Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
Where do you see yourself in five years? What do you expect to be shooting with? What lenses do you imagine you'll be shooting?

That last question is important. Canon has done virtually nothing to support a professional shooting with their APS-C format cameras in terms of lenses. The 17-55 f/2.8 is pretty much the only pro grade lens they offer, and even that is rather lightly built.

On a 5D, you get a much greater variety of lenses to choose from. If budget is an issue, even the inexpensive (around $200 on Craigslist) 28-135 IS performs quite well on a 5D. I would lean more toward the 5D, just in terms of future upgrades, because Canon has made it quite clear that they don't intend to support the pro shooting their APS format cameras. Which is a real shame, because with the right lenses, it's an extremely versatile format. Only Pentax has bothered to produce good lenses for their APS cameras.

This is backwards. You have more lens choices with APS-C format cameras then with the 5D. The 50D can use all the pro lenses the 5D can use plus all the APS-C lenses.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
On a 5D, you get a much greater variety of lenses to choose from.

This is nonsense. ALL the EF as well as the EF-s lenses work on the crop cameras, so you actually get a wider choice with a crop camera, ironically.

As for the OP's question, both are good cameras but unless the benefits of FF seem overwhelmingly important then the 50D is the more modern, has better AF, lens microadjustments, much bigger/better LCD, faster burst rate, bigger buffer, more mp, better compatibility for shooting tethered. I don't believe you can get a version of the EOS utility that both supports the original 5D and runs under Win7 or later, for instance.




Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Dan K Photography wrote:
.... You have more lens choices with APS-C format cameras then with the 5D. The 50D can use all the pro lenses the 5D can use plus all the APS-C lenses.

True, but I think Leggy was referring to the true use of the lens. For instance, the 24-70 or 24 - 105 is great for full frame but isn't so great for cropped since it becomes something like 38 to 110 or 155 (not sure specifically what the range becomes).  A 35 would become 56mm, 50mm becomes 77 (or something like that) etc..

I tend to agree with him.  Cropped can have its advantages such as extending reach.. However, IQ and IQ at high ISO's does not tend to be one of those advantages.

Personally, I prefer the 5D's IQ over the 50D's.  IMO, it is the best bang for your buck if thinking about going FF.

Moon Pix Photography wrote:
True, but I think Leggy was referring to the true use of the lens. For instance, the 24-70 or 24 - 105 is great for full frame but isn't so great for cropped since it becomes something like 38 to 110 or 155 (not sure specifically what the range becomes).  A 35 would become 56mm, 50mm becomes 77 (or something like that) etc..

twoharts wrote:
that's the big difference. with full frame lenses work the way they were meant to in film days.

Would that be the medium or large format film days?

As long as the lens projects an image circle larger than your sensor, why does it matter?

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
On a 5D, you get a much greater variety of lenses to choose from.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
This is nonsense. ALL the EF as well as the EF-s lenses work on the crop cameras, so you actually get a wider choice with a crop camera, ironically.

Of course it's not nonsense. Just because a lens will mount doesn't make it appropriate for use.

Would a 35mm f/1.4L make a good "normal" on a 50D? It's large, heavy, and extremely expensive. It's the equivalent of a 56mm f/2.2 on a FF camera. But on a 5D, a 50mm f/1.8 is light, cheap and is a good performer.

What if you want a wide-angle tilt-shift lens? Well the only lens that would be a true wide angle on a 50D is the 17mm t/s, which is massive, has a large, vulnerable front element, and also very expensive. The 24mm t/s on a 5D would outperform the 17 on a 50D. I'm not even sure if the T/S lenses will clear the pop-up flashes on the cameras that have them.

What about a wide angle zoom? The only choice Canon gives the 50D owner is the 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, which while a decent performer, is slow. The 5D owner has the choice of the 16-35 f/2.8L or the 17-40 f/4L, in addition to several non-L lenses. The "L's," of course, are weather-resistant, unlike the 10-22.

You have to consider actual *usage* when determining how appropriate lenses are for use on a camera. There are tons of lenses that will fit on a 50d that would be ridiculous to actually use.

