# Poll 5dmark iii or 70-200 mark ii and nice prime



## bledererphoto (Oct 28, 2012)

Trying to save up for either 5d mark iii or the 70-200 ii and another nice prime such as 50mm 1.2.  Currently have 60d and know i need better capabilities for such things as high iso and the other features a camera such as 5d has over my current.  I find myself renting gear when needed. Id use for low light events but also for sports.  Could not swing 1dx for example based on price. So poll question what would you go for and why?


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 28, 2012)

5DIII isn't a great sports camera.  It's an improvement on what you have, sure, but not as big as you'd think.  Also, there's the whole issue of going full frame.  Is that the route you need/want to go?  It's not as simple as just the upgrade, part, it's also a format change.

What lens(es) are you currently shooting with?  Another possible route might be the 6D (full frame) or 7D (crop frame) and the 70-200 MkII.  For sports, the 7D paired with the 70-200 MkII is a hard combo to beat until you're talking about dropping 8,000-9,000 or more.


----------



## Overread (Oct 28, 2012)

The 5DMIII should do well for sports - its got pretty much the same (if better) AF as the 7D and coupled with the better low light ISO powers of the fullframe sensor. The only downside might be the FPS being slower on the 5DMIII but honestly that isn't as much of a limitation as many people get to thinking it is (action photography is all about timing - yes bursts of shots make it a bit easier and can help, but you've still got to time that first shot right and most of the time the shot itself is within the first three or so frames anyway). 


As for which to go for my advice is thus:

1) If you want to change film/sensor size at any point make the chance now rather than later. No point building a system around a sensor/film size that you don't want to use long term as you'll have to go about building a whole new lens setup when you shift systems. So if you're keen on fullframe make the change now. 

2) Do you need any lighting support? For sports this might not be an issue, but for other applications are you needing any lighting gear? Sometimes a good set of lights and modifiers will make a dramatic difference to what you can capture. 


I would go for the lens first only if you are sure that you need the lens itself and don't want to make the shift to fullframe. Note that you can get a 5D or 5DMII secondhand/reconditioned and thus fit fullframe and a lens into your budget, but only if you're not going to use the fullframe for the action (sports) work (since the 5D and 5DMII have poorer AF systems).


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 28, 2012)

Honestly? Glass first.  You have a fantastically capable camera body. Yep, you'll want to  upgrade, but you don't NEED the upgrade in body as much as lenses. I am not sure I'd go for the 50 f/1.2. I just haven't heard enough positives to make it worth the huge $ over the 1.4. That money I'd put toward saving for the next upgrade-body?


----------



## bledererphoto (Oct 28, 2012)

I'd go 7d but I really need the low light capabilities for times when flash is not appropriate or not allowed (such as wedding ceremonies in certain churches).  I am fully underwhelmed with the 6d specs.  I have used the 5d iii at a couple football games and although it's fps are lower it's servo and ability to at least double the low light capabilities of my current really impressed me.  When 12800 looks really clean next to my 60d at extreme noise 6400 on 60d I'm quite impressed.  I feel as full frame is the path I'm headed towards.  I don't have a lot of lenses I feel are quality (17-50 sigma 2.8 best currently for event use).  I use a series of speed lights and that suits my needs for the most part.  I reinvest my photography earnings back into equipment right now as the photography piece is in addition to my full time job.


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 28, 2012)

Overread said:


> The 5DMIII should do well for sports - its got pretty much the same (if better) AF as the 7D and coupled with the better low light ISO powers of the fullframe sensor. The only downside might be the FPS being slower on the 5DMIII but honestly that isn't as much of a limitation as many people get to thinking it is (action photography is all about timing - yes bursts of shots make it a bit easier and can help, but you've still got to time that first shot right and most of the time the shot itself is within the first three or so frames anyway).



Perhaps I was misleading in what I originally wrote, the 5DIII is by no means a 'bad' sports camera, but it's definitely not what I would buy if I were looking to shoot sports.  A 7D will perform just about as well, considering the amount you'll have to crop the 5DIII to get the same reach will negate many of the 5DIII's noise and IQ advantages (I'm assuming you'd have to crop a lot, as I'm assuming you don't have a 300mm f/2.8, or we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place).  

My point is that the 5DIII's strengths aren't best leveraged in sports, and the _very few_ weak spots the 5DIII does have (low FPS comparatively, huge file size) are brought to the forefront by sports.

