5D Classic or 351.4L

[tannyboy]

Hey all,

Just posing a question which may have been done to death on here but ill put an extra spin on it.

Just in the market at the moment for a 351.4 to go onto My 40D as my new walk around lens as I'm finding the 50mm a bit long. Also I've been browsing around the net to see if there are any 5D non mkII that I could pick up for a decent price as the allure of full frame is just there.

So what would you do fellow shooters, finally go full frame or build up the stable of primes.

I have a 10-22 EFS also which then won't be able to be utilized on the full frame.

[Xenedis]

It's a tough question to answer, as you're more or less comparing apples with oranges.

I personally have been shooting with full-frame DSLRs since 2006, and I wouldn't go back to a camera with a cropped field of view. I like my lenses to behave as they were intended, and the larger, brighter viewfinder does make a huge difference, not to mention the inherently lower noise a larger sensor affords. (Let's not get into pixel density here, as clearly shoving more pixels onto a finite sensor size will come with trade-offs.)

A 35mm lens on your 40D will off you similar framing to what a 50mm lens natively offers on a full-frame DSLR.

The question is whether or not you like that field of view. I personally don't; I think 50mm (the field of view) is over-rated and incredibly boring. it's what I can see with my eyes naturally. I like long and wide focal lengths, and very little in between.

You're basically asking us to help you make a choice between different equipment, which would serve as different solutions to different problems.

My question for you is: What is your problem? Ie, what about your current setup don't you like, or what gap are you trying to fill?

You don't like the FOV your 50mm lens gives you on your 40D. Certainly a wider lens will address that problem. You could also consider the 24/1.4L II, which will give you a field of view of around 38mm. It's wider, but given you have a 10-22, you're in the ball park at the long end of that lens anyway. What you'd get with the 24mm prime is light gathering ability, and better image quality. Having said that, the 10-22 does seem to be very good, so you've got a very decent lens right there.

If you like the 50mm view (in 135-format), the 35mm lens for your 40D would be a good choice.

What other lenses do you have? Knowing this, as well as the photography styles an subjects of interest to you, can make a big difference as to what course of action you should pursue as far as equipment purchases.

[tannyboy]

What other lenses do you have? Knowing this, as well as the photography styles an subjects of interest to you, can make a big difference as to what course of action you should pursue as far as equipment purchases.

My stable Is in my signature,

I shoot everything. But if I was to pick an interest, landscapes, street photography and portraits.

And I guess my gap is the 22-50 (x1.6) range more around the "true 50" mark really.

[Xenedis]

(I cannot see signatures.)

Given what you like and what you shoot, the 35/1.4L seems like a good choice.

For landscapes you're covered well by the 10-22 (16-35mm in the old money).

I own a 35/1.4L and it is a stellar lens. Very sharp and very fast. You would not be disappointed.

[fabian628]

I would not take the camera becuase you will not have a wide lens which will need replacing. Get the 35L, it does well on this camera. The lens is excellent and will hold its value well. In the near future when the 5d2 gets replaced the price of both 5d2 and 5d will fall and you will have nice lens to use on it also.

[pollen]

I had a 35L and 40D at one time - bad choice. The lens isn't that great on crop.

I don't understand the obsession with a 50mm lens - it's only "normal" insofar as it was normal for people to have one because they were so cheap back in the film days

I don't even own anything between 35 and 85mm - I don't care...never needed it

[Xenedis]

I don't understand the obsession with a 50mm lens

I'm with you there. I personally find 50mm to be the most boring focal length in the known universe.

it's only "normal" insofar as it was normal for people to have one because they were so cheap back in the film days

It's considered a 'standard' focal length because the focal length's size is very similar to the diagonal length of the focal plane.

I don't even own anything between 35 and 85mm - I don't care...never needed it

I'm in a similar boat; I've nothing between 35mm and 70mm, and I rarely use 70mm either.

While I consider 50mm to be boring and undesirable, if the OP likes the framing, the 35/1.4L would make a good choice for an APS-C camera.

[Arg]

Don't get a 5D mark I, there is almost no reason to pick it other than sentimental reasons, as it was indeed a great thing in its day.

I'm not sure why you wouldn't pick a 17-55 IS if you like the 'normal' field of view and have the budget for a 35L.

[pollen]

Don't get a 5D mark I, there is almost no reason to pick it other than sentimental reasons, as it was indeed a great thing in its day.

I'm not sure why you wouldn't pick a 17-55 IS if you like the 'normal' field of view and have the budget for a 35L.

Really? The 5D still craps on any current crop camera from both Canon and Nikon, image quality wise

[Arg]

maybe at f32....