70d + 70-200 II vs. 5d III

[silvestography]

Hey Forum,
I've been shooting a lot of concerts for a radio station and am about to start working as a 2nd shooter with a wedding photographer, in addition to all the work I do for my high school (I'm 16).

My current gear lineup is as follows:
Rebel t3i/600d
Tokina 11-16 2.8
Sigma 50 1.4
Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC
Canon 70-300 4-5.6 IS

Obviously, the biggest weak point is that 70-300 followed by the t3i. I'm selling a bunch of stuff that should give me close to a $3000 budget for upgrading some gear, so that begs the question: would I benefit more from a 70d + 70-200 2.8 IS II or a 5dIII body?

While nobody knows how the 70d is going to perform, I'm leaning towards that combination, simply because better glass means better images, plus upgrading to the mark III means my lenses get wider so I'd have to use the 70-300 more, which basically defeats the purpose of full frame image quality, especially since the majority of my work is in very low light (meaning I have to shoot it close to wide open).

In any case, let me know what you all think, and if you want to see the work I'm doing, please head over to my blog, http://silvestography.tumblr.com

Thanks!

 

[Dylan777]

Glass usually first.

In your case, I rather shoot with 5D III + f4 lens in low light over t31 + 70-200mm f2.8 IS II.

Unless, 70D is 2-3 full stops better than current canon crop cameras, but I doubt it

 

[ecka]

I think that for a serious job 5D3 + 70-200/2.8L'IS'II'USM is a must, but I would prefer 5D3 + 135L.
5D3 + 24-70VC + 135L should do.

 

[silvestography]

I think that for a serious job 5D3 + 70-200/2.8L'IS'II'USM is a must, but I would prefer 5D3 + 135L.
5D3 + 24-70VC + 135L should do.

I love that idea, however I just went through all my concert shots I did on the 70-300, and the majority of them were shot from between 110mm and 170mm, which is a 35mm equivalent of 176mm and 272. That makes me concerned that a 135L would be a bit short for my needs, not to mention out of the budget.

Glass usually first.

In your case, I rather shoot with 5D III + f4 lens in low light over t31 + 70-200mm f2.8 IS II.

Unless, 70D is 2-3 full stops better than current canon crop cameras, but I doubt it

While the low light performance is a concern, getting sharp images is a bigger priority for me. Sure, a crop sensor is going to produce rather mushy images at 3200, but that 70-300 is soft as a baby's bum. I recently had to do the 4th of July Jam in Philly (part of Wawa's Welcome America fest), and they put us on a press riser about 100m from the stage, so my only option for tight shots was the 70-300, and the images were practically unusably soft. See here: http://thekey.xpn.org/photo-recap-philly-4th-of-july-jam-on-the-parkway-with-the-roots/

That said, the fact that people are consistently recommending the 5dIII does say something to me, and I will definitely rethink.

 

[Eldar]

To get priorities right, I think there is one think that cannot be stressed too often; Glass lasts much longer than bodies.

With your 3k$ budget, you cannot get everything you want in body and glass. As an alternative to the 5DIII you can look at the 6D. The only downside with that is its auto focus, which is more primitive than the 5DIII. But concerts and weddings will work just fine. Low light performance is just as good as the 5DIII and way beyond what you have. You can crop images from the 6D and get better results than from a 7D (don´t know about the 70D, since I have not seen it yet).

If you cannot stretch your budget to the 70-200 f2.8L IS II, I would look at the version I of the same lens. Not as good as the version II, but still a very good lens. Many of them available second hand for reasonable prices.

In addition to a 70-200, you should ideally have a 24-70 f2.8 (you already have that with the Tamron) and a fast prime (you have that with your 50 1.4). I do concerts and weddings and I rarely go wider than 24mm on a FF body. In addition to the 24-70 f2.8L II and the 70-200 f2.8L IS II, I use a Sigma 35 1.4 and a 85 f1.2L II, but earlier I used to have the 50 1.2L. So in my view you could sell your wide Tokina to improve your budget.

Be aware that a 5DIII and 1DX replacement will come in a year or two. That will reduce the value of those bodies a lot. But the L-series glass will hold their value for years and work beautifully on several generations of bodies to come. So my advice for you, who are in the beginning of your photography career, build your portfolio of glass and be a bit patient with the expensive bodies.

