I have been toying with the idea of going full-frame (at least halfway). I have two 40Ds right now. Should I sell one body, a 17-55/2.8, 60 macro, and Sigma 10-20 to fund a 5D + 17-40L? Or if I save up for a few more months, I could probably afford a 5D2 and the 17-40L. Other lenses I have are 35L, 85/1.8 and 70-200. Not concerned about losing the macro since I don't use it often and am switching to tubes, but I would lose the mid-range zoom.

"...are like assholes" - hehe, sorry, had to say it. (haven't even read the post yet)

...now i've read the post...

If you're going to sell a 40D and all that glass, I'd get a 16-35 f/2.8L instead of the 17-40L if you're shooting weddings. f/4 is sloooow.

ugh. kindly read all 8000 other gear threads.

no one can tell you what to buy because no one knows your shooting style.

TTLKurtis wrote:
"...are like assholes" - hehe, sorry, had to say it. (haven't even read the post yet)

...now i've read the post...

If you're going to sell a 40D and all that glass, I'd get a 16-35 f/2.8L instead of the 17-40L if you're shooting weddings. f/4 is sloooow.


Would high ISO on the 5D2 make up for it in most situations?

No. Even 2.8 is slow for weddings.

Thanks, I think I'll just keep what I have until I can upgrade glass as well.

I'd look at trading a 40D for a 7D.

How is shooting an ultra-wide angle shot @ 2.8 particularly useful? Outside of some creative work, presumably this would be for a large group and the DOF of 2.8 isn't going to cut it. I would think a high-ISO, smaller aperture scenario would be used more than lower-ISO, larger aperture with an ultra-wide angle lens.

To the OP, if you're used to the ergonomics of the 40D, the 5DII would make the most sense. Much of the 1DsMKII's advantages are in build quality. However, if you find yourself in a LOT of low-light, the AF of the 1-series will be superior. I can get clean images at 1600 with my MKII. ISO3200 isn't going to help if you're always out of focus. Still, my vote is with the 5DII. Unless you have some compelling reason to go FF, you might even wait to see how the 7D fares...your 17-55/2.8 is a great all-around lens. A 7D/5D MKI would make a nice kit.

Here's the DOF of 2.8 UW @ 16mm on a cropped body at f2.8:

Subject distance 5 ft

Depth of field
Near limit 3.8 ft
Far limit 7.32 ft
Total 3.52 ft

So if you were using it in a crowded room doing bridal prep or trying to capture all expressions of the entire table during a speech or something, you'd had a pretty decent blanket of focus to work with and the opportunity to fix the distortion in PP if you choose.

I would sell everything except the 85 1.8, get one 5D + 24 1.4L II and another 5D + 50 1.4. After some time, I would get an 135L.

That's all you really need.

I have the 16-35 and use it rarely (only when I need a 16mm FL). The 24L and 35L are getting much more use. 16mm is most of the times too wide, and I use it for some special effect shots like at dancing, or for getting a very wide picture with all the church inside, etc.

Having a lens like 16-35 or 17-40 on a FF camera at a wedding implies that you will need another one with some normal-tele lens.

You will miss the 17-55 equivalent on FF. Maybe a 24-70 would suit better your needs if the 17-55 was your most used lens.

17-40 ftl

Yeah, dont bother with any F4 lens for weddings. Crop cameras, while ok for beach and vacation photos, are also less than optimal for weddings. If you have a mix of crop and FF bodies, its wise to have all of your lenses FF compatible so you can mix and match appropriately.

In short, quality costs money, how much quality do you want?

adimage wrote:
I have the 16-35 and use it rarely (only when I need a 16mm FL). The 24L and 35L are getting much more use. 16mm is most of the times too wide, and I use it for some special effect shots like at dancing, or for getting a very wide picture with all the church inside, etc.


Yeah, I was only thinking of getting the 16-35 or 17-40 for wide indoor group shots. Could I get away with just a 24L or 35L for those?

A lot of f4 haters here. Wasn't/hasn't the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM a staple for wedding shooters for a bazillion years?

Of course there are now better options, but tough to discount the slower aperatures altogether or say they are impossible to use.

If you're wondering if 24mm on FF is wide enough, evaluate your 17mm on your 40d. @ 27.2mm it's close. For me, it's not wide enough.

I can get away with f4 in some instances (wife shoots 24-105 on 5dII) but, in reality, even 2.8 is too slow most of the time. I generally shoot 24-70 wide open @1600 w/flash (in dark halls) she shoots 24-105 wide open @3200 -- sometimes the ambient is a little darker than I like and more work is needed in post. Like others mentioned, it really depends on your style. How much/many flash(es) do you want to use? Anything can work, it's just a matter of how easy do you want it to be, and what type of result are you looking for.

From my personal experience, once you go FF, you'll never want to use a crop cam again, so make sure you're ready to buy a bunch of lenses to support FF.

I thought I was happy with 2 40D's. Then used a 5D and 40D and I was miserable when using the combo. Now two FF's and I'm in heaven.

I use a 1Ds2 and 1D2 side by side for weddings. Both are excellent. the 16-35L II is my choice lens on the 1Ds2 for the walkaround stuff, with a 80-200L on the 1D2. for the formals I pretty much do most with the 16-35L II and 85L II on the 1Ds2. I still have a 20D as a backup, with a EF-S 10-22 if I ever need it (at least until I get the 20D converted to IR)

No question though, the FF is wonderful! especially with the wide angle stuff, and the 85L on FF gives a good working distance, especially compared to APS-C (or even APS-H)...

In a church I shot in, even f/1.8 was too slow, and the thing was filled with lights.

I tried a couple of wedding with a 40D & 5D combo. I found it confused me greatly - which lens on which body led to too much swapping from one camera to the other.

I've decided I'm either all 1.6 or all FF but NOT both. Until I get some better glass, I'm staying with the 40D & 30D.

head2heel wrote:
TTLKurtis wrote:
"...are like assholes" - hehe, sorry, had to say it. (haven't even read the post yet)

...now i've read the post...

If you're going to sell a 40D and all that glass, I'd get a 16-35 f/2.8L instead of the 17-40L if you're shooting weddings. f/4 is sloooow.


Would high ISO on the 5D2 make up for it in most situations?

The answer is No... for sure. The 5DmkII is great, especially at high ISO, but this lens is just too slow to use indoors... assuming you shoot natural light. I have this lens and while I do like it for outdoor stuff in nice light... it generally hides in the bag once we go inside.

to answer your original question... I'd sell the body and those lenses to pick up a 5DmkII and a 50 f/1.4.