If you had the choice....

5D mark ii and 50mm 1.8 - eventually upgrading nifty when I have the money

or keep

5D classic and 35L

Thanks for looking

Just my worthless opinion, but glass is forever, bodies come and go. If you want to upgrade later, then keep what you have and upgrade the body later. I would never go back in quality of my lenses for a better body.

I think you would lose more in the lens than you would gain in the camera.

Are you kidding me ! trade the 35 L for a 50mm , upgrade the body when you'll have some money !!

Don't get rid of your 35L for a POS nifty. I love the nifty but not that kind of trade. You have a similar setup that I was contemplating before getting the sig 50.

I think it'd be really lousy shooting on 50mm versus 35m. Where as 5d vs 5dmk2 you're mostly losing bigger screen, video, and megapixels you don't really need tbh.

5dc has no sensor cleaning and it is very hard to use the screen or the view through the eyepiece in bright sunlight. This was my biggest gripe.

Wonderful image quality though.

So if you can put up with some of the 5dc's obvious shortcomings, you will be able to take beautiful images.

But I personally need the extras the 5d2 brings.

5d2 and a siggy 50 is a nice combo.

5D2 upgrade is worth it, but with rumors heating up about the 5D3 release announcement it may be worth it for you to wait at least until specs are official. Maybe you'll want to get it instead of the mk2...

Also as stated by everyone, why on gods green earth would you give up an awesome lens for a POS???

Although optically the 50 F/1.8 Mk II is a great lens, even if the build isn't so great, personally I would find it difficult to give up a very good lens to get a better body, especially if this would be my only lens.

Having said that, IMO, for me the jump from 40D to 5D and 5D to 5D II was equally big, so I wouldn't hesitate to get that body, and as to "impending releases" of newer cameras, it will likely be another 9 to 10 months at least before the successor of the 5D II will be announced (if there wil be a successor, that isn't sure yet either), so I certainly wouldn't hold my breath for it.

If you think you will get better results or more pleasure from a 5D II and a 50 F/1.8 Mk II than from a 5D plus 35L, by all means, go for it, there is nothing wrong with either combo. If you do like the 35 mm FL, I would seriously consider a 35 F/2 or a Samyamg 35 F/1.4, however. 50 mm wise, if you can live with the relatively small aperture as 50 mms go, and the sound of the AF motor, another lens to consider would be the 50 F/2.5 Compact Macro, or of course there also is the 50 F/1.4, and possibly the 50 F/1.8 Mk I, which is optically the same as the 50 F/1.8 Mk II, but has a better build and a proper focusing ring and scale.

Kind regards, Wim

I'd keep what you have until you can upgrade the body. Keep the 135L.

Bodies come and go, but glass is forever! (Unless it divorces you and takes your house, car, money, dog ... but that's a different body.) YMMV.

I'm sorry... But, I don't get it. One spends over $2K on a camera for its capabilities, and is willing to tie one of the cheapest lenses out there to it- as their only lens. I just don't get it. It just does not make sense.

Sounds newbie to me.

It took me years to learn that glass is the important thing. The better quality you can afford the better your images.

Just wait a little the 5D MKII is getting cheaper all the time.

Im gonna go against the grain here and vote for the 5DII and nifty fifty. Why? Because the 5DII wont be around as a new camera for much longer. People say wait for the 5DIII but i say get the 5DII while its still avalable. The 5DIII will probably cost alot more. and yes glass is the most important, but the nifty fifty is practically a disposable lens that makes the camera useable until the OP can afford a better lens. I dont see anything wrong with that