# 5DII+24-105 or 60D/70D+17-55



## silex (Apr 15, 2012)

Hi everyone,

This is my first post, although I've been lurking on this forum for quite a while now. I've been planning to buy my first DSLR for a few months now, initially I was waiting for the 650D or 70D to be released, but with the release of the 5D3 and the drop in price of the 5D2 I'm thinking that there may be another option for my first purchase.

I travel a lot so I plan to shoot a lot of travel pictures, plus some landscapes and portraits. I don't plan to do any kind of sports or kids pictures, so capturing fast action is not a priority for me.

I can afford to put quite a lot of money in this, so I'd rather buy equipment that I can grow into rather than buying something cheap now and then figuring I need something better one year from now and losing money on the resale. I don't want to waste money either by buying something that I'll never exploit to its full potential.

My first option would be to get the 60D, or its successor (either the 650D or the 70D depending on how Canon positions them in the range). I'd get the body only, and buy the 17-55 f/2.8 to go with it. I live in Hong Kong, and the current price for those would be around 2000 US$. Later on I'd probably get the 10-22 for panoramas, plus maybe a 70-200L if I feel the need for it (probably the f/4,not sure about IS or not).

The new option I've been thinking about would be getting the 5D2 kit, which has dropped a lot in price recently, and can be found for 2700$. 700$ extra is no small amount, but I figure it's a small price to pay for the increased IQ and this way I don't have to go through the process of building up a crop lens collection to potentially have to sell it all down the line if I go full frame later on. My understanding is that the build quality of the 24-105 f/4L is much better than the 17-55, and that the increased low light ability of the 5D2 would more than make up for the lost stop, and that similarly i'd get as narrow a depth of field with f/4 on FF than with f/2.8 on a crop. The weather sealing would be a big plus in Hong Kong as well. With regards to the other lenses, the 17-40 f/4L can be found for the same price as the 10-22, and I'd get the same 70-200L than for the crop if I need it (provided I can live with the reduced range on a FF).

The only downsides I've found for the 5D2 compared to the 60D are the focus system (although I've read that the center point is excellent, so it should cope with my non-fast action photography), the reduced fps (similarly not a big deal for me) and the extra bulk (could be an issue with the traveling).

I am now asking myself a few questions. First of all, even though I can afford it, would I be way over my head by investing 2700$ for my first DSLR? I've been assuming all along that it wouldn't make much sense to just go with the 60D kit lens as I'd probably quickly need something better, but reading lens reviews it is easy to convince myself that I need more and more. I'm also wondering how future proof getting the 5D2 would be: if Canon was to come up with an entry level FF later on, could it be more suited for my needs than the 5D2 is? Basically I'm not sure how Canon could come up with something better than the 5D2 yet inferior to the 5D3 for a price similar to the 5D2... I'm also wondering about the upcoming 650D and 70D, and how the balance may tilt in their direction if they prove to be much better than the 60D.

Thanks in advance for your advice, and for bringing up anything I have not thought of.


----------



## bycostello (Apr 15, 2012)

i'd spend less on bodies and more on lenses


----------



## silex (Apr 16, 2012)

So would you recommend me to get other lenses (if so, which ones) or to just save now to have more budget for lenses later?


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 16, 2012)

if you *CAN* afford it, get the 5DII + 24-105 and probably the 50mm 1.8/1.4 and 85 1.8

If you can afford more, by all means go the whole hog. and get the 1.2's, and the 70-200

That said, examine what you want to shoot, if its going to be primarily indoor, low light, the full frame wouldnt hurt. But if you're doing a lot of landscapes, outdoorsy shots on tripods, where ISO performance, go for the 7D/70D etc, and some good glass to go with it.


----------



## silex (Apr 16, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> But if you're doing a lot of landscapes, outdoorsy shots on tripods, where ISO performance, go for the 7D/70D etc, and some good glass to go with it.



I'm not sure I follow, do you mean that for landscapes with lots of light the full frame won't add anything to the image quality and hence I divert some of the body budget to get better lenses? Or do you mean that somehow a 7D/70D would perform better than the 5D2 for these pictures? One kind of landscapes pictures I plan to do in particular is night cityscapes, and I assumed that the 5D2 + 17-40 would perform much better for this than a crop + 10-22.

In terms of being able to afford the 5D2 kit, I basically don't need the money I'd spend on it aside from the satisfaction of looking at my savings account balance. I could actually fork out the money for a 5D3, but then I'm convinced that it definitely wouldn't make sense to get this as a first DSLR and that the extra cost would be better spent on some lenses or something entirely different such as a new computer or just save the money.

The reason why I'm thinking to go for the 5D2 rather than a crop on the other hand is that I think I'm likely to spend more money on the long term by first buying a crop plus lenses and then getting a full frame plus lenses at some point, while I had the money required to go full frame in the first place.

