Moving on from my 7D to 5D MK III 24-70mm, 24-105mm or prime

[Krob78]

Okay, I"m thrilled to have finally received my 5D MK III! Coming from my 7D I have some of the longer focal lengths covered, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and the legendary 100-400mm L. Most of my wider lenses are EF-s Lenses like my wonderful EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8...

I need some wider glass for my 5D III any suggestions? I'm looking at 24-70 f/2.8, 24-105 f/4, or maybe primes like a 24mm or 35mm or 50mm f/1.4... any thoughts?? EF 85mm 1.8 is on my short list, but it's not really wide...

Thanks!!

 

[Jesse]

14-24 L

 

[Cfunkexplosion]

Sounds like we are in a similar position. I made the jump from a 7D to a 5D3 about six months ago. I had the Canon 17-55 and the Tokina 11-16 on the wide end. Obviously sold them, and used the 24-105 for a bit as a replacement. I found that I rarely used it after acquiring the 35L and the 85L. I love my 35L, but it isn't super wide, and I plan to get an ultra wide at some point. Thinking about the Tokina 16-28, Canon 24L or 14L, or wait to see if the rumors of a 14-24L are true. I have found that I prefer primes generally, so personally I wouldn't want the 24-105 at this point, even though I think it is better than my old 17-55. If you liked yours that much, it might be a good solution to sort of bridge the gap between two lenses.

 

[rs]

The 17-55 is the equivalent of a 27-88/4.5 IS lens on FF, so the 24-105/4 IS will give more range at either end of the zoom with an option of a vaguely shallower DoF. But while it's marginally better, it's not going to give your images the big step up you might be looking for. A 2.8 zoom will make a noticeable difference, and the 24-70 II appears to be sharper than any L prime in that focal length range at 2.8 - but it can't do what a good fast prime can do in terms of subject isolation, and it can't compete with the best in terms of bokeh quality.

If you regularly use your 11-16 at its widest setting, the Canon 14-24 might be worth waiting for. If its anything like the Nikon 14-24, it'll be at least as good (and as fast) as the 14L II, or any Canon prime wider than 24mm. If you can, why not keep hold of the 11-16 and 7D as your ultrawide option until then?

 

[syder]

the 24-70 II appears to be sharper than any L prime in that focal length range at 2.8

This isn't true. The 24-70 ii is sharper than any prime @ 24mm - ie where it is sharpest. The 40mm f2.8 50mm f1.4 and 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 are all sharper at the edges and corners than the 24-70 ii. As are lenses like the Sigma 70mm macro.

 

[rs]

the 24-70 II appears to be sharper than any L prime in that focal length range at 2.8

This isn't true. The 24-70 ii is sharper than any prime @ 24mm - ie where it is sharpest. The 40mm f2.8 50mm f1.4 and 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 are all sharper at the edges and corners than the 24-70 ii. As are lenses like the Sigma 70mm macro.

Ok, I forgot about the 40 - that is sharper, and those two 50's are a close call at f2.8. Luckily none of those you listed are L primes, so while my point has been disproved, my original statement still just about holds

 

[elflord]

Okay, I"m thrilled to have finally received my 5D MK III! Coming from my 7D I have some of the longer focal lengths covered, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and the legendary 100-400mm L. Most of my wider lenses are EF-s Lenses like my wonderful EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8...

I need some wider glass for my 5D III any suggestions? I'm looking at 24-70 f/2.8, 24-105 f/4, or maybe primes like a 24mm or 35mm or 50mm f/1.4... any thoughts?? EF 85mm 1.8 is on my short list, but it's not really wide...

Thanks!!

Those are some very different lenses you have on your list.

Some thoughts -- regarding primes, think about which focal lengths you want to have a fast lens. Then get primes for those focal lengths. If you end up getting (for example) 35mm and 85mm primes or 24mm and 50mm you may be able to do without a general purpose zoom.

Are you looking into ultra wides ? (Canon 17-40, 16-35, various third party options)

For your general purpose zoom, it really depends on whether you care more about f/2.8 or IS and the extra reach. What would you be using the lens (general purpose zoom) for ?

