# 1Dx or lenses



## photokid (Nov 22, 2012)

Hi think I may go the lens route, but thought I'd check what you guys would do

Currently have 5D3, 8-15L, 35L, 50L 100L 70-200L II I have a couple of EX 600’s and the radio trigger.

I want to keep the FE although I don't use it much I love what it can create, colours, sharpness everything.

35L I'm not loving it, I like it, but don't love it, but since getting the 50L I'm using it way less, and i love the 50, keeping the 100L macro, much the same as the 8-15L it's Greta when I need it, and the 70-200 is a keeper too.

So do I get the 1Dx? Had a shot and love it, but it only has for me a few nice to have advantages, mainly better AF and FP/s better spot metering, all of which I would like, but can live without.

I have the budget to get this if I sell the 5D3.

Or 3 lenses.

24L love the look of the images I'm seeing from this lens, especially for environmental portraits, and the odd landscape.

85L had it before, but it was frustrating on the 5D2 I've heard it's much better on the 5D3 I'd mostly use it f/2 or wider. When I look back at the keepers I have with this lens that I love the images, but it was too inconsistent on the 5d2.

135L again I've had this before, on a 30D but it wasn't great, but I love the look on FF and I'm better fotog now that's I was then.

If I go for the lens option it means selling my 35L

What would you guys do?

Here is an example of my personal pics http://500px.com/AfterImagePhotography I get paid for a little work, but less than 1000gbp per year, so mainly for hobby stuff. I prefer to do most of my images in camera, I can PP and do it well, but I prefer not to, I'm more of an overall image guy than a pixel peeper

Thanks


----------



## Chris_prophotographic (Nov 22, 2012)

Photokid i wanna be you


----------



## Chris_prophotographic (Nov 22, 2012)

And yes the 1DX is one of the best but its MUCH bigger than a 5D (obviously).


----------



## bdunbar79 (Nov 22, 2012)

I'd get a 1DX. Oh wait, I already did.


----------



## expatinasia (Nov 23, 2012)

I think you have enough glass, so in reply to your question I would recommend getting the 1DX.

BUT, I would actually suggest you wait until early 2013 to see what announcements are coming. You will have seen on this site the rumours of the 7D II and a new Big MP camera. If there is no rush, I would definitely wait to see what Canon has up its sleeve.


----------



## photokid (Nov 23, 2012)

Chris_prophotographic said:


> Photokid i wanna be you



????

As for the other replies, thank you, but you surprise me, I was sure you guys would mostly recommend the new lenses, can I ask you why you suggested the camera and not more lenses?

FWIW I want to do more portraits, you think the lenses I've got are enough?

I will probably buy them at some point, I originally decided on the camera, but then talked myself out of it in favour of the glass, I only had a quick shot of a friends, but right away I could tell it was better than the 5 , but is it really that much better.


----------



## curtisnull (Nov 23, 2012)

I have both the 1Dx and the 5D3. The biggest difference between them in my opinion is speed. If you do sports stuff, get the 1Dx. If not, 5D3 is a great camera.


----------



## rpt (Nov 23, 2012)

photokid said:


> As for the other replies, thank you, but you surprise me, I was sure you guys would mostly recommend the new lenses, can I ask you why you suggested the camera and not more lenses?
> 
> FWIW I want to do more portraits, you think the lenses I've got are enough?
> 
> I will probably buy them at some point, I originally decided on the camera, but then talked myself out of it in favour of the glass, I only had a quick shot of a friends, but right away I could tell it was better than the 5 , but is it really that much better.


So what shots are you missing? If you aren't missing any, I'd get glass! There is always going to be a newer better camera. If you want to do more portraits, get a 135 mm lens unless you are going to shoot your portraits with the 70-200 or the 100L. Quite frankly your lenses are also quite sufficient. That is my opinion


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2012)

expatinasia said:


> I think you have enough glass



*I don't understand this conecpt. *


----------



## Zlatko (Nov 23, 2012)

photokid said:


> Currently have 5D3, 8-15L, 35L, 50L 100L 70-200L II I have a couple of EX 600’s and the radio trigger.


You already have a great camera for the photography that you do. It has excellent AF, IQ, etc., etc. The 1DX would offer very little advantage, and has some substantial disadvantages (size, weight, price). As far as I can tell, the key advantage of the 1DX is for high speed bursts when photographing high speed sports. Is there any other area of photography where the 1DX offers a real advantage?


