vmk said:Can you recommend lens for 5d mark iii
right now am with 24-105 f/4L
Thinking of below
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
neuroanatomist said:I recommend the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II.
Why? Becuase maybe you really like to shoot landscapes and architecture. But maybe you don't. So...knowing what you plan to do with the lens would sure help. IMO, you buy a lens to fill a need, and the lenses you list fill three very different needs (albeit with some overlap between the telezoom and the macro).
ChrisAnderson said:for landscape work, i'd consider the Zeiss 21mm Distagon f/2.8 as an alternative to the 16-35L. Considerably better image quality, and it's built like a tank.
If you'd only be buying the 70-200 f/2.8 II for portrait work, maybe you'd be better served with a 135 f/2L or the 100L Macro.


pinnaclephotography said:ChrisAnderson said:for landscape work, i'd consider the Zeiss 21mm Distagon f/2.8 as an alternative to the 16-35L. Considerably better image quality, and it's built like a tank.
If you'd only be buying the 70-200 f/2.8 II for portrait work, maybe you'd be better served with a 135 f/2L or the 100L Macro.
If portrait work is your thing, the 85 f/1.8, 85L, or 135L would be good places to look. Unless you are shooting in a studio I would consider the 100L macro too slow for portrait work; more DOF control is needed IMO.
I share the sentiment for the Zeiss 21mm, the lens is just magic...though with the mkIII there is an unfortunate lack of precision focus screens, so you would be best off using live view.
Archangel Falls by posthumus_cake ([url=http://www.pinnaclephotography.net]www.pinnaclephotography.net)[/url], on Flickr
The Subway, smasher of GND and polarizing filters alike by posthumus_cake ([url=http://www.pinnaclephotography.net]www.pinnaclephotography.net)[/url], on Flickr
pinnaclephotography said:ChrisAnderson said:for landscape work, i'd consider the Zeiss 21mm Distagon f/2.8 as an alternative to the 16-35L. Considerably better image quality, and it's built like a tank.
If you'd only be buying the 70-200 f/2.8 II for portrait work, maybe you'd be better served with a 135 f/2L or the 100L Macro.
If portrait work is your thing, the 85 f/1.8, 85L, or 135L would be good places to look. Unless you are shooting in a studio I would consider the 100L macro too slow for portrait work; more DOF control is needed IMO.
I share the sentiment for the Zeiss 21mm, the lens is just magic...though with the mkIII there is an unfortunate lack of precision focus screens, so you would be best off using live view.
Archangel Falls by posthumus_cake ([url=http://www.pinnaclephotography.net]www.pinnaclephotography.net)[/url], on Flickr
The Subway, smasher of GND and polarizing filters alike by posthumus_cake ([url=http://www.pinnaclephotography.net]www.pinnaclephotography.net)[/url], on Flickr
vmk said:Thanks...
Bought following...
70-200 f/2.8L, 16-32 f/2.8L II, 100 f/2.8L Macro
need suggestion for extenders... should i go for "2x extender iii" to gain extra zoom for my 70-200 f/2.8L
or is it better to go for 100-400???