Given the recent decrease in Canon prices as opposed to the ridiculous increase in Nikon prices, I'm thinking about getting a 5D (haven't decided if I want MK I or MK II) and some excellent Canon primes.

35L
135L
17-40L
And maybe throw in the 85 1.8 in there too..

Would that be a good set up? I'm not sure if I really want the 17-40 or not because I don't think it's as good as the 10-22 on a crop. I also have a Rebel T2i and Im thinking of adding the 10-22 to it instead of the 17-40 to the 5D.

I'd like to get the 24-70 for convenience, but I'm not sure what to make of the Canon's 24-70. My Nikon 24-70 is awesome on my D700, but I keep hearing about how soft and unreliable the Canon version is. The way I see it, Nikon makes better 2.8 zooms, but Canon primes are better AND much cheaper. This is my first post by the way

Welcome... Your kit looks good to me.. I have the 17-40 that I use on my 1Ds II & 7D.. It produces great images.. Although you did not say what you intended to photograph I assume it to be general.. 5D is sweet; 5DII is sweeter.. Need video go with II.. No video, save money on a one and buy glass.. The 35 1.4 is far more expensive than the others listed.. I am lead to believe this is the 35 F2.. The 35 2 is said to be soft on the edges but close it down and it performs well... The 85 1.8 is a great lens... The 135 F2 is a must have..You might consider the 17-40, 24-105, and the 135 F2 as an alternative grouping.. The 70-200 F4 Non IS is a special lens that is very reasonably priced.. Hope this helps your decision... Jim

5D II has excellent video if you get an external microphone

5D has very good image quality if you can live with cleaning the sensor

VTXT wrote:
Given the recent decrease in Canon prices as opposed to the ridiculous increase in Nikon prices, I'm thinking about getting a 5D (haven't decided if I want MK I or MK II) and some excellent Canon primes.

35L
135L
17-40L
And maybe throw in the 85 1.8 in there too..

Would that be a good set up? I'm not sure if I really want the 17-40 or not because I don't think it's as good as the 10-22 on a crop. I also have a Rebel T2i and Im thinking of adding the 10-22 to it instead of the 17-40 to the 5D.


I have a 5D2 with 17-40 and 7D with 10-22EFS and it's my experience that they are similar in performance. Although I haven't done any testing, I would say that the 10-22 isn't any better than the 17-40. Corners seem similar (which is useable, but not great) and the 17-40 is a bit sharper in the center at large apertures. The 10-22 seems to control distortion a bit better.

Since neither have IS and they have similar IQ, I'd go with the 17-40 for less money.

VTXT wrote:
I'd like to get the 24-70 for convenience, but I'm not sure what to make of the Canon's 24-70. My Nikon 24-70 is awesome on my D700, but I keep hearing about how soft and unreliable the Canon version is. The way I see it, Nikon makes better 2.8 zooms, but Canon primes are better AND much cheaper. This is my first post by the way


From what I gather, the Nikon 24-70 is better, and the 14-24 has no peer. But Canon's 70-200f2.8 mk2 is the best zoom of all of these. The Canon 16-35 mk2 is also very good, and has no Nikon equivalent. Many on this forum are still hoping for a Canon 24-70 mk2.

VTXT wrote:
Given the recent decrease in Canon prices as opposed to the ridiculous increase in Nikon prices, I'm thinking about getting a 5D (haven't decided if I want MK I or MK II) and some excellent Canon primes.

35L
135L
17-40L
And maybe throw in the 85 1.8 in there too..

Would that be a good set up? I'm not sure if I really want the 17-40 or not because I don't think it's as good as the 10-22 on a crop. I also have a Rebel T2i and Im thinking of adding the 10-22 to it instead of the 17-40 to the 5D.

I'd like to get the 24-70 for convenience, but I'm not sure what to make of the Canon's 24-70. My Nikon 24-70 is awesome on my D700, but I keep hearing about how soft and unreliable the Canon version is. The way I see it, Nikon makes better 2.8 zooms, but Canon primes are better AND much cheaper. This is my first post by the way


If you already have a Nikon D700 and 24-70, why would you want more Canon gear? If you bought a couple Nikon primes, it would less expensive than buying Canon lenses and a new body.

