A 4000$ budget for Lenses on 5D3... need suggestions

[dirtcastle]

If your budget is a hard $4k, and you get the 24-70 L (I or II), your choices will be limited on the wide end and long end. An aperture of f/2.8 isn't optimal for low light (but decent with high ISO). Most of the great low-light primes are in the 24-85mm focal range. So there's a big opportunity cost of getting a 24-70mm, if you are on a tight budget.

If you get the 24-70mm L II -- and if f/2.8 is good enough for your low-light shooting -- then up your budget and get the "zooms trinity", as others have suggested (or wait until you can afford it).

But, if you have a hard $4k budget and want a good prime, I will suggest some alternatives.

WIDE: The EF 16-35mm L is a solid choice. It's IQ/sharpness is not as good as the 14/17/24 Ls, but it's cheaper and has a big range.

MID: You have several choices under $1000: EF 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, Sigma 50mm f/1.4. And there's also the 50mm L, which is a bit more expensive and sometimes tough to master.

LONG: If you need range above 70mm, then I feel like it's mostly a choice between Mark I or Mark II of the 70-200mm f/2.8 L series. If you can do without a zoom range (and 200mm reach), the EF 135mm f/2 is probably Canon's best value lens and has stellar IQ.

Here are two alternatives to the zooms trinity:

EF 16-35mm L ($1429)
EF 50mm L ($1400)
EF 70-200m L f/2.8 I ($1400)

OR

EF 16-35mm L ($1429)
EF 50mm f/1.4 ($400)
EF 70-200m L f/2.8 II ($2400)

 

[eml58]

16-35/2.8 II
24-70/2.8 II
70-200/2.8 IS II

If possible.

+1. Rent the 16-35 if you can't go over $4000

This is it, If your in the himalayas you'll need to think of weight, these 3 Lenses + 5DMK3 Body in a Back Pak, your covered, only thing I'de add would be the 1.4x Converter & the 600EX-RT Flash, if not the 600 EX go for the 430EX cheaper & you only loose the RT function, still a good flash. Take images & have a great time, think "Snow Leopards".

 

[lonelywhitelights]

no one. not a single person (unless I missed it) has mentioned the 24-105mm f/4L lens

are we all forgetting how great this lens is or are we all blinded by the new mark II 24-70 f/2.8

just the fact that the 24-105mm is so affordable now makes it even more attractive and we can't deny that zoom range is extremely helpful and versatile.

with $4,000 to play with you could pick up some fantastic lenses, no need to gun for the brand new $2,000+ lenses

16-35mm f/2.8L II
24-105mm f/4L (or maybe the new 24-70mm f/4 IS USM)
70-200mm f/4L (non IS version)

and I would also consider the 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 lenses by Sigma - they are incredibly good for much less than the Canon versions

and you may end up with money to spare. like I said - no need to gun for the new $2,000+ lenses

 

[RC]

no one. not a single person (unless I missed it) has mentioned the 24-105mm f/4L lens

are we all forgetting how great this lens is or are we all blinded by the new mark II 24-70 f/2.8...

Guilty, have the 24-105, love it, but want a 24-70 II

 

[dirtcastle]

no one. not a single person (unless I missed it) has mentioned the 24-105mm f/4L lens

The 24-105 is a great lens! It is the only Canon L with IS in the 24-70mm range. That said, I find myself using it less and less, in favor of more specialized lenses. Still, for trips or treks with only one lens... it's gotta be the most versatile L zoom.

 

[TAF]

My recommendations:

1. 24-105L
2. 70-200L or 70-300L (with IS in either case)
3. Zeiss 50 f1.4
4. Short 40
5. 17-40L

(I have 1-4, and am saving for 5)

 

[m_holorge]

Other than tripod, flash, and filters, suggestion for landscape is 24 1.4 L II, or 16-35 L II ($1400), if you're investing hard on it, go with TS-24 L.
Suggestion for normal range purpose is Sigma 35 1.4 ($900), and your owned 50 1.8 II (a great great lens) I do not suggest 24-70 2.8, actually, not as useful as 35 1.4 for IQ for low light. Face it, you don't need 40-70 range usually other than wedding case, do you?
Suggestion for long range purpose is 70-300 L IS, or 70-200 F4 IS. If you have a backup APS-C sized camera, a 70-200 F4 IS is better and enough. ($1200)

Note, for HDR shootings, lens doesn't matter, go nude with no filters.

