Bang for buck 5d to 5d mark III or 70-200 2.8 nonIS to 70-200 2.8 IS II

[curt248]

I'm debating my upgrade path. I usually go for better quality glass over body upgrades, but I'm not sure on this one.

Do I upgrade my Canon 70-200 non-is 2.8 to the new IS version II of the lens or would it make more sense to keep my older 70-200 2.8 and upgrade my body from the original 5D classic to the new 5D mark III? I'm drooling over the new auto focus system on the 5d mark III but since I shoot sports with a crop camera I'm not sure if I need it. Maybe at 7D and the 70-200 2.8 IS II would be warranted?

I shoot motocross (sports) with my 50D as it has the 1.6 crop factor (free zoom) and a better 9 cross point autofocus vs 1 cross point on the 5d classic. I shoot weddings and general photography/events with the 5d and I consider the 5d my main camera with the 50d being backup unless I shoot the aforementioned motocross or maybe birds.

I love the shallower depth of field that I can achieve when using the full frame 5d vs the crop. It's like getting more expensive lenses with lower maximum aperture when comparing to the crop body. I will always have a full frame. I will probably always have a crop too though for the extra reach.

I also need something for video as well. I'm currently using the T1i for video, but it is up for sale at the time to fund this upgrade. I do some how to videos and make some short films. I do have a canon 1080P video camera for this as well (not as nice as the DSLR's though).

So whats the better upgrade, the 5D to 5D mark III or the 70-200 2.8 non-IS to the 70-200 2.8 IS version II or some other path?

 

[rpt]

Are you missing shots? If you are not, I'd say go for the glass. Soon you will have more camera bodies to choose from given we are expecting announcements in a week...

My body upgrade principle is to keep using it till I can't take the pictures I want. First upgrade from AE1 to a p&s was 17 years. Then to the 300D was 4 years - I got it as a gift... And then to the 5D3 was 8 years. But then I am not a pro and so that explains the long duration. But the principle remains true...

 

[Random Orbits]

I think you would be better served by upgrading the body in this case. The 5D III has a lot more resolution than the 5D classic giving you additional crop latitude and partially offsetting the reach advantage of the 50D. In addition, it has several stops of high ISO advantage over the 5DC, which will help you in low light (weddings) and sports. The AF will give better performance for sports and more flexibility in framing using fast glass (i.e. not tied to the center point). The more lenses you have, the higher the value of body upgrades.

 

[adhocphotographer]

Are you missing shots?

I think this is the point! If not, and you get a good "hit rate", buy glass... even if you upgrade in a year or two there will be new bodies or even 5dmkiii's! If you are missing shots, because of autofocus etc... then yeah, maybe a body would be your best choice!

 

[curt248]

Yeah I think I'm missing some shots when shooting indoors at higher iso for weddings.

I'm really getting fed up with missing shots of any kind when I have the focus point on the area I want focus and it misses the shot.

I'm not using the recompose technique and that has given more keepers by far, but low light I still miss shots that should be spot on.

 

[Halfrack]

Sell the 50d as well as the T1i and upgrade it to the 7d - you get your better AF and video. If you're feeling it - maybe upgrade the 5d to the 5d2 or what ever comes out this week as well??

 

[curt248]

Are new cameras coming out this week? Is that for photokina? Are they expecting the canon 6D? I just read that it may be a full frame like the mark III with great focusing like the 7d but shoot at less than 4 frames per second. That would be perfect for me to have that along with a 7d. That way I'd get the focus I need in low light and higher iso for weddings with the 6d and the reach of a crop camera with better focus with the 7d.

 

[KurtStevens]

I had a 5dc and now I have a 5d3. I also have used the 70-200 2.8 (with IS but have used both) and I have to say the best upgrade has been the body. The autofocus in this thing is a beast. Let alone the noise handling. Best I was getting on my 5dc was 1250 usable and now I've got keepers at 12800. Definitely upgrade your body!

70-200 will come later!

 

[curt248]

Thanks Kurt.

Huge difference with the body upgrade then. The lens at the L level seems to be not as important.

I do like the idea of better noise handling.

I'm getting usable shoots at 3200 with the 5d after applying a bit of noise reduction in lightroom. I can't imagine what could be done at 12000 iso. You could stop action indoors.

 

[KKCFamilyman]

I went body then glass. The 5d3 is great and you could financially compromise with it and the 70-200 f4 is. Great combo.

 

[rpt]

I was waiting for the 7D2 - and we all still are...

In April, I decided to bite the bullet and went for the 5D3 + 24-105. That combo is great! I already had the 100-400 so actually, I am pretty well covered. I am not a pro so I have still not bothered with the fast glass most guys seem to have. I guess I will get that in time...

Wait for announcements in the coming week and then decide. I guess you will need to go for a new body since you are missing shots. Wedding shots that to! Unless you already have glass in the 24 to 100/135 mm range, get the 24-105 as a kit lens. It works out much cheaper and I think it is a versatile lens.

Have fun with your new toy when you get it

 

[curt248]

I've been trying to keep 2.8 glass for my zooms. I do have a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 that is super sharp.

The only slow zoom I have is the 17-40 L 4.0. Honestly, I'm thinking of getting the 16-35mm 2.8 for low light wedding photography. The lighting conditions in most indoor events I've covered has been atrocious.

