Canon MK III or Canon MK II with good lenses?

MarkyMark22

Hi guys, I'm going to be buying a new camera in the summer as I'm hoping to be studying photography next year (I'll be still buying a camera regardless if I make the course as its a big hobby of mine) and I'm just looking for some advice..

I've been looking at both of these cameras and unsure which to buy..

I was thinking of buying:

Canon 5D MK III with 18-105 kit
Canon 40mm Pancake lens
Canon 85mm
Canon 75-300mm Non IS

Or

Canon 5D MK II body and lenses like the 70-200mm and a couple of better lenses than the ones above but within the same range..

I should add the types of photography I'm interested in is Portrait, Landscape, Wildlife and Sports etc..

I've been reading a lot of reviews and there doesn't seem to be major differences other than Autofocus Points and better video capture..

I would like to make some videos so I've taken that side into consideration too..

I'm just wondering what you guys would recommend? I'd really appreciate any advice! Thanks!

Effects

I'd go for the III

Rew

MarkyMark22 wrote: »

Hi guys, I'm going to be buying a new camera in the summer as I'm hoping to be studying photography next year (I'll be still buying a camera regardless if I make the course as its a big hobby of mine) and I'm just looking for some advice..

I've been looking at both of these cameras and unsure which to buy..

I was thinking of buying:

Canon 5D MK III with 18-105 kit
Canon 40mm Pancake lens
Canon 85mm
Canon 75-300mm Non IS

Or

Canon 5D MK II body and lenses like the 70-200mm and a couple of better lenses than the ones above but within the same range..

I should add the types of photography I'm interested in is Portrait, Landscape, Wildlife and Sports etc..

I've been reading a lot of reviews and there doesn't seem to be major differences other than Autofocus Points and better video capture..

I would like to make some videos so I've taken that side into consideration too..

I'm just wondering what you guys would recommend? I'd really appreciate any advice! Thanks!

The AF on the mk ii is pretty rubbish that said you can still catch the action with it. You will change bodies you wont change good lenses. I bought a 2nd hand mk II and have been working on lenses. Have the 24-105mm. Unfair to call it a kit lens its a very good lens, that happens to be bundled with the 5D's. Have 50mm 1.4 and 70-200mm 2.8 IS II. Would love a 16-35mm next. I was considering changing the 24-105 for a 24-70mm, undecided on that.

The big draw of a MkIII is the better high ISO performance but you can off set that with good fast lenses (all 2.8 or better).

MarkyMark22

Rew wrote: »

The AF on the mk ii is pretty rubbish that said you can still catch the action with it. You will change bodies you wont change good lenses. I bought a 2nd hand mk II and have been working on lenses. Have the 24-105mm. Unfair to call it a kit lens its a very good lens, that happens to be bundled with the 5D's. Have 50mm 1.4 and 70-200mm 2.8 IS II. Would love a 16-35mm next. I was considering changing the 24-105 for a 24-70mm, undecided on that.

The big draw of a MkIII is the better high ISO performance but you can off set that with good fast lenses (all 2.8 or better).

Thanks!

I didn't mean to call it a kit lens, I meant I'd be buying the whole kit.

I'm unsure as to what to go with, the canon 5D III is attracting me with its new features and video capabilities..


Whilst the 5D II is appealing because of the fact I'd be able to afford better lenses..

Not that the lenses I've mentioned with the Mark III are terrible..

They're just not the best available, if that makes sense.

Snowie

5D mk2. get better lens who the hell byes a top of the range camera and has crap lens?

MarkyMark22

Snowie wrote: »

5D mk2. get better lens who the hell byes a top of the range camera and has crap lens?

As I've said, they're not crap lenses per se. They're just not the best available.

ImagenEstilo

I aint a Canon user but I can safely say you are better putting your money into better lenses. The 70-200 is a beast of a lens and my without-fail go to lens almost always. The Mk III will drop in price like all bodies. Lenses do not drop in price if they are pro lenses. Sometimes they go up in fact.

