Travel Photography - Canon 5d Mark 2 or Mark 3

I currently have canon 30d with 24-70mm f/2.8 L and i'm thinking about moving up to either 5d mk2 or mk3 as it is not wide enough. also, I'm thinking about getting 16-35mm wideangle lense for that reason. However, since I haven't used FF camera, i can't tell how much difference there is in 16mm vs 24mm (in case I do not get 16-35mm). also, I do not want to spend too much money in photography equipment as I'm just a family photographer and I'm not sure if i need to keep 24-70mm if i can 16-35mm... my other dilemma is below and I appreciate if someone can help me to make my decision.

option 1
- get 5d mk2 and keep 24-70mm ($2,199)

option 2
get 5d mk3 and keep 24-70mm (about $3,499)

option 3
- get 5d mk2 and get 16-35mm and keep 24-70mm ($4,000)

option 4
- get 5d mk3 and get 16-35mm and keep 24-70mm ($6,000)

I currently have canon 30d with 24-70mm f/2.8 L and i'm thinking about moving up to either 5d mk2 or mk3 as it is not wide enough. also, I'm thinking about getting 16-35mm wideangle lense for that reason. However, since I haven't used FF camera, i can't tell how much difference there is in 16mm vs 24mm (in case I do not get 16-35mm). also, I do not want to spend too much money in photography equipment as I'm just a family photographer and I'm not sure if i need to keep 24-70mm if i can 16-35mm... my other dilemma is below and I appreciate if someone can help me to make my decision.

option 1
- get 5d mk2 and keep 24-70mm ($2,199)

option 2
get 5d mk3 and keep 24-70mm (about $3,499)

option 3
- get 5d mk2 and get 16-35mm and keep 24-70mm ($4,000)

option 4
- get 5d mk3 and get 16-35mm and keep 24-70mm ($6,000)

I won't address whether or not you should get a new camera other than to say that on your current crop-sensor camera your 24-70 is effectively a ~35-105. By using the 16-35 you end up with an effective ~24-50.

The 16-35 f/2.8L will run you $1700. The 5D MK III will run you $3500.

Is the 5D MK II/III with your current 24-70L $500-$1800 "better" than your 30D with a new 16-35L, only you can answer that.

Are you unhappy with the general quality of the images you have been getting from the 30D?

I have a mkII and have shot a demo MkIII at a local dealer. Its not enough of a upgrade to be considered for me. Only reason at this point i would go with the MkIII is if the camera failed and no mkII replacements available from canon.

I would rather put my money into newer/better lens then a body as the glass will last longer then the body, and hold its value better.

Just one other thought - if your primary concern is that your current setup is not wide enough, but you don't want to spend a lot of money, the Canon 10-22, or any of the many non-fisheye zooms starting in the 10-12mm range, on your 30D will get you the same FOV (width) as a FF 16mm lens. You could also look at a 60D or 7D to get the newer AF/focus/etc capabilities without the $$$ of a 5D.

And if you're looking to save money even with a FF body, the 17-40 isn't far off the 16-35 in terms of IQ and it's much cheaper.

Just one other thought - if your primary concern is that your current setup is not wide enough, but you don't want to spend a lot of money, the Canon 10-22, or any of the many non-fisheye zooms starting in the 10-12mm range, on your 30D will get you the same FOV (width) as a FF 16mm lens. You could also look at a 60D or 7D to get the newer AF/focus/etc capabilities without the $$$ of a 5D.

And if you're looking to save money even with a FF body, the 17-40 isn't far off the 16-35 in terms of IQ and it's much cheaper.

Invest in glass.
Blow money on bodies only when you have to.
My Tokina 11-16f2.8 is hands-down the most fun piece of photography equipment I own. It's mounted 99% of the time on a 50D (crop).
Try one out at a local shop before you drop serious $$ on a 5D. You just might find it's all you've been looking for.
Can be had for ~$800.

Invest in glass.
Blow money on bodies only when you have to.
My Tokina 11-16f2.8 is hands-down the most fun piece of photography equipment I own. It's mounted 99% of the time on a 50D (crop).
Try one out at a local shop before you drop serious $$ on a 5D. You just might find it's all you've been looking for.
Can be had for ~$800.

Sound advice.

Cheers,
T.

if wide angle is a big factor and you want to get a better body, i would suggest a 7D w/ 10-22

option 1
- get 5d mk2 and keep 24-70mm ($2,199)

option 2
get 5d mk3 and keep 24-70mm (about $3,499)

option 3
- get 5d mk2 and get 16-35mm and keep 24-70mm ($4,000)

option 4
- get 5d mk3 and get 16-35mm and keep 24-70mm ($6,000)

option 5
- get a used Canon 5D (~$1000)

I also own a used Sigma 15-30 (~$400) and have been very happy with it.

http://sankarshanans.smugmug.com/Travel/GlacierNP/Sigma-15-30mm/

I agree with all the sentiments here. There is no reason for you to upgrade based on the reasons that you posted. It's much better to invest in wider glass. I still shoot with the 5DMKII, and the only reason I upgraded to it from my XTi was the fact that I needed the better high ISO capability.

