1D Mark IIN+f/2.8 or 1D Mark III + f/4?

For situations where shallow DOF isn't critical I'm wondering if I'd be better off upgrading to a MIII and carrying lighter/less expensive glass while shooting with 1 f/stop higher?

I envision using a 300 prime and the 70-200 as the two pieces of glass that I'd be making the f/2.8-f/4 switch on.

I know there will be somewhat of an AF difference between the the two apertures- how significant will it be?

Bodies come and go. Glass is forever.

Mark

RichNY wrote in post #3205097
For situations where shallow DOF isn't critical I'm wondering if I'd be better off upgrading to a MIII and carrying lighter/less expensive glass while shooting with 1 f/stop higher?

I envision using a 300 prime and the 70-200 as the two pieces of glass that I'd be making the f/2.8-f/4 switch on.

I know there will be somewhat of an AF difference between the the two apertures- how significant will it be?

I went that route and I have no regrets. Of course, lots of people think I'm stupid or crazy, but hey, it's my setup, it works for MY needs, whereas they're not putting themselves in my shoes when they give advice.

I've owned the 300/4 ISL.. it would actually get carried over the 300/2.8. And I carry my 70-200/4 ISL a whole lot more than I would have a 70-200/2.8 (former owner, too) or 100-400.

Fast glass is not everything. But he who shouts louder gets heard..... so I'll just whisper

Mark_Cohran wrote in post #3205688
Bodies come and go. Glass is forever.

Mark

I'm not suggesting optically inferior glass, just glass one stop slower which could be made up with higher ISO. And while bodies will come and go, I can't imaging the Mark IV being anything but better on the ISO.

Can you seriously tell me the flaw to this logic? The only thing I realized is that it would require my backup camera to also be a high ISO performer.

Do you need the f2.8? Do you need the Mark III? If you want the Mark III and not the f2.8 then I suppose it's okay to go with what you're thinking.

I was doing quite a bit of low light indoor roller hockey shooting with the with my 30D and 70-200 f/2.8 @ ISO 1600 & f/2.8.

I went to the 1D Mark IIN for better AF and the ability to shoot my nephew scoring at 8fps and captured a lot more good images. Now he's playing ice hockey in a much better lit rink and I don't need the same speed and ISO combination to properly expose the shots.

I don't 'NEED' any of the features on the MIII other than the ability to up the ISO and use slower glass while not reducing the image quality. I have found myself using the 70-200 at f/2.8 a bit for candid portrait type shots but I could pop on my 85 f/1.8 for when I need shallow DOF (though not as convenient).

What I can't seem to reconcile is why I'd need f/2.8 glass for my 70-200 and 300mm lenses if I were shooting with the MIII. I don't mind buying and carrying the heavy glass when it's needed but I'm questioning whether it will still be needed as camera technology has improved and I'm not trying to capture any lower light scenarios than I did before.

The 2.8 glass will be more accurate focusing on the 2.8 af points on both cameras.

morehtml is right. f2.8 will focus better and from what I've heard, the 300 f2.8 is a gem in Canon's lineup. It also takes teleconverters nicely.

If you really only like the high ISO on the Mark III, then I don't think it's worth the switch. The Mark II N is a great camera and really popular for sports photogs. I don't think anyone would trade a 300 f2.8 for an f4.

Is there any other appeal to the Mark III for you?

for one, 2.8 is important to unlock cross type focusing, which is a big very improved feature on the MKIII. I don't know what you are intending to shoot, but ISO is NOT a replacement for a larger aperture. Sure you can use it to achieve the same shutter speed, but you will have less detail, and the DoF subject isolation on 2.8 lenses is fantastic. I chose to buy the 300 2.8 before i got a new body and i would make the same choice any day, its a fantastic lens, truely phenominal, and HIGHLY versitale, takes TC's like a dream.

RichNY wrote in post #3206000
I'm not suggesting optically inferior glass, just glass one stop slower which could be made up with higher ISO. And while bodies will come and go, I can't imaging the Mark IV being anything but better on the ISO.

Can you seriously tell me the flaw to this logic? The only thing I realized is that it would require my backup camera to also be a high ISO performer.

@mods/senior POTN members -- I seem to recall some Canon lit saying f/2.8 'or faster' will improve AF performance -- true?

EDIT: duh, now I see billing's post ^^^ belay this...............

[QUOTE=Billginthekeys;​3206524]for one, 2.8 is important to unlock cross type focusing, which is a big very improved feature on the MKIII. quote]

EXCELLENT point, you win the prize. Obviously you have looked closely at the specs. If there had been a test given, this question would have separated the you above most others. I just read it last night and didn't think about it for this OP's question until after I saw your post. I think the OP should take this into account and get both the M3 and fast glass. Don't compromise on either unless you must.

Boohoo, my 1DM3 is useless without f/2.8.. (tongue in cheek.. don't take it too seriously, I don't)

Naah. Center AF point is enhanced-precision-cross-type at f/4. f/2.8 opens up more points for you if you need the AreaAF.