p.1 #1 · 5D Mark III vs. 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II....
As the current set-up for wildlife I am using 7d and 400mm f5.6L lens primarily. My main focus is on birds but I do lot of chasing behind leopards and other mammals. What I really want is a Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II USM Lens. Cannot afford the $$. As the next step to improve my low light shootings in National Parks (early morning and late evenings) what would be the best choice.
• Purchase a Canon EOS 5D Mark III ($ 3,299).
• or Purchase a EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM ($ 2,099).
p.1 #4 · 5D Mark III vs. 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II....
I'm not sure the 70-200 is really going to help your low light wildlife shots if you are already saying you are FL limited at 400mm. That is stretching the pixel density of the 7D quite a bit. If you don't mind 3rd party solutions you may want to wait and see how good the new Sigma 120-300/2.8 turns out to be. That would give you 300/2.8 (400/4 with TC) for maybe around the same price as the 5D3.
p.1 #5 · 5D Mark III vs. 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II....
its hard to tell, but do you feel focal length limited (hence you want a 600) or are you light gathering limited (you want the F4 and 2.8)? It sounds like you might be limited by both, in which case get ready to bend over and fork out some serious $$$. You're going to lose a lot of reach with a 5diii vs 7d which means you'll probably be soon looking at an 800mm lens. But you will certainly love the high iso capabilities of the FF 5diii. That being said maybe there is a middle ground, 1div? You lose some reach but get a little low light for it.
p.1 #6 · 5D Mark III vs. 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II....
I do not think the 70-200 2.8 II is going to get you where you want to be. Mark IV and a 300 2.8 version 1 with extenders is a good starting point if you are both light and focal length limited. A full frame is only going to make you wish you could get closer.
p.1 #7 · 5D Mark III vs. 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II....
JEFFERY Z71 wrote:
I do not think the 70-200 2.8 II is going to get you where you want to be. Mark IV and a 300 2.8 version 1 with extenders is a good starting point if you are both light and focal length limited. A full frame is only going to make you wish you could get closer.
p.1 #8 · 5D Mark III vs. 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II....
The 5D III was a big improvement over the 7D for both autofocus ability and noise
the 5D III files are very nice at higher ISO
+1 for the 5D III
all the wildlife toyz have become expensive from Canon
a more affordable 300mm F2.8 is the Sigma
The Sigma APO 300mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM lens is an ultra compact Apochromatic telephoto lens with a fast f/2.8 maximum aperture which incorporates two Extraordinary Low Dispersion glass elements to reduce chromatic aberration to a minimum. It incorporates internal focusing which enables responsive and fast autofocus speed. A detachable tripod socket and rotatable drop in filter holder are also included.
p.1 #10 · 5D Mark III vs. 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II....
the problem you are facing is that 7d + 400 5.6 is as good as you're gonna get for wildlife without breaking the bank. 5diii and 70-200 are not gonna help you get more shots of animals than you do now. mark iv and 300mm is a great setup, but it is gonna be MUCH heavier (~ 8lbs) than your current one; it might be so heavy you need a tripod. if jeffery is talking about the IS version of this lens, its gonna be 3.5-4k on its own, as will the mark iv. so yes you get a great rig, but you're still not that much closer to the animals and you've now put out at least 7k. this rig might be ok if you are shooting big animals, but it is NOT going to cut it for birds and small animals. however, a 500mm would help you get more pixels onto your subject and would be faster (f/4) and longer. then you slap on the teleconverter for a 700/5.6 which on the 7d is more than enough reach for all but the most spooky beasts. yes, a used 500 is going for 6000 bucks now, but 1) its an awesome lens and 2) its a cheaper plane than the 300/mark iv idea. here are a few samples of the 500/7d combo. these birds would have all flown off had i tried to get closer as the use of a 300 (or maybe even 400) would have required.
p.1 #11 · 5D Mark III vs. 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II....
thedutt wrote:
Consider adding a used 300 f2.8 IS V1 and 1.4x II/III & 2xIII. That would give you one stop over your 400 and flexibility.
Agreed! My standard birding combo is 7D/300 F2.8 IS V1/2xIII for a grand working focal length of 960mm. This works great for me and I compared that combo to a 500 F4 IS w/1.4xIII and found virtually no difference in image quality, nor did I notice any significant change in AF speed.
You would miss the extra reach of the 7D if you go with a 5D3, as well as dropping down to a 70-200.
p.1 #12 · 5D Mark III vs. 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II....
Jude Perera wrote:
As the current set-up for wildlife I am using 7d and 400mm f5.6L lens primarily. My main focus is on birds but I do lot of chasing behind leopards and other mammals. What I really want is a Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II USM Lens. Cannot afford the $$. As the next step to improve my low light shootings in National Parks (early morning and late evenings) what would be the best choice.
• Purchase a Canon EOS 5D Mark III ($ 3,299).
• or Purchase a EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM ($ 2,099).
Any thoughts.
Jude
Jude,
If your main subject is wildlife you need to save to get a used 500 f/4 IS (MKI). 70-200 is way too short for wildlife and the 5D3 doesn't have much reach with a 400mm lens unless you shoot very large wildlife at close range (not birds).
p.1 #13 · 5D Mark III vs. 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II....
Sorry Jude as others have pointed out, you are barking up the wrong tree. There is no cheap way out of your dilemma, just degrees of financial pain and how much pain are you prepared to accept.
Possibly best value would be a second hand Sigma 500 f/4.5, then next would be a 300 f/2.8L IS mk I + 1.4x and 2x extenders.
