need help deciding on a 1d mkIV or 5d MkII

I have a 5d MKII and I have someone locally that would trade his like new 5k shutter 1d mkIV for my 5dmkII, 135L plus 500.00. I love my 5d, but for 500.00 this so tempting. I shoot kinda everything, wildlife, street life, low light stuff and landscape. Would you trade why or why not. The only thing that is making me think about not doing it is losing the uwa prospective, but I could maybe pick up a 5d classic cheap later on if needed. What do you think? Also, I was already thinking of getting rid of my 135because I don't really use it.

Really depends on what fits your needs. What are you looking to gain from the 5DII?

Higher fps, more weather-proof body and improved AF with the Mark IV versus wider full frame 21 MP sensor for 5D II. I have heard the high ISO may be slightly better on the Mark IV.

I am torn, I want the af and ff, but I think the af and iso maybe more important. I was reading some posts that the sigma 12-24 is a good uwa alternative on the 1d

Subscibing. I am in a similar situation. My son has offered to buy me any camera I want (he can afford it) for Xmas. I have a 7D, 15-85, 100 "L" Macro and a 100-400. I am trying to decide between a 5DII with 24-105 kit lens to compliment the 7D or a 1DMKIV, sell the 7D and 15-85 and use the $ for some more "L" glass.

skater911 wrote in post #11538254
I am torn, I want the af and ff, but I think the af and iso maybe more important. I was reading some posts that the sigma 12-24 is a good uwa alternative on the 1d

Nikon D3s really

Yeah, but at a huge cost

That is an upgrade but can you afford loosing the FF?

I do it.

I have both and would offer this POV... IMO, the IV really excels at sports where fps means multiple options to get keeper shots. It is very good at portraits and landscapes. The 5DII is not good at fast action sports but it is excellent at portraits, landscapes and candid shots where center point focus is fine. Plus the lighter weight of the 5D for me is a plus in many situations. I also love the 21 megapixels.

I prefer my 5DII for portraits and landscapes over my IV. Personally, I wouldn't want to be without a ff.

I shoot fast moving sports maybe 10% of the time. How often do you see yourself needing 10 fps?

skater911 wrote in post #11538254
I am torn, I want the af and ff, but I think the af and iso maybe more important. I was reading some posts that the sigma 12-24 is a good uwa alternative on the 1d

I shoot the Tokina 12-24 F4 on my 1dIII for uwa landscapes and it works well from about 14mm up. Wider than that there is vignetting.

Well I made the trade. My 5d II, my 135L and 500.00 for the 1d iv. It is in brand new condition and recipt in habd was just purchased a little over a month ago. Man the shutter sounds so different, so good compared to the 5d. Now I just need something wider than the 17-40. Looking the sigma or tokina 12-24; whatcha think? What would you recommend to replace the 135 that would be similar? 100L?

The Tokina 11-16/2.8 is reported to work well on 1.3X from 12mm up.

JeffreyG wrote in post #11574991
The Tokina 11-16/2.8 is reported to work well on 1.3X from 12mm up.

Do you find it limiting being that it is only a 11-16? I have a 17-40 so I am not worried about losing fl, but more of having to switch back and forth between lens'

skater911 wrote in post #11575130
Do you find it limiting being that it is only a 11-16? I have a 17-40 so I am not worried about losing fl, but more of having to switch back and forth between lens'

I have a 1D4 and 5D with a 16-35 II. If I need wider than 16mm on the 1D then I use the 5D. But I am not shooting action that wide.

skater911 wrote in post #11574915
Well I made the trade. My 5d II, my 135L and 500.00 for the 1d iv. It is in brand new condition and recipt in habd was just purchased a little over a month ago. Man the shutter sounds so different, so good compared to the 5d. Now I just need something wider than the 17-40. Looking the sigma or tokina 12-24; whatcha think? What would you recommend to replace the 135 that would be similar? 100L?

Have you determined that the 135L will be too long now? Both are good lenses. I use the 100L on my 1.3x crop body but that choice was based on shotting a bunch of macro also.

I haven't used the Sigma but the Tokina 12-24 works good on the 1.3x crop body from about 14-24. Wider than that you get vignetting and hood interference. The 11-16 is nice but not much zoom on the 1.3x is usable from maybe 13-16 (might as well be a 15mm prime).