5dIII or 70-200 2.8 II?

divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
edited April 25, 2013 in Cameras
I have been stalking and planning for a 5d3 since it was released, but I finally broke down and rented the 70-200 2.8 (II) for a series of shoots this week and the results it has given me are food for thought.

The shots with that lens on the 5d2 are spectacular - it was the only lens I used today, and I think I have more keepers than I ever have from a session (note to self: I am an even crappier hand-holder than I thought since IS improves things sooooo dramatically).

I have the F4 70-200which I love and use regularly, and have always avoided the 2.8 monster on weight (as well as cost!) grounds but I had a feeling I would fall off my f4 ivory tower if I ever used one :rofl. Yup, like a ton of bricks. Just.... wow. Even though my shoulders are aching, I am gobsmacked.

So, given that the body and the lens cost about the same.... which way would you jump? I do miss the 7d's AF and customizability/features which the 5d3 would give me - I prefer the FF sensor in the 5d2, but overall prefer the 7d as a *camera* - but today's results were kind of mind-blowing.

Thoughts are welcome.... :)
facebook | photo site |
«1

Comments

  • cab.in.bostoncab.in.boston Registered Users Posts: 634 Major grins
    edited March 26, 2013
    Isn't it always glass before body? Although I'm a Nikon user, I know the 5dII is no slouch, and if your results were that much better, then go with it. And then you'll still have that lens in however-many-years/months/days from now when you break out the wallet again and go for the 5dIII/IV/V.
    Father, husband, dog lover, engineer, Nikon shooter
    My site 365 Project
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited March 26, 2013
    True, but I really DO miss the handling the 5d3 would give me, and I do already have a 70-200 f4 and the 135L. However.... I can't WAIT to start editing today's shoot - what I've seen so far is beyond anything I thought I could ever deliver.
    facebook | photo site |
  • kdogkdog Administrators Posts: 11,681 moderator
    edited March 26, 2013
    Diva, the 5DMKII/70-200 F2.8 MKII has been my go-to setup for portrait photography for quite some time. I did recently pick up the 5DMKIII for events (silent mode, dual CF) and wildlife and sports (faster bursts, better AF) and do love the camera. However, I feel the MKIII buys you nothing over the MKII in the studio. With good lighting, I claim it's impossible to tell which of those two bodies was used.
    Moderator of Landscapes forum
    Link to my Smugmug site
  • angevin1angevin1 Registered Users Posts: 3,403 Major grins
    edited March 26, 2013
    divamum wrote: »
    True, but I really DO miss the handling the 5d3 would give me, and I do already have a 70-200 f4 and the 135L. However.... I can't WAIT to start editing today's shoot - what I've seen so far is beyond anything I thought I could ever deliver.

    Oh? You rented the 5DIII? Er is it a guess ? Well, LIke you said, You already have the f/4 version...which of those two do you prefer?
    I'd buy the lens and put the Camera on the list~
    kdog wrote: »
    Diva, the 5DMKII/70-200 F2.8 MKII has been my go-to setup for portrait photography for quite some time. I did recently pick up the 5DMKIII for events (silent mode, dual CF) and wildlife and sports (faster bursts, better AF) and do love the camera. However, I feel the MKIII buys you nothing over the MKII in the studio. With good lighting, I claim it's impossible to tell which of those two bodies was used.

    X1000000000!
    tom wise
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited March 26, 2013
    For weight, speed and general use: f4
    For bokeh, IS and incredible accuracy: f2.8
    For magic: 135L

    Frankly, there's a place for both zooms in my bag... although not in my wallet!!!

    I'd agree that the biggest difference in 5d2 and 5d3 for me would be handling rather than IQ. I miss my 7d's multiple AF points (focus recompose makes me crazy, and the outer points on the 5d2 can definitely slow down the flow of shooting when they don't behave), and I'm sure would love the 5d3's even-better AF. And all the other features I've grown to love in the 7d.

