5D3 redefining lens choices?

[thepancakeman]

I'm giving somewhat serious consideration to a 5D3.  Because I shoot sports, my constant struggle is to get enough light to keep the shutter speeds as high as I need them.  So I've always looked for the fastest lenses I can get, with f/2.8 being the minimum.  Of course with a fast moving target, when the DOF gets too thin, even the slightest miss on the AF starts to show, so it's a bit of a two-edged sword.

So the question is, with the great ISO available on the 5D3, will I start to be better friends with my 24-105L and can I consider the 17-40L (both of which are f/4.0) or should I still stick with the faster lenses?

[D_Rochat]

As long as you don't need the 2.8 dof, there is no reason you shouldn't feel safe bumping the iso up a stop on the mark III to make up for it, even with indoor sports. I just rented the 17-40L to use on my mark III and I was very happy with it even though my 24-200 range is 2.8. That's going to be my next lens, at least until I can trade Canon an arm and a leg for the 14-24 that may or may not happen.

[Dylan777]

If money is NOT an issue, I would go for faster lenses. 24-70 mrk II.

Keep in mind...you can always step down the aperture from faster lenses.  but not the otherways

[TrumpetPower!]

There are a great deal of variables involved...but, if your problem is that you're not getting the shutter speeds with fast glass and your current camera, then slower glass with a camera with cleaner high ISOs is likely going to leave you right where you are right now. Instead, what you (probably) want is fast glass to go with the 5DIII.

Keep in mind that the 5DIII has Canon's best-ever autofocus system, so the shallow depth of field shouldn't be as much of a problem as you're indicating you're afraid it'll be.

b&

[peederj]

More latitude is more latitude. More latitude is good.

(More money may be better.)

[thepancakeman]

There are a great deal of variables involved...but, if your problem is that you're not getting the shutter speeds with fast glass and your current camera, then slower glass with a camera with cleaner high ISOs is likely going to leave you right where you are right now. Instead, what you (probably) want is fast glass to go with the 5DIII.

Keep in mind that the 5DIII has Canon's best-ever autofocus system, so the shallow depth of field shouldn't be as much of a problem as you're indicating you're afraid it'll be.

b&

For example, my latest "variables" were a weightlifting competition (Olympic weightlifting movements are explosive and extrememly quick):  had my 70-200L at 2.8, my 7D at ISO 3200, underexposed my shots by 1/3 of a stop and still couldn't get the shots due to motion blur, plus hate the noise at 3200 on the 7D.  My buddy was using a 1.8 prime and although he was getting the shutter speeds, his focus always slightly off more than it was on.

[mdm041]

Since I've moved to the Mk3 I don't see myself wishing I had a slower lens but I have been stoping my lenses down to take images where the lens is sharper than its max ap.  So it has allowed me to use my lens at other aperatures other than wide open.

[TrumpetPower!]

There are a great deal of variables involved...but, if your problem is that you're not getting the shutter speeds with fast glass and your current camera, then slower glass with a camera with cleaner high ISOs is likely going to leave you right where you are right now. Instead, what you (probably) want is fast glass to go with the 5DIII.

Keep in mind that the 5DIII has Canon's best-ever autofocus system, so the shallow depth of field shouldn't be as much of a problem as you're indicating you're afraid it'll be.

b&

For example, my latest "variables" were a weightlifting competition (Olympic weightlifting movements are explosive and extrememly quick):  had my 70-200L at 2.8, my 7D at ISO 3200, underexposed my shots by 1/3 of a stop and still couldn't get the shots due to motion blur, plus hate the noise at 3200 on the 7D.  My buddy was using a 1.8 prime and although he was getting the shutter speeds, his focus always slightly off more than it was on.

Sounds like you'll want the 5DIII with fast glass, and that your buddy should probably do an autofocus manual adjustment with his 85.

This page is wonderful for doing the kind of math you're heading towards:

http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm

Cheers,

b&

[dhofmann]

What focal lengths are you using? If you tend to use 200mm, then the other lenses you mentioned (50mm f/1.8, 17-40mm f/4, 24-105mm f/4) will require cropping to achieve the same field of view, so you wouldn't get the fine details that you can get with your 70-200mm lens.

