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

[elflord]

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?

You'd basically be paying more for a combination of a fast aperture and wide angle, but you don't need a fast lens. So no need to spend extra for the f/1.4. Of your list, the 24mm f/2.8 is the best choice hands down.

 

[Krob78]

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)

"not sure what you mean, there's 24-70 and 24-105." Thanks Elf, I meant 24-70mm, typo...

I picked up a 24-105mm and I find it okay... just okay... even after MFA I'm okay with it... just okay... Picked up an 85mm f1.8 and love it, but not for landscape or real estate. I think the 24-70mm would have been a better choice for me for a zoom, now however I think I'll look into selling the 24-105mm albeit brand new and look for another prime, as you and others suggested, likely a 24mm... That feels plenty wide for me for now... although the 16-35mm might work out nicely too... Just not in love with the 24-105mm.

 

[Krob78]

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.

"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 agree with you on that Dylan!

 

[tgara]

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!!

I think folks are over-thinking this. If you are looking for something wider than the 24 end of your 24-105, I suggest you rent a few lenses first before you buy. I would start with a 17-40 f/4 and a 16-35 f/2.8. Both of those will do well with your landscape photography. I use the 17-40 myself. It's great on my 5D3 and 7D.

 

[SJ]

I have 7d + 10-22, 18-135 & 24-70L II and last week I bought 5dm3 and im very happy. ihmo, 24-70L II or 24-105L is perfect combination for ur 5dm3. Dont worry about f/4 because 5dm3 high iso is great. (just imho)

For me, 24mm on FF is not wide enough, so im using my 7d+10-22mm for landscape. .

Enjoy ur new camera & lens..happy shooting

 

[wickidwombat]

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.

"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 agree with you on that Dylan!

I have a good copy of the 24-105 but for what i use this lens for I'm usually shooting it at f8 so its sharp

A really nice wider option I have also picked up is one of these
voigtlander 20mm it has les distortion than the 16-35 which is one of my favourite lenses
but i carry the 20mm voigt and the 40mm pancake pretty much everywhere and my 85mm for portraits

http://www.kenrockwell.com/voigtlander/20mm-f35.htm

 

[TeenTog]

I would go with either the 17-35 or the 16-35 if you eant super wide, but otherwise I would say go with the 24-70

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The 24-70 2.8 II is the one that will give you edge performance on the wide end on your 5D3 that you were used to getting with your 17-55 on your APS-C.

Some of the wide primes could too if you want to pay less than the zoom (zeiss 21, canon 24/28 2.8 IS, canon 24 1.4 II) but the zoom is a lot more flexible.

Of you could go tamron 24-70 vc or, once price drops a bit, canon 24-70 f/4 IS if you really want IS and will trade a bit of IQ for it.

 

[Axilrod]

If you want ultra-wide immediately while you wait on something else, just get the Samyang/Bower/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8. It's $399 and sharper than the $2300 Canon 14LII, can't go wrong really. Distortion is much worse than the Canon but that's easily correctable in lightroom, there are presets available for it.

But 14mm is REALLY wide on Full Frame, I mean if the widest you had before was the 17-55, 17mm on a 7D looks like 28mm on a 5D, so its' going to be a massive difference.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

"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 agree with you on that Dylan!

Yup, that is why most of us were saying to look at the 24-70 II (or 24 2.8 IS, 24 T&S II, zeiss 21mm) and forget about the 24-105L.

(and perhaps tack on a bower 14mm if you want something ultra, crazy wide in addition, sometimes on sale for $299)

 

[Frodo]

I think that this thread contains too much negativity about the 24-105. I had a 5D (classic) with the 28-135 (ex-film days) and found the move to the 24-105 to represent a significant and visible step forwards. I then bought a 7D. Although this had more pixels, the IQ of the 5D image was invariably superior, especially with higher ISOs and shadow detail. I then replaced my 5D with a 5DmkII and noticed an improvement is IQ. This combination is noticeably better than that of the 7D.
When comparing my 24-105 with my 50mm 2.5 macro, I see little difference. Both lenses out-resolve the 5DmkII in the centre and the macro at the edge, and the 24-105 at the edge when stopped down a couple of stops.
I haven't used either 24-70 f2.8 so can't comment. The DXO graphs for sharpness show the 24-105 to be similar to the original 28-70, although the new 2.8 is better. Those graphs also show the 5dII/24-105 to be sharper than the 7D/17-55. I'd like avoid debate about DXO, but just to say that it gels with my understanding of lenses I own.
And by the way, I had a 20mm f2.8 and was very disappointed on FF, and found that the 20-35 (3.5-4.5) was much superior.

I conclude that I am very happy with the 5DII / 24-105 combination. I will going on a week-long hike in New Zealand's South Island in a week. I will take my 5DII, 24-105, my Samyang 14mm and a small tripod. My 7D, 50mm, and 70-200 will stay home.

The new 24-70 f2.8 provides some future-proofing should a higher resolution sensor come available, but you pay quite a price premium for that.

 

[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.

"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 agree with you on that Dylan!

I have a good copy of the 24-105 but for what i use this lens for I'm usually shooting it at f8 so its sharp

A really nice wider option I have also picked up is one of these
voigtlander 20mm it has les distortion than the 16-35 which is one of my favourite lenses
but i carry the 20mm voigt and the 40mm pancake pretty much everywhere and my 85mm for portraits

http://www.kenrockwell.com/voigtlander/20mm-f35.htm

Be able to get sharp picture at f2.8- WIDE OPEN - is priceless. I just don't see myslef shooting f8 in lower light, even on FF.