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

[EvilTed]

16-35 F/2.8 II
24-70 F/2.8 II
70-200 F/2.8 II

I know you asked for primes, but given that you state you are lazy, this is a better approach and will give you maximum range without getting off the couch

ET

 

[Viggo]

24 f1.4 L II, 50 L and 85 L.

 

[Cgdillan]

I would go

24mm f/1.4 II
50mm f/1.2
70-200 f/2.8 IS II - 4 stops of IS help a lot in the dark.

 

[Northstar]

16-35 F/2.8 II
24-70 F/2.8 II
70-200 F/2.8 II

I know you asked for primes, but given that you state you are lazy, this is a better approach and will give you maximum range without getting off the couch

ET

I agree with this combo for two important reasons:

1. Primes are nice, but zoom capability is even better IMO - changing lenses because your prime is too long or short is a pain, and it also means that occasionally you MISS a shot...and maybe even drop something while switching. 2.8 on these zooms with the 5d3 and it's high ISO capability will work very well

2. IQ with the above named zoom lenses is so close to the "L" primes that it's noticeable only to expert pixel peepers

If you really want a prime, drop the 16-35 from this recommendation and add the 50 or 85. But I would bet that the 24-70 and 70-200 will cover 95% of what you need....and the 24-70 will stay on your camera 90% of the time based on the type of shooting you're describing.

 

[robbymack]

since you are self described as lazy, I'd say zooms will be more friendly than primes. Since you also aren't afraid to spend money either then the 2.8 zoom trinity would do you fine. You could also get a 50L for those really low light situations.

Honestly, my best advice, buy the kit 24-105, use it for a bit then decide what else you need. You might find that after 10 years your brother has nothing of yours to sell on ebay...

 

[HarryWintergreen]

Tse 24 II
85 F1/2 II
135 2.0

 

[Obaidey]

since you are self described as lazy,

What I meant, is that I am lazy with selling stuff that I do not need
I would happily climb, crouch and walk to get a better shot
Sorry that I did not make it clearer earlier

 

[Goshdern]

I asked this very question a year ago. I ended up with 2 zooms and a prime after asking what 3 primes to buy.

16-35 II
85 1.2L II
70-200 2.8 IS II

In hindsight I believe we made the right choices with the zooms. I would have gone with the 100 L macro because of macro and IS if I could do it again, but having said that, the 85 1.2L II is the closest thing to perfection I've used.

I would consider a 580EX II too, ETTL has gotten to a point where you can salvage some horrid lighting.

 

[IIIHobbs]

Lots of opinions a good advice here.
Your desire for prime lenses has merit. But having not shot recently, and jumping in with a 5DIII, consider purchasing with the kit lens and get started familrizing yourself with your new camera. Regardless whatever lens you buy next the 24-105 can be kept or sold depending.
If it is only primes you want to use eventually, I currently use the 50 f1.2 and the 135 f2 (the 135 is on my camera the most). The 24 f1.4 II also deserves your consideration.
Lots of good information on all of these here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews

 

[DanielW]

Buy Syl Arena's Speedlighter's handbook!
Flash is a great tool! Fear not!

 

[Marsu42]

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)

You suggested only prime lenses, so you probably have thought about it and that's what you want ?! There are some top-grade zooms out there nowadays, ye know...

Since you don't plan to do only macro, imho go for the 100L instead of the macro-specialist 180L because of f2.8, faster af and IS for about half the price. And get a Kenko 1.4tc for added working range when you need it, useful for all other lenses, too. The 100L is also very useful for dual-use for portraits and substituting part of the 70-200/2.8 if you don't want to afford or carry the latter. Last not least, the 100L is the most fun lens to use with little weight, with IS and without minimal focal distance.

As for telephoto, 180mm on ff really doesn't cut it - if you want that, get an additional 70-300L (like me ) or a 300mm+ prime.

I would have gone with the 100 L macro because of macro and IS if I could do it again, but having said that, the 85 1.2L II is the closest thing to perfection I've used.

This is really something only you can decide for yourself - maybe you get around trying the 85L and 100L for portraits and see if the f2.8 is enough for you, the good thing about the 100L that it's actually 100% usable with open aperture so no need to stop down.

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

So given YOUR question (and not what everybody else would ask or buy) I'd get 24/50/100 unless you really want ultrawide. For "wide" decide between the sealed 24L with af or 24tse for landscapes.

 

[ecka]

If I had the money I'd get:
TS-E 17mm f/4L - for landscapes and architecture
EF 35mm f/1.4L USM - for indoor
Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 - for macro and portraits

or EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro USM - if manual focus is out of the question
or EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM + Sigma APO 150mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro - if you can justify buying 4 primes.

