Lens Recommendations - Crop (7D) to Full Frame (5dMk3)?

[aloper]

I've known for the past year that I wanted to move to a full frame camera from my 7D so I've been slowly selling off my crop lenses and replacing them with standard lenses. So far in my kit, I have the 24-70mm 2.8 L and the 70-200mm F4 IS L...The only crop lens I still have is my trusty 17-55mm 2.8 and plan on selling that along with my 7D once my new 5D Mk3 arrives. I'm generally a landscape, street and occasional portrait shooter. When I look through my pics, most are taken at the wide end of my 17-55 and 24-70...most in the 17-35mm range. My 70-200 is rarely used but I keep it around for those times when I do need some extra reach...

One thing I want to do is add some primes for a lighter setup, say for street and night work. At first, my thinking was picking up the 16-35mm 2.8 and maybe the 50mm 1.2 or 1.4. But I'm wondering if I should just skip the 16-35mm altogether and maybe pick two primes instead. Maybe the new 24mm 2.8 IS when it becomes available along with either a 35mm, or 50mm or 85mm...Pretty sure I'm going with a 24mm to start...what I'm not sure of is either getting the 35 or 50mm but I'm leaning towards the 50mm...

Anyone have any thoughts or recommendations?

 

[Tijn]

You have nice coverage already with the 24-70 and 70-200. As you prefer the wide angles the most, why not get a superwide zoom lens? Alternatively, you may want to get a tilt-shift lens to play around with (the 24mm or something).

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM would be my primary recommendation. It excels in street and landscape photography, and your other lenses pretty much sort out the rest of your needs. You'll also find that you will start using the 70-200 again on your full-frame camera because the framing suddenly becomes very useful for medium-tight and tight portraits (and your 24-70 will only do full-body to medium portraits).

 

[Flake]

On the other hand though 17mm on a crop camera equals 28mm on FF so you might find that you have enough wide angle to be going on with. That said the three usual lenses for the kit bag are wide angle, standard zoom, and telephoto, so a wide angle would be a normal reccomend. Take a look at the 17 - 40mm F/4 L although it has its flaws it's a lot cheaper than the 16 - 35mm f/2.8 L II and the extra stop isn't that useful most of the time.

After the 'holy trinity' you might want to add a fast prime, the 50mm f/1.8 or the rather better f/1.4 perhaps, or maybe the 100mm macro if that interests you.

I'm not sure why you'd be interested in the 24mm IS prime when you have a 24 - 70mm f/2.8 already? I take it you do have a stable tripod & remote release?

Canons FF cameras do not come with any form of flash, so you really should consider one even if it's a third party version.

 

[jwong]

Canon wide L primes are expensive, so you might be better served with the 16-35mm. If you go the prime route in the wide end, then that would include the 14, 17, 20, 24 and 35. Of those, the 14, 17 cost much more than the 16-35, the 24L is a little bit less expensive and the 35L is a little less expensive than the 24L. The 16-35 is more of a FF version of the APS-C 10-22, only it's faster (constant f/2.8) and more expensive. If you didn't need the 10-22 range with your 7D, then you might not need the 16-35 once you move FF.

F/1.2 and f/1.4 works well in low light especially if you want shallow DOF and maximum blur. I'd suggest waiting to get the FF camera and then seeing what focal lengths you use the most. I love the 35L on the APS-C, and I'm not sure how that translates to FF. You can check to see what focal lengths you typically use for this application and then divide by 1.6. Canon's 50mm primes are weaker. The 85 f/1.8 is supposed to an excellent value, although I've never used it personally.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Look at the focal lengths you use now and multiply by 1.6 to get the equivalent FF focal length you will need. If you use 24mm, for example, you will be using 38.4mm on your FF to get the same image at the same distance.

I'd not buy ultra wide lenses until you try the ones you have first. 24mm is pretty wide on FF. You may want longer lenses though, if you now use 200mm, you will have to have a 300mm lens to get the about same fov. The 100-400mm L is a good choice for a long telephoto on FF.

