Which lens to start with?

[Jack56]

In a couple of weeks I will buy a Canon Mark5dIII.
I'm the owner of a 60d, but I like to go FF.
I've already got the 100mm L and I like this lens a lot.
I shoot stills (nature) and with my 60d I hardly use the 15-85 anymore.
Also because of the sharpness of the 100mm.
In december I will travel to Scotland and hope to make some nice landscapes images and know I need a lens for that.
I've got doubts over the 24-105 (cheap) and the 17-40. That's why I thought about the 16-35/24-70. But because of the new releases in 2014 I am more confused. What would you do? Primes? The 24-105 and wait till first Q of 2014? Thank you for reading my question.

 

[Loswr]

If you can afford the 24-70/2.8L II and have (or will get) a good tripod for landscapes, that's a great choice. Else, you really can't beat the 24-105L for value as a kit lens, and it's very good optically. If you can find the 24-70/4L IS for down near $1K (it'll be a 5DIII kit lens this month), that's worth considering.

 

[Ruined]

In a couple of weeks I will buy a Canon Mark5dIII.
I'm the owner of a 60d, but I like to go FF.
I've already got the 100mm L and I like this lens a lot.
I shoot stills (nature) and with my 60d I hardly use the 15-85 anymore.
Also because of the sharpness of the 100mm.
In december I will travel to Scotland and hope to make some nice landscapes images and know I need a lens for that.
I've got doubts over the 24-105 (cheap) and the 17-40. That's why I thought about the 16-35/24-70. But because of the new releases in 2014 I am more confused. What would you do? Primes? The 24-105 and wait till first Q of 2014? Thank you for reading my question.

Given the heavy amount of rumors and multiple patents regarding a 24-70 IS, it may surface in 2014 with a price reduction to the 24-70 II.

My advice on the wide side, to go along with your 100L for now:
Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898726-USA/Canon_5178b002_EF_35mm_f_2_0_IS.html

It is currently the highest rated Canon lens on DXOMARK (definitely not the definitive source, but it means something) and can be had from anywhere between $499-549. On top of this it has image stabilization and is quite light&portable, thus can serve as a travel lens or backup to a 24-70 II if an IS version does not come next year. It also has a faster aperture than the 24-70 so a bonus there, too.

Some say that IS is not needed on 24-70, but I have done tests with my 70-200 w/ IS on and off, you lose a lot at 70mm with no IS in darker environments. Yeah, you can up the shutter speed or bump ISO but then you lose critical light or gain noise which is not ideal either.

So, I'd say go with the new 35mm IS prime, use it with your 100L, and wait to see what 2014 brings. The 24-70 II is certainly no deal at its current $2200 price IMO. If you are burning to spend money, go for the double dip on the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II ($1899 after MIR), can't complain about that amazing lens!

70-200@B&H super deal if you want to drop some cash, about $300 less than usual:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/680103-USA/Canon_2751B002_EF_70_200mm_f_2_8L_IS.html

 

[Sporgon]

All good advice above.

A comment on the 24-105. I find this an excellent landscape lens if I am stitching. Shoot in portrait and three across for 1.5x1. In this way you are a: not using the edges of the frame, and b: the enlargement is much smaller. Used in this way I find the 24-105 as good as anything.

However using this lens for single frame landscape I find it disappointing because of the soft(er) corners.

The new 24-70 f4 IS is better across the frame, not as stellar as the 24-70 II but you get IS.

The new IS primes ( 24, 28, and 35) are all very good.

Also don't forget the 40 pancake, a really good landscape lens. I'd avoid ultra wides unless you already have the moderates.

 

[Loswr]

Given the heavy amount of rumors and multiple patents regarding a 24-70 IS, it may surface in 2014...

The 24-70/2.8 IS rumor mill has been almost as active as that for the 100-400L II. We've all seen how predictive that's been... :

 

[StudentOfLight]

Firstly, please note that the 100-L macro is phenomenally sharp so don't get your hopes up for getting wide angle lenses that are as sharp, you will just be disappointed.