In the low light situations having a stop or more of better high iso coverage with a new body would be just as good as upgrading all of my lenses I suppose. The 5d mark III is just so expensive. I really hope they release the 6d or 7d mark II with a full frame sensor for around $1999 or less this month or in october as predicted.

Maybe the 2X version III converter would be a solution to add to my 70-200 for that extra reach needed with a full frame. I've heard that the version III doesn't degrade picture quality that much.

 

[IIIHobbs]

5DIII rocks, clearly the best choice here.
Keep the 70-200 and add the 300 f4L IS.

 

[KKCFamilyman]

5DIII rocks, clearly the best choice here.
Keep the 70-200 and add the 300 f4L IS.

+1 on that

 

[drolo61]

Took the step up 5Dc to 5D3. Had my hands on the 5Dc just recently (after about 3 month of handling the 5D3 exclusively - and then I discovered, how much more I have at hand today. Suddenly the 5Dc feels somehow outdated. So I strongly agree with the "body first" recommendation!

 

[tomscott]

70-200mm L 2.8 is a brilliant lens. If you need IS you could have a compromise by selling the 70-200mm and buying a 70-200mm MKI IS which will give you a better hit rate with the IS and buy a 5D MKIII and with its AF youll be sorted.

Only about £500 extra for MKI IS after selling a 70-200mm L 2.8.

 

[RLPhoto]

I'm debating my upgrade path. I usually go for better quality glass over body upgrades, but I'm not sure on this one.

Do I upgrade my Canon 70-200 non-is 2.8 to the new IS version II of the lens or would it make more sense to keep my older 70-200 2.8 and upgrade my body from the original 5D classic to the new 5D mark III? I'm drooling over the new auto focus system on the 5d mark III but since I shoot sports with a crop camera I'm not sure if I need it. Maybe at 7D and the 70-200 2.8 IS II would be warranted?

I shoot motocross (sports) with my 50D as it has the 1.6 crop factor (free zoom) and a better 9 cross point autofocus vs 1 cross point on the 5d classic. I shoot weddings and general photography/events with the 5d and I consider the 5d my main camera with the 50d being backup unless I shoot the aforementioned motocross or maybe birds.

I love the shallower depth of field that I can achieve when using the full frame 5d vs the crop. It's like getting more expensive lenses with lower maximum aperture when comparing to the crop body. I will always have a full frame. I will probably always have a crop too though for the extra reach.

I also need something for video as well. I'm currently using the T1i for video, but it is up for sale at the time to fund this upgrade. I do some how to videos and make some short films. I do have a canon 1080P video camera for this as well (not as nice as the DSLR's though).

So whats the better upgrade, the 5D to 5D mark III or the 70-200 2.8 non-IS to the 70-200 2.8 IS version II or some other path?

This advise is coming from someone who made the exact same upgrade path. I skipped the MK2 series Btw.

GLASS FIRST! Bodies Second.

If you lack a telephoto lens like the 70-200. Get that first. You can have a mk3 but without the reach, Why bother?

Once you've got all your lens line-up complete, Then invest into whatever body you want. Never deprive yourself of good glass. As for sports, I'm sure you can manage with the bodies you have but the Lenses, You need them more.

I Purchased a MK3 only to replace my dying 5Dc, and For the AF. I never saw the MK2 as enough of an upgrade to justify its purchase.

 

[Rat]

If you lack a telephoto lens like the 70-200. Get that first. You can have a mk3 but without the reach, Why bother?

He *has* the 70-200 2.8, just not the newest. Normally I'd second your 'glass first' adage, but in this case: TS, get the 5D3. It is a *big* step up from the 5D.

In the low light situations having a stop or more of better high iso coverage with a new body would be just as good as upgrading all of my lenses I suppose. The 5d mark III is just so expensive.

The standard set of f/4-zooms will currently set you back about 2750 euro The 16-35, 24-70II and 70-200II cost something like 5750 euro - the difference will pay for a 5D3. That'll give you all the low light capacity you'll need (unlike the 1 stop you gain with the 2.8's) and if you want smaller DOF, you probably should get primes anyway. That's my upgrade path, anyway

 

[RLPhoto]

If you lack a telephoto lens like the 70-200. Get that first. You can have a mk3 but without the reach, Why bother?

He *has* the 70-200 2.8, just not the newest. Normally I'd second your 'glass first' adage, but in this case: TS, get the 5D3. It is a *big* step up from the 5D.

In the low light situations having a stop or more of better high iso coverage with a new body would be just as good as upgrading all of my lenses I suppose. The 5d mark III is just so expensive.

The standard set of f/4-zooms will currently set you back about 2750 euro The 16-35, 24-70II and 70-200II cost something like 5750 euro - the difference will pay for a 5D3. That'll give you all the low light capacity you'll need (unlike the 1 stop you gain with the 2.8's) and if you want smaller DOF, you probably should get primes anyway.

Get the Version II with IS. Much better investment or consider the 7D. Its 8 FPS are much better and keep the reach.

 

[Rat]

Get the Version II with IS. Much better investment.

I don't think he cares about the ROI. I think he wants to take photographs with it.

(edit: he hasn't said a word about the need for 8fps and he's already shooting with a 5D so 'keep the reach' is for another thread, I think. Pls read the... oh never mind.)