New Member, Looking for Upgrade Advice!

Hi Everyone,
I've been a watcher for awhile and this is my first post. I'll get straight to the point.

Current setup: Canon Rebel T2i, EF-S 17-55 F2.8, EF 50mm 1.4

Predicament: My head has been exploding with gear overload wanting to upgrade for awhile to a Canon 5d Mark ii/iii, and a slew of new lenses, but I'm torn on a few things. First a bit of a background about me, and what I like to shoot. I am an artsy fartsy type, I love shooting just about anything that can be deemed artistic, whether its landscapes, mundane objects composed well, or people. I do a lot of post processing, but want to start with the best possible images. In a lot of ways I don't really feel I NEED the upgrade I am considering, but I just want it. I am not a professional nor do I see myself wanting to do this for money ever, although I have done photoshoots for people and even a wedding so I will always occasionally consider shooting for side jobs. To be blunt about it, I have the money for the upgrade, I love photography and it's not going to be something I stop doing ever, so I'm basically just deciding whether or not I want to fork out the money for an upgrade versus saving it and putting it towards something else.

OK, so with my current setup there are just a few things I don't like that much.
1. The lack of 100% viewfinder. I still hate when I see the pictures after the fact and they aren't quite framed exactly what I thought while looking through the viewfinder. I think this will be a big deal to me.
2. Not that great ISO performance with the Rebel. It's ok, but I handhold a lot, and from what I understand the jump to full frame will be significant in terms of low light, high iso image quality.
3. I need a better long zoom lens. I had a 55-250 that I sold, it was ok, I didn't like the image quality that much and combined with the rebel I felt I had a lot of missed shots when shooting pictures of my nieces/nephews, kids, families, etc.

So what I'm considering.
Camera: Canon 5d Mark ii, or 5d Mark iii. Should I just go for the gold? I think the improved autofocus would be worth it considering I do like to shoot people and occasionally sports, but its not like it can't be done either with the 5d Mark ii.

Lens: 70-200 F2.8 IS II or F4 IS. This one is tough. I would get the 2.8, but I looked at both in person and holy Lord is the lens gigantic. THis wouldn't bother me at all while shooting, but I'm a little nervous that I wouldn't want to take it everywhere due to it's size. However, I think the extra Bokeh and speed would be great to have.

Lens: 17-40 F4L, 24-105 F4L IS, or 24-70 F2.8L. I love the 17-55 F2.8 IS, but since I already have a 50mm 1.4, and I want a 70-200, I was thinking the 17-40 would be more appropriate than the other two, however obviously there are advantages to the other 2 as well. The thing I dislike the most about the 17-55 is the wide angle distortion. Will the 17-40 be better about that? I've ready the 24-105 is worse than the 17-55, and the 24-70 is somewhere in between.

Based on my described uses and considerations, I'd love to hear some opinions as to which setup would be most recommended, or even some sense to be slapped into me if I'm overlooking something obvious. Although I have the money for it, I am always a deal seeker, and would basically like to have the absolute best setup FOR THE MONEY. Meaning, if I'm only going to gain .0001% improved image quality by spending an extra grand, then I'd rather not do that if its not going to have any other obvious benefit. Thanks everyone

You should check out the 70-200mm f/4L USM. Much lighter than it's big brothers and very, very sharp outdoors even handheld if its faster than 1/200th. If I were you, I would go with the 5DMKIII since you have the money. I have my 5DII on the way. Just upgraded from the T3i.

Nice, I'll be curious what you think of your 5d ii compared with the T3i! What wide angle lens are you considering for it? To be honest the wide angle lens decision is my toughest, I don't think I'll go wrong either way with the 70-200, from what I understand they are all as good as it gets.

the 70-200 wont be long on a FF. so be ready for that.

Low light, higher ISO, and autofocus are the main differences that I see between a 5D3 and a 5D2. The 5D2 is held back to a degree by its old school 9 point AF system- with one cross type AF sensor. Reality is that it's really similar to the T2i's AF system- limited- but if you know what it is and how to manipulate it- it will be fine on a 5D2. The 5D3's Af system, in contrast is more sophisticated and more accurate than any other that I've laid hands on. Recommendation would be based upon budget.
If you get the 24-105L with the 5D3 or 5D2, you save a little bit that way- (and there are other combos you can get ). With lenses, like a lot of other things, you can basically, to an extent, compare using prices. The better lenses are often more expensive. Some gems don't follow this- research is your friend.

