Must-have lenses for Canon 5D Mark III

[haugum]

So I got quite the deal on a brand new 5D Mark III, and I'm looking to buy a few lenses, these are what I had in mind:

• EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM OR EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM
• EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
• EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L

I'm pretty sure I'm going to get the 50 and the 70-200, but I can't decide whether to get the 24-105 or the 24-70 (one of these will be on my camera most of the time). I definitely like the extra focal length and the IS on the 24-105mm. I'm just afraid it will be redundant as it overlaps over the focal length of the 70-200mm. Would I be better off getting the 24-70? Is it sharper? It's definitely faster, but with the incredible ISO-performance on my 5D I'm not really worried about getting into a situation where that will be a problem (if it's a low-light situation I'll be whipping out that nifty fifty anyway).

So, should I get the 24-70mm or the 24-105mm? I would like to hear all your pros and cons.
EDIT: Another possibility is waiting it out for the 24-70 Mk2, I would be willing to do that.

 

[Loswr]

Ignore the overlap between the 24-105 and the 70-200 - the point of a general purpose zoom is that you can go from wide angle to short tele fast, without a lens change.

The key deciding factor, IMO, is DoF. If you shoot people candids/portraits, you'll likely want the thinner DoF of the f/2.8 lens. If you shoot more static scenes, the IS of the 24-105 is very beneficial.

While the IQ of the current 24-70 and the 24-105 are on par, based on the MTF charts the IQ of the 24-70 II will be better. If your budget permits, it might be worth holding out for the MkII.

 

[haugum]

Very good points, thank you. I'm definitely considering waiting it out for the 24-70 Mk2, and just getting a 70-200 f/2.8L and the 50mm f/1.4 for now, those should indeed serve me well for a few months.

Any word on when the 24-70 II will be here?

 

[Razor2012]

The 5D MKIII and the 70-200II is an awesome combo, you'll be amazed how fast and sharp that lens is. As for the 24-70II, that's the one I'm waiting for also.

 

[haugum]

Excellent. I will most likely be purchasing the EF 70-200 f/2.8L USM IS II and a EF 50mm F/1.4 for now and the wait it out for the EF 24-70mm F2.8L USM II.

 

[Wilmark]

Those three lenses were the first on my acquisition list. Except i went for the 1.2F 50mm. The one you wont regret is the 70-200 II. I got the 24-105 in kit. I have not yet regretted this move. The 24-105 stays on the cam most of the time. Not the best for low light. This doesnt feel as though there is any overlap with the 70-200. I do miss the lack of shallow DOF. But i still think this is the better more versatile option, not to mention cheaper. You have to question your needs and application. In how many situations you will feel your self needing the F2.8 ? If i really want to shoot in low light i use the 50mm. The other issue is that the 24-105 has more distortion than the 24-70. Not that it couldnt be corrected.

 

[360_6pack]

I was at a Canon day at Barbagello raceway on Saturday and the Canon Rep had a prototype of the 24-70 II lenses to try. Awesome lens. He said the earliest date for the lens was Sept. I had originally ordered the 5d mk3 and EF24-70 II kit from Leederville cameras in Perth but Gage's up in May and bought 24-105 kit and 70-200 IS II in May for my 60th. So glad I didn't wait. Now I have to drop big hints to wife what I'd like for Xmas but not sure if I should get 16-35. II or 24-70II.

 

[dr croubie]

There's no EF 40mm f/2.8 pancake on that list? If I got the 5D3, i'd be running with that combo for quite a while (it's my widest-angle FF-compatible lens with AF)

 

[elflord]

I'm pretty sure I'm going to get the 50 and the 70-200, but I can't decide whether to get the 24-105 or the 24-70 (one of these will be on my camera most of the time). I definitely like the extra focal length and the IS on the 24-105mm. I'm just afraid it will be redundant as it overlaps over the focal length of the 70-200mm.

Redundancy is not necessarily a bad thing. However, this isn't really redundant because the use case is different. The 70-200 is a tele lens, the 24-105 is a standard zoom (likewise the 50mm is not "redundant" even though its "range" overlaps with that of the standard zoom)

If it were the case that you always carried both lenses -- the tele and standard zoom, perhaps even mounting on separate bodies, then the overlap would probably be a waste and you should prefer the 24-70 (as for example wedding photographers often do)

But most users of the 24-105 use it as a lightweight standard zoom, part of a minimal walkaround kit, so when they have that mounted, they generally can't "swap it out" for the 70-200 and therefore the extra reach isn't redundant.