Kaouthia wrote:
As long as the lens projects an image circle larger than your sensor, why does it matter?

twoharts wrote:
that's the big difference. with full frame lenses work the way they were meant to in film days.

Kaouthia wrote:
Would that be the medium or large format film days?

As long as the lens projects an image circle larger than your sensor, why does it matter?

You're right. I'll go buy a 75mm "wide angle" 4x5 lens to use as a wide on my 5D. Should be great.

Kaouthia wrote:

Would that be the medium or large format film days?

As long as the lens projects an image circle larger than your sensor, why does it matter?

It matters because 24mm is a lot different than 38mm, which would be the wide end of a 24-70 or 24-105 which are both fantastic lenses with very useful range.  I like those lenses because I want the ability to pull back to 24mm.

Moon Pix Photography wrote:
It matters because 24mm is a lot different than 38mm, which would be the wide end of a 24-70 or 24-105 which are both fantastic lenses with very useful range.  I like those lenses because I want the ability to pull back to 24mm.

If you've got a 12-24, 24-70 and a 70-200, the only "gap" you'll have is on the wide end.

I've been using full frame lenses on my crop bodies for 10 years and it's never been an issue.  The only crop lens I own is a 10-20mm.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
You're right. I'll go buy a 75mm "wide angle" 4x5 lens to use as a wide on my 5D. Should be great.

People do.

Tilt shift lenses, by their very nature, have a larger image circle than a full frame 35mm sensor.  They're certainly not shit though, are they? (and I would hope not for what they cost).

The reason they do the 17-55 and similar lenses is simply because many people are used to that field of view range in a lens.  That's it.  It's not that it's "better" than the 12-24 or 24-70 in that particular range of focal lengths, it's just more convenient.

24-70 on a Nikon crop is about 36-105 equivalent field of view and, funnily enough, Nikon used to make a 35-105mm full frame lens, so it's not exactly an odd range.

Kaouthia wrote:

If you've got a 12-24, 24-70 and a 70-200, the only "gap" you'll have is on the wide end.

I've been using full frame lenses on my crop bodies for 10 years and it's never been an issue.  The only crop lens I own is a 10-20mm.

Right.. but you need three lenses to do the work of two.

Steve Crossan wrote:
Hi all,

I'm finally going to sell off my 450D. After an ever-increasing squeeze on my budget and with Canon's ever more curious price hiking, I'm giving up the 5DIII/6D dream and I'm going to be more realistic.

The 5D and 50D are the same price used. I'm torn between which one to get; the slower, more classic 5D, or the zippier more modern 50D.

Both have their advantages for me. I like portraits, reportage and trying to shoot my brats ... I think I'm leaning towards the 50D, but I would appreciate any last minute pearls of wisdom from photographers who have used either model.

Cheers.

The original 5D is an awesome FF body...shot many weddings, portraits and products with it. I upgraded when I needed more resolution and Live View...The occasional video doesn't hurt either.

I personally would not get the 50D. Bought it as a second camera because I hated the 40D LCD. The sharpness suffers when you don't match it with better glass and the noise was downright offensive in low light.

Moon Pix Photography wrote:
Right.. but you need three lenses to do the work of two.

Or, you need three to do the work of three.  I know lots of folks who shoot full frame that have all three too.

Or, you need one to do the work of one.  Not everybody shoots in the same focal range.  I do most of my shoots on the 70-200mm f/2.8VR on a crop body.  I'd love a 105-300mm f/2.8 that I could use on a full frame body, but they don't exist.

Kaouthia wrote:
Or, you need three to do the work of three.  I know lots of folks who shoot full frame that have all three too.

Or, you need one to do the work of one.  Not everybody shoots in the same focal range.  I do most of my shoots on the 70-200mm f/2.8VR on a crop body.  I'd love a 105-300mm f/2.8 that I could use on a full frame body, but they don't exist.

