All primes... But what zoom?

[Leopard Lupus]

Hello CR!

I am a prime sort'a guy. I currently own the 35mm f/1.4 L, 50mm f/1.2 L and the 135mm f/2 L.
I am shooting with a Canon 5D mk ll.
I have always loved my primes, but am considering a good walk-around lens.
Any opinions out there on what to invest in? My main reason is for the versatility and to NOT have to carry my three primes all day.
Thanks in advance!

 

[Drizzt321]

The 24-105mm f/4L is my lens of choice as a walking around lens. Not quite as much reach as the 135mm (I just got that lens, awesome!), but still has plenty of reach. The one single spot where it is not as great is it's f/4, so it's a bit slow, and you don't really get a lot of bokeh, although it's decent if you're zoomed in and your subject is pretty close. Also, at 24mm it has a some distortion, although Lightroom does a good job correcting for that. Sometimes I actually kinda like it, it all depends on what the shot is.

 

[vuilang]

24-70? if you do think about it. probably best to wait for new version. Shud come out within months from now

 

[briansquibb]

On the 5DII a 70-300L is a good all purpose lens - small and reasonably light - good IQ - good for portraits whilst having good reach.

Only downside is that it is a little slow - but if you are out walking with the 5DII in the daytime that wont be an issue as you have spare iso to play with.

 

[Rampado]

For me the 50mm already is a great walk around lens...

but if you want more versatility, 24-105L is a good choice...

 

[well_dunno]

I will also say 24-105L looking at the primes mentioned. If possible, combining it with a 70-200L or a 70-300L does make life easier IMO...

Cheers!

 

[tron]

I agree on 24-105L. It covers your 35 and 50 and comes close to 135. It also offers 24 and 28mm.

 

[traveller]

Looking at it from the other point of view, what is it that you like about your primes? If it's shallow depth of field, then getting a 24-105mm f/4L doesn't make much sense! If you find yourself stopping the primes down to f/2.8-4 all the time, then the only reason to have primes instead of a standard zoom would be to force you to think about your framing and perspective; a zoom is the opposite if this too. So I would ask yourself again, if you like primes so much, why do you want a zoom?

Might I suggest that if the 5D MkII and the three primes that you have are too heavy and bulky to carry in certain situations, then a 5D MkII and 24-105 f/4L IS won't really solve that problem. If this is your thinking, then have you considered a mirrorless camera with the equivalent fast primes to your 'L' collection?

 

[hoousi]

With your prime setup I'd opt for either the 16-35L II or the 70-200L II, both good for walk-around depending on your goals and adding some reach on the wide or long side at the same time. A 24-105 may just be boring, rather miss a few shots but enjoy those you get just carrying the 35 for instance and save 1000.

 

[Ryusui]

I'll put my vote in for the 24-105 as well.
I have a 70-200 and almost always end up leaving it at home. I find that the 70-200 really only gets used for work or if I have a particular goal in mind for that day (i.e. street shooting). The 24-105 is a great zoom range, and on a 5DII the 24 is a pretty nice wide-angle. At f/4, it's far from slow, gives pretty good bokeh and great IQ. Also, at a minimum focusing distance of only 1.5', it's less restricted than the more than double 3.9' MFD of the 70-200.

I like the 16-35...but again it's a pretty specific use lens. Or so I find, anyway. And the range it covers is almost useless for a "walk around" lens.

 

[Loswr]

If your main reason is versatility, the 24-105L is the way to go. It's a broad focal range, wide to tele, and has IS.

I've got a good assortment of zooms and primes. Of them, if I'm going out with one lens, it's the 24-105. If I'm taking two, it's often the 24-105 and 70-200 II. I've considered the 24-70, and if they release a MkII I'll get it, mostly for around the house. But the 5DII + 24-105 is an excellent and versatile combo.

 

[lbloom]

Nothing says versatility like the Tamron 18-270mm (where cost meets focal lengths!!!)! Alas, crop lenses! ;D Don't any soccer moms use FF sensors?

 

[lbloom]

On a serious note, I agree with most everyone else about the 24-105mm. Covers so many key lengths with good IQ.

 

[Zdog]

I personally am not a big fan of the 24-105 for stills. It is good for hand held video. It has good IQ but not great. My 50 1.2L clobbers it. The 24-105 is a jack of all trades and master of none kind of lens. It really depends on your style as to what is a good walk around lens. I would like to try the 16-35L with an 85 1.8 kicker for a walk around combo.

 

[7enderbender]

Hello CR!

