What to do?

[robbymack]

This is really more or less for fun as I am pretty sure what I am going to do.

New 5diii delivered today courtesy of the adorama eBay sale, thanks guys!  This leaves me in a pickle, I have no standard zoom for FF and $2500 burning a hole in my pocket.

So 24-70 ii, or 24-105 and 135 L?

Current FF compatible kit is, 28 1.8, 50 1.8, 70-200 f4 is. Suggestions are welcome.

[Razor2012]

I love the 70-200 2.8II and the 5DIII combo, but I definately would get the 24-70II also.

[K-amps]

if you can wait a little get the 24-70ii !!!  Paired with the 5d3 and it's high ISO capabilities, you will be able to get Prime like quality, better than prime sharpness.

You will miss out on wide aperture bokeh's but there is always a trade-off. What you get with the 24-70ii will outweigh the costs IMHO.

Your next upgrade should be getting the 70-200 f2.8mk.II. You will know this once you have shot with the 24-70ii how amazing the shots are form it... 

 

[AprilForever]

24-105 and 135...

[bdunbar79]

24-105 and 135...

+1

[TriGGy]

If I had $2500 I'd just go for the 24-70 II. You probably need that over the 24-105 unless you don't want to change lenses often between 24-70 and 70-200, and don't mind losing one stop of light (and more bokeh). While I love the 24-105 for a walkaround, I'm missing a lot on bokeh when I need to do a certain effect but that's just me. 

My problem is what to get after my 24-105: the 24-70 II or 70-200 II. 

[Razor2012]

If I had $2500 I'd just go for the 24-70 II. You probably need that over the 24-105 unless you don't want to change lenses often between 24-70 and 70-200, and don't mind losing one stop of light (and more bokeh). While I love the 24-105 for a walkaround, I'm missing a lot on bokeh when I need to do a certain effect but that's just me. 

My problem is what to get after my 24-105: the 24-70 II or 70-200 II. 

That's why I passed on the 24-105 altogether.  Picked up the 70-200 2.8II and the 16-35II, now just waiting for the 24-70II. I'd like to see a 14-24 fill in that bottom end though.

[K-amps]

If I had $2500 I'd just go for the 24-70 II. You probably need that over the 24-105 unless you don't want to change lenses often between 24-70 and 70-200, and don't mind losing one stop of light (and more bokeh). While I love the 24-105 for a walkaround, I'm missing a lot on bokeh when I need to do a certain effect but that's just me. 

My problem is what to get after my 24-105: the 24-70 II or 70-200 II. 

That's why I passed on the 24-105 altogether.  Picked up the 70-200 2.8II and the 16-35II, now just waiting for the 24-70II. I'd like to see a 14-24 fill in that bottom end though.

Once that happens you got the 14-200mm range covered @F2.8   

[Razor2012]

If I had $2500 I'd just go for the 24-70 II. You probably need that over the 24-105 unless you don't want to change lenses often between 24-70 and 70-200, and don't mind losing one stop of light (and more bokeh). While I love the 24-105 for a walkaround, I'm missing a lot on bokeh when I need to do a certain effect but that's just me. 

My problem is what to get after my 24-105: the 24-70 II or 70-200 II. 

That's why I passed on the 24-105 altogether.  Picked up the 70-200 2.8II and the 16-35II, now just waiting for the 24-70II. I'd like to see a 14-24 fill in that bottom end though.

Once that happens you got the 14-200mm range covered @F2.8   

Yeppers.  Just think if that 14-24 is in the same league as the other two. 

[cliffwang]

If I had $2500 I'd just go for the 24-70 II. You probably need that over the 24-105 unless you don't want to change lenses often between 24-70 and 70-200, and don't mind losing one stop of light (and more bokeh). While I love the 24-105 for a walkaround, I'm missing a lot on bokeh when I need to do a certain effect but that's just me. 

My problem is what to get after my 24-105: the 24-70 II or 70-200 II. 

That's why I passed on the 24-105 altogether.  Picked up the 70-200 2.8II and the 16-35II, now just waiting for the 24-70II. I'd like to see a 14-24 fill in that bottom end though.

Once that happens you got the 14-200mm range covered @F2.8   

Yeppers.  Just think if that 14-24 is in the same league as the other two. 

Man!  I want 14-24mm badly.

[Razor2012]

If I had $2500 I'd just go for the 24-70 II. You probably need that over the 24-105 unless you don't want to change lenses often between 24-70 and 70-200, and don't mind losing one stop of light (and more bokeh). While I love the 24-105 for a walkaround, I'm missing a lot on bokeh when I need to do a certain effect but that's just me. 

My problem is what to get after my 24-105: the 24-70 II or 70-200 II. 

That's why I passed on the 24-105 altogether.  Picked up the 70-200 2.8II and the 16-35II, now just waiting for the 24-70II. I'd like to see a 14-24 fill in that bottom end though.

Once that happens you got the 14-200mm range covered @F2.8   

Yeppers.  Just think if that 14-24 is in the same league as the other two. 

Man!  I want 14-24mm badly.

14-200 @2.8 will be sweet. 

[DB]

Seriously, if it were me, I'd sell the 70-200mm f/4 IS (I sold mine last June) and use the proceeds + 200 = a new 24-70mm Mark 1 (before they're all gone) - the mark II will drop in price eventually once the early-adopters have been fed!

Now take your remaining cash and get the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM lens, so you have 24-200 @f2.8 covered, then I'd dump your primes and put the proceeds towards a 14mm f/2,8L wide angle prime instead

Later on, you can trade-up to the Mark II standard zoom for a few hundred bucks, but you get to use your current cash on a much better telephoto zoom right now.....

...just what I would do if I it was my 5D3 and cash hoard to be spent on glass

[funkboy]

24-105 and 135...

That's my setup too (although I'm on an APS-C 40D so I have a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 too).  Both lenses are extremely good value for money, and often subject to rebates.

I've got a 1.4x TC for the 135L as well, but given how good the mkIII TCs are you might splurge for the 2x if you really need the extra reach.  I'm sticking with the 1.4x until somebody releases a TC with IS in it though; 190mm @ f/2.8 is easier to handhold.  If you do most of your long stuff on a tripod then go for the 2x :-).

[RichM]

I have a 5d2 and the 24-105 and am pleased with the results, but....   I love my newer 70-200 2.8 II, and based on the reviews I've read so far, I'd be leaning towards the 24-70 2.8 II.  Everything of read indicate that, while the 24-105 is a very good lens, the 24-70 2.8 II may be GREAT!

[Menace]

Get the 24-70 II - it's going to be stunning on your new 5D III