5D II/24-70L II OR 5D III/24-70L

[Wild]

I've been saving for a while now to upgrade my T1i and ef-s lenses to full frame, and will have a budget around $4k to work with. I'm just looking for some opinions on which combo to go with: 5d II and the new 24-70L II or the 5d III and the original 24-70L.

Image quality of the combo, and features/handling are my two main concerns. If the image quality of the original 24-70L plus the newer 5d III is good enough then all the extra features the 5d III offers will be great. If the performance of the 24-70L II lives up to the expectations and blows the original out of the water, then I could certainly justify getting the 5d II and the newer lens.

Everybody always says to spend the money on glass, which is why I'm coming to the CR forums for help. Which way would you go and why? Thanks for any input ;D

 

[nitsujwalker]

Depends what you like to shoot! If it were me, I would get the 5d2, the 16-35 and a 70-200 f2.8 non is. But that's just me!

 

[Wild]

Well I've shot with the 17-55 f2.8 and love it's range. I could live with just that range, so the 24-70 seems like a perfect fit for me. I plan on adding a few primes over time, but the 24-70 would be all I need for a while. The 16-35 and 70-200 combo doesn't seem that bad though either haha.

 

[nitsujwalker]

well the new 24-70, as you know, will be quite a bit more expensive. If you shoot moving subjects (animals, kids etc) get the 5diii. For landscapes i'd just get the 5d2.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I've been saving for a while now to upgrade my T1i and ef-s lenses to full frame, and will have a budget around $4k to work with. I'm just looking for some opinions on which combo to go with: 5d II and the new 24-70L II or the 5d III and the original 24-70L.

Image quality of the combo, and features/handling are my two main concerns. If the image quality of the original 24-70L plus the newer 5d III is good enough then all the extra features the 5d III offers will be great. If the performance of the 24-70L II lives up to the expectations and blows the original out of the water, then I could certainly justify getting the 5d II and the newer lens.

Everybody always says to spend the money on glass, which is why I'm coming to the CR forums for help. Which way would you go and why? Thanks for any input ;D

Well the features/handling are certainly way in 5D3 favor, OTOH the 24-70 II should be much sharper and the 5D2 sensor is every bit as good, if not a minute trace better, for lowest ISO landscape stuff.

 

[Wild]

Well that's exactly my problem haha. It's kind of a toss up right now. I guess I'll just wait and decide when the 24-70 II comes out :-\

 

[wickidwombat]

5Dmk3 and 16-35 f2.8 mkii get a 50 1.8 to tide you over to save up for another lens

 

[VirtualRain]

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.

 

[Wild]

Well I shoot a little bit of everything (not very helpful I know). Probably landscapes, and people mostly. Situations where I'd need the nicer autofocus don't happen too often, but when they do, it'd be nice to have better autofocus than I'm used to in my T1i.

Another reason for the 24-70 is because it can focus so closely I might be able to convince myself that I don't need a macro down the road

The 16-35/5D III combo would be pretty nice, but probably too wide to hold me over while I saved up for another good zoom. Plus I'm sure 24mm is more than wide enough for my tastes on full frame. And the 24-105 is another possibility, but that 2.8 aperture is really appealing for the shallower DOF ;D

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

(The 24-105 is likely to produce a shallower DOF at 105/f4 than the 24-70 does at 70/f2.8..)

It's a difficult decision. I can see reasons to go with either.

It really comes down to whether you'll be happy with the 24-70 I as a lens. If you will be happy with it, I'd probably get the 5d3 with that since the 5d3 really solves SO many of the 5d2 issues. You can see it compared with a 24mm prime at 24mm f11 here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=480&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=8&LensComp=101&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5

I'd say it does a pretty good job...

As an alternative, how about 5d2, 17-40 f4, 24-105 f4. You might even be able to get an 85 1.8 in budget which would be great for people?

As for macro lenses, you can get extension tubes... not as good as a macro, but not far off for occasional use...

 

[Random Orbits]

Well I shoot a little bit of everything (not very helpful I know). Probably landscapes, and people mostly. Situations where I'd need the nicer autofocus don't happen too often, but when they do, it'd be nice to have better autofocus than I'm used to in my T1i.

Another reason for the 24-70 is because it can focus so closely I might be able to convince myself that I don't need a macro down the road

The 16-35/5D III combo would be pretty nice, but probably too wide to hold me over while I saved up for another good zoom. Plus I'm sure 24mm is more than wide enough for my tastes on full frame. And the 24-105 is another possibility, but that 2.8 aperture is really appealing for the shallower DOF ;D

If you're looking to buy soon, I suggest looking at a used 5DII and a used/canon refurb 24-70 I. You should be able to get that combo for less than 3k (24-70 I is currently out of stock at the canon store, but it goes for about 1100 -- about 1200 including taxes/shipping). You can then use the remaining money for a something like a 16-35L II, a macro or a telezoom -- your pick.

