Canon 5D Mark III
 

Should I get just the body or pay the extra for the lens? What would you do and why?

Right now I have a couple 18-55, 55-250 and Sigma 18-200's The kit comes with a 24-105

start bidding on this one.

http://www.bva-auctions.com/auction/lot/4770/2186453

will go cheap

Link?678

There's quite a bit of difference between 500D and 5D @grumpy

none of above lenses will work with full frame sensor.

24-105 is good tho :thumbsup

noticed that later :(

Obviously you're stoned.

baddog...

I'm about to shoot my last photo set of the day. I'll give you a call in a few minutes.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...alSe arch=yes


I am stepping out, back in 30-45

Those lenses that you have are not great at all...
Better safe for good lens.
It's really make different in quality.
I would chose 24-70 2.8 over 24-105 and to add 70-200

the 24-105 is a decent lens and constant stop f4 is a bit better than the glass you are using

I think he's right. From what I can tell:

The Sigma 18-200mm DC is for a smaller sensor and will vignette on a full frame.

The 18-55 and 55-200mm EF-S Canon lenses won't even attach to a full frame mount.

Skip the lens and invest in some primes.

buy the kit and ebay the lens. It's stupid to not take advantage of the lens discount with the kit.

Would that canon 1.4 50mm prime work well with this cam?

I bought the kit with the 24-105 f4.0 and it's a nice lens but i also use the 24-70 f2.8

The 24-105 is nice when shooting video with the image stabilizer. The 70-200 is an amazing lens and that's the next thing on my list.

I also bought the 600EX Flash which does a nice job when using the Gary Fong Lightsphere.

Yeah, that's a decent lens. Works great on a full frame camera. It's actually the APS-C sensor cameras this lens doesn't work favorably with because it ends up being an effective 85mm which is too tight for most situations...

I have this 1.4 and the cheaper 1.8... Good lenses... Has worked really well for our movie.

You'll have to ditch all your other lenses...
And honestly, your existing lenses aren't anything special anyways..
Use the 24-105 for a few months until the new 24-70 II comes out (July, $2400).
The 24-105 is considered an 'adequate' lens... Nothing special, but not bad either..

Otherwise, just buy the 17-55 2.8 for your existing camera.... It to will make a significant difference..
If you're not taking professional photos, you're not gaining *too* much with the 5d III...

The 1.8 is really lacking in the build quality department. I also can't stand the motor noise from it. When I upgraded to the 24-70, it became clear to me what I was missing. LOL

I've been curious about the 1.2. That's what I'd buy now if I had a need for primes, but I haven't been shooting anything in quite a while so I'm not really buying any new gear...

Exactly... Personally, if I were Baddog... I wouldn't spend the money on new bodies. These lenses get him by, but there are other aspects of shooting that need to be prioritized before a gear upgrade will lend to an improvement in quality.

Summary: Learn exposure!

As we all know he is not exactly the brightest person here.

You've got a 450D haven't you?

I'd recommend a 60D and spend the left over cash on a couple of L series lenses.

Going from consumer to pro body with cheap glass like sigma is doing it wrong.

aps lenses on full frame body?

Interesting but...


When was the last time you saw a picture and said great except if only it had been taken with a better lens?

maybe you could post an example of a great picture ruined because it was taken with a poor quality lens.

No one is saying that.

The point is, if you are going to drop $3k on photography kit and currently own a $300 camera, your money would be better spent on glass than a 5D mk III.

That's the last camera I'd spend my money on, but I'm more interested in video. 5D Mk3 is a huge letdown in that department.

I would invest in better glass myself.

if money is not an issue buy also better glass

but even we consider the 5D for what we are doing a waste, the 60D is fine

I think for taking pictures of people at shows nothing more than a really nice point and shoot is necessary.

2 days ago, I used the 24-120 f4 about $1300 but still considered a pro lens and then I switched to the 24-70 2.8 $2000 and shot a set in the same location whit the same model... MAJOR difference in color rendition and ambient light in the set as well as skin tone. :2 cents:

So why don't you SHOW us?

I have eyes and I want to see a photograph that is no good because of the lens.

Again, no one is saying that. People that own pro glass are saying it produces better results that shit cheap glass.