    I have this lens for a few more days so plenty of time to think about whether it's a "need" or merely a "novelty", but I have to credit at least some of today's success to the 2.8 magic. It definitely rivals the 135L for sparkle, but with greater flexibility...

    Sigh. I knew I'd eventually be seduced by the bloody thing. I've held out for over 3 years, prizing lightweight over zoom convenience................. rolleyes1.gif
    facebook | photo site |
  • David_S85David_S85 Administrators Posts: 13,249 moderator
    edited March 26, 2013
    Any of the versions of the 70-200 series are tops - no way to go wrong. To figure this out for myself, I borrowed a friend's 2.8 L IS (mkI) to walk around with for a couple hours to find out if it was for me. At the end, I thought my arm and shoulder would fall off (was using a lighter 40D at the time). I liked it, but at that mass and barrel diameter, it wasn't for me. I wouldn't use it for portraits, but for general use at the near long end. I instead settled for the F/4 L IS since it was a lot lighter, the IQ was about the same, and I didn't think I'd ever use 2.8 much. At closer distances, and at 200mm, the depth of focus was really thin. I'm using my 70-200 f/4 L IS with the mkIII and the 40D.
    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
  • thegridrunnerthegridrunner Registered Users Posts: 235 Major grins
    edited March 26, 2013
    "Lenses over camera" didn't become a rule without reason. I used the Nikon D80 for years while I accumulated lenses. I saw the D90, D700 come and go before I was ready to pick up the D800. I am supremely glad I waited. Since I started filmmaking now (with the D800 and an external recorder for clean hdmi output), the quality and quantity of lenses I brought are wonderful and I look forward to using them for the next decade and beyond. Buy a set of $20 barbells and strengthen that arm and shoulder. rolleyes1.gif
    Nikon D800, D7000, 14-24,24-70, 70-200 Nikkor and stuff
    http://www.youtube.com/user/NYCFilmmakersGroup
    http://www.meetup.com/NYC-Filmmakers-and-Actors-Meetup-Group/
  • babowcbabowc Registered Users Posts: 510 Major grins
    edited March 27, 2013
    I'd spring for the glass, also.
    Unless you're doing photography that requires critical AF, the 5DMKII is IMO, perfectly fine.

    However, I will agree that a 70-200 2.8 can be tiresome to carry around.
    I use the Nikon VRII, and it along with a standard zoom and wide angle, it gets real heavy, real quick.

    Therefore, I don't use the 70-200 very often.
    I find myself using primes more so than any zooms I own (35, 85, 105).

    BUUUUUT, I'd still rather get glass before body.
    -Mike Jin
    D800
    16/2.8, f1.4G primes, f2.8 trio, 105/200 macro, SB900.
    It never gets easier, you just get better.
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited March 27, 2013
    Well, since I shoot at 2.8 a lot, yes I do require fairly critical AF (although not in the macro kind of way).

    My other issue here is that I have more to sell to fund a camera than I do to fund a lens (ie multiple bodies) .... rolleyes1.gif

    Another shoot using it today - I have a feeling that if it delivers as it did yesterday, the decision is made for me. Also, that I will be SERIOUSLY considering selling my 24-70L and getting the Tamron version with IS. I've always known I'm a very questionable hand-holder - I tend to bop around when I shoot unless I'm really thinking hard about not doing so - but the improvement shooting with IS yesterday has far exceeded expectations.....
    facebook | photo site |
  • Moogle PepperMoogle Pepper Registered Users Posts: 2,950 Major grins
    edited March 27, 2013
    You should get the 5D mk XLVII.

    :Dmwink.gif
    Food & Culture.
    www.tednghiem.com
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited March 27, 2013
    Moogle Pepper wrote: »
    You should get the 5D mk XLVII.

    :Dmwink.gif

    rolleyes1.gif
    facebook | photo site |
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,156 moderator
    edited March 27, 2013
    divamum wrote: »
    ... I finally broke down and rented the 70-200 2.8 (II) for a series of shoots this week and the results it has given me are food for thought.

