Am I equipped to rip?

[wamsankas]

So I'm trying to round out a good artillery of lens for all around use. I have the 16-35 2.8 ii and I am about to purchase the 50mm 1.2L and 70-200 2.8 is ii with the lens rebate. Does everyone think that's an all around good set of three lens? I shoot a lot of video and all around general photo

 

[Random Orbits]

Sounds good to me. That's the configuration I choose when I can bring 3 lenses. The one I most often sub out is the 16-35 for a prime but I always bring the 50 and 70-200.

 

[TexPhoto]

That is a great set. This combo(Wide zoom, Long zoom, and fast 50) is often recommended by pros. You can certainly add to it: fisheye, macro, super-tele, tilt-shift, but those can come later or not at all depending on your needs.

 

[prestonpalmer]

Excellent combo!

 

[mvinson1022]

If you are willing to go manual focus, the Zeiss 50 KILLS the Canon lens. (My walk around lens is the Zeiss 35mm) On the other hand, I prefer the 70-200 f4 or the 70-300 f4 lens because they are cheaper, lighter and perform equally well as the 2.8 lens unless you actually shoot wide open, where the 2.8 lens shines.

But you certainly can't go wrong with your proposed kit.

So I'm trying to round out a good artillery of lens for all around use. I have the 16-35 2.8 ii and I am about to purchase the 50mm 1.2L and 70-200 2.8 is ii with the lens rebate. Does everyone think that's an all around good set of three lens? I shoot a lot of video and all around general photo

 

[smirkypants]

What camera are you shooting?

 

[wamsankas]

What camera are you shooting?

5D mark iii

 

[wockawocka]

It's a good choice, as it's full frame though I'd question not having a 24-70 instead of the UW angle.

You don't often need it and when you do you can stitch two-three photos together.

 

[scottkinfw]

I would add that you want the 70-200 F4L WITH is. I totally agree that it is very close in performance to the 2.8L is II. The size/weight difference can really be an issue when carrying the lens all day, or, when on planes where size/weight are critical. Both are great lenses, and I have one of each.

sek

If you are willing to go manual focus, the Zeiss 50 KILLS the Canon lens. (My walk around lens is the Zeiss 35mm) On the other hand, I prefer the 70-200 f4 or the 70-300 f4 lens because they are cheaper, lighter and perform equally well as the 2.8 lens unless you actually shoot wide open, where the 2.8 lens shines.

But you certainly can't go wrong with your proposed kit.

So I'm trying to round out a good artillery of lens for all around use. I have the 16-35 2.8 ii and I am about to purchase the 50mm 1.2L and 70-200 2.8 is ii with the lens rebate. Does everyone think that's an all around good set of three lens? I shoot a lot of video and all around general photo

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The 50mm 1.2 is definitely not a all-around lens, its pretty special, and a bit soft, but for the special situations where you need f/1.2, its excellent. Personally, for a FF body, I'd recommend the 85mmL and / or the 135mmL

 

[smirkypants]

The 50mm 1.2 is definitely not a all-around lens, its pretty special, and a bit soft, but for the special situations where you need f/1.2, its excellent. Personally, for a FF body, I'd recommend the 85mmL and / or the 135mmL

I have to agree here, though I hasten to add that there's a big gap between your two zooms and I'm not sure the 1.2 fills it. If you're doing "standard" work and need flexibility, you might look into a 24-70. But then again, I'm always carrying a weird set of lenses and making do.

 

[Dylan777]

So I'm trying to round out a good artillery of lens for all around use. I have the 16-35 2.8 ii and I am about to purchase the 50mm 1.2L and 70-200 2.8 is ii with the lens rebate. Does everyone think that's an all around good set of three lens? I shoot a lot of video and all around general photo

GREAT COMBO...I used 50 L from a friend few weeks ago. This is NOT the lens for me. You really need to know your stuff-well to shoot with 50 L.

For now, my 50 f1.4 going to stay with me and I'm waiting for new 24-70 II.

 

[Drizzt321]

It's a good choice, as it's full frame though I'd question not having a 24-70 instead of the UW angle.

You don't often need it and when you do you can stitch two-three photos together.

Personally I'd go for the 24-105 f/4L IS USM over the 24-70 unless you really need the f/2.8 for the DoF. Even in a dim, dark environment with the 5d3 you can get usable ISO 6400+ which will compensate for the stop or so you lose in the f-stop, and the IS can help with hand-holding at the slower shutter speeds you might have to use.

 

[preppyak]

Personally I'd go for the 24-105 f/4L IS USM over the 24-70 unless you really need the f/2.8 for the DoF. Even in a dim, dark environment with the 5d3 you can get usable ISO 6400+ which will compensate for the stop or so you lose in the f-stop, and the IS can help with hand-holding at the slower shutter speeds you might have to use.