If you think sigma lenses are good enough for you, cool.

I know what people are saying. That some lenses produce better pictures than others.
Pictures are looked at. They are visual. We do not have to rely on descriptions, we could judge for ourselves.

This would be very interesting.

A lens is always the result of compromise, a expensive f1.4 lens will be more difficult to design then a f2.8 lens, a zoom lens will have many elements and may have poorer resolution. But f2.8 lenses may be excellent.

There are so many other factors involved in a photograph that have a far bigger effect on the quality and look of the picture than the lens.

The most important is basic exposure and focus.

If you like I will post pictures taken with Sigma and Nikon lenses and you can tell me which is which?

When i just started, i had a nikon d70, and tamron lens, when i tried Nikon 17-55 2.8 my quality improved a LOT.
I sold this tamron lens, and never looked back on those...

Not everybody see the different.
For example, there is a canon 85mm 1.2, it's a prime, cost around 2000$ and it's very slow and heavy.
I heard many say: " this is bulshit to pay that much for that lens, when you can get a cheap 85mm 1.8)
But, i can see such a huge different in image quality, this why i will pay way $$$ for more slow and more heavy lens.

It is a T1i and you are the only person I recall saying anything negative about Sigma glass.

I have but as I do not own the glass I can not show examples. But after storm chasing with my uncle that had some really nice glass I was quite disappointed when he bailed before I got a Chance to play with his stuff.

I will have to find a video I saw that compared the Mark II vs the III. After watching it I have to wonder what you did not like. The III works great in low light which is why I was considering it.

I think it's like horsepower in a sense, that the higher you go up the more you need to spend for only a 2-3% performance increase. ie: Adding 50hp to a 130hp car is a huge difference, but 100hp added to a 500hp car wouldn't be nearly as noticeable. So it's just deciding what's good enough for your own application and finances. If you feel you're really going to use that extra few % for a few thousand dollars, then by all means enjoy it. Or, you may decide that saving your money and living with 97% of the possible performance is a better choice.

You can find loads of sites with comparisons of the results of lenses. Nt sure what the Nikon equiv of lseries is, but if you have that the we would all be able to tell the difference that and a sigma.

Oh right, the year later than I guessed. Not bad memory!

It's really good, for budget glass.

But the point everyone is making is that to go from a $300 to a $3000 body is a hell of a jump and you might find if you spend that same money on one good l series lens and a 60D body instead you'd get more bang for your buck. You could also then still use your cheaper lenses if you wanted.

The point is that a 3% increase in quality is not notice if poor exposure knocked off 20% of quality.

Back in the day all my friends were keen photographers and had Nikons and Pentaxs when I went to Eastern Europe and met professional photographers who had to work with Zeniths and Zorkis, also with East German black and white and colour stocks.

Their photography was better, because they were photographers and not consumers.

I would never buy a kit with a lens. My person opinion.

And no one is arguing against that, no matter how hard you try to pretend they are.

Then logic would say, improve the quality of your photography and say thousands of pounds on unnecessary equipment.

It is a shame that people want to talk about photography and not show it...

Aforementioned video

i am not a photographer, but doesnt that also depend a lot on the lens?

Yes.

Same as anything really.

But it is easier to get good results with better kit.

As the OP wanted to invest in his camera kit, I - and everyone else - is suggesting he spend some money on a lens and a better body, rather than drop it all on an amazing body, and fit it with budget glass.

The 24-70 2.8 is the lens I've been using for almost 5 years now. My Canon 5D came with the 24-120 f4 but I didn't like it. Obviously it wasn't good for low lighting situations. But the 24-70 2.8 is great for low and good lighting.

I've had my new 5D Mark III on order for a few weeks now, and I'm gonna use my 24-70 2.8 lens on it.
I got my 5D back in 2007 so I guess it's time to finally move on up! Plus I can shoot some of that "art" footage. lol

If you want easy go amateur.

These cameras are only needed with good knowledge of photography.

I don't think anyone could tell the difference between budget glass and not. A cheaper lens may well be better quality because it is darker. If as most here use flash it would be a much better option.

The is a massive disconnect between the level of the cameras and lenses talked about here and the photography produced.

I agree and the 60d is a pretty amazing camera