gary said:
Might as well go slow because prices are pretty high now. Now if the prices were like they were at the end of last year... then it'd be a different story!
Upvote
0
Whats a good walk around lens to put on a new 5d Mk iii
- Thread starter gary
- Start date
- Status
Might as well go slow because prices are pretty high now. Now if the prices were like they were at the end of last year... then it'd be a different story!
neuroanatomist said:
I shouldn't talk - I haven't spent much time with a push-pull never having owned one, and I don't believe you can really understand something without having owned it for six months.
I'll keep that lens in mind - I hate heavy lenses however which is probably the bigger downside for me.
Upvote
0
T
takoman46
Guest
I prefer the 24-70 over the 24-105 because of the f/2.8 over f/4. Plus with the ISO performance of the mkIII, I don't feel that not having IS is any disadvantage. But for a casual walk around lens, I normally take my 24 f/1.4L. It's probably the most fun lens for me since I can just pull the camera up and snap a photo at a field of view comparable to what my eyes can focus on.
Upvote
0
B
briansquibb
Guest
I have great affection for the 24-105 f/4. I understand why people might go for the 24-70 f/2.8 however might I put forward that the 24-105 is a better walkabout lens
- has 4x zoom instead of less than 3x for the 24-70, making it more versatile
- IQ is as good as the 24-70
- noticably lighter (200g)
- cheaper (and easier to find a used version)
I am not sure how useful the f/2.8 would be - I know it is 1 stop faster, but with the low light capabilities of the 5DIII I would suggest that the main benefit would be shallower DOF. I guess if shallow DOF is the dealmaker then the 24/70 is the way to go, else the 24-105 is the more logical choice
- has 4x zoom instead of less than 3x for the 24-70, making it more versatile
- IQ is as good as the 24-70
- noticably lighter (200g)
- cheaper (and easier to find a used version)
I am not sure how useful the f/2.8 would be - I know it is 1 stop faster, but with the low light capabilities of the 5DIII I would suggest that the main benefit would be shallower DOF. I guess if shallow DOF is the dealmaker then the 24/70 is the way to go, else the 24-105 is the more logical choice
Upvote
0
E
EvilTed
Guest
some people like mid range zooms, while others like primes.
it's a matter of personal taste and photographic style.
personally, a fast 50mm prime and a few steps forward or back will give youth the equivalent of 24-70.
F/1.2 or F/1.4 is a lot better than F/2.8 if you are shooting in low light.
I think you need to try both a 50mm prime then a mid range (heavy) zoom and then decide which you'd be happier walking around all day with
I'm serious about selling the 24-105 so if you are interested, ping me before I put it on EBay.
ET
it's a matter of personal taste and photographic style.
personally, a fast 50mm prime and a few steps forward or back will give youth the equivalent of 24-70.
F/1.2 or F/1.4 is a lot better than F/2.8 if you are shooting in low light.
I think you need to try both a 50mm prime then a mid range (heavy) zoom and then decide which you'd be happier walking around all day with
I'm serious about selling the 24-105 so if you are interested, ping me before I put it on EBay.
ET
Upvote
0
RLPhoto
Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
EF 50mm 1.4 or 1.8. Because its too good for the monies and is a must for a full frame camera.
I liked the 50 on aps-c but I fell in L0vE <3 with that focal length all over again when I got my 5Dc. It's a classic perspective and gives a un-contrived look to things.
If you've got the budget, the 50mm 1.2 is an utter stunner in IQ.
I liked the 50 on aps-c but I fell in L0vE <3 with that focal length all over again when I got my 5Dc. It's a classic perspective and gives a un-contrived look to things.
If you've got the budget, the 50mm 1.2 is an utter stunner in IQ.
Upvote
0
I was skeptical at first about the 24-105 when I got my first MKII in '08, but it is REALLY a good all-purpose walk-around lens. I was shocked at how much I was using it. And at how much I liked it. Zooms are versatile and necessary, depending on what you shoot, but if you really want to open up your creativity and force yourself to think and look at things differently and creatively, get a few nice, fast primes. But since the question is about a good walk-around lens, go with the 24-105.
Upvote
0
E
EvilTed
Guest
And why do you consider a 50mm prime to not be a good walk around lens?
There is no "right" answer...
Or from B&H site talking about the 35mm F/1.4 as a walk around lens on the 5D MK2.
Maybe this will give you some perspective
"I shoot travel, street and event photography and use a Canon 5D II. Before buying the 35mm 1.4, I mainly used a 24-70mm. Now the prime lens stays on my camera most of the time. In fact, on my recent trip to India and Nepal - I never used the 24-70mm at all.
