# Questions on EF 24-70mm II on 5D Mk3 vs EF-S 17-55mm on 7D



## Vigood (Oct 14, 2013)

Hello experts,

I currently shoot dual cameras with both 5D MkIII and 7D and the following zooms that I usually carry around during my sessions:
- EF 16-35mmII
- EF 70-200mm IS II
- EF-S 17-55mm
- EF 35mm 1.4

I currently do not have 24-70mmII. However, I have just pulled the trigger on purchasing the EF 24-70mmII and now contemplating if I am making a wrong move here.

Does anybody know if EF24-70mm on the 5DIII would be better than the EF-S 17-55mm on the 7D? I usually deal with family related photos such as portraits, birthdays, cake smashing events etc. Most of the time, I have good lighting except for several indoor events which off camera flash will take care off.

Should I be returning the EF24-70mmII and just stick with all the lenses that I already have and normally work with? Is there an advantage of using the EF24-70mmII on the 5DIII over the EF-S 17-55mm on the 7D?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## rs (Oct 14, 2013)

There's a huge advantage. The 17-55 on crop is a closer match to the 24-105 on full frame, but the L lens and FF sensor combo captures more light, has a wider zoom range and is sharper. Think of the 24-70 II and 5D3 combo as an optically better, wider zoom range version of the Sigma 18-35/1.8 and 7D.

The same aperture combined with the much improved high ISO of the 5D3 will allow you to get access to action stopping shutter speeds much easier. If shooting moving people, you'd typically want a shutter speed faster than 1/50th of a sec, so IS isn't of much use on that focal length range for that sort of subject anyway. 

I have a 5D2 and 40D with both the lenses you mention - not quite the same camera/sensor line up as you, but the 17-55 doesn't get a look in these days. 

Or to put it another way - it's optically equal to the 70-200 II. If you notice any image quality difference between your 5D3/70-200 II and your 7D/17-55, expect that same step up when moving to the 5D3/24-70 II.


----------



## dswtan (Oct 14, 2013)

Like rs, I'll be amazed if you don't find the 24-70 II on 5d3 far superior in overall image quality - though I'm one of those rare people that did not like the 17-55 on 7D. (I have all these combinations myself; I presume I just have a bad copy of the 17-55.)

But for the shooting scenarios you suggest, you might find you'll miss the IS of the 17-55, and the 24-70 is heavier and more bulky. You may find the 17-55/7D more convenient in practice, plus you even get a little more fps. 

On the other hand, you may find the increased image quality so seductive with the other combo, you'll use it more. In my case, my 7D is gathering dust.


----------



## Eli (Oct 14, 2013)

If I were you, I'd sell the 7d and 17-55 to get a 6d...
You'll see why after you get your 24-70 ii!


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Oct 14, 2013)

In no way it would be a bad move. It is such an amazing combo! 5D 3 and 24-70II go together so well


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 14, 2013)

Vigood said:


> Hello experts,


Please count me out, me no expert ... but I have owned 7D + 17-55 f/2.8 IS and 5d MK III 24-70 f/2.8 L II


Vigood said:


> Does anybody know if EF24-70mm on the 5DIII would be better than the EF-S 17-55mm on the 7D? I usually deal with family related photos such as portraits, birthdays, cake smashing events etc. Most of the time, I have good lighting except for several indoor events which off camera flash will take care off.
> 
> Should I be returning the EF24-70mmII and just stick with all the lenses that I already have and normally work with? Is there an advantage of using the EF24-70mmII on the 5DIII over the EF-S 17-55mm on the 7D?
> 
> Thanks in advance!


The 24-70 f/2.8 L II is sharp even at f/2.8 ... which is something my copy of 17-55 f/2.8 IS was not.
There is a big difference in color, contrast & sharpness between EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II on the 5DIII over the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 L IS ... the 24-70mm f/2.8 L II on the 5D MK III comes out tops by a long margin. I sold my 7D + 17-55 f/2.8 IS in favor of 24-70mm f/2.8 L II on the 5D MK III and have never regretted it (except when my 24-70 L II was stolen :'(). 
I know that plunging over $2000 on a lens always gives many jittery moments of "have I made the right decision" ... fear not ... you made a great decision to *invest* in the 24-70 f/2.8 L II ... it will serve you well and impress you every time.


