So I have my 5d mark iii on pre-order and i also threw a 16-35L 2.8 onto the order. I already have a 24-105L 4is from my mark ii purchase in 2008. I am looking to spend $2000 on lenses for the new camera so do i return the 16-35? sell the 24-105? keep them both? i guess if i sold the 24-105 i would have $2800 to work with on building my glass artillery. I am basically just an all around photographer who does a significant amount of video work as well. would prefer to stick with canon L lenses. any advice would be great!
I'm in a lens pickle
- Thread starter wamsankas
- Start date
- Status
wamsankas said:
personally the 3 lenses I take when I travel are the 16-35 f2.8 the 50mm f1.4 and the 70-200 f2.8
this combo covers everything, I also take a kenko 1.4 TC in case i want extra reach
If you sold the 24-105 you could get the 50f1.4 and the 70-200 f2.8 IS II
I like the 24-105 but I love the other lenses
Upvote
0
that range is so small your feet can cover it with ease no problem at all i suggest geting a 50mm f1.4 first and just using that it will force you to move around and you will start discvering shooting angles and compositions you will just miss if you rely on a zoom. Zooms are good dont get me wrong but using primes force you to move around and this is brilliant for creativity.
Upvote
0
wamsankas said:
If you have a 5D MK II, and don't know what lens you need, how could we recommend one to you?? You should know if you need longer, wider, or faster.
I'm a bit surprised that you do not have any primes for video use, but there again, what are you missing?
Upvote
0
Y
YellowJersey
Guest
It all really depends on how you shoot. My ideal lens suite will be different from yours. For example, a 70-200 2.8 IS II would be nice, but I'm usually shooting while on hiking or cycling expeditions and can't afford the size and weight. Plus, I usually shoot wide so I rarely need reach over 100mm. So it really depends on what lengths, speeds, sizes, and weights suit your type of shooting. I realize that's probably not going to help you pick, I'm just pointing out that lenses are really personal.
Upvote
0
As you wrote:
"I am basically just an all around photographer who does a significant amount of video work as well. would prefer to stick with canon L lenses"
my advice would be NOT to sell the 24-105mm lens. It's such a convenient focal range, good quality, has IS, USM and it is an L lens. So it is easily a 'go to' lens for FF.
Maybe a prime, such as a 35mm f1.4 L, 50mm f1.4 (or 50mm f1.8 if you want to try something cheaper) or a 85mm f1.8, or even 135mm f2.0 could be useful for your video work, or to present you with more options for depth of field control.
As we are not sure of your photo shooting style, I am not sure the 16-35mm f2.8 L is a suitable lens for you, as it's more of a specialist lens (ultra wide to wide on a FF).
All the best. Hope you'll get out of your pickle.
Paul
"I am basically just an all around photographer who does a significant amount of video work as well. would prefer to stick with canon L lenses"
my advice would be NOT to sell the 24-105mm lens. It's such a convenient focal range, good quality, has IS, USM and it is an L lens. So it is easily a 'go to' lens for FF.
Maybe a prime, such as a 35mm f1.4 L, 50mm f1.4 (or 50mm f1.8 if you want to try something cheaper) or a 85mm f1.8, or even 135mm f2.0 could be useful for your video work, or to present you with more options for depth of field control.
As we are not sure of your photo shooting style, I am not sure the 16-35mm f2.8 L is a suitable lens for you, as it's more of a specialist lens (ultra wide to wide on a FF).
All the best. Hope you'll get out of your pickle.
Paul
Upvote
0
M
mreynoldsnj
Guest
It really depends on your shooting style and what you're capturing. I can tell you first hand that a 50MM is a waste. Everyone who says it will force you to move around heard that same thing from someone else and just keeps saying it. It's just not productive for me and out of all my lenses, I never use it.
Upvote
0
The 50 1.4 was my second non-kit lens when I had a crop body which puts it closer to 80mm and I used it exclusively for the better part of a year. Maybe not everyone is willing to move to get the shot they want, but it got me to do just that and I've loved the results. Can't wait to have it be a bit wider in a few short weeks.
Upvote
0
wamsankas said:
This is sort of the epitome, in my opinion of the problem with gear driven professions/hobbies. Believe me, I've been there, and had the same thoughts you're having - looking at lens catalogs, trying to fill in all the "holes".
