5dIII or 70-200 IS II?

I'm looking at the 5DIII and the 70-200IS II and I can't afford both. I'll be able to afford one of them as I save up money and get photography related work here and there, but I just can't do both for a while. Period :P

Now I do own a kickass camera, the 5DII's got great IQ and in a bright sunny day I trust it fully, it's just that it really REALLY sucks having one real AF point. Don't give me the focus and recompose theory because you can't just do that at f1.4, it's impossible. I also lack a "reach" lens and the 70-200 is ace. I love how it compresses stuff, I love how sharp it is, its reach and versatility, the IS, the image quality. It's just ace. I have lenses on the shorter end of the scale, the widest is my 24-70 and the longest my 85. I'd like more, of course.

I don't know. I don't photograph a lot of people, really, and I know you'll say that I don't really need better AF, but I hate that I can't focus on anything off-center, it doesn't come to me as one of those things that help you become better by embracing the limitations of the gear, it just plain sucks. I hate that I can't focus on something a little off center, it feels like it's holding me back.

On getting the 5d III I'd keep the two for tripod shooting, I mean it's perfectly clean at 100 ISO for landscapes and such at night, which I love to do, and on a tripod you can't really miss focus, but I walk around a lot, and... well you know where this is headed.

I'd like your way more experienced opinions on what I should do and why, if possible...

Glass over body. The fact you have FF already makes this a no brainer Happy spending.

Maverique wrote in post #14119472
On getting the 5d III I'd keep the two for tripod shooting, I mean it's perfectly clean at 100 ISO for landscapes and such at night, which I love to do, and on a tripod you can't really miss focus, but I walk around a lot, and... well you know where this is headed.

I'd like your way more experienced opinions on what I should do and why, if possible...

Instead of hanging onto your 5D2, sell it to cover the cost of the 70-200 lens. Then you can afford both.

I'd say go for the 70-200. The 5DII is capable of such great images already. The 5D3 will probably only make a difference in a small percentage of situations. Plus if you wait 6 month to a year the price for the 5D3 should be below $3K.

Or . . . get one of the "lesser" 70-200s and put the rest of the money toward the 5DIII.

I am also of the mentality of investing in glass if you already had a capable body. I love my 5D Mark II but got a 1D Mark IIn to complement it when I need a better AF system.

If you don't shoot a lot of people...what do you shoot?

Specifically, what do you shoot that requires the 70-200 2.8 IS II?

People might think of tele lenses as great for portraits and they are, but I think they're great for landscapes as well. And there's events, which I do from time to time, like the odd sports event or meet. Plus with a teleconverter you could do some wildlife as well. That extra reach is always good, no? I used the bolts out of my old M-mount Tamron macro 80-210. I love the perspective change, the compression, the distortion. Hard to explain really.

I thought of selling the 5D II honestly, but selling online still kinda puts me off :P

What do you shoot that the 5d outer focus points can't be accurate?

I say get the lens, you already have a kick ass camera body.

Tight on $$ : buy the 70-200L
Not so tight : get the 5D3, sell the 5D2 then get the 70-200L

I am happy with my 5D2 +70-200L for what I am shooting.

TooManyShots wrote in post #14121084
What do you shoot that the 5d outer focus points can't be accurate?

Mine always seem to miss so I just use the center one. I'd like to be able to shoot stuff off-center without having to close down a lot, you know. I'd put the 5D II on sale, but waiting for it to come back from being cleaned/shutter checked out.

You really need to think these things completely through before you invest anymore.

The new cameras are remarkable and they allow us to shoot at higher ISO's and get clean images. So F/4 glass is a cheaper alternative with the newer bodies because you can shoot at 3200 and get files that are cleaner and have better IQ than 90% of the cameras that have been on the market within the last 3 yrs.

So, a 70-200 F/4 is, which is one of canons very sharpest lens they make, lets you get the shots that 3-4 yrs ago you would have needed F/2.8 glass to get. I think photographers need to adjust how they have traditionally felt about why they buy F/2.8 glass. F/2.8 is going to be used for shallow depth uses only and the primes do a better job and let you get to F1.2-2.0.

Slap on an ND filter with f/4 glass and bump the iso up on these new camera bodies and you get the same results as you would with F/2.8 glass.

So you really have to think about why you need the product. If I didnt already have a 24-70 and a 70-200 F/2.8, i would probably opt to use a 24-105 and a 70-2000 F/4 (is) over the faster glass if i had a body like the 5D3 and of course the 1Dx which makes the decision especially easy to make. I would not have a need for F/2.8 glass because you can get clean files up to 12000 iso. All you need to do is bump the iso to get the same results.

a 5D3 is going to deliver clean files at 6400-8000 iso.

just 5 Yrs ago, with a 5D classic and the 1Ds,, 3200 iso put you into the uncomfortable zone and you ofter needed f/2.8 to get a fast enough shutter speed to get the shot. With the new bodies, 6400 on the 5D3 is cleaner and has better IQ then a 5D classic had at 3200 iso-----F/4 will do the job and of course a 1Dx is going to blow it out of the park.

Glass before camera bodies will probably change with the better technology being put into the newer camera bodies.......you really have to think about what you need the equipment for.

umphotography wrote in post #14121484
If I didnt already have a 24-70 and a 70-200 F/2.8, i would probably opt to use a 24-105 and a 70-2000 F/4 (is) over the faster glass

I would opt for the 70-2000 as well. I could stand in the church parking lot and get great photos of the couple at the altar.

The priorities depend a lot on what and how you shoot.

For me, I often shoot event type stuff in low light, action, sports etc. I don't shoot landscapes much. So for me, AF performance across the scene for both tracking and low light acquisition is one of my most important parameters in a camera. I judge the 5D3 to be a much better camera for me than a 5D2.

On the other hand, I rarely print larger than 20x30, I rarely shoot landscapes and I find that the biggest challenges to sharpness in my images tend to come from DOF, focus accuracy and motion blur. As much as I love the sharpness I can detect in good images from the 70-200/2.8 II over the 70-200/2.8 when I'm pixel peeping, I have to admit this probably translates into a print difference rarely.

So for me and what I shoot, a 5D Mark III and a 70-200/2.8 might be better than a 5D2 with the 70-200/2.8 II if I was budget constrained.

You need to think about what is most important to you and what you shoot. Do your images tend to suffer because your AF system is not up to what you shoot, or do your images suffer because your lens isn't sharp enough?