5D Mark III Special Kit from Adorama

[Canon Rumors Guy]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10511"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10511" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10511"></a></div>
<p><strong>Crazy Kit Deal from Adorama

</strong>Adorama has pieced together a crazy 5D Mark III starter kit. All the items are regularly $8450, but can be had for $6699.95 after discounts and rebates. Add it to cart to see all the savings.</p>
<ul>
<li>Canon EOS-5D Mark III Digital SLR Camera Body</li>
<li>Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM AF Lens</li>
<li>Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens</li>
<li>Canon Speedlite 600EX-RT</li>
<li>Canon Backpack 200EG</li>
<li>Mini SoftBox Diffuser</li>
<li>4 AA NiMH Batteries/Charger</li>
<li>Tiffen 77mm Filter Kit</li>
<li>Canon Pixma Pro9000 MII Printer</li>
</ul>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.adorama.com/ICA5DM3L.html?emailprice=t&KBID=64393" target="_blank">5D Mark III Kit at Adorama $6699.95</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[mitchell3417]

If only it came with an actual zoom lens. If you buy this sell the 28-300

 

[Drizzt321]

Wow, that's some savings!

@mitchell, I've actually heard that the 28-300 is pretty good overall. Obviously not super amazing awesome, but for such a superzoom, it's worthy of the L moniker.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If only it came with an actual zoom lens. If you buy this sell the 28-300

And why is that? Oh, it must be because a $2600 L-series superzoom lens isn't an 'actual zoom lens'. :

 

[puqq]

And why is that? Oh, it must be because a $2600 L-series superzoom lens isn't an 'actual zoom lens'. :

Well, it's a zoom, but not quite lens. Although a decent performer in "ultrazoom" class, it is by far not impressive in "lens" class.

A combination of 24-85mm and 70-300 4.5-5.6 performs very similarly for a fraction of price. 24-70 + 70-300 L kicks it's ass big time for +500$. Better still, a set of primes would cost less, offer better control over DoF, and even better quality.

As a matter of fact, I'm quite sure there hardly is a real-life discernable difference between pictures taken with 28-300 and top of the line compact.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

And why is that? Oh, it must be because a $2600 L-series superzoom lens isn't an 'actual zoom lens'. :

Well, it's a zoom, but not quite lens. Although a decent performer in "ultrazoom" class, it is by far not impressive in "lens" class.

A combination of 24-85mm and 70-300 4.5-5.6 performs very similarly for a fraction of price. 24-70 + 70-300 L kicks it's ass big time for +500$. Better still, a set of primes would cost less, offer better control over DoF, and even better quality.

As a matter of fact, I'm quite sure there hardly is a real-life discernable difference between pictures taken with 28-300 and top of the line compact.

Mine was certainly a excellent lens. Perhaps yours has a problem. You do own one, don't you?

 

[neuroanatomist]

As a matter of fact, I'm quite sure there hardly is a real-life discernable difference between pictures taken with 28-300 and top of the line compact.

Mine was certainly a excellent lens. Perhaps yours has a problem. You do own one, don't you?

+1. Mine is also very good, delivering IQ equivalent to the 24-105L. Yes, my 70-200 II, 135L, etc,, are sharper. But not nearly as versatile.

@puqq - I'll second the question - have you used the 28-300L personally, or are you merely echoing what you've read on the fountain of Truth we call the Internet. I invite you to show us your images from your high end P&S that equal the IQ of your 28-300mm. I can tell you with absolute certainty that my 5DII + 28-300L blows away my S100 for image quality (and size/weight, too, of course).

 

[wickidwombat]

As a matter of fact, I'm quite sure there hardly is a real-life discernable difference between pictures taken with 28-300 and top of the line compact.

Mine was certainly a excellent lens. Perhaps yours has a problem. You do own one, don't you?

+1. Mine is also very good, delivering IQ equivalent to the 24-105L. Yes, my 70-200 II, 135L, etc,, are sharper. But not nearly as versatile.

@puqq - I'll second the question - have you used the 28-300L personally, or are you merely echoing what you've read on the fountain of Truth we call the Internet. I invite you to show us your images from your high end P&S that equal the IQ of your 28-300mm. I can tell you with absolute certainty that my 5DII + 28-300L blows away my S100 for image quality (and size/weight, too, of course).

