Advice on Canon lenses

[traveller]

The best way to know what you need to buy, is to know the limitations of your current kit; what is it about your current kit that you don't like? Don't just say "image quality", be specific: the 50D is capable of making stunning images and whilst the 18-200 doesn't have the best reputation, it isn't a total dog at all focal length-aperture combinations.

I am not writing this to make the old clichéd suggestion like "Ansel Adams could make a masterpiece with a box-brownie", but rather to get you to think about where the weaknesses of your current kit lie. If you are annoyed that your images at focal length xx are soft, then you know that this is an area that is important to you and that you should spend money to cover. If you complain that the 50D produces noisy images, this suggests that you are working at the limits of your camera ISO range and lens aperture: the 5D Mk.III will obviously help, but you'll benefit just as much from faster lenses; likewise, if you are struggling to get shallow depth of field. If you want 22MP to help you crop images, perhaps you need longer lenses.

I'm sorry if you were looking for a "just buy the xx-xx and xx-xxx" type of reply. If that's the case, then I'd suggest that you already know what you want and that you should just go ahead and buy it! All the lenses suggested on this thread vary from very good to excellent and I doubt any will truly disappoint. Just be aware that the more lenses you own, the more you'll end up carrying; I wouldn't want your photography to move from being fun to becoming a chore!

 

[NancyP]

If you want inconspicuous and light, I would consider the Shorty Forty 40mm f/2.8 STM or for more money the 35mm f/2 IS . People are more relaxed around a smaller camera. People tend to crowd around if they see a Big White hanging off your camera, plus when you travel you should be conscious of thieves who grab and run when they see fancy-looking cameras.

Save money for a good pack and a good tripod.

 

[PikkieChick]

After much debate & hanging out in a camera store carrying around the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS on a 5D3, I think I've decided to flag the 70-200mm f/2.8 due to the weight.

I think I'm now looking at for my 5D3:
17-40 / 24-70 f2.8L II / 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS
I was also considering the 24-105 f/4L IS USM as a general walk around lens with a bit of extra reach over the 24-70mm f/2.8L ll

The other combinations is to ditch the 24-105 & get the 16-35mm instead of the 17-40mm, so:
16-35 / 24-70 f2.8L II / 70-300 f4-5.6L IS

Thoughts anyone ?

 

[Eldar]

That is a very good troika. You may want to add a fast prime (or two) over time though. The new Sigma 50mm ART could be highly interesting (if it is worth the pre release hype).

The 70-200 f2.8L IS II is definitely superior to the 70-300, but the 70-300 is also a very good lens and underrated by many. I use it a lot on travel, because of its compact size.

The 17-40 is a lot of lens for the money, but I would rather have a fast UWA prime, probably a Zeiss.

 

[PikkieChick]

The 17-40 is a lot of lens for the money, but I would rather have a fast UWA prime, probably a Zeiss.

Yes agree re Primes and I will do that once I see what focal lengths I use the most. What about the 16-35mm instead of the 17-40mm ?

 

[Eldar]

The 17-40 is a lot of lens for the money, but I would rather have a fast UWA prime, probably a Zeiss.

Yes agree re Primes and I will do that once I see what focal lengths I use the most. What about the 16-35mm instead of the 17-40mm ?

The 16-35 is a much bdebated lens. It gives you one extra stop, but at a considerable price difference. An advantage is that it has the same 82mm filter size as the 24-70 II. The IQ difference at f5.6 is neglectable. The 17-40 is smaller and lighter. They both have edge softness and CA issues, which is why I prefer the 15mm Zeiss and 17mm TS-E lenses.

It is important to think through what you will use it for. I rarely use wider than 24mm if people are in the frame, due to distortion.

 

[bholliman]

The 24-70 2.8 II and 70-300L are two terrific lenses. If size and weight are really important for travel, you may consider the 24-70 F/4 IS instead of the 2.8 II, as it's much lighter and nearly as good optically. If you did this, I would defiantly recommend a fast prime 35-85mm) as well, as with two f/4 zooms, your ability to shoot shallow DOF would be somewhat limited.

The 17-40 is a lot of lens for the money, but I would rather have a fast UWA prime, probably a Zeiss.

Yes agree re Primes and I will do that once I see what focal lengths I use the most. What about the 16-35mm instead of the 17-40mm ?

It is important to think through what you will use it for. I rarely use wider than 24mm if people are in the frame, due to distortion.

This is excellent advice. I rarely shoot wider than 24mm, so decided to go with the inexpensive Rokinon 14mm 2.8 instead of one of the more expensive UWA zooms that are really not particularly good IMHO. The Zeiss 15mm and 21mm as well as the 17 TSE are other great options depending on how much you want to spend.