When you stated that you missed shots with your 55-250, were you using AI servo with all points selected ? Or is it just the slow nature of the lens' autofocusing ? Like the 5D2, your t2i has only one cross type AF sensor; the outer points are sensitive to contrast either vertically, or horizontally- depending upon which point. This can make a big difference in AI servo- which is why going to a more pro body with more cross type AF points- helps with sports, action, etc. Not necessarily the lens. the point here is that both the body and the lens needs to work together- it's not just the lens- and it's not just the body.


My suggestion would be to go with a 5D3 and a 24-105L and if you want - the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. At that point, I would stop for now. Then learn the camera, and the two lenses - because they will already cover a similar range as what you have already... At that point, then consider getting something wider, or more specific to whatever needs you have. it gives you a chance to vet out your camera and lenses first- and then get whatever else. Note you could probably swap out the 24-105L with a 24-70, but you lose IS. Not necessarily a deal breaker. As neither a 5D2 nor a 5D3 has built in flash- a 430 EXII or a 580 EX II or 600 EX should be on your short list of things to get as well.

Swing for the fences!

24-105 feels great on a full frame camera. Plus, for my personal preference, 24mm is wide enough. Unless you really want to get wider, then maybe the 17-40 f4L down the road.

That being said, if you have the cash, get the 5DIII.

Thank you everyone for the advice, it's very helpful. Wayne to answer a few of your questions, with the 55-250 I did have the camera set to servo, like you said the biggest issue was the slow AF and inaccuracy, coupled with the lens being slow in general at longer zooms to where I'd have to crank the ISO to get a decent shutter speed. Needless to say, still photography is still my majority use but I really do want the capability that an advanced AF would bring, even if it's only used on occasion.

I forgot to mention that I do own a 430 EXii flash ; )

Paolo, in general I'm happy with how wide 17mm is on a crop, so the 24 would be fine for me at the wide end on full frame, but since I already own a 50mm 1.4 and I plan on getting a 70-200 I thought a 17-40 might offer the wide angle I already have, plus the option of going even wider. Plus, will the 17-40 distort less around 24 than the 24-105? I think I'll be happy with either or. Between you and Wayne though you both suggest the 24-105 though and it probably would be the most versatile to learn all the ropes with the 5d!

My 24-70 distorts at 24 but nothing terrible. I had my 24-105 for a week with my 30D years ago, but I do know that it can distort a bit worse than the 24-70.

As a walkaround, and also now owning a "normal" prime for those DOF shots...I rather miss the 24-105 to just mess around with.

GuitarDTO wrote in post #14779121
...
1. The lack of 100% viewfinder. I still hate when I see the pictures after the fact and they aren't quite framed exactly what I thought while looking through the viewfinder. I think this will be a big deal to me.
..

You know you can crop the photo to match what you thought you'd shot, right !

Perfect_10 wrote in post #14780227
You know you can crop the photo to match what you thought you'd shot, right !

haha, yes of course ; ) It would still be nice to know exactly what you are going to get looking through the viewfinder!

580 exII or 600.

Paolo.Leviste wrote in post #14779546
24-105 feels great on a full frame camera. Plus, for my personal preference, 24mm is wide enough. Unless you really want to get wider, then maybe the 17-40 f4L down the road.

That being said, if you have the cash, get the 5DIII.

wayne.robbins wrote in post #14779523
Low light, higher ISO, and autofocus are the main differences that I see between a 5D3 and a 5D2. The 5D2 is held back to a degree by its old school 9 point AF system- with one cross type AF sensor. Reality is that it's really similar to the T2i's AF system- limited- but if you know what it is and how to manipulate it- it will be fine on a 5D2. The 5D3's Af system, in contrast is more sophisticated and more accurate than any other that I've laid hands on. Recommendation would be based upon budget.
If you get the 24-105L with the 5D3 or 5D2, you save a little bit that way- (and there are other combos you can get ). With lenses, like a lot of other things, you can basically, to an extent, compare using prices. The better lenses are often more expensive. Some gems don't follow this- research is your friend.

