# 5D Mark 2 kit or 5D Mark 3 kit ?



## abp2012 (Nov 27, 2012)

5DMark 2 kit or 5DMark 3 kit ?
I am a hobbyist photographer n im really passionate about photography, sometimes i do professional work as well.


Currently i own a 550D with 18-55kit
100mm f2.8
50mm f1.8
Sigma 70-300
I wanna upgrade to a full frame. I generally do Portrait, fashion and landscape photography.


Is it worth spending that much money if i am not gona take photography as a profession ? if its is..,,,, which one should i go for ..... mark 2 kit or mark 3 kit according to my situation


----------



## rexbobcat (Nov 27, 2012)

You can find a good, used 5D Mark II for about $1400-$1700 as opposed to $3000-3500 for the 5D Mark III.

If you aren't planning on doing any sports or wildlife shooting the 5DII is the much better deal in my opinion.


----------



## jaomul (Nov 27, 2012)

5d ii


----------



## Superdaantje (Nov 27, 2012)

Start upgrading your lenses first. This is what I would do ;-)


----------



## abp2012 (Nov 27, 2012)

Superdaantje said:


> Start upgrading your lenses first. This is what I would do ;-)




what lens wd you suggest ,,,, ?  some all purpose lens


----------



## Superdaantje (Nov 27, 2012)

For me personally there is no all purpose lens. For me there is always a combination of lenses I use ;-)

On what focal length do you shoot most of the time ? 
Or what lens do you use now most of the time

What is your budget for your new set ?

I used in the past several times the 550D with an Canon 17-55 and 70-200 f/4 IS. This was a great set to use.


----------



## TCampbell (Nov 27, 2012)

I always think it's a tragic waste when someone buys a DSLR and then wants an all-purpose lens.  I'll explain.

It's not possible to make one single lens that does a good job at everything.  It's relatively easy (well... easier) to make a lens designed for one task.  For example, if I need to make a 50mm lens, then I can put the various optical elements in a configuration and spacing that works extremely well for the 50mm focal length.  If I want my lens to "zoom" then the elements and their spacing will need to move relative to each other.  Now I'm trying to find a configuration where the spacing works well for every focal length in the range and I can focus all areas of the image to a nice tack-sharp image... this, it turns out, is not so straight-forward.  Lenses start making compromises... some focal lengths are sharper than others, some focal ratios and some focal lengths work better than others, and different areas of the image are better than others (almost always depending on how far that point is from the center of the image.)  Also... the all-purpose lenses always tend to have variable focal ratios.  This means they don't particularly gather a lot of light and they may not be particularly good at give you an out-of-focus background with quality bokeh.

You can get f/2.8 zooms which perform pretty well, but those tend to be less ambitious about the zoom length (and you'll notice a trend... the more ambitious the lens is with the zoom range, usually the more they have to compromise on the optical quality.)

To solve this problem, manufacturers make cameras that allow you to remove one lens and attach another.  DSLRs are perfect for this.  You can just grab the lens that's optimized for the task at hand.

SO... if you buy a DSLR, you're getting a physically larger camera -- there's definitely no "convenience" factor here.  But you're probably giving up the convenience of a small compact camera so that you can have higher quality images.  But to get those higher quality images requires high quality glass.  And there's no such thing as high-quality and "all purpose" in the same lens.  It's one or the other.  So when someone says they want a DSLR with an all-purpose lens, I usually think they probably should have just bought a point & shoot because they're not going to get to take advantage of a lot of the unique benefits of own a DSLR unless they're willing to buy a few lenses that are particularly good at certain things.

As for bodies...

I own a II and I am planning to get a III, but based on your usage it sounds like you might be quite content with the II.  The biggest difference is the focusing system.  There are lots of other subtle differences as well.  Certain the III is the better camera, but it's about double the price and it's only worth it if you plan to exploit the features that set these cameras apart. 

Full frame cameras do want better glass.  It's worthwhile to "invest" in quality lenses.  Here's why:

You'll notice that as you get farther away from the center, the more the quality degrades.  Objects in the corners of your image are generally never as sharp as objects in the center.  If you look up Canon's lenses on their website, you'll notice that at the bottom of the page they usually include a sample photo by the lens as well as some graphs.  Those are the "MTF curve" graphs.  MTF = modulation transfer function.  Basically it's like an eye-chart for a lens.  In the same way that eye-charts have rows of letters where each row gets smaller than the previous row, the chart has sets of parallel lines and each set of lines gets finer (both in line width and the space between the lines) than the last.  They're trying to figure out just how fine it can get and still have the lens able to resolve them as separate lines.  At some point they'll just blur together.  They score the lens based on the finest level of detail it could achieve with the target at center, then at 1mm from center, then at 2mm from center, and so on.  

The general trend is that the farther the test target section is from the center of the lens, the less detail it'll be able to resolve.   