I guess that I'm leaning so much towards the 5D2 purchase now that my main concern would be canon coming up with a similarly priced full frame body at some stage that would be better value for money as far as I'm concerned. But again I'm not sure how canon would manage to create something better than a 5D2 yet inferior enought to the 5D3 that it could be priced like a 5D2.


----------



## michi (Apr 16, 2012)

It's a tough choice you have to make there. I have both the 7D and the 5DII with a bunch of EF-S and EF lenses. When taking travel shots, it's hard to see a difference between the two cameras. Of course you do get a little better high ISO and less depth of field with the 5DII. The 7D with a 15-85 lens is a fantastic combo for traveling. It's also quite a bit lighter than a 5DII with a comparable 24-105. And you are saving some serious money which could be used for another nice lens like a 10-22 or 70-200. The problem is that sooner or later you may get the full format bug (like I did) and will want a full format body. At that point all your EF-S lenses will be worthless. If I could do it all over again, I would have just purchased EF lenses and saved some money in the long run. Again, there is really no good answer for you, you need to figure out yourself what it is you want, and probably more important, what you want in the future.


----------



## silex (Apr 16, 2012)

michi said:


> The problem is that sooner or later you may get the full format bug (like I did) and will want a full format body. At that point all your EF-S lenses will be worthless.



This is exactly what I'm worried may happen to me if I go crop now and get the FF bug later on. Being an expat in Hong Kong I'm pretty much cut out of any major craigslist kind of sites which are in chinese, so my only hope of reselling any EF-S lenses I would have bought for my crop camera would be through second hand photography shops, in which case I'd certainly suffer a substantial loss.


----------



## michi (Apr 16, 2012)

Yeah, I understand. Here's an interesting current thread to read to talk you into crop cameras:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1019&thread=41227407

And it's kind of true. In the end it's still down to the photographer. The camera matters, but I have a friend for example who has an amazing eye for photography. He doesn't even care that much about taking pictures and has a relatively cheap point and shoot. The pictures he takes though are WAY better than what I come up with. I'm jealous... So will the 7D be sufficient? Most likely yes. Will you itch to go full frame anyway? That's the big question. And taking a loss when selling the lenses is of course also a factor now and later.


----------



## silex (Apr 16, 2012)

Very interresting link, thanks!


----------



## jasonsim (Apr 16, 2012)

If you think you might go full frame one day, but still want to save on a cheaper body now...I'd go for a used 7D if you can find one in good condition. Then only buy EF lenses. I'd suggest 17-40mm f/4L USM and 70-200mm f/4L IS USM or 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM (depends on you telephoto needs, the f/4L IS is lighter and zooms internally which is nice). I would not hesitate buying these two lenses used, if they are in good condition. If you need something in between these lenses, get a low light master like the Canon 50mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/1.2L USM. The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX HSM is also very good, if you can find a good one in a store (that you can test).

Then, when you want to upgrade your body, you don't need to sell off all your lenses. 

Good luck,
Jason


----------



## machingo (Apr 16, 2012)

FWIW, I went through a similar thought process late last year when the 5DII prices dropped. I owned a 550d with the 17-55 2.8, a 50/1.4 and 70-200. Given the opportunity of $ in hand, and ability to sell the t2i and 17-55, I wound up with the 5D, later on bought a 24-70 mk 1, and haven't regretted it. 

From my point-of-view, the 5D2 is a body with which I could use "forever", or until I could practically, for professional reasons, justify the need for better AF, low-light ability, etc. In all honesty, at times, I do miss the IS in the 17-55, though (and this has made me re-think technique a bit)... but even that will not be a problem for you on the 24-105.

Another point to consider... compared to the effective 17-55 focal lenth range (27 - 88), you do get more flexibility with the 24-105 on the 5D.

Best of luck, and enjoy!


----------



## nitsujwalker (Apr 16, 2012)

jasonsim said:


> If you think you might go full frame one day, but still want to save on a cheaper body now...I'd go for a used 7D if you can find one in good condition. Then only buy EF lenses. I'd suggest 17-40mm f/4L USM and 70-200mm f/4L IS USM or 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM (depends on you telephoto needs, the f/4L IS is lighter and zooms internally which is nice). I would not hesitate buying these two lenses used, if they are in good condition. If you need something in between these lenses, get a low light master like the Canon 50mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/1.2L USM. The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX HSM is also very good, if you can find a good one in a store (that you can test).
> 
> Then, when you want to upgrade your body, you don't need to sell off all your lenses.
> 
> ...



I agree with most of this except the 17-40l... I used it on may crop cameras (xsi, 50d, 7d) and now I use it on my 5dmkii as an ultra-wide and honestly is leaves MUCH to be desired. Center sharpness is acceptable (especially on crop) but the corners turn to mush on full frame. If I could do it over, I'd splurge and get the 16-35 f2.8...