The 16-35 is not the greatest ultrawide zoom and for landscape applications, I think the 17-40 is probably better if you can get your hands on a good copy. 16-35 is an event lens so it is more optimized for wide apertures whereas 17-40 is good when you close down the aperture, which is what you'd need for huge depth of field in landscape shots. The 17-40 also is lighter and slightly smaller so that's always useful when travelling. Rumors are that the 16-35 might also be replaced soon.

70-200mm IS can be used for extractive landscape shots (where you want to exclude certain elements from your composition) as well as giving realistic scale of background elements. If you can get a good price then definitely a good lens to buy.

The 40mm pancake is a fantastic lens, and one of my favourites. It is small, cheap, light and has good optics. It feels like a standard focal length on both crop and FF so I always recommend it as a lens to get early on when you start building your kit. You can always consider getting a fast 35mm in the future like (f/1.4 or f/2) but if I were I would hold off on that for the moment as 35mm f/1.4 is probably due for an upgrade soon. Not that you'd ever sell the pancake... nothing is as compact so there is always space in your bag for it.

 

[Jack56]

Thank you all for reading and given advices. I'm not a professional at all, but I know I am a perfectionist. That doesn't make it easier.
Read about pixel peepers, well, I think I am one of them.
So, I don't think the 24-70 is the one for me at the moment. It's a lot of money and I would rather spend it on the 70-200.
So, 35L, 17-40, 40mm, or TSE or the 24L? Why do they make so much lenses

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Never make a purchase decision based on the 2000 patents Canon files each year, or on CR1 rumors. You could be waiting for 10 years like some of those who sold their 100-400L or 400 5.6L.

The 24-105mmL is a good lens, but you do have to correct it a lot at 24mm. The 24-70 MK II is supurb, and has popped up for $1695 on B&H recently.

 

[Loswr]

The TS-E 24L II is one of the best landscape lenses available...if 24mm works for you. The 24-70/2.8L II is among the best walkaround lenses on FF - if you really are a pixel peeper, that's the general purpose lens you want. Considering the 70-200, think about which you'd use more...for me, that's the 24-70 range.

Pixel peepers should avoid the 17-40L...

 

[StudentOfLight]

The 24-70 MK II is supurb, and has popped up for $1695 on B&H recently.

Wow that's a steal! In South Africa, with the current exchange rate, the 24-70mm II was about $2,600. It is now "on special" for about $2,200. In the 3rd-world get so F***ed over by global economics :'(

 

[Ruined]

Thank you all for reading and given advices. I'm not a professional at all, but I know I am a perfectionist. That doesn't make it easier.
Read about pixel peepers, well, I think I am one of them.
So, I don't think the 24-70 is the one for me at the moment. It's a lot of money and I would rather spend it on the 70-200.
So, 35L, 17-40, 40mm, or TSE or the 24L? Why do they make so much lenses

Just another note, I see you are going for a lot of the L lenses. While the L lenses are best if you need the f/1.4, you should really check out the new 35mm f/2.0 IS USM and even the 24mm f/2.8 IS USM. While not everything, DXOMARK rated both superior to the more expensive L lenses at the same aperature. This is due to both a newer design and image stabilization that the L lenses lack.

The 17-40/16-35 are both due for an update IMO as they are poor in sharpness compared to other lenses in this range, and I'd only get the TSE if you actually plan to use the TSE functionality due to the cost.

The 24-70 II is incredibly sharp but I'd be *shocked* if it were not updated with IS very soon, there is WAY too much demand (and it is not a niche lens) for Canon not to update it much like they did the 70-200 - not to mention Tamron already has out a 24-70 f/2.8 with IS and Sigma will have out an f/2 next year; Canon will be significantly behind if they do not release an IS model in 2014 IMO... just a matter of time I think. We also know for a fact there are 3 different patented Canon 24-70 IS designs plus rumors that it is being tested in the wild, I think they are just looking for the right blend of IQ & weight.

