5d II (17-40) or 7d (10-22) + 1k @ low ISO?

[Lankey]

Hello.

I am looking to upgrade my body + wide angle lens and wondered if anyone would care to offer their opinion between the 5d 2 + 17-40 or the 7d + 10-22 + save some $$ and buy a Lee filter ND grad set or perhaps keep it for upgrading PS & LR.

From reviews i have read that both the 17-40 and 10-22 perform very well for their price/performance ratio. The 10-22 being the best for a crop body and the 17-40 being the best for my price range on a FF (18-35 MK 2 overly priced).

I shoot 90% landscape 10% birds/wild life. 95% of the time i use a tripod (+ lowest ISO for landscape) and my 300mm f4 means i generally only shoot birds during lighter hours.. so I think the high iso performance of the 5d2 vs the better auto focus of the 7d balance each other out in regard to that 10% wild life.

For landscape i've constantly read about how the 5d II has better DR but have yet to find any place that compares them, so i don't know how much of an issue this is and if it is, if it is worth spending an extra $1k for. Anyone with experience with this want to chim in?

I come from film cameras but got a d70s (wanted to see what the "dark side" was) afew years back as a back up and to play with. I'm hoping to get more into stock photography libararys and I sometimes get enlargement prints.

at the moment i have

85mm- pano lens
300mm f4 + extender- bird lens
24-105 IS f4 (don't own yet but will soon be getting for a walk around as my kit is getting outdated here)
p&t tripod & pano head

About 50% of my photography is done on hikes (1-10 days)..

Thanks for any advice in advance.

[Sime]

I've had the 10-22 and thought it was a really good lens... very good... I'd almost say it compares to the 17-40 (Almost) and is easily as sharp as the 16-35 Mk1... (If not moreso) I have the 5DMk2 - it's a brilliant camera. I don't have a 7D but if I were choosing between a 5 and a 7 for landscapes - the full frame would win.

[Lankey]

Originally Posted by Sime™

I've had the 10-22 and thought it was a really good lens... very good... I'd almost say it compares to the 17-40 (Almost) and is easily as sharp as the 16-35 Mk1... (If not moreso) I have the 5DMk2 - it's a brilliant camera. I don't have a 7D but if I were choosing between a 5 and a 7 for landscapes - the full frame would win.

Ok thanks Sime, that is what i'm thinking also. I just was not sure if i would notice the difference at low ISO's and if it would be worth the $1k (in my country) extra.

Then again there is also the issue of having to sell the 10-22 if i went FF on my next, next camera but i don't really see that as much of a problem.

[Sime]

I sold my 10-22 because I was going to sell my 30D... I ended up keeping my 30D and wish I'd kept my 10-22 now...

Though, yeah, the full-frame aspect is golden on the 5D...

[Lankey]

Hmm so i guess the main reason i'm still deciding is that I have read posts like the one qouted below from old topics on other forums which seem to suggest the extra $1k will be better spent else where. (like the previously mentioned Lee filters). Also there is the extra reach advantage of the 300 f4 on a crop body.

Daniel Lee Taylor , Nov 12, 2009; 08:37 p.m.

The 5D2 is the clear high ISO champ, retaining tremendous detail and low noise into ISOs that challenge just about every other camera. But landscapes are typically shot from a tripod at low ISOs. There really isn't much difference at all between these two bodies at, say, ISO 100. The image quality difference is so small, given proper post processing, that I doubt anyone could tell in print, even at 24x36. DR in JPEG is roughly the same, but in RAW you get a little better than 1 extra stop with the 5D2. But quite frankly this is unimportant. If you can't expose a scene in the 9.8 stops you have with the 7D RAW, you probably need a neutral grad filter or HDR.

That means lenses and features will drive the decision. Contrary to popular belief I'm not convinced lenses are an automatic win for the 5D2. It depends a lot on your budget and lens comparisons. If you want to use Canon's T/S lenses, then the 5D2 offers a clear advantage because those are only available at a few focal lengths. Same if you want to use, say, the 24L. But on the other hand I'm not convinced the 5D2 + 16-35 is a better combination than the 7D + Tokina 11-16, and the latter combo is significantly cheaper.

arr i'm not good at deciding, lol

[daft_biker]

Originally Posted by Sime™

....if I were choosing between a 5 and a 7 for landscapes - the full frame would win.

Same here....if I wanted the full effect of ultra-wide lenses anyway. I got a 7D for shooting macro and I'm not fussed for wide angles. It is surprisingly good at landscapes though.....
I have some full res 7D sample shot here if anybody is interested. (they're all straight out of DPP with no photoshop)

I don't have a 5D2 to compare the DR but in this shot I was trying to get detail in the dark room under the bridge without blowing the bright bit of the sky. There is some detail there in the RAW file but I'm not sure it shows once the image is converted to an 8 bit JPEG.

EF 24mm f/2.8 on 7D - tripod and mirror lockup used

[gturner]

I think full frame is the way to go for your purpose. The added coverage is really huge.
the 24-105 comes as the kit lens on the 5Dmk2

[bearly]

the thing is you don't really get any extra coverage with full frame anymore, now that they make the ultra-wide lenses like the 10-22, which has the same coverage as the 16-35 on a full frame, so if i were you i'd go with the 7D and spend the extra $1000 on something else

[sybren]

I love my 7D, but I haven't put it to the test for serious landscape photography yet. However, it's a very, very good camera! I can also vouch for the 10-22mm - it really is a wonderfully sharp lens that produces nicely saturated photos.

[BCampbell]

It's hard to say, because it really sounds like you may have made your choice on the 7D already.

I have a good friend who has been shooting with a 5DII for a while and another who just got the 7D. Just for the record, the 5DII was purchased primarily for the high resolution and great low-light performance, and the 7D as an upgrade from an XSi for better image quality and video capability. I also have a friend with a 40D and the EF-S 10-22mm and he loves it.

Everyone has made good points already. I will say that in terms of overall quality, I think you'll get more out of the wide EF lenses than the ultrawide EF-S zooms (the widest EF lenses are all L-series), but the difference may be academic. On the other hand, remember that on the long end you're gaining 1.6x zoom for your telephoto with the APS-C sensor.

My guess is that if you're serious, you'll eventually want to move up to full-frame anyway. That would make me hesitant to put any money into EF-S lenses.