-35mm F2.8L and the 24mm F3.5L T/S (a must have landscape/architectural lens). the 35mm and 50mm are great lenses and would hold you over for now.

i would also warn against getting the 24-105mm F4L IS and would instead push the 24-70mm F2.8L. its overall performance is so much better and its a faster lens. the optics in the 24-105mm are subpar imo for L glass especially when compared directly with the 24-70mm (even version 1). i know the 24-105 gets a lot of love but i have seen several copies of each of those lenses and i believe the 24-70 is the better bang for your buck in the long run.

good luck!


----------



## iso79 (Mar 14, 2012)

Go full frame! Sell all your lenses and invest in L lenses and don't look back.


----------



## ruuneos (Mar 14, 2012)

Invest to lovely L glass and then go for FF so you get best gear for it already


----------



## ScottyP (Mar 14, 2012)

For me as a hobbyist, the biggest drawback in going to FF from crop would be loss of the free 1.6 zoom factor. Every lens would suddenly be much shorter. Then price out telephoto lenses and think how much it would cost to get that range you lost back through longer glass (400, etc.). 

Granted, you trade mm's on the wide side to get the extra 1.6x mm's on the zoom, but that is easier to live with to me. Just my own habits, but I really don't feel I lack wide angle nearly as often as I wish I had more undistorted zoom. And if you occasionally want ultrawide, you can always stitch a couple of photos together in post to widen a shot. Much better results than trying to crop massively to simulate more zoom. 

Then considering the extra money to get the FF body, and the lens-trading, etc.. It would have to be justified by a massive improvement in my photography. I still have a ton more to learn about taking pictures, so the body and the sensor size are not yet holding me back. Not by a long shot, to be honest.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 14, 2012)

The jury is still out as to how much better the 5DIII is than the 5DII for low light work. Canon claims 2 stops, but that is for jpegs; for RAW, it's probably less than a stop, which isn't that big a step. The problem with buying the 5DIII now is that you're paying a premium for getting it when it first comes out. For the price of a 5DIII, you can almost get a new 5DII and the 16-35L. You can then sell your ef-s lenses and pick up one of the 70-200s. If you need extra reach, a 1.4x extender will help offset the loss of the 1.6x crop factor. You can save even more if you pick up a Canon refurb 5DII. You would then have the 16-35L, 35L, 50 f/1.4 and 70-200 and perhaps an extender for about $3500 net after selling all your ef-s gear. If you keep the 550, you'd, at the least, maintain the reach at the long end, and the 16-35L on full frame is similar to the 10-22 ef-s on the crop bodies with the added advantage of being constant f/2.8, which is useful indoors.


----------



## Wideopen (Apr 9, 2012)

ruuneos said:


> Invest to lovely L glass and then go for FF so you get best gear for it already



+1


----------



## squarebox (Apr 10, 2012)

Just to chime in with what I eventually ended up doing.

Decided to go for more glass over a new body. Looking over my pictures I found myself favoring the wide end more so then the long end. The other big gripe I had was low-light performance. So I went with picking up the new 600ex flash for indoor use, preordering the new 24-70mk2 to replace my 18-55 kit lens and picking up a 100mm macro lens which I was hoping to use as a decent telephoto lens.

Let me say that getting the flash was the best idea as my 35L really shines with a flash attached. I am completely blown away at how sharp this lens is when bouncing the flash. Before I was always shooting wide open and knew it wasn't the sharpiest but I hadn't realized it was such a huge difference.

As an aside, my next purchase later this year will be the the 5dmk3 or this new FF budget body there are rumors about. And after that the 70-200 and something in the UWA area, though I a hoping for a new version in there somewhere.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 10, 2012)

squarebox said:


> Probably a ton of other posts like these here already, but I thought I'd ask specifically for my situation.
> 
> I currently have the following gear
> 
> ...


 
You might be better off getting the 5D MK II and the 24-105mm kit lens while selling your crop camera and lenses. A 17- 40mm L would be plenty wide and can be bought used for about $600, the same as your 10-22 would sell for.

I sold my 5D MK II to finance my 5D MK III. Its a nice camera, but so was the 5D MK II, I think you would be quite happy with it.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 10, 2012)

When you are talking about low light - do you mean high iso or long shutter duration?


----------



## squarebox (Apr 10, 2012)

When I mentioned low light I was referring to hand holding shots in the dark. Where even iso 3200 is not enough to get the shot at 1/50 or under. Or just not being able to focus. Both of which getting a flash has helped with enormously.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Apr 11, 2012)

Sell it all but the 50/1.4 and buy a 5d3. You can run with that and add later. No need in buying things twice, or in your case, three times.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 11, 2012)

squarebox said:


> When I mentioned low light I was referring to hand holding shots in the dark. Where even iso 3200 is not enough to get the shot at 1/50 or under. Or just not being able to focus. Both of which getting a flash has helped with enormously.



iso3200 to me is just low light. When you get to iso 12800 then that to me is when AF starts getting hard.

If you are talking flash then that is a different ball game


----------



## Tracy Pinto (Apr 11, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> squarebox said:
> 
> 
> > Probably a ton of other posts like these here already, but I thought I'd ask specifically for my situation.
> ...



I think this is a sound approach.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 11, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> Sell it all but the 50/1.4 and buy a 5d3. You can run with that and add later. No need in buying things twice, or in your case, three times.



I agreed....my 50mm f1.4 has been working overtime, since I got the 5D III. I'm enjoying mine 5D III VERY MUCH.

*Future gear:*
5D III
24-70 f2.8 II - (will sell my 24-105 and use the money toward to new 24-70)
70-200 f2.8 IS II
50mm f1.4 - (maybe 50L, still enjoy my f1.4)


----------



## squarebox (Apr 12, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > Sell it all but the 50/1.4 and buy a 5d3. You can run with that and add later. No need in buying things twice, or in your case, three times.
> ...



yeah dylan, this is where i'm heading.


----------

