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

[Krob78]

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.

That's pretty cool! Thanks!

 

[elflord]

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...

Depends -- if you're shooting at f/2.8 to get faster shutter speed, FF won't really help because you need to stop down to get the same depth of field so it's a wash. Shooting at f/2.8 on FF is like shooting at f/1.8 on APS-C.

So bottom line is -- FF will help if you're shooting at ISO 100 and f/8 but not if you're using it to get higher shutter speed. Also, fast lenses won't necessarily help much, distortion characteristics are more important

regarding tilt shift the two things it buys you are optical correction of perspective distortion (e.g. straightening out converging verticals for example which is a common problem with wide angle lenses) and also they can help add depth of field

 

[Krob78]

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...

Depends -- if you're shooting at f/2.8 to get faster shutter speed, FF won't really help because you need to stop down to get the same depth of field so it's a wash. Shooting at f/2.8 on FF is like shooting at f/1.8 on APS-C.

So bottom line is -- FF will help if you're shooting at ISO 100 and f/8 but not if you're using it to get higher shutter speed. Also, fast lenses won't necessarily help much, distortion characteristics are more important

regarding tilt shift the two things it buys you are optical correction of perspective distortion (e.g. straightening out converging verticals for example which is a common problem with wide angle lenses) and also they can help add depth of field

Being on the tripod and needing most of the real estate work to be in focus, stopping down to f/8 and using iso 100 or slightly more shouldn't be to big of an issue I'm thinking, for that type of work...

The tilt shifts sound intriguing, I imagine expensive too. Seems like the majority feels like a wider zoom like the 24-105mm isn't a good idea. If I'm going zoom I need to look at the 24-90MM, I'm thinking version 1 or version 2 would be fine.

Seems like primes are the most recommended lenses though. I'll start pricing out 14mm, 24mm, 35mm and probably look at a 50mm 1.4, although it sounds like that might not get much use... maybe not wide enough...

Thanks for all the help guys!

 

[bdunbar79]

Maybe for a different topic or a different time, but I think if you had a TS lens and really learned to use it, you'd be one happy real estate photographer .

 

[Dylan777]

If budget is not an issue, the new 24-70 II is the way to go. On my copy, Reikan FoCal showed the sharpness at f2.8 is 985. Not many zoom lenses out there have this kind of sharpness at f2.8.

My comment is based on real life shooting.....let me know if you want to see some photos with 5D III.

Many owners of 24-105 claimed their copy is razor sharp, but the Canon MTF chart doesn't indicate that at all. Again...I owned 2 copies of 24-105 in the past and I didn't see that. I ended up shooting alot with 50mm f1.4 @ f1.8 to 2.8.

 

[pardus]

I upgraded my 7D to a 5Diii this fall. I had the Sigma 10-20mm F3.5, it sort of worked on my 5D at 17mm above but never felt that it was a sharp lens. I got the 16-35mm 2.8L and love it. I shoot some real estate as well and you need to be under 20mm for 50% of most houses. I also have the 24-105mm F4L IS and really glad I took that over the 24-70mm F2.8L. I use that lens mostly as my walk around or if I am only taking one lens out. The IS and reduced shutter for me make a way bigger improvement then the extra stop of light. I can shoot 1/30 sec no problem with it. I also have the 50mm 1.4 and 70-200 F2.8L and covers everything I need.

Also if you keep your camera level, distortion is very minimal on 16-35mm for shooting rooms and easily corrected in RAW processing.

 

[crasher8]

LOVE my 24-105 over my former 24-70 brick. I had a sharp copy nothing against the IQ but the weight and heft was just a pain. I have started doing RE gigs and I really have the Jones for a Zeiss 15/18/21. Just wish they didn't have vignetting issues. Well the 18 has it bad. I guess I wish they didn't cost so much, yeah, that's it.

 

[elflord]

The tilt shifts sound intriguing, I imagine expensive too. Seems like the majority feels like a wider zoom like the 24-105mm isn't a good idea. If I'm going zoom I need to look at the 24-90MM, I'm thinking version 1 or version 2 would be fine.

not sure what you mean, there's 24-70 and 24-105.

These are great general purpose zooms ... but maybe not the best choices as specialized landscape or RE photography lenses. These are more your "walkaround" lenses.

Seems like primes are the most recommended lenses though.

The issue is distortion. Zooms generally have heavy barrel distortion at the wide end, so if you're shooting at 24mm a lot, a lens that is 24-xx will give you a lot of barrel distortion whereas even an inexpensive prime (e.g. the 24mm f/2.8) will not. The new 24-70mm for example is sharper at 24mm than the 24mm f/2.8 prime but has much more distortion.

However, if you shoot with an ultra wide like the 17-40 or the 16-35, it's already well out of its widest by 20mm, so you should be able to shoot at 24mm without much trouble with distortion.

Tilts are great but expensive, about $2k for the wide angles (e.g. 17mm or 24mm)

 

[7enderbender]

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.

If the main goal is having a wide angle lens for landscapes I would start with the Zeiss 21mm Diastagon or one of Canon's TS lenses.

