Forums > Photography Talk > What to get on a budget?

Photographer

Dennys Arias

Posts: 6

Elizabeth, New Jersey, US

So I'm looking to upgrade but I'm on a budget of 5k give or take.
I plan to upgrade to Full Frame, and have no L Lenses.
The camera would be for video & landscape along with some portrait work.

If you were in my shoes what would you get?
7D, 6D, or 5D
24-70, 70-200, 16-35, or 17-40?

Apr 15 13 04:50 pm Link

Photographer

Wilde One

Posts: 2373

Santa Monica, California, US

6D and the 17-40 would be a nice combo for landscape.

Apr 15 13 05:22 pm Link

Photographer

photoguy35

Posts: 1040

Goodyear, Arizona, US

My suggestions:

6D:  $1900
17-40:  $700
50: (f1.8 @  $110 or f1.4 @ $340)
85 f1.8:  $370
70-200: ($2100, $1150, $1050, or $650 depending on f2.8 or 4, IS or no IS)

Depending on your video needs and personal taste, also consider the 35 f2 ($280), 28 f1.8 ($440), or the stabilized 24 f2.8 IS ($650) or 28 f2.8 IS ($750).

Apr 15 13 06:14 pm Link

Photographer

MarcMarayag

Posts: 77

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

get a 5dmkiii with a 24-105L

that's my opinion

more versatile with your needs

Apr 15 13 07:19 pm Link

Photographer

Jayc Yu

Posts: 533

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Buy everything used to save money.
Since you already have the funds, buy the best product line.
In the case of camera, get a full frame sensor:
5D II or 6D

I recommend a prime lens to get out-of-focus effect, when shooting close-up portrait and outdoor videos.
50mm f/1.2L

The problem with the 85mm f/1.2L is it loses a lot of wide-angle effect compared to a 35mm and 50mm.

Shot with a Nikkor 50 f/1.2 plus Canon 5DII on my $100 DIY shoulder rig:
http://youtu.be/12-y6MuDYNQ

Apr 15 13 08:46 pm Link

Photographer

o k u t a k e

Posts: 4660

New York, New York, US

6D + 85 f1.2L + 17-40 f4L + 50 f1.4

This will give you the full range from portrait to landscape.

85L will give you the shallow DOF and ultra dreamy bokeh for your portraits
17-40L will do the job for your landscapes that will probably be shot at f8-f11.
50 will be a good all around lens for full length shots and video. 

You could also swap the 85L for a 70-200. Both are excellent lenses. The 70-200 will give you the full range from portrait to tight headshot, but I'd go for the 85 since I couldn't give up the bokeh and speed.

Apr 15 13 09:11 pm Link

Photographer

Solas

Posts: 10390

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

5D and 17-40 and 24-70.

Spend the rest on a kick ass tripod head, and filters.

Forget the other lenses.

May supplement both of the above lenses for the 16-35 (try to find the mark I, it's cheaper and you'd likely not see the difference..hell I can barely tell the difference).

Apr 15 13 10:20 pm Link

Photographer

sunn fotography

Posts: 278

Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

5d3 + 24-70 f4 L + 16-35L + 50 f 1.4 + 70-200 !! smile

Apr 15 13 11:46 pm Link

Photographer

Jay Leavitt

Posts: 6745

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Dennys Arias wrote:
The camera would be for video & landscape along with some portrait work.

5DII
17-40L
50 1.4
100 f2
200 2.8L

The 5DII is a fantastic camera for the uses you mention. the 17-40 range doesn't benefit as much from shallow DOF / wide apertures as the 50mm+ crowd does. 50/100/200 primes do very well in portraits, and all four lenses give a great variety for video.

Spend the other $2,000 on lighting, audio, movement, etc - maybe even a T2i and Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC for a B-cam with a great stabilized range - a t2i with a 4 stop IS'd 28-75 2.8 (equivalent) lens coupled with a steadicam makes for a GREAT combo.