Good luck and have fun!

 

[sdsr]

Based on the photos you've posted I'm inclined to suggest you take a different route: 6D + 70-300L (or, if you really need f/2.8, the new Tamron 70-200). True, the 6D's autofocus isn't as sophisticated as the 5DIII's, but it should be just fine for the sorts of things you seem to photograph (in really low light it should be a bit better than the 5DIII, at least if you stay with the center point), and the images it takes in low light are in a completely different class from your Rebel (I owned the same one as a back-up for a while). As for the 70-300L, obviously it's not as good as a 2.8 if you need to freeze action, but it otherwise performs superbly in even very low light when attached to a 6D; and with the 6D's superb high ISO performance you'll be able to freeze action anyway, even if not as well. Assuming the reports that the 70D's ISO performance will be similar to the 60D's (and thus your Rebel's) are true (if so, that's very disappointing), I wouldn't bother waiting for that at all. Even if it's better, chances that it will be as good as the 6D seem remote - and, as you will have noticed, the price of the 6D seems to keep getting lower (if you wait for the right sort of sales).

 

[K-amps]

6D + 70-200 mk.ii gets you what you want. AF may be less compared to 5d3, but for what you do it might even be better in low light... it has better high ISO, wifi, about 1800 cheaper... I'd get the 6D.

 

[Jay Khaos]

Damn that's a hard choice... The better bokeh and low light and AF youd get from the full frame-ness of the 5DIII would be awesome for concerts and weddings... so would the 70-200mm IS II... Everything else is a compromise and it's hard to determine the best answer..

I love the 135mm L (used to have one), but would not recommend it over the 70-200 IS II since I'd imagine being able to move around might not always be easy for concert shooting. And with weddings—the freedom to quickly frame the shot from where you are will often be the difference between getting the shot and not, in both situations (without cropping). Although might not have a choice I guess

If it were me, I'd want the 5DIII with 70-200 IS II and t3i with the tokina for backup... I'd even give up all the gear if it gets me the 5DIII and 70-200... (that's just me—probably not the most practical answer)

 

[preppyak]

Well, another option, if you think the 135L will be too short, is to go with the 200mm f/2.8. And if it came to it, you could basically swap your Tokina for one, price wise.

I think the 6D and a Tamron or v1 Canon 70-200 may be the way to go. Tamron has some really good student rebates you can take advantage of.

 

[silvestography]

Well, another option, if you think the 135L will be too short, is to go with the 200mm f/2.8. And if it came to it, you could basically swap your Tokina for one, price wise.

I think the 6D and a Tamron or v1 Canon 70-200 may be the way to go. Tamron has some really good student rebates you can take advantage of.

I was actually considering the 6d + Tamron 70-200 combo for a while, but a couple things steered me away:

1. Especially in terms of reach, I know there will be times when 200 on full frame just won't be long enough, so how well the lens acts with a 1.4x TC would be important. I know Tamron has its own 1.4x TC and Kenko has a pretty decent one as well, but my sense is that a canon 70-200 with a canon TC would produce the best results in terms of IQ and AF.

2. As with basically everybody else who has ever considered a 6d, that 11pt AF is a concern. Other than the center point, the point spread would be more of a step down from the t3i's AF. I should remark that I'm not shy about using the t3i's outer points at concerts, so I don't doubt that the 6d's outer points would be too slow or not sensitive enough, but the fact that both the 70d's and 5dIII's AF systems have both better point spread AND cross type sensors in the outer thirds of the frame is a huge consideration for me.

What I may end up doing is renting the 70d, the 6d, and the 70-200 V2 for a weekend when I know I'll be doing a lot of shooting to figure out if the 70d's high ISO performance and handling as well as the 6d's AF are good enough.

Another point I'd like to make is that both the 70-200 V2 and the 5dIII are two pieces of equipment I will be getting at some point sooner or later; it's more of a question of what will suit me best in the meantime.

 

[jdramirez]

I do love my 70-200 f/2.8L is mkii, but there are other fine options in the 70-200 world. The f/4 IS is spectacular... and the f/2.8L USM is really really good as well. Both are around $1000... so I do understand that would only give you $2000 remaining and that isn't enough for a mkiii.

