5d mk iii - really struggling with "glass before body" here!

Short story - I've been shooting w/ a 5d classic for around the past 4 years. I skipped upgrading to the 5d mk ii as other than resolution there were not enough differences for me to justify splashing out on the newer body. Now, I'm not going to get into the feature set too deeply - but the mkiii offers a substantial upgrade to 5dc users - af system, high iso performance, video, focus adjust, an many more.

That being said, I'm struggling with the lens before body advice! I'm using 17-40 / 50 / 70-200 now, and I could add some very nice glass or sell the classic and get the iii. I'd likely rebuy the 35l and 135l, but damn that mkiii is tempting for my work - mainly consists of shooting my baby, stock, and landscapes. Am I crazy to put body before lens just this once?

Considering your lens setup, I wouldn't hesitate to upgrade from 5Dc to 5DIII !

5Dc -> 5D3 would be a worthwhile move in my book.

For what you shoot, I think you're better off with a 5D2 + those lenses you mentioned (35 & 135 L)

If you really want it and can afford it, go for it. Going from the 5D to 5D2 was a nice upgrade so I'm sure you will be thrilled going to the 5D3

The mk2 makes things easier to do, the biggest difference will be the LCD and menu system. I like my 5dc but I would always pick up my mk2 first for everything.

Thanks for the input all.

I have some mad money stashed away, so yes it's in the budget and an expense we can afford. The lights will stay on, food will be on the table, etc

I can see the point of 5d2 + glass, but I'm having a hard time coming up with a compelling reason why I would go for the 2. I'd be more inclined to keep the 5DC and just go straight glass. Unless I'm missing something?

While the MK3 is obviously a worthwhile upgrade over the classic, I'm trying to decipher how much of the perceived real-world value + benefit is me rationalizing having the latest and greatest! (not that there's anything wrong with that in this hobby!)

Keep the feedback coming!

Cheers.

The only real reason would be if you take a lot of low light stuff then the better iso is reason. Else the 5dc is can do it all.

Go for the 5D3, it's the one you want and will hold it value nicely (for awhile).

do you need beter AF? Do you need ISOs above 3200? If so, the 5D3 is an amazing camera. But if not, the 5D2 does most of what it does, for half the price.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #14227431
do you need beter AF? Do you need ISOs above 3200? If so, the 5D3 is an amazing camera. But if not, the 5D2 does most of what it does, for half the price.

Great questions Ben. Better AF can NEVER hurt, and I do shoot at higher ISO quite a bit. Both of those are "nice to have's" when it comes to my landscape shooting, but would be key features for capturing more photos of my little girl, especially when inside the dark house. I'm sure you can relate! Thanks for chiming in.

rick_reno wrote in post #14227416
Go for the 5D3, it's the one you want and will hold it value nicely (for awhile).

I have always been a believer in don't compromise, buy what you want the first time.

Get the 5D3. It's a totally different camera from the 5D2. If you've been using your lenses ok on the 5DC, you'll survive. I love the 5D3. No regrets coming from a 5D2

I vote for the 5D III -- you will never regret it and it will do you good for many years.

I think the glass advice doesn't apply to you. That's usually given to those who have no glass. You do.

I think you are right. I've been holding off FF. But, that body, it looks extremely good.