New to Full Frame - some help with lens(es)?

[CowGummy]

why not 'upgrade' you current 17-40 f/4 to a 16-35 f/2.8? you could then complete your set by getting a 24-70 f/2.8 or the 24-105 f/4.

then you are able to get really wide (landscape) shots and still be able to take portraits.

I hear you on the 16-35 2.8... I would love that lens, but it's a little on the expensive side. I don;t earn my keep as a photographer, so I have to be realistic with my spending. On the other, it would mean I could sell my 17-40 L in order to fund either on the L zooms you mention a few months down the line. Although in the meantime it would leave me with nothing longer than my 50 1.8ii, which may just be that little bit too short as my max length. None the less, thanks for your input - much appreciated!

 

[DJL329]

Why don't you get the 5D II and then see how you like the focal lengths of your current lenses on full frame? Since you state you love landscapes, I'm sure you'll love taking shots with your 17-40mm.

As for 50mm, I have the f/1.4 and it is my most used lens. When you do get the 5D II, take some shots with your current one and compare them to shots taken with your 400D to see if it is now "too wide" for you. If so, you might want the 85mm f/1.8, instead.

 

[K-amps]

If you got the bucks and want f2.8 all the way

16-35 F2.8 mk.ii
24-70 F2.8 (maybe wait for mk.ii)
70-200 F2.8 mk.ii

If you want to cover the range on reasonable budget

12-24mm Sigma ( you can skimp on this since the 24-105mm is 15mm equivant on crop; so wider than your 17-40 is on the 40D)
24-105 F4
70-200 F4 mk.ii
100-400mm

if you want FF 1 lens on a budget and build around it later on

24-105mm F4
(Later on add a 70-300L on the long end)

All in all the 24-105mm kit makes a lot of sense for you. I have one and have seldom needed anything wider (15mm on crop equivalent)

Hope this helps.

 

[CowGummy]

Okay, so taking all information into account here, I think I will simply get the 24-105L kit and take it from there. I like the idea of the 24-105, because it will give me the same focal length coverage as the 17-40 on my 400D and even add a little more to both wide and long end. I'll still keep the 17-40 L as well for ultra-wide stuff and see how I get on with the 50 1.8ii on the 5D. Also, it's not too heavy, hugely long and white L glass, which I do think might hinder me indoors for groups and individuals. And IS would be nice. I used to have the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM for my 400D, and do miss having a lens that will offer me IS.

As DJL329 states: I think it might be worth seeing how I find the 50mm on FF and then decide if I either want to upgrade it to the 1.4 or get the 85 1.8 instead. And then down the line the 'L' versions of both please... better start saving now... 8)

Genuinely, I don't have an awful lot of use for super long focal lengths at the moment, but then again, I also believe that if i did have something in the 200mm range it might well open up some new photographic territories for me. I used to have a Sigma 70-300 on an old Minolta 35mm manual body and although I still have the body, the lens was sold about a decade ago as I just don't seem to shoot the longer focal ranges very much. I do seem to favour 'wide' photography...

 

[AJ]

If you like a wider angle, think about a 35 mm lens. Consider 35/2, 35/1.4L, and Samyang 35/1.4 (manual focus).

 

[RonQ]

Wow - thanks for all the great input guys!

The 70-200 options sure seems to be getting votes here, so I am now considering it, although it would certainly stretch my budget to it's max. I might help if I give a few more details on my current gear and the things I like to shoot:

-Canon 400D
-Canon 17-40 L
-Canon 50 1.8ii

-Manfrotto tripod
-Remote shutter release
-Canon 430 exii for on-the-go lighting
-Off-camera flashgun lead for 430exii
- a couple of old Vivitar 285 strobes for off camera flash work (long exposure light painting etc...)

-Interfit EXD200 studio strobes (x2)
-Infrared trigger for strobes
-60cm softbox
-white umbrella

So... I do have the 430exii which I use even in conjunction with the 50mm (as well as the 17-40 L) indoors for added light or when I don't want the shallow DOF of 1.8. The other thing I will share here is my flickr link so that you guys might get a bit of a better understanding of my needs/wants... I feel a little shy about giving the link on here, as most of it I don't think can be qualified as 'real photography'. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy what I do, but it's not always to everyone's taste as I do go a little ott with the ol' processing...

Essentially, I am not a photographer - it's something that I really enjoy doing and it does play into my workflow as a graphic designer, who spent a good few years working on album sleeves, so Photoshop has always been a big part of shooting and image editing for me.

Anyways, you can have a look over here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cowgummy/

Thanks again so very much!

In my opinion, for the 70-200 you can get away with non IS version and still get those great shots plus save a few bucks for a possible speedlite.

 

[CowGummy]

If you like a wider angle, think about a 35 mm lens. Consider 35/2, 35/1.4L, and Samyang 35/1.4 (manual focus).

Hmm... those do sound very tempting!

 

[willrobb]

Congrats on the move to full frame

First up, I would recommend to not sell your 17-40mm whatever you do. Regardless of what you'll buy, you'll miss the wide capabilities of this lens on your FF camera for landscapes and occasionally you'll use it for some portraits as well no doubt.

My first L lens was the 17-40 on a 30D and I had a canon 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8 at the time. When I went full frame with a 5D I kept the 17-40 and bought a 24-70mm f2.8L and absolutely loved it, for landscapes, for portraits, for just about everything. On travel assignments I would sometimes only take this lens. At weddings/events I almost always have this lens on, I can't recommend it highly enough. It is quite heavy, but it really is worth it.