Right.. it just depends.  I shoot weddings.. Two cameras and lenses (24-70 and 70-200) are enough for me.  38mm (or something like that) isn't wide enough for my liking, so having to carry another camera with an ultra wide, would suck.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
Would a 35mm f/1.4L make a good "normal" on a 50D? It's large, heavy, and extremely expensive. It's the equivalent of a 56mm f/2.2 on a FF camera.

Half correct. It is a 56mm f/1.4 with the apparent DOF of f/2.2

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
Canon has done virtually nothing to support a professional shooting with their APS-C format cameras in terms of lenses. The 17-55 f/2.8 is pretty much the only pro grade lens they offer.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
This is nonsense. ALL the EF as well as the EF-s lenses work on the crop cameras, so you actually get a wider choice with a crop camera, ironically.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
There are tons of lenses that will fit on a 50d that would be ridiculous to actually use.

You've changed your tune. Originally you stated that Canon don't make pro lenses for crop cameras, which is what I said was nonsense, and it is.

Whether a lens of particular focal length is more or less useful, 'riduculous' or practical on a crop or FF camera is really something that's up to the individual photographer to decide.

ALL the current Canon lenses will work just fine on a crop camera and the fact that YOU might think that using a 50mm lens on a crop camera is silly or in some way heretical is your problem not the OP's.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
Canon has done virtually nothing to support a professional shooting with their APS-C format cameras in terms of lenses. The 17-55 f/2.8 is pretty much the only pro grade lens they offer.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
This is nonsense. ALL the EF as well as the EF-s lenses work on the crop cameras, so you actually get a wider choice with a crop camera, ironically.

You've changed your tune. Originally you stated that Canon don't make pro lenses for crop cameras, which is what I said was nonsense, and it is.

Whether a lens of particular focal length is more or less useful, 'riduculous' or practical on a crop or FF camera is really something that's up to the individual photographer to decide.

ALL the current Canon lenses will work just fine on a crop camera and the fact that YOU might think that using a 50mm lens on a crop camera is silly or in some way heretical is your problem not the OP's.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
Canon has done virtually nothing to support a professional shooting with their APS-C format cameras in terms of lenses. The 17-55 f/2.8 is pretty much the only pro grade lens they offer.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
This is nonsense. ALL the EF as well as the EF-s lenses work on the crop cameras, so you actually get a wider choice with a crop camera, ironically.

You've changed your tune. Originally you stated that Canon don't make pro lenses for crop cameras, which is what I said was nonsense, and it is.

Whether a lens of particular focal length is more or less useful, 'riduculous' or practical on a crop or FF camera is really something that's up to the individual photographer to decide. ALL the current Canon lenses will work just fine on a crop camera and just because YOU think that using a 50mm lens on a crop camera is silly or in some way heretical is your problem not the OP's.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Yes, this!

Both the 50mm 1.8 and especially the 24-105L on my 7D are fantastic! Have yet to try the 17-40L, but I'm sure it will be ideal too.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
Canon has done virtually nothing to support a professional shooting with their APS-C format cameras in terms of lenses. The 17-55 f/2.8 is pretty much the only pro grade lens they offer.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
This is nonsense. ALL the EF as well as the EF-s lenses work on the crop cameras, so you actually get a wider choice with a crop camera, ironically.

You've changed your tune. Originally you stated that Canon don't make pro lenses for crop cameras, which is what I said was nonsense, and it is.

Whether a lens of particular focal length is more or less useful, 'riduculous' or practical on a crop or FF camera is really something that's up to the individual photographer to decide.

ALL the current Canon lenses will work just fine on a crop camera and the fact that YOU might think that using a 50mm lens on a crop camera is silly or in some way heretical is your problem not the OP's.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Fair enough. BTW MM working just as shit as usual on an IPhone o
in Toulouse.

Mark Laubenheimer wrote:
i think we all know what leggy was trying to say. why buy crop stuff when you'll prolly be going full frame eventually. why not just start with full frame.

You're implying that FF is automatically better and that everybody will want to go to FF eventually.

The OP was asking if the 5D or the 50D is the better camera for his needs now. As long as he doesn't lock himself into crop bodies by buying EF-s lenses when there's a viable EF alternative then he can still make the move (I won't say 'upgrade') to FF at any time he likes, if and when he decides to, without having wasted any money on lenses.

