OFFICIAL: CANON EOS 5D Mark III - User Thread - Part 2

[tonyep]

yup going to US west coast.

prolly be taking quite alot a day. 500 a day i guess.

still looking at which bag to buy. prolly have to get a backpack over sling bag.

I live in the west coast, up in the bay area and it's generally alright here. Still you have to keep a lookout on your camera gears. I've done street shoots in SF, LA and other US cities with my 5D2 or 1D4 along with 24-70 and 70-200 II as my walkabout lenses to give you a rough idea. It just depends on which area of the city you're going. Some can be quite unsafe.

 

[chengpenguin]

How you guys feel about the more leathery grip of the 5D3? It feels a bit too rough for my hands, still not used to it.

Maybe it'll be seasoned after a few months of use.

 

[jzliang]

testing my new UWA on 5D3, on the block opposite mine:

:bsmilie:

nice! handheld or tripod? exposure how long?

 

[avsquare]

How you guys feel about the more leathery grip of the 5D3? It feels a bit too rough for my hands, still not used to it.

Maybe it'll be seasoned after a few months of use.

actually, I liked it. it helps as 5D3 is more heavy than 5D2

nice! handheld or tripod? exposure how long?

no tripod, but I place it on the ledge at the corridor.

It's a 7 exposure HDR, from -3 to +3

 

[wjwjho]

Would like to hear some opinions.

1) What would you use as a walkabout prime lens (street/candids) - 24mm, 35mm or 50mm?
I already own all 3 primes in different aperture sizes. 24mm I f1.4L, 35mm f2, 50mm II f1.8. I'm having trouble deciding which focal length to keep. Keeping all 3 feels like an immense waste. The walkabout prime's main objective is to supplement my 24-70mm f2.8L. Right now I'm thinking the 24mm is almost definitely going to make way, so maybe its really just between the 35mm and 50mm.

2) 35mm f2 or 35mm f1.4L?
Worth the upgrade? I'm not so concerned with aperture size since I'm getting great ISO performance with the 5D3. I'm probably gonna be shooting at f4 most of the time I reckon. I'm interested to hear about overall IQ and AF comparisons.

3) 50mm f1.4 or 50mm f1.2L?
Same as Q2 above. Aperture size is secondary. Primary concern is IQ and AF.

With regards to questions 2 and 3, I wouldn't say money isn't an issue, but I'd be willing to fork out the difference if IQ and AF speed was justified.
As a benchmark, the AF on the 50mm II f1.8 and the 35mm f2 really ticks me off sometimes, but I can live with the IQ.

Another option would be to go with either a Zeiss 2/35 or a 1.4/50. But I'd like to wait and see how I fare with my first MF lense (Samyang 85mm, which will be in my hands by the end of the week.) before I decide whether I'm ready to make the leap into MF lenses propper.

 

[chengpenguin]

Would like to hear some opinions.

1) What would you use as a walkabout prime lens (street/candids) - 24mm, 35mm or 50mm?
I already own all 3 primes in different aperture sizes. 24mm I f1.4L, 35mm f2, 50mm II f1.8. I'm having trouble deciding which focal length to keep. Keeping all 3 feels like an immense waste. The walkabout prime's main objective is to supplement my 24-70mm f2.8L. Right now I'm thinking the 24mm is almost definitely going to make way, so maybe its really just between the 35mm and 50mm.

2) 35mm f2 or 35mm f1.4L?
Worth the upgrade? I'm not so concerned with aperture size since I'm getting great ISO performance with the 5D3. I'm probably gonna be shooting at f4 most of the time I reckon. I'm interested to hear about overall IQ and AF comparisons.

3) 50mm f1.4 or 50mm f1.2L?
Same as Q2 above. Aperture size is secondary. Primary concern is IQ and AF.

With regards to questions 2 and 3, I wouldn't say money isn't an issue, but I'd be willing to fork out the difference if IQ and AF speed was justified.
As a benchmark, the AF on the 50mm II f1.8 and the 35mm f2 really ticks me off sometimes, but I can live with the IQ.

Another option would be to go with either a Zeiss 2/35 or a 1.4/50. But I'd like to wait and see how I fare with my first MF lense (Samyang 85mm, which will be in my hands by the end of the week.) before I decide whether I'm ready to make the leap into MF lenses propper.

