Which lenses with the 5D mk3?

[Michael_pfh]

The 70-200 II is amazing.  The 24-105 is good at what it does, but just isn't in the same category.

On the wider side, have you looked at the 24L II?  Yes, the 85 1.2 is also pretty stunning, but if you're also picking up a 70-200, you've already got that focal range covered (without the extreme buttery DOF of the 85, but it's covered).  70-200 II and 24L II is one of my favorite combos. 

For reference, I also have the 16-35L, 35L, 85LII, 100L, 24-105L, 50 1.4 - they're all great - but if I had to pick just two to cover "everything", I'd take the 70-200 II and the 24L II.  But that's just me

What are your thoughts on the 24-70 (and the new II coming out)?

I sold my 24-105 a year ago for the 24-70 II. Since I expect the 24-70 II to be great I did never get the 50 1.2L altough I would love to have it.

[Razor2012]

For the guys/gals that use just primes with cameras such as the 1DsIII and the 5D3, what are your reasons behind that (sharper, faster, etc)?

[elflord]

For the guys/gals that use just primes with cameras such as the 1DsIII and the 5D3, what are your reasons behind that (sharper, faster, etc)?

I have a 5DII and have all priems (35mm f/1.4, Sigma 85mm f/1.4, Canon 135mm f/2, Canon 50mm f/1.4) The main reason I go for primes is that they're faster-- more options with depth of field. I started out with a crop camera with 15-85mm and the 50mm f/1.4. The zoom just didn't work for me and I grew to like having the faster aperture. At the tele end, the 15-85mm has equivalent dof to f/9 on a full frame. On a full frame,  an f/2.8 zoom would probably be good enough for me (both for shallow dof and in that I can crank the ISO higher than on APS-C) but I've gotten used to shooting with primes.

I don't really care for having the sharpest lens out there -- I think sharpness is overrated.

[Random Orbits]

I am also waiting for Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC.  IS is very important for me.  I take many shoots for my 1.5 year old son at home without flash and many of my shoots are about 1/8 to 1/15.  Honestly, my 7D + 17-55mm IS does better job than my 5D2 + 24-70mm for indoor shooting.
By the way, any review about Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 VC?

That is the reason why I ended up getting a 35L.  IS may help you hold the camera steadier, but it doesn't help much if the kids are moving.  Having a lens that is 2 stops faster gives much better odds at nonblurry shots, when you can shoot at 1/60-1/30.

[dswatson83]

That is the reason why I ended up getting a 35L.  IS may help you hold the camera steadier, but it doesn't help much if the kids are moving.  Having a lens that is 2 stops faster gives much better odds at nonblurry shots, when you can shoot at 1/60-1/30.

IS can also help your autofocus in continuous shooting and can help you compose better on fast moving subjects. Also, 2 stops faster may mean only 6 inches or less of depth of field with kids. I had to re-adjust my shooting when I had a baby. Typically I could shoot a head shot at f/2.8 with the whole head in focus...on a kid they are so small that a head shot at f/2.8 barely picks up both eyes. You may need those extra 2 stops to get everything in focus. I love having the faster lenses though when I am further away from my subjects but generally, anything larger than f/2.8 for anything other than far away shots with a wide angle is about as open as I can shoot unless I only want an eye in focus.  Everything has a trade off