# two new lenses vs 5D3 Kit



## plee (Mar 2, 2012)

I have been struggling for a few months with my purchase decisions on new lens and body.
I currently own 30D and 50mm 1.4 prime, and wanted to get additional lens and new body.
With the 5D3 full spec and pricing tag, I am considering the following two options:


Get 5D3 with 24-105 kit
Wait on body and get 24mm 1.4 & 70-200 2.8 II
 
I have immediate need to take indoor low light group picture as well as indoor telescope pictures, and my 50mm prime is either too limiting or too short.
One additional question: if I go with the second option, will I be able to take advantage of the two L lenses on my 30D camera? (beside the crop factor I am aware of?)

Thank you in advance for your advise.


----------



## jwong (Mar 2, 2012)

Yes, the 24mm f/1.4 and 70-200 f/2.8 II will work great on your 30D. I use the 35mm f/1.4 and 70-200 f/2.8 II on my _*20D*_, and the lenses work wonderfully. I use the 35mm f/1.4 for indoor shots, and the 70-200mm f/2.8 II for outdoor sports. I'll be moving FF after the review of 5DII versus 5DIII are done, and the dust settle on price.

Lenses hold their value better than bodies and the lifecycle of lenses are also longer than bodies, so I prefer spending more on lenses. Bodies are introduced every 3-4 years, lenses 10 years or more. Once you can cover the range you need with your lenses, then it might be worth looking at upgrading the camera. A better camera will make all your lenses more effective (higher ISO, better color, metering, etc), but the difference may only be worth it if you have a lot of lenses to start with.


----------



## jaduffy007 (Mar 2, 2012)

I would go with the lenses... not the 5d3 & 24-105.


----------



## plee (Mar 2, 2012)

Thank you for your reply.

From better money spent bstand point...
I was leaning more to getting 5d3 as it supports high ISO in addition to a lot better AF, which means maybe you don't need very expensive L lenses for low apperture value? So, the better performance from one investmennt in a good body like 5D3 applies to all lenses you have andwill have, and therefore, better investment?
I maybe thinking this b/c my body is a 30D, and not fully understanding the effectiveness of having better more lenses vs a improved body performance. Any advise will be highly appreciated.


----------



## crasher7 (Mar 2, 2012)

GLASS first!


----------



## ronderick (Mar 3, 2012)

mmm.... hard call there.

From my experience, I was quite amazed by the results when I switched from 40D + kit lens to the 5D2 + 24-105, whether its sharpness, details, etc. Of course, the kit lens can no way compare to the 50 f/1.4, but I think you'd feel the difference if you stick your 50mm onto a 5D2 body.

Here's a suggestion: why don't you rent a 5D2 and a 70-200L II and/or 24mm for a short period and try out the different combination of body and lens? That should give you an idea of what to expect, and whether switching the lens first or camera body first would be better for your need?

Of course, don't make the decision until the 5D3 is out and reviewed...


----------



## papa-razzi (Mar 3, 2012)

The lenses you are looking at have been out a while, and the price has come down and stabilized since they were launched.

The 5D3 however .... that is going to cost full list price through the end of this year, and street price will come down a few hundred dollars at that point.

So, money-wise, I would go for the lenses. They will hold value, and you can use them when you do go FF.
Plus, you can get them now, and not have to wait until the 5D3 is available.


----------



## jwong (Mar 3, 2012)

plee said:


> Thank you for your reply.
> 
> From better money spent bstand point...
> I was leaning more to getting 5d3 as it supports high ISO in addition to a lot better AF, which means maybe you don't need very expensive L lenses for low apperture value? So, the better performance from one investmennt in a good body like 5D3 applies to all lenses you have andwill have, and therefore, better investment?
> I maybe thinking this b/c my body is a 30D, and not fully understanding the effectiveness of having better more lenses vs a improved body performance. Any advise will be highly appreciated.



I think putting most of the money in the camera body is not a good idea long term. If you get the 5D3, then you'll have a 24-105 and a 50 f/1.4 for 4300 USD. Perhaps you should wait and see what the 5D2 goes down to before making a decision.

