40D with this lens, 5D with that??

I agree.

FearlessFoto wrote in post #3866831
Since I'm beyone the club days of my life, lets say I'm shooting my kids under the Christmas tree in a small room. If I have a 10-22 on a 40D, they may end up with big noses? But if I had an equivalent lens on a 5D they would look normal?

Thanks,
Karen

I am not an expert, so correct me if I am wrong, but you would get the same perspective distortion with a 40d at 10mm that you would get with a 5d at 16mm. Perspective is really a question of camera to subject distance and not focal length, and for a given composition, you would need the same amount of camera-subject distance with a 40d at 10mm as you would with a 5d at 16 mm.

remixity wrote in post #3866762
The main difference will be that the scene will have more wide angle distortion with the 40D than the 5D. While they'll have similar viewing angles, the foreground-background depth will differ in perspective. This is because the focal lengths are different.

If you shoot people up close, such as in a club, the wide angle distortion can be quite problematic.

Um. No. If you've got the same AoV for each camera, you'll be standing at the same spot with each one, so perspective will be the same for both. DoF will be different due to the different focal lengths and the different degrees of enlargement, but perspective will be identical.

On another note - the 10-22's FF equivalent would be the 16-35, not the 24-70.

Of course another aspect is that a 5D is much nicer to use than a 40D, if you like film SLR's then your right at home with a 5D, gone are the puny dark little viewfinders, I know the 40D is apparantly larger & brighter but once you pickup a 5D & look through it you realise what you were missing.

I wear glasses & changing over to the 5D was a world of difference, you do have to spend more money if you go FF its true, but there is a reason why its expensive & not to mention that the 5D is the first non 1 series camera to be excepted on pro sites like gettyimages.

I know from my tests that the 5D with a 24mm lens is a fair bit wider than a cropped body fitted with a 17mm lens, for example the 24-105L is wider than a 17-55IS.

FearlessFoto wrote in post #3866849
I do like wide angle, but I also like to shoot my son playing soccer. He's a little boy on a big field and I doubt I'll be getting anything longer than my 70-22 f/2.8. So these's my dilema.

It looks like I'll just need to mull this over for a while longer.

Thanks everyone,
Karen

Just my personal opinion but with these types of shots I would consider the 40D with the 10-22 for landscapes (or 17-55 or 17-40 for a landscape/everyday lens) and with the 70-200 for soccer. The 70-200 on a 5D for soccer will need to be heavily cropped for most shots. I shot soccer with an XT and 70-200 f/4 from the goal line and still had to crop most of my shots. You might also consider the Sigma 120-300 2.8 to replace your 70-200 2.8 for even more reach.

So I would use:

40D
10-22, 24-70, 70-200/120-300

or

40D
17-40/17-55, 70-200/120-300

OK,

you will get great results with a 40D and a 10-22 really 10 is really wide on a 40D even, and in a normal size room, you rare use 10 mm to capture a subject, only to get the whole room, but 10 is great fun and great for messing with to with distortion, but you will get better results with a 5D for arguments sake, but here is the catch, a 40D I think taking shots on a field of sports will do a better job than a 5D for several reasons, focal length, and FPS, I have never used a 5D, so cannot comment on AF etc. but a 40D is a lot better in this department that a 30D, I have taken about 1k shots with 40D at football matches and the AF and tracking is a lot better as is View finder. as is AF lock in the dark.

So hope that helps, if you do a lot of sports then a 40D for sure, if a lot more landscape, ports, etc. and very little big field sports than 5D, heh still la tough one to call though.

bacchanal wrote in post #3866823
If you like wide angle...go with the 5D. You'll have so many more options.

yup.

nothing beats the 5D with a sigma 12~24mm EX DG.... It's W I D E ...

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

The Sigma 12-24 is a lens I would very much like on my 5D, BUT I fear that it would be used 100% of the time when im doing landscapes rendering my more expensive 24-105L to not be used.

Can't you just take a few steps back with a 1.6 sensor and 10-22 lense?

Hopefully the full frame cameras come down in price soon (The new Nikon keeps looking better... FF for under 2K)

JoshBowers wrote in post #3867281
Can't you just take a few steps back with a 1.6 sensor and 10-22 lense?

Hopefully the full frame cameras come down in price soon (The new Nikon keeps looking better... FF for under 2K)

Its not always possible though, on a recent shoot I was doing a few steps back meant instant death! I would have been over the edge of a very large cliff :-p

Nick_C wrote in post #3867150
The Sigma 12-24 is a lens I would very much like on my 5D, BUT I fear that it would be used 100% of the time when im doing landscapes rendering my more expensive 24-105L to not be used.

That's an interesting fear and reasoning to not get a lens - that you would use it more than an expensive lens you already have.

I have the Sigma 12-24 and a tamron 28-75 for my 5D and I use the Tamron much more than the Sigma. The Sigma can't take a circular polarizer and many times it is too wide. But it does have its uses . Consider it a speciality lens. It won't render your 24-105 useless. Plus the Tamron is noticealy sharper - especially wide open. But when I'm shooting landscapes, I'm using a tripod, MLU, and remote cable so I'm using a small appeture, low iso, and slower shutter speed.

Nick_C wrote in post #3867335
Its not always possible though, on a recent shoot I was doing a few steps back meant instant death! I would have been over the edge of a very large cliff :-p

Damm one more step and I could have had all your kit

MaDProFF wrote in post #3867396
Damm one more step and I could have had all your kit

Well I had a friend with me so he would have aquired some nice new kit if I had gone over the edge,

My policy is this:

"If you get into trouble, SAVE THE CAMERA!"

RedHot wrote in post #3867371
That's an interesting fear and reasoning to not get a lens - that you would use it more than an expensive lens you already have.

I have the Sigma 12-24 and a tamron 28-75 for my 5D and I use the Tamron much more than the Sigma. The Sigma can't take a circular polarizer and many times it is too wide. But it does have its uses . Consider it a speciality lens. It won't render your 24-105 useless. Plus the Tamron is noticealy sharper - especially wide open. But when I'm shooting landscapes, I'm using a tripod, MLU, and remote cable so I'm using a small appeture, low iso, and slower shutter speed.

Well at the moment im pretty much using my 24-105 @ 24-50mm on landscapes, I love the sharpness, colour & contrast as well as the IS, it really does help when using a CPL at higher apertures, infact I havent needed to take a tripod out with me for many shoots.

I just know that if I had the 12-24 here, I would probably end up putting that lens on & leaving the 24-105 either at home or in the bag, then most of my images I sell would have been taken on a Sigma! not that I have anything against Sigma lenses, I used to own a 17-70 & 55-200, but its just when you have spent £600 on an L you dont tend to want 80% of shots taken on a Sigma although it does look very tempting, when I want more in a shot I usually start stitching multiple images, of course that gives me that UWA look, but has one major benefit, my images are roughly 40-80mp!

Nick_C wrote in post #3867414
Well I had a friend with me so he would have aquired some nice new kit if I had gone over the edge,

My policy is this:

"If you get into trouble, SAVE THE CAMERA!"

Was he the one saying "go back a bit, one more step"??????