First DSLR: Go big or go home?

[rpgfkp]

I've used a 20D or 30D for all of my photography so far, but I have been borrowing it. I am faced with the choice between a 40D/50D (or waiting for a 60D?), or 5D MkII

The lens that would best suit my needs is a Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM. I think it will work for street shots, low light shots, and landscapes i'd be interested in.

My question boils down to this:
What's the better value? 5D MkII with some random kit lens, or a cheaper camera (T2i or 50D) with the aforementioned lens? If the latter, how (in your estimation) will the resale value hold up on a T2i or 50D?

What's the better investment? Which will have a greater impact on image quality: the body & full frame sensor, or the lens?

[Cardiiiii]

Out of the T2i and the 50D, the better investment is arguably the T2i. The 50D will probably be replaced before the T2i. As for the 5DMkII, many people have said in this forum, buy the best you can afford. That said, unless you NEED full frame, the image quality on the T2i is VERY good, for that price range especially.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by rpgfkp

The lens that would best suit my needs is a Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM. I think it will work for street shots, low light shots, and landscapes i'd be interested in.

Errrr... you may want to rethink this. The 50L is $1400. It's also a bear to accurately focus, and it still suffers from focus shift. And shooting with it wide open means you have a DoF that's measurable in millimeters. It's not an easy lens to master, and many people get truly disgusted with how hard it gets to use. The "Holy Trinity" of Canon L portrait primes (the 35 f/1.4L, 85 f/1.2L, and 135/2L) notably skips over the 50L.

Not to mention that 50mm is more of a "short telephoto" framing on a crop body like a dRebel or XXD body.

If you really want to pay four figures for a huge, heavy, ultra-conspicuous L lens, for street and low-light, and landscapes, the EF 35mm f/1.4L USM is likely to be a better fit--especially on a crop body.

My personal solution was to find an old Olympus OM-mount Zuiko Auto-S 50mm f/1.2 lens. It cost me a little bit less than $300. And it's the exact same size as the EF 50mm f/1.8 II. It takes a 49mm filter. The 50L takes a 72mm filter. On a dRebel, it looks ridiculously large.

... What's the better value? 5D MkII with some random kit lens, or a cheaper camera (T2i or 50D) with the aforementioned lens?

The "random kit lens" for the 5DMkII is the EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM. So, I'd choose that combination. But a 50D with the 35L, rather than the 50L would be equally as tempting to me.

If the latter, how (in your estimation) will the resale value hold up on a T2i or 50D?

It won't. All dSLR camera bodies are like any other electronic/computer gear: it depreciates like mad the second you take it out of the box. The LENS otoh, will hold value quite well. All L lenses tend to hold their value extraordinarily well and for a very long period of time.

What's the better investment? Which will have a greater impact on image quality: the body & full frame sensor, or the lens?

Full frame will have as much effect as a good L lens. The only real difference in the effect is that going with a full-frame body is likely to make all your lenses look worse, because you'll actually be able to see the corner performance that's been cropped off by the 1.6x sensors.

[rpgfkp]

Thanks for the input Cardix & Inkista. I think that my biggest problems is that I'm receiving advice from my two friends who are professional photographer >_< Their advice might lack the appropriate context.

If camera bodies depreciate quickly, I suppose it would make more sense to invest in glass? I'm just trying to "waste" the least money, and it sounds like bodies might be replaced quicker than lenses...

I seem to be going down this slippery slope where I try to justify spending more and more on a set up. If I were to try and constrain my budget to.. say.. $2,000 what would be the best option? A cheaper body and expensive lens (T2i)? or a midrange body and kit lens (7D?)?

[Cardiiiii]

Definitely worth investing more in quality glass. Buy a 5DMkII only if you need the full frame. As for a choice between the T2i and the 7D, the image sensors are 'more or less' the same, but not identical. And the 7D is weather sealed and has got 2 Digic IV processors instead of 1. So it's just about marginally better than the T2i at about almost double the cost. Take all that into consideration before buying. I have the T2i and it's very good even with the kit lens and I can only imagine what it'd be like with quality glass. So glass first, body later.

[GadgetRick]

Originally Posted by Cardiiiii

Out of the T2i and the 50D, the better investment is arguably the T2i. The 50D will probably be replaced before the T2i. As for the 5DMkII, many people have said in this forum, buy the best you can afford. That said, unless you NEED full frame, the image quality on the T2i is VERY good, for that price range especially.

Whether a particular body is going to be replaced sooner or later should have no bearing on a decision to buy unless that body is being replaced right away. The 50D is a great body. I can't speak fir the T2i but I wouldn't not buy a 50D right now because I was worried about it being replaced if it does what I need now. If you didn't buy things because you were worried about them being replaced, you'd never buy anything.

Now, if the T2i does more of what you want, that's a different story altogether.

Anyway, back to the OP, I would absolutely take the advice and of others here. I wouldn't spend the money on the 50mm f1.2. Just way too much money for that lens. I'd rather spend it on a lens which you can use in more situations (maybe a 24-70 f2.8 L?). I have the older version (28-70mm) and I use it most of the time when walking around. Doesn't have the great zoom of a 70-200mm but it's also not a HUGE lens either. I find it to be sharper at 50mm than my 50mm F1.8 although I lose the larger aperture of course. You can find the 28-70mm version of the lens for less than $1000 pretty easily.

[rpgfkp]

Yeah.. I am being a little OCD about this purchase, but because I am working full time for the next year then going to school full time for the next two, I know that what I buy now i'll be stuck with for the foreseeable future. I want something versatile, and since it doesn't sound like the resale value holds up, something that'll still be competitive in 3 years.

I like the price and the guts of the T2i but I won't use the video, don't like the absence of the top LCD, and don't like the feel of the plastic body in my hands.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by GadgetRick

Whether a particular body is going to be replaced sooner or later should have no bearing on a decision to buy unless that body is being replaced right away. The 50D is a great body. I can't speak fir the T2i but I wouldn't not buy a 50D right now because I was worried about it being replaced if it does what I need now. If you didn't buy things because you were worried about them being replaced, you'd never buy anything.

+1. Not to mention that cameras depreciate from the moment they're introduced. The 50D, when it was first introduced, had an MSRP (body only) of $1300. Ditto the 40D. The 30D initially MSRPed at $1400. And those MSRPs were the street prices for roughly three to six months.

Today, a new 50D body streets around $1100 and falling. When a 60D arrives, it's likely to be back to that initial $1300 pricetag.

So, there is an incentive to buy, even if the model is likely to be replaced soon--when you buy a camera later in its product lifecycle, you get it at a lower price.