1) This is a matter of preference. Different people excel in the street with different focal lengths. However I always think longer is better. In this case, 50mm.

2) 35L gives better subject isolation, focusing speed and colour (in general, and CA). Sometimes cleaner is better. Why shoot at ISO 3200 when you can achieve ISO 800 with 35L?

3) Same as item 2 too. Colour rendition and AF. But wide open not that good for 50L is you are a pixel peeper.

I never looked back after I got 35L and 50L. These lenses give superior image quality that you only have yourself to blame when you photos turn out bad.

 

[wjwjho]

1) This is a matter of preference. Different people excel in the street with different focal lengths. However I always think longer is better. In this case, 50mm.

2) 35L gives better subject isolation, focusing speed and colour (in general, and CA). Sometimes cleaner is better. Why shoot at ISO 3200 when you can achieve ISO 800 with 35L?

3) Same as item 2 too. Colour rendition and AF. But wide open not that good for 50L is you are a pixel peeper.

I never looked back after I got 35L and 50L. These lenses give superior image quality that you only have yourself to blame when you photos turn out bad.

Thanks for your reply =)

1) Yeah I accept its all about preference. Trouble is I can't decide which one's for me. The way I shoot, the 50mm is great outdoors, but a little tight indoors. Likewise, I find the 24 and 35 a little too wide at times. But I guess with a FF now, I can afford to crop more.

2) I'm not really fond of razor thin DOF hence my taking the bigger apertures of the Ls out of the equation. I do like to isolate my subjects, but with the FF, I find myself rarely using anything bigger than f2.8. Although you're absolutely right about cleaner photos at ISO 800 instead of ISO3200, its an acceptable compromise for me in order to get a bit more DOF.

3) I've seen some photos taken with the 50L wide open, really not my style. I mean no disrespect, but sometimes it feels like some 50L owners shoot at f1.2 just because they can, and not because will produces a good photograph. Again, f2-2.8 would probably be the magic number for me even with the 50L. I'm no pixel peeper, but I value sharpness (especially over the focus point) over washing the rest of the image out with creamy bokeh.

As a 35L and 50L owner, have you ever considered the Zeiss?

 

[avsquare]

Would like to hear some opinions.

1) What would you use as a walkabout prime lens (street/candids) - 24mm, 35mm or 50mm?
I already own all 3 primes in different aperture sizes. 24mm I f1.4L, 35mm f2, 50mm II f1.8. I'm having trouble deciding which focal length to keep. Keeping all 3 feels like an immense waste. The walkabout prime's main objective is to supplement my 24-70mm f2.8L. Right now I'm thinking the 24mm is almost definitely going to make way, so maybe its really just between the 35mm and 50mm.

2) 35mm f2 or 35mm f1.4L?
Worth the upgrade? I'm not so concerned with aperture size since I'm getting great ISO performance with the 5D3. I'm probably gonna be shooting at f4 most of the time I reckon. I'm interested to hear about overall IQ and AF comparisons.

3) 50mm f1.4 or 50mm f1.2L?
Same as Q2 above. Aperture size is secondary. Primary concern is IQ and AF.

With regards to questions 2 and 3, I wouldn't say money isn't an issue, but I'd be willing to fork out the difference if IQ and AF speed was justified.
As a benchmark, the AF on the 50mm II f1.8 and the 35mm f2 really ticks me off sometimes, but I can live with the IQ.

Another option would be to go with either a Zeiss 2/35 or a 1.4/50. But I'd like to wait and see how I fare with my first MF lense (Samyang 85mm, which will be in my hands by the end of the week.) before I decide whether I'm ready to make the leap into MF lenses propper.

1) Since you already have a 24-70mm and you want a prime to suppliment it, I would rather you get a 85mm (85L) or 135mm (135L). I don't really see a need to get a 35mm or 50mm, unless you have specifice use for such lens. You have to realize that these primes serves a special need and use - for example, 50mm, especially the 50L, is quite the portrait lens. However, 50mm can be a good walk-about prime, for street photography etc. It's up to you. 50L is a great lens, but if you buy it as a general walk about, it's abit wasteful.

Always remember what that lens is for. If your real purpose is a walk about prime to SUPPLIMENT your 24-70, I think 85mm or 135mm will be a good choice. Or if you think 85mm and 135mm is too tight, how about a UWA?