But why the 70D? It is basically a 7D junior. Why not consider a used 7D (which does have the same sensor as your t3i and also same low light performance, but a ton more horse power) rather than a 70D. Especially because the 70D is going to be overpriced for about a year when it first comes out whereas the 7D is much cheaper than it has been for really good well kept items.

So you get a 70-200 f/2.8 for a grand, a 7D upgrade (which is a SIGNIFICANT upgrade) for $850ish, and leaving yourself enough for a really good additional lens. $1150 can get you a 24-105 with $400 left over, or a 24-70 mki used.

There are so many options, but I don't think overpaying for a launch device is your best best. Maybe the sensor blows away all other Aps-c bodies, but Canon's improvements are generally incremental.

 

[Eldar]

Be aware that you need fast glass to take advantage of the full performance of the 5DIII AF system. I suggest you read the list of lenses that support it (it is on p79 in the manual and on the net somewhere). In general you need f2.8 or faster to get the full use of it. So that brings you to the 5DIII/70-200 f2.8L IS II combo, which is way over your budget.

Be also aware that the 5DIII/1DX AF is able to focus down to -2EV, which is very good. But the 6D actually goes to -3EV, which is even better. So, even though you have fewer AF points, I would be less worried about the low light performance. I have thousands of great concert images taken with the 5DII and the 6D outperforms the 5DII. It is very easy to think that, because the 5DIII/1DX is out there, nothing else will be good enough. But I was very happy with my 5DII, before I got the 5DIII.

So, to repeat myself; as long as you don´t have the budget to get everything you want, I would go for the better glass and compromise on the body. Or shoot a picture of The Pope in his underware and buy whatever you want

 

[silvestography]

Be aware that you need fast glass to take advantage of the full performance of the 5DIII AF system. I suggest you read the list of lenses that support it (it is on p79 in the manual and on the net somewhere). In general you need f2.8 or faster to get the full use of it. So that brings you to the 5DIII/70-200 f2.8L IS II combo, which is way over your budget.

Be also aware that the 5DIII/1DX AF is able to focus down to -2EV, which is very good. But the 6D actually goes to -3EV, which is even better. So, even though you have fewer AF points, I would be less worried about the low light performance. I have thousands of great concert images taken with the 5DII and the 6D outperforms the 5DII. It is very easy to think that, because the 5DIII/1DX is out there, nothing else will be good enough. But I was very happy with my 5DII, before I got the 5DIII.

So, to repeat myself; as long as you don´t have the budget to get everything you want, I would go for the better glass and compromise on the body. Or shoot a picture of The Pope in his underware and buy whatever you want

Especially with the body, a lot of what I've been considering (if I don't get the 5dIII right now) is what will be the best compliment to a 5dIII down the line. Both the 6d and 70d have their perks:
- The 6d will deliver images that basically look the same, but nothing else
- The 70d will not deliver equivalent image quality, but will perform similarly in areas like AF, max shutter spead, X-Sync speed etc.

I did forget to mention earlier that I have a single 600ex-rt, which I've been able to use off-camera because the t3i's pop-up flash doubles as a speedlight commander, an ability which I'd retain with the 70d, but not with the 5dIII or 6d. Having the 70d as a second body to the 5dIII might be nice in situations in which I want to use all of my speed lights off-camera and need something to trigger them. Sure, the ST-E3 would fix that problem but that's another $300 that I don't have.

 

[BoneDoc]

I have a 6D, and I'm very pleased with the AF system. I use the center point AF anyway, since at wide open, I need to make sure I nail the focus point.

As a back up wedding photographer, you really want to make sure that you are focusing on the Bride's eyes. No amount of fancy AF system can dictate that for you. You have to do it yourself. With the center point AF, focus is instant fast. I just focus, recompose, and shoot. Simple as pie .

 

[silvestography]

I have a 6D, and I'm very pleased with the AF system. I use the center point AF anyway, since at wide open, I need to make sure I nail the focus point.

As a back up wedding photographer, you really want to make sure that you are focusing on the Bride's eyes. No amount of fancy AF system can dictate that for you. You have to do it yourself. With the center point AF, focus is instant fast. I just focus, recompose, and shoot. Simple as pie .

