August 23, 2014, 11:19:18 AM

Author Topic: With lens, without lens  (Read 2631 times)

joos

  • Guest
With lens, without lens
« on: March 25, 2012, 02:16:30 PM »
New guy here,
I'm a 7D owner looking to get a 5D3.  I feel like I am ready for an upgrade even though I get good results with the 7D.
The question for me is should I get the 5D3 as body only or a kit even though I have a decent lens lineup.  All my lenses are EF so I'll post what I have and provide me with advice. 

28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 (came with the 7D)
70-200mm f/4L (got until I could afford others)
70-200mm f/2.8L IS ii
TS-E 24mm f/3.5L ii
50mm f/1.2L
100mm f/2.8L IS

I know the kits stay in stock a hair bit longer than the bodies but with this lens line up, could I even use the 24-105mm f/4L. What would you do in my spot?
Thanks

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 8419
    • View Profile
Re: With lens, without lens
« Reply #1 on: March 25, 2012, 02:21:09 PM »
Get the kit.  Sell the 28-135mm lens.  You will notice the difference, the 24-105mm L is much better.
 
After that, you might want longer, if so, sell one of the 70-200mm lenses and get a 100-400mmL.  400mm on a FF is about the same as 250mm on a crop.

joos

  • Guest
Re: With lens, without lens
« Reply #2 on: March 25, 2012, 02:58:28 PM »
I have thought about that and I am leaning that way. I always like to get advice. 
For that additional lens, I am really curious about the 200-400mm f/4L with the built in extender.   Looking forward to reading the reviews and seeing MTF charts on it.

RC

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 608
    • View Profile
Re: With lens, without lens
« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2012, 03:05:41 PM »
Get the kit.  Sell the 28-135mm lens.  You will notice the difference, the 24-105mm L is much better.
 
After that, you might want longer, if so, sell one of the 70-200mm lenses and get a 100-400mmL.  400mm on a FF is about the same as 250mm on a crop.

Dido, thinking the exact same before I even got to Mt S's post.   I'm jealous, I want a 5D3 to go with my 7D.    :).

Btw, nice set of lens. 

Z

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 188
    • View Profile
Re: With lens, without lens
« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2012, 03:11:38 PM »
Sell your 70-200 f/4, sell your 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 and get the kit.

joos

  • Guest
Re: With lens, without lens
« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2012, 03:19:22 PM »
Get the kit.  Sell the 28-135mm lens.  You will notice the difference, the 24-105mm L is much better.
 
After that, you might want longer, if so, sell one of the 70-200mm lenses and get a 100-400mmL.  400mm on a FF is about the same as 250mm on a crop.

Dido, thinking the exact same before I even got to Mt S's post.   I'm jealous, I want a 5D3 to go with my 7D.    :).

Btw, nice set of lens.

Thanks. 
I have been wanting a FF for a long time and have been waiting for the 5D3 for a while.  Sometimes I get a little aggravated with the 7D since its not FF.

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1300
    • View Profile
Re: With lens, without lens
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2012, 03:33:48 PM »
Mostly agree with those that recommend getting the lens kit.  The only reasons why I'd think you wouldn't do that was if you were planning on getting a 24-70 at some point or do a 16-35L/50L/70-200L combo.

joos

  • Guest
Re: With lens, without lens
« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2012, 03:59:03 PM »
Mostly agree with those that recommend getting the lens kit.  The only reasons why I'd think you wouldn't do that was if you were planning on getting a 24-70 at some point or do a 16-35L/50L/70-200L combo.

That is a good point.  The 24-70 is attractive and it might be something I'll pursue later down the road.   

Axilrod

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1373
    • View Profile
Re: With lens, without lens
« Reply #8 on: March 25, 2012, 04:01:35 PM »
I have thought about that and I am leaning that way. I always like to get advice. 
For that additional lens, I am really curious about the 200-400mm f/4L with the built in extender.   Looking forward to reading the reviews and seeing MTF charts on it.

Word on the street is that lens is going to be $10k-$12k, but hey if you can afford it go for it.  You have some great lenses already, I agree with the previous poster that you should sell the 28-135 and 70-200 f/4 and maybe get the kit.  I know there are way more kits in stock than body-only at the moment.  The 24-105 is a great walk around lens and if you don't like it you can easily get the $800 back from the kit price. 
5DIII/5DII/Bunch of L's and ZE's, currently rearranging.