The quality of the images is simply beautiful, and I found that many of photos on my trip were keepers.
But more importantly, this prime lens made me approach my craft differently. I got in closer and played with composition more. It really is the perfect focal length for me."
There is no "right" answer...
Or from B&H site talking about the 35mm F/1.4 as a walk around lens on the 5D MK2.
Maybe this will give you some perspective
"I shoot travel, street and event photography and use a Canon 5D II. Before buying the 35mm 1.4, I mainly used a 24-70mm. Now the prime lens stays on my camera most of the time. In fact, on my recent trip to India and Nepal - I never used the 24-70mm at all.
The quality of the images is simply beautiful, and I found that many of photos on my trip were keepers.
But more importantly, this prime lens made me approach my craft differently. I got in closer and played with composition more. It really is the perfect focal length for me."
Upvote
0
FunPhotons said:
I've looked at this lens a bit before, and while it's weather sealed, with it being a push-pull design does it have as much resistance to fine dust or other particulate matter? Sure, other zoom design like the 24-105 isn't necessarily completely resistant, but is the 28-300?
That, and it's also a BWL, and so may not be quite as inconspicuous
:
Upvote
0
F
Flake
Guest
I have this lens, and dust has never been a problem for me, the push pull zoom is great when you have such a large focal range to get through. Can you imagine the number of turns needed to get a lens from 28 - 300mm? Push pull means it's almost instant.
It's not a walk around lens though, unless you're really well built, you'll need a monopod to rest it on, and forget using the camera strap, you'll need a special one for the tripod mount and then it'll give you back problems if you wander around for any time!
It's a big white and really attracts unwanted attention at times, but on the other hand there's no alternative if you want to capture everything in only one lens. The question I suggest you ask yourself is how much will you need the 100 - 300mm focal length while out? The 24 - 105mm covers such a useful range with little weight and lower profile that it's almost a no brainer. The lens suffers from poor close focus and magnification so a set of 72mm close up filters is useful. Other than that it's a great all rounder and it's with good reason it's bundled as a kit. You should consider buying the kit as this saves some money over buying seperately.
And thank Canon for providing such a choice, if you were a Nikon shooter you have the 24 - 70mm f/2.8 and that's it, or compromise IQ with a much lesser lens.
It's not a walk around lens though, unless you're really well built, you'll need a monopod to rest it on, and forget using the camera strap, you'll need a special one for the tripod mount and then it'll give you back problems if you wander around for any time!
It's a big white and really attracts unwanted attention at times, but on the other hand there's no alternative if you want to capture everything in only one lens. The question I suggest you ask yourself is how much will you need the 100 - 300mm focal length while out? The 24 - 105mm covers such a useful range with little weight and lower profile that it's almost a no brainer. The lens suffers from poor close focus and magnification so a set of 72mm close up filters is useful. Other than that it's a great all rounder and it's with good reason it's bundled as a kit. You should consider buying the kit as this saves some money over buying seperately.
And thank Canon for providing such a choice, if you were a Nikon shooter you have the 24 - 70mm f/2.8 and that's it, or compromise IQ with a much lesser lens.
Upvote
0
D
djcrispy
Guest
Not that I have my MkIII yet (this week it might arrive!), but I agree with ET that a 50mm prime lens is perfect for "walk around". How a 28-300mm lens ends up in the discussion where walking around is considered is beyond me.
The spirit of this post is what lens can one comfortably and effectively. A high quality prime lens that doesn't require undue strength or attract undue attention makes perfect sense. The kit lens obviously sounds like it fits that bill as well. The f/4.0 is one downside to that particular lens, but if you don't care that much about DOF, and you do want to zoom (rather than stepping in/back at times) that may be your best bet. From what I've read, the 50mm f/1.2 is the premier prime lens (feel free to correct me on this, posters) in that it combines size with high IQ and at f/1.2 is obviously very fast. But with this new sensor, who knows how important this will end up being (the speed, that is).
The spirit of this post is what lens can one comfortably and effectively. A high quality prime lens that doesn't require undue strength or attract undue attention makes perfect sense. The kit lens obviously sounds like it fits that bill as well. The f/4.0 is one downside to that particular lens, but if you don't care that much about DOF, and you do want to zoom (rather than stepping in/back at times) that may be your best bet. From what I've read, the 50mm f/1.2 is the premier prime lens (feel free to correct me on this, posters) in that it combines size with high IQ and at f/1.2 is obviously very fast. But with this new sensor, who knows how important this will end up being (the speed, that is).
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