When you stated that you missed shots with your 55-250, were you using AI servo with all points selected ? Or is it just the slow nature of the lens' autofocusing ? Like the 5D2, your t2i has only one cross type AF sensor; the outer points are sensitive to contrast either vertically, or horizontally- depending upon which point. This can make a big difference in AI servo- which is why going to a more pro body with more cross type AF points- helps with sports, action, etc. Not necessarily the lens. the point here is that both the body and the lens needs to work together- it's not just the lens- and it's not just the body.


My suggestion would be to go with a 5D3 and a 24-105L and if you want - the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. At that point, I would stop for now. Then learn the camera, and the two lenses - because they will already cover a similar range as what you have already... At that point, then consider getting something wider, or more specific to whatever needs you have. it gives you a chance to vet out your camera and lenses first- and then get whatever else. Note you could probably swap out the 24-105L with a 24-70, but you lose IS. Not necessarily a deal breaker. As neither a 5D2 nor a 5D3 has built in flash- a 430 EXII or a 580 EX II or 600 EX should be on your short list of things to get as well.

Swing for the fences!

Careyst wrote in post #14779207
You should check out the 70-200mm f/4L USM. Much lighter than it's big brothers and very, very sharp outdoors even handheld if its faster than 1/200th. If I were you, I would go with the 5DMKIII since you have the money. I have my 5DII on the way. Just upgraded from the T3i.

All good info here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

jhayesvw wrote in post #14779327
the 70-200 wont be long on a FF. so be ready for that.

Yes, it will be like 44-125 on a 1.6 crop camera. I could not live with that for family/kid photos when outside. Most of my photos of kids playing are between 125 and 200 on my crop camera.

A 70-200 would be great with a FF and your T2i for a variety of needs. I use f/2.8 to blur the background more often than to get a higher shutter speed.

I had never touched a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS before ordering mine and was shocked at the size/weight when I first got it. I never think about it today. It is not exactly a "travel" lens but I don't hesitate to take it to sporting events where such equipment is allowed.

I love my 24-105 and have never seen any problems with distortion but camera/lens combinations can yield different results.

GuitarDTO wrote in post #14779121
Hi Everyone,
I've been a watcher for awhile and this is my first post. I'll get straight to the point.

Current setup: Canon Rebel T2i, EF-S 17-55 F2.8, EF 50mm 1.4

Predicament: My head has been exploding with gear overload wanting to upgrade for awhile to a Canon 5d Mark ii/iii, and a slew of new lenses, but I'm torn on a few things. First a bit of a background about me, and what I like to shoot. I am an artsy fartsy type, I love shooting just about anything that can be deemed artistic, whether its landscapes, mundane objects composed well, or people. I do a lot of post processing, but want to start with the best possible images. In a lot of ways I don't really feel I NEED the upgrade I am considering, but I just want it. I am not a professional nor do I see myself wanting to do this for money ever, although I have done photoshoots for people and even a wedding so I will always occasionally consider shooting for side jobs. To be blunt about it, I have the money for the upgrade, I love photography and it's not going to be something I stop doing ever, so I'm basically just deciding whether or not I want to fork out the money for an upgrade versus saving it and putting it towards something else.

OK, so with my current setup there are just a few things I don't like that much.
1. The lack of 100% viewfinder. I still hate when I see the pictures after the fact and they aren't quite framed exactly what I thought while looking through the viewfinder. I think this will be a big deal to me.
2. Not that great ISO performance with the Rebel. It's ok, but I handhold a lot, and from what I understand the jump to full frame will be significant in terms of low light, high iso image quality.
3. I need a better long zoom lens. I had a 55-250 that I sold, it was ok, I didn't like the image quality that much and combined with the rebel I felt I had a lot of missed shots when shooting pictures of my nieces/nephews, kids, families, etc.

So what I'm considering.
Camera: Canon 5d Mark ii, or 5d Mark iii. Should I just go for the gold? I think the improved autofocus would be worth it considering I do like to shoot people and occasionally sports, but its not like it can't be done either with the 5d Mark ii.