----------



## vbi (Oct 14, 2013)

I sincerely doubt if you can get a better camera/lens combination than the 5D3/24-70II or the 5D3/70-200II. The detail, sharpness, contrast and colour are in another league. In my experience the 7D simply cannot capture the detail of the 5D2/5D3, so if you are looking for more detail that is your starting point.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 14, 2013)

Vigood said:


> Does anybody know if EF24-70mm on the 5DIII would be better than the EF-S 17-55mm on the 7D?



If I had a nickel for everyone who claimed they were reluctant to go FF because there's no EF equivalent of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS...

The real FF equivalent of the EF-S 17-55mm is a hypothetical 27-88mm f/4.5 lens...the 24-105L is wider, longer, and faster in terms of DoF for the same framing. The FF sensor gives 1.5-2 stop less ISO noise. And that's the 24-105, which is not as good a lens as the 24-70/2.8 II.

Bottom line, the 24-70/2.8L II on a 5DIII will be leaps and bounds ahead of the 17-55 on the 7D. You made the right choice...and I'd go so far as to suggest that you sell the 17-55mm lens (at least, that's what I did...).


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 14, 2013)

Vigood said:


> Hello experts,
> 
> I currently shoot dual cameras with both 5D MkIII and 7D and the following zooms that I usually carry around during my sessions:
> - EF 16-35mmII
> ...



DO NOT return 24-70 II. It's a kick ass lens with 5D III or 1D X.

+1 with Rienzphotoz comments.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 14, 2013)

I can speak on this topic from experience.

I *used* to use a 17-55/60D combo at certain social events. While I loved it in reception-style settings (where I often had an external flash like the 580EX II), I was often disappointed with the results when I used available light (ex. a well-lit room). They would often be noisy and lacking detail, even when I opened up all the way to 2.8. It was far better than the Tamron 17-50 I was using with it before, however.

Fast forward to this year, when I sold the 60D after acquiring a 5D3 late last year, and therefore had to give up the 17-55. I replaced it with - you guessed it - the 24-70 II. After using both combos in similar situations, here are my thoughts:

- My keeper rate was generally higher with the 17-55/60D, primarily due to the IS.

- However, (generally speaking) the quality of the 24-70II/5D3 is *significantly* better than what I was getting out of the 60D. This is even after accounting for the higher ISOs I often have to use to get shutter speeds fast enough to prevent blur in the absence of IS (which surprised me). 

- I find that in general, I'm happier with what I'm getting out of the 24-70 II/5D3, even if my hit rate is somewhat lower (I take more shots to compensate). The pictures are not only sharper and cleaner, but the background blur when shooting at 2.8 is sometimes "Wow". Sometimes I miss the IS, but honestly, I don't think I would ever go back to using a crop camera when shooting these types of events. This is where FF cameras really shine, to me. 

ETA: Another note...24mm on the 5D3 is noticeably wider in my experience than 17mm is on 60D/7D.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 14, 2013)

Speaking from experience, a 24-70 Mark 1 on a 5Dmark2 gives better images than a 17-55 on a 60D. 

The 7D and the 60D are about the same for image quality... but the 5D3 is better than the 5D2 and the 24-70mark2 is better than the mark1, so the 5D3 and 24-70mark2 combo MUST be better than the 7D and 17-55 combo.

While there are conditions where a crop camera will out-reach a FF camera on distant objects, when it comes to normal and wide angles FF is superior across the board. Enjoy your new lens when it comes, and don't forget to post some pictures!


----------



## Vigood (Oct 14, 2013)

Ok thanks all for the responses. The consensus appears to be to get rid of the EF-S 17-55mm and even 7D altogether and get another FF body. I shall look into this path. 

Once again thanks again!


----------



## Triggyman (Oct 14, 2013)

I used to have a 7D and a 17-55mm IS and just recently purchased a 24-70mm II.

