What do you guys think, go for the 5D mk3 kit and get the 24-105, or the body with the 70-200 2.8II and maybe the 24-70II when it comes out? Also you can use the 1.4x on the 70-200. I think the latter will cover most of the range. Sometime down the road a wide too.
Which lenses with the 5D mk3?
- Thread starter Razor2012
- Start date
- Status
I'm waiting to check out how the Tamron 24-700 f/2.8 VC does when it comes out next week before I make my decision. I have the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II but i'm coming from a cropped camera and my wider zooms don't work with FF. I wish to bloody hell that canon put IS on their 24-70 f/2.8. I use my cameras for video on occasion and I need IS for that. It is also extremely helpful indoors and is nice to take landscapes at 1/15th of a second when a tripod is not available. A 24-70 f/2.8 with IS would have been a dream come true and been perfect for anything. If the Tamron isn't very good, i'll end up with the 24-105 f/4 IS most likely and keep a 50mm and a 28mm prime around when I need a wide aperture.
Upvote
0
Razor2012 said:
Because you can afford it, I vote for getting the 70-200II now (instead of the 24-105) and waiting to see whether or not the 24-70II is worth it. The 24-70II does NOT have IS and will use 82mm filters (same as 16-35L II), but its MTFs are better than version I and at 70mm is a match for the 70-200II.
Upvote
0
Razor2012 said:
If money is no issue - 5D III with 70-200mm f2.8 IS II is a great combo for now, might not be wide enough for indoor. Based on the MTF chart, the new 24-70 looks very promising.
I prefer 50mm f1.4 prime over 24-105 - pictures are much sharper and produces GREAT bokeh.
Upvote
0
Razor2012 said:
Sounds like a good plan. An additional fast prime could be a nice option as well, as long as the 24-70 II is not available yet the 50 1.2L should be a good choice and will always be.
Upvote
0
The 85 1.2 is supposed to be pretty sweet also.
The 70-200 II is amazing. The 24-105 is good at what it does, but just isn't in the same category.
On the wider side, have you looked at the 24L II? Yes, the 85 1.2 is also pretty stunning, but if you're also picking up a 70-200, you've already got that focal range covered (without the extreme buttery DOF of the 85, but it's covered). 70-200 II and 24L II is one of my favorite combos.
For reference, I also have the 16-35L, 35L, 85LII, 100L, 24-105L, 50 1.4 - they're all great - but if I had to pick just two to cover "everything", I'd take the 70-200 II and the 24L II. But that's just me
On the wider side, have you looked at the 24L II? Yes, the 85 1.2 is also pretty stunning, but if you're also picking up a 70-200, you've already got that focal range covered (without the extreme buttery DOF of the 85, but it's covered). 70-200 II and 24L II is one of my favorite combos.
For reference, I also have the 16-35L, 35L, 85LII, 100L, 24-105L, 50 1.4 - they're all great - but if I had to pick just two to cover "everything", I'd take the 70-200 II and the 24L II. But that's just me
Upvote
0
Razor2012 said:
I'm guessing the II will be a shockingly sharp lens, but the projected retail price makes me throw up a little in my mouth. I'm also one of those people who isn't all that fond of the 40-60mm range - I just find that range boring - so FOR ME, it probably won't be worth the investment. I tend to enjoy shooting wide or tight, and very little in between. But that's just me
Upvote
0
I am also waiting for Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC. IS is very important for me. I take many shoots for my 1.5 year old son at home without flash and many of my shoots are about 1/8 to 1/15. Honestly, my 7D + 17-55mm IS does better job than my 5D2 + 24-70mm for indoor shooting.dswatson83 said:
By the way, any review about Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 VC?
Upvote
0
Razor2012 said:
I sold my 24-105 a year ago for the 24-70 II. Since I expect the 24-70 II to be great I did never get the 50 1.2L altough I would love to have it.
Upvote
0
Razor2012 said:
I have a 5DII and have all priems (35mm f/1.4, Sigma 85mm f/1.4, Canon 135mm f/2, Canon 50mm f/1.4) The main reason I go for primes is that they're faster-- more options with depth of field. I started out with a crop camera with 15-85mm and the 50mm f/1.4. The zoom just didn't work for me and I grew to like having the faster aperture. At the tele end, the 15-85mm has equivalent dof to f/9 on a full frame. On a full frame, an f/2.8 zoom would probably be good enough for me (both for shallow dof and in that I can crank the ISO higher than on APS-C) but I've gotten used to shooting with primes.
I don't really care for having the sharpest lens out there -- I think sharpness is overrated.
Upvote
0
cliffwang said:
That is the reason why I ended up getting a 35L. IS may help you hold the camera steadier, but it doesn't help much if the kids are moving. Having a lens that is 2 stops faster gives much better odds at nonblurry shots, when you can shoot at 1/60-1/30.
Upvote
0
Random Orbits said:
IS can also help your autofocus in continuous shooting and can help you compose better on fast moving subjects. Also, 2 stops faster may mean only 6 inches or less of depth of field with kids. I had to re-adjust my shooting when I had a baby. Typically I could shoot a head shot at f/2.8 with the whole head in focus...on a kid they are so small that a head shot at f/2.8 barely picks up both eyes. You may need those extra 2 stops to get everything in focus. I love having the faster lenses though when I am further away from my subjects but generally, anything larger than f/2.8 for anything other than far away shots with a wide angle is about as open as I can shoot unless I only want an eye in focus. Everything has a trade off
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
