Help deciding on body and lense

[Mpieris]

Hi everyone,
I currently have 40D with the kit lens and was looking to upgrade. initially I was thinking of just upgrading the lens, but now I'm thinking of upgrading the body to a full frame. The lense I am considering is the 70-200 2.8 II IS. I read a lot of great reviews about this lense. For the body, I was considering a 5D markII (considered markIII, but higher price and the fact that a mkII is probably good enough since I'm upgrading from a 40D, made me reconsider). I'm not a professional photographer. I'd still consider myself to be relatively new to photography, but I want to make a significant upgrade from my current camera. I like taking photos of just about everything (people, street life, landscapes) during my travels. Love to get your thoughts on whether I should consider something else or if I'm making a good choice. This is a fairly significant investment for me so I want to make sure I'm making a wise choice. Thanks.

Marlon

[HDNitehawk]

Welcome to the forum Marlon.

Was this an either / or question?

The 5D II with the 70-200mm F/2.8 II IS would is an awesome combination. The 5D III with its new improved AF system would be an even better combination.

I think either would be a good choice, and I think the determining factor would be what you want to spend.

The 5D III has many improvements over the 5D II, but the most talked about and most important is the AF system.

Good Luck

Rick

[Mpieris]

Thanks for the replies Rick and Ben. The AF was a concern I read about the 5D2. I would be interested in taking action shots as well. I've had a hard time locating the 5D3 in Toronto. I live in Chennai, India right now, but I'm headed to Toronto for a couple of weeks this weekend. It seems like a high in demand body. That's why I thought maybe the 5D2 would be good enough. I've seen a lot of pros using it and I'm no pro so it should be fine for me. But I heard a lot of great things about the 5D3, if only I could find it while I'm in Toronto.

[HDNitehawk]

I doubt you would find a 5D III, unless it was part of a kit. You almost have to pre-order it if you want body only.

The 5D II can be had for 1/2 the money of the 5D III if you shop a bit.

If you are happy with the AF system on you're 40D you will be happy with the 5D II's.

My opinion would be to buy in this order, and stop where the money run out / cut off is;
First 70-200mm F/2.8L II
Second 5D Mark II
or if money permits
Third 5D Mark III instead for the AF

In regard to what btaylor said about weight he is correct; Weight wise the 70-200mm II on a 5D II isn't much different than a 70-200mm II on a 40D. However the 70-200mm II is a big lens and it is heavy to carry around, I find it is worth it because of it's image quality. But the lens is a brick.

[clemmb]

If you are happy with the AF system on you're 40D you will be happy with the 5D II's.

The only difference is that in AI-servo the 5D has 6 focus assist points around the center point that you do not see in the viewfinder but they do help

[HDNitehawk]

The only difference is that in AI-servo the 5D has 6 focus assist points around the center point that you do not see in the viewfinder but they do help

Clemmb; the point I was making is that the 5D II isn’t going to be worse than the 40D, and should be just a bit better. I never owned the 40D but did own the 50D. When I went from the 50D to the 5D II I noticed some improvement with the AF system, but not enough to say it was any kind of determining factor in the move.

@mpieris; I owned the 24-70mm F/2.8 for almost three years, just sold it a few months back. The Image Quality from the 70-200mm F/2.8 II is superior, but since they are different focal lengths there really is nothing to compare. I stopped using the 24-70mm in favor of primes, I usually carry a 35mm or 24mm with me to cover anything wide if it comes up. I keep my 70-200mm II as the main lens. I think you will want either a prime or a wide zoom for the wide end occasionally.

[btaylor]

A couple of years back I upgraded from the 40D and 28-135mm kit lens to the 5D2, 24-70mm f/2.8L and 70-200mm f/4L IS and the difference was very noticible.

I now use the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II (and plenty of other lenses) with my 5D Mark II and it's a fantastic combination. The shallow depth of field coupled with the image quality of the 70-200mm makes for some fantastic shots. It's a really good combo for travelling as well - particularly for portrait and street photography as you mentioned. For landscapes, you can certainly use the 70-200mm range, the compression when shooting landscapes at 200mm can be very nice.

I will say, though, that it's a pretty heavy combination compared to your current setup (there's a lot of glass in the 70-200) but if that doesn't bother you then I'd say go for it. You won't find a better zoom lens out there and it works very well on the 5D2.

I still find the 5D2 sufficient for my needs (as much as I really really WANT the 5D3). I shot a triathlon on the weekend with this combination and the AI Servo did miss focus on plenty of occasions but I rarely use that camera for sport photography. The autofocus system isn't the best for fast moving objects but works fine for everything else. It's all about knowing the limitations of the camera and shooting to suit where possible.

I still love the 5D2 and moving to full frame was the best choice I have made in terms of my photography.

You might also consider the 24-105mm f/4 as a good all round zoom lens for general use. It's a lot lighter than the 70-200mm but obviously you wouldn't have the range.

Hope this helps a little.

Ben

[Mpieris]

Ben, looks like you have a 24-70 2.8L. What do you think compared to the 70-200? I know they are for different ranges, but which would be a more used lens given the type of pictures I mentioned I like taking?

[btaylor]

Ben, looks like you have a 24-70 2.8L. What do you think compared to the 70-200? I know they are for different ranges, but which would be a more used lens given the type of pictures I mentioned I like taking?

I guess it comes down to personal preference. The 24-70mm f/2.8L is a nice lens, but I haven't used it very much at all for nearly a year now because I am a huge fan of really narrow depth of field, and for me the 24-70mm (even wide open at f/2.8) didn't deliver the depth of field I wanted. Don't get me wrong, you can still get good subject isolation from it (particularly with the 5D2), just not to the level that I like. Whereas at 200mm and f/2.8 aperture you can really separate a subject from its background.

For general walkaround style photography then the 24-70mm is most certainly a good lens, and would also lean itself toward landscape photography more so than the 70-200mm. 24mm on full frame is wide enough for most landscape work.

So yes, the 24-70mm would potentially suit you very well but it just doesn't quite suit the style of photography that I like to work towards any more.

Here's a couple of older examples of shots I've taken with the 5D2 + 24-70mm f/2.8 combo. Since then I've changed my style a little. It can definitely produce some great results. These probably don't illustrate my point about depth of field very well but it might give you an idea of what the lens is capable of.

27mm @ f/11:

Nay and Jono by Ben__Taylor, on Flickr

24mm @ f/9.0

Simpson Desert Series # 3 by Ben__Taylor, on Flickr

24mm @ f/8.0 (cropped)

Moo Juice! by Ben__Taylor, on Flickr

24mm @ f/2.8

Cleveland Pt by Ben__Taylor, on Flickr

50mm @ f/3.5

Cuteness... by Ben__Taylor, on Flickr

Here's a couple with the 5D2 and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II

200mm @ f/2.8

Buff Sided Robin by Ben__Taylor, on Flickr

200mm @ f/2.8

Eastern Brown Snake by Ben__Taylor, on Flickr

I hope this helps you anyway. It's hard to describe sometimes why I chose one lens over the other, some are just my "favourites" and others are there because at some time they might come in handy.

Ben

[Mpieris]

Thanks for the insight Ben. Your photos are beautiful. Sounds like I can't really go wrong here. Leaning towards the 70-200.