Upgrading to ff. what lenses to replace my EF-S

Synenergy52 wrote in post #8397900
Sure the 16-35II is much faster... but who needs to shoot at f/2.8 at wide angles?

Try those who want/need to shoot handheld in low light venues like clubs, bars, museums, etc. and are either already at high ISO or want a cleaner looking image.

Synenergy52 wrote in post #8397900
Sure the 16-35II is much faster... but who needs to shoot at f/2.8 at wide angles?

Mmmmmmm, lot's of people.

Originally Posted by toxic

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

Huh? What makes 10-22 and 17-55 so much better?

dsd17 wrote in post #8397255
Huh? Where did I say those were better?

What he means is that the 10-22 (16-35.2 equivalent) and 17-55 (27.2-88 equivalent) have a large 8mm overlap already, so why can't you deal with a similar 9mm overlap of the 16-35 and 24-70.

msowsun wrote in post #8398974
What he means is that the 10-22 (16-35.2 equivalent) and 17-55 (27.2-88 equivalent) have a large 8mm overlap already, so why can't you deal with a similar 9mm overlap of the 16-35 and 24-70.

^^

Overlap is good, when it permits you to make a shot at the desired FL without forcing you to change lenses first!

I just went through the same as the OP- I sold my Tokina 11-16 and Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS for the 17-40 L and 24-105 f4 IS L when I bought a 5D MK II. No regrets at all. I actually find I like the overlap a bit- helps to minimize lens changes and also makes a nice mix with crop and FF bodies.

You really have to ask yourself "why are you upgrading?" what makes FF so appealing to you right now?

a) better for walk around

im thinking of upgrading because of my 70-200 f2.8 IS. i want it to be more useful for portrait..

b) noise control
5DII has amazing noise control.

c) shallow DOF
- brings out the best out of 2.8 Lenses.

So then you have to come out with a plan.

a) sell my gripped 40D, 11-16 and 17-55 to budget for a 5D, and a 24-70

b) keep both the amazing 11-16 and the amazing 17-55 and just budget for a 5DII for use with the 70-200mm which is what i will have on the body at all times. And then later just buy myself a 24-70mm. It's like starting all over again haha. which can be fun too. if i can only have 3 lenses. it would hae to be the 24-70, 70-200 2.8 IS, and then 85L

In addition...

THE 17-55 AND THE 11-16 ARE AMAZING LENSES! I CANT PART WITH THEM! I JUST CANT!

17-40 and 24-105 should be a 'direct' change in terms of close-to-similar focal lengths and prices.

Synenergy52 wrote in post #8397900
17-40 is superior to the 16-35I and equal to the 16-35II in outright resolution abilities. Sure the 16-35II is much faster... but who needs to shoot at f/2.8 at wide angles? I always shoot my 17-40 at f/8 or so.

what about 24mm and 35mm....you can't see the need to shoot at apertures bigger than f4 with these FLs?

how about a very sharp f3.2 to f4 with flash?

and i also use the 16-35LII on my 1d mark III and regularly shoot @ f3.2 and f3.5. and this lens is sharper @ f4 than the 17-40L.

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #8401724
what about 24mm and 35mm....you can't see the need to shoot at apertures bigger than f4 with these FLs?

how about a very sharp f3.2 to f4 with flash?

and i also use the 16-35LII on my 1d mark III and regularly shoot @ f3.2 and f3.5. and this lens is sharper @ f4 than the 17-40L.

ed rader

so true...

Synenergy52 wrote in post #8397900
17-40 is superior to the 16-35I and equal to the 16-35II in outright resolution abilities. Sure the 16-35II is much faster... but who needs to shoot at f/2.8 at wide angles? I always shoot my 17-40 at f/8 or so.

nighttime?
@1/20s, ISO 800, 16mm, F/2.8, Hand Held

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

Once you go FF, it is best to sell most/all of the crop glass. There are L equivalents that are better and the price difference is small in the grand scheme of things once you buy a $2700 body. For example, 10-22 to 17-40 L and 17-55 to 24-105 L. I find the 24-105 on 5D MK II much better than the 17-55 on 40D, and I really loved my 17-55. The 70-200 f2.8 IS becomes an outstanding portrait lens on FF, which was one of my reasons for upgrading.

I recommend getting the 24-105 in the kit, which saves you a few hundred bucks. The only EFS glass I might keep for a while is the 60 macro for its small size and excellent optics. Also makes a great portrait lens for my wife to use on our 40D.

jrscls wrote in post #8402159
price difference is small in the grand scheme of things once you buy a $2700 body.

Completely agree with jrscls. If you spend $2700 on a body, you should consider spending on better lenses, why not consider 16-35II and 24-70? I upgraded from 40D --> 5D and picked up those 2 lenses. The only thing I miss from 17-55 is the IS and the lighter weight (my 17-55 seemed to be sharper than 24-70 too).

wow, I had no idea my post would get this much feedback! Thank you to everyone for their opinions. I agree about the money spent on a body. Once I spend that much, why go cheap on lenses? I am most likely going with the 16-35 and 24-70. I won't always be shooting at 2.8, but its better to know the option is there when I need it.

dsd17 wrote in post #8402781
I won't always be shooting at 2.8, but its better to know the option is there when I need it.

Aside from this reason, lenses are usually sharper 1-2 stops from widest aperture, so if you shoot at f4 all the time, then it should be sharper on 16-35 than on 17-40.

jrscls wrote in post #8402159
Once you go FF, it is best to sell most/all of the crop glass. There are L equivalents that are better and the price difference is small in the grand scheme of things once you buy a $2700 body. For example, 10-22 to 17-40 L and 17-55 to 24-105 L. I find the 24-105 on 5D MK II much better than the 17-55 on 40D, and I really loved my 17-55. The 70-200 f2.8 IS becomes an outstanding portrait lens on FF, which was one of my reasons for upgrading.

I recommend getting the 24-105 in the kit, which saves you a few hundred bucks. The only EFS glass I might keep for a while is the 60 macro for its small size and excellent optics. Also makes a great portrait lens for my wife to use on our 40D.

...except for the fact that you go from f/2.8 on the 17-55, to the f/4 on the 24-105