L lens for 5d MK III

[amgc32]

I am thinking about getting the 5d Mk III even if it looks like the D800 is better on paper... I still think it remains to be seen if IQ would be better. I have used the 5D Mk II before and IQ is just superb! And Im not planning on printing billboard size pics anytime soon so I think 22MP is more than enough. I used to have a XTi and a T2i and have sold these too upgrade to a FF body. I have a EF 28-135mm and thinking about getting a L lens with the Mk III. Which L lens would you guys suggest I get. Im basically going to shoot mostly portraits, street photography, landscape probably within the budget of $1500.

Thanks for your input.

 

[dystorsion]

Portraits, street, and landscape?

Off the top of my head, 35mm f1.4 L.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/27449914@N00/pool/

 

[Seamus]

The 24-105L kit lens is a great place to start. Take a bunch of pics, see where your prefered range falls and then check out the primes. Love those L lenses...

 

[StevenBrianSamuels]

The 24-105l is good lens if you must have an all around lens. But if you had asked about just portraits I would have said save some money and go for the 80 1.2.

FYI- At the most, for a billboard, you usually need about only 20ppi.

 

[Seamus]

For the primes, I went with the 50 f1.2L first, the 85 f1.2L is next on my list for primes. This game is getting very expensive...

 

[Michael_pfh]

If you are willing to pay a bit more than $1500 you might want to get 24-70 F2.8L & 135 F2L.

 

[Seamus]

I like the way you think Michael.

 

[pwp]

I am thinking about getting the 5d Mk III even if it looks like the D800 is better on paper... I still think it remains to be seen if IQ would be better. I have used the 5D Mk II before and IQ is just superb! And Im not planning on printing billboard size pics anytime soon so I think 22MP is more than enough.

While 22 MP should be plenty for the vast majority of photographers, there are obvious exceptions. 22 high quality MP will deliver absolutely spectacular output with the right glass. Glossy double page spreads or full sized billboards carefully shot with my 16 MP 1D4 are 100% OK to both my clients eyes and my own over-critical eyes.

The sometimes controversial Ken Rockwell makes some completely valid points in his Megapixel Myth article. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

Your 28-135 may disappoint on FF but at least give it a test drive on your 5DIII.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/190-canon-ef-28-135mm-f35-56-usm-is-test-report--review
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=10

To help determine which L lens to start with, you could check the EXIF data on shots done with your Rebel & 28-135. See what focal lengths recur most frequently. This will help locate a suitable first L prime. Otherwise your budget will easily handle a MkI 24-70 f/2.8 or the usually excellent 24-105 f/4is.

Paul Wright

 

[YellowJersey]

It really depends on what you're shooting. Portraits require different lenses from landscapes from sports to wildlife.

I generally can't afford the weight of lots of lenses so I have my lens collection capped at three, but I can speak very highly of the 24-105 and the 17-40. Not sure what my third lens is going to be.... currently it's a toss up between the Sigma 85 1.4 and the Canon 100mm Macro 2.8 L.

 

[Tijn]

24-105L in a kit. Best value and closest to what you were used to.

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

Which L lens would you guys suggest I get. Im basically going to shoot mostly portraits, street photography, landscape probably within the budget of $1500.

Canon 24-105 f4 ($1000) and Canon 85mm 1.8 ($400) or Sigma 50mm 1.4 ($500). The last two aren't L's, but they work fine with full frame.

The 85 would be better at portraits and the 50 would be better at street photography. The 24-105 would do a reasonable job of everything, although it's not the sharpest lens for landscape.

As an alternative (and this is what I'd choose), Canon 17-40 f4 ($780) and Canon 85mm 1.8 ($400) and Sigma 50mm 1.4 ($500) - $1680 for all but it would be a good combination for all that you want to do. That gives you lenses which cover 17-85, but covers that range pretty well. It doesn't give you anything longer though. I don't know if that's a problem for you.

Compare the 17-40 with the 24-105 here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=4&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

 

[april]

I am thinking about getting the 5d Mk III even if it looks like the D800 is better on paper... I still think it remains to be seen if IQ would be better. I have used the 5D Mk II before and IQ is just superb! And Im not planning on printing billboard size pics anytime soon so I think 22MP is more than enough. I used to have a XTi and a T2i and have sold these too upgrade to a FF body. I have a EF 28-135mm and thinking about getting a L lens with the Mk III. Which L lens would you guys suggest I get. Im basically going to shoot mostly portraits, street photography, landscape probably within the budget of $1500.

with that budget, it will be very tight compared to your shooting needs. If your thinking of a single L lens to cover your shooting you've only have 2 choices considering your budget; 24-105 f4 or 24-70 f2.8 mk1. On these two lenses it's bokeh vs. extra reach & IS.
Now considering f4 on a FF, the bokeh is almost like an f2.8 on a crop sensor, if you're happy with that you can have a third option which is to get the 5d3/24-105 kit + 17-40 f4.

just sharing an idea if i was on your situation

 

[facedodge]

I am thinking about getting the 5d Mk III even if it looks like the D800 is better on paper... I still think it remains to be seen if IQ would be better. I have used the 5D Mk II before and IQ is just superb! And Im not planning on printing billboard size pics anytime soon so I think 22MP is more than enough. I used to have a XTi and a T2i and have sold these too upgrade to a FF body. I have a EF 28-135mm and thinking about getting a L lens with the Mk III. Which L lens would you guys suggest I get. Im basically going to shoot mostly portraits, street photography, landscape probably within the budget of $1500.

