Am I the only one who feels like Canon is hindering the practicality of upgrading?

Ken,

You are aware that this will start that age old argument about focal length and crop frame all over again?

My agument, for want of a better word, is as you put it in your last sentence. The lens is what the lens is, whatever that focal length happens to be, so the aperture also stays exactly the same. The fact that there is some of the image "being wasted" around the edge on a crop body is neither here nor there.

I think it's your lack of money that is hindering the "practicality of upgrading."
Canon has offered the choices but not everybody can afford them.

Focal length is focal length, it doesnt care about the sensor size.

calvinjhfeng wrote in post #14911565
I think it's your lack of money that is hindering the "practicality of upgrading."
Canon has offered the choices but not everybody can afford them.

Really? Considering the amount of money I already have invested into this hobby, and the fact that I'm looking to dump another $4000, I'd say that's quite a foolish statement on your behalf.

If you had paid attention to what I said in my OP, I already stated, there is NO direct equivalent to the 17-55 for full frame. The 24-70 lacks the IS and the 24-105 lacks the f/2.8.

artyman wrote in post #14911544
This does raise an interesting question, a lens with a max aperture of say f4, will it in fact be faster on a crop body. When you consider that actual aperture size is related to focal length, then logically it follows that say a 1/2" diameter (or whatever the max is) iris on a crop camera is greater in relation to the focal length and hence faster. Or is the fact that it is designed to spread that light beyond the confines of a crop sensor mean that as some of the light is wasted it pulls it back to f4.

Please discuss

I think I see where you re heading with this, but if you keep all things constant (lens, image framing, aperture, and ISO), the same lens is not going to give you a faster shutter speed just because it's on a crop. To even compare the same lens on a crop and full frame, you would absolutely have to recompose the image to be sure that each camera was looking at the same scene/lighting arrangement. Theoretically, I can imagine how a bright scene with dark edges could make any given lens SEEM faster on a crop sensor....that is, if the photog doesn't recompose so that the crop sensor is having to deal with the dark edges that the full frame sensor is seeing and compensating for.

mannetti21 wrote in post #14911881
.....The 24-70 lacks the IS and the 24-105 lacks the f/2.8.

Canon, rightly or wrongly decided that this focal length range does not need IS. Whether thats an issue or not can only be decided by each individual. But by all accounts it is likely to be a superb quality product. Certainly the lack of IS is not a serious issue for me, only the optical quality.

Given that the f/2.8 24-70 exists, why do we need f/2.8 on the 24-105? I disagree that this is a limited choice.

mannetti21 wrote in post #14911881
Really? Considering the amount of money I already have invested into this hobby, and the fact that I'm looking to dump another $4000, I'd say that's quite a foolish statement on your behalf.

If you had paid attention to what I said in my OP, I already stated, there is NO direct equivalent to the 17-55 for full frame. The 24-70 lacks the IS and the 24-105 lacks the f/2.8.

The 24-105 is a direct replacement, and the reason I say this is because since a 2.8 lens gathers twice the light, a full frame sensor is more than twice the size of a crop, hence it can absorb the same amount of light... and that's the problem. When I went to ff, I wanted something better!

The 24-105 + ff is marginally better than 17-55 + crop, and the 24-70 variants substantially better. Just going to FF will give you better per pixel sharpness with all your ef lenses.

I had the same dilemma when going from my 40D and 17-55 to the 5D. I found a 50 f1.4 prime and a 28-135 on FF made me much happier than the 17-55. You will have considerably lower light and shallow DoF with the prime, and the 28-135 is a cheap and easy lens for when you need a zoom. The 24-105 would work as well, but would defeat the cost advantage.

If a prime will work for your most of the time, then a prime/zoom combination would be a nice alternative to the 17-55. I much prefer it, but it doesn't work for everyone. Nothing else really exists for the FF cameras like the 17-55.

Well, yes! The tamron 24-70mm VC. It's the only available choice right now for 2.8 with image stabilisation and I think we are quite lucky that it is such a good lens.

The tamron is softer in the corners at 24mm than the Canon. However as you zoom in, the Tamron become sharper than the Canon. No clear winner in IQ. All the rest is in the Tamron favor, even build quality, weather sealing. Half the price, lighter, IS... If you need low light capable zoom for FF, it's the lens to get.

mannetti21 wrote in post #14909891
I've been considering selling my 7D and moving to the 5D3, primarily for the improved ISO performance, among some other less significant reasons. If I were to do this, I would sell the 7D, the 17-55, and maybe even the 28mm. Problem is, I feel limited as far as lens selection, in a such a way that I'm wondering if I'm actually better off with my current setup.

The main issue is trying to replace the 17-55 with an equivalent. Would be nice to have the 24-105 for the versatile range, but the f/4 obviously isn't f/2.8. The only other alternative is the 24-70 f/2.8, but at $2000+, not having IS seems absurd to me.

Therefore, if I upgrade my camera body, it's as if I'm being forced to downgrade my lens.

