Have 5D3, will shoot... but which lens?

[roeland77]

Hi all,

I bit the bullet and have decided to buy the 5D3 as an upgrade for my 50D. I am however hesitant on which lens to buy with the 5D3:
24-105L f4 or
24-70L f4 (wait a bit for prices to drop) or
17-40L f4

I already have the following canons: 28 1.8, 50 1.4 and 70-200 f4 IS FF lenses but will need a FF UWA or FF standard zoom replace my sigma crop zooms (17-70IS  and 8-16). I ended up not using the 8-16 a lot because it seemed wide and did not have any overlap with my 17-70.

I mainly shoot portraits, street, architecture. I like the primes and use them a lot, but do want a zoom lens for general walk-round.

The 2.8 lenses (16-35LII & new 24-70 canon & tamron) look great, but the extra size & weight put me off and cannot justify the extra cost. I believe I can accept the softish corners of the 17-40 I read about. The high ISO of the 5D3 will offset the slower aperture of the 17-40 as well.

I figure the 70-200 will do nicely as portrait lens, super sharp, and I am sure a longer prime will follow as well for better bokeh, so I am thinking maybe I should start with UWA instead of standard zoom. How important is the 30-100 range?

Which to buy first? UWA or standard zoom? Did any of you readers skip the standard zoom go straight for the UWA zoom? What do you shoot primarily?

Any advice & views would be appreciated!

Regards, Roeland

[neuroanatomist]

If you didn't use the 8-16mm on APS-C because it was too wide, you may feel the same about the 17-40 on FF (although it's longer on the long end).  If you liked your 17-70, I'd really recommend the 24-105mm f/4L IS.  It's equivalent to a 15-65mm on APS-C, and as a kit lens with the 5DIII, it's an excellent value on a very versatile walkaround lens.

[Spooky]

24-105 - Great standard lens.

The 17-40 is also great but as Neuro said, will be wide on FF. Haven't heard such good reports about the 24-70 f4, better with the f2.8 - your budget will dictate!

I mainly shoot landscape, so the lens choice is used to 'balance' foreground / background - perspective, not maybe such an issue with architecture, where distortion and 'getting it in' may be more important.

My thoughts are if you can afford a 5d3, then don't skimp on getting the best glass that you will really use most of the time.

[crasher8]

LensRentals.com Chess set. anything else would be uncivilized.

[RS2021]

24-105L and it is an easy recommendtion.

As I rarely get rid of lenses once I buy them (though I have threatened to do so often  ), I have good many to choose from, yet this simple zoom sees a lot of use. Just remove the word "kit" from the title and people would have paid good money for this lens. It is that versatile and the contrast always surprises me.

[EvilTed]

I think to get the best AF response from the 5D MK3, you need to use the newest glass...
I sold all my L primes and the 16-35 F/2.8 II because the 24-70 F/2.8 II is better than all of them combined.
I particularly dislike both the 16-35 F/2.8 II and the 24-105 F/4 because they are not sharp enough for my taste.

The 24-70 F/2.8 II is another thing entirely.
I must have got a good copy because I got another copy of the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 and I think the Canon is sharper @ F/2.8.

The newer IS primes are all very good, very sharp and focus much better than old glass too.
They just have a 2 dimensional rendering that I don't care for.

I'm currently down to the 24-70 F/2.8 II, 70-200 F/2.8 II and Sigma 35mm F/1.4, which are arguably amongst the sharpest Canon lenses available. To be a prime lover and end up with mostly zooms is a shock to me, but the Canon primes are all old and need updating and in the normal range, the 24-70 is as good or better than everything available (and yes, I had a 24 F/1.4 II and immediately sold it when I got the 24-70).

My advice - save up and get the 24-70 F/2.8 II - it really is made for the 5D MK3, IDX and 6D

ET

[RLPhoto]

Hi all,

I bit the bullet and have decided to buy the 5D3 as an upgrade for my 50D. I am however hesitant on which lens to buy with the 5D3:
24-105L f4 or
24-70L f4 (wait a bit for prices to drop) or
17-40L f4

I already have the following canons: 28 1.8, 50 1.4 and 70-200 f4 IS FF lenses but will need a FF UWA or FF standard zoom replace my sigma crop zooms (17-70IS  and 8-16). I ended up not using the 8-16 a lot because it seemed wide and did not have any overlap with my 17-70.

I mainly shoot portraits, street, architecture. I like the primes and use them a lot, but do want a zoom lens for general walk-round.

The 2.8 lenses (16-35LII & new 24-70 canon & tamron) look great, but the extra size & weight put me off and cannot justify the extra cost. I believe I can accept the softish corners of the 17-40 I read about. The high ISO of the 5D3 will offset the slower aperture of the 17-40 as well.