A few years ago I might have suggested he get the 5D as it does have great IQ and nice low light performance, but it's hardly supported any longer and you can't even get a version of the Canon EOS utility that will work with it and Win7/64 so there are now definite disadvantages to buying that particular FF camera that make the decision less than clear cut (if indeed it ever was).



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Anzhelika Yakimenko wrote:
OK.  Im a model here.  I make my living on the opposite end of the camera.  But Im a hobbyist shooter as well.  I use a 50D for stills and a 7D with matte box, cage, and rollers for video.   Some of the best images in my portfolio were taken with a 50D.  People seems to looks down on the old 50, but the same lenses are interchangeable between 5D-6D-40D-50D-5Dmkii-mkiii-etc.  Even the Mkii, by the way, has many similarities about functions with the 50D.  The 50D is meat-and-potatoes.  While not full-frame, thats true, neither is that old 5D.  Speed is not so important in studio.  So Im until Im ready to move to a 1Dx, Im probably sticking with the 50D.

Ok, let's get to the crux of the matter.

Crop cameras, APS-C, DX's etc, whatever you want to call them are perfectly suited to any application, including making prints of around 30x40, so don't let anyone tell you that a FF is the only way to go, and that crops are for wimps, it's just not true.

On a recent shoot in the studio, my humble 7D paired with the mighty 24-105L performed so well, that in most cases the images looked better to my 40 something eyes than the exact same set-up from my D800! Notice I said better, not sharper, not higher resolution as obviously the D800 would outgun the 7D if purely based upon sheer image detail under high magnification!

The 7D is also marginally better in all areas than even the very highly regarded D300s! Both are are superb though and I'm sure that a 50D will handle any situation as well if not better than the ancient 5D.

Don't knock crops, they are still kicking ass, if paired with good glass of course!

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
Canon has done virtually nothing to support a professional shooting with their APS-C format cameras in terms of lenses. The 17-55 f/2.8 is pretty much the only pro grade lens they offer.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
This is nonsense. ALL the EF as well as the EF-s lenses work on the crop cameras, so you actually get a wider choice with a crop camera, ironically.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
There are tons of lenses that will fit on a 50d that would be ridiculous to actually use.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
You've changed your tune. Originally you stated that Canon don't make pro lenses for crop cameras, which is what I said was nonsense, and it is.

How have I changed my tune? Of course it's not nonsense, if you look at it from an actual usage perspective.

When I had a 7D, I asked, where's my short telephoto portrait lens? People suggested using the 50mm lenses, which in addition to being the wrong focal length, make horrendous portrait lenses. People are paying absurd sums of money for the long-discontinued NOCT Nikkor because it's the best portrait lens available for APS format cameras, outside of the wonderful lenses Pentax makes.

I asked, where's my fast wide angle? Well, nowhere at all. Only the 24mm f/1.4L is available, and it's not exactly "wide" on a 7D now, is it?

Where's my fast, pro grade ultrawide zoom? Well here, I actually had an answer in the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. Well-built, but not USM or weather resistant. And the rings turn the wrong way on Canon cameras.

Where's my fast telephoto zoom? Well I could go ahead and get the 70-200 and call it good, but that left a gap in my coverage from the 17-55, and I found I actually missed that gap. Sigma offered a 50-150 f/2.8 that was half the weight of Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 and produced lovely bokeh. But being a Sigma, the AF made it pretty much useless until I got my 7D and I was able to dial in a +20 adjustment, which got it close to being in focus. What a useful lens that would be if Canon produced one.

Lenses that are actually *designed* for a particular format usually perform much better on that format than a lens designed for a larger format is adapted to using the smaller format. There's not just sharpness, but size, weight, the efficiency of the lens hood and interior baffling. I could go on. I'm really surprised you do not know this. You seem smart.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
Whether a lens of particular focal length is more or less useful, 'riduculous' or practical on a crop or FF camera is really something that's up to the individual photographer to decide.

