Which would you buy?

[B Doss]

You're on a budget and your budget tells you that you can buy either:

Canon 50D w/ EF 28-135 IS USM lens included package and an additional 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Zoom Lens

or

Canon 5D EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens included package.

So we got new technology and two lenses, or the older but tested workhorse with a single optimal lens and shooting full frame but keeping in mind that the 5D is being discontinued and replaced soon. Both deals about the same price.

I'm about to just flip a coin, LOL.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

Personally, I almost bought the 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. I had a bill pop up that I didn't expect that had to be paid. I think it is a great lens - nearly as sharp as my 50mm f/1.4 prime lens - which is the only lens that can be compared to it in its own field of competition. I think that the first deal looks great for that reason. "But" - using any 3x/greater zoom has noticeable loss in sharpness; that is where the 24-70mm is the clear winner - IMHO. Having/using the additional IS lens can be useful for really distant shots when crop factor is involved (the 50D has a 1.6 crop factor). In addition neither lens will have a wide enough angle for storm chasing; as a 24mm wide end of the lens is about 38mm when one figures in the crop factor of the 50D camera body. The 10-22mm EF-S is the lens of choice for this camera - if you are looking to storm chase with it.

But the 5D doesn't have a crop factor since it is a full frame. And the L lens is a great choice too. I can appreciate your dilemma!

My dream team camera/lens combo would have to be the 5D, the 16-35mm MkII http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/16-35mm-ii.htm ,and the 24-70mm (both are "L").
No question.
This is probably the best setup for storm chasing, especially with the 16-35mm MkII - that is a fantastic lens with a aperture faster than the 17-40mm f/4. It is flat out better, and is usable almost within its entire range for pro results. Especially with the 5D - great combo right there. Very hard to beat. If I was to buy the 5D and only one lens - it would be the 16-35mm MkII and wait for the 24-70mm. If I had $3800 to spend - that is what I would choose - given what you have stated.
But that all takes 'cfm'; 'cubic feet of money'.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

BTW- Here are two more repudable pages that make clear info about these fine lenses:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

These will work with the 5D; if you get the 50D - you will need to multiply the focal ranges by 1.6 to account for the crop factor of the 50D.
These two lenses should cover your focal ranges most needed for storm chasing.
Except for the 50D - you will need a 10-22mm to get the ultra-wide angle shots...

 

[B Doss]

Thanks for the input. I handled a 5D yesterday and I got to say that was a lot of camera, I couldn't help but wonder if there would be some kick when I fired it, LOL. I concede your points and I agree that the 24-70mm L lens would be a better fit and I think I might hold off and mount that glass to the 5DII next month after I figure out that cfm equation, LOL.

 

[Graham Butler]

You're on a budget and your budget tells you that you can buy either:

Canon 50D w/ EF 28-135 IS USM lens included package and an additional 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Zoom Lens

or

Canon 5D EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens included package.

Although I don't have a specific answer I will add my input. First off I own the 20D, 17-40L, 100mm macro, 24-70L, 70-200L, the 1.4x extender, and the most important thing I can stress is that once you go L, you will NEVER go back!!! Although those kits look tempting I will say that the 28-135 IS will likely be wasted money since you will want to use the 24-70L 24/7. It is by far my favorite lens, it is the lens I walk around with, and sadly it was the lens I fell down the roadside outcrop with (so it has to go back to Canon ). The 24-105L is an impressive lens, although I have never used it, I would prefer the 24-70L since it is f/2.8.

I guess if I had a solution this is what it would be. Since L glass is so addictive that will be taken into account.

I would buy the 50D body, buy the 24-70L, and stop. Play with them, decide which direction you wish you had more range. Then, if you want zoom go with either the 100-400L f/4 (not what I would do) or the 70-200L f/2.8 (and the 1.4x if you want even more range: my test of it -> http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9072 ). If you wish you had a wider field of view go with either the 17-40L f/4 (~$600) or the 16-35L f/2.8 (~$1300).

Hope this helps,

Graham Butler

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

The 5D will be cheaper now that they are releasing the 5D MkII. I would buy the 5D because it is a lot of camera to begin with, and already is a standard in the pro photographer league. I can't see that fact changeing for the next 3 years to come.
The fact that the 5D is a full frame - the added plus is that there is no crop factor. I wouldn't concern myself with the mega pixel issue between the 5D and the 5DMkII. You will find that the mega pixels of the 5D is already too much; digital noise issues are less with the 5D - or so I have been lead to believe from many photoblogs that I've read.
The 16-35mm II is the ticket for storm chasing. Really, you will find yourself using that lens far more often than any other lens if you are storm chasing. Guaranteed.
IF more range is needed, then the 24-70mm will take up the slack. I have a XTi and when I use the 50mm with my 1.6 crop factor - it is equivalent to 85mm. I can get CLEAR shots from twenty miles with it. I hope that is a good example to you as to what I have previously stated.
Man, if I could afford the 5D and a 16-35mm, I would get it without hesitation!

 

[B Doss]

Man, if I could afford the 5D and a 16-35mm, I would get it without hesitation!

I'm also waiting on the 5D price drop..a 5D 16-35mm & 24-70mm would be ideal. Don't tempt my tires, LOL. Canon states 11/29 will be the ship date on the 5DMII. I don't want to be an unofficial beta tester but the 1920x1080 HD video and super high ISO range is what piqued my interest, this would have came in handy in 2008.