For an all purpose zoom and to close you gap I would look for a good copy of the original 24-70 and not the new expensive plastic version. I have the 24-105 and can't really get myself to like it. It's sharp and all but it gets pretty little use and I much prefer my 50 over it as an all purpose lens. It's good for studio type work - though I bet I'd be happier with a 24-70 and may still try to trade it one day. The build quality is pretty meh as well.

 

[rs]

Although the TS-E's are the best for architecture, with the right technique and right software, you can do it on a budget with good results with something like a 17-40 and a tripod.

Just do the usual - carefully align the camera, use an aperture for maximum detail (probably around f11 for depth of field, corner sharpness and avoiding diffraction), and take the shot at the lowest ISO possible for the dynamic range needed - possibly 50 or 100 - if you control the lighting, this shouldn't be an issue.

Just make sure you correct for lens distortion before shifting in software. Please note that the more you do the shift correction digitally, the less of the original image you'll retain, so you'll need to shoot quite a bit wider to compensate.

The issues with this approach are lots of shifted pixels, and using just a cropped part of the sensor. A TS-E allows for you to do the same effect in camera, using the entire FF sensor with no pixels shifted around.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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!!

24-70 2.8 II is good and will deliver the same edge to edge sharp pics on the 5D3 as your 17-55 2.8 IS did on the 7D.

The 24-105 cost a lot less and has IS but it won't be as crisp edge to edge as the 17-55 was (or even quite as sharp anywhere).

There is the upcoming 24-70 4 IS. Perhaps it would be most similar to your 17-55 in that you get the same degree of low DOF ability and IS. Hopefully it does better than the 24-105. The MTF suggest it will be similar to the 24-70 2.8 II at the long end although not quite as good on the short end although better at either end than the 24-105. It remains to be seen.

The 24 2.8 prime is no better than the zooms.

The 24 1.4 II is very good, although if you don't need the f/1.4-2 much then the 24-70 2.8 II pretty much covers it since it's a really good zoom (the 24-105 doesn't do as well as the 24 1.4 II even at f/6.3-f/11 for landscapes).

The new 24 2.8 IS might be decent enough.

The 24 T&S II is very good and lets you adjust all sorts of things that you can't with a regular lens, it is specialized though and Samyang is coming out with one soon for a fraction of the price, maybe that one will be good (their 14mm is crazy good other than TONS of distortion).

Zeiss 21mm 2.8 is very good.

17 T&S is good if you want fancy, specialized ultra-wide work.

A 35 1.4 or 50 1.4 is nice for some low DOF work and such. I've been wary of sigma in the past but their 35 1.4 is getting amazing reviews and apparently the AF isn't bad on it. The Canon 50 1.4 has dodgy AF, an ancient and unique AF design that also is prone to breaking but it performs well optically for a standard 50mm design (an exotic-type design might do better wide open though). I'd favor a 35 1.4 over a 50 1.4 on FF, I think, but it's up to you.

50mm definitely is not wide, 35mm is only starting to get wide.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

agreed

but it is sharper than most other standard zooms across the range though and it does have everythign built-in instead of a mess of swapping primes all the time.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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...

They have a 14mm, pretty pricey. The samyang has less CA and may be sharper but it does have a lot of distortion so the Canon is better if that matters a lot. For architecture and stuff there is more than barrel distortion to deal with and tilt and shift can help fix buildings, wall, trees, etc. leaning away and back as they rise up and you can adjust focal plane in some case to get DOF to better fit the scene. Canon 17 T&S is ultra-wide, rectilinear with tricks.

 

[elflord]

The 24 2.8 prime is no better than the zooms.

It has much less distortion than the 24mm-XXX zooms at 24mm.

 

[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!!

24-70 2.8 II is good and will deliver the same edge to edge sharp pics on the 5D3 as your 17-55 2.8 IS did on the 7D.

The 24-105 cost a lot less and has IS but it won't be as crisp edge to edge as the 17-55 was (or even quite as sharp anywhere).

There is the upcoming 24-70 4 IS. Perhaps it would be most similar to your 17-55 in that you get the same degree of low DOF ability and IS. Hopefully it does better than the 24-105. The MTF suggest it will be similar to the 24-70 2.8 II at the long end although not quite as good on the short end although better at either end than the 24-105. It remains to be seen.

The 24 2.8 prime is no better than the zooms.

The 24 1.4 II is very good, although if you don't need the f/1.4-2 much then the 24-70 2.8 II pretty much covers it since it's a really good zoom (the 24-105 doesn't do as well as the 24 1.4 II even at f/6.3-f/11 for landscapes).

The new 24 2.8 IS might be decent enough.

The 24 T&S II is very good and lets you adjust all sorts of things that you can't with a regular lens, it is specialized though and Samyang is coming out with one soon for a fraction of the price, maybe that one will be good (their 14mm is crazy good other than TONS of distortion).

Zeiss 21mm 2.8 is very good.