I have those lenses which you take into consideration and use them with my 5D MkII. I started off with the 24-70 but meanwhile I only use it rarely. The 17-40 is one of my most used lenses, I would definitely take this one in your bag. 135L is another very good option, I would also recommend to get it. For a prime in between the 85/1.8 is a good choice, too. The 35L is suitable if you need a fast wider angle lens or for night and museum photographies.

Not sure what you will mostly photograph, but mainly for portrait shooting this setup is perfect with its prime lenses. If you focus mainly doing nature and landscape photos, I would recommend 17-40 and 70-200 f4 IS plus maybe a macro lens instead of 35, 85, and 135.

Thanks for the feedback and ideas guys.

The reason I want to get some Canon gear is because I think I want to try full frame video. That full frame look is definitely special which crop video cannot replicate. The only Nikon with that capability is the D3S, and for $5500 I can get a MK II and a whole lot of good canon lenses. AND the video on the 5D should be much better than the D3S, and it's a good deal smaller and lighter as well.

I like doing "people" photography, and landscapes. I'm not too much into tight upper body portraits, and I almost never do tight head shots. I prefer environmental portraits.

VTXT wrote:
Thanks for the feedback and ideas guys.

The reason I want to get some Canon gear is because I think I want to try full frame video. That full frame look is definitely special which crop video cannot replicate. The only Nikon with that capability is the D3S, and for $5500 I can get a MK II and a whole lot of good canon lenses. AND the video on the 5D should be much better than the D3S, and it's a good deal smaller and lighter as well.

I like doing "people" photography, and landscapes. I'm not too much into tight upper body portraits, and I almost never do tight head shots. I prefer environmental portraits.

Canon for full frame video makes sense. So the original 5D is obviously not an option. By the process of elimination the 5Dmk2 stands alone.

VTXT wrote:
I'd like to get the 24-70 for convenience, but I'm not sure what to make of the Canon's 24-70. My Nikon 24-70 is awesome on my D700, but I keep hearing about how soft and unreliable the Canon version is. The way I see it, Nikon makes better 2.8 zooms, but Canon primes are better AND much cheaper. This is my first post by the way


From my hands on experience since I had both Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G (on a D700) and the Canon 24-70mm, Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8G and Canon 16-35mm Mark II. The 24-70mm lenses are definitely comparable in pretty much all aspect, at least both copies I had. Maybe, only maybe the copy-to-copy variation of the Canon lens is more pronounced. Who knows. The Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 has a great reputation and it is indeed a great performer. The Canon 16-35mm is lagging behind IQ-wise but not by much and only in the corners at wider apertures. I didn't have the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR since the first version suffers from bad corner performance and shows significant vignetting and I sold my Nikon system before the second VR version of the Nikkor 70-200mm became available. Both the latest and current version of the 70-200mm f/2.8 from both companies have a been touted as top notch and my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS Mark II definitely lives up to that reputation. That's my own, first hand experience using both systems for 18 months and not second hand information I heard or read on-line. I just would like to straighten thing out.... at least, somewhat if that matters. Otherwise, disregard this post, please.

VTXT wrote:
Thanks for the feedback and ideas guys.

The reason I want to get some Canon gear is because I think I want to try full frame video. That full frame look is definitely special which crop video cannot replicate. The only Nikon with that capability is the D3S, and for $5500 I can get a MK II and a whole lot of good canon lenses. AND the video on the 5D should be much better than the D3S, and it's a good deal smaller and lighter as well.

I like doing "people" photography, and landscapes. I'm not too much into tight upper body portraits, and I almost never do tight head shots. I prefer environmental portraits.

Based on this post it seems you would want to go with the following:
5DII (the 5D doesn't offer video)
17-40
35/1.4
85/1.8

The 135L is a great lens but like you said you almost never shoot tight, so unless you shoot your subjects at a distance I'm not sure the lens will suit your style given the focal length. If you feel you need the focal length after shooting with the above set of lenses then consider adding it. Until then consider more video oriented accessories (monopod/tripod w/ fluid head, steadycam, z-finder, boom mic, external recording dev, etc etc) and editing software.

Since you have Nikon lenses, get a 5D MK II and use the Nikon lenses with a adapter. Its fully manual focus for video anyway, so you do not need expensive AF lenses when the ones you have will work fine by using a adapter. (adapters are available that work with the G lenses).