2) 35L or 35 F2? Your choice really. Build and quality wise, 35L. Same as your comparison of 50L and 50 F1.4

 

[chengpenguin]

As a 35L and 50L owner, have you ever considered the Zeiss?

Haha nope. Never in my mind because I rely on AF all the time to capture candids. That's a main part of what I love to shoot

 

[wjwjho]

Haha nope. Never in my mind because I rely on AF all the time to capture candids. That's a main part of what I love to shoot

Same, thats precisely whats holding me back!
I tried playing around with my 24L on MF and I'm not very confident that I can get it right at least 1/2 the time.

 

[LittleSid]

How you guys feel about the more leathery grip of the 5D3? It feels a bit too rough for my hands, still not used to it.

Maybe it'll be seasoned after a few months of use.

I normally wear hand glove when I use 5D3, it provides better grip also.

 

[wjwjho]

1) Since you already have a 24-70mm and you want a prime to suppliment it, I would rather you get a 85mm (85L) or 135mm (135L). I don't really see a need to get a 35mm or 50mm, unless you have specifice use for such lens. You have to realize that these primes serves a special need and use - for example, 50mm, especially the 50L, is quite the portrait lens. However, 50mm can be a good walk-about prime, for street photography etc. It's up to you. 50L is a great lens, but if you buy it as a general walk about, it's abit wasteful.

Always remember what that lens is for. If your real purpose is a walk about prime to SUPPLIMENT your 24-70, I think 85mm or 135mm will be a good choice. Or if you think 85mm and 135mm is too tight, how about a UWA?


2) 35L or 35 F2? Your choice really. Build and quality wise, 35L. Same as your comparison of 50L and 50 F1.4

Forgive me but I meant that the 24-70 supplements the prime, not the other way round. I guess I don't see primes as specialized lenses. The primes are my primary lenses for their sharpness, and 24-70 for flexibility when I don't have time to compose my shots. The 24-70 is a great lens no doubt, but I'm not super fond of it. Its too heavy and I hate that the wide end of the focal length has the lens barrel fully extended. I use it mainly for the 70mm focal length or if friends/relatives need help at weddings/events.

I might consider the 85L or 135L if I do decide to go into portraiture a bit more, but in the meantime, I'll have the Samyang 85mm for that focal length (and also to work out if I can live with MF).

I did think of UWA too for landscapes, but I suspect it would be severly underutilized, not really my thing.

End of the day, I already have all 3 of the focal lengths I'm considering. So the question is which ones to get rid of, and which one to upgrade.

 

[tonyep]

Would like to hear some opinions.

1) What would you use as a walkabout prime lens (street/candids) - 24mm, 35mm or 50mm?
I already own all 3 primes in different aperture sizes. 24mm I f1.4L, 35mm f2, 50mm II f1.8. I'm having trouble deciding which focal length to keep. Keeping all 3 feels like an immense waste. The walkabout prime's main objective is to supplement my 24-70mm f2.8L. Right now I'm thinking the 24mm is almost definitely going to make way, so maybe its really just between the 35mm and 50mm.

2) 35mm f2 or 35mm f1.4L?
Worth the upgrade? I'm not so concerned with aperture size since I'm getting great ISO performance with the 5D3. I'm probably gonna be shooting at f4 most of the time I reckon. I'm interested to hear about overall IQ and AF comparisons.

3) 50mm f1.4 or 50mm f1.2L?
Same as Q2 above. Aperture size is secondary. Primary concern is IQ and AF.

With regards to questions 2 and 3, I wouldn't say money isn't an issue, but I'd be willing to fork out the difference if IQ and AF speed was justified.
As a benchmark, the AF on the 50mm II f1.8 and the 35mm f2 really ticks me off sometimes, but I can live with the IQ.

Another option would be to go with either a Zeiss 2/35 or a 1.4/50. But I'd like to wait and see how I fare with my first MF lense (Samyang 85mm, which will be in my hands by the end of the week.) before I decide whether I'm ready to make the leap into MF lenses propper.

I am using the 35L as my walkabout lens with the 5D2 and now 5D3. I've never tried the f2 hence I can't comment on the difference.