 

[Krob78]

Sounds like we are in a similar position. I made the jump from a 7D to a 5D3 about six months ago. I had the Canon 17-55 and the Tokina 11-16 on the wide end. Obviously sold them, and used the 24-105 for a bit as a replacement. I found that I rarely used it after acquiring the 35L and the 85L. I love my 35L, but it isn't super wide, and I plan to get an ultra wide at some point. Thinking about the Tokina 16-28, Canon 24L or 14L, or wait to see if the rumors of a 14-24L are true. I have found that I prefer primes generally, so personally I wouldn't want the 24-105 at this point, even though I think it is better than my old 17-55. If you liked yours that much, it might be a good solution to sort of bridge the gap between two lenses.

Right now I'm mainly interested in picking up something just to get the wider end. My 70-200L isn't going to do that for me... I hadn't thought of selling the ef-s lenses I have or the Tokina 11-16mm, but that's a great option, since the 7D will take ef lenses anyway... Not sure how long I'll hang on to the 7D anyway...

I hadn't honestly thought about a prime limiting my need for a zoom until you mentioned it, but it kind of makes sense... The only prime I've thought about so far is the 85mm f/1.8 for portrait work, although the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II is certainly great for portrait work as well with my 5d3...

I love to shoot landscapes as well and that's kind of what I'm most interested in the wider end for.

 

[Krob78]

The 17-55 is the equivalent of a 27-88/4.5 IS lens on FF, so the 24-105/4 IS will give more range at either end of the zoom with an option of a vaguely shallower DoF. But while it's marginally better, it's not going to give your images the big step up you might be looking for. A 2.8 zoom will make a noticeable difference, and the 24-70 II appears to be sharper than any L prime in that focal length range at 2.8 - but it can't do what a good fast prime can do in terms of subject isolation, and it can't compete with the best in terms of bokeh quality.

If you regularly use your 11-16 at its widest setting, the Canon 14-24 might be worth waiting for. If its anything like the Nikon 14-24, it'll be at least as good (and as fast) as the 14L II, or any Canon prime wider than 24mm. If you can, why not keep hold of the 11-16 and 7D as your ultrawide option until then?

Thanks for the comments RS. I don't use my 11-16 to much. I bought it because I'm a Real Estate agent as well. So I also book shoots for other Realtors for photos for their MLS listings. It's a nice little side income. It works fairly well for that on my 7d, however the issue regarding noise in the shadows exists for me when shooting the 7d, even at f/2.8. I'm hoping the 5d3 will solve those issues for me. That being said, I suppose I won't need to go as wide on ff to acheive similar results with the Real Estate work.

I'll need to address that as well, but perhaps not as soon...

 

[bdunbar79]

the 24-70 II appears to be sharper than any L prime in that focal length range at 2.8

This isn't true. The 24-70 ii is sharper than any prime @ 24mm - ie where it is sharpest. The 40mm f2.8 50mm f1.4 and 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 are all sharper at the edges and corners than the 24-70 ii. As are lenses like the Sigma 70mm macro.

Not in the center. The 24-70L II has better center sharpness, especially than the 35 f/1.4L at f/2.8.

 

[bdunbar79]

If you can afford it, the 24-70L II zoom lens is absolutely fantastic. I don't shoot wide open at short focal lengths, so it'll be individual. So when I got the zoom lens, I sold my 35 f/1.4L and 50 f/1.2L because f/2.8 and narrower, where I shoot, the zoom was sharper. You may need to open up wider, however.

 

[MintMark]

I believe the Tokina 11-16 will fit on a 5DIII and at 16mm it will not vignette. If you search you can find some images where people show how it works on full frame at each focal length.

OK... I just tried on my 6D, it works fine at 16mm. You have to take the lens hood off. It's very wide

 

[elflord]

The 17-55 is the equivalent of a 27-88/4.5 IS lens on FF, so the 24-105/4 IS will give more range at either end of the zoom with an option of a vaguely shallower DoF. But while it's marginally better, it's not going to give your images the big step up you might be looking for. A 2.8 zoom will make a noticeable difference, and the 24-70 II appears to be sharper than any L prime in that focal length range at 2.8 - but it can't do what a good fast prime can do in terms of subject isolation, and it can't compete with the best in terms of bokeh quality.

If you regularly use your 11-16 at its widest setting, the Canon 14-24 might be worth waiting for. If its anything like the Nikon 14-24, it'll be at least as good (and as fast) as the 14L II, or any Canon prime wider than 24mm. If you can, why not keep hold of the 11-16 and 7D as your ultrawide option until then?

Thanks for the comments RS. I don't use my 11-16 to much. I bought it because I'm a Real Estate agent as well. So I also book shoots for other Realtors for photos for their MLS listings. It's a nice little side income. It works fairly well for that on my 7d, however the issue regarding noise in the shadows exists for me when shooting the 7d, even at f/2.8. I'm hoping the 5d3 will solve those issues for me. That being said, I suppose I won't need to go as wide on ff to acheive similar results with the Real Estate work.

I'll need to address that as well, but perhaps not as soon...

The full frame sensor won't solve all your problems because you will not have enough depth of field if you're shooting real estate shots at f/2.8. Do you shoot these with a tripod and/or flash ? For these issues, look into lighting and/or support. Look for a lens that doesn't have too horrible distortion characteristics at the desired focal lengths.

 

[Krob78]

Okay, I"m thrilled to have finally received my 5D MK III! Coming from my 7D I have some of the longer focal lengths covered, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and the legendary 100-400mm L. Most of my wider lenses are EF-s Lenses like my wonderful EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8...

I need some wider glass for my 5D III any suggestions? I'm looking at 24-70 f/2.8, 24-105 f/4, or maybe primes like a 24mm or 35mm or 50mm f/1.4... any thoughts?? EF 85mm 1.8 is on my short list, but it's not really wide...

Thanks!!

Those are some very different lenses you have on your list.

Some thoughts -- regarding primes, think about which focal lengths you want to have a fast lens. Then get primes for those focal lengths. If you end up getting (for example) 35mm and 85mm primes or 24mm and 50mm you may be able to do without a general purpose zoom.

Are you looking into ultra wides ? (Canon 17-40, 16-35, various third party options)

For your general purpose zoom, it really depends on whether you care more about f/2.8 or IS and the extra reach. What would you be using the lens (general purpose zoom) for ?

Thanks for the thoughts Elf. I'd like something quite wide, yet maybe reticular to use for my Real Estate work. That being said, I want something that is going to be better suited for landscape work, as I do more of that than the Real Estate. Sounds like I may need 2 options! Perhaps 1 lens isn't enough on the wide end, just as one lens isn't enough on the long end for me...

I get a lot of use from my 70-200 f/2.8 but it doesn't negate my need for my 100-400mmL by any means...

So perhaps I am better asking what two lenses would suit me better for the wide end? One for interior real estate type work and one for landscape work... And the 85 f/1.8 is definitely on my list, although not wide... The other thing is something wider in case the 70-200mm doesn't give me enough room to shoot a portrait if perhaps find myself in tight quarters...

 

[Krob78]

I believe the Tokina 11-16 will fit on a 5DIII and at 16mm it will not vignette. If you search you can find some images where people show how it works on full frame at each focal length.

OK... I just tried on my 6D, it works fine at 16mm. You have to take the lens hood off. It's very wide

Yes, I tried it on my 5d3. It will only work at 16mm, but just barely! It seems to have a rectangle almost, around the outside of it... Took hood off. It seems almost too much for any landscape work, but may work out okay for Real Estate. I'll try a few shots inside rooms and see how it pans out...

I had asked about the ultra wide end as well, due to someone mentioning to me that there is a wide Canon lens that is reticular, keeping the barrel distortion to the bare minimum and helping keep the lines straight. I wasn't sure about it and the guy that told me about it, didn't know what lens it was, just that it was an EF lens...

 

[Krob78]

The 17-55 is the equivalent of a 27-88/4.5 IS lens on FF, so the 24-105/4 IS will give more range at either end of the zoom with an option of a vaguely shallower DoF. But while it's marginally better, it's not going to give your images the big step up you might be looking for. A 2.8 zoom will make a noticeable difference, and the 24-70 II appears to be sharper than any L prime in that focal length range at 2.8 - but it can't do what a good fast prime can do in terms of subject isolation, and it can't compete with the best in terms of bokeh quality.

If you regularly use your 11-16 at its widest setting, the Canon 14-24 might be worth waiting for. If its anything like the Nikon 14-24, it'll be at least as good (and as fast) as the 14L II, or any Canon prime wider than 24mm. If you can, why not keep hold of the 11-16 and 7D as your ultrawide option until then?