When I shoot sports I typically take a 7D outfitted with a 70-200 f/2.8 MkII (for your normal action stuff) _and_ a 5DII or 5DIII paired with a 17-40 or 28-135 (For crowd and general wide angle needs).  The 7D and 70-200 combo is the clear workhorse pairing and the 5DIII and wide angle are there for the 'extra' shots.


----------



## Overread (Oct 28, 2012)

Weddings and Sports? What's your primary market and income from?

Which one of the two areas (studio/portrait/weddings - and action/sports) is the one that brings you the most income and forms the majority/backbone of your business? Because whichever it is should dictate what you should invest in first. Studio wise you could do very well with a 5DMII or even a 5D and throwing the rest of the money into a solid prime lens or two and a serious lighting setup. 

Work out your needs very clearly first then you can better approach what gear will suit.


----------



## bledererphoto (Oct 28, 2012)

Business side wedding and portrait work (do not have a studio or anything).  Sports are more something i enjoy doing for our school in more of a volunteer capacity.  Either way the 70-200 work get alot of work.


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 28, 2012)

as much as I love the 70-200, and it is my favorite lens I've ever used on Nikon or Canon, I wouldn't get it for weddings.  you'd rarely use 120-200mm, which is the biggest reason you buy it, those lengths at f/2.8.  And it's very heavy to shoot handheld all day long, which is typically what you have to do at weddings.  

Given the amount of money you have, I'd probably go 5DII, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.2.  These paired with your general zoom will give you some fantastic shots.  On a full frame, the 85mm is the money lens for individual shots, the 50mm the go to for groups.  then use your sigma f/2.8 midrange zoom for general reception/ceremony candid type shots.  

When your wedding shooting brings in enough, then buy an older 70-200mm MkI for sports and a used 7D.  Which is still a very great combo for hobby sports photography.


----------



## Overread (Oct 28, 2012)

True, but you also gain a lot with the use of a fullframe body over the crop sensor (esp if working indoors) since you can use telephoto lenses on the fullframe more often in closer situations. This helps you avoid perspective distortion that you'll introduce if you start using wider angle lenses (ie generally those under around 40-50mm). So whilst the 70-200mm MII will certainly see good use all round you might also want to give a thought to shifting to fullframe at the same time.

Budget wise you could do this by getting the 70-200mm and a 5D original. Sure its spec isn't as high as modern fullframe cameras, but its still a quality camera body able to stand up well to professional level use and demands in portrait and wedding work. If your budget allows a 5DMII would be a better bet of course.


----------



## bledererphoto (Oct 28, 2012)

Trying to get the high iso capabilities so im not interested in the old 5d models, especially the focus system on mark ii.  I use the 70-200 alot for weddings (rented), especially during the ceremony and do that handheld with no difficulties.  I also would invest in the mark ii version as I've used the other 70-200 2.8 lenses in past.


----------



## Overread (Oct 28, 2012)

I would say get the 5DMIII then and continue to rent the 70-200mm as needed. The fullframe sensor should benefit you and it seems to be that its the camera which is, currently, the underperforming (in your eyes) part of your setup. The lens you can work toward and save to get.


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 28, 2012)

bledererphoto said:


> Trying to get the high iso capabilities so im not interested in the old 5d models, especially the focus system on mark ii.  I use the 70-200 alot for weddings (rented), especially during the ceremony and do that handheld with no difficulties.  I also would invest in the mark ii version as I've used the other 70-200 2.8 lenses in past.



The high ISO ability has never been that big of a difference between the 5DIII and 5DII, IMHO.  The 5DIII is a bit more usable at ISO 12800.  But you better not be shooting a wedding at ISO 128000, even with a 5DIII in the first place or you got much bigger problems than a new body can solve.

Autofocus system is clearly better on the 5DIII, but I've never had an issue with the 5DII's autofocus system for anything other than wildlife and sports.  Use backbutton focusing and the 5DII's autofocus is fine for weddings, IMHO.


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 28, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> *as much as I love the 70-200, and it is my favorite lens I've ever used on Nikon or Canon, I wouldn't get it for weddings.  you'd rarely use 120-200mm, which is the biggest reason you buy it, those lengths at f/2.8.  And it's very heavy to shoot handheld all day long, which is typically what you have to do at weddings.  *
> 
> Given the amount of money you have, I'd probably go 5DII, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.2.  These paired with your general zoom will give you some fantastic shots.  On a full frame, the 85mm is the money lens for individual shots, the 50mm the go to for groups.  then use your sigma f/2.8 midrange zoom for general reception/ceremony candid type shots.
> 
> When your wedding shooting brings in enough, then buy an older 70-200mm MkI for sports and a used 7D.  Which is still a very great combo for hobby sports photography.



