- Status
Obaidey said:
Minus the f/1.2 to f/2.8 range, I'm thinking at all other apertures that the 24-70L II zoom lens will outperform all of the 50mm primes. I definitely think it will outperform the 35L. I am selling my 50 primes and 35 prime to get the 24-70L II after I see some field testing. I no longer require wider than 2.8.
Upvote
0
O
Obaidey
Guest
What is the secret of this ancient 135
New technology is better, obviously
Like 70-200 /2.8L IS II = 2010
100 /2.8L Macro IS =2009
and 85 /1.2L II = 2006
However, I am a bit puzzled by the EF135mm f/2L USM = 1996 !
So popular this one
It must be really good
However, it surely is due to be replaced
Or perhaps it is so good, they wouldn't replace
But, come on! 16 years?
I noted that the more recent the lens launch, the more likely it is better, and popularbdunbar79 said:
New technology is better, obviously
Like 70-200 /2.8L IS II = 2010
100 /2.8L Macro IS =2009
and 85 /1.2L II = 2006
However, I am a bit puzzled by the EF135mm f/2L USM = 1996 !
So popular this one
It must be really good
However, it surely is due to be replaced
Or perhaps it is so good, they wouldn't replace
But, come on! 16 years?
Upvote
0
Re: What is the secret of this ancient 135
Absolutely agree. The ONLY reason I use it for basketball, is that you are far enough away that if you open it up to f/2, you don't really have any DOF problems on a particular player, ie the entire player stays in focus, while the background blurs. This would certainly not be true of the 50L opened to f/2. I'd buy a 135 f/2L II for sure, especially if it had IS! To answer your question though, yes, it is a spectacular lens. For covenience though, the 70-200L II IS does pretty well at 135mm.
Obaidey said:
Absolutely agree. The ONLY reason I use it for basketball, is that you are far enough away that if you open it up to f/2, you don't really have any DOF problems on a particular player, ie the entire player stays in focus, while the background blurs. This would certainly not be true of the 50L opened to f/2. I'd buy a 135 f/2L II for sure, especially if it had IS! To answer your question though, yes, it is a spectacular lens. For covenience though, the 70-200L II IS does pretty well at 135mm.
Upvote
0
O
Obaidey
Guest
bdunbar79 said:
Wise words. 24-70L II is still very expensive. And, not very well known quality. Interesting to see it debated. The old 24-70L was (as I heard from a lens rental company) the most hit and miss they had. Hopefully they cracked it with the IIbdunbar79 said:
Upvote
0
i carry the following 3 primes every where with my 5d3 and the combo is awesome and also not crazy expensive
voigtlander 20mm f3.5 color skopar SLII its small light and awesome for landscapes
canon 40mm f2.8 pancake super sharp small light convenient excellent image quality
sigma 85 f1.4 super sharp fast awesome for portraits and super low light.
these 3 lenses cover most stuff produce fantastic results are relatively compact and light fitting in a small bag and provide outstanding versitility and coverage.
voigtlander 20mm f3.5 color skopar SLII its small light and awesome for landscapes
canon 40mm f2.8 pancake super sharp small light convenient excellent image quality
sigma 85 f1.4 super sharp fast awesome for portraits and super low light.
these 3 lenses cover most stuff produce fantastic results are relatively compact and light fitting in a small bag and provide outstanding versitility and coverage.
Upvote
0
since your primary purpose is portrait, for primes I would go with 35L 85LII and the 200L IS, just my opinion though.
However, I'm going for 35L 85LII and 135L on that note.
However, I'm going for 35L 85LII and 135L on that note.
Upvote
0
I think you made the right choice, congratulations on your purchase, the 5DIII is a stellar camera. Buying multiple lenses at the same time (especially primes) can be more detrimental than beneficial. The primes take time to learn, and when you get a new lens it's best to keep it attached to your camera for a few months to get used to it. I don't think you could go wrong with a 35mm or 50mm if you want to check out a prime in the future, they're great focal lengths. Also if you want a bit longer of a reach the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is arguably the best zoom in the world, close to as sharp as the 135 f/2 and definitely sharper than the 200mm f/2.8.
Upvote
0
bdunbar79 said:Which 3 primes? My 3 choices are 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L, 200L
+1
lol, that's what I'm looking to have in the future
but first 24LII 85LII 135L are must haves,, I just wish the 85LII improved optically too and not just the AF part compared to the Ver.I
Upvote
0
Realistically if you would ever have the 70-200L IS II lens, you could honestly substitute those as long as you didn't need wider than 2.8.
Upvote
0
The one point of having primes is for the extra stops of light and their reliable performance. Yes the 70-200 II is more than outstanding but even with IS sometimes it cannot have the picture just because the object may be moving too. Turning up ISO means losing IQ so having the extra stop of light is very helpful.
Upvote
0
I'm going to break the rule by saying a 16-35 to cover both 14mm (it's really a bit too wide) and a 35mm prime.
Then for the other 2 lenses you can have a bit more reach without sacrificing the focal lengths in between. I'd recommend 100L for more variety, but 85L has amazing bokeh. This is for you to decide whether you want more background blur or more close up shots. Both are very good portrait lenses. As for tele, I'd recommend 70-200L, but that will overlap with 85 or 100, so if you want something light, 200 2.8 is a great choice. Or else 135L is also fine if you end up choosing the 85.
If I were to make the decision it would be:
16-35
50L
100L
because I don't really need the reach. I'd go for a 7D if I want to shoot far. Also, 16-35 gives you more versatility when you're indoors. You won't be going wide open if you're taking group shots anyway.
Then for the other 2 lenses you can have a bit more reach without sacrificing the focal lengths in between. I'd recommend 100L for more variety, but 85L has amazing bokeh. This is for you to decide whether you want more background blur or more close up shots. Both are very good portrait lenses. As for tele, I'd recommend 70-200L, but that will overlap with 85 or 100, so if you want something light, 200 2.8 is a great choice. Or else 135L is also fine if you end up choosing the 85.
If I were to make the decision it would be:
16-35
50L
100L
because I don't really need the reach. I'd go for a 7D if I want to shoot far. Also, 16-35 gives you more versatility when you're indoors. You won't be going wide open if you're taking group shots anyway.
Upvote
0
zrz2005101 said:
True enough, but I've been doing alot of event shooting lately and find the 5DIII and 70-200II to be an almost unbeatable combination of speed and performance. Wide open with auto ISO I had alot of good images at 12800. I personally don't feel a person is losing that much in IQ. I prefer (in this situation) being more flexible with my zoom.
Upvote
0
zrz2005101 said:
Yes true indeed. However, you must evaluate what you are shooting. If I'm only doing sports for instance, and I shoot at f/1.8, I'm going to lose my job. I can't go wider than f/2.8 due to DOF issues anyways. If you are doing portraits and weddings especially, yes you can go wider.
Upvote
0
C
Cannon Man
Guest
bdunbar79 said:
I am also looking for the 24-70 II. I am sure it will be much better than the 50 1.2 at all the same apertures.
When i compare my 85 1.2 II to my 50 1.2 the 50mm is much softer.
I wish they make a new 50mm, i don't care if it would be 1.4 i just want good image quality.
Upvote
0
zrz2005101 said:
Yes but everytime you turn the aperture wider, you thin your focal plane. Much rather have to remove noise than have a completely OOF shot because I didn't get the focal plane correct. This is especially true on shorter focal length lenses when you're doing close ups.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
