Lens or body?

jenxphoto · Sep 1, 2006

I need advice. May sound petty, but it's not.
Either the canon 16-35mm 2.8L usm or the canon 5d.

I know both are fantastic and i need both, but i have 1800.00 on hand to purchase the canon 16-35mm 2.8L usm today... or should i save the money, not buy the lens and buy the canon 5d body instead. (leaving me w/out this wonderful lens for about a year). I guess the question is, what is more important if you had to choose?

Here's my gear as of current:
-canon 10d (which i love until i get another body, the results from how i shoot with the 10d are fabulous)
-15mm fisheye
-24mm 2.8
-50mm 1.8
-85mm 1.8

Now given those items, would you get the 16-35mm 2.8L usm lens today or keep what i have and wait a few more months for the 5d and buy the 16-35mm 2.8L usm lens next year. Help!

This is an important question for some up coming weddings.
jencarrollphotography.com

So is it more important to have the body or the lens if you had to choose one?

Thank you so much!

ksmattfish · Sep 1, 2006

You seem to have the focal length range covered in the primes you already have. All of the primes are faster, and will probably have better image quality, than any zoom (even the holy "L" line). The only issue is whether a zoom would be significantly more convenient for you than switching primes. I think you'd see a bigger difference between a 10D body and a 5D body, than you will between using a zoom or continuing to use primes.

jenxphoto · Sep 1, 2006

Ok, yes, you're right, i do have the focal length covered (except it is a pain to keep switching between the 24, the 15 and the 50)

Thank you for helping me in my pros and cons. I'm dead set on having both at the same time but... haha

The photographer that i work with in Alaska doing weddings made it a requirment to have a 5d by june 07 if i want to continue doing weddings there. (not that he didn't like my work, but he wants to keep up with the jones's) I understand that, but i always thought the quality is in the glass. Perhaps i am wrong in this day and age with the technology they have in bodies.

I just keep thinking about that woman (or was it a man?) who won a prestigious award for using a Brownie camera.

Digital Matt · Sep 1, 2006

When it comes to digital, the quality of the glass is still very important, probably the most important, but the technology inside the camera does matter, and when it comes to prints, megapixels do matter, in the same way 120 gives more resolution than 35mm.

Like Matt said, you already have the focal length covered. If you put that 16-35 on a 5D, it's not going to be the 25-56 that it is on the 10D. Would you really ever need 16mm full frame for weddings? You might, but I would think that you'd want the 24-70 f/2.8 L to go with the 5D.

If you have a year to wait before you "have" to buy a new camera, you might want to wait and see. A lot of changes will take place between now and then, and I'm willing to bet that Canon will have another full frame camera for us.

jenxphoto · Sep 1, 2006

Thank you for the reply.....

I feel like a complete jackass for not knowing that if you put a 16-35 on a 10d that it becomes 25-56. I've heard very little on that before, so casually, that it never stuck with me to know that is a fact.

Also, the 24-70 is also on my list as a must-have; so you're absolutely right. Also, yes, i'm assuming canon will have something else for us before the year is up.

Since i have the focal lengths covered....I'm getting the vibe that i should be getting the 5d first... am i right?

Anyone interested in selling me their 5d?

Digital Matt · Sep 1, 2006

As it stands now, the only Canon digitals that are full frame are the 1Ds, 1Ds Mk II, and the 5D. Every other Canon digital suffers from a 1.6x crop factor. The sensor is 1.6x smaller than a 35mm neg (which the lenses are designed to cover).

Multiply any lens by 1.6x to find out the actual field of view on your 10D.

As for the 5D, I can't tell you what to do. I wish I had one, but at $3k, I think I'd rather save for a 1Ds MKII, or the next Canon offering.

jenxphoto · Sep 1, 2006

Thanks Matt.

What do you shoot with?

The more i read what you type about what may come out and the Mark series... i may hold off altogether for "what comes next". I mean, what's another few months when you've already waited a year.

It's offical, i'm waiting for the body. In the meantime, i'll sell my furniture for the cash for the lens. haha jk.

Digital Matt · Sep 1, 2006

Sounds good. Let's see what Canon comes up with.

I shoot digital with a 20D.

Iron Flatline · Sep 1, 2006

I have the 5D, and the 16-35 L, as well as the 24-70 L.

I had the 16-35 first, and let me tell you: the 16-35 is SOO wide once you put it on a full-frame camera. It has become almost difficult to use. You really end up distorting people on the edges - you have to be careful how you use that lens on a full-frame camera. Your best friend will become the 24-70 L. Awesome.

jenxphoto · Sep 1, 2006

Yes, that was a concern of mine. Although my 15mm on the 10d is perfect. I can't imagine that 15mm on a 5d.

So 15mm on a 10d isn't 15mm at all?
But it is 15mm exact on a 5d?

Digital Matt · Sep 1, 2006

15mm is 15mm. You don't see that entire 15mm on a camera with a sensor smaller than a 35mm negative. You only see the portion that the sensor can capture, so the image is "cropped".

You can read more on this topic here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml