Which 3 Primes to go for. Your advice will be appreciated

[Obaidey]

This is my first post
So, hi to every one

I am seeking your advice about lenses to buy.
But before that, you may want to know the camera to be used on and my purpose of use

CAMERA:
I am settled on the 5D Mark III, which will be bought in next 2 months
So far, DigitalRev seems to ask for the best UK price of £2489, that's $3834 ($3195+VAT at 20%), body only

USE:
My job has nothing to do with photography, which is a recently revived hobby, caught since I was hooked by my Minolta XD7, bought in 1978
Probably 20% of my use will be on video
The rest will be photo
Of the photo, I will probably be doing 70% indoor family and portraits, 15% landscape, 5% architecture, 5 % (or less) sports, and 5% Macro
I dislike using flash, probably because I don't know how to use it :-[ (willing to learn), hence, a fast lens is a priority

LENSES:
After reading quite a bit of your helpful inputs, I think I have settled on primes (I may still change my mind if everyone starts telling me off)
I am hoping that 3 lenses should cover my range
However, I am not sure which 3 primes to get

I am undecided between:
- Either EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM, or EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM
- Either EF 50mm f/1.2L USM, or EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM
- Either EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, or EF 180 mm f/3.5L Macro USM

Initially, I was thinking of (14+50+100)
But then, I thought that with a full frame, I will have no trouble with the wide angle and should miss the telephoto effect of 180 if I did not have it. So, I considered (24+85+180)

Which 3 do you think is the best combination?
Or, do you sugget any other combination?

EDIT:
Although I would happily climb, crouch, walk and squeeze myself for a better shot, please keep in mind that I am otherwise extremely lazy. Thus, not a person who would like to upgrade too often. Knowing myself, I will probably never sell anything. So, when I buy, anything, I tend to get something that is unlikely to be upgraded by manufacturer too soon. Hence, lasts me for a very long time. Then, chuck it aside after 10 years, until my brother in law finds out, rebukes me, then sells it for me on eBay.
e.g., I replace cars once every 9-12 years. But, when buying, I always go for a recently launched premium German, with all options ticked. At the end, it proves cheaper than upgrading every 2-3 years with a lesser model. I also tend to use my stuff a lot, but really look after them, so they last a long time

 

[arcanej]

We're of the similar mind. I bought the 5D3 with a kit lens and then bought the 14L, 50L and the 100L. The only caution is that the 14L is a little difficult to use (you can easily get your feet in a shot, if you don't shoot a building straight on everything is distorted, objects in the edge of the frame will always be somewhat distorted). It is a lot of fun to use however.

If you don't get the kit lens, I think the 24L, 85L and 180L or the 24L, 50L and 100L would be a lot more utile.

 

[pwp]

24 f/1.4II
85 f/1.2II
135 f/2

PW

 

[hippoeater]

I went :

35 1.4L
50 1.2L
135 2.0L

for my set up

 

[elflord]

24 f/1.4II
85 f/1.2II
135 f/2

PW

This looks like an excellent setup for family shots, and the 24 covers wide shots (landscapes)

Which of the three would he use for Macro ? The 135L with extension tubes ?

BTW, this is quite similar to the setup I picked up for full frame -- I have the 35L, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 and 135L -- but I use this almost entirely for family photos. Swapping the 35L for a 24L makes sense if you're shooting landscapes.

Three suggestions for OP: take a good look at the Sigma 85mm if you haven't already. Also, get a flash and learn how to use it. It is indispensible when you have low light and you need some depth of field. Opening up the aperture isn't always an option because the resulting dof could be too shallow for the shot you're trying to take. Given what you're already spending, a decent flash will be the best couple of hundred dollars you spend on gear. If you're going to be using it for video 20% of the time, have you thought about getting some kind of tripod or monopod ?

 

[Loswr]

From your list, I'd go 24/85/180. Only problem is the sports shooting, which seems not to be a priority (the 85L II and 180L are probably the two slowest focusing L lenses you'll find among the current lineup).

Personally, though, I tend to prefer a combination of zooms and primes. I'd recommend getting the kit lens (a great value when bought with a body).

 

[samthefish]

The 100MM 2.8L Macro IS is a great lens, and with its macro capability you can get some great (and unusual) shots. It has very good IS and IQ.

I have the 85mm 1.8 and borrowed the 85mm 1.2L from Canon to see if it would be worth the upgrade. While the $2K 1.2L is a great lens it actually has a few drawbacks compared to its $400 little brother. It's quite heavy/big and much slower to focus. Also the DOF at <1.8 is quite narrow and if your wanted to use it well I think you'd need to have it on a tripod and be doing lots of minor adjustments - I see its best use as a studio lens.

On the flip side the 1.8 85mm has surprisingly solid construction, very good IQ, and much faster focus, so out of the two if I were shooting photos at a family gathering I'd rather have the 1.8 actually.

For just walking around I generally use the 24-105 4.0L and one prime in my bag. For nature shots I carry the 70-200 is II (a great lens in all respects) and the 2.0x extender. One great thing about the 5DMKIII is that you can still get great IQ at ISO 6400 and even higher so where the 4.0 before was kindof pushing it in low light with older models it's less of in issue in my opinion with the MKIII. You could get the 24-105 + 1.8 85MM for less than the 1.2 85mm.

I'd actually recommend renting or borrowing a few of the lenses to see what you think. Of course there is a little less risk buying the L quality lenses because they retain their value pretty well if you trade.

 

[spinworkxroy]

All i can say is…you most likely will want a 50mm. Weather it's the F1.2 or F1.4…id budget is no issue of course go L for everything BUT..the F1.4 ain't a bad alternative considering the price.
Since you mentioned 70% family portraits, the 50 and 85 will be handy.

i personally wouldn't go for 3 primes..maybe 2 primes and 1 zoom..like a 16-35 or 17-40..just for landscapes and walkabouts etc…
The 50 and 85…mainly for portraits..they're great…i especialyl love my 85mm…but the 50 is a great and light walkabout lens

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

This is my first post
So, hi to every one

I am seeking your advice about lenses to buy.
But before that, you may want to know the camera to be used on and my purpose of use

CAMERA:
I am settled on the 5D Mark III, which will be bought in next 2 months
So far, DigitalRev seems to ask for the best UK price of £2489, that's $3834 ($3195+VAT at 20%), body only

USE:
My job has nothing to do with photography, which is a recently revived hobby, caught since I was hooked by my Minolta XD7, bought in 1978
Probably 20% of my use will be on video
The rest will be photo
Of the photo, I will probably be doing 70% indoor family and portraits, 15% landscape, 5% architecture, 5 % (or less) sports, and 5% Macro
I dislike using flash, probably because I don't know how to use it :-[ (willing to learn), hence, a fast lens is a priority

LENSES:
After reading quite a bit of your helpful inputs, I think I have settled on primes (I may still change my mind if everyone starts telling me off)
I am hoping that 3 lenses should cover my range
However, I am not sure which 3 primes to get

I am undecided between:
- Either EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM, or EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM
- Either EF 50mm f/1.2L USM, or EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM
- Either EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, or EF 180 mm f/3.5L Macro USM

Initially, I was thinking of (14+50+100)
But then, I thought that with a full frame, I will have no trouble with the wide angle and should miss the telephoto effect of 180 if I did not have it. So, I considered (24+85+180)

Which 3 do you think is the best combination?
Or, do you sugget any other combination?

For that 70% indoor family portraits, 85mm is the traditional portrait focal length, but for a group, 50mm might be better.

For the 15% landscape, the 17mm TS-E if you can do manual focus, or the 24mm L. 14mm is very wide which makes it a specialty lens.

For telephoto, consider a zoom like the 70-200mmL (f/2.8 IS MK II)

Get the 24-105mm L kit lens with your camera. It is ideal for outdoor use and may become your most used lens.

 

[preppyak]

Of the photo, I will probably be doing 70% indoor family and portraits, 15% landscape, 5% architecture, 5 % (or less) sports, and 5% Macro

Since landscape and architecture are about 20% of what you do, the 17mm or 24m TS lenses might suit you well. The 24mm T/S is only a little more than the 24L, and for architecture it will make the difference. You lose the auto-focus, which could be a deal breaker, but you gain a lot of control of your focus plane.

Then if you're going with primes, I'd say the 50L and 100 macro L would probably fit your other needs, as they'd give you two focal lengths for portraits, and two different things (50L for shallow DOF, 100L for sharp across the frame). Agree with others about getting the kit lens though, with the ISO abilities of the 5dIII, you may find the 24-105 to be a good lens for following around your family, with one of the primes for more specific moments. And if you decide you don't need a macro lens, I'd get the 135L instead of the 100L, as that would cover your sport needs and portrait needs at the same time.

 

[Random Orbits]

Based on your max budget of 14L II + 85L II + 180L, I'm suggesting 4 lenses which would be less than your max budget: 16-35L II, 50L, 100L and 135L + TC (optional).

The 16-35L II is much more versatile for landscape, architecture and indoor use (and less expensive) than the 14L II. The 24L II is a great lens, but it might not be wide enough if you're constrained for space. The decision between the 50L and the 85L II is based more on what you prefer than anything else. I find the 85L II to be sharper wide open and is great for patient subjects, but I find the 50L to be much more versatile. It focuses much quicker than the 85L II (chasing kids) but is a little softer wide open. Plus the 85mm focal length is too close the 100mm that I would recommend as a macro. The 100L works well for portraits as well being a great macro lens. The 135L would be used for tight portraits and sports and it takes Canon TCs, thereby extending your kit's focal length range.

 

[preppyak]

Based on your max budget of 14L II + 85L II + 180L, I'm suggesting 4 lenses which would be less than your max budget: 16-35L II, 50L, 100L and 135L + TC (optional).

This is a great set of options too.

 

[sanj]

Be realistic, you are not a pro photographer but a keen enthusiast. So I recommend (by the way my recommendation is used by may pros as well)

16-35
24-105
50 1.2

And trust you me you cannot predict the kind of photography that you would do in future... This combo gives you a good range.

 

[olivander]

I'd go 14mm, and the 24mm 1.4 AND then at the top end of things get the 50mm 1.4 and 85 1.8 (the combined cost is less than another L).

I used the version 1 of the 14mm and I wasn't impressed, I thought what a waste of cash. I recently had the chance to borrow the Mark II. Blew me away.

But it's a lens I'd probably pull out once a month. But it really adds a unique perspective to your shot. But it's highly specialised.

I own both the 85 1.2 and 1.8, I favour the 1.8 because of the AF, and practicality of it, it's a really good lens. The 1.2 is grew when I know I'll be screwed for lack of light and that really awesome effect it has from 1.2-2, but if I'm going to shoot above 2, there's no point, she's so damned heavy and really slow. She's like that girl you know you really want... And you get the opportunity and you get together, and then you realise, she's really really really slow, and only great fun in specific situations. So you go for her cheaper, sluttier sister that everyone has...

I shoot low light mainly, and I carry the 24mm, for pretty much everything, at the moment it doesn't leave my camera (that may be because my 50mm has lemonade from someone pouring half a glass all over my gear, but that's another story).

If you want longer lengths, I honestly think the 70-200mm, or the 135, by god, those lenses, I love the 135, but if I need really really super sharp, images I just go back to 85mm, otherwise I'm just using it to crank the zoom.

 

[paulc]

24 TSE on the wide end.

 

[gmrza]

For that 70% indoor family portraits, 85mm is the traditional portrait focal length, but for a group, 50mm might be better.

For the 15% landscape, the 17mm TS-E if you can do manual focus, or the 24mm L. 14mm is very wide which makes it a specialty lens.

For telephoto, consider a zoom like the 70-200mmL (f/2.8 IS MK II)

Get the 24-105mm L kit lens with your camera. It is ideal for outdoor use and may become your most used lens.

I have to agree about the 24-105 - there is a reason why it is so popular (apart from being sold as a kit lens with the 5DIII) - because it is so versatile.

I agree with Neuro as well - I prefer a combination of zooms and primes.

I would probably start with the 24-105mm, and then go for a 70-200mm zoom - if you go for the f/2.8 that is a great portrait lens. After that, I would start with primes. I would probably start with the 50mm f/1.4 and then look at an 85mm lens.

 

[Kernuak]

While the 24-105 is a very useful lens, it is more a jack of all trades. For that reason, you may want to consider a 24mm prime for landscapes, it depends how important the image quality is to you. I used to use the 24-105 for landscapes, but on full frame, the corners are quite soft, but it does depend on the scene, as to whether that is a problem. I went for the 24mm f/1.4 MkII in the end, as I was going to be photographing some northern lights, otherwise I'd probably have leaned towards the 24 TS/E. In your case the tilt and shift might make more sense with the architecture and it does give you more flexibility with landscapes. Neither the 14mm or the 17mm Tilt and shift allow you to use filters without modifications to holders, as the front element bulges, so that is something to bear in mind. Although I don't shoot many portraits, I have found the 24-105 to be ideal, especially in fast moving scenarios, where you might need to vary the focal length. That would also negate the need for a portrait prime to start with, then you can always add one later, if you want to try out selective focus. In fact you could always hold off on a wideangle prime if you have the 24-105, then you can judge whether the results are good enough for your needs. That leaves macro and sports. The 24-105 could cope with outdoor sports if not too far away, but it isn't one of its fortes, so the 70-200 f/2.8 MkII would make more sense, particularly as it is reputed to be as sharp as many primes and the two combinations would give you alot of versatility at lower cost. Macro-wise, the 180mm macro would allow you to stand back from insects, but it depends what you're shooting. If it is more static subjects, then a 100mm or even less focal length would be better, particularly in restricted spaces. The 135mm can also be used as a close-up lens, if you add all 68mm of a Kenko extension tube set, that gives you around half life size. If you want to save a bit of money, have a look around for the non-L 100mm macro, it is at least as good as the L version, in terms of IQ and focuses slightly faster from what I have read, so can make a useful portrait and short telephoto lens. I'm certainly very happy with it and used to use it for wildlife at feeding stations in low light before I got my 135.

I forgot to mention the 50 f/1.4, as cheap as it is, it is worth having in your bag for when you need it. It may lack a little contrast compared to other lenses, but it is definitely useful.

 

[mb66energy]

IMO (too as others said) a combination of two primes and one zoom might give you a high flexibility:

24mm/2.8 IS (after price has settled) - 24mm great for landscape and IS might help for your 20% of video
-> if it will come available: sth. like 50mm/1.8 IS (just a guess of mine) for standard situations
-> if compact lens is 100mm/2.0 - a great lens, very compact, very clean and realistic image files
100mm/2.8 non-IS macro - for macro shooting/high versatility, low price
70-200/2.8 IS II (perhaps with TC) gives you reach and helps a lot for video / low light via IS funcionality and good close focus

This might be a 3000 $/EUR lens set wich gives you large flexibility and is - by IS - helpful for video (24 + 70-200) and an optional 2x TC gives you longer reach. And Canons tele zooms are in many aspects prime quality (except sometimes contrast in contralight situations but that is the difference between sth. like 15 vs. 5 lens groups ... mere physics).

Best - Michael

EDIT:
About flash usage: I don't like flash too, because standard use gives ugly photographs.
But you can use a standard external flash by a reflector. I built mine by myself:

• aluminum strip glued to a cartoon of roughly 15 x 15 cm with some "overhang" to fix it via a rubber band to the movable flash head (Speedlite 380ex)
• the mentioned cartoon was colored a little bit yellowish to get warmer flash colors

Area of cartoon means softer light but still directional, the higher distance between light and lens avoids red eyes and the yellowish coloring gives better color rendition - flashes are usually to cool compared to sunlight, especially sunlight during morning and evening hours and compared to incandescent lamps.

About your remarks about buying things: That's just my style of purchasing products (if possible) - buy good things which last a long time so you have no hassle with purchasing decisions and it IS cheaper on the long run!


/[/font]

 

[Bob Howland]

Back in the dark ages of the 70's and 80's, I used: 20 f/2.8, 35 f/2, 85f/1.8, 200 f/4 (replaced with a 200 f/2.8 ) and 50 macro.

Now, my standard kit is: 17-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, 100-400 and 100 macro. There is no way I would go back to an all-prime kit and the only time that I use my primes is when f/2.8 just isn't fast enough. The 300 f/2.8 is the exception to that rule and I'll use that with 1.4x and 2x TCs until Canon gets the 200-400 out the door.

 

[K-amps]

I am closer to your second set:

24 f/1.4II
85 f/1.2II 135 f2 Faster focus, Sharper, No CA
180 Macro very sharp and useful.