Bought a 5D Mark iii Today (YAY)

[V8Beast]

Very nice... I shot AF1 in northern nevada at the airport... Dear god almighty security was tight and I had to sneak a peak of the plane running down the runway through a door cracked open only 6 inches at best... and that's with secret service monitoring my every movement. Good shots.

You should have distracted them with some Columbian hookers Works everytime ;D

 

[jouster]

Is that the POTUS on board? Third window from the front?

With a D800 you could tell......







I kid, I kid!!!!!!!

 

[KyleSTL]

The kit lens is excellent, and you will love it.

Once you get a FF, focal lengths are suddenly more limited, so you might be looking for longer focal lengths soon.

Fortunately, there is a good assortment of older Canon telephoto lenses that perform reasonably well on the 5D MK II, so don't be afraid to pay $100 for a old 70-210mm f/4 zoom, its a old push-pull design, but will fill a gap until you can afford a top of the line lens. I gave mine to my daughter and she loves it. Another one, a 100-300mm lens can often be found for $100, and its respectable even though not spectacular. I have had several of both, that came with old film bodies bought on Craigslist.

Are you talking about the 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM? Or the 100-300mm f/5.6 or 5.6L? I have the former and find the image quality at 300mm to be quite poor. The focus speed, build quality and IQ at <200mm are quite decent for the price, but I think the IQ of this lens is the worst of all the Canon xxx-300mm zooms they have made. I have considered selling it to buy the 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5, 70-210mm f/4, 100-300mm f/5.6, or any of the 75-300mm lenses.

I also just picked up the Tamron 200-400mm f/5.6 for $100, and while the image quality is much better than the 100-300mm USM, the focus speed is nearly unusable, so I might just list it on eBay and make a little profit from the flip (they normally go for $175-250).

I was replying to the OP, he noted that he was on a budget. You are welcome to the Canon 75-300mm lens, if you think it is great, go for it, I'm not going to knock someone for their choice of lenses, we all have to make buying decisions that are right for us. The 100-300 is weak at 300mm, but its strong at 100-200mm, and its cheap. It and the 70-210mm f/4 which is better, both pickup where his 24-105mm L leaves off. A 200-400mm lens leaves a gap for him to fill.

Obviously, we would like to recommend top lenses, but if he is looking for a place holder to extend his focal length for now, the 70-210 would be my first recommendation.

Here is a cat photo with my 70-210mm f/4 taken a few years back with my 30D or 40D. This is a 100% crop at 200mm and wide open aperture.

Impressive shot. Have you owned any of the other lenses I mentioned? If I do decide to sell off my telephoto zooms, I would like to get the best bang/buck replacement (since they are all in the same price range) and I would value your opinion on the choices.

if the long zoom needs to cost less then i'd get 55-250 or tamron 70-300 vc over the ones you mention

Except that the 55-250mm is an EF-S lens that will not even mount on the 5D3.

 

[Ayelike]

Well on the subject of building the glass collection, when I get my 5D3 (just 5 days to go!) I've got two bits of glass I want to get my hands on but not sure which I'll want first.

Firstly, as I'm moving up to full-frame I'm going to be selling off my 10-22mm EF-S. Now this is going to hurt me because I love ultra-wide angle shots and I'm probably going to have to invest in a 16-35mm f2.8. I was half thinking about getting the 17-40mm f4 but I think in the long run I'll be happier with the f2.8 as it'll go nicely with my 24-70mm f2.8 and my 70-200mm f2.8.

My other thought is at the opposite end of the range. My 70-200mm won't have the reach I'm used to on the 5D3 so I'm thinking about either the 100-400mm or the 400mm f5.6. I think I'm leaning towards the 400mm prime for wildlife and motor sport. Mainly motor sport were the IS won't be as missed as the subjects are moving so fast.

I think I need to just pace myself though and get used to the 5D3. It's a new world of stuff to learn and my 24-70mm is going to be a lot wider than I'm used to so I might change my mind on the order of glass I want.

 

[Razor2012]

Hope you enjoy it. Is this your first 'serious' camera, or are you upgrading from another DSLR? [I'm not going to criticize anyone's decisions, I'm just curious because of old arguments on the forum before the 5D MkIII was released]

I hear what you're saying, but I've seen this question before, I just wonder where/why it comes up!?!

Why would it possibly matter to anyone why the 5D3 or higher would be anyone 'first' camera?

Everyone out there, has different levels of disposable income. To some people, buying a Porsche is the same thing as someone buying their first Toyota. Usually, at least to my observance.....people usually jump into anything they buy, at the highest level they can comfortably afford.

I've posted here about my first ever DSLR camera ever...I got the 5D3...and just could not understand people that seemed to actually deride me for not buying something much cheaper or of lessor capability.

If one can afford one, whether easily or has saved (I'm honestly about half way in this one) for a $$$$ camera like this.....why is there any question whatsoever?

