Whats a good walk around lens to put on a new 5d Mk iii

[gary]

Thanks to everyone, you have all given me lots of food for thought. I had scoured endless product reviews, but the personal thoughts found here are most helpful. Still undecided but may take the less expensive 24-105 and 16-35 and use the savings for a nice mid range prime, thanks again.

[dunkers]

I use the 100L macro as a walk around.

Sure I miss some shots, but that lens is so fun to use and you don't disturb your subjects as much thanks to the focal length. Plus, if I happen upon an insect or something I can easily take a shot.

[neuroanatomist]

Best walkaround lens?  The 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS.  ...

Good post, as usual. I haven't noticed the 28-300 much. Looked up the review on The Digital Picture, If it wasn't push-pull, a design I'm not fond of, I'd seriously consider one.

Seems there's a love/hate thing for the push-pull design.  I like it for the way you can very rapidly change focal length, and the fact that the tension ring lets you effectively lock the zoom at any focal length, vs. other lenses with zoom creep that only have a lock when fully retracted. 

There's definitely something to be said for the convenience of a superzoom, especially for travel.  The problem is that with most superzooms, you pay a big price in terms of IQ for that convenience.  With the 28-300L, the price you pay is size/weight (and cost, of course), but in terms of IQ (distortion/sharpness) it's on par with the 24-105mm.

[sanj]

Undoubtedly the 24-105 IS.

[Eiremon]

Buy a "used" 24-105 - there are going to be lots of them floating around in new / mint condition from the 5D Mk III kits.  If you don't like it, resell for little/no loss.

[Random Orbits]

Thanks to everyone, you have all given me lots of food for thought. I had scoured endless product reviews, but the personal thoughts found here are most helpful. Still undecided but may take the less expensive 24-105 and 16-35 and use the savings for a nice mid range prime, thanks again.

Might as well go slow because prices are pretty high now.  Now if the prices were like they were at the end of last year... then it'd be a different story!

[FunPhotons]

Seems there's a love/hate thing for the push-pull design.  I like it for the way you can very rapidly change focal length, and the fact that the tension ring lets you effectively lock the zoom at any focal length, vs. other lenses with zoom creep that only have a lock when fully retracted. 

There's definitely something to be said for the convenience of a superzoom, especially for travel.  The problem is that with most superzooms, you pay a big price in terms of IQ for that convenience.  With the 28-300L, the price you pay is size/weight (and cost, of course), but in terms of IQ (distortion/sharpness) it's on par with the 24-105mm.

I shouldn't talk - I haven't spent much time with a push-pull never having owned one, and I don't believe you can really understand something without having owned it for six months.

I'll keep that lens in mind - I hate heavy lenses however which is probably the bigger downside for me.

[EvilTed]

I'll sell you my 24-105 that came with my kit.
I've taken 10 shots with it and already know it's not for me.
I prefer primes.

I'll give you a great price and throw in a B+W 77mm UV filter.

Ping me if interested.

ET

[Tracy Pinto]

I really like the 17-40mm for up close street shots as I pass people.

[takoman46]

I prefer the 24-70 over the 24-105 because of the f/2.8 over f/4. Plus with the ISO performance of the mkIII, I don't feel that not having IS is any disadvantage. But for a casual walk around lens, I normally take my 24 f/1.4L. It's probably the most fun lens for me since I can just pull the camera up and snap a photo at a field of view comparable to what my eyes can focus on.

[briansquibb]

I have great affection for the 24-105 f/4. I understand why people might go for the 24-70 f/2.8 however might I put forward that the 24-105 is a better walkabout lens

- has 4x zoom instead of less than 3x for the 24-70, making it more versatile

- IQ is as good as the 24-70

- noticably lighter (200g)

- cheaper (and easier to find a used version)

I am not sure how useful the f/2.8 would be  - I know it is 1 stop faster,  but with the low light capabilities of the 5DIII I would suggest that the main benefit would be shallower DOF. I guess if shallow DOF is the dealmaker then the 24/70 is the way to go, else the 24-105 is the more logical choice

[TexPhoto]

The 24-105 is such a great choice for this, that should make it a kit.

[prestonpalmer]

The 24-105 is an amazing walk around lens.

[pwp]

Contact EvilTed and make an offer on his 24-105 f/4is. This question comes up fairly often on CR. Do a search of old posts and add up the number of photographers who nominate the 24-105.

Paul Wright

[EvilTed]

some people like mid range zooms, while others like primes.
it's a matter of personal taste and photographic style.

personally, a fast 50mm prime and a few steps forward or back will give youth the equivalent of 24-70.
F/1.2 or F/1.4 is a lot better than F/2.8 if you are shooting in low light.

I think you need to try both a 50mm prime then a mid range (heavy) zoom and then decide which you'd be happier walking around all day with

I'm serious about selling the 24-105 so if you are interested, ping me before I put it on EBay.

ET