I'm using the camera for a hobby, not trying to earn a living with it. I particularly enjoy landscape and wildlife photography, but I shoot portraits and things like car shows occasionally, too.Voldenuit wrote:What are your expectations and requirements for going to full frame?
The 85/1.8 and 100/2.8 lenses don't get mounted very often. I'm hoping that the 85mm lens will provide a more useful field of view for portraits and indoor candids on a full frame camera than it does with the 1.6 crop factor that I have now. I took only the 17-55 and 100-400 to Alaska last year. I didn't feel that I missed many shots that the other two lenses would have captured. I probably would have been okay with the 100-400 and something even wider than 17mm for panoramas.Voldenuit wrote:You are very normal to telecentric heavy.
Those same prime EF lenses work fine on my EOS 40D. They just don't provide as wide a field of view. The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM has covered my wide angle and normal requirements so far. It's such a sharp and quick-focusing lens that I haven't seen the need to get a wide-angle prime. There have been a few times that I've wished for something wider than the 27-88mm equivalent view that it provides.Voldenuit wrote:You could also get a fast prime. EF has a lot more good fast glass than EF-S, especially in the wide angle department, but you don't seem too interested in wides based on your current stable (conjecture).
JustAnEngineer wrote:Mostly, I want better performance at high ISO. My EOS 40D looks good at ISO 100 to 400 and is tolerable at ISO 800. A new full-frame camera would provide several more stops of usable sensitivity.
Yeats wrote:JustAnEngineer wrote:Mostly, I want better performance at high ISO. My EOS 40D looks good at ISO 100 to 400 and is tolerable at ISO 800. A new full-frame camera would provide several more stops of usable sensitivity.
The latest round of APS-C cameras have better noise characteristics than the last gen of FF. You can easily shoot ISO 1600 or higher in good light and get outstanding results.
Edit: eh, I see Canon has fallen down a bit wrt APS-C high-ISO performance. Oh well.
JustAnEngineer wrote:Those are good points, Aphasia. I have quite literally had a pain in the neck after 7+ hours of hand-held shooting with the 100-400 lens. It weighs 1380 g. The 24-105 weighs 670 g while the 24-70 is 950 g and the 24-70 II is 805 g.
Aphasia wrote:But still... 5D mk2 with the 135/2L is pretty hard to match for a APS-C camera when doing portraits. And the 5D mk3 is droolworthy.
The new EOS 5D Mark III is $3.5k. The older Mark II version is $2.2k. The EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM is $0.8k when purchased in a kit with either body. The new EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM is $2.3k. The older EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM is $1.3k.ludi wrote:Justify $2k+ photography investments.
imtheunknown176 wrote:I would personally recommend a 7D and 10-22mm lens, as said by others. The 50mm f1.4 lens is nice if you want something resembling an 85mm on a FF camera, though it may be a little redundant since you have an 85mm.
Voldenuit wrote:imtheunknown176 wrote:I would personally recommend a 7D and 10-22mm lens, as said by others. The 50mm f1.4 lens is nice if you want something resembling an 85mm on a FF camera, though it may be a little redundant since you have an 85mm.
Well, he doesn't have a 85mm equivalent since he's on a crop sensor (atm).
Users browsing this forum: Aphasia and 4 guests