But the problem is that WAY too many people enter a field like photography/videography and worry a whole lot about the gear that they should get without knowing if there is a need to actually get any of it. I'm a full time videographer, using DSLRs, and I think one of the things that should answer your question is if you've been out shooting and thought "geez, I wish I could get wider/tighter/had a faster lens". If you haven't noticed a "hole" in your work, then you're probably over thinking this. A 24-105 f4 on a full frame can do a lot. I zeroed in on your comment about the "missing" ranges - in answer to your question, and wickedwombat answered it as well, is no, it doesn't matter, unless you're disabled and can't move.
In my kit, for videography WORK (not for myself), on a 7D (crop sensor) I have a tokina 11-16mm, a canon 17-55mm IS, a 50mm 1.4, an 85mm 1.8, and a 28-135mm IS. I use 80% of the time the 17-55, which is a pretty narrow range, and 99% of the time I'm shooting at either 17 or 55 and never inbetween. The rest of the time I've got the 50mm prime on there, and very occasionally I'll haul out the tokina for the 11mm and it's overall image quality. I should sell the 85, but i might use it if i get the 5d mk iii.
For photography, I just shoot with the 17-55 (if working) or the 28-135 (if vacationing).
Upvote
0
Well, if you want a L-lens set for general purpose still photography, I'd say the standard UW zoom + standard zoom + tele-zoom 3-lens combo should work.
Typically: UW - 17-40 f/4L or 16-35 f/2.8L
STANDARD 24-105 f/4L IS or 24-70 f/2.8L
TELE 70-200 f/4L IS or 70-200 f/2.8L IS (I or II)
Pick and choose any of the above combination based on preferences such as weight, low-light need, etc.
Since you've already have the UW and standard lens handled, just choose one of the tele lens to complete your set up.
Typically: UW - 17-40 f/4L or 16-35 f/2.8L
STANDARD 24-105 f/4L IS or 24-70 f/2.8L
TELE 70-200 f/4L IS or 70-200 f/2.8L IS (I or II)
Pick and choose any of the above combination based on preferences such as weight, low-light need, etc.
Since you've already have the UW and standard lens handled, just choose one of the tele lens to complete your set up.
Upvote
0
wamsankas said:
I have an all prime set -- 35, 50, 85 and 135. The "gaps" do not really matter. You can move around to cover them.
The point of changing focal lengths is to change perspective. Understanding this will help you become a better photographer even if you do use zoom lenses.
I agree with those who say that it really depends on what you're looking for. I'd strongly recommend trying out an inexpensive prime if you haven't done so. The 50mm f/1.4 is very good value for what it delivers.
Upvote
0
some great info thanks for everyones input. I guess i just dont see the reason for primes when i can buy a 17-35L 2.8 for the same price as a 24L 1.4. with the new mark iii how much will that opening really matter? i feel like id much rather have the range? sorry for all these questions im sure they have been covered elsewhere but the new mark iii is kind of a game changer
Upvote
0
mreynoldsnj said:
On Full frame a 50mm prime is awesome I love it, quite easy to just take a 5D2 and the 501.4 out and be able to shoot all sorts of stuff as a walkabout or casually. on a crop its more of a portrait only lens but on full frame its extremely versitile.
Upvote
0
wamsankas said:
I used to think in the same way: "if you already have a L zoom that covers the distance, why bother with the prime?"
However, the sharpness and the extra stops of light makes all the difference - among other things.
A good comparison would be a photo taken at the same place with the 24L and the 24-105L. If nothing else, you'll definitely notice the significant lens distortion on the 24-105L (perhaps someone have actual photos comparing the two).
Upvote
0
J
jwong
Guest
wamsankas said:
DEPTH OF FIELD! Want to blur the background strongly? Then you'll want the fastest lens they make that you can afford. There is a huge difference between f/2.8 and f/1.4 or f/1.2. Depending on the focal length of the lens, a f/1.4 or f/1.2 can have DOF that spans a fraction of an inch. Faster shutter speeds (higher ISOs) can be used to make the shot less blurry from motion and action, but having faster lenses will set the subject from the background better.
That said, most people cover their desired focal length range first with zooms, and then selectively get primes to round out their kits. Others go all primes. Zooms are more convenient and require fewer lens changes. Primes are faster and give more artistic freedom.
Upvote
0
- Status
