# 5D3 or 5D2 + an L Lens



## killswitch (Dec 2, 2012)

I recently got a deal on 5D3 and bought one. Coming from a 60D this is has been a huge jump for me. I am no professional and consider myself a hobbyist. The only paid work I can think of is that from time to time some photos I have in flickr get noticed by Getty Images and are offered for sale on their site.

Anyways, I love the 5D3 and it is just freakin fun to shoot with. Coming from a 60D, i was used to the focus recompose method but loving the 61 points on the 5D3 to play with. Having said that, at times I felt the 5D3 is probably an overkill for someone like me. Perhaps a 5D2 made sense cost wise. That way I could get myself a 70-200 f2.8 IS (version 1 or 2) from Canon or the new one from Tamron (after some reviews are out).

I still have the 60D as my wife uses that body, and we share lenses. Right now I have a 24-70L, 50mm 1.8, (selling the Tokina 11-16). If I keep the 5D3, I plan to eventually get the 16-35 II or one of the 70-200 but that may take sometime to save up. Question is, should i stick with 5d3 or go with the 5d+another L lens route? Its a question probably I will know the answer to but I guess I am looking to find out how others would have dealt with the situation.

Note: Do I need the second L lens right now? Well, if 60D has the 24-70 on it and is used by my wife, I will be using and needing a body for myself and a 2nd lens. I dont use 50mm at all, but we swap lenses when required.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 3, 2012)

Why 16-35 II? why not 17-40mm if you plan to do landscape from f8 - f11. I'm not happy with my 16-35 II - this is not a WOW lens from Canon.

Besides the 61pts focus, 5D III has the best center AF(dual-cross). It's much more precise for low light shooting.


----------



## Halfrack (Dec 3, 2012)

Keep the 5d3. Even the kit lens for the 60d will be ok, if you want 2 zooms. Ditto the 17-40f4, it'll be fine with the high ISO on the 5d3.

Better question, what about the 50f1.8 do you not like? It's not ideal, but if it's the build/sharpness/?? you may want to trade it in on a 40/2.8 "shorty 40".


----------



## RC (Dec 3, 2012)

Keep the 5D3, I'm betting you will regret it if you give it up. If both you and your wife are frequently shooting together, why not a 24-105 first to avoid swapping lens? Then you can acquire specialty lens that you can share. 

Hmmm, wish my wife was into photog so I could justify buying more gear. Second thought, maybe not, then she would know how much I'm spending. :


----------



## AudioGlenn (Dec 3, 2012)

+1 for keeping the 5dmk3. for the times when you need the speed or AF. I think you'll regret the trade off when you come across the occasion when you need the features. 

I like the idea of getting a 17-40 or a 24-105 to compliment your lens collection...but leaning more towards the 17-40. If you're looking at primes, i suggest you try out a 35L as well. It's one of my favorites.


----------



## StepBack (Dec 3, 2012)

Get the 1DX or wait for the 46MP.


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 3, 2012)

Just keep the 5D3. You've already invested in it. You'll lose some money if you are to sell it again. Maybe, you should give your wife a Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 VC/non-VC so you get to keep the 24-70. The Tamron 17-50 is comparable to Canon 17-55 albeit not as good. It's also a much cheaper solution. You can also get an UWA (17-40 or 16-35) later on.


----------



## killswitch (Dec 3, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Why 16-35 II? why not 17-40mm if you plan to do landscape from f8 - f11. I'm not happy with my 16-35 II - this is not a WOW lens from Canon.



I initially wanted to go for the 17-40, but the vignetting seemed quite a lot on a FF camera compared to the 16-35 II. Curious, how come you are not happy with your 16-35 II ? Also, I was looking at my catalog in LR, and most of my wide shots are shot at the widest focal length I had in my bag (Tokina 11-16mm). I seem to like that extra FOV =/ The sunstars are better in 16-35 II but the flare is better controlled in 17-40. Grr.



Halfrack said:


> Better question, what about the 50f1.8 do you not like? It's not ideal, but if it's the build/sharpness/?? you may want to trade it in on a 40/2.8 "shorty 40".



The build quality is one, but I mainly dont like it's focus hunting problem. It hesitates to lock on instantly like the other lens in the same setting.



RC said:


> Hmmm, wish my wife was into photog so I could justify buying more gear. Second thought, maybe not, then she would know how much I'm spending. :



Hehe, I hear ya.

Thanks folks. I will be keeping the 5D3. You are right, I may end up regretting plus may end up loosing more cash in the process if I had tried to sell it off. So the general consensus is the 17-40 it seems. Think its a good idea to rent both of these and see which one I like better? The only thing confusing me is how much field of view am I losing with the 17mm over the 16mm. Is it significant?


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 4, 2012)

killswitch said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Why 16-35 II? why not 17-40mm if you plan to do landscape from f8 - f11. I'm not happy with my 16-35 II - this is not a WOW lens from Canon.
> ...



Maybe because flare isn't easily controlled especially if your subject happens to be near the source of light. Vignetting however can be minimized with lens corrections.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 4, 2012)

killswitch said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Why 16-35 II? why not 17-40mm if you plan to do landscape from f8 - f11. I'm not happy with my 16-35 II - this is not a WOW lens from Canon.
> ...



At f2.8, the sharpness is not that good. Compared to Nikon 14-24, their f2.8 is sharpner than mine at f5.6.


----------



## Danielle (Dec 4, 2012)

Yep, you'll regret ditching the 5d3.

A 17-40 would be ok I'm sure. Or just save up for a little, there could be specials at Christmas.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 12, 2012)

OR - get the 16-35mm ver 1. Still a great lens. Not too heavy and 77mm vs the 82mm of the ver 2.


----------

