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

You can pick up a pre IS 70-200f4 for cheap - get that and the 3 IMO

Also IMO IS is not worth it because you are not wise to handhold such a tele anyway

S
 
Thanks Sam. I think I will do that...Thanks everyone. That T4i better not have great lowlight capabilities or I'm buying one and my client will see how small my camera will be. :)
 
Or you could not buy the camera and keep the cash.

I was thinking about this wedding thing; now I guess the venues have has wedding videos made, probably since before every man and his aunt was using DSLR

How did the DVcam shooter deal with the event? (the 5d2 is way better in lolight is it not)

I was wondering if you need to chuck up a light or two, small subtle? Some lightpanels? Turned down low - rigged to something - not on a Cstand for granny to trip over but clamped up high

One thing I have noticed over the years is production crews losing confidence in dealing with people to get the scene/location how they need it - remember the couple want a nice video - the locations want a nice video - they are all competing for custom (hotels/venues) - every one should want your video to work if you build the right mindset with your collaberators

I have a wedding shooter friend who is always lucky - everything looks great - ask him about his shoots, he is not lucky, he got there early, moved stuff around a little, made it work for him.. he could charm a waitress into moving every table at the reception if he needed to - he does this but then is super subtle during the shoot - he doesnt herd or ruin the occasion for the couple

S
 
Last edited:
JoeJITSU said:
Thanks Sam. I think I will do that...Thanks everyone. That T4i better not have great lowlight capabilities or I'm buying one and my client will see how small my camera will be. :)
Click to expand...
If the T4i does deliver a clean 3200iso and does away with moire' and aliasing while producing a detailed image, who cares what your client thinks. It's "can I use this on this project" that should matter. ANd when you're done with it, or out grown it, give it to a family member and watch them smile. You should have paid for it over and over if you know what you're doing. With the MK3, I finally feel you can trust a HDLSR on set. Just shot a corporate piece and lots of heads came in. I didn't think twice about wardrobe or wide shots. Are they gonna piss themselves over a hundred lines of resolution, I think not. They will only care if it looks good and delivers the message. Just shot a music video for a Warner Bros pitch. All on MK3. Looks great. Shooting a hotel piece with MK3 and taking half the wattage of lighting with me (from 2k's to 650's, not less light, just less power). Not one of these projects ever asked what camera I'm using. 1 guy asked how I liked it, only because he was thinking about buying one. Probably thinks he can film his own project next time and save money. Good luck.

Sounds like the OP needs more light. A Mk3 or the 2.8? Do you like focusing a 200 at 2.8? It's fine for stills, especially with the MK3's better focusing. But you are "is it this or that". The 70-200 f/4 is a fine lens, and not really super pricey. The MK3 is clean up to crazy ISO's like 2 or 3 stops faster in low light. Plus, it's video is just clean. Does that 2.8 really seem such the advantage now? It's a great lens, but it still needs the camera to use it.

If you need either tomorrow to make the difference, I would go with the MK3. My F2.8's just became my F1.2's in the dark, just easier to hold focus. A picture is only as good as it's focus...
 
dustylense said:
If the T4i does deliver a clean 3200iso and does away with moire' and aliasing while producing a detailed image, who cares what your client thinks. It's "can I use this on this project" that should matter. ANd when you're done with it, or out grown it, give it to a family member and watch them smile. You should have paid for it over and over if you know what you're doing. With the MK3, I finally feel you can trust a HDLSR on set. Just shot a corporate piece and lots of heads came in. I didn't think twice about wardrobe or wide shots. Are they gonna piss themselves over a hundred lines of resolution, I think not. They will only care if it looks good and delivers the message. Just shot a music video for a Warner Bros pitch. All on MK3. Looks great. Shooting a hotel piece with MK3 and taking half the wattage of lighting with me (from 2k's to 650's, not less light, just less power). Not one of these projects ever asked what camera I'm using. 1 guy asked how I liked it, only because he was thinking about buying one. Probably thinks he can film his own project next time and save money. Good luck.

Sounds like the OP needs more light. A Mk3 or the 2.8? Do you like focusing a 200 at 2.8? It's fine for stills, especially with the MK3's better focusing. But you are "is it this or that". The 70-200 f/4 is a fine lens, and not really super pricey. The MK3 is clean up to crazy ISO's like 2 or 3 stops faster in low light. Plus, it's video is just clean. Does that 2.8 really seem such the advantage now? It's a great lens, but it still needs the camera to use it.