My understanding is that the 5D mark II is a top rated full frame camera. Obviously he Mk III will be better, but will you be able to benefit from the improvements in the time it would take the Mk III to drop to the same price as the Mk II is currently?

My vote, better lenses all the way.

Snowie

MarkyMark22 wrote: »

As I've said, they're not crap lenses per se. They're just not the best available.

Why do you need such good gear why dont you get your self mk2 and 24 to 105 and save your money why are you jumping in at the deepend with what is about the but end of 5k worth of goodies and even then do you really need it?

Effects

He's not really jumping in at the deep end. He said it's already a hobby and he just wants to better his equipment. What's the point in buying a camera and then having to trade up again in a few years if you can buy a III now as well as some decent glass? I know you refer to the 24-105 L as crap but you're probably the only one.

pixbyjohn

Which ever camera body you go for do not forget to buy the 24-70 f2.8 lens to go with it.

MarkyMark22

Snowie wrote: »

Why do you need such good gear why dont you get your self mk2 and 24 to 105 and save your money why are you jumping in at the deepend with what is about the but end of 5k worth of goodies and even then do you really need it?

I don't think I'm jumping in at the deep end, if I get accepted into college then either camera will do me good for at least 4 years.

I'd also like to document my life and my families life for future generations of my family. So I'm looking at it as an investment.

MarkyMark22

Effects wrote: »

He's not really jumping in at the deep end. He said it's already a hobby and he just wants to better his equipment. What's the point in buying a camera and then having to trade up again in a few years if you can buy a III now as well as some decent glass? I know you refer to the 24-105 L as crap but you're probably the only one.

I didn't refer to the 24-104L as a crap lenses, I actually think it's a really good lense. I didn't mean to refer to it as a kit lense, I meant I would be buying the MK III with the 24-105L as a bundle with battery and strap etc..

MarkyMark22

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Which ever camera body you go for do not forget to buy the 24-70 f2.8 lens to go with it.

Is it a must have, so to speak?

pixbyjohn

MarkyMark22 wrote: »

Is it a must have, so to speak?

Definitely, you will have it on your camera 90% of the time

MarkyMark22

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Definitely, you will have it on your camera 90% of the time

Quite pricey it seems, nearly 2 grand!

Rew

MarkyMark22 wrote: »

Quite pricey it seems, nearly 2 grand!

There are multiple versions the top end is over 2k the low end is under 1k

ImagenEstilo

Well, there is a thought, having a 24 to 70 on the camera 90% of the time when you have a 70-200 sitting in your bag? I suppose it depends on what you prefer to photograph. For me it is mostly people as opposed to landscapes so the 24-70 is rarely used. It is a pure wedding lens. I ended up going for the 16-35 f/4 as the landscape lens (Nikon). Those extra degrees make a difference in a tight spot. I dunno, I would think long and hard as to what you want to shoot. For me, the 24-70 only became essential when I started photographing weddings. Outside of that, I dont believe you need it. Each to their own I suppose.

dakar

ImagenEstilo wrote: »

Each to their own I suppose.

I suppose that's the issue for the OP, they don't seem to know what their 'own' is yet.

At various times, I've managed to convince myself that I 'needed' a 24-70 and a 70-200 2.8, yet neither even makes it as far as my camera bag very often. For the way that I shoot now, I prefer lighter, faster primes.

The way I see it, a decent general purpose zoom like the 24-105 or whatever gives you the chance to see what lengths you end up shooting at more often and take it from there, rather than buying a bagful of lenses to start with.

Edit: or save a pile of cash and buy a 50 1.8 and see whether you yearn for wider or longer whilst you learn to use your new camera... Whatever, it's a nice dilemma

Effects

MarkyMark22 wrote: »

I didn't refer to the 24-104L as a crap lenses, I actually think it's a really good lens.

