Hey everyone, I was wondering what would be better, to buy the 5D Mark III with the kit lens (limited budget), or 60D (or T3i/T4i) with some pro lenses such as 24-70, 70-200, and/or primes. I personally think the 5D is a better option although I won't have the best lens kit as I will only have the 24-105. What would you guys do?
Buy 60D with Pro Lenses or 5D with Kit Lens?
- Thread starter filmrebel
- Start date
- Status
Under what lighting condition do you plan to shoot, i.e. do you need the expanded iso range the 5d3 offers over the current 18mp crop sensor? Do you want to have a tele range available and would you like to shoot with the small dof of a prime lens? After all, a dslr is about having multiple lenses. And if it's a bit about money: lenses keep their value while bodies do not. Other than that, have a look at Kai mk.2filmrebel said:
Pro DSLR + Cheapo Lens vs "Cheapo" DSLR + Pro Lens
Upvote
0
The kit lens with the 5D series (24-105mm L) is a pro lens, and wonderful. I've had five 24-70L lenses that could not match it. Lens testers have found the same thing. I'm hoping the new 24-70 MK II will be worthwhile.
Yes, get a 5D MK II, or MK III with the 24-105mm L, this is a excellent combination.
Yes, get a 5D MK II, or MK III with the 24-105mm L, this is a excellent combination.
Upvote
0
I usually say you should invest in your glass, because your lenses (pro lenses, that is) will outlast any camera body, and they make affect your image quality the most. I still think this is true, but the balance has shifted with the 5D2 and 5D3. Your L lenses will still outlast your camera bodies, but the sensors are having more effect on image quality over other sensors.
Ideally, of course, you want the top L lenses with a 5D3 or 1D-series, but which direction to go first, body or lenses? Given that the 24-105/4L IS is not a shabby lens, and it's definitely worthy of its red stripe, I'd say you should go with the 5D3 kit first, then fill in the rest of your lens kit down the road. Although, I think you should immediately get the 50/1.4 because it's a good, relatively cheap prime. After that, it really depends on what you're shooting as to which lens you should look at next.
Ideally, of course, you want the top L lenses with a 5D3 or 1D-series, but which direction to go first, body or lenses? Given that the 24-105/4L IS is not a shabby lens, and it's definitely worthy of its red stripe, I'd say you should go with the 5D3 kit first, then fill in the rest of your lens kit down the road. Although, I think you should immediately get the 50/1.4 because it's a good, relatively cheap prime. After that, it really depends on what you're shooting as to which lens you should look at next.
Upvote
0
filmrebel said:
It's a no-brainer. 60D with pro lenses. The lenses will be great lenses for years and you will still be able to use them when you upgrade. The 5DIII will be replaced by a newer shiny toy in the next couple of years. Bodies have much shorter life cycles than lenses.
If you really want to go full frame, consider an older full frame body (5DII or 5D classic).
Also, you're going to cripple your full frame body if you only have a slowish (f4) zoom. Not that it's a bad lens, but having a couple of f/2.8 L zooms and one or more fast primes will definitely open up more possibilities.
Upvote
0
filmrebel said:
I still take the view that regardless of what other lenses you buy, once you go full frame, there is most likely to be a 24-105mm lens somewhere in your future. It does not offer the most stellar performance, but it is sharp enough for a 21/22MP sensor and covers one of the most versatile ranges of focal lengths. It is a very popular lens with wedding photographers. Unless your needs are very specialised, you will find that 80-90% of the time you can use the 24-105.
If I consider the difference in image quality between the 7D and 5DII, in your shoes I would probably try to get the 5DII or 5DIII, rather than the 60D, budget allowing, even if you have to live with only the 24-105mm for a while.
Keep in mind as well that you will get roughly the same depth of field with a full frame sensor and a f/4 lens as you would with a crop frame and f/2.8. Also, you can probably set the ISO at least 1 stop higher on the 5DIII and still get less noise than on the 60D.