 

[Daniel Flather]

The 50L is really a nice lens....when it hits focus @1.2. I use mine on a 50D right now (5d3 on order). I know it's focal length is covered by your other lenses (but f1.2 is in a different world vs f2.8 ), but the 50L and 35L are nice wide open. The 35L is rumoured to be replace by a mark 2 version. It would be nice if the 5d3 can help the 50L little. I also have the 50/1.4 and the 50L has better bokeh than the 1.4 version.

 

[briansquibb]

85 f/1.8
100 f/2
135 f/2

Are all ideal street primes

 

[wickidwombat]

I highly recomend trying out the Sigma 85mm f1.4 its one of my favourite lenses on FF

 

[bluegreenturtle]

Since you said you like wide, here's a funny little thing that I think most full-frame users ignore: the Tokina 11-16mm, which is nominally an EF-S lens, can be used as a f2.8 16mm prime on full frame, and costs between $450 and $650 street. If you look at the competition, there's nothing out there even close in IQ at that price. It fits on just fine and clears the mirror without issue.

 

[wickidwombat]

Since you said you like wide, here's a funny little thing that I think most full-frame users ignore: the Tokina 11-16mm, which is nominally an EF-S lens, can be used as a f2.8 16mm prime on full frame, and costs between $450 and $650 street. If you look at the competition, there's nothing out there even close in IQ at that price. It fits on just fine and clears the mirror without issue.

really? does it still work at 11 too?
i'm really interested to see pics at different lengths taken on a 5D2
so the lens actually has an EF mount bayonet then? because normal canon EF-S lenses wont even lock into the EF mount

 

[bluegreenturtle]

Since you said you like wide, here's a funny little thing that I think most full-frame users ignore: the Tokina 11-16mm, which is nominally an EF-S lens, can be used as a f2.8 16mm prime on full frame, and costs between $450 and $650 street. If you look at the competition, there's nothing out there even close in IQ at that price. It fits on just fine and clears the mirror without issue.

really? does it still work at 11 too?
i'm really interested to see pics at different lengths taken on a 5D2
so the lens actually has an EF mount bayonet then? because normal canon EF-S lenses wont even lock into the EF mount

Yes, it's a standard mount and because it's a Tokina it locks just fine. AF works fine too. It only works without vignetting at 16mm. At 11mm there is significant vignetting. All considered, it's an incredible deal for what it is - you're basically only competing with the Canon 14mm at that point which is $1500.

Here are 2 images stolen from EOSHD:

16mm on 5dmkii

at 11mm:

 

[rugrats2001]

Since you said you like wide, here's a funny little thing that I think most full-frame users ignore: the Tokina 11-16mm, which is nominally an EF-S lens, can be used as a f2.8 16mm prime on full frame, and costs between $450 and $650 street. If you look at the competition, there's nothing out there even close in IQ at that price. It fits on just fine and clears the mirror without issue.

really? does it still work at 11 too?
i'm really interested to see pics at different lengths taken on a 5D2
so the lens actually has an EF mount bayonet then? because normal canon EF-S lenses wont even lock into the EF mount

Yes, it's a standard mount and because it's a Tokina it locks just fine. AF works fine too. It only works without vignetting at 16mm. At 11mm there is significant vignetting. All considered, it's an incredible deal for what it is - you're basically only competing with the Canon 14mm at that point which is $1500.

Here are 2 images stolen from EOSHD:

16mm on 5dmkii

at 11mm:

Maybe its just me, but these don't look the way I would expect a 16 and 11 millimeter lens to look on a full frame. They look more like a 24 at the widest.

 

[bluegreenturtle]

I dunno, these aren't my images. Admittedly EOSHD is not a reliable source for un-biased info. BUT I have this lens and assure you that it works fine at 16mm on a full frame and has IQ that will compete with any Canon L lens. I will post a photo of my own when I get a chance.