I am a prime sort'a guy. I currently own the 35mm f/1.4 L, 50mm f/1.2 L and the 135mm f/2 L.
I am shooting with a Canon 5D mk ll.
I have always loved my primes, but am considering a good walk-around lens.
Any opinions out there on what to invest in? My main reason is for the versatility and to NOT have to carry my three primes all day.
Thanks in advance!

Just playing devil's advocate here: do you really need one? The obvious choices are of course the 24-70 and the 24-105. Both are great and it's hard to say which is "better" since it depends on application and preference. BUT as a "prime sort'a guy" are your really going to take either of them?

I have a 50, 135, 200 and then the 24-105 - because as a "kit" you couldn't beat the value of it, otherwise I may have opted for the 24-70 and may still trade it one day. The 24-105 is way better then I expected. It's very sharp and the results at all focal lengths are really really good. But I do like my fast primes and the 24-105 is anything but not fast with its f/4 limitation. The IS works but I personally consider it a gimick and see no value in it. So the 24-70 would probably be more the zoom for me or so I thought for a while.

What I find though now is that I go for the 135 and 50 more often and leave the zoom behind unless I expect needing the wide angle. Well, and if I already had a wide and fast prime like you...

So in short: if you really feel you need a zoom either is fine. If you shoot a lot wide open the 24-70 maybe a better choice. If you really want the wide range the 24-105 is better, especially since the long end delivers pretty decent results as far as background blur goes - more or less a wash compared to f/2.8 at 70mm.

 

[Leopard Lupus]

Wow, thank you all for the input!

My two main reason for considering a zoom is: 1. the weight, an 2. A versatile lens I can use for personal work.
The camera body and mounted lens is fine, but having two heavy L primes + 580ex ll in my bag while shooting can be difficult. I like to "zoom with my feet" when it comes to primes, so I tend to find myself in awkward positions where I worry about the safety of my two unmounted lenses.
I am considering the 70-200 L at the moment, paired with my current 35 L.
If(when) the mk ll version of the 24-105 lens comes out, what all is there to improve on? As this isnt an urgent priority purchase, would it be worth the wait for the mk ll and NOT the 70-200?

(I have ordered a 70-200 L and 24-105 L rental as of today. Thank you all!)

 

[Ryusui]

The 24-105 is still kind of young. I'm not all that convinced that it will be replaced anytime soon. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say the 24-105 will still be current for another 2-3 years. The lens is already pretty good, but I think CA could be improved on and maybe one more stop in IS, but not sure how physically feasible that is. Sharpness, maybe; but it's plenty sharp as is. It's possible there might be an update with the next 5D, but I'm not betting on it.

 

[Loswr]

... the 24-105 is better, especially since the long end delivers pretty decent results as far as background blur goes - more or less a wash compared to f/2.8 at 70mm.

I think statements like this are a bit misleading. Yes, if you're at the same distance to your subject, 105mm f/4 actually gives shallower DoF. Heck, at the same subject distance, my 100-400 at 400mm and stopped down to f/22 is shallower than the 85L at f/1.2. But it's not the same picture at all. A head/torso shot at 70mm becomes a tight head shot at 105mm, and as soon as you back up to match the framing at 70mm, you've negated the effect of the longer focal length on DoF with the opposing effect of greater subject distance. So, for the same framing (with the same sensor size), it all comes down to aperture, and f/2.8 is wider than f/4.

Which means if you want shallow DoF, a fast prime will beat a zoom. Since the OP already has the fast primes, and wants versatility, I think (personally) that the 24-105 is better for that.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I also have numerous primes, but for just walking around, a zoom can be useful. I use a 24-105mmL like many others. I also have a 70-200mm f/4L IS and a 100-400mmL. The 70-200 used to be my most used lens, but now , it seldom gets used as the 100-400L covers most of the range, and is usually at 400mm.

I used to have a wide zoom, 17-40mm L, but I really have not been into wide images, so I bought a uised Tokina 17mm f/3.5 prime and a used Canon 15mm FE for much less than I sold my 17-40mm L for.

Many photographers love to take wide vistas, its just me, I'm not one of them.

 

[katwil]

The often mentioned 24-105 is a good lens, but I’ve been disappointed in its performance at 24mm, especially with barrel distortion. Regarding your comment about an update to that lens, most of the talk on CR recently has been around an update to the 24-70, not the 24-105. One lens that I’ve been looking at, but don’t own yet, is the EF 28-300L IS. I realize that you have a concern about weight, but if you’re going to capture the subjects you normally get with the 135, the 24-105 will require cropping. As long as you’re test-driving lenses already, why not try that one?