So again, before you jump straight to the Ls, take a look at the 35mm f/2 IS USM and 24mm f/2.8 IS USM. They perform extremely well (according to DXOMARK better than the Ls @ same aperature) and you can get both of them for almost half the price of an L lens. That will net you both a nice landscape lens plus a wide-normal prime. They happen to be on sale @ AMAZON and CANON DIRECT right now for 499/ea (usually are around 549-599). Next year, the 50mm f/1.8 IS will be released which could be a nice addition to the series. Once the 24-70 IS eventually comes out and you pick that up, the primes will be a lightweight alternative and/or backup if you do event photography. Sometimes you just want to use a light, low cost yet still excellent quality setup and these specific primes can do that for you.

If you really want to buy another L lens, get the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM - it is virtually perfect. The 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM is also fantastic, but whether you'd have the speed of the 70-200 f/2.8 or reach+portability of the 70-300 f/4-5.6L is up to you.

 

[Ripley]

I rarely recommend the 24-105mm and I think it will eventually disappoint you. The 40mm can't be beat for the price. I would be willing to try the 24-70mm f/4 in a kit, if the price were right.

 

[mackguyver]

If you can afford the 24-70/2.8L II and have (or will get) a good tripod for landscapes, that's a great choice. Else, you really can't beat the 24-105L for value as a kit lens, and it's very good optically. If you can find the 24-70/4L IS for down near $1K (it'll be a 5DIII kit lens this month), that's worth considering.

+1 (or however many) on the 24-70/2.8L II - you won't be disappointed - this lens is spectacular and will bring out the best in your FF body. That and the 70-200 2.8 IS II are the two I would start with unless you have a specific need such as a larger aperture, tilt-shift, super tele, or ultra wide...

 

[TexasBadger]

Get a tripod and practice taking multiple shots with the camera in portrait orientation using your existing 100mm lens. I would also recommend a circular polarizer. Overlap the stiched images by 25-30%. If you have the time to set-up and use good technique, you should get outstanding landscapes. Make sure you shoot manually and have a level tripod. If you already have a tripod and a polarizer, you have spent nothing.

If you really want another lens, I would consider the original 24-70 f2.8 L. It can be purchased for ~$1000.00. Stop it down to around 5.6 and it will be plenty sharp. However, it will not be as sharp as a vertically stitched 100mm. Just quicker and easier to get the shot.

 

[alexturton]

Get the 24 1.4 ii. Wonderful lens for every occasion.

 

[scottkinfw]

I would agree- 24-70 2.8 II with good tripod. The lens is great, just upgraded so you don't need to worry about it being obsolete.

Congratulations.

sek

 

[mine1]

Sigma just put out a 24-105mm F4, that you might want to look into. If they addressed some of the issues people have had with the canon one, and 1 stop better IS, I think it will be a hell of a lens. Isn't supposed to be out until the 9th though.

 

[mine1]

well I guess that if you don't use your 15-85 anymore you probably won't use the 24-105mm (just about the same range just shorter), but for travel I always recommend 1 lens if you can swing it (giving you time to enjoy your trip), or even 2 if the second one is something you don't think you will use much.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Hi,
I wouldn't invest in the Canon 24-105mm f4L but rather go for the any of the latest 24-70mm L versions (f2.8 II or f4IS) as when travelling a zoom is very convenient.
However, people has suggested some lighter and less expensive alternatives that are sharp as a tack, the 40mm f2.8 package that retails for $149 now and the 35mm f2 IS (around $550). I personally own both and these two prime lenses will never dissapoint you.
Sometimes travelling light is better than carrying a heavy 'top L' lens.

 

[Renaissance]

I've got the 100L just like you , and it is my favorite!
What I decided to do is get a lens that would give me great versatility while I wait on the 24-70 L II.
Since using my friend's 24-70 L Mark 1, I found I shoot primarily between 30-50mm.
So guess what became the perfect lens to accommodate that on full frame.. the 40mm Pancake!
So many great things to say about it; sharp, lightweight, and inexpensive.
Only drawback is an average AF speed.

So instead of waiting on what lens will come out, price drops, researching, etc. I can happily shoot
with my 40 Pancake + 100L and get all the shots I need.