Also, if he's doing video work and general photography (I read that as travel, etc), the 24-105 is going to be better due to the reach and the IS. The IS is a big help for hand-held video, and the extra reach is nice.

And if you have a 5Diii, worrying about low-light isn't as big an issue.

 

[Drizzt321]

And if you have a 5Diii, worrying about low-light isn't as big an issue.

Tell me about it, it's pretty nice too, even coming from the 5d2. The noise looks so much better, and so much less banding/lines of noise all over the dark sections. Hardly need to convert most of the photos as ISO 6400-8000 to B&W, they're mostly good enough to leave in color

EDIT: fixed quote ending

 

[Cgdillan]

I do videography as my main practice. I would most definitely get the 70-200 2.8 II is over the 4.0.. The "is" on the f/4 doesn't help video in dark situations like it does with photography. I have 2.8 my partner has 4.0 and he's always want to open up more. if you have the money then the 2.8.

I also would opt for the the 24-70 over the 16-35. Better all around lens unless you either want the is and extra reach on the 24-105 f/4.0 or do a lot of landscape the 16-35.

1. 24-70 2.8 over 16-35 2.8 because there are more situations the 24-70 would be used - fewer lens changes
2. 24-70 2.8 over 24-105 f/4 is in the chance of being in darker areas.. and shallow dof
3. 24-105 4.0 is over 24-70 2.8 if your doing a lot of handheld/monopod video
4. 16-35 2.8 if you absolutely need 8mm wider than the 16-35

My recommendation
24-70 2.8
50 1.4, or 1.2 although i love my 1.8
70-200mm 2.8 is ii

 

[Cgdillan]

Also if price is an issue I love my Sigma 70-200 2.8 IS which is similarly priced as the canon 70-200 is f/4

There are some sigma lenses i would stay away from... but not this one =-)

Sigma vs Canon 70-200 is 2.8

1. Canon is slightly shaper
2. Canon slightly less vignetting
3. Canon $2,300 - Sigma $1,300 - both are on sale
4. both have 4 stops of is = awesome
5. If you'r reaching towards CPS the sigma won't help get you there

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689577-REG/Sigma_589101_70_200mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html

If price is not an issue.. then Canon

 

[Dylan777]

I do videography as my main practice. I would most definitely get the 70-200 2.8 II is over the 4.0.. The "is" on the f/4 doesn't help video in dark situations like it does with photography. I have 2.8 my partner has 4.0 and he's always want to open up more. if you have the money then the 2.8.

I also would opt for the the 24-70 over the 16-35. Better all around lens unless you either want the is and extra reach on the 24-105 f/4.0 or do a lot of landscape the 16-35.

1. 24-70 2.8 over 16-35 2.8 because there are more situations the 24-70 would be used - fewer lens changes
2. 24-70 2.8 over 24-105 f/4 is in the chance of being in darker areas.. and shallow dof
3. 24-105 4.0 is over 24-70 2.8 if your doing a lot of handheld/monopod video
4. 16-35 2.8 if you absolutely need 8mm wider than the 16-35

My recommendation
24-70 2.8
50 1.4, or 1.2 although i love my 1.8
70-200mm 2.8 is ii

I would wait for the new 24-70 mrk II. I bought 3 copies in the past, NONE of them gave me the sharpness that I'm looking for.

100% agreed with 50mm f1.4. tack sharp on my 5D III

 

[Cgdillan]

I do videography as my main practice. I would most definitely get the 70-200 2.8 II is over the 4.0.. The "is" on the f/4 doesn't help video in dark situations like it does with photography. I have 2.8 my partner has 4.0 and he's always want to open up more. if you have the money then the 2.8.

I also would opt for the the 24-70 over the 16-35. Better all around lens unless you either want the is and extra reach on the 24-105 f/4.0 or do a lot of landscape the 16-35.

1. 24-70 2.8 over 16-35 2.8 because there are more situations the 24-70 would be used - fewer lens changes
2. 24-70 2.8 over 24-105 f/4 is in the chance of being in darker areas.. and shallow dof
3. 24-105 4.0 is over 24-70 2.8 if your doing a lot of handheld/monopod video
4. 16-35 2.8 if you absolutely need 8mm wider than the 16-35

My recommendation
24-70 2.8
50 1.4, or 1.2 although i love my 1.8
70-200mm 2.8 is ii

I would wait for the new 24-70 mrk II. I bought 3 copies in the past, NONE of them gave me the sharpness that I'm looking for.

100% agreed with 50mm f1.4. tack sharp on my 5D III

Yes. money not being an issue wait for the new one. or buy 24-70 used and sell when new one comes out.

 

[EOBeav]

You're not going to get better video performance from a 50/1.2 over a 50/1.4, unless you HAVE to shoot at the wider apertures, of course. After about f/2.8, though the 50/1.4 is actually sharper than the 50/1.2.