If you need either tomorrow to make the difference, I would go with the MK3. My F2.8's just became my F1.2's in the dark, just easier to hold focus. A picture is only as good as it's focus...
Click to expand...

Very well said. That is what my thinking would be today as well.
 
dustylense said:
If the T4i does deliver a clean 3200iso and does away with moire' and aliasing while producing a detailed image, who cares what your client thinks. It's "can I use this on this project" that should matter. ANd when you're done with it, or out grown it, give it to a family member and watch them smile. You should have paid for it over and over if you know what you're doing. With the MK3, I finally feel you can trust a HDLSR on set. Just shot a corporate piece and lots of heads came in. I didn't think twice about wardrobe or wide shots. Are they gonna piss themselves over a hundred lines of resolution, I think not. They will only care if it looks good and delivers the message. Just shot a music video for a Warner Bros pitch. All on MK3. Looks great. Shooting a hotel piece with MK3 and taking half the wattage of lighting with me (from 2k's to 650's, not less light, just less power). Not one of these projects ever asked what camera I'm using. 1 guy asked how I liked it, only because he was thinking about buying one. Probably thinks he can film his own project next time and save money. Good luck.

Sounds like the OP needs more light. A Mk3 or the 2.8? Do you like focusing a 200 at 2.8? It's fine for stills, especially with the MK3's better focusing. But you are "is it this or that". The 70-200 f/4 is a fine lens, and not really super pricey. The MK3 is clean up to crazy ISO's like 2 or 3 stops faster in low light. Plus, it's video is just clean. Does that 2.8 really seem such the advantage now? It's a great lens, but it still needs the camera to use it.

If you need either tomorrow to make the difference, I would go with the MK3. My F2.8's just became my F1.2's in the dark, just easier to hold focus. A picture is only as good as it's focus...
Click to expand...
Thanks Dusty.
I will likely get the MK3 within the next 2 weeks. I will then look for a used 70-200mm f4 lens.
Now, What do you think of the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 vs Canon 70-200mm f4. I know it has different Apertures but they are almost the same priced and just wanted to get your opinions before I get one of them. Thanks
 
the tamron 70-200 is a very nice lens: http://www.steveoakley.net/template_permalink.asp?id=365 http://www.steveoakley.net/template_permalink.asp?id=131 http://www.steveoakley.net/template_permalink.asp?id=383 In terms of sharpness they're very similar: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2 I think I'd get the Tamron for APS-C (because f/4 on APS-C is not shallow enough), and for fullframe (where I think f/4 is shallow enough), I'd have to decide if IS is worth $500 or not
 
Ive only ever owned one off brand lens - a sigma - (70-200) after about 6 months it stopped talking to my nikon

now it sits on the shelf and I bought my nikkon 70-200 VR which has functioned for three years before needing a service (actually I thought that was terrible)

Anyway Ive spend £2k on 70-200 for my nikon - which would have been £1.2k if I just bought the nikon brand in the first place

As for my 70-200F4 canon - I bought it used in 2008 and its still working

buy cheap buy twice?
 
sorry you had such bad luck, but it's a very small sample to draw such broad conclusions - better use something like this: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/lens-repair-data-2011 - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/09/lens-repair-data-4-0 - unless Tamron has updated the design in the last 2 years, the conclusion is not really different: in the sep-2010 article, the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 appears under "The lens has proven so unreliable that we’ve stopped carrying it." - but it's a lens model thing, not a lens maker thing; I would definitely not put all off brand lenses in the same bag; not even all Tamron lenses, or all Sigma lenses
 
Interesting data - generally Im not a fan of AF/IS lenses at all for 'life' but there are no decent 70-200 manuals in the OPs budget AFAIK

I not the canonF4 is most realiable!

S
 
I love the way dusty thinks and agree with pretty much everything he says, here and on other threads.

The only thing I would disagree with here is Morgan's comment about IS. IS makes a HUGE difference when shooting handheld and I'm not sure why you would want to eliminate that as a shooting option through your lens choice. Sure, you can shoot handheld without IS but it's not nearly as fluid, not even close.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top