Thanks for the comments RS. I don't use my 11-16 to much. I bought it because I'm a Real Estate agent as well. So I also book shoots for other Realtors for photos for their MLS listings. It's a nice little side income. It works fairly well for that on my 7d, however the issue regarding noise in the shadows exists for me when shooting the 7d, even at f/2.8. I'm hoping the 5d3 will solve those issues for me. That being said, I suppose I won't need to go as wide on ff to acheive similar results with the Real Estate work.

I'll need to address that as well, but perhaps not as soon...

The full frame sensor won't solve all your problems because you will not have enough depth of field if you're shooting real estate shots at f/2.8. Do you shoot these with a tripod and/or flash ? For these issues, look into lighting and/or support. Look for a lens that doesn't have too horrible distortion characteristics at the desired focal lengths.

I do use my tripod always for Real estate images and my flash as needed. I know the FF sensor won't solve all the issues with that, but it accepts so much more light than my crop sensor on my 7D, I thought it could be very helpful in post... My 7d has major challenges with noise in the shadows...

 

[Krob78]

I believe the Tokina 11-16 will fit on a 5DIII and at 16mm it will not vignette. If you search you can find some images where people show how it works on full frame at each focal length.

OK... I just tried on my 6D, it works fine at 16mm. You have to take the lens hood off. It's very wide

You're right about that Mint, it's very wide on the FF!

 

[rs]

I had asked about the ultra wide end as well, due to someone mentioning to me that there is a wide Canon lens that is reticular, keeping the barrel distortion to the bare minimum and helping keep the lines straight. I wasn't sure about it and the guy that told me about it, didn't know what lens it was, just that it was an EF lens...

All Canon lenses other than the fisheyes are designed to be rectilinear. Having said that, the two existing full frame ultrawide zooms (16-35 and 17-40) have plenty of distortion, so they're not perfectly rectilinear. The EF-S 10-22 is much better from the distortion point of view, but that doesn't help you at all.

A good prime or correcting in post are your options. It'll be interesting to see what the rumoured 14-24 is like from the distortion point of view, but we'll have to wait for reviews before we know - Canon usually publish MTF charts and say nothing about distortion.

If you want to go for a prime and 14mm is too wide, consider one of the TS-E lenses (they're the ultimate architecture/landscape lenses) or something like the 21mm Zeiss.

 

[Krob78]

I had asked about the ultra wide end as well, due to someone mentioning to me that there is a wide Canon lens that is reticular, keeping the barrel distortion to the bare minimum and helping keep the lines straight. I wasn't sure about it and the guy that told me about it, didn't know what lens it was, just that it was an EF lens...

All Canon lenses other than the fisheyes are designed to be rectilinear. Having said that, the two existing full frame ultrawide zooms (16-35 and 17-40) have plenty of distortion, so they're not perfectly rectilinear. The EF-S 10-22 is much better from the distortion point of view, but that doesn't help you at all.

A good prime or correcting in post are your options. It'll be interesting to see what the rumoured 14-24 is like from the distortion point of view, but we'll have to wait for reviews before we know - Canon usually publish MTF charts and say nothing about distortion.

If you want to go for a prime and 14mm is too wide, consider one of the TS-E lenses (they're the ultimate architecture/landscape lenses) or something like the 21mm Zeiss.

I'm definitely interested in how the 14-24mm will review and more importantly, real world... Is there extra work involved in producing images with the TS-E lenses? What is it about the tilt/shift that makes them so good for landscape and architectural? I've heard that before...

 

[rs]

To get the best out of TS-E lenses, you're restricted to a tripod and live view. If you're taking an architectural shot with a wide rectilinear lens and you don't want the building to look like its falling over, or the interior walls falling in, you can't point the lens up or down. That can really restrict the placement of the lens and stop you getting the pics you want. A TS-E lens allows you to shift the lens, and using a combination of that and changing where it's pointing, you can correct for it in camera.

Also, the tilt changes the plain of focus from being a flat plain parallel to the sensor to almost any angle you like - so for landscape shots you don't need to suffer from diffraction at f22 to get the ground near and far in focus - just set the lens so the plain of focus is lined up with the ground, focus on that, and choose a sensible aperture such as f8 or f11 for maximum detail.