I  use a 70-200 for my primary lens for most EVERYTHING and weddings are no exception. In fact, if I didn't have it I'd be in a bit of a pickle in several local churches where I must be behind the last seated guest. I'd say I use it twice as much as every other lens. 
I do not even have the Canon MK I version... I have the Sigma OS version. I'd love to have the MK I and I'd really LOVE to have the new one, but it's not budget wise for me. I HAVE to have that range at f/2.8 and for weddings I have to have the IS/OS. At the time I bought the original version was significantly more $$$, so I made the necessary decisions.


----------



## bledererphoto (Oct 28, 2012)

How is the sigma version?  Do you Use it on a crop or full frame body?  Ive considered the sigma before  but after using the canon mark ii on a number of occasions ive been leery of going that path.


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 28, 2012)

bledererphoto said:


> How is the sigma version?  Do you Use it on a crop or full frame body?  Ive considered the sigma before  but after using the canon mark ii on a number of occasions ive been leery of going that path.



The biggest difference between the two is focus speed.  We give the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 to our interns, so I've used it a few times before.  The focus speed difference is pretty extreme.  The Sigma isn't AWFUL by any means, but the Canon MkII is the best of any lens I've ever used.  It pretty much has to be near dark for the 7D to search for focus on the MkII, while it's not exactly routine, but not uncommon either for it to search for focus on the Sigma.  

The Canon is also a lot more consistently sharp over its entire range of focal length and apertures.  While I'm sure there are certain aperture/focal lengths combos that are worse than others, I've yet to find them.  Such an amazingly consistent lens.  The Sigma is a touch soft around the corners at 2.8 on either extreme end of its focal range.


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 28, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > *as much as I love the 70-200, and it is my favorite lens I've ever used on Nikon or Canon, I wouldn't get it for weddings.  you'd rarely use 120-200mm, which is the biggest reason you buy it, those lengths at f/2.8.  And it's very heavy to shoot handheld all day long, which is typically what you have to do at weddings.  *
> ...



Yeah, you've said this before and it still boggles my mind how much you use that lens.  Not saying that in a bad way at all, because it very obviously works for you.  But in my hands everything over about 100mm would be totally wasted inside a church, and I'd be much better off with an 85mm f/1.8 prime or the like in that environment.


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 28, 2012)

bledererphoto said:


> How is the sigma version?  Do you Use it on a crop or full frame body?  Ive considered the sigma before  but after using the canon mark ii on a number of occasions ive been leery of going that path.


I use it on both. I seriously love the lens. It's not the Canon MkII, but then I didn't pay over $2K for it either... I paid $1199. Its sharp, fast and has the necessary IS/OS for weddings. I also have the Tamron version and it's a SHARP lens, but much slower to focus. Beautiful for the macro shots at weddings!!!


----------



## bledererphoto (Oct 28, 2012)

How many of stops with is do you gain would you estimate? I can hand hold at 1/40 at 200 mm with the c anon version.  And I assume it can do alright with focus in low light.


----------



## Overread (Oct 28, 2012)

If you're shooting at 1/40sec you better have a very very still subject. Even minor motions of living subjects are going to start to show up motion blur at that speed (unless you have the exposure dominated totally by flash light so that the light pulse controls the exposure).


----------



## Derrel (Oct 28, 2012)

I think the 5D-III versus 70-200/2.8 Mark II would be almost a tossup...BOTH are highly coveted pieces of kit. Which would be the better allocation of resources is based mostly on what your current body is capable of...I think BOTH pieces would be very nice to own...the thing is, the body will go down in price within two years, as newer, better cameras come out, and the 5D-III becomes passe...but the 70-200 Mark II is going to hold its value as a resale item about like gold bullion....


----------



## xyphoto (Oct 28, 2012)

I would get 70-200mm IS II first then save for the 5d Mark iii when the price comes down. I have both and it is a dream combo. Canon has some good rebate on the lens right now.


----------



## bledererphoto (Oct 29, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> I think the 5D-III versus 70-200/2.8 Mark II would be almost a tossup...BOTH are highly coveted pieces of kit. Which would be the better allocation of resources is based mostly on what your current body is capable of...I think BOTH pieces would be very nice to own...the thing is, the body will go down in price within two years, as newer, better cameras come out, and the 5D-III becomes passe...but the 70-200 Mark II is going to hold its value as a resale item about like gold bullion....



I agree with the glass.  A camera may hold up at least 70% of value for 3-4 yeArs at best where a great lens may for well over 5 years.


----------