I don't see enough of a difference between the MKII and the MKIII for me to justify the upgrade right now.

I shoot with the 5D2 right now. I have the 24-70, and a 17-40mm

Do you NEED f/2.8? the 17-40mm is just as good as the 16-35 only it's f/4.
If you don't need the stop, the 17-40 is several hundred dollars cheaper

5D3 is a great camera looks like, but for me, the only incentive to upgrade is the number of focus points. 9 is pitiful on the 5D2.. but for 3500 dollars I don't think it's worth it. If you shoot video, it's another story.

So i'd go 5D2, keep your 24-70.. and buy a 17-40
a 5D2 can be had for 1800 or so, the 17-40 probably 700 or so?
(buy like new in box but used on fredmiranda's buy and sell forum).
Sell your 30D for whatever you can get, and your net out of pocket cost isn't too bad.

the lenses you'll be able to keep for a while.. and you can always get the 5D mark 4 whenever that gets released :D

I agree with all the sentiments here. There is no reason for you to upgrade based on the reasons that you posted. It's much better to invest in wider glass. I still shoot with the 5DMKII, and the only reason I upgraded to it from my XTi was the fact that I needed the better high ISO capability.

I don't see enough of a difference between the MKII and the MKIII for me to justify the upgrade right now.

The same reason - better high ISO capability. I was perpetually missing shots of my kids with the 5DMKII in low light. After 3 days with the 5DMKIII, I can say the thing practically shoots in the dark. Very usable shots at 12,800 ISO. There's also a noticable improvement in auto-focus. But those are the only two reasons I would upgrade. The 5DMKII is still quite good. For that matter, my old 10D was quite good too. :)

I shoot with the 5D2 right now. I have the 24-70, and a 17-40mm

Do you NEED f/2.8? the 17-40mm is just as good as the 16-35 only it's f/4.
If you don't need the stop, the 17-40 is several hundred dollars cheaper

5D3 is a great camera looks like, but for me, the only incentive to upgrade is the number of focus points. 9 is pitiful on the 5D2.. but for 3500 dollars I don't think it's worth it. If you shoot video, it's another story.

So i'd go 5D2, keep your 24-70.. and buy a 17-40
a 5D2 can be had for 1800 or so, the 17-40 probably 700 or so?
(buy like new in box but used on fredmiranda's buy and sell forum).
Sell your 30D for whatever you can get, and your net out of pocket cost isn't too bad.

the lenses you'll be able to keep for a while.. and you can always get the 5D mark 4 whenever that gets released :D

+1 on 17-40. It is a very good wide angle lens. Have been using it for the past 4 yrs. also you might want to look for refurb 5d2 from Canon directly. They are as good as new. The only thing I value 5d3 is the new AF system. But not at $1400 premium over 5d2. I rather save $ for 24-70 II.

+1 on 17-40. It is a very good wide angle lens. Have been using it for the past 4 yrs.

I would agree about the 17-40 with a FF body, but with an APS-sized sensor it is just not wide enough for many situations (nor is the 16-35). With a crop sensor you typically need 10-12 mm at the wide end to get truly wide-angle shots.

Cheers,
T.

I would agree about the 17-40 with a FF body, but with an APS-sized sensor it is just not wide enough for many situations (nor is the 16-35). With a crop sensor you typically need 10-12 mm at the wide end to get truly wide-angle shots.

Cheers,
T.

+1 very good point. Although, the thread title was 5d mk2 or 5d mk3.. both are full frame sensors ^

Cropped sensor vs FF, whole different camera. If you are casual shooter, and want UWA lens, then I would just buy the lens. However, if you are serious hobbyist and want to purchase FF, then I would buy 5dM3. Why? 5dM3 has better autofocus system and better performance at high iso than mark ii.

I would suggest that you get a 5d mk2 with the 24-105mm f4L kit lens and sell your 24-70 if you are a casual user. 24-105 imo is the best walk around lens and the one lens I would carry when I travel.

You need to figure out what subject you are going to be taking pictures of. For example I normally use the 24-105 but when I went to egypt I bought my 16-35 to take pictures of humongous structure and my 70-200 during the nile cruise part of my trip.

If you can spare money for the 5d mk3, go for it. It has dual card slot and you can use eye-fi natively, more focus points, bigger lcd, higher iso, faster fps, and new processor.

If you want to collect the set i would keep your 24-70 then slowly collect the 16-35 and 70-200 to cover the zoom range.

If you don't mind spending extra $$ go for the 5D MkIII. In the end you will lose almost same money when selling the used body of the MKII and the MKIII.

I would suggest that you get a 5d mk2 with the 24-105mm f4L kit lens and sell your 24-70 if you are a casual user. 24-105 imo is the best walk around lens and the one lens I would carry when I travel.

You need to figure out what subject you are going to be taking pictures of. For example I normally use the 24-105 but when I went to egypt I bought my 16-35 to take pictures of humongous structure and my 70-200 during the nile cruise part of my trip.


I would say get it second hand if you can & whole heartedly agree with the point regarding the 24-105 lens. I prefer not having to switch around lenses and have carried an older SLR body with a different lens mounted just so that I had enough versatility.

How did this story end? What did you bought?