Poll 5dmark iii or 70-200 mark ii and nice prime

[fjrabon]

How is the sigma version? Do you Use it on a crop or full frame body? Ive considered the sigma before but after using the canon mark ii on a number of occasions ive been leery of going that path.

The biggest difference between the two is focus speed. We give the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 to our interns, so I've used it a few times before. The focus speed difference is pretty extreme. The Sigma isn't AWFUL by any means, but the Canon MkII is the best of any lens I've ever used. It pretty much has to be near dark for the 7D to search for focus on the MkII, while it's not exactly routine, but not uncommon either for it to search for focus on the Sigma.

The Canon is also a lot more consistently sharp over its entire range of focal length and apertures. While I'm sure there are certain aperture/focal lengths combos that are worse than others, I've yet to find them. Such an amazingly consistent lens. The Sigma is a touch soft around the corners at 2.8 on either extreme end of its focal range.

 

[fjrabon]

as much as I love the 70-200, and it is my favorite lens I've ever used on Nikon or Canon, I wouldn't get it for weddings. you'd rarely use 120-200mm, which is the biggest reason you buy it, those lengths at f/2.8. And it's very heavy to shoot handheld all day long, which is typically what you have to do at weddings.

Given the amount of money you have, I'd probably go 5DII, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.2. These paired with your general zoom will give you some fantastic shots. On a full frame, the 85mm is the money lens for individual shots, the 50mm the go to for groups. then use your sigma f/2.8 midrange zoom for general reception/ceremony candid type shots.

When your wedding shooting brings in enough, then buy an older 70-200mm MkI for sports and a used 7D. Which is still a very great combo for hobby sports photography.

I use a 70-200 for my primary lens for most EVERYTHING and weddings are no exception. In fact, if I didn't have it I'd be in a bit of a pickle in several local churches where I must be behind the last seated guest. I'd say I use it twice as much as every other lens.
I do not even have the Canon MK I version... I have the Sigma OS version. I'd love to have the MK I and I'd really LOVE to have the new one, but it's not budget wise for me. I HAVE to have that range at f/2.8 and for weddings I have to have the IS/OS. At the time I bought the original version was significantly more $$$, so I made the necessary decisions.

Yeah, you've said this before and it still boggles my mind how much you use that lens. Not saying that in a bad way at all, because it very obviously works for you. But in my hands everything over about 100mm would be totally wasted inside a church, and I'd be much better off with an 85mm f/1.8 prime or the like in that environment.

 

[MLeeK]

How is the sigma version? Do you Use it on a crop or full frame body? Ive considered the sigma before but after using the canon mark ii on a number of occasions ive been leery of going that path.

I use it on both. I seriously love the lens. It's not the Canon MkII, but then I didn't pay over $2K for it either... I paid $1199. Its sharp, fast and has the necessary IS/OS for weddings. I also have the Tamron version and it's a SHARP lens, but much slower to focus. Beautiful for the macro shots at weddings!!!

 

[bledererphoto]

How many of stops with is do you gain would you estimate? I can hand hold at 1/40 at 200 mm with the c anon version. And I assume it can do alright with focus in low light.

 

[Overread]

If you're shooting at 1/40sec you better have a very very still subject. Even minor motions of living subjects are going to start to show up motion blur at that speed (unless you have the exposure dominated totally by flash light so that the light pulse controls the exposure).

 

[Derrel]

I think the 5D-III versus 70-200/2.8 Mark II would be almost a tossup...BOTH are highly coveted pieces of kit. Which would be the better allocation of resources is based mostly on what your current body is capable of...I think BOTH pieces would be very nice to own...the thing is, the body will go down in price within two years, as newer, better cameras come out, and the 5D-III becomes passe...but the 70-200 Mark II is going to hold its value as a resale item about like gold bullion....

 

[xyphoto]

I would get 70-200mm IS II first then save for the 5d Mark iii when the price comes down. I have both and it is a dream combo. Canon has some good rebate on the lens right now.

 

[bledererphoto]

I think the 5D-III versus 70-200/2.8 Mark II would be almost a tossup...BOTH are highly coveted pieces of kit. Which would be the better allocation of resources is based mostly on what your current body is capable of...I think BOTH pieces would be very nice to own...the thing is, the body will go down in price within two years, as newer, better cameras come out, and the 5D-III becomes passe...but the 70-200 Mark II is going to hold its value as a resale item about like gold bullion....

I agree with the glass. A camera may hold up at least 70% of value for 3-4 yeArs at best where a great lens may for well over 5 years.