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 16, 2012)

Silex, some advantages of a FF camera are that there are a lot more options at the wider focal lengths (but all the FF wide lenses cost a lot more than their crop body counterparts) and all the EF zooms are designed for a FF. The 10-22 is sharper than the 17-40L wide open and it costs a lot less than the 16-35L II. There are no Canon-made wide primes for the cropy body, whereas there are many for FF ( 14, 17, 24, 35, etc.). For the midrange, the 17-55 is cheaper and lighter than the 24-70L and much cheaper than the 24-70L II once it replaces version 1. How happy would you be buying a current 24-70L knowing that it's replacement is better and will be released soon? At longer focal lengths, the 1.6x crop factor lengthens the 'reach,' which is nice if you're into wildlife photography.

In your case, I'd suggest a crop system because you will get more value for your budget. Lenses retain their value much better than bodies, so that is where most of your money should go. One thing that I would caution is that you might want to look into bodies that support micro-focus adjustments (60D does not), but the 50D and 7D do. That could be important if you plan on shooting fast lenses in the future (larger than f/2.8 ). Otherwise, you might end up sending the lens and body to Canon to have them calibrated together.

I'm not sure if Canon sells refurbs in Hong Kong, but if they do, that might be a good way to buy your gear. I have owned the 10-22 and 17-55 and both are excellent choices, but I'd suggest getting the 17-55 or 15-85 first. I recently sold the 17-55 for 80% of what I paid when I moved FF. If you buy a good copy used, you shouldn't lose much if you decide to upgrade lenses or the body in the future. I'd also suggest not buying lenses specifically for FF capability if you're not planning on switching in a year or two. Who knows what your financial situation will be like further down the road, and who can guarantee that the 24-105L II might not be released then? And if a newer version is released, how much value with the current version retain?


----------



## well_dunno (Apr 16, 2012)

I would get a 60D (or 70D) and a few EF lenses ( preferrably L)... If you have been reading this forum and can afford FF cameras, FF bug is already there. You are considering an FF option after all... 

Bodies loose value quicker but lenses hold their values for a long time, so, if you decide you do not want to continue with photography, you would have best value to turn into cash with the combination above. If you prefer to continue, then an FF to work with the EF lenses is a good option. Only issue wit this approach is that you do not get the versatility of the EF-S lenses on 60D...

My humble opinion anyway... 

Cheers!


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 17, 2012)

silex said:


> D.Sim said:
> 
> 
> > But if you're doing a lot of landscapes, outdoorsy shots on tripods, where ISO performance, go for the 7D/70D etc, and some good glass to go with it.
> ...



Personally, if you asked me, its more of a FF not adding much to the IQ at lower ISOs to make a big enough difference. FF's biggest advantage is their light sensitivity, and their low light performance. Its a very subjective thing, but imo if you were taking landscape shots, you'd usually be shooting stopped down, on a tripod, with filters and as low an ISO as you can go. This goes the same for night shots, you'd just extend the exposure and since you're shooting on a tripod you're fine. Landscapes don't generally move, unless you're trying to shoot an earthquake, in which case my advice for your shot would be to take cover.

One might also argue that if the D800 is a "landscape photographers camera" because of all those megapixels giving you fine detail, the pixel density of a crop gives you something similar, and also from the centre of the image - Not everyone might agree with me, and there will be counter arguments, but thats my 0.02$

As far as low light handholdability goes though, especially when you need to stop subject movement, FF is king. That said, some of the newer crops do have pretty impressive ISO, and you *could* crank it up if you need to, but you'll pay for that in the noise, which will not be apparent on an FF.


----------



## canon23 (Apr 17, 2012)

Silex,

I was in a similar situation months ago. At that time with the rumors of the 5D Mark III coming out, I waited on upgrading from my Rebel XSI. When it finally came out and the hysteria finally died down a bit, I re-evaluated my needs and decided against the 5D Mark III ($3,500 had much weight, but also I thought as for my first FF--which I really wanted to venture into as my next body, I didn't really *need* the Mark III yet). 

Before I bought my new camera (5D Mark II kit w/24-105) last month, it was down to either the 5D Mark II or 7D. I chose the 5D Mark II because I wanted to venture into FF and made up my mind on that. Plus, I thought it would be a logically step to upgrade to the 5D Mark III in a few years or its sucessor at that time. 

Since you have the $ to spend on some nicer gears, I would vote for the 5D Mark II and then invest in L lens from hence forward. That's what I'm doing. Good luck!


----------



## silex (Apr 19, 2012)

Thanks to all of you for your insightful replies. I think I'm going to give myself some more time before buying the camera, hopefully canon will come up with interresting stuff in the meanwhile.


----------