    The shots with that lens on the 5d2 are spectacular - it was the only lens I used today, and I think I have more keepers than I ever have from a session ... today's results were kind of mind-blowing.

    ... :)
    divamum wrote: »
    ... I can't WAIT to start editing today's shoot - what I've seen so far is beyond anything I thought I could ever deliver.
    divamum wrote: »
    ... For bokeh, IS and incredible accuracy: f2.8
    ... I have to credit at least some of today's success to the 2.8 magic. It definitely rivals the 135L for sparkle, but with greater flexibility...

    ...
    divamum wrote: »
    Well, since I shoot at 2.8 a lot, yes I do require fairly critical AF (although not in the macro kind of way).

    My other issue here is that I have more to sell to fund a camera than I do to fund a lens (ie multiple bodies) .... rolleyes1.gif

    Another shoot using it today - I have a feeling that if it delivers as it did yesterday, the decision is made for me. Also, that I will be SERIOUSLY considering selling my 24-70L and getting the Tamron version with IS. I've always known I'm a very questionable hand-holder - I tend to bop around when I shoot unless I'm really thinking hard about not doing so - but the improvement shooting with IS yesterday has far exceeded expectations.....

    I think that I see part of your conundrum. I believe that you are torn by the thought of having 2 - lenses in the 70-200mm range, even though you recognize the value of having both the f4 and f2.8 versions for their different benefits.

    You also recognize the combined merits of a FF body plus these lenses, but you want (would appreciate) the enhanced AF performance of the 5D MKIII.

    In your case I recommend:
    Purchase the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L IS USM II now, and keep the f4 version temporarily. (It's not like the f4 version will devalue anytime too soon, so you might as well keep it and use it, as opposed to selling it now.)

    Bank funds towards the 5D MKIII, and when you need to capitalize on the value of the f4 version, sell it (the f4, 70-200mm version) to finish the purchase of the 5D MKIII.

    Additionally, rent the 5D MKIII now and then, when the project requires those extra qualities and the project fees justify the rental. This allows you to determine when the 5D MKIII is truly necessary by the project requirements and project budget.

    After you sell the EF 70-200mm, f4L USM (to finish funding the 5D MKIII), you can rent it also when you need it.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited March 27, 2013
    thumb.gif Pretty much, Ziggy.

    The only issue now is finding funds - for a 5d3 I could sell the 5d2 and be over halfway there; even I sell it, the 70-200 f4 is only going to fund about 1/4 of its 2.8 is sibling....

    Much to consider. It really is as good as everybody said - my bank account was so hoping that it was hype and I wouldn't care!!! :giggle
    facebook | photo site |
  • kdogkdog Administrators Posts: 11,681 moderator
    edited March 27, 2013
    babowc wrote: »
    Unless you're doing photography that requires critical AF, the 5DMKII is IMO, perfectly fine.

    If this is meant to imply that the 5DMKII is incapable of critical focus, you couldn't be more wrong.
    Moderator of Landscapes forum
    Link to my Smugmug site
  • babowcbabowc Registered Users Posts: 510 Major grins
    edited March 27, 2013
    I won't argue, I have no personal experience with 5D2, rather I'm going off what my friends have voiced.
    I still stand my ground on better glass lol3.gif
    -Mike Jin
    D800
    16/2.8, f1.4G primes, f2.8 trio, 105/200 macro, SB900.
    It never gets easier, you just get better.
  • NagoC50NagoC50 Registered Users Posts: 50 Big grins
    edited March 27, 2013
    I've got both bodies and lenses and I would go with the 2.8 lens, too. Especially since (I think) you were talking about shooting that wedding. If you don't buy the 2.8, I suspect you would be renting the lens for at least this event, if not others.