----------



## cdang (Nov 23, 2012)

I have similar lenses to you plus a 5D3 and had a decision to either get the 1dx or a 200L F2. It was driving me nuts, but in the end I got the lens. I think you will be happy either way.


----------



## dolina (Nov 23, 2012)

I rather get more lenses than a new body. I had to chose between a 1dx, 5d3 or a 400/2.8 II and went with the lens.

Lenses last decades. Bodies just years.


----------



## rpt (Nov 23, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > I think you have enough glass
> ...


 ;D
I know it is a hard concept to grasp. Think 300D and 17-55. Yes that is all the glass I had for a long time!


----------



## gmrza (Nov 23, 2012)

The immediate gap I see in your lens collection is a standard zoom. There may be reasons why you don't need one. If that is the case then OK. Otherwise, I would consider the 24-70 f/2.8L USM II to add to your lens collection.

Given what you have said, this is more a case of what your heart desires most, rather than any need - so go with what your heart desires.


----------



## ScottyP (Nov 23, 2012)

Hard not to go with the glass. Or THREE pieces of it, to be exact. 

Don't know if you are hitting walls with the 5D3 that you could walk right through with the 1Dx, but only you know, and it is your money and your life. 

_Not a terribly bad dilemma to have, b/t/w._


----------



## rpt (Nov 23, 2012)

rpt said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > expatinasia said:
> ...


Another thought - "If you are deprived, you are more determined to win..."
Yet another thought... - "Necessity is the mother of invention"
And yet another thought - "Necessity is the mother of *intervention*" - the 70's...

All of the above are driven by a lack of something - so deprivation... That is the time you are most creative...
My opinion...


----------



## epsiloneri (Nov 23, 2012)

With both the 100/2.8L and the 70-200/2.8L IS II, a 135/2.0L would a bit redundant (unless you shoot concerts). I agree that a standard zoom seems to be missing in your lineup. The 24-105/4L or one of the 24-70's should do.


----------



## xROELOFx (Nov 23, 2012)

I'd get a second 5D3 if I were you and save the money for a possible 40+ MP. Especially if you're doing portraits most of the time.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 23, 2012)

The 24L II is more awesome than the 35L IMO. Its really Wide and Really Fast!


----------



## Chris_prophotographic (Nov 23, 2012)

24L mk II is stellar and yes it outdoes the 35 most of the time


----------



## Kernuak (Nov 23, 2012)

I haven't done many environmental portraits with the 24 mm f/1.4 MkII, but there are some good examples on here, so if that is something you'd like to do, then it is probably as good a choice as any, as you have the flexibility of opening the aperture up and suggesting the environment or closing down to get everything sharp. Other options at 24mm just wouldn't give you that flexibility.


----------



## photokid (Nov 23, 2012)

Thanks guys, now I'm even more confused 

Honestly heart wanting the camera, head says lenses.

Have had a sigma ex24-70 in the past, and the 24-105L zooms in this range do nothing for me, I find I don't use them much, but thanks for the suggestions. 

I know I have the 135 FL covered, but the 135L has a look that the 70-200 doesn't if I get it I'll mostly use it wide open. 

The 85L again mostly be used wide open, the 24L is probably a no brainer, I respect the 35L but the images it produces for mw don't move me.

Thing is even if I did get the 1Dx now I'd still want the lenses. I don't hanker after the big MP bodies, I find the detail and sharpness I get from the 5 is more than enough for my shooting, as I don't print big, in fact with ladies over 40 I find there is too much detail.

So currently while waiting on the funds to be realised (won't be long now) the glass is in the lead by a nose, but that could change again tomorrow, I really appreciate all your advice though, keep it coming.


----------



## Danielle (Nov 23, 2012)

What a great predicament.

Pity you don't love the 35L. However I personally think you have a set of great, obviously world class lenses.

Leaves me to suggest the 1DX. Regardless of what is announced next year, the 1DX will still be the top of the pile in what it does.


----------



## Dwight (Nov 24, 2012)

FWIW, I have the 5DM3 and just got the 1D X. Looking at your gallery (great comps, BTW), you're into portraits and environmental portraits. If indeed these are the types of photography you love to do (for hobby and work) and don't see yourself switching to/learning other types (i.e. sports and wild life) later on, I would stick with the 5DM3. You already have a superb collection of glass. *AF accuracy* on the 5DM3 and 1D X is on par...I can't tell nor do I feel any difference. *AF speed* (which you may not necessarily need in portraiture) is where my 1D X has an advantage over my 5DM3.