 

[emag]

I have and enjoy the Tokina 11-16 (it is EF, not EF-S mount, BTW) and am happy with it in a cost/benefit way. Stopped a bit it's sharp enough, soft in the corners wide open. I've used it for 'general' photography and wide field time lapse astrophotography on a 40D. I recommend it for a crop camera but YMMV on a FF. If yer gonna plunk down 3500 for a camera, might as well completely destroy the wallet with some pricey glass! ;D

 

[wickidwombat]

that might be a really sweet ultra wide option for someone that only has an APS-H sensor, as you would most likely lose most of that vignette and get effective 14-20mm, not too shaby

 

[bluegreenturtle]

I just noticed there's a series of photos of this lens at Ken Rockwell on a full frame Nikon:

 

[YellowJersey]

I'll probably come across as a heretic to all the 16-35 owners... but I have the 17-40 f/4 L and I highly recommend it. I don't think a superwide really suits portraits that well; longer focal lengths seem to do that better, particularly between 50 and 100mm. You seem to have those lengths covered pretty well. The superwide is really better geared towards landscapes, in which case you're almost always stopped down to f/8 or lower so you'd rarely if ever need the 2.8 for landscape shooting. Just my two cents.

 

[bluegreenturtle]

The fast lens is essential for video (which is all I do, so I'm biased towards video applications for these lenses) since our shutter speed is fixed.

 

[wickidwombat]

I'll probably come across as a heretic to all the 16-35 owners... but I have the 17-40 f/4 L and I highly recommend it. I don't think a superwide really suits portraits that well; longer focal lengths seem to do that better, particularly between 50 and 100mm. You seem to have those lengths covered pretty well. The superwide is really better geared towards landscapes, in which case you're almost always stopped down to f/8 or lower so you'd rarely if ever need the 2.8 for landscape shooting. Just my two cents.

all valid points
that is why i prefer to use the 16-35 II on APS-H giving 21-49mm which is a really nice range for events and as a walk around, I prefer this approach to using 24-70 since it gives me near enough to 50mm on the long end and 21mm is Just that bit better than 24 on the wide end, also croping the corners means its sharp all over at f2.8 for events etc, colour and contrast is also stunning on this lens. I originally got it for landscapes but soon discovered it can do sooo much more than just that.
another massive benefit is its all internally zooming unlike the 24-70

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I've known for the past year that I wanted to move to a full frame camera from my 7D so I've been slowly selling off my crop lenses and replacing them with standard lenses. So far in my kit, I have the 24-70mm 2.8 L and the 70-200mm F4 IS L...The only crop lens I still have is my trusty 17-55mm 2.8 and plan on selling that along with my 7D once my new 5D Mk3 arrives. I'm generally a landscape, street and occasional portrait shooter. When I look through my pics, most are taken at the wide end of my 17-55 and 24-70...most in the 17-35mm range. My 70-200 is rarely used but I keep it around for those times when I do need some extra reach...

One thing I want to do is add some primes for a lighter setup, say for street and night work. At first, my thinking was picking up the 16-35mm 2.8 and maybe the 50mm 1.2 or 1.4. But I'm wondering if I should just skip the 16-35mm altogether and maybe pick two primes instead. Maybe the new 24mm 2.8 IS when it becomes available along with either a 35mm, or 50mm or 85mm...Pretty sure I'm going with a 24mm to start...what I'm not sure of is either getting the 35 or 50mm but I'm leaning towards the 50mm...

Anyone have any thoughts or recommendations?

With the two FF lenses you own, the 5D MK II will go substantially wider than your 7D at 17mm, so you do not need wider until you see the results.

Remember, every lens on a FF body is going to be a lot shorter, so you will use that 70-200.

For portraits, 85mm to 135mm is a good range, The 135mmL is one I use the most.

I'd wait and see which focal lengths work for you before buying any more lenses. You may find you want to upgrade that f/4 zoom to f/2.8, or do like me and buy fast primes.

I have used the metadata search in lightroom to review my favorite focal lengths and apertures, and then prioritized buying primes using that. Now, I seldom use zooms except for walkaround outdoors, and my 100-400mm L at 400mm like it was a prime.