5D3 owners Unite! Discuss and post Photos!

dho81 wrote in post #14209379
It seems that way to me in my use of the 5D3. I feel like I have to do much less color/tint adjustments to get the skin tones I like.

yes, and metering also seems a bit better, especially outside doing landscape type work. With the 5D2 I'd shoot in M to control my exposure (and still do), but I'd neet +/- 1.5 stops of compensation on my part to get the histogram where I'd want it (neither end clipped). With the 5D3 dialing in the right exposure in M is now either right on or it needs a 1/2 stop of an adjustment. And with WB inside in low light it seems to be getting that right more often as well, but still only around half the time (-vs- maybe 10% before).

theviper wrote in post #14161254
It's a great lens. I sold mine to get a 24-70 for 2.8 in the studio but my 24-105 was a great lens. Would have one again anytime.

I did exactly same thing, 4 yrs ago. Things I miss the most about the 24-105: light weight, the extra reach, and the IS.

srika wrote in post #14209721
I did exactly same thing, 4 yrs ago. Things I miss the most about the 24-105: light weight, the extra reach, and the IS.

i was also hesitating in order to have a lightweight lens for my upcoming 5DM3 but it seems that the 24-70 is way better in every way than the 24-105 ?

montroyal wrote in post #14209773
i was also hesitating in order to have a lightweight lens for my upcoming 5DM3 but it seems that the 24-70 is way better in every way than the 24-105 ?

well, this really depends on your application - 24-105 is a much better all-around everyday lens than 24-70 IMO, just because you don't get fatigued from using it as you do with the 24-70. But I do use 2.8 frequently (most of the time even) so I do prefer the 24-70. Also, from what I've read by the numbers the 24-70 has "better" IQ.

Shot today will post more when I have a chance to go through them.
Not the greatest shot as the shutter speed was to slow and I was in a rush.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

srika wrote in post #14209785
well, this really depends on your application - 24-105 is a much better all-around everyday lens than 24-70 IMO, just because you don't get fatigued from using it as you do with the 24-70. But I do use 2.8 frequently (most of the time even) so I do prefer the 24-70. Also, from what I've read by the numbers the 24-70 has "better" IQ.

well well, i was a bit concern about the weight so far but IQ is more important for me

and the 24-70 was never too short as i already got a 70-200

of course, it is more convenient not to switch lens in order to shoot between 70 and 100mm

but if you guys advise me to keep the 24-70 for my upcoming 5DM3 then i would not trade it for a 24-105 just to save 300 grams (even if this is not negligeable when carrying it for a while, especially while travelling) if i have to sacrifice overall image quality

montroyal wrote in post #14209773
i was also hesitating in order to have a lightweight lens for my upcoming 5DM3 but it seems that the 24-70 is way better in every way than the 24-105 ?

srika wrote in post #14209785
well, this really depends on your application - 24-105 is a much better all-around everyday lens than 24-70 IMO, just because you don't get fatigued from using it as you do with the 24-70. But I do use 2.8 frequently (most of the time even) so I do prefer the 24-70. Also, from what I've read by the numbers the 24-70 has "better" IQ.

yeah, it's a toss up really depending on what you shoot. The 105 has range, IS and is smaller and lighter. The 70 only has the 2.8 advantage. Optically the 70 might be a slightly sharper but it's not night and day. I'd really base this decision around the need for 2.8. The new version of the 70 is lighter, both physically but also in what it takes from your wallet. The other interesting lens to consider is the tamron 28-75 2.8. It's super light compared to both canon options. Built like crap in comparison, and non USM AF, but it's optically fantastic and ~$500 brand new and ~$300 used. I'm VERY curious to see what their new 24-70 2.8 USM IS option looks like (and costs) this summer. It checks all the boxes for me, but I want it under $1k.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #14209876
yeah, it's a toss up really depending on what you shoot. The 105 has range, IS and is smaller and lighter. The 70 only has the 2.8 advantage. Optically the 70 might be a slightly sharper but it's not night and day. I'd really base this decision around the need for 2.8. The new version of the 70 is lighter, both physically but also in what it takes from your wallet. The other interesting lens to consider is the tamron 28-75 2.8. It's super light compared to both canon options. Built like crap in comparison, and non USM AF, but it's optically fantastic and ~$500 brand new and ~$300 used. I'm VERY curious to see what their new 24-70 2.8 USM IS option looks like (and costs) this summer. It checks all the boxes for me, but I want it under $1k.

i'm already broke for trading my 5DM2 for a 5DM3

but i guess trading a 24-70 (1st gen) for a 24-105 won't cost me anything i think, as the 24-70 is originally a bit more expensive than the 24-105

my only concern is, if i do sell my lens in order to get the 24-105, will i save 300 grams, extra focal length but lose some IQ

or is it almost impossible to distinguish IQ from a lens to another ?

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet. Canon posted a 1D X/5D III AF setting guidebook.

srika wrote in post #14209721
I did exactly same thing, 4 yrs ago. Things I miss the most about the 24-105: light weight, the extra reach, and the IS.

Was the definition of a good walk around lens. Will be great for people to pick up as part of the kit with the 5D3.

tommykjensen wrote in post #14209371
One of the images.

Tommy, I am def impressed with the focus on auto and you still got that! The goose looks like its getting old, the neck fat is getting wrinkly/

montroyal wrote in post #14209773
i was also hesitating in order to have a lightweight lens for my upcoming 5DM3 but it seems that the 24-70 is way better in every way than the 24-105 ?

Not really. It is definitely better at f2.8

theviper wrote in post #14210280
Was the definition of a good walk around lens. Will be great for people to pick up as part of the kit with the 5D3.

I agree.

slimshady wrote in post #14209935
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet. Canon posted a 1D X/5D III AF setting guidebook.

Slim Shady, this is Boshshady, thanks for the link yo! I havent read this one yet!