The 5DIII is better than the 5DII and the 24-70L II will be better than the 24-70L I, but in your case, I don't think it's $2000 better. Once you have a few FF-compatible lenses, then it might make sense to upgrade the 5DII to the 5DIII. And if you get a used 5DII, you won't lose much if any on the upgrade down the road.

 

[Dylan777]

L lenses seem to hold values better than body. 5D II/24-70 mrk II combo seems to be a good a choice for non-fast shooting events.

 

[jaduffy007]

If you don't shoot a lot of action....I would go with the 5d2 / 24-70 II combo. I'm not a fan of the 24-70 I...and the II shows signs of being awesome.

If you do shoot a lot of action....that's a tough one. I guess the 5d3 + 24-70 I...and save up to buy the II when possible.

 

[DB]

5D3 + 24-70mm Mk I for 2 reasons (both economic or related to re-sale:

(1) 24-70mm mark 1 lenses have already begun to appreciate considerably in value, plus the price differential btw the mark II and I is still huge - can only compress from here (as new lenses are discounted by retailers, particularly the online variety, whereas the limited availability of older mark I ones will ensure a high resale value).

(2) The 5D3 has much better AF + low-light ISO performance (12,800 is 100% usable - see Philip Bloom video review on D4 vs D800 vs 5D3), and has dual memory cards, faster frame rate etc. Rule of thumb is to change your DSLR body every 2-3 years, but retain your good glass, so you won't lose much when you trade-up again.

Based on the above reasons, mainly the first one, it will be more cost effective to get the newer body now with the cheaper L lens, only to trade up from the mark I to the mark II in about 6-9 months time when the price differential is not 50% more but 20% more (or even less). Think about it.

 

[dirtcastle]

Great question. I would take the 5D3 because I think it's improved AF will give it a long life. I would plan on selling the 24-70mm mk1, after I save up enough money to buy the mk2. I am actually skipping the mk1 myself and relying on other lenses until I have enough $$$$ to get the mk2.

 

[Harv]

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.

 

[preppyak]

As an alternative, how about 5d2, 17-40 f4, 24-105 f4. You might even be able to get an 85 1.8 in budget which would be great for people?

That's an interesting alternative. The 24-104 with the 5DIII would be a really good all-around combo as well, though I think a 5dII combo with 2 lenses (whether they be WA, general zoom or tele) would probably be more versatile and more useful.

The camera itself does not provide 4 stops improvement in high ISO performance over the MkII.

But it does over a T1i, which the OP has now. Both cameras will be a BIG step up ISO wise.

The point was more that, unless you are shooting at f/2,8 a lot for DOF, you'll be able to freeze action and shoot in low-light perfectly fine with f/4 lenses if you're used to a T1i with EF-S lenses.

 

[awinphoto]

What I want to know is if you have $4000 to play with, where on gods green earth did you find a $500 24-70? And can you share the link? On the other hand, as what has been said before... a sharp lens isn't sharp when it misses focus... just saying.

 

[VirtualRain]

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.

Agreed. I did not say anything contrary to that. The 24-105 f4 DOES provide 3 stops of IS that the 24-70 does not (FWIW). AND the 4 stop advantage in ISO I mentioned is in relation to his existing T1i camera. And that's 4 stops of ISO that can translate into very good shutter speeds that will easily stop action.

For the OP's benefit... I came from a 7D with 17-55 f2.8 IS to the 5D3 with 24-105 f4 IS, and frankly, I don't want the 24-70 f2.8. It doesn't help hand holding in dark venues like cathedrals and other similar dimly lit attractions that don't allow tripods. And when you're in those kinds of situations, you seldom want the narrow DOF that comes with f2.8 anyway. And, I can achieve a very similar DOF shooting portraits at 105mm @ f4 that I use to be able to achieve with the 7D at 55mm @ f2.8. And that extra ISO the 5D3 provides over my old crop ensures I always have a decent action stopping shutter speed for shooting people in bars or restaurants. If you really want a narrow DOF for artistic shots and subject isolation, then even f2.8 is not usually good enough at wide angles so you need a fast prime for that kind of work. Compliment your 24-105 with a fast 50mm or 35mm (whatever suits your preferred field of view). The other benefit to the 24-105 is the weight... it's a lot less tiring after walking around all day in a new city. Let's face it, the 24-70 is a studio lens. It's meant for work on a tripod or in studio lighting or both. It's not an ideal walk around lens.

Last but not least, I cannot emphasize the importance of a good focus system enough. The 7D was no slouch on focus, but my keeper rate in dimly lit situations went from about 50% to 95% when I upgraded to the 5D3. The 5D2 is not going to offer you much improvement in this regard, if any. I strongly encourage you to buy the most advanced focus system your budget can allow... and then start putting good glass in front of it. A shot that's in focus from a cheap lens is much more useful than a shot that OOF from an expensive lens.

 

[SteenerMe]

I would get the 5D3 and any lens before the mk2. Ive used the mk2 and 24-70 and was very disappointed. Horrible focus and slow. My 7D was much faster and would take that over a 5Dmk2. Not for image quality but for usablility. But the 5D3 is just awesome. No regrets! Get it!