Thanks for your input.

135mm f/2.0L is only $1050 USD. It is considered one of the fastest and sharpest lenses you can get. It has 9 blades and delivers bokeh much like an 85L. The AF is nearly light speed. The reason you get all this is because it's 16 years old. Somehow, they hit is out of the park in 1996. Despite this, the 135L probably won't be updated anytime soon.

 

[april]

Im basically going to shoot mostly portraits, street photography, landscape

135mm f/2.0L is only $1050 USD. It is considered one of the fastest and sharpest lenses you can get. It has 9 blades and delivers bokeh much like an 85L. The AF is nearly light speed. The reason you get all this is because it's 16 years old. Somehow, they hit is out of the park in 1996. Despite this, the 135L probably won't be updated anytime soon.

135 f2? yeah that's a good lens but how often will you use it on landscape shots?

 

[vbi]

24-105L will give the the range from landscape at 24, street at 35 or 50, portrait at 105. Make sure you microadjust it to your body and it is sharp. And realistically F4 is more than fast enough with IS and the high ISO abilities of the 5D3. A further plus is that the balance on the 5D2 is greta, so probably it will feel right on the 5D3. The 24-70, as great a lens as it is, is quite a bit heavier and the range to restrictive for an all in one.

 

[facedodge]

+1 for 135L.... very reasonable price at sub $1100 USD. Part of the Canon L Holy Trinity (35 and 85 are others)

 

[canon23]

which lens for Mark II?

Hi everyone, I am going to get the 5D Mark II but not sure which lens to get along with it: 24-70 or 24-105??? (the next lens I'm going to invest in after this will probably be in a year with budget of $1,000 to $2,000).

I'm still an amatuer, and want to focus on landscapes (vacations), and portraits, but with the aim of becoming a wedding photographer. But at the moment, I'm still learning (w/great interest).

Your feed backs are much appreciated! Thanks.

 

[jalbfb]

Re: which lens for Mark II?

Hi everyone, I am going to get the 5D Mark II but not sure which lens to get along with it: 24-70 or 24-105??? (the next lens I'm going to invest in after this will probably be in a year with budget of $1,000 to $2,000).

I'm still an amatuer, and want to focus on landscapes (vacations), and portraits, but with the aim of becoming a wedding photographer. But at the moment, I'm still learning (w/great interest).

Your feed backs are much appreciated! Thanks.

I vote for the 24-105 f/4L IS that's what I have and it's a great walk around lens. I've taken some great landscapes and some tight portrait like photos with it and the price is right. The newer 24-70 might edge out the 24-105 in combo with the 5D3, and I'm getting the 5D3 (hopefully eventually despite my pre-order!) but I'll stick with what I've got. The 105 gives you a little more reach, obviously, so for me that outweihgts the 24-70. taht and the orice tag.

 

[Kernuak]

Im basically going to shoot mostly portraits, street photography, landscape

135mm f/2.0L is only $1050 USD. It is considered one of the fastest and sharpest lenses you can get. It has 9 blades and delivers bokeh much like an 85L. The AF is nearly light speed. The reason you get all this is because it's 16 years old. Somehow, they hit is out of the park in 1996. Despite this, the 135L probably won't be updated anytime soon.

135 f2? yeah that's a good lens but how often will you use it on landscape shots?

Landscapes aren't just about wideangle, some of the best ones I've seen have been short to long tele. I actually found the 135 more useful than my 24 for general landscapes when I visited Norway a few months ago. However, I agree that it isn't ideal all the time and would be more inclined towards the 24-105 for a general purpose lens, as I think you do need a wideangle if landscapes are part of what you shoot.

 

[april]

Im basically going to shoot mostly portraits, street photography, landscape

135mm f/2.0L is only $1050 USD. It is considered one of the fastest and sharpest lenses you can get. It has 9 blades and delivers bokeh much like an 85L. The AF is nearly light speed. The reason you get all this is because it's 16 years old. Somehow, they hit is out of the park in 1996. Despite this, the 135L probably won't be updated anytime soon.

yes I understand your point as a matter of fact there are a lot of times that I use my 70-200mm for landscape shots and it's great but the point is we're just giving ideas to the OP on the basis of his current situation. As I understand he's asking for a versatile L-lens to cover his shooting needs which in turn is limited by a tight budget.