I'm at a crossroads...

...and I am not sure what to do.

Currently I have a 20D (with the grip) and lenses-wise I have a 10-22mm, a 50mm f1.4 and a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 along with the 1.4x and 2x tele converters.

As you can see, there is a gap in my mid range that needs plugging (I just sold my Tamron 28-75 f2.8).

My dilemma is:

Do I do the economical thing and buy the 17-55mm f2.8 IS to plug the gap in my current armoury or do I take stock, make do then go full frame with a 5D?

This feels like a crossroads due to the 17-55 being EF-S and hence not compatible with a future FF body.

I can afford the 17-55 shortly but the extra expenditure of going FF (and having to get a new wide angle lens as well as the 5D and grip) would mean that I couldn't do that until next year at the earliest.

The one thing that I think would help me make the decision is image quality.

I'm thinking that, if I held off the 5D and stuck with the 20D for the time being, I could steadily improve my glass, specifically the Sigma, to L glass.

Which circumstance would provide the best improvement in things like colours and contrast? A 20D with L glass or a 5D with my current glass?

Can anyone understand my ramble? Can anyone help me with ideas?

Why did you sell your Tamron?

I would buy a 24-70 or 24-105 which will come with you on the ride to ff.

If I had a third party lens, I would only change to L glass after I had made all the other changes first (body etc).

With the Digic III processor making it into the lower range cameras, it may be worth holding off buying a body for a little while.

Graham

Hi,

Main reason I sold the Tamron was that I found I rarely used it. A combination of the focal length not being a particularly useful one for me (on the 20D, doh) and the AF being too slow and hunting too much.

Very sharp lens but not suited to me really.

I agree with Graham. The 24-70 or 24-105 lenses are perfect for your everyday lens on the 5D.

Well, your 10-22 is not FF compatible. I would think that a 17-40L might be a good option as that could go FF with you and replace the 10-22. You can use the 50/1.4 as a low-light walkabout lens, and use the 17-40L in situations where light is more available. You miss out on the IS of course, but you get better glass.

I'm an idiot, what's FF?

There are no* idiots on this forum. It means full frame.

Graham

Adam: FF is full frame. Cameras like the 1Ds and 5D (and some ancient Kodak one) are full frame. Oh, and film cameras too.

Matthew_h: Those are fine lenses you got there. Many claim that the 10-22 is a L without the red ring. Those 3 lenses would make me very happy on a 1.6x crop. Are you shooting RAW? Maybe you should check out some other Post Processing options, your lenses are great and you should be getting wicked colour and contrast from them.

However, I will echo everything that's said here>... 24-70/24-105 would be *perfect* on a 5D.

So, what's the difference? Full Frame is....?

I'd go with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. You're going to be able to take great pictures now and well into the future with your 20D and your lens collection. It's 95% photographer, 5% equipment, and with your current equipment setup (plus the 17-55 to fill in the range), your camera won't be holding you back.

I wouldn't be so anxious to go FF now or in the near future. In reality it is more marketing hype than advantage for most shots. It shortens your long range focal, limits which lenses you can purchase, and for what- a bit wider on the wide end by not having the 1.6 crop.

The 20D is a great camera and will give great results. I have NO desire to switch to Full Frame, especially with the amazing optical quality on the wide end with the 10-22 and 17-55 IS. So really, there are NO gaps in the canon lens lineup that leaves you needing more quality in a given range.

And if you DO pay a pretty penny for Full Frame, lenses are easily sold online for decent prices.

Sounds like you are making me a happy man and that I am going to enjoy the cheaper option.

You've all pretty much backed up the decision that I was coming round to but it is good to hear some other opinions.

17-55 it is then, cool

Means I can upgrade the Sigma and maybe get a second body with the money that the 5D would cost me. Probably a more usable kitbag.

a 35 mm film frame; 24x36 mm, rather than the APS-C 15x22.5 mm.

I agree. I don't see a lot of reasons to go to full frame with the very good wide angle options for a 1.6 crop available today.

I just got a 17-55 this week and am now happy with my glass lineup. It's a great lens.