Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2012 · 5D3 or 5D2 + 16-35?
  
 
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 5D3 or 5D2 + 16-35?


Here's my thoughts. I'd appreciate input from those who have used both the 5D2 and 5D3.

I'm very excited about the 5D3 and was going to buy one. My problem is that I'm going from a crop body and would only have a 50 and 85 prime and a 70-200 f2.8 to use with it. I found that for the price of the 5D3, I can buy a new 5D2 plus a 16-35 f2.8 II.

Although I spent many years as a professional, I'm now a happy amateur, doing mostly landscapes, nature, portraits and FPJ photos of my family. I don't do sports or events. I grew up shooting manual everything.

Everything I read indicates the 5D3 is a remarkable camera, addressing many issues of the 5D2. However, it seems that under "normal" conditions, the IQ is practically the same. Even though the extreme low light capability of the 5D3 is exciting and I'd love to have it, there aren't that many instances where I would really need it, although I bet I'd shoot more low light if I had the capability. While focus issues may be an annoyance, if I miss a shot because of mis-focus, there's no real consequence compared to a pro shooting a wedding.

Why 16-35 instead of the more "classic" 24-70? I love SWA. I would rather go more wide and have a gap from 35mm to 50mm and 50mm to 70mm.

While I can swing ~$3500, $5000 would be a big stretch. Therefore, I think I'll go 5D2 + 16-35. What do you think?



Apr 03, 2012 at 01:26 PM
twistedlim
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 5D3 or 5D2 + 16-35?


5d3 and add a 17-40 later if you think you can swing it.


Apr 03, 2012 at 01:28 PM
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 5D3 or 5D2 + 16-35?


twistedlim wrote:
5d3 and add a 17-40 later if you think you can swing it.

Don't confuse me!
Actually, that's not a bad suggestion. I could trade the one stop in lens speed for better high ISO performance. You're asking me to stretch things, but $4300 may be doable.



Apr 03, 2012 at 01:51 PM
twistedlim
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 5D3 or 5D2 + 16-35?


If you really have to stretch you can probably get a tammy 17-35 2.8-4 used (a little hard to find these days) which has really nice image quality. Not the build of the L but pretty nice. I have not used a 5d2, came right from a 5dc but I must say the 5d3 is really everything a quality camera should be. My only regret is that I cannot afford 2


Apr 03, 2012 at 01:55 PM
kevindar
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 5D3 or 5D2 + 16-35?


without a doubt, 5d2 with 16-35. I own all 3 (well just sold my 5d2). for that style of photography, the 5d3 adds very little. 5d3 is about fps, and better autofocus. If you shoot raw, there is little difference in the high ISO images (which shows up mostly at 6400 and beyond). 5d2 is a phenomenal camera. I owned it for 3.5 years, and its an absolute bargain at going used prices of 1600 for a pretty clean one, or 1800 for a refurb one.


Apr 03, 2012 at 01:55 PM
nburwell
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 5D3 or 5D2 + 16-35?


kevindar wrote:
without a doubt, 5d2 with 16-35. I own all 3 (well just sold my 5d2). for that style of photography, the 5d3 adds very little. 5d3 is about fps, and better autofocus. If you shoot raw, there is little difference in the high ISO images (which shows up mostly at 6400 and beyond). 5d2 is a phenomenal camera. I owned it for 3.5 years, and its an absolute bargain at going used prices of 1600 for a pretty clean one, or 1800 for a refurb one.


I agree completely. I haven't tried out the 5DIII, but from what I have read and heard, for what you're looking to do, you would be better suited to go with the 5DII + 16-35.

I owned the 5Dc for 4 year, and just recently "upgraded" to the 5DII and although both cameras are great for the style of photography I do, I absolutely love the mkII.

-Nick



Apr 03, 2012 at 02:32 PM
mco_970
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 5D3 or 5D2 + 16-35?


kevindar wrote:
without a doubt, 5d2 with 16-35. I own all 3 (well just sold my 5d2). for that style of photography, the 5d3 adds very little. 5d3 is about fps, and better autofocus. If you shoot raw, there is little difference in the high ISO images (which shows up mostly at 6400 and beyond). 5d2 is a phenomenal camera. I owned it for 3.5 years, and its an absolute bargain at going used prices of 1600 for a pretty clean one, or 1800 for a refurb one.


++ agree! For your use, the 5D2 is a great deal.



Apr 03, 2012 at 02:43 PM
StarNut
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 5D3 or 5D2 + 16-35?


The 5d2 is great for everything but low-light situations (focusing can be wonky, but, if you're on a tripod, you can use live view just fine), and things that move fast (the better AF on the 5d3, and the higher frame rate, make it better than the 5d2 for things that move fast).

