From crop to full-frame & expanding my collection of lenses. Help requested

[muldereric]

In the near future I want to switch from my EOS 400D body to the new EOS 5D Mk3 body. At this moment I only have my 70-200 f/2.8L USM lens which I can use on a full frame body. This piece of glass is nice, but I would like to expand my collection with a lens for shorter focal lenghts.
In the past I used my camera mostly for landscapes, holidays and some low-light scenes, but I am getting more serious and also started shooting pictures of concerts and portrets and more demanding low-light scenes. My current EOS body is just too simple for those things.
I don't have an infinite budget and I want to keep it affordable. On the internet I read different reviews and storys about different types of lenses such as the 24-105 f/4 and the 24-70 f/2.8 Mk1/2. Because of the ridiculous price of the Mk2 version, I am not going to spend my money on that one. Reviews of the 24-105 vary allot. Some say it's awesome, others say it not worth the money. To keep it short, there are allot of lenses on the market and I don't know them all nor do I want to read reviews of them all. Therefor I think it's best to ask other people (read "the professionals") about their experiences and opinions, just to narrow down my search for a nice addition to my collection.

So..keeping in mind I only have the 70-200, what would you guys recommend me to have a look at?
Thank you in advance!

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The obvious choice is to order a 5D MK III kit with the 24-105mm L. Its a wonderful lens, and its discounted when bought as a kit. I'd also recommend that you get one low light lens, perhaps a 50mm f/1.4 or a 35mm f/2 or f/1.4 L.

24mm is pretty wide on a FF body, so use it first before going to ultra wide.

Good Luck.

 

[Loswr]

Get the 24-105mm kit lens - it's great and you'll not find it cheaper than buying as a kit.

I've got 12 lenses, 10 of them L-series, and the 24-105mm gets the most use of the all.

 

[gtog]

I will +1 Mt Spokane and Neuro with respect to getting the 24-105 f/4L kitted with the 5D Mk III (great value/price and very useful).

You mention portraits and concerts and I think one of the 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2, or 135 f/2L primes would be great as an additional lens. Which one(s) will depend on how tightly you prefer to crop your portraits and working distances (both portraits and concerts). In my FD days, I loved my 85 for adults, but the 100 worked better for pictures of my kids when small. The EF 100 has also worked well on my Elan 7 for school plays. The 135 would give you even tighter crops and/or more reach -- many prefer it for portraits.

You know your shooting style and needs best -- let your usage drive your selection and enjoy!

 

[westbild]

Get a 17-40 + 2x iii .

1) the 2x gets you lost long end due to FF on your 70-200 ie 1.6crop vs 2x extender, so now you have 400mm f/5.6

yes
2) 17-40 gets you Ultra wide
yes
3) 17 +2x gets you 80mm at top end for transition to your 70-200mm
no and no

1. the 2x extender is mechanically not combatible with the 17-40
2. and even if it would work (like with a 3rd party extender) you would end with f8 and no autofocus on the 5d mk II and III

the shortcomings of the 24-105L are easily correctable within the camera or in lightroom, it will be the best value/money for you.

best regards,

christian

--
www.westbild.eu

 

[muldereric]

Thank you all for the quick replies. It's clear to me that the 24-105 isn't that bad and that the shortcomings can be easily corrected within the camera or with lightroom. Gonna save some more money and buy the kit with 24-105 then .
I am also thinking about buying a 2x teleconverter, primarily for the 70-200 to convert it to 140-400. Though it will cost me some stops,I think it's worth it compared to buying for example a 400 f/2.8 or f/4.0 prime. Any opinions about that?

 

[wickidwombat]

i use the kenko tc and its cheaper and will work with any lens just not weather sealed
I only have the 1.4 as the 2x hurts IQ too much IMO but the 1.4 turns my 300 f4L into a 420 f5.6 which also has IS and is relatively light and agile. before purchasing a 2x TC make sure you can live with the IQ hit

 

[00Q]

The 24-70 MKI is a very nice lens. I do recommend that lens over the f4 for the low light that you need.

However, given that the 5DKIII is 2 stops better in ISO performance over the 5DMKII, you are able to get the same result using 5dIII+f/4 compared to the 5dII+f/2.8. The only difference is that you wont get the subject blur as you do with the faster 2.8 lens.

 

[briansquibb]

The 24-70 MKI is a very nice lens. I do recommend that lens over the f4 for the low light that you need.

However, given that the 5DKIII is 2 stops better in ISO performance over the 5DMKII, you are able to get the same result using 5dIII+f/4 compared to the 5dII+f/2.8. The only difference is that you wont get the subject blur as you do with the faster 2.8 lens.

+1 Subject blur is most important to miss - worth incurring some noise for.

 

[The Bad Duck]

So, landscape, holliday and low-light.

Landscape and holliday sounds like the 24-105 L.
Low light sounds like a prime or two; consider a 50 /1.4 and/or 85 /1.8.
I have these lenses and like all of them.

I was surpriced by the performance of the 24-105 L. It was way better then I thought based on reviews and very usefull when traveling or when you don´t want to change lenses (like in snowstorms or when shooting in dusty environments).

The 50 /1.4 is great, but needs to be stopped down a bit. @2.0 it starts to get really nice. My 85 /1.8 does not need stopping down to be great - however be warned that DOF is very shallow wide open so nail focus and get the image fast before you or your subject moves! This will be easier with a 5dmkIII than on my mkII but still.

There is the age-old "war" between the 24-70 /2.8 and the 24-105 /4 IS. In the end, for me, the 70 is a bit short on the long end and for shallow DOF I use primes to really get it nice and shallow. So the 24-105 came out on top for me, and I don´t regret it.