    The "handling" and AF benefits of the 5dIII are real nice compared to my II and I really love the dual slots and silent shutter for wedding work but they aren't deal breakers for me. Losing the 2.8II would be!
  • Dan7312Dan7312 Registered Users Posts: 1,330 Major grins
    edited March 28, 2013
    If you still had the 7D and didn't already have a 5DII, I think you would be in a quandary because a bigger sensor really helps. But given that you do already have the 5DII I think it's a no-brainer to get the 70-200 2.8 (II) first. You've already seen that the f2.8 improves your images over f4. The 5DIII on the back end of the f4 won't make a big difference... unless you really, really need the faster auto-focus or silent shutter.

    Even if funds were not an issue it would make sense to get the 70-200 2.8 (II) first, work with it for a while... ya' know build up those biceps :-) then move up to the 5DIII. It also spreads out the cost. I do this all the time in my regular business of software dev. I try phase in the biggest bang for the smallest buck things first rather than do them all at once. If nothing else it spreads out the cost, even if only over a credit card payment period or two.

    Even moving from the the 7D to 5DIII, the step up in things to adjust and fool with on the 5D3 are a bit overwhelming. So staging the lens first and then body is doing the simple first and building up to the complicated sort of thing.

    Just my 2 cents

    divamum wrote: »
    I have been stalking and planning for a 5d3 since it was released, but I finally broke down and rented the 70-200 2.8 (II) for a series of shoots this week and the results it has given me are food for thought.
    Dan

    http://www.danalphotos.com

    http://www.pluralsight.com

    http://twitter.com/d114
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited March 28, 2013
    All good stuff, guys!! While I really would love the upgraded body (my final verdict on the 5d2 vs 7d debate: love the 5d's sensor, but the 7d's everything else), the results across two shoots with the zoom are a compelling incentive to press ahead with the lens. I think I cut my shots down by about 1/3 and have lost fewer to focus issues. Currently figuring out how to raise the funds for it...........
    facebook | photo site |
  • Brett1000Brett1000 Registered Users Posts: 819 Major grins
    edited March 28, 2013
    divamum wrote: »

    The only issue now is finding funds

    that's a recurring issue with photography (and other things!)
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited March 31, 2013
    ~gulp~ plunge taken, thanks to the proverbial "offer I couldn't refuse" from a trusted dgrinner. At least this means sending the rental one back tomorrow won't be quite so painful!

    Anybody looking for a clean, sharp f4 model, feel free to contact me...................... rolleyes1.gif
    facebook | photo site |
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,156 moderator
    edited March 31, 2013
    divamum wrote: »
    ~gulp~ plunge taken, thanks to the proverbial "offer I couldn't refuse" from a trusted dgrinner. At least this means sending the rental one back tomorrow won't be quite so painful!

    Anybody looking for a clean, sharp f4 model, feel free to contact me...................... rolleyes1.gif

    Congratulations on the new (to you) lens. clap.gifclap
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • midnight ridermidnight rider Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 122 Major grins
    edited March 31, 2013
    Bodies will come and go but glass is where the real quality is. I have had all 3 of the 70-200 lenses on all kinds if bodies and I have to say the 2.8 is something special. Remember that no matter how great your sensor is if it is passing through slow glass it is useless.
    If you care more about the gear you use that the pictures you take, you have a problem:D
  • Moogle PepperMoogle Pepper Registered Users Posts: 2,950 Major grins
    edited April 1, 2013
    divamum wrote: »
    ~gulp~ plunge taken, thanks to the proverbial "offer I couldn't refuse" from a trusted dgrinner. At least this means sending the rental one back tomorrow won't be quite so painful!

    Anybody looking for a clean, sharp f4 model, feel free to contact me...................... rolleyes1.gif

    Congrats!

    I am a 135 kinda guy, but I hope you enjoy your new white canon barrel!
    Food & Culture.
    www.tednghiem.com
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited April 1, 2013
    Dude, I've worshipped my 135L for 4 years now - it's what kept me from even trying the white barrel before now! And it stays IN the bag - they will rip that prime from my cold, dead hands....

