Primes to go with a 5D Mark II -- does anyone not use a L prime?

[stevevihon]

Thank you every so far for your advice. I am not adverse to buying a L lens, but was curious on whether it is a must or nice to have. Special thanks to Branden for the concise round up and to Nueroanatomist for the tilt-shift redo.

The reason I sold my D300 and lens was that I found there to be a lot of noise at ISOs above 640 and that my 17-55 2.8 had trouble focusing in dimly lit settings (a circus I attended with my wife and daughter where I tried to get a shot of them enjoying the show that turned about grainy and out of focus). So, my thought was to move up to the 5D Mark II (I am aware people feel there are the focusing issues since it kept the 5D's AF and did not move up to something like the 7D has). Will full frame be the miracle worker I am looking for in low light? Not sure, hopefully it will be improved so I will not continue to have my "on-going camera purchase regret" I have had when I bought a Contax NX, Contax G2, Leica M7 and Nikon D300 (yeah, I got some issues with this...)

Back to the lenses -- I am willing to step up to L lenses (I think the 17-40 suggestion by Canon 14-24 is a great suggestion since most architecture does not move unless there is an earthquake), but am trying to be smart about how I build up my system since I want to break my habit of buying, regretting, selling and buying again.

 

[danski0224]

I really like the 16-35mm f2.8L II.

I rented the 35mm f1.4L and it is much more useful in low light compared to f2.8.

A 50mm 1.4 is on the way.

Don't know what'll be next. I'd really like one of those 400 f2.8 II's, but no winning lottery tickets here.

I would recommend renting a lens for a few days to try it out, unless you can score a good deal on a used one. Some say that renting is wasted money- money that could go towards the purchase of a lens, but at the 4 figure mark for a new one, I disagree.

 

[Loswr]

Back to the lenses -- I am willing to step up to L lenses (I think the 17-40 suggestion by Canon 14-24 is a great suggestion since most architecture does not move unless there is an earthquake)

It's true that most architecture does not move but most architecture does have straight lines. Straight lines and the 'massive barrel distortion' (photozone.de) of the 17-40mm lens don't always play well together. With the 17-40mm on FF, you're better off shooting at 24mm or narrower, or if you must shoot wider, try to keep straight lines away from the edges of the frame and to frame your intended subjects loosely so the area cropped away by post-processing distortion correction doesn't cut off something important.

 

[FOB2009]

Don't forget Zeiss. I have the 100/2.0 and 21/2.8. The newer 35/1.4 and 25/2.0 look incredible. See diglloyd.com for reviews.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I have both L and non L lenses to use with my 5D MK II. A 15mm fisheye, a Tokina 17mm f/3.5, 50mm f/1.4, and a 85mm f/1.8.

The camera will work great with non L primes. It does not have the high photosite density of a 7D, so its less demanding of lens resolution.

However, I also use some "L" primes and they are a step up. 35mm L, 100mm L, 135mm L, 300mm f/4 L.

I feel comfortable with the images from all of them, the 50mm f/1.4 is the weakest, but still very good.

 

[dr croubie]

Weird timing for this thread, I was out and about the other day, and I saw a guy with a 1D (or 1Ds, didn't get a close enough look but it def wasn't a 5D+grip, and had no flash). With a niftyfifty attached. He took a few shots, then dove into his bag to change lenses, I though he'd be going for the L-prime after doing a test or something with the cheap lens. But then he put on a 35/2, seems he just wanted wider...

 

[elflord]

Will full frame be the miracle worker I am looking for in low light?

Maybe not a "miracle", but you will have no trouble shooting at and beyond ISO 640, and it will autofocus all through its range if you use the center point, plus you will get an extra stop using a fast prime instead of an f/2.8 zoom.

In auto ISO, the 5D Mk II will go up to ISO3200, and it will autofocus quite easily there. Obviously it's not as good as ISO 100 but it is certainly usable.

 

[pelebel]

Personally I'm a pixel peeper and I would not go for a non-L lens on my 5DmkII. But that's me. You may find that some are great for you!

 

[te4o]

Don't forget Zeiss. I have the 100/2.0 and 21/2.8. The newer 35/1.4 and 25/2.0 look incredible. See diglloyd.com for reviews.

+1
You avoid the AF issues and get an eternal built. No electronics to get in the way. And with the mega-ultra-low-light-high-iso-low-MP-high-IQ-canon-future dawning no one needs IS any more. And no zooms either... ???

 

[Picsfor]

I also use 2 primes with my 5D2 that are non L

one of the old plastic fantastic - 50mm f1.8 MkII
the other is the 100mm f2.8macro.

I have found the odd occasion when i can find the lens being 'out resolved' by the sensor, but in 3 years, i'm talking just a few times - and i really was pushing it to do things it wasn't really designed for.

As for the 50mm - can't fault it. I take it out 50mm days, just camera, lens and nothing else to see what i come back with. Natural light can be so much fun...

 

[funkboy]

A few other suggestions in the "don't forget" department (OK, it's well-known here that I'm a Voigtländer fanboy):

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff

Check out the "third party" lenses from Voigtländer and Samyang. Very nice alternatives to Zeiss for a lot less cash.