I'm not sure what's worse... asking for lens advice without indicating what you shoot, or giving lens advice without knowing what's being shot.
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.
Also, question to those that use apeture. Do you edit your RAW in Apeture...and then export to TIFF. It almost sounds from others' posts here...they export to TIFF then do post processing. I thought you did your post in RAW...and then exported to TIFF or jpeg for printing...etc?
You should read again - the primes 85L and 135L offer superior bokeh and a thinner dof at non-tele range if you want it, it's non-replaceable by the 70-200/2.8.
The 70-200L and 70-300L are completely different lenses, too: The 70-200L is the most flexible, lower-light event- and wedding lens out there with superior sharpness over the 70-300L - how much you will notice it will depend on your subject. The 70-300L imho has the better size-weight-iq-af-zoomfactor-buildquality-price combination and tradeoff. Btw, one of the best things about f2.8 is that the af works better than at f5.6 in lower light, at least on the 60d.
A sharp lens is only good if your body nails focus. If you do any shooting in fading or low light, or sports or other moving subjects, the 5D3 combo hands down. If you're shooting with strobes in a studio or landscapes on a tripod then clearly the 5D2 combo is king. The fact is no one can give you any kind of worthwhile advice without knowing what, where, and when you shoot.
Don't necessarily limit yourself to f2.8 glass either. The 24-105 f4 can be a killer piece of glass with 3 stops of IS and when combined with a 5D3 body.... about 4 stops higher ISO (that translates into a LOT of action stopping shutter speed) compared to what you're use to.
The IS has absolutely no benefit for subject movement. It only helps to correct camera movement allowing one to shoot at lower shutter speeds. It provides no 'action stopping' advantage. The camera itself does not provide 4 stops improvement in high ISO performance over the MkII.
I just wanted to make sure before I get too excited. So please correct me if I am wrong,
So in terms of dealing with dark areas, Lightroom is bad for CR2 files right ?
and we should use DPP or Aperture instead. Correct ?