Lastly, tripod is the most important gear you'll use for a long time.

 

[ecka]

no one. not a single person (unless I missed it) has mentioned the 24-105mm f/4L lens

are we all forgetting how great this lens is or are we all blinded by the new mark II 24-70 f/2.8

just the fact that the 24-105mm is so affordable now makes it even more attractive and we can't deny that zoom range is extremely helpful and versatile.

with $4,000 to play with you could pick up some fantastic lenses, no need to gun for the brand new $2,000+ lenses

16-35mm f/2.8L II
24-105mm f/4L (or maybe the new 24-70mm f/4 IS USM)
70-200mm f/4L (non IS version)

and I would also consider the 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 lenses by Sigma - they are incredibly good for much less than the Canon versions

and you may end up with money to spare. like I said - no need to gun for the new $2,000+ lenses

You missed it, I did

 

[J.R.]

no one. not a single person (unless I missed it) has mentioned the 24-105mm f/4L lens

are we all forgetting how great this lens is or are we all blinded by the new mark II 24-70 f/2.8

just the fact that the 24-105mm is so affordable now makes it even more attractive and we can't deny that zoom range is extremely helpful and versatile.

with $4,000 to play with you could pick up some fantastic lenses, no need to gun for the brand new $2,000+ lenses

16-35mm f/2.8L II
24-105mm f/4L (or maybe the new 24-70mm f/4 IS USM)
70-200mm f/4L (non IS version)

and I would also consider the 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 lenses by Sigma - they are incredibly good for much less than the Canon versions

and you may end up with money to spare. like I said - no need to gun for the new $2,000+ lenses

You missed it, I did

I too mentioned it ... in fact I was surprised the OP didn't buy it as a kit lens.

 

[hawaiisunsetphoto]

Given your budget, I'd recommend:

1) 24-70mm f/2.8L II -- tack sharp, rivals primes, also good in low light with high iso 5D Mark III
2) 135mm f/2.0L -- great bokeh, fast, light
3) 85mm f/1.8 -- cheap, light, fast, unobtrusive, decent lens
3) good tripod and ballhead





Hello CR folks,

I recently bought a 5D3 and 50mm 1.8.This is my first investment and I am based out of India.
I mostly shoot Low Light , Landscape , Street Photography and Slow Shutter captures.

Before taking up 5D3 I had an experience of working with my colleague's Canon60D , 18-135(kits lens) ,70-200mm f4 and NikonD7000 50mm f1.4,70-200mm f4.
I had some severe limitations while shooting Landscapes and didn't get enough experience on wide-angle shots :-[
I will be travelling to Ladakh,a landscape,rich cultured,wildlife Himalayan Range in the month of July and I am looking for suggestions to get some 'real' gear.
All I can say that this will be my starting point to get into some real action

I can spend up to 4000$ on the Lenses.
Please share the gear details based on your own experience.

Regards
Hari
[/quote]

 

[bholliman]

1) 24-70mm f/2.8L II -- tack sharp, rivals primes, also good in low light with high iso 5D Mark III
2) 135mm f/2.0L -- great bokeh, fast, light
3) 85mm f/1.8 -- cheap, light, fast, unobtrusive, decent lens
3) good tripod and ballhead

+1 1&2 are two of Canons best lenses

You could also substitute the 50 1.4 for the 85 1.8 if you wanted a wider low light lens.

 

[maass]

Thanks for the suggestions Guys
I decided on getting 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 8)

Hari

 

[bholliman]

Thanks for the suggestions Guys
I decided on getting 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 8)

Hari

Great lenses, enjoy!

Post some of your shots here when you have time.