5dlll w/24-105 or 5dll w24-105 & 70-200 non IS?

<p>Shortly I will be making the leap to full frame. After handling the 6D and the Nikon D600, I really do not like the small size and lack of controls on the bodies themselves. I have decided to go for the 5Dll or the 5Dlll, do not need the 36 megapixels of the Nikon D800.</p>

<p>I'm looking to the knowledgable contributors on Photo.net to help me make the decision listed in my header. For approximately the same price, I can either pick up a 5Dll with 24-105 and a 70-200 non IS or go for the 5Dlll with only the 24-105. Do you think the advantages of the newer 5Dlll are worth the extra cost or would it be wiser to invest in the 2 lenses instead?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for your replies.</p>

 

<p>Get the MkII + 2 lenses. Obviously a camera with 2 lenses is more versatile than a camera with only 1. Output quality differences between the MkII vs MkIII are small and pretty insignificant. </p>

<p>It depends on how you'll use your 70-200mm. For wildlife and sports, the MkIII, with its superior AF system will yield many more keepers. However, since you don't seem to have a purpose in mind, then I'd say that you'll be happy with the MkII. I had this combo once, but with IS on the 70-200mm, and it's very useful.</p>

<p>Think hard about not getting IS on your 70-200mm. Hand holding that lens in low light and in long focal lengths is something that I commonly do. With a 1.4X TC, you're shooting at 280mm.</p>

<p>As to whether the advantages of the Mark III are worth the cost, it depends on what you plan to shoot - and the relative values of those "advantages" versus the advantage of having the 70-200mm zoom.</p>

<p>When it comes to pure image quality, there is virtually no significant difference between the two cameras. Put both on a tripod, point them at a subject, ensure good focus and exposure, and both will capture images that you can print at 24" x 36" - and no one will be able to tell which is which. </p>

<p>The 5D3 has an improved AF system. It isn't that the 5D2 is awful and the 5D3 is The World's Most Perfectly Awesome AF System, but the new camera has improved on the old one in this regard. If a significant portion of your shooting will be of subjects that challenge a camera's AF system (and which don't need a longer lens - more in a moment...) then the 5D3 will give you some degree of better performance in this particular regard. But that isn't to say that the 5D2 is <em>incapable</em> in these areas, just that it has been improved upon in the newer camera. (I use the 5D2 to photograph birds in flight, professional bicycle racing, and more. While equipment is not unimportant for those things, technique makes a far bigger difference.)</p>

<p>But you may be focusing on the small things here and overlooking a rather large thing. The 24-105 is a fine and versatile lens - I own in and like it a lot. You can do quite a bit with this lens alone, depending upon what and how you shoot. But if you <em>need</em> longer focal lengths than 105mm (which isn't all that long for most things) then the real question is whether the value of having that 70-200mm lens is greater or less than the value of the slightly improved AF system.</p>

<p>In the end, both cameras are capable of producing truly excellent image quality.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Think hard about not getting IS on your 70-200mm. Hand holding that lens in low light and in long focal lengths is something that I commonly do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'll second David's cautionary advice here. IS is more useful at longer focal lengths than at short, and the 70-200's IS system is very fine. And, if you're talking about the 70-200/4, the IS version is optically superior, too.</p>

<p>It depends on whether you will be using that 70-200 or not, and only you can answer that question.</p>

<p>I use Nikon, can't comment so much between the II and III except didn't see much the III offered besides AF improvements.</p>

<p>However, like others I would think hard about not getting IS in the 70-200 F2.8. I had Nikons equivalent non-IS version and switched to the one with. Here's some things to think about. 1st as the MP increase the need for stabilization increases as well. You say you don't need 36MP of the D800 today but I would think ahead on that. When the 5D Mark II came out at 21.1MP everyone scoffed who needs that much when Nikon and Canon had a gamut of ~12MP it's all anyone needs. 21MP is more storage, memory, computer, etc... now we fast forward today and 12MP is low, 21MP is the norm, and 36MP people scoff at. I suspect in 4-5 years you'll be using a 40MP+ Canon and a non-IS 70-200 F2.8 is going to be hard to cut on it. With that many MP you'll need to keep it at about 1/500th or faster at 200mm which is pretty hard to do... IS will keep things more attainable. Then if you use a TC...</p>