Right now, the 5D2 and the 70-200 II goes for about 4500 USD. A 5D2, 24-105L and the 24 L II costs about 4700 USD. A 5D2, 24-105 and the 70-200 would be 5300. What would you rather have, a 5D3 with 2 lenses (50 and 24-105) or a 5D2 with more lenses for slightly more money? Is the 5D3 worth 1100 USD more to you?


----------



## Caps18 (Mar 3, 2012)

You could always buy a used 5Dm2 and a new lens...

There are a few things I like about the 5dm3 over the 5Dm2 (GPS!), but I will spend $700 to get it on my 5Dm2 when it costs $350 for the smaller GPS adapter from Canon that should cost $150 or be built into the camera.

Even the 7D would be a big improvement over the 30D... There would be a big improvement in your photos by going with the 5Dm3 and 24-105 than to go with the lenses and use the 30D. Not that it is impossible to take good photos with the 30D, but the detail, full frame, less noise, video, and other nice things that have been improved make a camera body upgrade worth it.


----------



## squarebox (Mar 3, 2012)

my recommendation would be to go for a 35mm 1.4L as that will turn out ot be a great walk around lens when you decide to go FF. The 24mm has alot of picture quality issues compared to the 35mm from what i've read from http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/152-canon-ef-24mm-f14-usm-l-test-report--review 

I myself am stuck in a similiar situation of whether to get more glass or a new body (i having the 550d means i have the same AF as the 5d mk2 it seems)

Since all you have is the 50mm prime the biggest limiter you have right now is lack of a wide lens and a zoom lens. My thinking is that there is alot of camera equipement that i still don't have, so i'm going to concentrate on getting a flash, a good zoom, nd filters and such before i get a better camera. As those will help with my actual photography skills while upgrading my body not so much.

A friend once gave me this sound advice "you should only upgrade your body once your photography starts to become limited by it. I upgraded because the AF was horrible and the camera kept having problems and wasn't reliable for concert photography". 

One other thing that has been said on the forums, it is better to have a L glass on a rebel (500d series) than to have a kit lens on a pro body.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Mar 3, 2012)

plee said:


> I have been struggling for a few months with my purchase decisions on new lens and body.
> I currently own 30D and 50mm 1.4 prime, and wanted to get additional lens and new body.
> With the 5D3 full spec and pricing tag, I am considering the following two options:
> 
> ...



Go for the kit!


----------



## YellowJersey (Mar 3, 2012)

Would it make sense to to go with a mkIII body and then another lens other than the 24-105? The mkIII + 24-70 2.8 II would make one hell of a combo, for example.


----------



## plee (Mar 3, 2012)

Thank you all for taking your time and bother with answering my questions.

As I posted earlier, I have about 5K for additional Canon lenses with or without a new body to replace my 30D. What I hear from the most of you is that I should get lenses first before I consider getting a new body. While that makes a lot of sense, the reason that it is not a no brainer is because I need a fast wide angle lens which will let me take shots of low light indoor groups or environmental portraits. For that with my 30D crop body, I have to invest on a lens at least of 24mm or even wider at a signficant demage to my fund, and that lens would not be one of the high priortity lenses I wish to have, had I gotten a FF body. One more reason I am considering a 5D. Some might say get a EF-S wide angle lens, but when that will not be useful when I get a FF. Some might say get a 16-35, but I fear 16-20 might be too wide for me with FF. (I also heard its 24-35 range is not so great)

I will be very interested to hear additional comments some might have, but for now, I think I will just get a 70-200, and wait. Thank you all again for your thoughts!


----------



## AmbientLight (Mar 3, 2012)

On a crop body I have found anything like a 24mm or similar focal length to be not exactly usable for wide angle shots. You may not be able to get sufficent distance between you and the people you shoot. Your only viable choice, if you need to be able to shoot wide-angle immediately, is an EF-S lens with reasonable wide angle coverage. I myself intentionally avoided buying an EF-S lens, because I want all my lenses to be usable on full-frame. So instead of using EF-S lenses I ended up purchasing a 17-40mm L and a 14mm L for wide angle shots. In my experience even 17mm is often not wide enough for what I want using a crop body.