I've never gotten over the huge improvement I have seen in the quality of the shots taken by a 5Dm3 with a 24-70mm II, and I used a 24-105mm for more than a year with the 5D.

I've looked back and compared out-of-camera JPEGS and processed RAW's between the 7D and 5D with the mentioned lenses, and I'm very very satisfied of the output the 5D and 24-70 II produces over the 7D and 17-55mm. 

In my humble opinion, you didn't make a mistake.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 15, 2013)

The 24-70 is very good, but its not wide enough for a crop body, so you still need a wide lens.

I'd watch for a deal on a FF body to go with your new lens.


----------



## serendipidy (Oct 15, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The 24-70 is very good, but its not wide enough for a crop body, so you still need a wide lens.
> 
> I'd watch for a deal on a FF body to go with your new lens.



I think he already has the 5D3.


----------



## Vigood (Oct 15, 2013)

serendipidy said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The 24-70 is very good, but its not wide enough for a crop body, so you still need a wide lens.
> ...



Yes that is correct that I have already have the 5D3. But I will be monitoring a deal for a 6D to replace the 7D or even if I am lucky another 5DIII perhaps...


----------



## bholliman (Oct 15, 2013)

The 7D is a great camera and the EF-S 17-55 2.8 is an excellent lens, but are not in the same league as the 5D3/24-70 2.8 II combo for image quality. I owned a 7D until recently and borrowed my brothers 17-55 many times. I loved the combination, but my 6D with 24-70 II is much, much better.

I seldom used my 7D after buying a 6D, but when I did it was always for sporting events with a telephoto lens mounted. I used my 6D for all normal and wide angle photography. If your experience and use is similar to mine you may feel you can sell the 17-55 and not miss it.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Oct 15, 2013)

Vigood said:


> Is there an advantage of using the EF24-70mmII on the 5DIII over the EF-S 17-55mm on the 7D?



I wish someone would come out and be the devil's advocate, and there would be an interesting FF vs APS-C war. Unfortunately, everyone is (accurately) toe-ing the line that there's no competition between the combinations.



bholliman said:


> The 7D is a great camera and the EF-S 17-55 2.8 is an excellent lens, but are not in the same league as the 5D3/24-70 2.8 II combo for image quality.



+1. And I think that has more to do with the difference between 5DIII vs 7D rather than 24-70II vs 17-55. Even the 24-105 on a 5DIII is far, far better than the 17-55 on 7D (and IME the 17-55 is a much better performer than the 24-105 on the same body for overlapping focal lengths and the same aperture).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 15, 2013)

sagittariansrock said:


> I wish someone would come out and be the devil's advocate, and there would be an interesting FF vs APS-C war. Unfortunately, everyone is (accurately) toe-ing the line that there's no competition between the combinations.



Well, no one has mentioned that the 7D + EF-S 17-55mm has one thing going for it - you could buy that combo for about 40% of the cost of the 5DIII + 24-70/2.8L II.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 15, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > I wish someone would come out and be the devil's advocate, and there would be an interesting FF vs APS-C war. Unfortunately, everyone is (accurately) toe-ing the line that there's no competition between the combinations.
> ...



I think FF won the war. With a 24-70 II on a FF camera the 7D didn't stand much of a chance. 
Also they would be arguing about a 4 year old camera that is over due for replacement. 
I suppose we will have to wait for a 7D II before we can renew the pixel density vs FF debate.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 15, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> I think FF won the war.



It wins the war if you can afford it (or if like the US Government, you're willing to run up a deficit for a war you can't afford). The only real advantage of APS-C is lower cost...but that can be a significant advantage.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 15, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The only real advantage of APS-C is lower cost...



If you can't start a debate war with that statement, all of the fighting must be over.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 15, 2013)

sagittariansrock said:


> I wish someone would come out and be the devil's advocate, and there would be an interesting FF vs APS-C war. Unfortunately, everyone is (accurately) toe-ing the line that there's no competition between the combinations.


