Which lens do you like best between the two (the 70-200 does not have IS but is an L lens, etc) or neither...looking to shoot outdoor portraits and candids of families and children, and some landscape photography, etc. I really appreciate your response -- I am slowly adding to my lenses (I currently own an 85mm 1.8 prime lens and a 50mm 1.8 prime lens for my Mark iii -- I have other lenses but they are all EF-S lenses so they do not work with my full frame Canon -- Thank you so much, Heidi
Suggestions for Zoom Lens for Canon Mark 5D Mark iii
- Thread starter heidi.nelson
- Start date
- Status
Thanks so much for the feedback....I am definitely leaning towards the 70-200 mm f/4L after hearing your comments ...the photo taken with the 28-135 is also beautiful -- I will look more into this lens too either now or down the road.
Upvote
0
70-200mm/2.8L and 85mm/1.2L are my lens of choice for doing portraits and candids. As everyone said with IQ, go with 70-200/4L.
but then you mentioned "landscape photography". You'll probably be better off with 28-135.
you gotta pick your battle now, which one you favor doing more? Landscape or portraits?
but then you mentioned "landscape photography". You'll probably be better off with 28-135.
you gotta pick your battle now, which one you favor doing more? Landscape or portraits?
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
+1
I had the 28-135 and the variable aperture and inconsistent image quality drove me nuts. The 70-200 zoom range takes on a whole new view thru a FF compared to a crop. I use my 70-200 2.8IS 70% of the time on my mk3. Maybe look for a marked down Canon refurbished 70-200 with IS.
Upvote
0
+1 for the 70-200.
Also, as it was mentioned earlier, Tamron 17-50 is for crop cameras even though it has EF mount. Hence it is not an option for 5D mk3...
Cheers!
Also, as it was mentioned earlier, Tamron 17-50 is for crop cameras even though it has EF mount. Hence it is not an option for 5D mk3...
Cheers!
Upvote
0
The 70-200mm f/4L is by far the best of those you listed. The 28-135mm IS is the worst on FF its horrible, but fair on a crop. (Tamron 17-50 is not FF).
I've had all on my 5D series cameras (except for the 17-50). The Canon 70-300mm IS is good and can sometimes be found for about or under $300, but choose the 70-200mmL, its way better.
You should check out the lens ratings done by a pro tester at photozone. You can then decide for yourself.
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff
I've had all on my 5D series cameras (except for the 17-50). The Canon 70-300mm IS is good and can sometimes be found for about or under $300, but choose the 70-200mmL, its way better.
You should check out the lens ratings done by a pro tester at photozone. You can then decide for yourself.
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff
Upvote
0
the 70-200mm range is a really nice range for portraits.. the F4 or the F2.8 lens are both very good lenses you couldnt go wrong with either. i'm surprised no one has mentioned the 24-105mm f4 L lens. its another very versatile lens.
Upvote
0
darrellrhodesmiller said:
It looks like she is trying to stay under $500-$600. There are a ton of more expensive zooms that are very good.
Upvote
0
Toronto said:
I don't think that's good advice. Clearly, we're looking here at a $500-ish budget so suggesting a $2000 lens is likely not very helpful. Would I have bought a 3000 dollar camera to put the (venerable) 50 1.8 on it? Probably not. I would always invest in good glass first as well before buying the latest and greatest (more or less disposable) body.
But what's done is done and I'm sure even on a tighter budget there are plenty of other choices before the big heavy white 2.8. I actually decided against it when it was in the budget. Doesn't make sense to me and I didn't like it much when I used it before.
In this case and with a bigger budget I would have suggested the 135L for this purpose. But I'm not sure that would've helped the OP either since even used it's likely more than the choices she lists. And she has the 85 already so there goes that.
Upvote
0
Thanks so much for the replies....I finally decided to upgrade a few months ago and bought a 5D Mark iii after much research. I would love to have the IS version of the 70-200 f4/L, but I am trying to stay on a budget (yes, I did buy a Mark iii and I do agree that I need a good lens for it) -- now the question will be for me to wait and purchase the 70-200 with IS or buy without....or look at another option all together -- hearing all of these comments, I am going to definitely purchase an L lens, just whether the IS is worth the extra $$....if money were no option, my decision would be easy. I run a small photography business and have been investing in equipment as I go (like many of us) - my last purchase was a good monitor calibration device a few weeks ago. I appreciate all of the responses! 
Upvote
0
BTW, my budget isn't completely set -- I could possibly do $800 or so, or even wait to purchase an $1100 or so lens, but I would need to wait a while before that option, etc. I wanted a good camera and I went back and forth for a long time as to whether to start upgrading lenses or buy the camera first. I know I probably did things backwards, but through the winter months, using mainly the 50mm and 85mm in my small studio (for mainly children) has worked just fine with my Mark iii. I just want a good zoom lens starting for my outdoor portraits and some landscapes (besides the two other EF lenses that I own). I went from a T1i to a 5d Mark iii...yes, huge jump. I got a lot of great practice on my rebel and the EF-S lenses that I had with it. Down the road, I will keep adding to lenses but if the 70-200 F4/L would be a good recommendation (without the IS) this is what I would look at buying based on the comments....I guess I'll just have to decide whether to buy now without IS or wait until I can afford IS....decisions, decisions....
Upvote
0
A lens not listed, but mentioned, that is a good option, but a bit more expensive, 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, lightly used can be had for around $800, I know it is more but I would probably wait for that one over any of the others including the other L for what you listed you want to shoot. Especially with the 5D Mk III high ISO quality.
It may not be the best lens made but it has great coverage and is a lot better than the 28-135.
It may not be the best lens made but it has great coverage and is a lot better than the 28-135.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