In my opinion purchasing an EF-S lens, when you have a budget to buy a 5D in my opinion is no good choice. I recommend you purchase the body as soon as you have found out, whether the Mark III or the Mark II is the one you want. The 24-105mm L is a very useful lens and should make you happy in combination with a full-frame body. The better high ISO capabilities of the 5D compared to your current 30D should make for a good argument, why you would not require the fast 24mm prime for low-light capabilities.


----------



## archangelrichard (Mar 3, 2012)

Plee

I'm sorry but most commenters seem not to have read your comment nor understood your requirements

For a group shot you will have people at different distances from the camera (like two or three rows) and the limited DOF of a 1.4 lens will eat you alive -- advantage 5DIII which will give you 4 stops better as in 2 stops better Noise Reduction and 2 stops better Low Light sensitivity) on top of the lens so more DOF

I don't know what you mean by indoor telescope shots; indoor telephoto? Indoor shots of outside in telephoto as if it were a telescope?

Hard to tell

Just buying new lenses won't help if, like you say, you need the advantage of Higher DOF / higher ISO; the best answer would be the new body

NOTE: If that lens turns out mot to be what you need you can always sell it and buy the 70 - 200


----------



## chito (Mar 3, 2012)

I'd say go for the kit... 2.8 is just one stop from 4.0 and the 5D3 will give you way more than that... also "real" 24mm to 105mm and IS as well


----------



## plee (Mar 5, 2012)

Thank you all who provided me your thoughts. 

Particularily, I want to highlight *Archanelrichard*'s comment about DOF. I have experienced that issue with my 30D and 50mm 1.4 prime, which is why I am in market to for addtional lenses and a new body. As everyone already suggested, if only 5D3 was under 3K.  

Thanks!

Plee


----------



## 00Q (Mar 6, 2012)

As already mentioned in the forum. glass comes first. body can wait. good luck!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 6, 2012)

There is really a big difference in the low light capability of the 5D MK III over the 30D. The 30d is wonderful, but, I'd go for the 5D MK III (actually, I have it on order).

A low cost alternative would be a refurb 5D MK II, its still worlds ahead of the 30D regarding low light, and half the price.

With the 5D MK II, you can use a 35mm lens just fine.

Note, for a large group at 24mm f/1.4, you are generally far enough away for everyone to be in the depth of field with no issues. Its only when you get close that it becomes noticible.

At 16 feet and 24mm f/1.4 you will have a 7' 7" depth of field.

http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html


----------



## roman7 (Mar 6, 2012)

I am in the same boat as you. I decided to sell my 5D2 and preorder the 5D3 kit. I feel like the 2-4 stop high iso improvement over the 5D2 will enable you to shoot indoors with the f4.0 zoom, at least this is what I am hoping! This would not be practical with the 5D2 and kit lens. If this theory holds true, I will later purchase the 70-200 4.0L instead of the 2.8L. So in the long run, I will be saving money and weight!


----------



## squarebox (Mar 23, 2012)

roman7 said:


> If this theory holds true, I will later purchase the 70-200 4.0L instead of the 2.8L. So in the long run, I will be saving money and weight!



There is more than just aperature size between the two 70-200 lens. the 70-200 2.8 IS has a better MTF chart... though I'm at a loss to say anything more than that.


----------



## Jettatore (Mar 23, 2012)

If you put the 70-200 on the 30D it becomes a 112-320 while you have a 5DIII on the other shoulder with a 50mm attached. Would be more expensive but this is the route I would shoot for combined with a good two camera carrying system given your intended purposes.

If you need wide on top if this, already more expensive suggestion, a good, used, 17-40L or the original 16-35L Mark I might do quite nicely for you, works well on either camera and you can wait first to see if the 50 on the full frame is wide enough for your needs. That is not to say that the 16-35II isn't great but this suggestion is already over budget....