For the record, I have both the 5d2 and 5d3 (well, until my 5d2 sells), and the 16-35 II. I use the 16-35 only when nothing else will do (e.g., cities; landscapes that include moving things, like water, that don't take so well to stitching); I'm not terribly impressed with its corner-to-corner sharpness on a full frame, at the wide end.



Apr 03, 2012 at 05:24 PM
3catsinky
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 5D3 or 5D2 + 16-35?


might pick up a nice used copy of the Sigma 15-30. a tad on the slower side fstop wise, but I had a mint copy,
well built, sharp, works great on a FF camera.



Apr 03, 2012 at 06:25 PM
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 5D3 or 5D2 + 16-35?


Thanks for all the replies. I'm leaning towards 5D2 + lens. I did some checking on the 16-35 and 17-40. It seems that neither have great corner sharpness wide open at wider settings. The tax on one f-stop is pretty cheap, plus the 17-40 takes 77mm filters, which is a plus for me (only one expensive polarizer that will fit two lenses. The Sigma is interesting, but you can't use filters.

So, right now I'm leaning towards a gently used 5D2 and 17-40.



Apr 03, 2012 at 06:40 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



bobbytan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 5D3 or 5D2 + 16-35?


Another vote for the 5D II + 16-35L .... or a 17-40L + 24L or 35L.




Apr 03, 2012 at 06:50 PM
jcrawford
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 5D3 or 5D2 + 16-35?


I too have the 5d2, 5d3 and 16-35 mark2. I also do not use the 16-35 as much as i thought I would .. for any type of portrait the distortion is horrible and when taking landscapes the loss in detail from such a wide shot usually makes the image unpleasing to me.. for non-sports use the 5dm2 is a great camera, I shoot indoors alot so the better iso of the m3 is a big step for me as is the better focus and tracking, i only purchased the m3 until my 1dx ships though so i don't plan to keep either of the 5d cameras.


17-40 is a great wide lens too, there are some places that require the ultra wide... i shot a waterfall onces that I would not have been able to get without the 16mm..


Also you may want to get a flash no on-camera flash with the 5d's.

no matter what you would be happy with all of these suggestions . both are great cameras and you will get some great shots either way.



Apr 03, 2012 at 07:36 PM
Paul Tessier
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 5D3 or 5D2 + 16-35?


I'd concider a used 1DsII instead of a 5DII.


Apr 03, 2012 at 08:00 PM
morganb4
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 5D3 or 5D2 + 16-35?


^this


Apr 03, 2012 at 10:10 PM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 5D3 or 5D2 + 16-35?


17-40L, don't be fooled by assertions it's crap in the corners or it's soft or it's blah blah blah, it's a very good lens on FF. It'll work just as well on 5D III as 5D II.


Apr 03, 2012 at 11:01 PM
rabbitmountain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · 5D3 or 5D2 + 16-35?


dmacmillan wrote:
Don't confuse me!
Actually, that's not a bad suggestion. I could trade the one stop in lens speed for better high ISO performance. You're asking me to stretch things, but $4300 may be doable.

Even if you would get a 16-35 (mkII i presume), you would not shoot it much @f/2.8, not on a FF body. f/2.8 is for emergency only. I say get the 5DIII+17-40, shoot some rolls and show us what you got.



Apr 03, 2012 at 11:39 PM
kevindar
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · 5D3 or 5D2 + 16-35?


rabbitmountain wrote:
Even if you would get a 16-35 (mkII i presume), you would not shoot it much @f/2.8, not on a FF body. f/2.8 is for emergency only. I say get the 5DIII+17-40, shoot some rolls and show us what you got.

Umm, what? Dont understand this statement at all. 2.8 on FF is for emergencies only? why?



Apr 04, 2012 at 03:58 AM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · 5D3 or 5D2 + 16-35?


5D2 and 16-34 II. The 16-35 is quite a bit better than the 17-40, and has f/2.8.


Apr 04, 2012 at 05:40 AM
Worldchaos81
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · 5D3 or 5D2 + 16-35?


I agree with everyone here...get the 5dii...the 5diii is great upgrade for sports, weddings, walk around lens without tripod. However if your doing landscape most likely you will have a tripod handy and don't need the great ISO speeds or AF upgrade.

I have the 16-35ii and its a great all around lens. However watch the distortion and the corners are not that sharp as a prime. I would also check out the 24 or 17 TSE for an landscape and look at a 50 1.4 However if your stressed for money might wanta check out the 24-70mmii + 5dii which will cover everything you are looking for in regards to wide and portrait.



Apr 04, 2012 at 07:36 AM
rabbitmountain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · 5D3 or 5D2 + 16-35?


kevindar wrote:
Umm, what? Dont understand this statement at all. 2.8 on FF is for emergencies only? why?

Because this lens - which is incredible on FF @f/8-f/11 - is very soft @f/2.8 in the corners.



Apr 04, 2012 at 08:50 AM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password