Lens: 70-200 F2.8 IS II or F4 IS. This one is tough. I would get the 2.8, but I looked at both in person and holy Lord is the lens gigantic. THis wouldn't bother me at all while shooting, but I'm a little nervous that I wouldn't want to take it everywhere due to it's size. However, I think the extra Bokeh and speed would be great to have.

Lens: 17-40 F4L, 24-105 F4L IS, or 24-70 F2.8L. I love the 17-55 F2.8 IS, but since I already have a 50mm 1.4, and I want a 70-200, I was thinking the 17-40 would be more appropriate than the other two, however obviously there are advantages to the other 2 as well. The thing I dislike the most about the 17-55 is the wide angle distortion. Will the 17-40 be better about that? I've ready the 24-105 is worse than the 17-55, and the 24-70 is somewhere in between.

Based on my described uses and considerations, I'd love to hear some opinions as to which setup would be most recommended, or even some sense to be slapped into me if I'm overlooking something obvious. Although I have the money for it, I am always a deal seeker, and would basically like to have the absolute best setup FOR THE MONEY. Meaning, if I'm only going to gain .0001% improved image quality by spending an extra grand, then I'd rather not do that if its not going to have any other obvious benefit. Thanks everyone

Here's what I would do.

Get the 70-200 first. In fact, you might consider the 70-200 f/2.8L IS (first generation) or perhaps the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8L OS, which will cost you about the same as the 70-200 f/4L IS. Then shoot with it on your T2i, and see how you like it. If it works out, cool.


If you still need better high ISO at that point, then go straight past the 5D2 and get the 5D3. It's more expensive, yes, but it performs better at high ISOs and, more importantly, it does not exhibit banding at ISO 12800 and up -- the noise is film-like in the same way the noise on your T2i is. It also has everything you're looking for: autofocus, 100% viewfinder, etc. You'll be spending a lot of money, but you'll be spending it only once, because the 5D3 is reportedly so good at everything (truly a general-purpose camera in a way the 5D2 could never be) that you probably won't need to upgrade again for a very long time.

After that, it's a question of which "walkabout" lens to get for it. I'd say your best choices right now are the Canon 24-105 f/4L and the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC. Both are weathersealed, both have image stabilization, and they're both priced about the same, although the Canon can be had in kit form with the 5D3, and that could save you a bit of money.

GuitarDTO wrote in post #14779121
Current setup: Canon Rebel T2i, EF-S 17-55 F2.8, EF 50mm 1.4

OK, so with my current setup there are just a few things I don't like that much.
1. The lack of 100% viewfinder.
2. Not that great ISO performance with the Rebel.
3. I need a better long zoom lens. I had a 55-250 that I sold, it was ok, I didn't like the image quality that much and combined with the rebel I felt I had a lot of missed shots when shooting pictures of my nieces/nephews, kids, families, etc.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the 7D yet.

To address your points:
1. The 7D has an 100% viewfinder.
2. The 7D has better high ISO performance than the T2i. (But obviously not as good as the 5D2 or 5D3.)
3. With 5D2 or 5D3, a 70-200 will give you LESS reach than the 55-250. You will need to get the 100-400L or 400/5.6L to get the same reach on a FF body. In case you haven't held one before, the 100-400L is about the same size/weight as the 70-200/2.8. (Sure you can use a 1.4x or 2x extender with the 70-200/2.8L II, but your viewfinder will be much darker and your AF much slower -- remember extenders slow down AF by 50%.)

With the 7D, you can get a 70-300IS (black, compact, lightweight, and decent IQ) or 70-300L (white, heavy, but excellent IQ), or 100-400 or 70-200+1.4x. All of these will give you more reach than the 55-250. Not sure about the 5D3 AF, but the 7D AF is definitely faster and more accurate than the 5D2 AF.

GuitarDTO wrote in post #14779121
Camera: Canon 5d Mark ii, or 5d Mark iii.

Lens: 70-200 F2.8 IS II or F4 IS.

Lens: 17-40 F4L, 24-105 F4L IS, or 24-70 F2.8L. I love the 17-55 F2.8 IS,

As you said, you have the 17-55. You will be able to continue using it on the 7D.