<p>The 70-200 F2.8 IS lens is so amazing on a FF and range so useful in so many situations I think it's most peoples money making lens of both manufacture(s). If there's one lens not to cheap out on, I would argue that is most likely the lens.</p>

<p>Those are some things to consider, but two things. I do mostly portraits and candids the 70-200 F2.8 VR is my workhorse lens I use on a D800. I would struggle not having stabilization and 36MP and trying to keep the shutter speed high and suspect you will to in a few years using a non-IS version on your 40MP+ Canon. Secondly I am someone from the dark side. Good luck</p>

<p>I think that the better choice is #2, the mk2 w/ 24-105 + 70-200/2.8L (non IS). The three make a <em>vastly</em> more complete kit than the mk3+24-105. - especially if you don't have a stable full of lenses to fall back upon, and patch 'holes' with.</p>

<p>While of course the IS version of the lens <em>is</em> a more versatile lens than the 'non-IS' in many cases it is not necessary, and in many others it is not particularly beneficial. Learning how to hold your body, and camera/lens, steady is (still, IMO) a critical skill for photographers, and the availablility of IS will eliminate a large part of the necessity to learn that skill. If your choice is IS or non-IS version, then yeah despite that, IS. If it's non- IS, or ... 70-105mm @f4? , then that choice isn't rocket science. The 70-200/2.8L is capable of <em>nearly all</em> the same images as the 2.8L IS, assuming you have an appropriate amount of skill.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hand holding 280mm (using a 1.4X TC) at 1/30-sec. can be done without IS, but your odds are much better with IS. Shooting wildlife at dawn and dusk, you're often faced with a choice between capping your ISO and using a very slow shutter speed with a wide open aperture. This can also be true of lots of indoor shooting, such as theater or people in places. Yes, learn technique, but use IS for the best results.</p>

<p>Seriously consider the 70-200mm f/4L IS and consider used if your budget can't stand new. If you need the f/2.8, then make sure that you're willing to carry the extra weight and really need the extra f-stop.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For approximately the same price, I can either pick up a 5Dll with 24-105 and a 70-200 non IS or go for the 5Dlll with only the 24-105. Do you think the advantages of the newer 5Dlll are worth the extra cost or would it be wiser to invest in the 2 lenses instead?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I believe that the advantages of the 5DMkIII are very much worth the cost for those who would use those advantages: I would be one who would use those advantages. For my money I can wait a while as I am presently content with the advantages given me with my 5D and 5DMkII<br>

Of the choice between the two and assuming you have NO other camera or lenses – If I were in your shoes, I would buy the 5DMkIIand the two lenses. Obviously, that is the more flexible camera system.</p>

<p>Your question is like a non <a href="http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&tbo=d&rlz=1W1RNRN_enAU435&nfpr=1&biw=1309&bih=670&spell=1&q=Your+question+is+non+sequitur&sa=X&ei=KNG_UJrsEMaiiAfwnYGQAw&ved=0CCsQBSgA">sequitur</a>: it implies you have use for the advantages of the 5DMkIII and are trading off those advantages for the use of two lenses - which are (generally) an unusual pair of lenses anyway – and you want advice on which choice is best – but A does not follow B.</p>

<p>I’d add, it is a very specialised camera kit (and user) who would choose the EF70 to 200F/2.8 USM over either one of the IS versions or the F/4 IS version of that Zoom – especially so, if one is content with a maximum F/4 and IS from 24mm to 105mm<br>

It occurs to me this could be a question predicated on what is for offer at this point in time, for a particular price, rather than rigorously answering: ‘what do I require?’<br>

I encourage more info.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p>What Canon lenses do you currently own? Go with the best body first and then methodically build your lens collection.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your insightful input. Looks as though I have a tough decision ahead of me. </p>

