Sell all my gear for 5D Mark II and 24-105 ?

Can you live with just having your Canon 15-85mm lens? The 24-105mm will be pretty close to this lens when it comes down to focal length. Now you will have a lot better ISO performance and you will get a smaller dof with the full frame. personally I would trade up to fill frame from a t1i but I think its worth my money to do so.

I have found that the 15-85 is more than enough range for me. How is the ISO performance on the 5D? Is it good enough for me to use the 24-105 indoors w/o flash?

ISO on the 5DII will eat your current bodies lunch.

windpig wrote in post #14270804
Would I?
Yes
But you have to decide if you can live without the EFOV of 320mm

Agree. but I personally would miss the 320mm equivalent. Additionally, the 105 on a FF is in fact 105mm. Not that much of a reach. His current EF=S 15-85mm is just as wide and has a longer reach with its FF equivalent of 24-136. While the 24-105 is a constant F4, compared to the 15-85 its only a 1/3 pf a step faster up to 35mm (56mm FF equivalent). If the 24-105 was f2.8 then maybe it would be a no brainer. While the IQ of the 24-105 may be a bit better, the 15-85 is no slouch. Considering the OP is only using his gear for family snaps and vacation photos, you have to wonder how much of this is just his desire to get a new toy with an L lens.

I can understand the limitations of his current body, both in features and ergonomics. I personally find the Rebels uncomfortably small, and my hands are not very large. Unless he has a compelling reason to go FF I would keep the lenses and upgrade the body to a 7D.

Go for it, you will not be disappointed. My 24-105 stays on my camera 95% and I use my 70-200 when I need the long reach or for portraits when I feel like it.

Do it. Full frame is where the party is. You can always by more lens as you redefine what you want from your photos. I should have went full from from the start.

Sniper258 wrote in post #14271706
Go for it, you will not be disappointed. My 24-105 stays on my camera 95% and I use my 70-200 when I need the long reach or for portraits when I feel like it.

Only problem is he'll need to sell his 70-200 to fund the purchase. People still take great photos with 30Ds-40Ds and Rebel Xti's. Its much less about the camera, and much more about the person behind the camera. By getting rid of his other lenses, he is significantly limiting his compositional flexibility. For his specific photography, what will he really gain?

Going from that many lenses down to one- wow! I have one question for you; if you decide that the 24-105 is not enough for you- how long will it take you to afford another lens to replace something that you do miss? At least, have you handled the 5DII with the 24-105 lens on it ? Personally, I'd save up a bit more- and keep the EF lenses- because on FF- their FOV is different and how they are perceived is different- like a new lens.. To put things in comparison- your proposed new 24-105 would be the equivalent of getting a 15-65 on a crop- as far as FOV is concerned. With your crop- would a range of 15mm to 65 be sufficient for most of your needs ?

The other side of me says- if that is what you want- jump! Nothing like scratching an itch! Then and again, maybe you just want to start over...

my comments were from the price that he is getting for the lenses and what he will be giving up.

If he feels that he will get $550 for the 70-200f/4, but looking at costs, if he didn't get the 5D2 kit, he could save a good $8-900. This would put him ahead by $250-350.

I have had a 50D with the 70-200f/4 and it didn't feel as good as I have with my 5D3 as not having that 1.6x crop factor, this lens now shines to me. He's got to work backwards from the lens numbers he used with a crop. So 70mm on FF is like 43mm on a crop. I have heard of many using this for portraits. I think that most of my vacation/travel on my 50D were at least shot at 45mm+ (that works out to 72mm FF).

I bet he could find a used 17-40L for around the $600 range. that would give him more ultra wide angle than he currently has up to the wide angle covered. I am told it's a nice lens to use.

he needs to go through his old shots to see what focal lengths he will really use.

There's another important question...

What do you intend to shoot (more specific than family/vacation) with that setup?

I find the 24-105 to be the ideal walk around lens to take care of the family shots, but I quickly reached for the 70-200 with 2xTC when I went on a whale watch on my last vacation.

If you want to capture beautiful vistas, then add the 17-40, too.

wayne.robbins wrote in post #14271825
Going from that many lenses down to one- wow! I have one question for you; if you decide that the 24-105 is not enough for you- how long will it take you to afford another lens to replace something that you do miss? At least, have you handled the 5DII with the 24-105 lens on it ? Personally, I'd save up a bit more- and keep the EF lenses- because on FF- their FOV is different and how they are perceived is different- like a new lens.. To put things in comparison- your proposed new 24-105 would be the equivalent of getting a 15-65 on a crop- as far as FOV is concerned. With your crop- would a range of 15mm to 65 be sufficient for most of your needs ?

The other side of me says- if that is what you want- jump! Nothing like scratching an itch! Then and again, maybe you just want to start over...