The 6d certainly does look appealing. Potentially what I'll do is buy that kit B&H is currently selling and simply sell the printer and lens for a net of ~$800, giving me a $1200 6d.

 

[K-amps]

I have a 6D, and I'm very pleased with the AF system. I use the center point AF anyway, since at wide open, I need to make sure I nail the focus point.

As a back up wedding photographer, you really want to make sure that you are focusing on the Bride's eyes. No amount of fancy AF system can dictate that for you. You have to do it yourself. With the center point AF, focus is instant fast. I just focus, recompose, and shoot. Simple as pie .

The 6d certainly does look appealing. Potentially what I'll do is buy that kit B&H is currently selling and simply sell the printer and lens for a net of ~$800, giving me a $1200 6d.

+1 No brainer.

 

[wysiwtf]

I also think the 70-200 f2.8 II is a must-have.

... however ... i would not be too harsh on the body.

Having said that, here is another idea i'd like to suggest:

Keep the Tamron 24-70 and get a used 5D Mark II ... usually something in the area of 1100€ (maybe $1300?!) ...
The rest of the money should be good for the 70-200.

 

[sdsr]

I was actually considering the 6d + Tamron 70-200 combo for a while, but a couple things steered me away:

2. As with basically everybody else who has ever considered a 6d, that 11pt AF is a concern. Other than the center point, the point spread would be more of a step down from the t3i's AF. I should remark that I'm not shy about using the t3i's outer points at concerts, so I don't doubt that the 6d's outer points would be too slow or not sensitive enough, but the fact that both the 70d's and 5dIII's AF systems have both better point spread AND cross type sensors in the outer thirds of the frame is a huge consideration for me.

Depending on what you're photographing, you may well find that the differences between the AF systems of the 5DIII and 6D are exaggerated by fans of the 5DIII. I won't dispute that the 5DIII is much better if you're tracking subjects that move across the viewfinder or towards/away from you (I have no first-hand experience), but I recently added a 5DIII to my 6D and spent some time the other night comparing the performance of their outer points in very dimly lit rooms, with no flash, in my apartment with the 70-300L attached, and the number of situations where the 5DIII succeeded and the 6D failed was remarkably small (both succeeded most of the time, so I'm not sure whether it would have made that much difference had I used a faster lens); somewhat to my surprise there were even a few instances where the 6D beat the 5DIII using extreme *outer* points. Having just bought the 5DIII I was slightly disappointed that the difference wasn't bigger (but also impressed, as I had been before, by how well the 6D kept up). I would be surprised if your Rebel proved better than the 6D, but you might as well find out first-hand by following your own advice and renting one - that's what I like to do, anyway.

 

[Wildfire]

Having owned both the 70-200 MK II and the 6D I will say that it is an incredibly killer combo that will not disappoint you. Don't bother with the 5D3 if you can't afford a decent lens to go with it.

 

[silvestography]

Having owned both the 70-200 MK II and the 6D I will say that it is an incredibly killer combo that will not disappoint you. Don't bother with the 5D3 if you can't afford a decent lens to go with it.

My thought exactly.

Depending on what you're photographing, you may well find that the differences between the AF systems of the 5DIII and 6D are exaggerated by fans of the 5DIII. I won't dispute that the 5DIII is much better if you're tracking subjects that move across the viewfinder or towards/away from you (I have no first-hand experience), but I recently added a 5DIII to my 6D and spent some time the other night comparing the performance of their outer points in very dimly lit rooms, with no flash, in my apartment with the 70-300L attached, and the number of situations where the 5DIII succeeded and the 6D failed was remarkably small (both succeeded most of the time, so I'm not sure whether it would have made that much difference had I used a faster lens); somewhat to my surprise there were even a few instances where the 6D beat the 5DIII using extreme *outer* points. Having just bought the 5DIII I was slightly disappointed that the difference wasn't bigger (but also impressed, as I had been before, by how well the 6D kept up). I would be surprised if your Rebel proved better than the 6D, but you might as well find out first-hand by following your own advice and renting one - that's what I like to do, anyway.

Yeah, as previously mentioned, my only concern with the 6d's outer points is the fact that they're still quite central. I do have a festival coming up this weekend so I'll see about renting one, and hopefully prove myself wrong.