Upvote
0
the 24-105 on a 5Dmk2 is a pretty damn good combo
while its a kit lens its still L grade and well worth the designation
while its a kit lens its still L grade and well worth the designation
Upvote
0
One more issue to consider. If you were to buy say a 85mm f/1.2 for your 60D, without having AFMA on the body, you would be very likely to have slightly out of focus images, and then need to send the body and lens to Canon for tweaking. It is actually better to have balance between the level of body and lens.
Don't buy expensive wide aperture lenses for a body with no ability to AFMA. F/4 or even f/2.8 lenses have enough depth of field to more or less hide focus inaccuracy. It can cost less to upgrade a body than sending in several lenses for adjustment. As you get more and more lenses, AFMA becomes more important.
Don't buy expensive wide aperture lenses for a body with no ability to AFMA. F/4 or even f/2.8 lenses have enough depth of field to more or less hide focus inaccuracy. It can cost less to upgrade a body than sending in several lenses for adjustment. As you get more and more lenses, AFMA becomes more important.
Upvote
0
Mt Spokane Photography said:
Is it really that common that a Canon lens needs afma with a Canon body? I'm wondering because I'm thinking about getting a 35/1.4L for my 60d, and I figured if I bought it new I could return it once or twice to get one where the focus is accurate w/o afma...
Upvote
0
Marsu42 said:
The issue is much more noticable on full frame because dof is shallower. But ff bodies tend to have AFMA. I've used a number of fast or fastish primes on a cheap APS-C (rebel XS) and haven't had too much trouble with accurate focus. I shot at the shallow dof limits a lot with the 50mm f/1.4 (e.g. wide open, short focus distance)
You might want to try one out in a shop and take some test shots at the limits of dof. I wouldn't expect you'd have too much trouble with an APS-C body unless you really push it (e.g. you shoot at f/1.4 at relatively short focusing distance a lot)
Upvote
0
N
nickbj05
Guest
This is a difficult question and more factors should be considered before a definite answer is given. Having a variety of lenses in nice to have as it can get frustrating only having one lens. I bought a 50D about two years ago and was very happy with it for a while. I hated it at anything over ISO200. The image quality just wasn't there. I bought an original 5D after a year with the 50D and barely used the 50D again. The camera was slower and didn't feel as good in my hand, but the image quality was so much better. I have since sold my 50D and bought a 5D mkii. You couldn't make me go back to the crop sensor camera. I think you would see enough of an advantage going full frame to warrant only having one lens for a while. Glass is definitely a better investment than camera bodies, but you can rent a lens if you need it for the weekend so I would go for the better camera. As mentioned earlier, the idea of going 5D mkii and buying a second lens is a great idea if you don't require the AF in the mkiii.
Upvote
0
Another option to consider: get the 5DII or 5DIII with the 24-105 kit, and add on to it the 50 f/1.8 (it's a no-brainer) plus one or two other primes that can do something the kit lens can't (wider, longer, faster, macro, etc.) depending on your interest.
The non-L primes are still (often) fantastic lenses, and it's not uncommon for them to best their L cousins in certain departments. For example, the 85 f/1.8 still has outstanding image quality (though, granted, not quite as magical as the f/1.2 L), but its autofocus blows the L version out of the park, making it a no-brainer choice if you're shooting indoor sports. And the 50 f/2.5 compact macro is the slowest 50 of the lineup (though still faster than any zoom), but it mops the floor with the others optically, and it can take up to half-life-sized images. (But autofocus performance isn't anything to write home about.)
That's not the case all across the board, though. The 28 f/2.8 can be decidedly underwhelming, and the 16-35 is a better 20 f/2.8 than the prime.
Cheers,
b&
The non-L primes are still (often) fantastic lenses, and it's not uncommon for them to best their L cousins in certain departments. For example, the 85 f/1.8 still has outstanding image quality (though, granted, not quite as magical as the f/1.2 L), but its autofocus blows the L version out of the park, making it a no-brainer choice if you're shooting indoor sports. And the 50 f/2.5 compact macro is the slowest 50 of the lineup (though still faster than any zoom), but it mops the floor with the others optically, and it can take up to half-life-sized images. (But autofocus performance isn't anything to write home about.)