<p>I've shot with Canon in the past as well as Nikon currently. I don't have a lot invested in lenses at this time so changing systems is not a major concern. Personally I prefer the ergonomics and handling of the "prosumer" Canons such as the 5D. </p>

<p>Perhaps I will look at other lenses as well. I really like the idea of the 24-105 as an all-purpose walk around lens.</p>

<p>Thanks again!</p>

<p>Folks, as far as I can tell the OP is not able/willing to consider the cost of the IS version of the 70-200mm lens - so not quite sure why that has become such a focus here. If cost isn't a concern, then the IS lens is almost always to logical choice (with a few possible exceptions), but when cost is an issue the non-IS lens is a fine performer in many, many ways. </p>

<p>And the real choice our OP is asking about is whether the 5D3 offers advantages over the 5D2 for his photography that are greater than those offered by owning the 24-105 and the 70-200 rather than just having the 24-105. Given the stark choice, and not hearing otherwise from our OP, I venture to guess that the 5D2 plus the two lenses will be more useful than the 5D3 and one lens.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

I will just weigh in on the subject of the 70-200 IS issue. I have both the ;F4 IS and F2.8 non IS version of this lens. With

the F4 I would probably go for IS although it is not essential. With the F2.8 I think it is not the massive issue others think.

If you are shooting weddings or the like then IS is an advantage on the F2.8 lens. If you are shooting sports or outdoors

than I suggest that you will not miss it. I have been shooting indoor and outdoor sports for many years with then non IS

lens and the addition of IS would make no impact as it does not give you a faster shutter speed. For other low light work

either 5D body and the f2.8 lens will meet almost all needs. I am not saying that IS is not useful - merely that it is not that

necessary on a lens like the 70-200 f2.8.

<p>Phillip's points are valid. It really comes down to how you will use the lens.</p>

<p>Bird photographers are going to take the 70-200/f2.8 to 140-400/f5.6 by putting a 2.0X TC on it and shooting in all kinds of light. Not many of us do that, but for those of us that do, the IS can be critical. I've got the 70-200/f4 IS and routinely shoot it at SS under 1/100-sec. at the long end of its range, with and without the 1.4X TC. When you know that you have IS, you don't avoid shooting at those slow SSs. You need to be aware of the SS and use good technique, but 1/25-sec is made useable with IS.</p>

<p>The OP actually asked: </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"For approximately the same price, I can either pick up a <strong>5Dll with 24-105 and a 70-200 non IS</strong> or go for the <strong>5Dlll with only the 24-105</strong>. Do you think the <strong>advantages of the newer 5Dlll are worth the extra cost</strong> or would it be <strong>wiser to invest in the 2 lenses instead</strong><strong>?</strong>"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Notice please that there seems to be a cost issue and <em>he is not asking about IS or about f/2.8</em> versus f/4 and the rest. His question is really pretty simple - <strong>Are the differences in functionality between the 5D2 and the 5D3 sufficient that it would be worth not owning the non-IS f/4 70-200mm lens in order to afford the 5D3?</strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>Dan</p>

<p>Again...thanks everyone for your contributions. I've decided to go with the 5Dlll and the 24-105. As Peter stated I will go with the best body and methodically build my lenses.</p>

<p>In the past as my two boys were playing ice hockey, I needed the 70-200 f2.8 to successfully capture those images in poorly lit arenas. I no longer need that lens immediately. I'll use the 24-105 as my everyday lens and look for something primarily for landscapes in the near future. Suggestions?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I'll use the 24-105 as my everyday lens and look for something primarily for landscapes in the near future. Suggestions?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>“Landscapes” does NOT necessarily mean “I need a wider lens” – I have been be happy with as wide as 24mm for <strong><em>mostly all</em></strong> the landscape photographs I have made.</p>

<p>However, the EF16 to 35F/2.8 L MkII USM would be my first choice (of a zoom) to add to the 24 to105, but I have a passion for faster lenses. The 17 to 40 would be a good consideration also – if you do ‘need’ another lens for ‘landscapes’, then it will be likely a wider need than a longer need.<br>

