Need a "Plan B", what is better?

Hi guys, sorry to post another poll, but I am really "working" on buying a new Camera+Lens in Summer. I had a previous poll, 7D or 5D2...
Got some really good answers there from you guys, back then, you guys really helped me understand what is the better choice for me.

- The advantages of the 5D2 over the 7D where its higher resolution, better high ISO quality, and better ability to seperate background.
- The disadvantages where a smaller magnification (less reach), and the AF system...
And the AF system was really what made this decision very-very difficoult.

Then a friend of mine, borrowed me his 5D2, to try out, and WOW...
So, thanks to him, and your help, I decided its gonna be FF. But I was not so happy with the choice.

Then I read of the Mk III... and its AF system, and I tought, this is the Perfect camera!
So I made some Math, and checked my possibilities.
I planned originally to travel to Germany to work there in Spring, for some Cash, and that money I planned to spend on a new camera. So I calculated how much money I can make, and so on, and
if I am just a little bit lucky, I will have the money to buy a 5D Mark III with a 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II. But this is the Maximum I can Stretch my budget to.

So If I am not so lucky I need a "Plan B"...

I would like to have your opinions, about my Plan B1 and B2, wich the better choice, and please comment why?! (because I really can't decide)

So, here it is:
Plan B1: EOS 5D Mk II + EF 70-200 F/2.8 IS L USM II
Plan B2: EOS 5D Mk III + EF 70-200 f/4 IS L USM

They are about the same price.
B1, is a great camera, and a Superb lens, but a not-so-good AF System.
B1 is a Superb camera, with a Great lens, but an F-stop slower.

I understand that f4 IS delivers stunning image quality, and is also weather sealed, with is a big factor to me.

I am mostly planning to shoot Portraits and Rallysport with it.
No need for a bigger reach, then the 70-200 gives me.

The question is:
Wich one is better in your opinion, and why?!

Is the f/2.8 worth sacrificing the AF system, and some frame rate?!
Or is the f/4 lens a better decision, since later I can sell the lens and get a f/2.8, with a smaller loss of money, since lenses keep their value better, then bodys.

Thanks in advance guys.

B2 100%

NemethR wrote in post #15752385
Is the f/2.8 worth sacrificing the AF system, and some frame rate?!

Hell no!

Exactly this.

If being weather sealed is a big factor to you, should you not be looking at weather sealed bodies AND lenses?

nellyle wrote in post #15752403
If being weather sealed is a big factor to you, should you not be looking at weather sealed bodies AND lenses?

Correct me, but the Mk III *is* weather sealed (at least as much as the 7D is)

nellyle wrote in post #15752403
If being weather sealed is a big factor to you, should you not be looking at weather sealed bodies AND lenses?

um f4 IS is weather sealed.

The non IS isn't.

mgk2 wrote in post #15752417
um f4 IS is weather sealed.

The non IS isn't.

I know, I have been talking about the f/4 IS lens all the time.
But thanks for the suggestion anyway, apreciate it.

At the risk of sounding pernickety, there is no Canon lens or body that is weather sealed. For that, you'd need an underwater housing. Some are more weather resistant than others; I won't use my Canon kit in anything worse than a light drizzle - and even then, I keep some dry terry towelling in reserve to mop things dry.

xhack wrote in post #15752477
At the risk of sounding pernickety, there is no Canon lens or body that is weather sealed. For that, you'd need an underwater housing. Some are more weather resistant than others; I won't use my Canon kit in anything worse than a light drizzle - and even then, I keep some dry terry towelling in reserve to mop things dry.

I used my Canon 40D, and a 70-200 f/4 IS (I later sold that lens),
in heavy rain for 8-10 hours without problems.

mgk2 wrote in post #15752417
um f4 IS is weather sealed.

The non IS isn't.

I meant the body, not the lens.

nellyle wrote in post #15752493
I meant the body, not the lens.

5D2/3 not sealed???

Not the same as the 1 series bodies, no.

(not knocking the iii by the way, I'm chopping in my 1DS2 for one soon)

NemethR wrote in post #15752484
I used my Canon 40D, and a 70-200 f/4 IS (I later sold that lens),
in heavy rain for 8-10 hours without problems.

I'm glad to you enjoyed a trouble-free experience in one particular instance - but I don't think you can logically extrapolate from that particular circumstance to the generality of Canon weather resistance.

Canon's literature is replete with phrases like 'dust and drip-proofing', 'environmental protection', 'drip protection' and 'weather resistance'. As far as I'm aware, they use the word 'seal' only in the descriptive context of gaskets, grommets and foam strips.

It's instructive that, in their 5DII white paper, they assert : "the EOS 5D Mark II now has dust and water resistance that is almost equal to that of the EOS-1N—Canon’s top-of-the-line professional 35mm SLR for most of the 1990s." No mention of the 1D series, up to and including the 1Dx.

Even more instructive - Canon will not honour water damage in their warranty for any body - even when, as somebody pointed out, it was sweat damage which penetrated past the shutter release button and its 'seal'. There is a total disconnect between their advertising blurb and the integrity of their warranty.

Unless they started running Rally Sports in the dark, you are better off with a 5D3 and the f/4 version.

Really, unless you NEED f/2.8, the f/4 IS version is every bit as tack sharp as the f/2.8 IS version. There is very little difference in bokeh. Background separation is reliant on so many factors, it's not going to matter.

Since the difference in the lenses are pretty much nil, you might as well go with what is discernible, the better body and AF system of the 5D3 over the 5D2.

I hate to derail the thread, but FF is not a "wow" factor greater than a crop body. "FF wow" is a bit of a "grass is greener" delusion. People tend to think when they "go FF" magic unicorns will pop out of their butts and every shot will be in NatGeo. I can put my good shots with my old 550D next to my good shots with my 5D3 and you couldn't tell them apart (same glass).

Gregg.Siam wrote in post #15752732
Unless they started running Rally Sports in the dark, you are better off with a 5D3 and the f/4 version.

Really, unless you NEED f/2.8, the f/4 IS version is every bit as tack sharp as the f/2.8 IS version. There is very little difference in bokeh. Background separation is reliant on so many factors, it's not going to matter.

Since the difference in the lenses are pretty much nil, you might as well go with what is discernible, the better body and AF system of the 5D3 over the 5D2.

This ^^.

Add to that the improved high ISO noise handling in the MkIII, and you really are not going to miss the loss of one stop in the ƒ4 version.

xhack wrote in post #15752706
I'm glad to you enjoyed a trouble-free experience in one particular instance - but I don't think you can logically extrapolate from that particular circumstance to the generality of Canon weather resistance.

Well lets say it so, it is as resistant as I need.
Not that I am shooting all day every day in heavy rain, but it happened to me once, that a heavy rain got me outside, aprox 6-7 Kilometers from the car, and I did not have anything to protect the camera, so I decided to continue shooting, and hope the resistance works...

It worked, sure, once home, I needed to let my equipment dry, but nothing happened, both the Camera, and lens work since then without problems (well camera had a shutter problem 3 year after, but with 96000 frames, its no wonder.)

Don't get me wrong i usually protect my equipment, but this day I left everything in tha car, it was very hot, and then the rain came.