You can use software to reduce noise, at the expense of some resolution. But you can't use software to increase resolution. So if you're taking photos from a distance, I'd stick with the 70-200 f/2.8 lens. It has a greater focal length to aperture² ratio, so it will let in more light at longer focal lengths.

[robbymack]

interesting question here.  Nothing will really ever replace faster glass for effect and DOF, however as the photographer continues to get improved ISO performance it will certainly make one consider whether the extra $ for the faster lens is worth it especially if you are nothing more than a enthusiast.  Personally I've always been a "f4 zoom trinity" man, I never saw the usefulness of the 2.8 zooms for their respective costs when F4 worked for what I needed and when I needed fast I grabbed a prime or a flash.  So I applaud the high ISO performance of today's cameras, if nothing else it means less stuff to pack.

[bdunbar79]

You can't just go by ISO settings in the camera.  The lens matters a whole lot when focusing in low light.  The 300mm f/2.8L lens will focus much faster on moving objects in low light than the 300 f/4L.  This has to do with which types of auto focus sensors the lens can access.  If I were shooting evening football for instance, I would not use my 300 f/4L because I'd probably miss badly.  The 300 f/2.8L never misses.  It's both camera and lens that matters.

[wickidwombat]

You can't just go by ISO settings in the camera.  The lens matters a whole lot when focusing in low light.  The 300mm f/2.8L lens will focus much faster on moving objects in low light than the 300 f/4L.  This has to do with which types of auto focus sensors the lens can access.  If I were shooting evening football for instance, I would not use my 300 f/4L because I'd probably miss badly.  The 300 f/2.8L never misses.  It's both camera and lens that matters.

nailed it

[bdunbar79]

You can't just go by ISO settings in the camera.  The lens matters a whole lot when focusing in low light.  The 300mm f/2.8L lens will focus much faster on moving objects in low light than the 300 f/4L.  This has to do with which types of auto focus sensors the lens can access.  If I were shooting evening football for instance, I would not use my 300 f/4L because I'd probably miss badly.  The 300 f/2.8L never misses.  It's both camera and lens that matters.

nailed it

And I have a long, long list of file names of photos where I missed badly to prove it 

[pwp]

The 5D3 & the 1D4 have both modified my lens requirements with their amazing high iso performance. I value rocket fast AF so I look to f/2.8 as a practical limit. My 300 f/2.8 focuses way quicker than my previous 300 f/4. But at the wider end of the equation, I find reduced need for f/1.4 lenses. I've replaced my 50 f/1.4 with an f/2.8 40mm (McShorty) which is SHARP wide open. My 24-105 f/4 is getting a lot more use than it used to. My copy is sharp wide open too, though I will pick up the new 24-70 f/2.8 when it ships.

Yesterday I did a job for a university shooting in a big lecture theatre. I shot with the 5D3 with 300 f/2.8 at 12,800 iso. You can't afford to underexpose, but when the exposure is perfect which is not hard with 5D3 metering, the results just knock my socks off.

PW

[SandyP]

The answer is NO.

For two big reasons:

1. High ISO will not give you control over the DOF when you're still using such slow lenses like f/4 or even f/2.8, but certainly f/4

2. If you're only ever shooting daylight, fine. But why wouldn't you want to have a fast lens like a f/1.4 lens AND high ISO abilities? That would give you more control over depth of field AND give you more options to use either lower ISOs, or push the low light ability even further.


f/4 is still limiting, no matter what. Unless you shoot in brighter situations and you don't care as much about having ultimate control over depth of field.


There are other reasons which were mentioned, like focusing speed. f/2.8 is sorta slow, f/4 is like a death sentence in many situations, even with the 5D3.

Again, depends on what you're shooting, but I'd never touch those slower lenses unless I knew it was for bright situations. I have the 17-40L, and I only ever use it for interior design photos, which is daylight, and often with strobes, so I'm stopped down anyway, and still on low ISOs on a tripod.