Even to be a "devils advocate" there should be some merit in the case (and case was about the *quality* of 7D+17-55 vs 5D III + 24-70 L II) ... we cannot be idiotic just for the sake of argument to support something we know isn't a fact ... so the question of "toe-ing the line" does not even arise.


----------



## gbchriste (Oct 15, 2013)

I've never owned the 17-55 but am a fairly recent owner of the 5D3/24-70MII combo. All I can say is "Holy crap this is a great combination!!!!"


----------



## David_in_Seattle (Oct 15, 2013)

Vigood said:


> Hello experts,
> 
> I currently shoot dual cameras with both 5D MkIII and 7D and the following zooms that I usually carry around during my sessions:
> - EF 16-35mmII
> ...



I have both lenses (17-55 f2.8 IS and 24-70 f2.8 v2). Based on the info you provided here's my advice:

1) Why would you use the 24-70 v2 on the 7D when you already have a 5dmk3? The 24-70's distinct advantages will be more apparent on a FF body because f2.8 on a cropped body is about the equivalent of f4 on a FF so you won't see a benefit in terms of depth of field and bokeh.

2) If you're not using the 17-55 for video then I recommend selling it. The 24-70 v2 is optically superior in just about every noticeable way. Even though it's not an IS lens, the 5Dmk3's ISO is at least 2 stops better than the 7D so you can always crank up the ISO and still have a better image than the 17-55.

Just my two cents,


----------



## Vigood (Oct 16, 2013)

David_in_Seattle said:


> I have both lenses (17-55 f2.8 IS and 24-70 f2.8 v2). Based on the info you provided here's my advice:
> 
> 1) Why would you use the 24-70 v2 on the 7D when you already have a 5dmk3? The 24-70's distinct advantages will be more apparent on a FF body because f2.8 on a cropped body is about the equivalent of f4 on a FF so you won't see a benefit in terms of depth of field and bokeh.
> 
> ...



1. I will not be using the 24-70mm on the 7D. The comparison is between 24-70mm/5DIII or 17-55mm/7D. I was contemplating if I should keep the 24-70mm to use with 5DIII or perhaps I can get the same kind of result with 17-55mm/7D.

2. That is indeed the consensus which is to sell the 17-55mm. I have put it up for sale since I do not really do video.

Thanks again for all of the helps!


----------



## Pi (Oct 16, 2013)

In addition to everything said, the 5D cameras have better colors than the 7D (different CFA filters), and take visibly cleaner images even at base ISO.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Oct 16, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > I wish someone would come out and be the devil's advocate, and there would be an interesting FF vs APS-C war. Unfortunately, everyone is (accurately) toe-ing the line that there's no competition between the combinations.
> ...



Clearly, irony is lost on you...


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 16, 2013)

sagittariansrock said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...


Clearly speculation is your forte...


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 16, 2013)

It's not even comparable. The images from the FF combo will make the 7D combo look like its broken.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Oct 17, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



What did I speculate?
Hundreds of posts on these forums have been consumed by idiotic discussions of FF vs APS-C initiated by people posting just for the sake of argument. I pointed out that everyone in this case was being *accurate* in pointing out there is no competition between the 5DIII/24-70 vs 7D/17-55, which is a rare sight. The fact that this is also my own view, is clearly reflected in the second paragraph of my original comment, which you neglected to quote. 
I was being ironic in stating I wish there was someone going against the tide and providing some forum-fight. Now, where is the speculation?
I believe you completely misunderstood my post and missed the irony, and compounded that error by making this last meaningless comment.
I don't like unnecessary unpleasantness on anonymous forums, so I'd stop here. But please refrain from commenting if you don't understand what is being said.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 17, 2013)

Full frame? Full frame of what? What is medium or large format then? Do folks mean the 135/leica/minature format?

I've looked into my crystal ball, and yep, the spirits are telling me that a much more expensive much more recently designed camera and lens combo will be better than the older, substantially cheaper combo.

I nearly fell off my chair.

I bet all the 5D3 + 24-70 f2.8II owners are really delighted with that revelation.

I asked the spirits about the law of diminishing returns and about kit versus ability / technique, they said 'get the light right' and 'get out with your camera more'.