 

[IIIHobbs]

Suggesting 35L for every full frame shooter who can afford it...

The next target is 24L II, damn the L lust!

I picked up the 24mm f1.4L II 6 weeks ago, it is stunning.

I already had the 50mm f1.2 and was looking for something noticeably wider.

I love the point of view and the sharpness of this lens as well as the bokeh; excellent. I considered the 35, but after looking through my past images (using 16-35), I found I had taken many more shots at the mid point (24-28) rather than at 35 (very few at 16).

 

[7enderbender]

Yeah, good luck with that decision process. Been there, done that. Multiple times actually. And I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. In fact, I think we could argue that there are good reasons to own both, the 24-105 and the 24-70.

Assuming you have good copies they are both outstanding in image quality. Obviously, the range is different, so the first question becomes if you are going to use this as an all purpose lens - and what you have to substitute each of the shortcomings (if that's even the right word). And then there is obviously also price and build quality. Both higher on the 24-70. Do you need/like IS? Are you planning using it as your only lens often? Etc.

I ended up buying the 24-105 as a "kit" lens with my 5DII. With that it was at a good price point. I'm a sucker for shallow DOF, I like heavy build quality, I don't care one bit about IS and had planned several times to trade it in for the 24-70. But you know what? It's such a good lens that I'm kind of over it. I've gotten good results with it and it's extremely versatile, even in situations where I didn't expect it. Will I add the 24-70 I one day? Maybe. There are a few other things that have to come first but it's possible. From all I've seen I'm not interested in Version II because of all the plastic they put in there. Which gets me to life expectancy: I don't think my 24-105 will last forever. It's (relatively speaking) a bit more on the flimsy side and I don't trust that IS mechanism to be very robust in the long run.

And one more: it's my only zoom lens and I'm only comfortable leaving the house with it if I can bring along one or two fast primes (usually my 50 and my 135). Depends on the situation of course.

And again: you can't really go wrong here.

 

[barrett14]

My lenses are

16-35L II (favorite lens)
24-105L
70-300L
50 1.8

 

[pdirestajr]

The good thing is that lenses hold their value extremely well. Sometimes, they even go up!

My feeling is just buy a lens you are interested in, shoot with it for a few months, if you love it, keep it! If you want something different, trade it/ sell it for a minimal loss and chalk it up to a really cheap long-term rental.

+ you get to keep all the (hopefully) amazing pictures you took with that lens

 

[spinworkxroy]

i don't think there's such a thing as must have…it all depends on what you shoot really.
Prime user will always "must have" all the L primes..
Zoom users will have the trinity zooms L lenses..
Rich people will own both

Personally for me, i like my 24-105…i've had it since my 60D days but i din't like it then and didn't use it much..
however, since the mk3, it's brought new life to the lens…it's now my must have lens for almost anything general…
Of course for specific shooting like portraiture, i'l use primes

 

[Razor2012]

i don't think there's such a thing as must have…it all depends on what you shoot really.
Prime user will always "must have" all the L primes..
Zoom users will have the trinity zooms L lenses..
Rich people will own both

Personally for me, i like my 24-105…i've had it since my 60D days but i din't like it then and didn't use it much..
however, since the mk3, it's brought new life to the lens…it's now my must have lens for almost anything general…
Of course for specific shooting like portraiture, i'l use primes

Primes and zooms each have their place. Eventually I would like to add a prime or two to the collection, thinking of the 50 1.2 right now. I don't know if it's a rich thing to own both but more of a smart thing.

 

[Daniel Flather]

Suggesting 35L for every full frame shooter who can afford it.

I got rid of 17-40, 24-105 and almost got rid of 50 1.4 after acquiring a 35L. It's currently my only wide angle. It's that good.

After shooting with L primes, those f4 zooms will never be enough. To get good sharpness you have to stop down at least 1 stop, and f5.6 is not acceptable in low light.

The next target is 24L II, damn the L lust!

+1 on the 35 and 24Lii. I just had a 24*36 print made from the 24L shot wide open and it's just amazing.