    That said, this II version of the zoom comes close to it in terms of sharpness and "sparkle" Not quite, but REALLY close.
    facebook | photo site |
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited April 1, 2013
    Food for thought, when I upgraded my f/4IS to the f/2.8II I lamented the loss of the weight and size of the f/4. However getting an appropriately sized bag really made the load seem lighter - Tamrac Velocity 8x. Check it out if you like sling bags.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • Moogle PepperMoogle Pepper Registered Users Posts: 2,950 Major grins
    edited April 2, 2013
    divamum wrote: »
    Dude, I've worshipped my 135L for 4 years now - it's what kept me from even trying the white barrel before now! And it stays IN the bag - they will rip that prime from my cold, dead hands....

    That said, this II version of the zoom comes close to it in terms of sharpness and "sparkle" Not quite, but REALLY close.


    rolleyes1.gif
    Food & Culture.
    www.tednghiem.com
  • DangerchrisDangerchris Registered Users Posts: 55 Big grins
    edited April 8, 2013
    What about a used Canon 70-200 2.8 version 1. You can get a used one for $1500.

    I bought a version 1 70-200 2.8 Nikon last year from lensrentals.com for $1,350. I enjoy using that lens. It was very clean and the images from it are great. Is the Version 2 one better? No doubt, but I am glad that I have the older one to use.

    Use it for a while and then upgrade if you feel the need. How much could value could it lose in the meantime?

    Really enjoyed your latest opera singer headshots.
    ---
    Chris
    www.chrisskrod.com Portfolio site for Portrait Photography
    www.chrisskrod.smugmug.com My general photo sharing site.
    www.instagram.com/chrisskrod Instagram
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited April 8, 2013
    Dangerchris wrote: »
    What about a used Canon 70-200 2.8 version 1. You can get a used one for $1500.

    I bought a version 1 70-200 2.8 Nikon last year from lensrentals.com for $1,350. I enjoy using that lens. It was very clean and the images from it are great. Is the Version 2 one better? No doubt, but I am glad that I have the older one to use.

    I don't know about Nikon, but the Canon 70-200/4 was known to be sharper than the original f/2.8 version. One only bought the f/2.8 if they absolutely needed the extra stop. Otherwise the f/4 offered a bit more sharpness and a lot more portability. Now the f/2.8 Mark II is the sharpest of them all, but it costs a premium.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited April 9, 2013
    What about a used Canon 70-200 2.8 version 1. You can get a used one for $1500.


    Chris, this whole thing only emerged because I was SO impressed with the mk II when I rented it, and subsequently approached to buy a used a Mk II from an impeccable source... at a very favorable price. The extra over the Mk I was most assuredly worth it in this case.
    Really enjoyed your latest opera singer headshots.

    Thanks for the kind words! I credit the success of those shoots in part to the lens - IS, zoom flexibility, and greater ability to isolate the subject with the wider aperture. Made a far bigger difference on all counts than I would have expected. Hence the decision to swallow hard and buy the lens....

    I don't know about Nikon, but the Canon 70-200/4 was known to be sharper than the original f/2.8 version. One only bought the f/2.8 if they absolutely needed the extra stop. Otherwise the f/4 offered a bit more sharpness and a lot more portability. Now the f/2.8 Mark II is the sharpest of them all, but it costs a premium.

    I was 100% FINE with the F4... until I used the Mk II! I have resisted a 2.8 70-200 zoom for a lonnnggg time, and it's only the specific circumstances which pushed me over the edge in this case. I KNOW I'll miss the portability of the F4 - and it was a stellar copy - but the IS was hugely helpful, and given the spectacular performance of the Mk II, it made the decision fairly easy.
    facebook | photo site |
  • Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited April 19, 2013
    Lens over camera any day! Do you need f/2.8 because your 5D2 is too noisy?
    Then you can get way with buying the 5D3 bump up the ISO 1 stop and shoot
    away with your f/4 glass at same or better noise performance.

    If you need f/2.8 because of DOF, by all means buy it! The 70-200 L IS II is
    just spectacular, and very usable even with a 2x II TC. thumb.gif
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
Sign In or Register to comment.