5d - Lens suggestions

P

paulm

Suspended / Banned
Messages
37
Edit My Images
Yes
Having recently switched to my first FF camera (5d Mk1) I'm after some decent glass. I currently have a 50mm and thats it.

On my list is a 35L 1.4, 24L 1.4 or a 17-40L.

I'm edging towards the 17-40 but something is holding me back and edging me towards one of the (more expensive)primes :help:

Has anyone any experience of the 24/35? and would they recommend either for landscape/walkaround purposes.

Thanks and any input would be much appreciated - sorry for another "what lens thread" :'(
 
paulm said:
Having recently switched to my first FF camera (5d Mk1) I'm after some decent glass. I currently have a 50mm and thats it.

On my list is a 35L 1.4, 24L 1.4 or a 17-40L.

I'm edging towards the 17-40 but something is holding me back and edging me towards one of the (more expensive)primes :help:

Has anyone any experience of the 24/35? and would they recommend either for landscape/walkaround purposes.

Thanks and any input would be much appreciated - sorry for another "what lens thread" :'(
Click to expand...

In my opinion... and from what I've read the perfect realistic lenses for anyone on FF who is a decerning amature is the 17-40mm L IS, 24-105mm L IS and the 70-200mm L f4 IS. And that is without completely breaking the bank. I have the 5d Mk1 and am planning on going for this as a kit. I only have the 24-105mm at the mo... the 17-40mm is my next purchase and then the 70-200mm. If money was not an issue it would be the 16-35mm L, 24-70mm and the 70-200mm f2.8mm... but sadly it is... and i am not a pro...

Sorry I cant advise on primes as I've opted not to go for them.

From what I've heard by everyone though the 17-40mm is a cracker! Hence my choice.

Hope that helps...

M
 
To be brutally honest, if you don't know which focal length to purchase - don't buy a prime yet.

As has been said, the zooms offer awesome image quality and huge versatility.

Personally, I have gone for 24-70L and 135L which is a slightly unconventional selection. I don't often feel the need to go wider or much longer, so I have a two lens set that I can take anywhere with me. I had the 50/85/17-40/70-200 but didn't find I either had them on me or couldn't be bothered to keep changing lenses.

Focal length is dictated by either the lenses you have or the shots you wish to take. It is often the case that people do not know what they want to take pics of, but it's expensive to cover all bases just in case.

You can always check the lens samples here:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=107

Clearly no-one can tell you what you should be using, but they are all good choices!

Graham
 
markelliot said:
In my opinion... and from what I've read the perfect realistic lenses for anyone on FF who is a decerning amature is the 17-40mm L IS, 24-105mm L IS and the 70-200mm L f4 IS.
Click to expand...
I've got two out of those three and they are excellent lenses.

I've never felt the urge to get the 17-40 as 24mm is so much wider on full frame than on a cropped sensor. I used to stitch after most days out with the 20D - I've never stitched with the 5DII.

The opposite is true of 200mm - if you are used to a cropped sensor then 200mm isn't really a telephoto lens. The 70-200 makes a walkabout lens!
 
paulm said:
Having recently switched to my first FF camera (5d Mk1) I'm after some decent glass. I currently have a 50mm and thats it.

On my list is a 35L 1.4, 24L 1.4 or a 17-40L.

I'm edging towards the 17-40 but something is holding me back and edging me towards one of the (more expensive)primes :help:

Has anyone any experience of the 24/35? and would they recommend either for landscape/walkaround purposes.

Thanks and any input would be much appreciated - sorry for another "what lens thread" :'(
Click to expand...

The two primes are massively different to the 17-40 f/4, in that they are three stops brighter! If that's what you want/need, then the zoom doesn't really compete does it?

If you don't want very low f/numbers, then the primes are frankly a waste of time IMHO. I doubt that you will see any difference in image quality, and things like CA, distortion and vignetting are easily sorted in post processing through DPP.
 
I have a 5D ( amongst others) and the 24-105 is the lens I tend to use most. The 24-105 is a lot cheaper, and works well on my 5D and 1Dslll.

OK it's only F4 but it does have good IS and is a lot cheaper than the other lenses you have mentioned.
 
The 17-40 is an awesome lens on Full Frame (I use it on my film cameras), but IMO the wide-end is not really for everyday use. I've got a 28-105 which I use as my walkabout (soon to be replaced with a 28-135 IS-can't afford any more L glass at the mo:'(), and find that even for landscapes it is generally sufficient, with the added flexibilty of going to medium telephoto. With that in mind I'd suggest that you get the 24-105 as your walkaround lens, and go for the wider one later if you find yourself constantly struggling to fit everything into the shot, or if you would like to get more of those "artistic" wide-angle shots. As previously posted, leave the choice of primes until you've decided which focal lengths you prefer, and if you find any shortcomings in your zoom(s). Despite the slating that zoom lenses often get, they are actually rather good these days!
 
