Bang for the buck 5D to 5D III or 70-200 2.8 non-is to 70-200 IS II

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by z_z|14, Sep 11, 2012.

  1. 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?
  2. I just sold my 50D for the 5D3. The 5D3 AF spanks the 50D. Since you said sports, I say do the body upgrade. And save for the 70-200 II.
    Further, while I had no complaints about the 50D image quality, the 5D3 is head and shoulders better. Better features, better AF, better IQ. I don't even miss the reach.
    The 5D3 is the first body where I really felt it helped to read the manual.
  3. I'd say 5D II plus 7D. The 7D is still better for sports/telephoto than the 5D III and the 5D II is a very significant upgrade over the 5D for your general/social event photography. The 5D III is not worth the cost over the 5D II. The 7D can be bought with that difference in value alone.
  4. 5DIII

    Upgrade the lens later.
  5. "The 5D III is not worth the cost over the 5D II."​
    That is purely in the eye of the beholder and totally subjective. I've really not heard anyone who bought a 5dIII who feels that way after getting comfortable with the camera.
    That said, a new(ish) 5dII available for less than $2,000 seems like a very attractive deal.
    But having come from a 7d and a 5dII, the III (so far) has me wanting essentially nothing. Any modern DSLR's capacities far exceed my talent in any case.
    Z Z, if you use a tri or monopod when shooting motocross, you'll probably not gain a lot of benefit from the IS of a newer 70-200. Weddings would be a different story, I suppose.
    Good luck!
  6. Has anyone compared the two lenses to have an idea if the improvement in quality in the 70-200 2.8 is version II is significant or more significant than the improvement from the 5d mark I to the mark II or mark III?
    Isn't the 5D mark II's focusing system the same as the 5d mark I? It really works poorly when compared to the 50D. It's not as fast and seems to be less accurate. In trying to get bee's on a flower the 5d missed every single shot out of around 100 and the 50d got around 2/3. This is using a variety of the same lenses.

    If go to the better sensor of the 5d mark II, then it's even more important to get proper focus. Without focus, there are no good photos. I shoot wide open most of the time and love lots of zoom, so I find this lack of focus more bothersome than those who shoot stopped down and have a deeper depth of field.
    Oh and Robert, I'm not wanting IS for motocross. The shutter speed is way too fast to need IS outdoors. I'm wondering if the overall picture quality improvement is significant to hold off on buying a newer body.
    Again my main body is the 5D and my motocross photos are really good right now. I'm more concerned with the weddings and event photography. I despise missing focus or not having the picture as sharp as I know it could be.
  7. What Dan said.
  8. FWIW, if light is sufficient, and you're happy shooting with only the center AF point, I think you'll find the 5dII adequate for most situations.
    The focussing system of the III is on an entirely different level. I've not tried the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, so I can't help you there.
  9. In that case, my 5d mark I with the same focusing system should be fine too right?
    I also rarely shoot with the center point, as I've found the recompose technique tends to keep my main subject out of focus. Since I've changed to using the various af points on my subject (eyeballs), I've been getting a lot more super sharp photos.
  10. I would definitely say 5dIII now, based on how you describe your style. MkII is 20D/5d focussing, mkIII is a level of magnitude beyond. OR, you could find an old 1ds on the cheap and maybe have enough cash to get you close to the 70-200mkII, but when you consider what you'd lose in ISO performance as well as the other attributes of a more modern body, that may be dicey strategy.
    Perhaps you could find a good deal on a 70-200 f/2.8IS I? Sure, the mkII has the newest IS tech and is supposedly "sharper", but the earlier version of that lens is awfully sweet, and maybe just $500 or a little more plus your non IS to make the jump.
  11. I think if I go to the IS I'd rather go all the way to the IS version II.
    Does the IS make that much of a difference? The version II is only about $700 more than the version I. According to a few testers my 70-200 2.8 non-IS should be sharper than the version I.
    Thanks for the advice Robert. It seems as most are leaning toward the better body. That's a lot of extra money, but the camera is much better.
    I may end up keeping the 70-200 non is and sell the 50d and t1i to get a 7d to hold me over while saving for the 5d mark III.
    Keep the opinions coming guys. This is really helping since my thoughts were always to buy better glass. I know how nice it is to shoot with the more responsive camera. The 50D is lightyears ahead of the 5D but the photos with the 5D have a special quality to them that surpasses the 50D as far as picture quality and feel.
  12. I replaced a 1Ds2 and 5D with the 5D3. Go for the newer technology in the 5D3 first. Also, get the Lexar 32GB CF 1000X UDMA 7 card from B&H Photo or Adorama and shoot at 6 frames per second until the buffer is full and enjoy the experience of being able to continually shoot at about 1.5 frames per second thereafter until you fill the card.
    Then, upgrade to the 70-200/2.8 II and enjoy the new optics which is superior over any of the 70-200/2.8 and 4 versions. I just went from the 70-200/4 IS to the huge beast. It emptied my savings account, but I am getting the best image quality at the fastest and most accurately focused shots ever with this combination.
  13. The 5D is a great camera outdoors, but indoors the White Balance can be a nightmare. Outdoors it tends to attract dust if you are not careful. Those are the 2 main reasons I would upgrade to the the 5D II. However If you have the money, I would go with the 5D III and sell the crop camera since the 5D III solves both the shutter speed and AF issue of the MK II. As far as the 70-200 lens, you might want to look at the version 1 model which is much cheaper. That is my favorite lens, I barely use the IS. I really can't see how pictures can be any sharper with that lens.
  14. A 5D MkIII with a 70-200mm plus a 1.4X TC makes a great sports rig.
    I have a 7D and used to use it with my 500/f4 for birds and wildlife. When I bought the 5D MkIII to replace my MkII, the 7D was relegated to backup duty, thanks to the amazingly fast and accurate AF system on the new MkIII. My keeper rate went up by a factor of three. Versus your older, slower body, I think you'll find the MkIII's AF greatly increases your keeper rate.
  15. I really can't see how pictures can be any sharper with that lens.​
    Uhm? Go to a store and do a comparison shoot with your version and the newest version? Then draw your own conclusion?
  16. So most would go with the body then.

Share This Page