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1300
    • View Profile
Re: With lens, without lens
« Reply #9 on: March 25, 2012, 04:25:52 PM »
Word on the street is that lens is going to be $10k-$12k, but hey if you can afford it go for it.  You have some great lenses already, I agree with the previous poster that you should sell the 28-135 and 70-200 f/4 and maybe get the kit.  I know there are way more kits in stock than body-only at the moment.  The 24-105 is a great walk around lens and if you don't like it you can easily get the $800 back from the kit price.

I wonder how much of a market there will be for the 200-400 if it is 10-12k.  For that price, you can get the 400L f/2.8 and use TCs and still have a wider aperture (or choose a longer 500 or 600mm prime).

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 8419
    • View Profile
Re: With lens, without lens
« Reply #10 on: March 25, 2012, 04:59:53 PM »
I have thought about that and I am leaning that way. I always like to get advice. 
For that additional lens, I am really curious about the 200-400mm f/4L with the built in extender.   Looking forward to reading the reviews and seeing MTF charts on it.

The $11,000 200-400mm f/4 L will be fantastic.  It will not be something to just walk around with, you will need $$$$ tripod and head, so add another $1500 or more for that.
 
If you can afford that lens, why not get a d1 X.

joos

  • Guest
Re: With lens, without lens
« Reply #11 on: March 26, 2012, 04:17:27 AM »
I have thought about that and I am leaning that way. I always like to get advice. 
For that additional lens, I am really curious about the 200-400mm f/4L with the built in extender.   Looking forward to reading the reviews and seeing MTF charts on it.

The $11,000 200-400mm f/4 L will be fantastic.  It will not be something to just walk around with, you will need $$$$ tripod and head, so add another $1500 or more for that.
 
If you can afford that lens, why not get a d1 X.

I already have a tripod and head that will support the weight of the 200-400mm. So I am not worried about that.

I know the 1DX will be a good one but I guess since I have used the 7D for so long and loved the ergonomics and layout, I wanted to stay with something around the same feel. Some words on the street are that the 5D3 feels like a 7D.  Then again I know if I never put a 1DX in my hands I'll never know if I like the ergonomics. 

And to be honest. I don't know if I'm ready for a 1D yet.  Couple of years a go I started out as a Rebel XT shooter.  Learned what I could.  Got some OK results until a family trip and figured it was time to upgrade.  I was going to get a 50D, talked to a buddy about it and he recommended the 7D.  I'm glad he did once I got it I haven't looked back.

dr croubie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1398
  • Too many photos, too little time.
    • View Profile
Re: With lens, without lens
« Reply #12 on: March 26, 2012, 04:38:24 AM »
Firstly, i'd say only ditch the 28-135 for the 24-105 if you actually use it.
With the tse24, 50/1.2, and 100L, i'd be set with that lineup, i've got the 15-85 and have to force myself to use it sometimes. (but then, i'm not travelling or doing much landscape shooting, if i were travelling my 'kit zoom' would get much more work than it is).

And as you've got the 70-200 in f/4 and f/2.8 IS II, i'd be keeping only one if i were you. Of course the 2.8 IS II wins in almost every respect, except size and weight (yes, there are people who prefer the f/4 versions). I'd pick the 2.8 though.

And i'd love to put a 200-400 on my 7D, or even on a 1Dmk4. But between that and the 400/2.8 for the same price, I think i'd go the latter with extenders, unless the zoom turns out to be smaller and lighter (who knows? i'm guessing roughly the same size). I'd probably go 5D3 and Zeiss 21mm before this lens though.
Too much gear, too little space.
Gear Photos

D.Sim

  • Guest
Re: With lens, without lens
« Reply #13 on: March 26, 2012, 04:51:18 AM »
Get the kit. Even if you had a 24-70 or 24-105 only I'd say get the kit, and sell off the lens. Buying that lens along with the camera means you can always sell it off later, and make some money back on the body - the savings you get off buying it as a kit is brilliant.

joos

  • Guest
Re: With lens, without lens
« Reply #14 on: March 26, 2012, 12:52:21 PM »
Thanks to all for the advice. 
B&H had kits in stock this morning and I jumped on it.