I remember the early days when people repurposed Sigma's 12-24, because it was the only lens available that would actually give you a wide angle on say, a Canon 10D. But once lenses that were actually designed for the APS format cameras hit the market, yes, it did become 'riduculous.' That lens was and is the widest rectalinear lens ever designed for 35mm cameras, but on a 7D, its weaknesses compared to a Canon 10-22 or Tokina 11-16 are glaring.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
ALL the current Canon lenses will work just fine on a crop camera and the fact that YOU might think that using a 50mm lens on a crop camera is silly or in some way heretical is your problem not the OP's.

Not sure why you find it heretical. Just wondering why Canon has never bothered to design any APS format lenses with the professional photographer in mind. There was a period of time when the 20D was the most common camera in wedding photographer's hands. That would have been a great time to address the needs of the professional event photographer.

Nikon is just as guilty.

Pentax makes some wonderful APS format lenses. The 31mm f/1.8, the 43mm f/1.9 pancake, the 77mm f/1.8 and 55mm f/1.4 portrait lenses, the 70mm  f/2.4 pancake, a 16-50 f/2.8 (like a 24-70, unlike the 28-80 equivalent Canon makes) and a fisheye zoom lens.

What does Canon offer? A pile of 18-XXX consumer zooms, for the most part. How exciting.

Like I said, when you look in terms of how a professional photographer actually works, the fact that EF lenses fit doesn't matter much at all, except for in the telephoto range.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:

You're implying that FF is automatically better and that everybody will want to go to FF eventually.

The OP was asking if the 5D or the 50D is the better camera for his needs now. As long as he doesn't lock himself into crop bodies by buying EF-s lenses when there's a viable EF alternative then he can still make the move (I won't say 'upgrade') to FF at any time he likes, if and when he decides to, without having wasted any money on lenses.

A few years ago I might have suggested he get the 5D as it does have great IQ and nice low light performance, but it's hardly supported any longer and you can't even get a version of the Canon EOS utility that will work with it and Win7/64 so there are now definite disadvantages to buying that particular FF camera that make the decision less than clear cut (if indeed it ever was).



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

i wasn't implying it. leggy was.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
Canon has done virtually nothing to support a professional shooting with their APS-C format cameras in terms of lenses. The 17-55 f/2.8 is pretty much the only pro grade lens they offer.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
This is nonsense. ALL the EF as well as the EF-s lenses work on the crop cameras, so you actually get a wider choice with a crop camera, ironically.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
There are tons of lenses that will fit on a 50d that would be ridiculous to actually use.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
You've changed your tune. Originally you stated that Canon don't make pro lenses for crop cameras, which is what I said was nonsense, and it is.

How have I changed my tune? Of course it's not nonsense, if you look at it from an actual usage perspective.

When I had a 7D, I asked, where's my short telephoto portrait lens? People suggested using the 50mm lenses, which in addition to being the wrong focal length, make horrendous portrait lenses. People are paying absurd sums of money for the long-discontinued NOCT Nikkor because it's the best portrait lens available for APS format cameras, outside of the wonderful lenses Pentax makes.

I asked, where's my fast wide angle? Well, nowhere at all. Only the 24mm f/1.4L is available, and it's not exactly "wide" on a 7D now, is it?

Where's my fast, pro grade ultrawide zoom? Well here, I actually had an answer in the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. Well-built, but not USM or weather resistant. And the rings turn the wrong way on Canon cameras.

Where's my fast telephoto zoom? Well I could go ahead and get the 70-200 and call it good, but that left a gap in my coverage from the 17-55, and I found I actually missed that gap. Sigma offered a 50-150 f/2.8 that was half the weight of Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 and produced lovely bokeh. But being a Sigma, the AF made it pretty much useless until I got my 7D and I was able to dial in a +20 adjustment, which got it close to being in focus. What a useful lens that would be if Canon produced one.

Lenses that are actually *designed* for a particular format usually perform much better on that format than a lens designed for a larger format is adapted to using the smaller format. There's not just sharpness, but size, weight, the efficiency of the lens hood and interior baffling. I could go on. I'm really surprised you do not know this. You seem smart.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
Whether a lens of particular focal length is more or less useful, 'riduculous' or practical on a crop or FF camera is really something that's up to the individual photographer to decide.

