Sell 50L for 60D + EF 35/2 IS???

Thanks all, I like the suggestion of buying a cheap, used aps-c as a full-around with video and timelapse kinda body. Makes a lot of sense as I would not be shooting events/portrait sessions, etc. I do love the 50L as it acts as the body cap on my 6D whenever I'm not specifically shooting something else. It's definitely the "grab the camera and go" lens for me. I was just looking through some of my pics and noticed I really liked my 35mm pics when I had the 35/2 IS. I was just thinking maybe it was better to have both FL options plus a full-around body using simply one 35mm prime. I do see your points about losing the DOF control with the 35 on aps-c though, and I probably don't want to give that up just to have a faster 35mm option for FF when I prefer 50. I'll keep saving, and try to curtail the GAS itch for awhile

The 60D is a fine camera. I really enjoyed it. But the 50L is very special on the 6D, and the 60D's value is only going to degrade further as technology progresses. I would not make this switch, myself, but I'm another 50L addict.

Charlie wrote in post #17134034
not many people shoot 35 and 50, you're usually one or the other. I really hated having a crop body as a second body, there's reach advantage, only more pixels on target..... and that's pretty much non existent for me at this point.

you really only do that if you're budget limited, otherwise having the same FOV across two cameras is much more valuable than "pixels on target" advantage. If there's no need for a second body, just sell off the 50 for the 35. Only you can tell if you're a 50 shooter vs a 35 shooter.

I am just getting into 35 & 50 on crop and full-frame. The 35 on full frame with the 50 on crop is a nice two-body combination.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17134371
I am just getting into 35 & 50 on crop and full-frame. The 35 on full frame with the 50 on crop is a nice two-body combination.

I agree with that, giving it a true 35mm FOV and then an 80mm FOV.
While I can see where you're coming from.
But those two FL's seem to contradict one another more than complement.
I mean, the 35 is ok on FF, but on crop it is 56mm and you already have a 50mm lens.
Wouldn't selling the 50mm for an 85mm seem more diverse in FL as it would be an 135mm FOV?
I see the advantage on 2 cameras creating 4 FL's but the 35 / 50 combo sees too close together?
Just my own opinion, and in a perfect world I would own 24, 35, 50, 85, 100, 135,and 200mm primes

Getting a crop body is definitely less expensive than buying another L lens. And creates more FL options.
I have considered getting an SL1 as a lightweight crop with each passing payday for my L trio to use.
But I know I wouldn't carry 2 cameras, and I would probably always go for the 6D as I am use to it's weight.
My money is best spent on 'nothing' and definitely not an 135L lens. (repeat as needed)

I love both my 24mm and 50mm lens. If I had to choose one, then and only then, would it be the 35mm.
If I was limited forever to one prime it would be a 35mm f1.2 (wishfull-thinking)
It is neither wide or standard. To me it doesn't excel at either framing, therefore I don't like it.
I do like the 40 stm, mainly for its pancake design rather than that specified FL.
I would love a 24 and 50mm pancake combo, even at f2.8
Is a 50mm pancake really that hard to make? Put an stm in the 50 1.4 and slim it down.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17134371
I am just getting into 35 & 50 on crop and full-frame. The 35 on full frame with the 50 on crop is a nice two-body combination.

35f2 + FF and 85f1.8 + FF beats any 50mm + crop combo

That combo only makes sense if budget is tight.

Problem with the 35/50 combo is if you're carrying one camera, it's not very useful. One of the lenses is bound to collect dust when a single camera is all that is needed/preferred.

Just to clear things up, I have a 35 f/2 IS, 50 1.4 and a 100 f/2. I also have a 70-200 2.8 OS. I agree that 35 & 50 are too close if you are only shooting one format. I use both full frame and apsc. As mentioned above, I can take a ff/35 and apsc/50 to an event and have a relatively wide AND a moderately long FAST lens ready for action. You know, like a 4 year-old's birthday. I could cover the range with my 15-85 on the 60D, but not at f/2! Or sports sidelines with the 50 on ff and the 70-200 on crop for field shots. If I had the money I'd add a 24L II and a 135L. Oh, I never carry all of this stuff with me. A really heavy day is both bodies and 3 lenses.

Sometimes I consider selling the 60D. It is worth a lot more than its resale value to me. I'm keeping it: it gives me great versatility with the 15-85, macro with the 60 2.8 and a lot of reach with the 100-400L. Yes, I'm a gear whore.

I agree with Charlie. Carrying a 35 and a 50 for one body is kind of odd.

The difference between 35 and 50 is quite obvious to me. I think it's the very noticeable perspective distortion of the 35 that immediately jumps out at me.

It's just always been my preference to have a 50 because I find framing with a 35 to be awkward. Now, one thing that really changes things in my head is if you consider video. For video I'd want 24/35/50.

I guess one thing I should remember is that my 16-35 is plenty apt at handling 16/24/35, and it has IS, so that really covers me for video, but I'd rather have a throw-away kinda DSLR for doing timelapses (as you can run your shutter count up really quickly!)

I could always try CHDK on my S90...

why not an EOS M for video? Slightly better IQ than the 60D, comes with a really nice 22mm F2 for video, and cheap. Install magic lantern, and instant timelapse. Great thing is that it has no mirror, so less to break.

Tony_Stark wrote in post #17134355
My 50L would be the very last lens I'd sell.

I would miss your 50L Automoive pics if you ever parted ways with it!

Pretty much this. I'm only starting to shoot events so I want to have two bodies (I have three due to a GAS problem and a shop selling me a 7D too cheap to say no) but in general, I only wanted a 7D for reach and FPS and I use my 6D for almost everything else

When I was starting out, there was no need for a second body for a significant period of time. Really not until I went FF

JM Photos wrote in post #17133837
I really hope you don't recommend that to everyone who asks this question. A backup body isn't "ALWAYS a must." No one plans on having their camera break right before a trip/outing but at the same time, not everyone is equipped to purchase a second body (multiple thousands of dollars) for strictly "just in case" moments.

Seems your mind is made up for now, but I will add that it's your gear and money, do what you feel you must do.

Jason