That's not the case all across the board, though. The 28 f/2.8 can be decidedly underwhelming, and the 16-35 is a better 20 f/2.8 than the prime.
Cheers,
b&
Upvote
0
I suggest getting a used/refurbished 5DII and some lenses. The more lenses you have, the less useful a midrange zoom may be (unless that is the range you shoot at most). For about the same price as the 5DIII with kit lens, you can get a refurb 5DII and a new 70-200 f/2.8 II. Add a 50 f/1.4, and you have a pretty wide focal length range with some extra low light capability. You can then supplement those two lenses with a 17-40 or 16-35, which will give you a nice range with three lenses. Or you can get something like a refurbished 5DII plus 17-40 f/4 plus 50 f/1.4 plus 70-200 f/4 IS for slightly less money than the 5DII kit and have the whole range covered.
Is there a difference between the 5DIII and the 5DII? Yes, but for most people, there is a much bigger difference in IQ between a 5DII and a crop body than between the 5DII and 5DIII. And, if you decide the add the midrange zoom in the future, you can and still keep the 50 f/1.4 for low light situations.
Is there a difference between the 5DIII and the 5DII? Yes, but for most people, there is a much bigger difference in IQ between a 5DII and a crop body than between the 5DII and 5DIII. And, if you decide the add the midrange zoom in the future, you can and still keep the 50 f/1.4 for low light situations.
Upvote
0
S
stabmasterasron
Guest
Well, I don't know what you intend to shoot, but seems hard to go wrong with more lenses, especially L lenses. However, if the kit lens you are talking about with the 5Dmkiii is the 24-105 f/4L - that is a great lens too. If it were me, I would probably go with the 60D and more glass. Then when you get more cash, sell the 60D and upgrade to FF. I love FF, but it would be hard to pass up the combo of the 60D and something like a 70-200 f/2.8 is II. Man, that would be spectacular. Would be even better if you could forgo one of your primes and stretch for the 7D. Its hard to go wrong with higher frame rate and better AF, especially if you are photographing anything that moves.
I do find it strange that you are making a choice between the 60D (or upper Rebel) and a 5Dmkiii. Are you upgrading from a dslr? I would assume most 5Dmkiii upgraders would be coming from another dlsr body. Or maybe your question was just hypothetical.
I do find it strange that you are making a choice between the 60D (or upper Rebel) and a 5Dmkiii. Are you upgrading from a dslr? I would assume most 5Dmkiii upgraders would be coming from another dlsr body. Or maybe your question was just hypothetical.
Upvote
0
stabmasterasron said:
Once thing to remember: Imho the physical weight 60d+70-200is2 is rather unbalanced - so I'd advise to put it on in a shop first. I got the 70-300L because it's shorter and 500g less heavy which really makes a difference on a 60d.
Upvote
0
I would agree with a couple of others that perhaps buying an older FF such as a 5DII and collecting glass would work. I have a 5DII, 60D and a 40D. The body I least like is the 60D, in fact that when I get a 5DIII later this year it will be the one I part with. You can never go wrong with glass, as others have stated it is an investment you can always get a return on. Pair up your needs with the correct lenses. It took me a bit, but I found the right balance and barring a couple "extra" lenses, I have all I need. The 60D I have found, is just a glorified Rebel IMHO.
Upvote
0
filmrebel said:
I don't get that comparison. First, figure out what kind of lenses and for what purpose you need. Then if you need full frame or crop. If you're budget is limited then the $4500 MarkIII with the (pretty decent) 24-105 may not be the first choice. It a $1000 lens but you are obviously already thinking beyond that. And things add up quickly (batteries, cards, more lenses, bags, more lenses, flash, more lenses, another flash...).
If you're not sure if you want, for example, full frame and fast primes or if a T4i with an f/4 lens will do then you have to do more homework - otherwise you may regret spending 4K on something soon.
My take: I'd consider a used 5D or a new or used 5DII, a standard zoom, a fast prime and a good speedlight. That should fit into the 5DIII plus "kit" lens budget. With this you'd have lots and lots of options.
Upvote
0
- Status
