I want your opinion on 5D Mark III or 70-200mm 2.8 MarkII lens to solve my Shoots

JoeJITSU

JoeJITSU

Veteran
So I am either thinking of Buying a 70-200mm 2.8 MarkII or Selling my Canon 5D Mark II and Buying the Canon 5D Mark II body and saving my kit lens due to poor lowlight in some wedding events.
I have shot some weddings with my 5D,7D and 60D and our biggest drawback is when we need the Zoom with Lowlight. I use the 24-105 with my 5D and at times have to turn it up to 1600 and cross my fingers that not much noise will appear. So, All of a sudden when I was going to fork over $2300 for the 70-200mm 2.8 MKii lens, THen I thought...Maybe I should sell my 5DM2 and just buy the 5DM3 and maybe get better results....Just want some opinions. Thanks
 
the low light is a big jump up on the mark III. Shots that my clients would have commented on the noise from the mark II will be pretty much clean on my mark III.... to a point.
 
thekreative said:
the low light is a big jump up on the mark III. Shots that my clients would have commented on the noise from the mark II will be pretty much clean on my mark III.... to a point.
Click to expand...
Thanks, This video might have sealed the deal but still would like some opinions from you guys.
 
Last edited:
The only reason I can think of for going with the 70-200 is that it will be with you for many years, whereas the 5D3 will be out of sight relatively soon (I'd say 4 years if you're very patient). But for your troubles TODAY, the solution seems to be the 5D3. And for the price of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II you can upgrade to the 5D3 and be halfway to get a 70-200 f/4L IS, which is a very nice lens too (and much smaller, if you care about that).
 
At some point you really need to commit to the pro 2.8 zooms. Both for image quality and viewfinder brightness. The 2.8 will get you 1 stop.

In the near term, the 5D3 is a great choice for weddings for both ISO and camera noise. You will get at least a stop there too. Combine the two and it will be a huge net gain in low light. I

f you are making money, what you just need to look at is the DEPRECIATION cost of the 5D3 for cost/benefit versus what you will make on weddings. If you can sell it at $1,500-$2,000 in 2 years, the net cost is $750-$1,000 per year. Not bad.

The other option is a 7D2 or 3D, rumoured to be out before Photokina in the fall. But that is the end of the wedding season. Go with what you know now if you need it and can justify it, as it seems you can.

Good luck!
Michael
 
unadog said:
At some point you really need to commit to the pro 2.8 zooms. Both for image quality and viewfinder brightness. The 2.8 will get you 1 stop.

In the near term, the 5D3 is a great choice for weddings for both ISO and camera noise. You will get at least a stop there too. Combine the two and it will be a huge net gain in low light. I

f you are making money, what you just need to look at is the DEPRECIATION cost of the 5D3 for cost/benefit versus what you will make on weddings. If you can sell it at $1,500-$2,000 in 2 years, the net cost is $750-$1,000 per year. Not bad.

The other option is a 7D2 or 3D, rumoured to be out before Photokina in the fall. But that is the end of the wedding season. Go with what you know now if you need it and can justify it, as it seems you can.

Good luck!
Michael
Click to expand...

Thanks, it's funny this year...were getting slammed with weddings for fall, have close to 10 clients already.
 
JoeJITSU said:
Thanks, it's funny this year...were getting slammed with weddings for fall, have close to 10 clients already.
Click to expand...

Fantastic! Congratulations! :)

You can't depend on anything announced after July for September, so the choices are probably limited. But for run-and-gun video, camcorder type use, you might try the 4Ti with the 18-135 mm and 40 mm lenses. (Or wait 2 weeks to see if a mirrorless shows up?)

They were just announced yesterday, should ship by the end of June/early July. I preordered the kit for $1,200 and the 40mm for $200.

They will really be a nice addition to the kit! Worth even more than the 70-200 2.8 in many ways, for fast moving scenes, etc. Hard to tell what the higher ISO's will be like, I wouldn't count on much there yet, certainly not 5D3 quality. The IS is also tailored to hand held video stabilization, the tracking can track a face in video focus, etc.. If you aren't shooting something like teh Canon XH-1A camcorder, the 4Ti would be a must have in my mind.