My comment was in a reply to Snowie's description of it.

I bought the 24-105 f4 with my 5D I kit. I love the lens and I keep it on the camera a lot, especially when I want to only carry one lens but have the versatility of a broad range of focal lengths. The fact it's max aperture is f4 does get to me sometimes. I know it has IS but sometimes I just want a faster shutter speed. The 24-70 2.8 L was out of my price range at the time. As there is a new version of the 24-70 out you could pick up a decent second hand original one for good value. You could still buy the kit 24-105 L and sell it as it's brand new and you got it at a good price.
I also have the 70-200 2.8L IS, it is an incredible lens but it is really heavy. It gets small use but I'm really glad to have it when I want to use it. The 40mm pancake is a nice lens. I picked it up in the US for pretty cheap. It's not essential and if I were you I would spend the money on something else like the 50mm f1.4 or 28mm f1.8.
I still shoot with the 5D I and said I would wait to upgrade to the III so didn't get the II. Financial constraints means I have to hold off a bit but it also means the price of the camera will be coming down in the mean time.

MarkyMark22

Effects wrote: »

My comment was in a reply to Snowie's description of it.

I bought the 24-105 f4 with my 5D I kit. I love the lens and I keep it on the camera a lot, especially when I want to only carry one lens but have the versatility of a broad range of focal lengths. The fact it's max aperture is f4 does get to me sometimes. I know it has IS but sometimes I just want a faster shutter speed. The 24-70 2.8 L was out of my price range at the time. As there is a new version of the 24-70 out you could pick up a decent second hand original one for good value. You could still buy the kit 24-105 L and sell it as it's brand new and you got it at a good price.
I also have the 70-200 2.8L IS, it is an incredible lens but it is really heavy. It gets small use but I'm really glad to have it when I want to use it. The 40mm pancake is a nice lens. I picked it up in the US for pretty cheap. It's not essential and if I were you I would spend the money on something else like the 50mm f1.4 or 28mm f1.8.
I still shoot with the 5D I and said I would wait to upgrade to the III so didn't get the II. Financial constraints means I have to hold off a bit but it also means the price of the camera will be coming down in the mean time.

I've been in two minds between the 40mm pancake and the 50mm f1.4 they're both about the same price in B&H Photo, where I'll be picking up my gear. There's about $50 dollars in the difference. I think I'd have the 24-105L on the camera most of the time. If I was paying big for a lens I'd probably go with the 70-200 too just to cover more range. I've been looking at sample photos and reading reviews and I think I've decided on the 85mm as a prime lens. It's not overly expensive and seems to have great quality.

Effects

I have the 85 and the 50 and I use the 85 more often. I prefer the 85 as a portrait lens and I find the 50 isn't wide enough as a walkabout lens for me.

Corkbah

MarkyMark22 wrote: »

I've been in two minds between the 40mm pancake and the 50mm f1.4 they're both about the same price in B&H Photo, where I'll be picking up my gear. There's about $50 dollars in the difference. I think I'd have the 24-105L on the camera most of the time. If I was paying big for a lens I'd probably go with the 70-200 too just to cover more range. I've been looking at sample photos and reading reviews and I think I've decided on the 85mm as a prime lens. It's not overly expensive and seems to have great quality.

ensure you have factored in the sales and other taxes if you are purchasing it in store....or your $50 difference could be a $75 difference.

if you really want to maximise saving when purchasing in B&H get them to send it out of state (free shipping and tax free) ... so your $50 saving would be $50.

lots of people think they will save hundreds/thousands when purchasing in USA - this was the case many years ago, but is certainly not the case these days, prices are fairly regular these days.....and if you have not visited USA before, the price you see on the tag/screen ...is the price BEFORE tax is added so in most cases you could be adding an extra 10% onto the price.