There is a 7D thread on here for pics taken only with a 7D and it demonstrates perfectly what an obselete peice of embarrassing junk the 7D is. Canon actually wrote to me and asked me to file their brand logo off of the flash top.

I can only look with green eyed envy at the 5D3 users, for whom every image is a peach, to the point where I often see folk buying a 5D3 and instantly becoming wedding photographers, no tuition or anything required.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 17, 2013)

sagittariansrock said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...


I commented on your last line i.e. "_Clearly, irony is lost on you_" ... but you obviously didn't get it and are still speculating about why there wasn't any "_forum-fight_" about EF 24-70mm II on 5D Mk3 vs EF-S 17-55mm on 7D when "_Hundreds of posts on these forums have been consumed by idiotic discussions of FF vs APS-C initiated by people posting just for the sake of argument_" : etc etc ... so take your own advice and "_please refrain from commenting if you don't understand what is being said_". Meanwhile you should be happy coz your wish is granted i.e. "_providing some forum-fight_"  Peace


----------



## M.ST (Oct 17, 2013)

There is no doubt: Get the 24-70 2.8 II and you never regret it.

1. Most EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS lenses are really good, but non of them can reach the IQ of the 24-70 2.8 II. At f/2.8 and over f/11 the 24-70 2.8 II totally outperforms the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS.

2. Don´t compare old APS-C cameras with new FF cameras


----------



## hwoarang5 (Oct 17, 2013)

im lazy to read any other personal rant or insults.. just wanna share, i have both the set up(almost) mention above..

im a wedding photographers and i started with a crop set up, efs 17-55 F2.8 + 550d + 85mm f1.8 , then move on to upgrade a 5d mkiii + ef 24-70mm f2.8, even tested the tamron 24-70mm f2.8 vc head to head review before selling it...

and im using them on different purposes, 24-70MMii + mark III has the best of canon has to offer for wide aperture zoom that has amazing image quality and sharpness.... best investment i made... but it get sucky when u shoot video or shooting close distant subject .eg... a ring or wedding details at close to its MFD... (now im using an electronic extension hood + manual focus, more reliable)

while efs 17-55mm f2.8 has one of the best IS enable zoom for video and close distance shot.... 

fyi though canon stock firmware is ****** up, i use magic lantern on my crop body for extra features depends on.. 

but in the end i sold off my efs 17-55, and got myself a 135mm F2... and planning to get a 10-22mm for video use on the crop... 


ps: tamron 24-70mm f2.8 vc actually has best of both world, sharp image, and IS for video, not to mention sharp close distance shooting.. but its suck at QC , i change 3 units to finally get one that has no QC issue.. decide to sell it off ,


----------



## alexturton (Oct 19, 2013)

f2.8 is f2.8 irrespective of FF vs crop.

However, 5d3 will preserve higher a higher bit-rate and preserve more detail in shots ALWAYS than a 7d, particularly at higher ISOs so 24-70 +5d3 will always be better than 7d + 17-55. The only exeception is if and when you need IS (like video) when the IS of the 17-55 would be better. I personally have never found the colour rendition on the 17-55 to be great where as the 24-70 ii is fantastic.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 19, 2013)

alexturton said:


> f2.8 is f2.8 irrespective of FF vs crop.



True, because the f/number is a property intrinsic to the lens. However, if you frame a shot identically on APS-C and FF with the same focal length lens, you'd need an f/1.8 lens on APS-C to match the DoF of f/2.8 on FF. Not a lots of options in the f/1.8 zoom lens category...


----------



## Terry Rogers (Oct 20, 2013)

Eli said:


> If I were you, I'd sell the 7d and 17-55 to get a 6d...
> You'll see why after you get your 24-70 ii!



+1


----------



## thfifthcrouch (Oct 20, 2013)

Actually there is a 1.8f-stop zoom for crop frame cameras. The new sigma 18-35mm and I have seen some sample images and it seems nothing short of amazing. At least to me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 20, 2013)

thfifthcrouch said:


> Actually there is a 1.8f-stop zoom for crop frame cameras. The new sigma 18-35mm and I have seen some sample images and it seems nothing short of amazing. At least to me.