Completely agree. I'm not against upgrading to FF, but he should do it the "right" way and for the "right" reasons. Will FF give him what he needs for his style of photography? The 7D is 8fps vs the 5D2's 3.9. For photographing his kids that may be useful. The 7D has a 100% viewfinder, the 5D does not. The 7D has 19 focus points to the 5D'2s 9. While the 5D2 may have a superior sensor and may be a better portrait and landscape camera, its not the best choice for every situation. And, all his EF-s lenses will continue to be compatible with the 7D.

I have to agree with those who are essentially saying "hold on a sec!". The 5D2 is a fantastic camera, that's for sure, but if you're really constrained budget wise there may be better alternatives.

The 7D is also an excellent camera, with many features that you would appreciate when photographing your kids. It's also cheaper, and could allow you to purchase some really neat glass; such as the 17-55.

Either way you really can't go wrong, but keep in mind that with the 5D2 you'd be putting all of your eggs into one basket.

I have never been able to justify a 5D2 over the 7D. Yes it's got better high ISO but it's at most 1 stop and until Tokina release the 24-70 VC there's no "standard" zoom with f2.8 and image stabilization for canon full frame cameras. The high ISO on the 5D2 or the 5D3 for that matters simply isn't good enough to compensate for 3 to 4 stops of IS lost for still subjects (e.g. when I travel and want to take photos of buildings without tripod in low light).

And if we are talking about image quality. Outside of pixel peeping there's not that much to be gained from full frame in a wide range of shooting conditions. There are some specific conditions that FF is better but it's never easy for a 3rd party to tell you if they apply to you.

What's more full frame lenses used on full frame bodies tends to show more weakness. Take the 17-40 for example on a crop on one's going to run into the extreme corners where it's basically useless. On a full frame you will see it, mind you it's really not a big factor as you'd rarely be interested in things that far in the corner. Still it's interesting that in general it seems the EF-S lenses are likely easier to design because there are quite a few very good ones where as EF sometimes makes me wonder a bit.

The real way to decide this is to somehow get rid of that gadget lust clouding your vision. The truth is most of us (guilty!) upgrade stuff because we are like little kids with the newest action figures. We want it not because it does something we really need but because it satisfy the 8 year old in us all.

gotak wrote in post #14272529
I have never been able to justify a 5D2 over the 7D. Yes it's got better high ISO but it's at most 1 stop and until Tokina release the 24-70 VC there's no "standard" zoom with f2.8 and image stabilization for canon full frame cameras. The high ISO on the 5D2 or the 5D3 for that matters simply isn't good enough to compensate for 3 to 4 stops of IS lost for still subjects (e.g. when I travel and want to take photos of buildings without tripod in low light).

And if we are talking about image quality. Outside of pixel peeping there's not that much to be gained from full frame in a wide range of shooting conditions. There are some specific conditions that FF is better but it's never easy for a 3rd party to tell you if they apply to you.

What's more full frame lenses used on full frame bodies tends to show more weakness. Take the 17-40 for example on a crop on one's going to run into the extreme corners where it's basically useless. On a full frame you will see it, mind you it's really not a big factor as you'd rarely be interested in things that far in the corner. Still it's interesting that in general it seems the EF-S lenses are likely easier to design because there are quite a few very good ones where as EF sometimes makes me wonder a bit.

The real way to decide this is to somehow get rid of that gadget lust clouding your vision. The truth is most of us (guilty!) upgrade stuff because we are like little kids with the newest action figures. We want it not because it does something we really need but because it satisfy the 8 year old in us all.

Completely and totally agree. I had been toying with upgrading my 60D to a 7D, because a 7D is a really great camera, but mostly because it has a number of really cool features and is a more "professional" camera. I got over it. If I can't take great pictures with my 60D, the 7D isn't going to help me. Perhaps one day I can justify the additional expense, but for the time being I'm now just happy take photos everyday, mostly with my EF-S 15-85 on board.

lilchoi26 wrote in post #14270732
Hello all,

I have had the urge to go FF for quite some time now and I am seriously considering selling my entire lens line up and purchasing the Canon 5D Mark II with 24-105 combo from Amazon. FYI, I most likely will be using my camera strictly for vacation/traveling purposes and taking pictures of my family. I am assuming the 24-105 is versatile enough for these purposes.

The only way to reasonably answer your question is to ask why you have the urge to go full frame.

Do you have solid, articulable reasons for doing so? Or is it because of the overly-hyped "full frame blows crop image quality out of the water!" mantra that is commonly spouted here (as if saying it enough makes it true)?

If you really want to see what a full frame camera will do for you, rent a 5D2. You already have a couple of lenses you can use with it. If you can't afford to rent a 5D2 for a couple of days, you certainly can't really afford to upgrade to one.

You should also find a 7D and 60D in a camera store and play with each a bit, to see how you like them. You may find that either one of those is plenty of camera for your purposes, and the bonus there is that you get to keep your lens collection.