Quote:
Originally Posted by EJT86
I figured I'd go with the 24-70 over the 24-105 because the 24-70 has 9 blades vs 8 blades and 4 stop IS vs 3 stop IS plus a little smaller and lighter will the differences be hard to notice between the two? Also the 50mm I would get for portraits and lower lighting shots the 50mm f/1.8 is only a couple hundred bucks. I'm set with everything else tho aside from a good strap. Got a Lexar 32gb 1066x for $38 last week on BH. Nice shots on your Flickr btw
|
The improved IS is the best reason to go with the 24-70mm; otherwise, it'll be hard to tell them apart in IQ. (Believe me, when the Series II 24-105mm comes out, I'll be all over it, mostly for the expected improved IS).
What's missing is a 70-200mm f/4L IS. To me, a 70-200mm is essential to a "complete" kit. Buy used, if you must. If you feel a need to salt with primes, do it after the kit is "complete."
The 50mm is not really an ideal focal length for portraits on a full-frame body. You'll want something longer, like in the 80-105mm range. Really. 70mm will also be superior. Also, the low-light performance of the 5D3 almost negates the advantage of the larger aperture, particularly if the 50mm doesn't have IS. (I don't know off hand). IS is really huge for night, street shooting. I use my 70-200mm for most portraits.
That Lexar card is great. I use those.
My kit is built around the 24-105mm and 70-200mm zooms. I've got the excellent EF 14mm f/2.8L II, thanks Alex, for the ultra-wide end and the 500mm for the super tele lens (most people have no need for a super-tele. If you stay serious, then I think that ultra-wide zooms or prime comes next after the 70-200mm. However, the ultra-wide and ultra-long don't make sense for everyone. You have to know how to use them and have a reason to spend all that money.
You can't go too far wrong with anything that you're considering. We're into nit picking territory.
Dave