17 T&S is good if you want fancy, specialized ultra-wide work.

A 35 1.4 or 50 1.4 is nice for some low DOF work and such. I've been wary of sigma in the past but their 35 1.4 is getting amazing reviews and apparently the AF isn't bad on it. The Canon 50 1.4 has dodgy AF, an ancient and unique AF design that also is prone to breaking but it performs well optically for a standard 50mm design (an exotic-type design might do better wide open though). I'd favor a 35 1.4 over a 50 1.4 on FF, I think, but it's up to you.

50mm definitely is not wide, 35mm is only starting to get wide.

Wow, that was a wealth of information! Thank you! I've decided to pretty much give up on the 24-105mm based on everyone's opinion/review of that lens. I'll hold out for the 24-70 f/2.8 whenever I decide to go for a wider zoom for the 5d3.

In the meantime, I'm checking out the local array of 24mm, 35mm, 17mm primes oh and a 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8. The 85mm will happen very quickly, based on the rave reviews I've read of it.

I'm leaning strongly toward the 24mm prime for my first wide prime for the FF... I like the wide end of my 17-55mm on the 7d but sometimes wish it was 16. So I think the 24mm will give me just a tad more within the frame on my 5d3 than the 17-55mm does on my 7D, which sounds perfect. Now just to find a good deal!!

 

[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!!

24-70 2.8 II is good and will deliver the same edge to edge sharp pics on the 5D3 as your 17-55 2.8 IS did on the 7D.

The 24-105 cost a lot less and has IS but it won't be as crisp edge to edge as the 17-55 was (or even quite as sharp anywhere).

There is the upcoming 24-70 4 IS. Perhaps it would be most similar to your 17-55 in that you get the same degree of low DOF ability and IS. Hopefully it does better than the 24-105. The MTF suggest it will be similar to the 24-70 2.8 II at the long end although not quite as good on the short end although better at either end than the 24-105. It remains to be seen.

The 24 2.8 prime is no better than the zooms.

The 24 1.4 II is very good, although if you don't need the f/1.4-2 much then the 24-70 2.8 II pretty much covers it since it's a really good zoom (the 24-105 doesn't do as well as the 24 1.4 II even at f/6.3-f/11 for landscapes).

The new 24 2.8 IS might be decent enough.

The 24 T&S II is very good and lets you adjust all sorts of things that you can't with a regular lens, it is specialized though and Samyang is coming out with one soon for a fraction of the price, maybe that one will be good (their 14mm is crazy good other than TONS of distortion).

Zeiss 21mm 2.8 is very good.

17 T&S is good if you want fancy, specialized ultra-wide work.

A 35 1.4 or 50 1.4 is nice for some low DOF work and such. I've been wary of sigma in the past but their 35 1.4 is getting amazing reviews and apparently the AF isn't bad on it. The Canon 50 1.4 has dodgy AF, an ancient and unique AF design that also is prone to breaking but it performs well optically for a standard 50mm design (an exotic-type design might do better wide open though). I'd favor a 35 1.4 over a 50 1.4 on FF, I think, but it's up to you.

50mm definitely is not wide, 35mm is only starting to get wide.

Found 24mm 2.8 IS for $629
24mm 1.4 for $1140
28mm 1.8 for $449
Still looking... not sure if the 24mm f/1.4 is worth the difference over the f/2.8 version. I'd be using it mostly for landscapes at f/8 - f/16 mostly... with the 5d3 good high iso performance, I tend to think the 2.8 would be sufficient. Is my thought flawed?

 

[bdunbar79]

No, for landscape f/1.4 is not needed and in fact, the 2.8 version would be just as sharp or sharper than the 24 f/1.4 prime at f/8 to f/11, especially in landscape photography.

 

[mb66energy]

[...]

Still looking... not sure if the 24mm f/1.4 is worth the difference over the f/2.8 version. I'd be using it mostly for landscapes at f/8 - f/16 mostly... with the 5d3 good high iso performance, I tend to think the 2.8 would be sufficient. Is my thought flawed?

If you rely on f/8 - f/16 to get enough DOF an image stabilized lens might be the better choice for you - for interior photographs and landscape - the 24 IS might be the best suited lens for these applications. So your thoughts are absolutely not flawed IMO.

And don't forget the 40mm f/2.8 - it's a great lens. I use it very often on my 40D (64mm equiv) but use my old 24mm f/2.8 (38mm equiv) with great joy on my 40D - so the 40mm will be my "wide angle" on a FF camera if I buy one (for me, 100mm feels as a standard lens for landscape etc. ... to cut out the nice views out of the well populated and technisized landscapes in germany).

 

[RS2021]

The 24-105L was given a bad rap, was it? It occupies a very unique place in the Canon line...focal length range, image quality, IS, build.... All things considered it is a damn good lens.

 

[elflord]

In the meantime, I'm checking out the local array of 24mm, 35mm, 17mm primes oh and a 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8. The 85mm will happen very quickly, based on the rave reviews I've read of it.

before you rush out and grab the 85mm f/1.8, take a look at reviews of the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 (photozone.de, lenstip, thedigitalpicture.com). Blows the canon f/1.8 away and gives the f/1.2 a run for its money.