I wouldn't use a prime lens for action and sports, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM is a better tool for that.

 

[Tcapp]

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).

+1. I love my primes, but love zoom at the telephoto end. I would get the 85 1.2, 24 1.4, and the 70-200 2.8 IS.

 

[Viggo]

- Either EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM, or EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM

I have never shot with the 14 f/2.8L so I cannot attest to it. However, I have the 24 f/1.4L II and it is fast, sharp, has beautiful color rendition, and an amazing build quality. When I look for a fast lens, this is the one I reach for much more often than my 50 f/1.4 or 85 f/1.8. If you choose the 24mm, make sure you micro adjust it, as it is a notoriously finicky lens.

To me it's kinda like saying, either a 50mm or a 600mm, swinging the 14 and the 24 from the same branch. They couldn't be more different, and they have a VERY uniqe look both of them. The 14 is extremely wide with LOTS of dof, even at 2,8. And very difficult to use for general stuff as you need to put a subject very close to get some depth and impact in the picture. SImply relying on a UW perspective is going to get old very fast, I have owned it, so I know.

The 24 is VERY cool with the pretty wide angle and the very shallow dof (compared to the 14) which is a completely different look. The 24 can be used for millions of things the 14 can't.

If you want the very best wide-wide lens, get the TS 17, it can do whatever, and the 14 can't do any of them. With the 14 I found myself always trying to shoot things dead on, or else you will get extreme converging lines, which you can fix with the TS 17. The 14 is hugely limited lens, but for great landscape photographers, it can make some astonishing, truly epic.

The 24 is my absolute go-to wideangle on my 5d3, wonderful wonderful lens. And tricky focus? No, but there have been a bad batch or two of this lens, I replaced two copies because the focus was all over the place, but my third one is rock solid (thanks to Reikan Focal).

The 50 is tricky focus P

 

[Obaidey]

Thanks to every one, for the extremely valuable advice
I wouldn't mind more, so please keep them coming

There seems to be a recurrent theme emerging
- The EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM (launched 2001)....edit: oops. I meant 2010. Sorry about the mistake and thanks to Tcapp and Razor2012 for pointing this out
- The EF 100 f/2.8L Macro IS USM (launched 2009)

I am taking everyone's advice on board, and my final lens's choice will probably be somewhat different from what I was initially considering

 

[codewizpt]

I have 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4 and 135mm f2.

I'm thinking on buying a 85mm

 

[Random Orbits]

Thanks to every one, for the extremely valuable advice
I wouldn't mind more, so please keep them coming

There seems to be a recurrent theme emerging
- The EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM (launched 2001)
- The EF 100 f/2.8L Macro IS USM (launched 2009)

I am taking everyone's advice on board, and my final lens's choice will probably be somewhat different from what I was initially considering

For ambient light indoor portraits, faster lenses are really helpful -- f/2.8 is too slow when the light is dim. Take your pick amongst the 35L, 50L or 85L based on your preferred focal length. All three are great lenses.

I love the 70-200 for sports and portraits in good light, but it is large and heavy (3.75 lb). If you had a higher emphasis on sports (less than 5%), I'd suggest the 70-200. However, if you value weigtht and discretion, another option might be better for you. It really comes down to a trade amongst weight, cost and discretion.

 

[Tcapp]

Thanks to every one, for the extremely valuable advice
I wouldn't mind more, so please keep them coming

There seems to be a recurrent theme emerging
- The EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM (launched 2001)
- The EF 100 f/2.8L Macro IS USM (launched 2009)

I am taking everyone's advice on board, and my final lens's choice will probably be somewhat different from what I was initially considering

Pretty sure the 70-200 2.8 IS II didn't launch in 2001. I was in like, middle school back then. Maybe the version 1 did, but the II is fairly new...

 

[RLPhoto]

You can look below to see my Choice. I chose these three because im on APS-C and Full frame. With this, i can cover all my needed focal lengths from 24-200mm.

24mm - 24mm @ full frame

35mm - 24mm @ 1.6X

50mm - 50mm @ Full frame

85mm - 50mm @ 1.6X

135mm - 135mm @ Full Frame

200mm - 135mm @ 1.6X

Its worked for me really well.

 

[Razor2012]

Thanks to every one, for the extremely valuable advice
I wouldn't mind more, so please keep them coming

There seems to be a recurrent theme emerging
- The EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM (launched 2001)
- The EF 100 f/2.8L Macro IS USM (launched 2009)

I am taking everyone's advice on board, and my final lens's choice will probably be somewhat different from what I was initially considering

Pretty sure the 70-200 2.8 IS II didn't launch in 2001. I was in like, middle school back then. Maybe the version 1 did, but the II is fairly new...

Wasn't it launched early in 2010?