Yes, that's why I stated, "Not a lot of options," as opposed to, "No options."


----------



## Vigood (Nov 6, 2013)

After playing with the EF24-70II with 5D3 and EF-S17-55 with 7D, I am completely convinced to sell my EF-S17-55mm. I found out that I am not missing the IS feature and although EF-S17-55 produces sharp images, the images taken by EF24-70II+5D3 pleases my wife more than the EF-S17-55+7D. I gave her multiple image comparisons without letting her know which one is taken by which set and out of 14 pair images, she selected 12 pairs from the 5D+24-70II. She claims that the "images appear livelier"


----------



## super mario (Nov 7, 2013)

Keep the 7D, sell the 17-55/2.8 IS and buy Sigma 18-35/1.8. That Sigma is as sharp or sharper than most Canon L primes. Definitelly at the same level with the Canon 24-70/2.8 II.


----------



## shashinkaman (Nov 7, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Full frame? Full frame of what? What is medium or large format then? Do folks mean the 135/leica/minature format?
> 
> I've looked into my crystal ball, and yep, the spirits are telling me that a much more expensive much more recently designed camera and lens combo will be better than the older, substantially cheaper combo.
> 
> ...



BRILLIANT!!  ;D :'(


----------



## Pi (Nov 7, 2013)

shashinkaman said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > Full frame? Full frame of what? What is medium or large format then? Do folks mean the 135/leica/minature format?



I like big sensors, but 135mm would be too big even for me. I will stick with FF.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 7, 2013)

If image quality for photos is the only criteria, 24-70II wins easily - but consider the other PROs and CONs.

17-55mm f/2.8 IS PROs:
-Lighter & smaller; even moreso as it is mounted to a crop camera which will be lighter and smaller than FF.
-Image stabilization: can help camera shake in low light, also good for videos
-Good travel lens/non-critical tasks... There may be times you don't want to take $5000+ worth of equipment out with you
-Overall good image quality
-Economical
-More common 77mm filter thread

17-55mm f/2.8 IS CONs:
-Comparatively, image quality no match for 24-70 II. Will be more noise and less detail.
-24-70 II on FF will give you more DOF options to isolate subject moreso than the 17-55
-Build quality not as good as 24-70 II
-No weatherproofing

***

24-70 f/2.8 II PROs:
-Fantastic image quality on all fronts, blows away 17-55 on crop
-Great build quality
-Highly resistant to dust and water

24-70 f/2.8 II CONs:
-Lacks image stabilization, may require more skill/effort to get good shots, not as good for video
-Heavier/bigger
-Expensive, if not overpriced
-Larger 82mm filter thread, though this is one reason the image quality is better

***

So, if image quality is paramount, the 24-70 II wins easily. But there are other factors too as outlined above, which may make it worthwhile to keep both. If I were just out casually snapping photos, I might pick the 17-55. If I was doing something professionally-related, I'd probably go for the 24-70 II.


----------



## VelocideX (Nov 7, 2013)

I had a 600D / 17-55 and upgraded to a 5D3 / 24-105 and 24-70 II.

The 24-70 II blows the 17-55 away.


It is much sharper. f/2.8 is outrageously sharp
I find the colours much more appealing. The saturation is much higher, almost so much that I have to desaturate photos sometimes. On the 17-55 I was usually adding vibrance +10 to 20 and saturation +5 to 10. 
Extra (ie reduced) DOF (about 1 and 1/3 stops) is great
I find the bokeh more pleasing

I find the 24-105 to be better than the 17-55, but the 24-70 kills both of them hands down.

I do with the 24-70 II had IS, but for capturing social events etc I can still shoot at ISO 25,600 and f/2.8 and produce OK (but not great photos).
ISO 12,800 and f/2.8 is fine so long as the exposure is right.


----------



## candc (Nov 7, 2013)

i am a believer in going one format or the other, if you already have that stuff get the 24-70ii and ditch the aps-c gear.


----------