I wanted to start with the absolute best I could afford...and learn and enjoy it for years and years to come.

I guess I just don't' understand the mentality of why someone (and again, with your disclaimer, not pointing the finger at you on this) would even think to come up with the question of asking why they started with a high level toy/tool?

Do you walk up to everyone person with a Ferrari, and ask them if they started with a Kia?

Sorry...I love this forum, but this is the ONE thing that has just caught my attention, and made me very curious where this type of mindset comes from...I've honestly not encountered it before on any interest or forum I've ever been on..and I'm not a spring chicken.


C

PS....Congrats on your new camera, and WOW...what a cool first set of pics to take with it!!! I know you'll enjoy it...I'm just overwhelmed and having a blast learning about the camera...both for video and stills and how to edit both stills and video.
If you're anything like me...this is going to open up many years of pleasure of learning for the future....I love learning new things....that are fun!

It's true, it shouldn't matter what you want to buy or how much you want to spend. It's like when I upgrade my PC (takes 4 - 5 years or so), I buy the best I can at the time. I know that it should last me a few years. If a person wants to buy a 1 series for their first camera, all the power to them. They'll have something they can grow with for years to come. I'm not going to criticize someone for something I don't have or can't buy.

 

[KyleSTL]

The kit lens is excellent, and you will love it.

Once you get a FF, focal lengths are suddenly more limited, so you might be looking for longer focal lengths soon.

Fortunately, there is a good assortment of older Canon telephoto lenses that perform reasonably well on the 5D MK II, so don't be afraid to pay $100 for a old 70-210mm f/4 zoom, its a old push-pull design, but will fill a gap until you can afford a top of the line lens. I gave mine to my daughter and she loves it. Another one, a 100-300mm lens can often be found for $100, and its respectable even though not spectacular. I have had several of both, that came with old film bodies bought on Craigslist.

Are you talking about the 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM? Or the 100-300mm f/5.6 or 5.6L? I have the former and find the image quality at 300mm to be quite poor. The focus speed, build quality and IQ at <200mm are quite decent for the price, but I think the IQ of this lens is the worst of all the Canon xxx-300mm zooms they have made. I have considered selling it to buy the 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5, 70-210mm f/4, 100-300mm f/5.6, or any of the 75-300mm lenses.

I also just picked up the Tamron 200-400mm f/5.6 for $100, and while the image quality is much better than the 100-300mm USM, the focus speed is nearly unusable, so I might just list it on eBay and make a little profit from the flip (they normally go for $175-250).

I was replying to the OP, he noted that he was on a budget. You are welcome to the Canon 75-300mm lens, if you think it is great, go for it, I'm not going to knock someone for their choice of lenses, we all have to make buying decisions that are right for us. The 100-300 is weak at 300mm, but its strong at 100-200mm, and its cheap. It and the 70-210mm f/4 which is better, both pickup where his 24-105mm L leaves off. A 200-400mm lens leaves a gap for him to fill.

Obviously, we would like to recommend top lenses, but if he is looking for a place holder to extend his focal length for now, the 70-210 would be my first recommendation.

Here is a cat photo with my 70-210mm f/4 taken a few years back with my 30D or 40D. This is a 100% crop at 200mm and wide open aperture.

Impressive shot. Have you owned any of the other lenses I mentioned? If I do decide to sell off my telephoto zooms, I would like to get the best bang/buck replacement (since they are all in the same price range) and I would value your opinion on the choices.

if the long zoom needs to cost less then i'd get 55-250 or tamron 70-300 vc over the ones you mention

Except that the 55-250mm is an EF-S lens that will not even mount on the 5D3.

Just to follow up with what I was saying a couple months back:

I did end up finding a good deal on a 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, and find the sharpness and overall image quality to be better. The 70-210 does not have the horrible ghosting on the long end that I saw with the 100-300 USM. The extra 2/3 stop will be nice for less than perfect lighting. Overall I'm pleased with the purchase, and the 100-300mm is already listed on eBay. Thanks for the suggestion, Mt Spokane. Additionally, I sold the Tamron 200-400mm, as I found the AF to be unusably slow. It sold for much more than I paid, so the short ownership was more than worth it.

Eventually I'll step up to a 70-200mm f/4L or 70-200mm f/4L IS, but this will do for now.

 

[awinphoto]

Very nice... I shot AF1 in northern nevada at the airport... Dear god almighty security was tight and I had to sneak a peak of the plane running down the runway through a door cracked open only 6 inches at best... and that's with secret service monitoring my every movement. Good shots.

You should have distracted them with some Columbian hookers Works everytime ;D

Haha just read your comment today, you know I didn't have any with me, lol. In the shot I did get of AF1 running down the runway, I could see secret service standing on top of the hangers/terminals in the distance... With my 7d at the time and 70-200, i guess it would be easy to assume its a rocket launcher or the like... Oh well... note to self, next time AF1 comes to town, hire hookers...