I’m not going to jump into the aperture/ISO debate in this thread but I am going to toss out my 2-cents worth about quality & clarity coming from a previous 7D owner & now 5D III owner. I did some shooting with the 7D & 5D III right after I picked up the 5D III. I used the original kit lens that came with the 7D (28-135mm f/3.5-5.6), a borrowed 24-105 & my 24-70 (which is a very sharp copy). When I finished I ranked the pic’s by quality from worst to best and this was my result:

6. 7D + 28-135
5. 7D + 24-105
4. 7D + 24-70 (tie)
4. 5D III + 28-135 (tie)
2. 5D III + 24-105
1. 5D III + 24-70

See a pattern here? The 5D III had equal or better quality over the 7D with every lens. The 5D III with a lower tier Canon lens (28-135) was just as sharp as the top of the line “L” lens on the 7D. I know the 7D + 17-55 is a great combination but if you were to get the 5D III & toss out $800-$1k for an “L” lens (17-40 or 24-105) it will lay the 7D with any lens you put on it to waste.

My point is if you pick up the 5D III now and only had $$$ for a $400 lens your worst case scenario is that you will probably be somewhere near the same quality you have now. As you get more $$$ in the future and pick up a couple of “L” lenses the quality will only increase. The only way I would pass on the 5D III is if you have no desire to purchase “L” lenses in the future. In that case you are throwing your money away and should stick with the 7D.

snowblower wrote in post #14912679
I’m not going to jump into the aperture/ISO debate in this thread but I am going to toss out my 2-cents worth about quality & clarity coming from a previous 7D owner & now 5D III owner. I did some shooting with the 7D & 5D III right after I picked up the 5D III. I used the original kit lens that came with the 7D (28-135mm f/3.5-5.6), a borrowed 24-105 & my 24-70 (which is a very sharp copy). When I finished I ranked the pic’s by quality from worst to best and this was my result:

6. 7D + 28-135
5. 7D + 24-105
4. 7D + 24-70 (tie)
4. 5D III + 28-135 (tie)
2. 5D III + 24-105
1. 5D III + 24-70

See a pattern here? The 5D III had equal or better quality over the 7D with every lens. The 5D III with a lower tier Canon lens (28-135) was just as sharp as the top of the line “L” lens on the 7D. I know the 7D + 17-55 is a great combination but if you were to get the 5D III & toss out $800-$1k for an “L” lens (17-40 or 24-105) it will lay the 7D with any lens you put on it to waste.

My point is if you pick up the 5D III now and only had $$$ for a $400 lens your worst case scenario is that you will probably be somewhere near the same quality you have now. As you get more $$$ in the future and pick up a couple of “L” lenses the quality will only increase. The only way I would pass on the 5D III is if you have no desire to purchase “L” lenses in the future. In that case you are throwing your money away and should stick with the 7D.

Thanks, that was some helpful info. At this point, money really isn't the concern. It's going to either be the 24-105 or the 24-70 t replace the 2.8 and IS option that I've gotten used to. I think what I'm going to do is take a couple days and try limiting my self to either f/4 and IS or f/2.8 w/o IS when using my 17-55. Hopefully that will make the decision a bit easier.

It may be worth pointing out that a monopod, while not as compact and portable a solution, works better than IS, is cheaper than IS, and will work with every lens you have.

Looking at your photostream it looks like you've done a fair amount of indoor portraiture, if that's going to trend you're probably still going to want to lean toward the 24-70. Yes, it is disappointing that Canon didn't see fit to add IS into the mkII version, on the other hand though I kind of shutter to consider the final price tag Canon would put on such a package.

Personally I tend to shoot more outdoors than indoors, so if it were me I'd probably be OK with the 24-105. If you're doing a lot of indoor stuff though, particularly wedding stuff, the 24-70 is your bread and butter zoom.

mannetti21 wrote in post #14912726
Thanks, that was some helpful info. At this point, money really isn't the concern. It's going to either be the 24-105 or the 24-70 t replace the 2.8 and IS option that I've gotten used to. I think what I'm going to do is take a couple days and try limiting my self to either f/4 and IS or f/2.8 w/o IS when using my 17-55. Hopefully that will make the decision a bit easier.

seriously, this is the wrong way to go about it. The only way you're going to do an apples to apples comparison is to rent (you cant replicate a FF sensor with the trickery you are doing on a crop, it just isnt happening). I was a crop shooter for 6 or so years, and going from 30D to 7D was hardly the IQ change as going from 7D to 5D2. Think of it this way, all of your EF lenses will be sharper once you slap them on FF. They'll transform and work differently. The high ISO flexibility of the 5D3 should be amazing compared to the 7D... heck the 5D2 is a solid 1 stop better than the 7D. So all of your EF lenses suddenly get a 1 stop ISO improvement!

btw, looked at your flickr, and it's pretty good. FF belongs in your arsenal.... for your shooting style (thin DOF and static shots/portraits). Heck, you might even consider the 5D2 for what you do, but if you can splurge for the 5D3, go that route.

Oy, the thread drift, now we're debating IQ of FF vs. APS-C as the justification to give up certain features?! If IQ is the driving force, then I'll opt for a digital Hasselblad (Unfortunately I need to rob a bank first, in order to own one!)

The OP started out lamenting something COMPARABLE to having APS-C camera with an f/2.8 IS lens that provides AOV range of 27.6 - 77 degrees. I agree with him!

In FF, Canon has an IS lens that goes from 23 - 84 degrees, but which is only f/4 not f/2.8.
And Canon also has an f/2.8 lens which goes from 34 - 84 degrees, but without IS.

The characteristics of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the single thing that I regret not having for my 5D! I bought the 5D primarily to get full utility out of my 24mm Perspective Control lens.