I own the Zeiss 50 1.4 as well and prefers it to the canon equivalent. It definitely has better color rendetion. I also swapped the 5D2 focusing screen to EG-S so I could MF easier using the Zeiss. This lens boils down to you if you can live with MF. It may take times to get used but after that, it's a breeze to MF.

 

[spinworkxroy]

I am using the 35L as my walkabout lens with the 5D2 and now 5D3. I've never tried the f2 hence I can't comment on the difference.

I own the Zeiss 50 1.4 as well and prefers it to the canon equivalent. It definitely has better color rendetion. I also swapped the 5D2 focusing screen to EG-S so I could MF easier using the Zeiss. This lens boils down to you if you can live with MF. It may take times to get used but after that, it's a breeze to MF.

Considering the 5D3 can't change focus screens and based on some user's reports that the 5D3 won't shoot with some MF lenses..i wonder how the Zeiss works on the 5D3..have you tried? Does it work well?

 

[avsquare]

Forgive me but I meant that the 24-70 supplements the prime, not the other way round. I guess I don't see primes as specialized lenses. The primes are my primary lenses for their sharpness, and 24-70 for flexibility when I don't have time to compose my shots. The 24-70 is a great lens no doubt, but I'm not super fond of it. Its too heavy and I hate that the wide end of the focal length has the lens barrel fully extended. I use it mainly for the 70mm focal length or if friends/relatives need help at weddings/events.

I might consider the 85L or 135L if I do decide to go into portraiture a bit more, but in the meantime, I'll have the Samyang 85mm for that focal length (and also to work out if I can live with MF).

I did think of UWA too for landscapes, but I suspect it would be severly underutilized, not really my thing.

End of the day, I already have all 3 of the focal lengths I'm considering. So the question is which ones to get rid of, and which one to upgrade.

Ok.. since you don't really shoot wide, then you may have to consider 35mm or 50mm. Mount your 24-70, try shoot on 35mm and 50mm to decide which focal length you prefer.

Just a piece of advise, don't take it too seriously since it's my own preference - if you are afraid of weight, you should look for compact or mirrorless system.

DSLR system is by no means something light.. common set-ups are 2KG and above. And the thing is, quality lens don't come light. The 35L and 50L are top notch lens for that focal length, but they are heavy pieces of glass. That's another point of consideration. If you really dislike the weight, you may have to compromise IQ - then you can consider to have 35mm F2 or 50mm F1.4

 

[jasonyjw]

a couple of HDR taken with the camera.

 

[chengpenguin]

a couple of HDR taken with the camera.

Sorry just my opinion, not criticising your photography.

But I think these are the kind of HDR that is processed in the wrong context. Looks like water colour smudged all over the place. Eeewww...

 

[jasonyjw]

haha no worries, i was just testing out the camera while having lunch. there's a few options in the camera that lets you choose the hdr you want to use. i randomly picked 2 and tried. effect was this. so this is wrong HDR? lol.

does that mean the camera is wrong?

 

[wjwjho]

Ok.. since you don't really shoot wide, then you may have to consider 35mm or 50mm. Mount your 24-70, try shoot on 35mm and 50mm to decide which focal length you prefer.

Just a piece of advise, don't take it too seriously since it's my own preference - if you are afraid of weight, you should look for compact or mirrorless system.

DSLR system is by no means something light.. common set-ups are 2KG and above. And the thing is, quality lens don't come light. The 35L and 50L are top notch lens for that focal length, but they are heavy pieces of glass. That's another point of consideration. If you really dislike the weight, you may have to compromise IQ - then you can consider to have 35mm F2 or 50mm F1.4

Thanks, but I think you missed my point. I'm not moaning about the overall weight of a DSLR system.


Just to add, I think the 35L is the heaviest of the primes I'm considering. Its a weight I can live with on the basis that its similar to the weight of the 24L I already use now.

I guess what I really want to know now is if the difference in the IQ, Colour, AF, CA, etc. between the 35L and the 35 f2 and the 50L and the 50 f1.4 justify the huge difference in price.

 

[chengpenguin]

haha no worries, i was just testing out the camera while having lunch. there's a few options in the camera that lets you choose the hdr you want to use. i randomly picked 2 and tried. effect was this. so this is wrong HDR? lol.

does that mean the camera is wrong?

Nothing wrong with the camera lah, but you don't have to use HDR in the above scenes. They should look perfectly colourful and vibrant by itself, especially the one with fruits!