FF Body or wide angle lens?

I never thought I'd be in a situation like this because I thought 24-105 is a range that will cover everything for my kind of photography. Now I know I was wrong.

I took this picture of Burj Khalifah tower in Dubai

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/45938553@N08/6​436630149/

24mm is not very wide on a crop body at all. On a crop 1.6, 24mm is about 38mm. 17mm on a crop will be about 27mm.

Don't know for sure about 17mm on a crop being wide enough for this subject, but with a subject like this you could have stitched 2 images. If you did get another lens I would recommend the 10-22 over the 17-40 for a crop camera with the lenses you currently have. It's actually quite small and light compared to the lenses you currently have.

you mentioned "your kind of photography", what kind is it? landscapes? without going into FF vs crop, just a mention of your widest FL (@24), IMO a landscape photographer needs at least a lens with 17mm in his bag (crop or FF).

To answer what you asked, 24 on FF body would have come close. However, I believe it would also have changed the perspective a little in that the tower would fit because it would appear further away. I guess you could move closer and see what would happen. Not familiar with this particular landmark, so I no knowledge of where you may have been or if moving closer would put you laying down in a street - which I would strongly recommend against.

I have the Canon 10-22. It's such a fun lens! I use it quite often in low light. You have to be careful about objects around the edges because you'll get some distortion. Some of this can be corrected PP.

Regardless of how wide your lens is you can always find a subject it wont cover. Just keep in mind the wider you go the more distortion you will get and that really becomes pronounced tilting an ultra wide up. But back to your choices, I would go full frame with your current lens rather than wide angle on your crop. I faced the same decision with a different lens ( I had the 17-40), instead of a 10-22 I picked up a 5D. I havent used my 40D much since.

Thank you everybody for your advice on this. I think I will stick to my plan and get a ff body and maybe afterwards I might get a wide angle lens.

Seems like a job for a Tilt-Shift lens more than just switching to a FF body.

I mean you have to consider where you are ( Dubai ) and what you are photographing ...... extraemely tall buildings. Don't they have the tallest buildings in the world there.

Seems like you were intent on getting a FF body, even before you posed this question.

Try renting a Canon Wide Tilt/Shift TS-E 17mm f/4L Manual Focus Lens for EOS and using it on your current body. It seems to be designed to do what you want to do.

Before I had the 5D I would drag my 24-60 and 10-20 with me, which was a pain taking 2 lenses around, plus any prime or telephoto. After getting the 5D I found 24mm to be quite wide (about the same as 15mm was on crop) so I sold the UWA and haven't bothered with one since. I carry around less lenses now.

Unless you shoot sports (need a fast camera) or shoot wildlife (need as much reach as possible, and better AF) then I would suggest a FF to anybody!

If that is what you like to shoot, why not consider a tilt-shift lens?

Hmmmmm.... Actually I don't have specific type of photography. Mostly I love taking photos of my family and my kids. However, when I travel I love to take pictures of land marks of the place where I'm. If you are in Dubai I'd think any photographer would want to take a photo of Burj Khalifah. If I go to Paris I'd take photos for Eiffel Tower.
I wanted a FF body before buying my crop one but it was out of my reach at the time. Maybe in a year or two I'll get one. So, I'm afraid if I buy a wide andgle lens now, I might ditch it once I get a FF body. Also it is not easy to sell camera gear here In S.A.

Why do you want a FF camera? What do you think it will do for you?

There are differences, but an awful lot of people seem to gravitate towards FF just because someone told them it was "better" or they have an idea that it will somehow "revolutionize" their photography. It isn't and it won't.

Actually a crop sensor camera can often be a better choice. For the type of photography you say you are doing, the camera you have should be great. For travel, in particular, the camera you have is smaller and lighter, so easier to pack and tote around. The lenses for it also can be smaller and lighter. You "get more" out of the telephoto, so can "get by" with a smaller lens. For example, if you go FF and still want the reach that you presently enjoy with 200mm on your longest lens, you'll need to add a 300mm lens (or perhaps a 1.4X teleconverter, though that will fall short a bit).

You just need to add a wide angle lens. Get a Tokina 12-24/4 or a Canon 10-22 and use it on your present camera.

And it's silly to worry about what might happen "some day". If for some reason you do eventually get a FF camera, you will have no problem selling the crop lens and, if needed, replacing it. Besides, a Tokina 12-24 will work partially on a FF camera. It goes as wide as 18 or 19mm wide before it starts vignetting on my 5DII.

Shooting tall structures like that, from close to the base and with your camera tilted upward, you will have problems with "keystoning" and need to learn to deal with it. Yes, Tilt-Shift lenses are one way of dealing with keystoning in architectural shots... But will only work partially in more extreme cases and might be dealt with in some other ways. You also change your location (back up, shoot from farther away and use a less wide lens, use perspective correction in Photoshop, etc.). This will be the case regardless of whether you are shooting full frame or a crop camera.

Is this one 829m high or something like this?
I took pictures with 5d and 17-40 of cn tower in Toronto.
17mm was still very tide for 500+ meters landmark to get it in frame by staying near to it.
I would recommend to get UWA zoom, like 11-16 from Tokina. To use it now.
And keep saving for FF. Personally, I really enjoy my 5d for travel and family pictures.

You will most certainly be happy with the 24-105 on a FF body. I love my 24-105 on my 1Ds2. However, there are times when I still need to use my 17-40 because 24mm just isn't wide enough. The improvement from 38.4mm to 24mm on a FF body will allow you to get a lot more in frame.

As stated above, if you put the 17-40 on your crop sensor you will get some barrel distortion, but the 24mm on a FF sensor will not produce that barrel distortion. If it were me, I'd go up to FF just for the fact I don't want to spend time using Lens Correction if I don't have to.