IMHO, I would stick with the 5DM3 [or pick up another 5DM3 (or 6D whenever available and reviews are favorable)] if you need two bodies. If you don't need two bodies and money is burning a hole in your pocket or you just want to buy new gear (trust me, I totally understand the mindset), I'd go with the 85LII *and* 135L. If you decide to sell your 35L (you did say you're not happy with it), the 24LII is great for environmental portraits. Otherwise, keep the 35L. Lastly, budget-permitting, you can just forget about the aforementioned lenses and go all out for the 200f2L IS and call it a day. The latter is the best portrait lens Canon has ever made to date bar none. Happy hunting and good luck!


----------



## Dwight (Nov 24, 2012)

In addition, the 200f2L IS and 135L have a look that the 70-200f2.8II cannot replicate...and yes, you need to shoot both the former wide-open to really see where both of them shine and will blow you away.


----------



## tpatana (Nov 24, 2012)

To me it sounds like:

A: You don't really have good reason to upgrade 5D3 to 1DX
B: Your lenses already cover about anything

So I'd choose option:

C: Drink the money, wait ~1 year, give or take, for next generation of bodies, and then consider again.


----------



## Buyi (Nov 24, 2012)

You should buy the 1Dx, lenses can u get later on. 

And u already got some good L glass


----------



## pwp (Nov 24, 2012)

I'd stop fretting about your equipment, learn to use it properly and get on with shooting. You've got a great kit. Use your surplus cash to take a holiday with your young family. 

-PW


----------



## charlesa (Nov 24, 2012)

pwp said:


> I'd stop fretting about your equipment, learn to use it properly and get on with shooting. You've got a great kit. Use your surplus cash to take a holiday with your young family.
> 
> -PW



Besides seconding him, and neuro who says one can never have enough glass, I would say you have an excellent camera body and good glass as it is, just keep learning and improving.


----------



## hawaiisunsetphoto (Nov 24, 2012)

Based on what you're presenting, I'd sell the 35L and pick up either a 24L II, 24mm ts-e II, or the new 24-70 zoom which I don't have but is reputed to be super sharp (if you get a good copy). Then, I'd pick up the 200mm f/2.0L, which is an epic lens- you won't be sorry. The 200mm f/2.0L will impact your end product, what you see, more than the 1Dx will -- which is why we shoot. I'd definitely keep the 1Dx on "the list" for later


----------



## Chris_prophotographic (Nov 25, 2012)

Agreed, something unique in lenses is nice like a 24mm TS-E.


----------



## photokid (Nov 25, 2012)

I don't need anymore holidays thanks, the money isn't surplus, it's to be spent on photography. 

Don't know what happened to my 500px account, but I've republished some portraits that were missing.

The 24TSE was a consideration, but I'm more of a people guy and its tricky to use for portraits, if I was planning on more landscapes etc I'd have one.

The 200 f/2 well I'd love one, but that's the same price in UK as a 1DX and I could only afford that if I sold my 5D3.

If I could find one for just over £3k Gbp I'd have one in a heartbeat.


----------



## CreationHeart (Dec 2, 2012)

> Currently have 5D3, 8-15L, 35L, 50L 100L 70-200L II I have a couple of EX 600’s and the radio trigger.



I saw this post and couldn't resist not to respond, so I registered an account here. LOL

*Lenses:*

You've got really great set of gears. 50L is a super portrait lens! I really want to get one but I simply have many other gear priorities. I shoot a lot of portraits with my 85L and 135L but I do miss the "standard" look. IMO 50mm gives a very editorial look for fashion and documentary work. I could shoot entirely with one single 85L or 135L, and guess same goes to 50L. 35L is a good environmental portrait lens, so if you like to include a lot of surrounding in your shot, 35L and 50L will be the ones to go, especially indoors! 24L is too wide for portrait.

*Camera body*

I bought a 5D3 March this year but thought I would need a 2nd camera body for wedding work, so I bought the 1Dx. But foremost, it was my new passion in wildlife photography that pushed me to spend extra bucks on a 1D body. For portraits and weddings, I think 1D is a bit overkill. It's got much better AF tracking in AI Servo mode. The colour come out from LCD screen also look better using AWB.

*You situation*

As other forum members have pointed out, you have a little gap in your lineup. If I intend to do more events and flash fashion shoots I would go for a 24-70 II. Your wide angle is lacking as well, fisheye maybe too wide? If you do landscape you do need a proper wide angle zoom or perhaps a 24L, 24-70L. And 14L if you wanna go for more extreme perspectives, but then again you've got the fisheye.

