File :-(, x, )
Canon 5D Anonymous
I have: Canon 400D, 18-55, 50mm 1.8, Sigma 10-20, 70-300 IS and Tamron 17-50 and 430EX.

I can sell all of this for $1,800, minus 50mm and flash. And I can get a brand new 5D for $1,800,

Should I do it?
>> Anonymous
If I sell it, I would have to rebuild my kit completely slowly over the years.

>>143848lenses that won't be disappointing compared to 50/1.8, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 17-50 on 400D - at least $1800 more

That's not really true. I'd just need to save up $1,000 or so for a 24-70 2.8 L. That covers those 3 lenses to an extent, with compromises obviously.
>> Anonymous
>>143828

Any possibility of getting the 5D and keeping the lenses? Those might not be the best lenses to have, but it seems like a very versatile kit that you could use on the 5D until feel like getting new glass.
>> Anonymous
>>143859
Only the 50mm and the 70-300 will work on the 5D.
>> Anonymous
>>143855
It does cover only the Tamron... But if you're willing to sacrifice versatility for quality, why not? A pity that Canon doesn't make an IS version of that lens, though.
>> Anonymous
>>143864with compromises obviously.

^^^

Not as wide as the Sigma but I still have the 50mm.

A 17-40 L is only $600 away for my UWA. But that's not really pressing.
>> Anonymous
>>143862

Ahh yes, forgot about the "digital SLR" lenses that some companies make. In spite of having EF mounts...
>> Anonymous
>>143887
well, then my $5 Industar-50 is a decent replacement for all your lenses, with compromises obviously.
>> Anonymous
Don't be a faggot and stretch things like that.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
No you dumbass.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
don't do it if you suck at photography

post your best photo here and let us decide for you, OP
>> Anonymous
>>143881
I didn't think about that; that's a good point, but still, the 50/1.8 is no slouch and the 50/1.4 is only $300. $30 out of ten paychecks, or $10 out of thirty paychecks, etc.

Plus, limiting oneself to one lens is the sort of masochism that usually winds up making one a better photographer in the end. But the interim is why the pressing question is what sort of photographs does the OP want to take? Depending on that answer, a 50mm might be perfect for him. Or, he might do better with a 35mm. Or, if he's doing this for other people for money, he might be better not taking the risks inherent in such a self-development exercise, i.e. shitty shots until he gets good.
>> Anonymous
>>143924

I put a 50mm 1.8 on my 5D before, but I didn't really try and push it. Other than maybe some vignetting it wasn't a big difference, but I wasn't exactly shooting to count hairs while wide open or stuff. And if you're not trying to shoot panoramas with it, you probably won't mind it when going to full body. At the very least, on a 5D it'll give you a true 50mm right out of the gate, so it's worth keeping unless you've already lined up a 1.4.

I'm pretty sure slapping a 1.4 on either body will improve the possible image output, but on the flip side I'm not so sure that a 5D will make a 1.8 look any better, other than giving you a natural 50.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
Buy a 40D instead OR wait until the new 5D is released, which should be in Q2 of this year.


But really ask yourself if you need a full-frame camera. the 40D is almost exactly as good as the 5D but with a crop factor.
>> Anonymous
lol no you should NOT do it. get some better glass instead, or get some off camera flash gear, either have better potential of making better photos than a new body imho.
>> Anonymous
>>144003

40D is indeed awesome, but the 5D is still ahead in noise.