As mentioned the 17-40 /4 L is great for landscapes, but you have to consider if you are really need the extra wide angle. It is cool on travells but it is hard to use and you might find yourself changing back and forth between 17-40 and 70-200. So I´d say skip the 17-40 for now and get it later. It is a great lens but the 24-105 is more usable.

Good luck making your choise!

 

[bbasiaga]

I have the original 5D. I do like the 17-40 a lot on that body, but it is not really good for walking around/general purpose. I find myself too far away for most common subjects. The 24-105 would be a kick butt walk around. I have the older 28-70 F2.8L. You can find those at pretty reasonable prices and they work great on the full frame bodies. It is no longer supported by Canon for repairs though, which is a risk. Still, something to consider.

I agree with the sentiments above though - look for a 24-70 or 24-105. Add the 17-40 later.

-Brian

 

[Zdog]

It is purely a subjective decision based on style and taste. I would recommend the 16-35 2.8 and the 50 1.4. I have the 24-105 and am not a fan of it for stills for my style. It is a good lens but f4 has other drawbacks that iso can not compensate for. When shooting into the sun for effect the 16-35 dogs it. When I need IQ the 50 1.2 clobbers it. If I am shooting portraits the 70-200 will be on my camera way before the 24-105. I do like it for run and gun video.

 

[Dylan777]

If money is not an issue - see neuroanatomist's lens list ;D

For full frame body...these are lenses I use most:
1. General shooting ==> 24-105mm
2. Indoor/outdoor, additional reach ==> 70-200mm f2.8 IS II
3. Super low light ==> 50mm f1.4 prime , I think you can find a used lens -in new condition- on craiglist for around $280-$300.

 

[AJ]

I too agree with Mt. Spokane.

Personally I'm eyeing up a 5D2. I'm also waiting too see what the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC will deliver, and how much it'll cost. But then I'm probably not as close to pulling the trigger as you are.

 

[muldereric]

If money is not an issue - see neuroanatomist's lens list ;D

...

Oh my god....that list is HUGE! And still he's saying that is't "a hobby"
Wish I had all that gear, though I probably won't use 1/3 of it....
Damn...

 

[jasonsim]

Hi,

I too would suggest a 24-105mm. Great general purpose lens. Besides that one, I would then start working towards getting one or two fast primes: 35mm f/1.4L, 50mm f/1.2L, 85mm f/1.2L or 135mm f/2L. If you are interested in macro, get the 100mm f/2.8L IS.

Kind regards,
Jason

 

[D.Sim]

Some people have complained about consistency with the older 24-70, so another+1 for the 24-105.

Another option: though few will recommend but I often think about.

Get a 17-40 + 2x iii .

1) the 2x gets you lost long end due to FF on your 70-200 ie 1.6crop vs 2x extender, so now you have 400mm f/5.6
2) 17-40 gets you Ultra wide
3) 17 +2x gets you 80mm at top end for transition to your 70-200mm

This way you get coverage from 17mm to 400mm with a cash outlay of roughly $1250 all FF with just 2 lenses (plus an extender).

There are some downsides and I am sure others will chime in

Pretty sure the 17-40 isn't compatible with extenders...

and even if it was, 34-80 f/8? No autofocus at all, and goodbye night shots...

 

[rj79in]

Some people have complained about consistency with the older 24-70, so another+1 for the 24-105.

Another option: though few will recommend but I often think about.

Get a 17-40 + 2x iii .

1) the 2x gets you lost long end due to FF on your 70-200 ie 1.6crop vs 2x extender, so now you have 400mm f/5.6
2) 17-40 gets you Ultra wide
3) 17 +2x gets you 80mm at top end for transition to your 70-200mm

This way you get coverage from 17mm to 400mm with a cash outlay of roughly $1250 all FF with just 2 lenses (plus an extender).

There are some downsides and I am sure others will chime in

Pretty sure the 17-40 isn't compatible with extenders...

and even if it was, 34-80 f/8? No autofocus at all, and goodbye night shots...

Can confirm the 17-40 is not compatible with extenders. Even so, why would you use extenders on THIS lens

 

[DJL329]

Some people have complained about consistency with the older 24-70, so another+1 for the 24-105.

Another option: though few will recommend but I often think about.

Get a 17-40 + 2x iii .

1) the 2x gets you lost long end due to FF on your 70-200 ie 1.6crop vs 2x extender, so now you have 400mm f/5.6
2) 17-40 gets you Ultra wide
3) 17 +2x gets you 80mm at top end for transition to your 70-200mm

This way you get coverage from 17mm to 400mm with a cash outlay of roughly $1250 all FF with just 2 lenses (plus an extender).

There are some downsides and I am sure others will chime in

Pretty sure the 17-40 isn't compatible with extenders...

and even if it was, 34-80 f/8? No autofocus at all, and goodbye night shots...

Can confirm the 17-40 is not compatible with extenders. Even so, why would you use extenders on THIS lens

The Canon Extenders are not compatible with the 17-40mm. From Canon's specifications page for the 2x Extender:

"... is only compatible with fixed focal length L-series lenses 135mm and over, as well as the EF 70-200/2.8L, EF 70-200/2.8L IS, EF 70-200/4L, and EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L."

Same goes for the 1.4x Extender. They both have a protrusion that prevent them from being mounted on other lenses.

http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/extender_ef_2x_iii#Specifications

 

[D.Sim]

The Canon Extenders are not compatible with the 17-40mm. From Canon's specifications page for the 2x Extender:

"... is only compatible with fixed focal length L-series lenses 135mm and over, as well as the EF 70-200/2.8L, EF 70-200/2.8L IS, EF 70-200/4L, and EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L."

Same goes for the 1.4x Extender. They both have a protrusion that prevent them from being mounted on other lenses.

Thought so... although, that wording implies it can be used on the 1200mm monster?