Gear decision...soliciting input

[narlus]

i've got some $ saved up for gear, and am trying to figure out a way to spend it. here is your chance to stimulate the economy. please wear latex gloves.


the decision is between lenses or bodies...i was originally considering a 300 f/2.8 since it's an awesome lens, but i don't do enough soundboard shooting to justify buying it, and not just renting it. however, i am looking seriously at a 16-35L f/2.8 II, as getting wider shots is something that i just can't do w/o using my fisheye right now.

the other side of the decision coin is a different body. note that i didn't say new. i am open to either buying a used (non-lemon, hopefully!) 1DIII or the 1DIV. if i get one of these, i can sell my 5D/grip to offset costs, so that the overall cost for a 1DIII or 16-35 is about the same.

pros of lens:
wider view

cons of lens:
might not get a ton of use
might make my fisheye superfluous

pros of body:
hopefully greater AF accuracy

cons of body:
not full-frame



i know that BlackShadow and Dwight have used the 5D and 1DIII a lot, and am curious as to hear their advice, as well as anyone else who wants to chip in.

thanks in advance!
tim

[bacchanal]

That's a tough one. I sold my 15FE to pick up a 16-35mk1, and I love it...but then I tend to shoot in pretty tight little venues, and the 16-35 range is very useful to me. It often gets more use than my 24-70.

That said, I think you might see more benefit in having a 1DIII than to have two ultra-wide options. You can always correct/crop the fisheye shots, esp if you are shooting at 21mp on the 5DII. The used 1DIII prices also seem very reasonable for what you're getting (very good high ISO and AF). $5k for a 1DIV just seems like a lot of money to put into a body if you have other gear that you may need.

So, I think going with a 1DIII seems like a solid option with good cost/benefit ratio. And maybe when funds allow consider swapping the fisheye for a 16-35 just to try for a month or so. It could be a very useful FL range for you, esp on a 1.3x.

But anyway...it's like I always say, you can't go wrong buying more gear.

...right?

[narlus]

renting a 1D3 would make sense, but it would be $260 for a week and i don't know anyone local who has one.

i'm doing a shoot soon that will likely require a 16-35 (inside studio shots) so i might just end up there...however, maybe i can swing both a 1D3 and the lens :D

[BJWOK]

can't comment on the bodies, but the 16-35 is brilliant. i find it coming with me WAY more than the 24-70. the extra width on full frame is perfect for tight, low stages. plus it's a fair amount lighter than the brick!

interestingly, I am almost ready to grab the 15 f/2.8 fishy as i find the 16 wide, but for press shots a lot of bands are asking for the warp that only a fisheye can give and i'm tired of borrowing my mates! lol

[blackshadow]

You're in a win-win situation Tim - whichever way you go you'll have something sweet you didn't have.

At this stage I'd say grab the lens first - the reason being that it offers new creative elements (something a body won't). If you find your fisheye has been made superfluous you can always sell it. (A fisheye is something I would love in my gear bag).

Once the 1D Mark IV starts shipping in numbers I expect the second hand 1D Mark III price will fall - you might be able to snap one up in 6-12 months. The 1D/5D combo is a treat - they compliment each other very nicely.

Also by going the lens route first you'll be putting off the time before you become a 1D series addict. To paraphrase Al Jourgenson 1 series cameras are "more addictive than heroin or pussy" (he was referring to Black Sabbath though).

[narlus]

i listened to _Sabotage_ last night, so i understand where Al is coming from :D

i actually did buy the lens today, for many of the reasons you listed (as well as i'll need one for a paid shoot i'm doing in a couple of weeks, and rather than renting it again i figured i'd buy it).