Buying the 5DIII and one lens or two....thats is my conundrum.

To make a long story short, I have "about" $6000 to buy a 5dm3... Then I was going to get a 70-200 IS II.

After some research, I was thinking, considering my lens layout, getting a sigma 70-200 2.8 OS and a 24-70 2.8 Tammy with VC might be a better purchase. They almost add up to the same price...

I have the 17-40L and a 28-75 2.8 Tammy, which cover the range but no VC.

I guess the question isnt how good is the 70-200 IS II (had one, loved it, sold it, regret it). The question is..how much worse is the Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS. My style of shooting makes me have the 70-200 on almost half the time so its a big lens for me. Also, I will assume the 24-70 vc from Tammy is a big step up on their $500 28-75...

[nohelpfromme] I really dig my 70-200mk2 [/nohelpfromme]

For what and how I shoot, I could survive with just the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II on a full frame body. Often, that's all I use during a photoshoot.

danpass wrote in post #15293214
[nohelpfromme] I really dig my 70-200mk2 [/nohelpfromme]

lol Thanks, thats kinda the thing thats making this hard for me. There is zero chance i wont like the 70-200 mk2.

I think I will be OCD with the sigma 70-200, thinking "this would have been better if it was the mk2". Even though I know the dfference would be very minimal to non pixel peepers. Then there is the weatherproofing...

I tried to delete this thread, because for $1200 extra ill just get the mk2. Then there wont be afterthoughts floating in my head. Ill move some glass or just get the 24-74 vc later.

My recommendation is head for the subforum of this forum, "Lens samples" and compare images from all intented contenders. The next hurtle is economics. Ultimately you know where your budget lies, that also may be the contibuting factor..

Hopefully someone will come along who had both the Sig and Canon 70-200, and can comment on it.

I personaly prefer the Canon 70-200 II and if funds are not available for the new Canon 24-70 II the Tammy is a great choice. The other question is how does it measure up to older 24-70, from my reading of various threads on that , it seemed that the Tammy was favored...

Good luck with your decision.

Given what you already have, get the 5d3 and 70-200 II.

Get the 5D3 and 70-200 II. If you do not need the flexibility of the zoom you could also go the prime route and get a 135L. That would leave some cash for another lens.

No need to overthink this. 5D3 + 70-200L II.

If you're shelling out six grand u shouldn't be thinking of how u can save a buck on a third party lens of the same focal length. I'll go buy a Ferrari V-12 and I'll save on buying 87 octane? No. Two things in your post: u regret selling version II. You're wondering how bad the Sigma version can be. Man that's your conscious mind fighting with your unconscious. Get over it. As long as u don't mind the weight of the II it is the present day top shelf. If u want to save on the lenses I have an opinion which is strictly based on experience and reading: buy third party lenses when u start out and want to expand your repertoire if u bgt an entry level ILC of any brand. I wouldn't for instance buy the updated medium tele version 2 Canon if I just bought a Rebel. Though some would not be wrong I suggest in using it w/ something like a T4i I believe. That's personal. Once u've been around the block and back third party lenses should be left on eBay for another beginner to get his feet wet. I mean you're not buying a Brownie. You're spending over three thousand on a camera. I can c the conundrum if u were comparing the Sigma which is not cheap to a used earlier version of the Canon. As for the 24-70 both Nikon and Canon are asking a lot for the current models. I have the previous version of the Canon and love it. It is built well and balanced nicely and does not require IS. A longer tele almost certainly does. I have the 70-200 f4 IS and I would take that over the 3rd party as well even if the Sigma costs more which it does. Why bother asking if you've got the bread and clear conscience. If u really can't decide wait until you're ready. Certainly buy just one at a time. In fact u've already got the 17-40 which is a really good lens at a bargain price. Use it on the new Mark III and see how it feels. Man don't be a sucker. It's good to save a dollar where u can but you don't put after market parts on a classic car unless they're actually better than OEM. Well good luck. I think from what I've read u'll be very happy with the Mark 3's AF. But overall it's not a big leap over the Mark 2. Remember that the new model always gets raves and the old, well that piece of "junk I wish I never freakin' bgt" used to get the raves. Hey maybe there's a local photo store which will if not rent u the lenses let u try them out conditionally.

5d3 + 70-200 f2.8L II <-- Great Combo, Highly recommended. You wouldnt ask for more!

and add 35L to it and kaboom. Its all you need.

What do you shoot?

How much camera stuff does one really need? Buy a mutual fund.

Everyone should make sure to check his gear list before recommending. He has a lot of gear already.

canon 70-200 is a lens I can grab with full confidence assuring me prime like files with incredible micro contrast.

If budget permits this is an essential lens for a high percentage of photogs IMO.

AlanU wrote in post #15295172
canon 70-200 is a lens I can grab with full confidence assuring me prime like files with incredible micro contrast.

If budget permits this is an essential lens for a high percentage of photogs IMO.

This.