*If I were you*
Our photography area evolves, our style evolves hence our gears evolves. If I were you, I would keep your current lineup. Practice shooting in 35mm and 50mm more, perhaps get a 85L. To be honest, 135L has superb bokeh, but my 70-200LISII's versatility totally wins, the bokeh is not as dreamy, but I can live with it. 135L has been out of my camera bag for a long time now (could also due to the change in my photography interests). I would get a 200/2 or 300/2.8 if I shoot a lot fashion work and need to isolate backgrounds, and given my new passion in wildlife 300/2.8 will probably go into my bag so supplement my new 500L. = )

cheers,
Felix


----------



## photokid (Dec 2, 2012)

Thanks Felix, some sound advice, I'll let you know what I decide.


----------



## SJTstudios (Dec 3, 2012)

Lenses, the 24 l and the 85 l are awesome, get them !!!!!!!!! 

For the 135 however, you may start questioning the existence of your 100 macro. I have the 100 macro, when I went on vacation with my uncle, he loaned me his 135l and his 135 2. I liked the 135 for the distance, because I use a rebel now, but I never wanted to put on the macro anymore. So when I stopped carrying it around, and leaving it at the hotel, I never had the is, the macro, or the range.(granted I had a 50mm). Maybe save the extr grand and put it towards the next 135mm, rumors are it will be 1.8 and have is! Maybe even a 17-40 would work well, or a second hand 300mm f4, used lenses, or cheap zooms are nothing to be embarrassed of as long as they improve your photography. Or, you cod buy a s**t load of accessories.


----------



## Marek Truchlik (Dec 3, 2012)

Waw, but it depends what are you taking pictures of.

If no wild life, sport and reportage it is not really necessary to own 1DX. It is huge body. 
I have 5D III gripped and because I use it with heavy lenses (300 and 500) it is more convenient for me. Since 1DX was announced I have never seriously considered to buy 1D series body. Now it is different story.

Just like a month ago I had same dilemma lenses vs 1DX and I have decided that I will buy lenses instead and will wait maybe for new 7D II, what image performance will bring. 

Same as you I´m buying 85L and 135L (have 24L already but not 35L) so I suggest same to you get more lenses.


----------



## SJTstudios (Dec 3, 2012)

Wanna know what, get all 3 lenses, only primes give you a different unique perspective of things, and the 24 will be great (I understand why the 35 seems a bit oof, it's an awkward focal length, but the length is useful none of the less), the 85 1.2 l ii........well....you know....., and the 135, it's great, you may even love it so much that you sell the 70-200 for a newer 135<200 intermediate telephoto prime.

So if anybody from canon is reading this, make these
135 1.8 is
150/175mm f2 l (is maybe)

Sorry about before, I was just a bit jealous that you have all this great glass at your disposal, but I know you appreciate it very much.


----------



## symmar22 (Dec 4, 2012)

To be a bit brutal, if you need to ask if you should buy a 1Dx, then you probably don't need it. You already have one of the best DSLRs on the market, I don't see what a 1Dx would add to your portraits. But it's your money, and of course you spend it the way you want.

Even your glass collection is quite OK, the only gap I see is in the wide angle department (the fisheye is a bit of a specific lens). I would add a 24mm 1.4 II or 24-70mm f2.8, the 135mm f2, and the 85mm f1.8 (unless you absolutely want a red ring on all your lenses).

You'll be better equipped than a lot of pros for portrait.


----------



## rpt (Dec 4, 2012)

symmar22 said:


> To be a bit brutal, if you need to ask if you should buy a 1Dx, then you probably don't need it. You already have one of the best DSLRs on the market, I don't see what a 1Dx would add to your portraits. But it's your money, and of course you spend it the way you want.
> 
> Even your glass collection is quite OK, the only gap I see is in the wide angle department (the fisheye is a bit of a specific lens). I would add a 24mm 1.4 II or 24-70mm f2.8, the 135mm f2, and the 85mm f1.8 (unless you absolutely want a red ring on all your lenses).
> 
> You'll be better equipped than a lot of pros for portrait.


+10 x 100 x 10000 x 100000000 x 10000000000000000 x 100000000000000000000000000000000 x 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 or thereabouts...

My belief is that the less you have, the more you innovate.

Unless that is not your goal...

BTW, that number is > a *googol*


----------

