Quick question.

I have a thread going with a similar question but I thought I would ask a similar but different question.
Would you rather own a 5D3 with a 24-105 or a 6D, 24-105 and a used Zeiss 50mm makro for general photography?

Neither. But a subject line which better describes the question would be beneficiary.

I don't really understand the question, but here goes. I have no use for a 5D3. I am a center-point shooter and happy with my 6D. I have no use for a 24-105, on either my 6D or 60D. I know nothing of the specific 50mm lens cited. I do know that 50mm is too long for my tastes in general shooting. I use a 35 IS for that.

EDIT: If I had the money for a 24-105, I'd use it to upgrade my 28 1.8 to a Sigma 24 1.4.

Judging from the responses so far I guess I will rephrase the question.
If you had $2000 give or take $200 would you spend it on just a new 5D3 body or would you spend it on a new 6D body and a used Zeiss 55mm makro? I have other lenses but if I had put it in my question too many people would be advising selling this one or that one.

Quick answer : that depends on what you want to do.
Personally, I'd rather spend the money on a 7DII

id10t wrote in post #17464845
Judging from the responses so far I guess I will rephrase the question.
If you had $2000 give or take $200 would you spend it on just a new 5D3 body or would you spend it on a new 6D body and a used Zeiss 55mm makro? I have other lenses but if I had put it in my question too many people would be advising selling this one or that one.

Available resources usually don't dictate purchases, at least for me. All within reason, of course. If I had the money, I'd be shooting a 400 2.8 instead of a 100-400L at my grandson's soccer matches.

That said, even if I had $10,000 available, the 5D3 offers nothing I can use. The 6D I already own focuses in lower light, and has arguable better IQ in the 3200-12,800 ISO range. Those things matter to me a lot more than souped-up racing AF. I think individual style and preferences dictate which body is used, not finances, to a point.

I also don't get the reference to the Zeiss lens. As far as Zeiss glass goes, this one seems to be boringly mediocre. Several reviews rate it no better than the much cheaper EF 50 1.4. Its macro capabilities are no better than the efs 60 2.8, or EF 100 2.8. The EF 100L would apparently put this lens to shame wrt macro. Add to that the fact that my 50 1.4 is almost never mounted on my 6D, and I've placed the referenced lens in the 'who cares?' category. A mediocre, manual-focus-only lens at a boring focal length should appeal to me why?

I am not saying these items shouldn't work for you. Just saying the 5D3 and 55 makro hold very little appeal for me. For $2,000, I'd rather have a Σ24 1.4A, 300 f/4L IS.

5D3, autofocus points everywhere. Unless you aren't into that type of thing.

id10t wrote in post #17464845
Judging from the responses so far I guess I will rephrase the question.
If you had $2000 give or take $200 would you spend it on just a new 5D3 body or would you spend it on a new 6D body and a used Zeiss 55mm makro? I have other lenses but if I had put it in my question too many people would be advising selling this one or that one.

Neither, I would buy more glass, but it all depens on what you shoot.

What one really needs to consider are supporting features that are in one camera vs. the other. In the case of the 6D vs. its more expensive FF brethren

• camera lacks a headphone jack for audio monitoring of video.
  
• 6D's multi-exposure HDR is a JPEG-only mode, whereas the 5D Mark III can save the individual Raw format images used to create it as well.
  
• 6D offers the least sophisticated AF system of any full frame model on the market, with 11 point AF array confined to a relatively small amount of viewfinder real estate, and only a single cross-type sensor
  

• slower burst rate
  
• Lack of an integrated PC outlet for studio flash
  
• DOF control access in Portrait orientation
  

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17464874
Available resources usually don't dictate purchases, at least for me. All within reason, of course. If I had the money, I'd be shooting a 400 2.8 instead of a 100-400L at my grandson's soccer matches.

That said, even if I had $10,000 available, the 5D3 offers nothing I can use. The 6D I already own focuses in lower light, and has arguable better IQ in the 3200-12,800 ISO range. Those things matter to me a lot more than souped-up racing AF. I think individual style and preferences dictate which body is used, not finances, to a point.

I also don't get the reference to the Zeiss lens. As far as Zeiss glass goes, this one seems to be boringly mediocre. Several reviews rate it no better than the much cheaper EF 50 1.4. Its macro capabilities are no better than the efs 60 2.8, or EF 100 2.8. The EF 100L would apparently put this lens to shame wrt macro. Add to that the fact that my 50 1.4 is almost never mounted on my 6D, and I've placed the referenced lens in the 'who cares?' category. A mediocre, manual-focus-only lens at a boring focal length should appeal to me why?

I am not saying these items shouldn't work for you. Just saying the 5D3 and 55 makro hold very little appeal for me. For $2,000, I'd rather have a Σ24 1.4A, 300 f/4L IS.

Geo.
For shooting your grandson's soccer games, once you learn the AF of the 5D mark III, 1Dx and the 7D series, you may find it is better than you think. I know for me, going back to a basic AF will not fill my needs. One reason why I never bought a 5D Mark II while owning the originator of the top Canon AF systems, the 7D.
Once the improved 7D AF system was incorporated in the 5D Mark III, I knew it was for me.

Just to follow up on my decision, I ended up with a used (384 clicks verified) 5D3 for $1800. I guess my kit for the near future is going to be 5D3, 24-105L, 70-300L, and 100L. Hopefully later I can get a specialty prime lens, but for now I should be more than happy.

Hope you enjoy it.
IMO worth it for the extra AF points and the build quality.

Submariner wrote in post #17468171
Hope you enjoy it.
IMO worth it for the extra AF points and the build quality.

I agree, and the resale value will be much higher if and when I decide to upgrade.

id10t wrote in post #17469082
I agree, and the resale value will be much higher if and when I decide to upgrade.

Hmm not sure about that, they just dropped price over here , from £2,300 to £1.950. So that wont help resale, and then the 5DS R will chip away a little at it.
But I think one justnhas to use it and enjoy and expect its gonna cost you! What doesn't! Other than my Rolex!

I meant a higher resale value over the 6D, which was my other option.