----------



## FunPhotons (Mar 23, 2012)

I've always gone the lenses route. In 10 years I've only owned two bodies, the first Rebel and the 5DMKii in 2010. During that time I've owned a bunch of lenses (and sold a few too.) This year I'm upgrading my flash system with 3 600EX-RTs and controller, but no new body. I might get a Zeiss lens too, if I'm ready for it.


----------



## BaconBets (Mar 24, 2012)

Funny enough, I was in your situation exactly - a 30D and a 50 1.4
Here is the way to look at it:

1. The people who say that glass is a better investment than bodies WERE correct, because in the past digital bodies were a new technology, while glass was mature. That meant that spending a large amount of money 5-10 years ago on a digital body was an expensive proposition, because digital bodies were evolving so quickly that what was state of the art became run of the mill very quickly, and the value dropped fast. The same thing has been (and still is) happening with memory cards. You can get a memory card for $50 now that was $500 very recently. But digital bodies are maturing now, and we won't see the huge advances in a short period of time like we did in the past. From now on, we are likely to see fine tuning and subtle refinements. Many who are buying the 5d3 have stated that this will be all the camera they will need for the next 10 years. In other words, it's a lot safer. (Canon knows this, which is one reason why the price of new glass is going up, and they are charging decent margins on the 5d3 and 1dx)

2. The 50mm 1.4 on a full frame is a very different lens than a 50mm 1.4 on a crop. Not just a wider angle, but also a shallower depth of field. This will apply to every lens you are thinking about buying.

3. Everything is relative, the gains for someone shooting a 5d2 may not be worth spending $3500 on a 5d3.
The gains for someone shooting a 30D will be enormous, and you will therefore benefit more from the leap to the 5d3.

4. Do you need the pro AF and faster fps for your shooting style/subjects? If not, perhaps a 5d2 and more pro glass will net you more returns for the same investment. Remember, going from a 30D to a 5d2 is still a huge jump

5. You won't see someone running around with a 1dx and a crap lens....it doesn't make sense. At some point, if you haven't already reached it, it won't make sense for you to be running around with an arsenal of L glass and a 30D.
There will always be new cameras coming out in the future...there will be a 5d4, and then a 5dV....but if you wait for Canon to announce their "final" model, you'll be waiting forever. There has never been a better time to buy a FF camera, and you have more than 1 option. It's not 2004, and your new body will not be worth half of what you paid 12 months from now.


----------



## EvilTed (Mar 25, 2012)

I got the 5D MK3 with a 24-105, 70-200 F/2.8 II and a 16-35 II F/2.8.

I really have nothing good to say about the 24-105, having come from shooting prime lenses on a D7000.
I personally think the IQ of the D7000 + 50mm F/1.4G is significantly better!

Mine is going to be sold immediately and I'll replace it with one or more primes.
I guess once you've tasted prime there's no going back?

ET


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 25, 2012)

EvilTed said:


> I got the 5D MK3 with a 24-105, 70-200 F/2.8 II and a 16-35 II F/2.8.
> 
> I really have nothing good to say about the 24-105, having come from shooting prime lenses on a D7000.
> I personally think the IQ of the D7000 + 50mm F/1.4G is significantly better!
> ...


 
Ted, there is such a thing as a bad lens, if your 24-105mm L is not sharp, it might need replacing. Also note that some experts have found that DPP is producing soft images for some unknown reason, so don't discount that, use the RC1 release of ACR or DNG and see if it looks better. Also check to see if the lens needs micro adjust of the focus. I may be just lucky, but my 24-105mm L is great. Of course, it does not beat my 35mmL or a 70-200mm f.2.8L MK II, but it is good.

As to a crop camera looking better, this is a common complaint of those used to the large depth of field a crop camera gives, and percieve it as being sharper. Some prefer the extra depth of field, and some like the shallow. Both are correct, because its what they like that counts.

Here is my 5D MK II with my 35mm L. some think its not sharp due to the extreme shallow depth of field.

Good luck with your new camera, I'm anxious for mine to arrive next week.


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 27, 2012)

yeah the 24 and 70-200 should work fine on your body, my 70-200 works great on my 7d. not sure what exactly you mean by "advantages" of the lenses besides the crop factor. i always figured that the "advantages" were for FF bodies


----------