Apr 16 13 12:15 am Link

Photographer

Pelle Piano

Posts: 2312

Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden

[edit]Sorry, misread the budget.

Apr 16 13 12:49 am Link

Photographer

Wilde One

Posts: 2373

Santa Monica, California, US

Dennys Arias wrote:
So I'm looking to upgrade but I'm on a budget of 5k give or take.
I plan to upgrade to Full Frame, and have no L Lenses.
The camera would be for video & landscape along with some portrait work.

If you were in my shoes what would you get?
7D, 6D, or 5D
24-70, 70-200, 16-35, or 17-40?

Just saw your budget was actually quite good.

5D III is a great camera. Check the features if you want it or are OK with the 6D.

The 5D probably has the better viewfinder - something you should never underestimate.

For landscape the 24-105 would probably not ideal. The 17-40 would probably be the better option. But if you want to keep your options open, e.g. to shoot portrait, the 24-105/4L IS USM is so well-priced in the kit it's not a mistake to buy it.

Then I'd wait and shoot and see if you'd rather have an extreme wide angle - or money for shooting. I think Canon just came out with a 8-15 mm lens. Could be nice for landscape if you're into extreme wide angles.

Apr 16 13 10:17 pm Link

Photographer

365 Digitals Exposed

Posts: 807

Perris, California, US

wow.. looks like the 7d is not as popular, no one is recommending it so far.

Apr 16 13 10:51 pm Link

Photographer

Jay Leavitt

Posts: 6745

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

365 Digitals Exposed wrote:
wow.. looks like the 7d is not as popular, no one is recommending it so far.

A 7D/60D/T2i with:
17-50/55 f/2.8
50 f/1.4
100 f/2

would be what I would personally go with, (and have - most of my port is a t2i and these lenses) but my budget is smaller than the OP's - a 5DII/6D have better qualities, and you can get better glass and still be shy of the $5,000 budget.

Apr 16 13 10:56 pm Link

Photographer

alessandro2009

Posts: 8091

Florence, Toscana, Italy

Dennys Arias wrote:
So I'm looking to upgrade but I'm on a budget of 5k give or take.
I plan to upgrade to Full Frame, and have no L Lenses.

The camera would be for video & landscape along with some portrait work.

For landscape a tripod should be mandatory so you should include it in the budget.
Also at least a polarizer filter and eventually a ND or an GND filter.
For video a mirrorless-camera is often preferable to a DSLR system, especially for don't static subject with nice light.
The main benefit about a full-frame DSLR camera is made from the high iso performance since if you see DXOMark the dynamic range isn't necessary better respect an aps-c camera.
Canon 6d
Dynamic range: 12.1 Evs
where recent aps-c camera with Sony sensor doing better while the canon 7d and the canon 60d doing only slightly worse (11.7 vs 11.5).

Reading your profile one of your interest is even wildlife where a 70-200 is usually too short, and naturally on a full-frame camera the situation became more critical.
So i don't think you need a full-frame camera and if you add even the cost of important accessory you go out of budget without able to satisfy all your needs in spite of the sum, in absolute terms, don't small.
So why don't buy instead a nice semi-pro body Canon xxD series (even used) and very good glass and important accessory?

Apr 17 13 02:06 am Link

Photographer

Philip from Scotland

Posts: 225

Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom

You say upgrade... what have you already got?

Apr 17 13 02:28 am Link

Photographer

Dennys Arias

Posts: 6

Elizabeth, New Jersey, US

Philip from Scotland wrote:
You say upgrade... what have you already got?

Sorry on the late reply. And thank you all for the suggestions.

I currently have a T3 with the kit lenses EF-S 18-55 & 75-300.
I've been saving up for a 5DmkII since '12 but since then the mkIII and 6D came out so I'm rethink my upgrade.

The T3 personally I think is amazing for a entry level. I've gotten great shots off it but I want a camera with better noise performance.

Some of my shots can be seen on my 500px

Apr 24 13 02:29 pm Link