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

[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]

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.

[Busted Knuckles]

And the wrath shall descend upon me...

Dare I say 7D? or gosh worse yet the 60d? The reason for this is that the 17-55 image quality is on par (build quality isn't, but is not bad like the nifty fifty or the kit lens) with the "neighborhood" L series. And you get a better autofocus.

Resolution jump, low light probably a loss. Or, wait a moment or two as the price on the 5dII just simply will come down some more as individuals upgrade to the III.

and the 70-200 II is a darn good lens regardless of the body you put in on.

Having said all the unhelpful stuff.... I am thinking full frame at the end of the summer.

Mike

[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.

[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?

[jrw]

Still recall my 50D with fondness, but have no regrets whatsoever about moving to the 5D2 and selling off the 50D. For portraits, landscapes and other still, or slow moving subjects, it is still a very good body. The biggest differences when I moved up were the much lower noise levels and the increased sharpness of the images.

The 70-200 f2.8 II is among my most used lenses. It is sharp, has a focal range that is very useful to me, and with the f2.8 aperture is a very versatile lens.

Having 5D2 and 5D3 I'd agree that the biggest difference is the AF system. The second would be the improved range of usable ISO. Would only recommend 5D3 over 5D2 to people who need the AF system for tracking action. I wound up picking up 7D for covering the sports events that pay for my equipment as the 5D2 couldn't capture images consistently enough at speeds beyond long distance runners. For the rest, I used my 5D2's for the superior image quality. There is a difference in image quality but only becomes noticeable when you start using higher ISO.

If budget is a concern, I'd suggest looking over some of the used/refurbished 5D2 bodies if you are comfortable with buying used.

EDIT: Canon Canada stopped shipping 5D3 cameras. Apparently waiting for light leak to be resolved. Bodies and kits are still available in some of the smaller camera shops. (At least in Kitchener) Try www.photoprice.ca to find who has stock and compare prices.

[Dave Throgmartin]

[QUOTE=Busted Knuckles;68787
Dare I say 7D? or gosh worse yet the 60d? [/QUOTE]

I really like the 60D, but it is all a matter of the cash and expectations. While I love the 60D, but someone with the money to buy a 1DX probably wouldn't. By the same token I'm sure lots of people love their bottom of the barrel point and shoot, but I wouldn't.

Dave

[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