The TS-E lenses should be given good scrutiny – the TS-E17 or the TS-E24 MkII, would be where I would focus my research.</p>

<p>BUT - IF I only had ONE LENS - a 24 to 105 - that would suit me “primarily for landscapes” and I would be looking at my other outputs requirements and at lenses to address those – for me – 24 to 105 (on a 5D) is just about a ‘perfect’ focal length compass ‘primarily for landscapes’.<br>

You can always stitch.</p>

<p>WW </p>

 

<p>Thanks William. I was thinking that 24mm would in fact be wide enough for most landscapes, in fact I used a 24mm prime for many years with film. Just want to be sure that the 24-105 is optically up to the challenge. </p>

<p>Will probably research longer lenses for different types of landscape as well as sports, hence the reference to the 70-200mm or perhaps the 100-400.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Glenn</p>

<p>Glenn, if you were happy with a 24mm with film, then I think that you'll be happy with it on a full-frame digital camera. Also, with digital, you can go wider than 24mm by stitching together two, three or five shots. This can easily be done hand held.</p>

<p>I use the 24-105mm for landscape and only shoot it at 24mm about 20% of the time for landscape. You may want to go wider, but nothing you've said leads me to think so. If you do want to wide, consider the 16-35mm as an alternative to a prime, particularly a TS-E.</p>

<p>Before believing that your preferences will be those of William (who suggests a wide lens for landscape) or mine (I own ultra-wides but do most landscape with short to long telephotos), shoot that 24-105 a lot and think carefully about what you can and cannot do with it.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, here is some additional food for thought regarding the question of focal length and so-called "landscape lenses" - <a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2010/10/24/photographic-myths-and-platitudes-landscape-photography-lenses-part-i">Photographic Myths and Platitudes – ‘Landscape Photography Lenses’ (Part 1)</a></p>

<p>Dan</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“Just want to be sure that the 24-105 is optically up to the challenge.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some will say not.<br />The 24 to 105 vignettes at 24mm at F/4 and a tad stopped down.<br />There is a bit of distortion.<br />The Zoom Creep drives me nuts.<br />There are (verifiable) ‘ribbon failure issues’ with the 24 to 105. There are quite a few threads here about the 24 to 105 and its shortcomings.</p>

<p>Having noted all of that and more: I recently bought a 24 to 105 and I am happy with its output and I know most of its limitations.<br />For me it has proven to be a very useful tool and I have used it (across ALL its FL compass), specifically and mostly for ‘landscape’ and ‘travel documentary’ work in various conditions, some rough and certainly quite a lot of rainy days, over the past few months – about 10,000 images so far.<br /><br />***</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Before believing that your preferences will be those of William (<em><strong>who suggests a wide lens for landscape</strong></em>)"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I did not make that as suggestion for ‘landscapes' per se.<br />If I gave the impression of that as my suggestion – then it is a wrong impression.<br />My general meaning was that the FL compass from 24 to 105 would suit me fine for landscapes and I would use all of its FL compass.</p>

<p>***</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"shoot that 24-105 a lot and think carefully about what you can and cannot do with it."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>DPP, DxO, LR and other software corrects for the 24-105mm's vignetting and distortion to a very high degree, if not completely.</p>

<p>I haven't experienced zoom creep with mine, thank goodness, but I've only be using it three-years.</p>

<p>The zoom creep is mostly a result of the way I sling the rig, I believe: the Lens hangs straight downwards and the zoom creeps, whilst I am walking. It has done so since I bought it. Other 24 to 105’s did so too. I might be under the wrong impression, but I don’t think this is a ‘fault’ as such – just a fact about the lens and its particular zoom mechanism. The zoom movement is very smooth and the lens's zoom is adequately secure in the 'ready' position for making photos.<br>

WW</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"I haven't experienced zoom creep with mine, thank goodness..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You will. :-)</p>

<p>Dan, who has the lens and finds it quite useful.</p>