I figure the 70-200 will do nicely as portrait lens, super sharp, and I am sure a longer prime will follow as well for better bokeh, so I am thinking maybe I should start with UWA instead of standard zoom. How important is the 30-100 range?

Which to buy first? UWA or standard zoom? Did any of you readers skip the standard zoom go straight for the UWA zoom? What do you shoot primarily?

Any advice & views would be appreciated!

Regards, Roeland

17-40, 50 1.4, + 70-200 F/4 - What else is needed?

[Hardwire]

Sounds like you do not have the biggest budget right now having to buy a body also, I was a fan of the 24-105 and agree with other statement that it should not be called a "kit" lens as it is a good bit of glass in its own right.

Looking at the figures in lightroom it has taken almost as many shots as my 50 1.4 and my 70-200 2.8!

[Boyer U. Klum-Cey]

Another vote for the 24-105 L, even in my talent-free hand, it is a winner in decent light.

[TrumpetPower!]

It's damned hard to argue against the 24-105 kit with the 5DIII.

Pick any single type or aspect of photography and it's trivial to find a superior lens. But there's still not a single lens that can do everything the 24-105 does, and the 24-105 does it all really well.

Sure, it's not as fast as the 24-70 f/2.8. But it's longer and stabilized. Sure, any single prime is better at that focal length. But you've got a whole bag full o' primes with the 24-105. Sure, f/4 isn't blazing fast. But between its IS and the 5DIII's high ISO ability it's got the low light area covered really well, and most of the time you want to stop down for sharpness and depth of field anyway. Sure, the 24-105 doesn't have the best image quality in the lineup...but it's really close, not that far off at all.

Give me a choice between a 24-105 and a bag o' primes and a sherpa to carry them and an assistant to swap them, and I'll ditch the 24-105. And if I have something specific in mind, I'll grab the special-porpoise tool best suited for that task.

But, if I don't know what I might get into, if I'm looking for a walkabout lens, I'm either reaching for the 24-105 to be prepared for most anything, or I'm taking off the grip and BlackRapid strap and replacing it with a wrist strap and the Shorty McForty to turn the camera into a rich man's slightly-oversized P&S.

Cheers,

b&

[Halfrack]

Grab the 5d3 kit with the 24-105 - worst case you can sell the lens for a profit if it doesn't work for your style of photography.  There is nothing to lose.

[bholliman]

One more vote for the 24-105mm.  Excellent, versatile, moderately priced walk around lens.

The 24-70 f/4.0 is more expensive, has less reach and is roughly the same in sharpness.  I've rented the 24-70 2.8 II and love it, especially for indoors and low light, but can't justify the price to purchase one when the 24-105 can do everything 90% as well for 1/3 the price.

[dickgrafixstop]

consider an interim solution - the 28-135is - is an extremely underrated lens and it's cheap (perhaps why it's underrated?).  The focal length range is excellent and should tell you if you really need (want)
the extra width of the 24 and should help decide (other than dollars) between the 70 or 105 high end.
You may end up really liking the lens or you can get most of your money back by selling it when you
decide - if you decide.

[tomscott]

I was worried about going from the 17-55mm F2.8 to a 24-105mm F4 because as a kit lens I didn't believe it would be a good as it is and also wanted a faster aperture, but couldn't afford the 24-70 MKII.

Have to say it is not soft it's brilliant, F2.8 on a crop is similar to F4 on full frame so I have found it brilliant! Plus 1 for the 24-105mm. Get it with the kit use it for a while and if its not for you sell it later down the line it won't loose much and its cheaper with the kit. I also wanted my standard zoom to have IS but like the range so I was sceptical but now sold!

Doubt you'll be disappointed!

[dswatson83]

A couple of reviews/tests that may help you out

Take a look at the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS Vs the Canon 24-70 f/4L IS: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/103-canon-24-70-f4-is-vs-canon-24-105-f4-is

And the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC vs the Canon 24-70 f/4L IS: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/104-tamron-24-70-f28-vc-vs-canon-24-70-f4l-is

If you do not need a macro lens, I would personally rule out the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS. It is just way too expensive for what you get...other than the macro mode. The 24-105 can be found cheap so look for it if you can find a deal but the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 is still a solid performer, offers a stop faster aperture, and still has stabilization. It is also built like a tank and is still cheaper than the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS

I also love the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4. I'd consider selling the 24mm f/1.8 and buying the Sigma. It is just such an amazing lens and you will get a wider aperture and a great FF focal length for wider or indoor shots.

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Lens Review	Small | Large