The 70-200mm f2.8L is great as well, but like you say it's not right for English pubs.It sounds like you don't like shooting from far away either, so I would leave this lens out.

You like wider lenses for portraits and it sounds like 85mm is a bit longer than what you would want. I think the 35mm and 50mm choices mentioned before would work well for you. If you want really nice bokeh, I would suggest the 50mm 1.4 over the 35mm options, but if you aren't too fussed about that the 24-70 will cover all your bases.

Happy shooting whatever you get, all the lenses suggested so far are great, it's just down to your personal preferences now.

 

[elflord]

If you like a wider angle, think about a 35 mm lens. Consider 35/2, 35/1.4L, and Samyang 35/1.4 (manual focus).

Hmm... those do sound very tempting!

Based on what you've posted, you'll probably find 85mm a bit long, so I'd say skip it and shop for a prime in the 24mm-50mm range instead.

I took a trip to Australia to see family recently and just bought the 5D MkII and the 50mm f/1.4. It's a really nice lens on a full frame.

 

[wickidwombat]

I wish they did that 24-105L as a 2.8!

I have been wishing this for quite a while now nothing has come of it yet though

 

[handsomerob]

I wish they did that 24-105L as a 2.8!

I have been wishing this for quite a while now nothing has come of it yet though

Lot of people would complain that it's too big, heavy and expensive.

And indeed, while it's covers a very useful focal range on FF, it wouldn't be a great all purpose walk around lens due to it's size & weight. 24-105L f/4 is so popular because people love that it's very well balanced with great IQ, relatively light weight and affordable price. f/2.8 version would be an expensive and heavy brick with great IQ.

Oh and it would also kill the 24-70L f/2.8

 

[wickidwombat]

i dont think the 70-200 is too heavy as a walk around i would think a 24-105 f2.8 is would possibly be similar size

 

[briansquibb]

i dont think the 70-200 is too heavy as a walk around i would think a 24-105 f2.8 is would possibly be similar size

+1 - the 70-200 f/2.8 II is my walkabout lens. Hang the camera off a decent strap and it is nothing (have a Black Rapid)

 

[BaconBets]

I think a great core FF lineup is:
16-35
50 1.4
135L
70-200 (there are a few flavors of this, pick the one that suits your needs)

There isn't much you can't do with these.
And if you need speed, you could sub in the 24 1.4 for the wide zoom.
If you need to go cheaper, you could sub in the 100 2.0 for the 135L

 

[briansquibb]

I think a great core FF lineup is:
16-35
50 1.4
135L
70-200 (there are a few flavors of this, pick the one that suits your needs)

There isn't much you can't do with these.
And if you need speed, you could sub in the 24 1.4 for the wide zoom.
If you need to go cheaper, you could sub in the 100 2.0 for the 135L

+1

If you need cheaper then sub wa zooms with 17-40

If you need cheaper get used items from dealer

 

[CowGummy]

As so many of you seem to be recommending the 70-200mm options, I've gone and a had a good look at the Canon lens lineup as a result.
You can probably tell by now that I'm not really into the idea of a big heavy tele lens, mainly due to size. I have however noticed that the 70-300 L is physically a lot shorter than the 70-200mm options. This would be one to consider in my books. What are people's thoughts on this lens?
As mentioned before - I very rarely find myself needing anything longer than 50mm (I went through my flickr stream last night and about 98% of my shots are at 50mm or less on a crop body), but I do see the appeal of longer glass, so was wondering what people have to say about the 70-300L as it's probably as large (physically) as I would ever want to go... well for now anyways...

 

[briansquibb]

I like the 70-300L

See here for an example
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=2553.msg54871;topicseen#new

 

[CowGummy]

I like the 70-300L

See here for an example
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=2553.msg54871;topicseen#new

Thanks briansquibb! That's exactly where I spotted this lens first! Again, great shot.

 

[krakozyabr]

I agree with those voting for 70-200. Exceptional lense that I tend to buy in near future. For now I'm using 80-200 2.8 L (predecessor of 70-200) and I'm totaly in love with this lence though it is a bit slow in AF.

Consider what you need more - 70-200 4L or 2.8L, with or without IS and love it.

 

[K-amps]

As so many of you seem to be recommending the 70-200mm options, I've gone and a had a good look at the Canon lens lineup as a result.
You can probably tell by now that I'm not really into the idea of a big heavy tele lens, mainly due to size. I have however noticed that the 70-300 L is physically a lot shorter than the 70-200mm options. This would be one to consider in my books. What are people's thoughts on this lens?
As mentioned before - I very rarely find myself needing anything longer than 50mm (I went through my flickr stream last night and about 98% of my shots are at 50mm or less on a crop body), but I do see the appeal of longer glass, so was wondering what people have to say about the 70-300L as it's probably as large (physically) as I would ever want to go... well for now anyways...

I have one... and once I got the 70-200f2.8mk.ii, I thought I was going to sell the 70-300L... but no.. I cannot bring myself to do it so far...

It is sharper than the 70-200, lighter so used a lot more often... the area where the 70-200f2.8 beat it is perhaps a little more background blur, better in low light. So depending on how much application these have in your usage should determine which one you get. For the money, the 70-300L is an excellent choice and is a bit under respected perhaps because it is f5.6 @ 300mm.

Hope this helps.