I know that this is all a lot of money, and for a business it is important to control costs. But that looks like a great Canon body for video. Hopefully with more to come this fall.

Good luck!
Michael
 
if I had the money lying around and needed a 70-200, I'd probably go for the f/4L IS:
* I think f/4 is shallow enough for full frame
* looking into the future, f/4 should be fast enough, since all my future cameras should be able to shoot clean footage at very high ISO
* I think the 2.8 is way too expensive
* the 2.8 is also quite a lot bigger and heavier

but yes: the camera will probably depreciate at a much higher rate than the lens; and it's an awesome lens indeed, just too expensive for my taste

I think this is one of those situations where you can hardly go wrong either way
maybe the only way to go wrong would be to buy the camera too soon, and have a new model, better tailored to your needs, appear in the coming months; I'd try to wait patiently (I know it's not easy), then pull the trigger when I actually need the problem solved
 
I agree with samuel H

ON the 2.8 vs F4 thing - maybe its age (im older and more broken) or experience or something

We have the 200/2.8 and the 200f4 in my office.. I pick the F4 every time and certainly would do for the two weddings that I shoot a year where I must be on my feet all day

I pick it because its smaller and lighter

S
 
I actually like the heftiness of the lens...especially for video. What does smaller have to do with anything? I used to shoot weddings and V1 of that lens used to be on one body and a fast prime on the other. I'd NEVER compromise a shot because of something being too heavy or too big - odd reasoning to me. Especially considering this whole thread is about low light situations, why are we recommending a f/4 lens when there's a perfectly good f/2.8 alternative? Sure cost is a massive factor, but buy what you need and you'll only buy once.

Kegan
 
I have the 7D and the canon 70-200 f2.8 IS.
During the reception if it is to dark I will not use this lens but the Rokinon 85 f1.4 which is amazing.
 
Kegan said:
I actually like the heftiness of the lens...especially for video. What does smaller have to do with anything? I used to shoot weddings and V1 of that lens used to be on one body and a fast prime on the other. I'd NEVER compromise a shot because of something being too heavy or too big - odd reasoning to me. Especially considering this whole thread is about low light situations, why are we recommending a f/4 lens when there's a perfectly good f/2.8 alternative? Sure cost is a massive factor, but buy what you need and you'll only buy once.

Kegan
Click to expand...

You must function the whole day (and career actually) as a shooter without smashing your back - its my personal experience (and another poster) that the weight is not worth the carry for an extra stop in an era where cameras are good to 1600 - that lens seems partiularly heavy - I have a nikkor 70-200 too - not such a beast

Obviously everyone has to make their own choice - and hearing our opinion is surely of value to that process - btw one of my choices is always to have a 50 1.4 if it gets really dark

S
 
And my point was that you're not "compromising a shot": the f/4L IS is similarly sharp, and has similarly nice bokeh. On APS-C, it would be a tough call, but on FF, for me, f/4 is shallow enough, and fast enough (given low light abilities of 5D3 and future cameras). YMMV
 
Thanks for everyones opinion. The reason I want to stick with the 70-200mm is because usually at the ceremony when were doing a 3 camera shoot...If I have the Bride at one angle and the other has the Groom at another angle, We want to make sure we can get as close as possible. A lot of the Catholic churches have a "boundary" and that throws us off because we would have to use the stock kit lens and some churches are pretty dark which means we have to bump up our ISO to 1600 or more sometimes.
That is why I am still considering on selling my Mk II and getting the Mk III since that will put my lens a few stops brighter because of the camera itself.
 
sound like you already want to get 5d3
if you are getting 3 to 4k per wedding for 2 to 3 camera shoots
just get two 5d3
depth of field is just right with F4 lens on a FF camera,
F2.8 with 70-200 is sometime very hard to setup a shot with two people in focus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top