As regards the original question ... mkII or mkIII .... the mkIII is a better machine but do you need it ? lenses do keep their price but do you need to purchase new ? why not search online and find a bargain - you will save money in the long-term !! ...if you are going to USA - check out craigslist - its a similar thing to adverts, just communicate with the person properly before purchasing and follow all the normal procedures for purchasing online (meet in public place, do not bring cash but goto an ATM if you are happy with the product and want to complete the sale, ensure that the seller knows this is what will happen etc etc)

MarkyMark22

Corkbah wrote: »

ensure you have factored in the sales and other taxes if you are purchasing it in store....or your $50 difference could be a $75 difference.

if you really want to maximise saving when purchasing in B&H get them to send it out of state (free shipping and tax free) ... so your $50 saving would be $50.

lots of people think they will save hundreds/thousands when purchasing in USA - this was the case many years ago, but is certainly not the case these days, prices are fairly regular these days.....and if you have not visited USA before, the price you see on the tag/screen ...is the price BEFORE tax is added so in most cases you could be adding an extra 10% onto the price.

As regards the original question ... mkII or mkIII .... the mkIII is a better machine but do you need it ? lenses do keep their price but do you need to purchase new ? why not search online and find a bargain - you will save money in the long-term !! ...if you are going to USA - check out craigslist - its a similar thing to adverts, just communicate with the person properly before purchasing and follow all the normal procedures for purchasing online (meet in public place, do not bring cash but goto an ATM if you are happy with the product and want to complete the sale, ensure that the seller knows this is what will happen etc etc)

I've been to America quite a few times, I'm pretty sure New York sales tax is about 8%, which isn't too bad.

I've done my calculations and I would save quite a lot buying in America. I know it's risky with regards to warranty and guarantees etc but I'll probably get them insured over here. I think the cost of the body here alone would near enough get me a Canon 5D Mark IiI with the 25-105L and a video production kit with the current exchange rate (hopefully it doesn't lower too much): http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=Canon+5d+Mark+iii&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

Then I'll add in some extra lenses and a couple of other accessories too.

With regards to getting it shipped out of state, I'm not sure if that's a possibility considering I'm staying in NY.

I know New Jersey has no sales tax. So that would be fantastic if possible. But I'm not sure how I'd go about that?

Do I need it? I guess ultimately, no. I'm hoping to study photography and I want a new camera just for photography as a hobby. So I'm kind of looking at it as an investment. It will serve me well for numerous years and may even make me some money back if I'm lucky.

I'm also a fan of making videos so it does attract me that way too.

I'm not going to America until the summer so I'm going to be thinking long and hard over the coming months. No doubt changing my mind on lenses and stuff along the way!

MarkyMark22

Corkbah wrote: »

ensure you have factored in the sales and other taxes if you are purchasing it in store....or your $50 difference could be a $75 difference.

if you really want to maximise saving when purchasing in B&H get them to send it out of state (free shipping and tax free) ... so your $50 saving would be $50.

lots of people think they will save hundreds/thousands when purchasing in USA - this was the case many years ago, but is certainly not the case these days, prices are fairly regular these days.....and if you have not visited USA before, the price you see on the tag/screen ...is the price BEFORE tax is added so in most cases you could be adding an extra 10% onto the price.

As regards the original question ... mkII or mkIII .... the mkIII is a better machine but do you need it ? lenses do keep their price but do you need to purchase new ? why not search online and find a bargain - you will save money in the long-term !! ...if you are going to USA - check out craigslist - its a similar thing to adverts, just communicate with the person properly before purchasing and follow all the normal procedures for purchasing online (meet in public place, do not bring cash but goto an ATM if you are happy with the product and want to complete the sale, ensure that the seller knows this is what will happen etc etc)

I've been looking up services UPS offer, apparently I may be able to get it shipped to a UPS in New Jersey and collect it from their store. I've sent them an email asking for more information. Thanks for the advice! Could save me a great amount in US taxes!