5D admirers, assemble!

35L is gone. I tried the brick, 50L, and 24-105L IS. Went with the 24-105, I liked it a LOT. I also tried a 1DIII though...and that was a really stupid idea. SO. FREAKING. NICE.

You went from f/1.4 to f/4. Wow. The 24-105 is a great lens, just not fast enough for me.

1d3 is powered by pixie dust, but I am putting all free funds either into stock or glass. Bodies depreciate too quickly for my liking, and I don't NEED the 1d3

TaDa wrote in post #7089326
You went from f/1.4 to f/4. Wow. The 24-105 is a great lens, just not fast enough for me.

1d3 is powered by pixie dust, but I am putting all free funds either into stock or glass. Bodies depreciate too quickly for my liking, and I don't NEED the 1d3

No one NEEDS the 1D3 (unless you're a professional sports photographer... I think).



I can't believe how much the 1D3's have come down in price (hence why I own one).

I like having the 1D now for a little bit more reach versus the 5D (which comes today... HOLLA).

How does the 5D AF compare to the 5D Mark II AF... are they exactly the same? I just want to get an idea before I consider even getting a Mark II.

Yeah I liked how light the 24-105 was, and it's SHARP. I finally have a default lens. IS is pretty sweet.

The MKIII was the best camera I've ever had the privilege of holding. Menus and handling are far improved over the MKIIN, it's a LOT lighter, and live view for critical focus was sweet, as was the precise battery meter. But the AF. OMG the AF...so sweet.

Shim, from my understanding, they're very similar AF.

And Perry, I loved the IS on the 17-55, but 2.8 is more important than IS for me in this range. The day Canon releases the 24-70 IS, I'll be one of the first on line

TaDa wrote in post #7089375
Shim, from my understanding, they're very similar AF.

And Perry, I loved the IS on the 17-55, but 2.8 is more important than IS for me in this range. The day Canon releases the 24-70 IS, I'll be one of the first on line

I hear ya, and I liked the hood on the brick was more. BUT I was looking for a general use, go-to lens, and light weight was a necessity. Also I like that it lets me make some photos that I couldn't before: handheld longish exposures. Motion blur can be really cool if done well. It's nice on the 1D too.

Yep, one of the main reasons I'm going for the 35L is for the light walk-around kit. The 24-70 is pretty big, 17-40 isn't fast enough and the 85mm is too long. Since I like the FL, I'm hoping that the 35L will be a really nice alternative as the 24-105 wouldn't be fast enough for me either.

Yeah the reason I went with the 24-105 is that I never need high shutter speeds to stop motion at these focal lengths, so as far as exposure goes, the 3-stop IS negates the 3-stop loss in speed. It's dark with the Ee-S screen though (tangcla'll help with that) and I'll miss the bokeh, but this lens is sweet.

We shoot different things . My oldest runs and jumps like he's hopped up on a pound of sugar, so I need fast shutter or everything becomes a blur. If walk-around for me, meant scenery, then I'd be all over the 24-105, but for me, it's mainly family

Oh for sure - that makes sense. I don't have kids and I don't shoot casually anyway. The 5D + 24-105 for hikes looks AMAZING.

I'm hopefully going to be able to afford the 1dmk3, I love it!

Until then, next purchase will be a 35L to pair to my 5D - which will probably be sold for a 24L when I got 1series.

^^ Good for model photography, as well, the 24-105 is.

perryge wrote in post #7089311
35L is gone. I tried the brick, 50L, and 24-105L IS. Went with the 24-105, I liked it a LOT. I also tried a 1DIII though...and that was a really stupid idea. SO. FREAKING. NICE.

Heh! Perry, you crack me up!

I agree, though, the 24-105 is my default lens for the 5D. After that, the 85 and the 16-35 get the most use. The 24-70 is, I guess, too much of a brick to be much practical use to me -- it's my least-used lens. Maybe that's a shame to say, but the 24-105 with the light weight and the IS is so dang practical.

As far as the 1D3, well, you should have known better! Yesterday, when I wasn't taking pictures of tombstones with the 5D and 85, I was shooting ducks and geese with the 1D3. I've been doing an exercise: since I sadly had to sell the 300, I decided to do what I've always avoided doing -- start shooting with the 100-400 with a 1.4 TC attached. To my pleasant surprise, I actually got a fair amount of keepers! Not as good as the 300 with the TC, but still...

Anyway, my starting ISO, late in the afternoon, was 1600, but spent a lot of time at ISO 2000, 2500, and 3200, just to keep up with the light, and I got keepers at every step. This is pretty extreme for me, I'm a pixel peeper when it comes to wildlife shots, so to say I got keepers with that lens/TC combo at high ISOs is saying a lot.

So, stay away from the Mk III, be happy with the Mk II!

tonylong wrote in post #7089502
So, stay away from the Mk III, be happy with the Mk II!

I'll say this right now - it's the only camera I've used that I like significantly more than the 5D .

inthedeck wrote in post #7089492
^^ Good for model photography, as well, the 24-105 is.

Yah, I think the 24-105 on the 1D and 85L on the 5D will be a mean combo for glamour work.

Few from yesterday. I am finding that iso 50 is not bad at all.
-Jim