I remember the early days when people repurposed Sigma's 12-24, because it was the only lens available that would actually give you a wide angle on say, a Canon 10D. But once lenses that were actually designed for the APS format cameras hit the market, yes, it did become 'riduculous.' That lens was and is the widest rectalinear lens ever designed for 35mm cameras, but on a 7D, its weaknesses compared to a Canon 10-22 or Tokina 11-16 are glaring.


Not sure why you find it heretical. Just wondering why Canon has never bothered to design any APS format lenses with the professional photographer in mind. There was a period of time when the 20D was the most common camera in wedding photographer's hands. That would have been a great time to address the needs of the professional event photographer.

Nikon is just as guilty.

Pentax makes some wonderful APS format lenses. The 31mm f/1.8, the 43mm f/1.9 pancake, the 77mm f/1.8 and 55mm f/1.4 portrait lenses, the 70mm  f/2.4 pancake, a 16-50 f/2.8 (like a 24-70, unlike the 28-80 equivalent Canon makes) and a fisheye zoom lens.

What does Canon offer? A pile of 18-XXX consumer zooms, for the most part. How exciting.

Like I said, when you look in terms of how a professional photographer actually works, the fact that EF lenses fit doesn't matter much at all, except for in the telephoto range.

Why do you keep referring to the EF-S range? I certainly wouldn't use any of these on my 7D, L series all the way, and they've got that range better covered than Nikon!

Mark Laubenheimer wrote:
i wasn't implying it. leggy was.

No I wasn't. All I said was that FF is far better supported with appropriate lenses. Had Canon bothered to make a few key lenses, I'd still be shooting a 7D. I loved that camera and the advantages of the APS format. But Canon's made it clear that they don't intend to support it to the extent that the professional requires.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:

No I wasn't. All I said was that FF is far better supported with appropriate lenses. Had Canon bothered to make a few key lenses, I'd still be shooting a 7D. I loved that camera and the advantages of the APS format. But Canon's made it clear that they don't intend to support it to the extent that the professional requires.

dang.

Moon Pix Photography wrote:
Right.. it just depends.  I shoot weddings.. Two cameras and lenses (24-70 and 70-200) are enough for me.  38mm (or something like that) isn't wide enough for my liking, so having to carry another camera with an ultra wide, would suck.

Yeah, doing weddings, going wider than 38mm is obviously handy.  I absolutely do not ever intend on doing any weddings, so it's not a concern for me.

But still, don't you have some primes as well?  Sometimes those extra 2 stops on a 35/50/85mm f/1.4 can be a live saver.  Or how about a 100/105mm f/2.8 macro for the detail shots?  Don't you still have to swap lenses out occasionally?

I either want 70-200 (crop body remember - and this focal range is where I spend about 90% of my time when I'm shooting with a DSLR), 50mm (where I'm always at if shooting 35mm film) or 10-20mm.  I very rarely need anything else between 20-70mm (30-105mm FF equivalent).  That said, I'm stealing the wife's 35mm for a shoot tomorrow.

Kaouthia wrote:
Yeah, doing weddings, going wider than 38mm is obviously handy.  I absolutely do not ever intend on doing any weddings, so it's not a concern for me.

But still, don't you have some primes as well?  Sometimes those extra 2 stops on a 35/50/85mm f/1.4 can be a live saver.  Or how about a 100/105mm f/2.8 macro for the detail shots?  Don't you still have to swap lenses out occasionally?

I either want 70-200 (crop body remember - and this focal range is where I spend about 90% of my time when I'm shooting with a DSLR), 50mm (where I'm always at if shooting 35mm film) or 10-20mm.  I very rarely need anything else between 20-70mm (30-105mm FF equivalent).  That said, I'm stealing the wife's 35mm for a shoot tomorrow.

Gotta say John, even the primes that Canon currently offer are smokin' hot.

28mm 1.8
24mmL 1.4 (seriously fucking expensive) but would sell my mother for one!