When you use a crop-frame camera (such as the 550D with the APS-C size sensor) the distance from the center of the image to the corner of the image is only about 14mm.  When you use a full-frame camera the distance is greater (because the sensor is larger) and the radius goes out to about 22mm (about 50% farther).  That means if you assume the image quality will continue to degrade as you get farther from the center of the axis then you've got a lot more distance to cover... you can assume that the corners will look even worse.

To reduce this problem, you don't necessarily want to use just any junk-quality lens.  It's a good idea to "invest" in quality glass if you're going to use a full-frame camera.


----------



## abp2012 (Nov 28, 2012)

I know there is no such thing as an all purpose lens ..... the thing is that im a college student ... and take photography assignments on the side. I have saved up some $4000 and i wanna invest it in a good full frame system. The kit lens what they give is 24-105 L, its a pretty descent lens I suppose.  

I need a versatile kit. I cant invest again for a long time 

what i have in mind are these combos 

1)  5D m2 with 24-105 Price - $3000 
2)  5D m3 with 24-105 Price - $4000 ( i save $1000 on the lens if i buy the kit... kit is $4000 and separate lens 24-105 is $1700  )
3)  5D m2 with 70-200 f/2.8 non IS Price - $4090 
4)  5D m2 with 50mm /f1.4  Price -  $2820
5)  5D m3with 50mm /f1.4  Price - $4000
6)  5D m2 with 17-40 mm f/4 Price - $3500
7)  5D m3 with 17-40 mm f/4 Price - $4000
8)  5D m2 with 85 mm f/1.8  Price -  $2900
9)  5D m3with 85mm /f1.8  Price - $4000

if you have any better combos in mind plz share

my budget is max $4000

gear I already own

EOS 550D
18-55 kit lens
canon 100mm f/2.8 macro
50mm f/1.8
Sigma 70-300 f/3.5-5.6


----------



## romp23 (Nov 28, 2012)

Sounds like you should go with the 5d2. However if you decide to get the 5d3 i just got mine from adorama through ebay and i got the 5d3 24-105 and the 600ex-rt speedlight for 3899. Free shipping no taxes. Dont know if they are still offering this or not but i ordered mine on monday and recieved it today.


----------



## CanonJim (Nov 28, 2012)

abp2012 said:


> I know there is no such thing as an all purpose lens ..... the thing is that im a college student ... and take photography assignments on the side. I have saved up some $4000 and i wanna invest it in a good full frame system. The kit lens what they give is 24-105 L, its a pretty descent lens I suppose.
> 
> I need a versatile kit. I cant invest again for a long time
> 
> ...



Are the prices really that much higher in India than the US? I can get a brand new Canon 24-105 L shipped to my door in about 24 hours for $869.00 and a 5D Mark II for about $1800.  That's over a thousand dollars less than your stated combo of the same?


----------



## abp2012 (Nov 28, 2012)

CanonJim said:


> abp2012 said:
> 
> 
> > I know there is no such thing as an all purpose lens ..... the thing is that im a college student ... and take photography assignments on the side. I have saved up some $4000 and i wanna invest it in a good full frame system. The kit lens what they give is 24-105 L, its a pretty descent lens I suppose.
> ...




Yes, the prices are fairly high .... The 24-105 comes for (minimum) Rs. 80,000
thats ~= $1500
and the mark to body is Rs. 1,25,000 this is ~= $2300  these are the prices of canon retail stores.

If I get the kit... It's for Rs. 1,65,000($3000) ...


----------



## abp2012 (Dec 22, 2012)

guys .. thanks for all your suggestions and feedback.... i finally purchased a 5d mark3 kit


----------



## teribithia (Dec 23, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> You can find a good, used 5D Mark II for about $1400-$1700 as opposed to $3000-3500 for the 5D Mark III.
> 
> If you aren't planning on doing any sports or wildlife shooting the 5DII is the much better deal in my opinion.



For me the Mark II is enough.


----------



## gw2424 (Dec 23, 2012)

Though this doesn't fully answer your question, the 12.8 Megapixel 5d Mark 1 is still a heck of a camera. Pair it with a 35 f2, 85 f1.8, and a 70-200 2.8 and you have more kit that necessary. 

5d        $600
35 f2     $250
85 f1.8  $325
70 200  $900
My 2c

-Gabe


----------



## kathyt (Dec 23, 2012)

I have been using the 5D mark ii for awhile now and just within the last month upgraded to the 5D mark iii. The mark iii is AMAZING! What I can do with that sucker in low light is unbelievable. The mark ii has focus issues and these have been cleared up times 1000 with the 64 focal points on my new love. So, I say if you can afford the mark iii, go for it because you will want it eventually.


----------



## Jacobwilson (Jan 1, 2013)

Just bought a Mark II and a 50 1.2 for 2450. That would be my suggestion. I scoured the secondary market for weeks to find both those at $1200 a piece.


----------

