How is this for motivation: B&H has it for $1974 now till Dec 2nd !!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
OTOH, If Canon would offer another 5DIII kit with the new 24-70 f/2.8 II, that would be a combination NOBODY yet had. So, many users of the current 24-70L f/2.8 would maybe consider upgrading at the same time they upgrade their body (to 5DIII). While it would cost a fortune (around $5k?), it could sell in good amounts among enthousiasts. Kit will be cheaper and lots of people are probably waiting for both the 5DIII and 24-70 f/2.8L II.
That would be a good reason. OTOH, a 24-70 f/2.8 II would be a highly popular lens and would sell like hotcakes at full retail so Canon may not want to put in a kit at a reduced price. The 24-105mm is still the best choice for a new user and many (maybe most?) upgrading to the 5D3 might be less price conscious (i.e. they just want the 5D3 sooooo much they can taste it). Anyway, I'm just having some fun with speculating... the choices for kits is purely a business decision to drive sales and generally I think they won't put a lens in a kit that would be highly desired for specific/compelling/professional reasons.
@Neuroanatomist - That is what has been killing me with the 70-200 F4 IS versus the 70-300 F4-5.6. Extra 100 is nice, but I think the 70-200 might be sharper. You didn't like the 2.8 non-IS? I think I read that while it is a little faster a lens, the F4 is a tad sharper.
No difference in sharpness between the 70-200mm f/4L IS and the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II has a slight edge (very slight) over both.
As awinphoto, the 70-200mm f/2.8L (non-IS) is great from a tripod, or the right choice if you'll mainly be shooting sports/events under dim light and the IS MkII version is not in your budget. The f/4L IS is a tad sharper than the f/2.8L non-IS.
I would be happy if the 5DIII had 1D4 AF and 12800 iso.But, it won't. It will be lucky to have 7D AF.
I agree that 5DIII would be lucky to have even 7D's AF. Here is why:
5DIII will be aimed at studio/landscape photographers. Of course they deserve a decent AF system with their camera, say one that is between 60D's and 7D's AF. But not more than that or Canon will shoot themselves with their own weapon. 1DIV's AF is way too advanced for a camera that won't even need it. This would also mess the Canon lineup. 1Dx sales could suffer, 7D's or 7DII's sales would suffer although they are aimed at totally different markets. Heck, even 5DIII's sales would suffer because of it's increased price (highly advanced AF would obviously cost more). Why would Canon take such a risk?
They would not want to put all killer features in one camera and sell it for $2500... Why would they? They want you to buy the flagship model for that, and for a price. They would want to keep a good distinction between all their cameras to ensure that they all bring in the maximum cash. Which I think is only fair given the R&D they are putting in their different products. I know these cameras are already different in so many ways (sensor size, pixel count, low-light capabilities, burst shooting, etc) but AF system has always been the key feature to keep them really separated.
People expect better AF in 5DIII and right so, 5DIII will have better AF. Because Canon would want the 5DII users to upgrade to the new model and they know that only better IQ/low-light performance in the new model won't cut it for many of us. So a slightly better AF is all they will offer.
Just my 2 cents...