+3 or whatever we are up to the argument was rational until comparing the 28-300 to a compact that gave it away as regurgitated internat waffle

 

[Bosman]

Looks like they want to clear out their dusty equipment and call it a deal, other than the flash. The flash is the only thing id want with the 5dm3 given what i know about the other equipment.

 

[neuroanatomist]

...the argument was rational until comparing the 28-300 to a compact that gave it away as regurgitated internat waffle

Except for the part about the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6, where the only lens meeting that spec is the DO one, so probably the 70-300 IS non-L was meant, which while decent from 70-200mm is a soft mess at 300mm, especially compared to the 28-300. The 28-300L also delivers better IQ than the native DO lens, although with a contrast and sharpness boost in post my shots from the 70-300 DO lens were equivalent to the 28-300L at the long end.

 

[wickidwombat]

...the argument was rational until comparing the 28-300 to a compact that gave it away as regurgitated internat waffle

Except for the part about the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6, where the only lens meeting that spec is the DO one, so probably the 70-300 IS non-L was meant, which while decent from 70-200mm is a soft mess at 300mm, especially compared to the 28-300. The 28-300L also delivers better IQ than the native DO lens, although with a contrast and sharpness boost in post my shots from the 70-300 DO lens were equivalent to the 28-300L at the long end.

yep I read that as the 70-300 L my bad I'll rephrase

Its all a load of internet waffle some regurgitated some just freshly cooked

 

[Halfrack]

I don't get this deal - literally, if these lenses were wanted the buyer of a 5dmk3 would have them. A 50/1.4 - unless you own this, or owned it and upgraded, you're not allowed to purchase a 5dmk3. Other bits seem to do more of spoil a camera bag with a system than put someone in a better position.

 

[Stuart]

Is this a way of clearing old stock, isn't the MK3 able to way out perform those lenses?

 

[SambalOelek]

Is this a way of clearing old stock, isn't the MK3 able to way out perform those lenses?

The 18 megapixel APS-C sensors have way higher pixel density, so they are a lot more demanding in terms of center sharpness. It's not even close, the Mark III has about the same pixel density as the 20D.

The standard kit lens for the 5D Mark III is the 24-105 which, IQ-wise is not in the same league as the 50mm f/1.4 @ f/4.

 

[puqq]

Mine was certainly a excellent lens. Perhaps yours has a problem. You do own one, don't you?

No, I do not.

I have traded my primes (OM 24mm, Sigma 50mm, Canon 200mm) with friends' 28-300mm for a week, but after reviewing the pictures of the 1st outing I was waiting for a trade back. Perhaps I am a bit on the picky side. The low level of DoF control (I'm into portraits) and uninspiring sharpness created a too gloomy image of the lens in my memory.

 

[puqq]

+3 or whatever we are up to the argument was rational until comparing the 28-300 to a compact that gave it away as regurgitated internat waffle

On several occasions my friends were shooting the aforementioned 28-300mm on 5D and two compacts (I believe Canon SX230 or something similar, and something else). While the per-pixel sharpness was better of 28-300 (duh!), the real-life pictures (resized to some <50% for galleries, some PP applied) were hardly different.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Perhaps I am a bit on the picky side. The low level of DoF control (I'm into portraits) and uninspiring sharpness...

Well, no, it's not my 85mm f/1.2L II, but nor do I expect it to deliver f/1.2 DoF. If you shoot primarily portraits, it's not the lens for you - it's a lens for convenience, when you want to bring a minimum number of lenses but don't want to sacrifice quality. I often pair the 28-300L with the 35L and 135L for a versatile kit, the 35L for indoor ambient and nighttime walkaround, the 135L for portraits, the 28-300L for everything else. Regarding sharpness, did you do an AF Microadjustment on the lens you borrowed, and were you shooting with a high enough shutter speed for the slow aperture? In my experience, most complaints of 'the lens is soft' come down to wetware - the person holding the camera - and not the lens.

The fact that a lens doesn't suit your style of shooting isn't a reason to bash the lens...

As for poor DoF control and mushy softness, well...

 

[neuroanatomist]

...Sigma 50mm... 28-300mm...uninspiring sharpness

FWIW, try comparing the sharpness of the 28-300mm at 50mm f/5.6 (less than a stop from wide open) vs. the Sigma 50/1.4 at f/5.6 (4 stops down and about at it's sharpness). How different are they?

 

[adhocphotographer]

this seems simple to me... if you don't like the combination, don't buy it...

 

[thepancakeman]

Looks like they've bumped the price up to 7199.95. :-\