Chappers said:
I have a 5D ( amongst others) and the 24-105 is the lens I tend to use most. The 24-105 is a lot cheaper, and works well on my 5D and 1Dslll.

OK it's only F4 but it does have good IS and is a lot cheaper than the other lenses you have mentioned.
Click to expand...

apart from the 17-40mm f4 which is only £550 ish.... :D, as for the question in hand, have a look at your images, check the image details and see what you primarly shot at, or think about a situation where you needed extra zoom or wide angle, and that will answer you questions on what you need.

The 24-105mm (walkabout) or 17-40mm f4 (landscape) are good lenses, the 24-70mm f2.8 (portrait/studio +) is also a very nice lens on a FF camera. The 70-200mm f2.8 (portrait +) is a handy lens to have for those stand back from the crowd shots. The 16-35mm MKII is a great lens as well, but lots of $$$, but have a look at your images, this should give you some idea of what you want.
 
markelliot said:
In my opinion... and from what I've read the perfect realistic lenses for anyone on FF who is a decerning amature is the 17-40mm L IS, 24-105mm L IS and the 70-200mm L f4 IS.
Click to expand...

A supplementary question then relating to my own thoughts. I've got the 17-40mm L IS, the 70-200mm L f4 IS and the 100-400L f4. That really leaves a gap between 40mm and 70mm which I cover currently by carrying a mk1 50mm f/1.8, although I also have both an 18-70 f/1:3.5-4.5 II and an 35-135 f/1:4-5.6 - neither of which get used much simply because my bag won't accomodate them all.

I sometimes think I should rationalise how I cover 40mm-70mm but wouldn't really know how - a faster 50mm? another L zoom lens? Also, rhetorically, what need have I to lash out on a suitable L lens when the 50mm does a good job for me and mostly fills the gap?
 
tikkathreebarrel said:
A supplementary question then relating to my own thoughts. I've got the 17-40mm L IS, the 70-200mm L f4 IS and the 100-400L f4. That really leaves a gap between 40mm and 70mm which I cover currently by carrying a mk1 50mm f/1.8, although I also have both an 18-70 f/1:3.5-4.5 II and an 35-135 f/1:4-5.6 - neither of which get used much simply because my bag won't accomodate them all.

I sometimes think I should rationalise how I cover 40mm-70mm but wouldn't really know how - a faster 50mm? another L zoom lens? Also, rhetorically, what need have I to lash out on a suitable L lens when the 50mm does a good job for me and mostly fills the gap?
Click to expand...

Ditch the 17-40, which is a great full frame lens (and BTW doesn't have IS) but really doesn't make sense on a crop camera.

Replace it with a 17-55 2.8 IS and you've sorted out the range, gained a stop to f/2.8, and now you have got IS!
 
HoppyUK said:
Replace it with a 17-55 2.8 IS and you've sorted out the range, gained a stop to f/2.8, and now you have got IS!
Click to expand...

Point taken on 17-40 being non-IS. I seem to have an illogical barrier to investing in EF-S lenses: illogical and contrary. I need to get over this before investing in a lens which doesn't have a red line and the letter L. :bonk:

OTOH, and purely for the sake of pedantry, 55mm is only partway to bridging the "gap" to 70mm. :cuckoo:

Sensible suggestion though and one I need to mull over. Thanks:thumbs:
 
how much do you have, i have a 16 - 35 2.8 and it is simply amazing
 
if you like the idea of a prime i am v fond of 35mm on film ( i have no 5d :(b





knocker 55x1.6=88 which is longer than 70 on ff
 
The 24-70 is my most used lens. IS is nice but f2.8 is f2.8

My ideal 3 lens set up for full frame is:
  • 24-70 2.8
  • 70-200 2.8
  • 85 1.2

I ended up with a 70-200 f4 non-IS, as the 2.8 is heavy, and the 85 1.2 costs a fortune, however the 24-70 is lovely :thumbs:
 
tikkathreebarrel said:
Point taken on 17-40 being non-IS. I seem to have an illogical barrier to investing in EF-S lenses: illogical and contrary. I need to get over this before investing in a lens which doesn't have a red line and the letter L. :bonk:

OTOH, and purely for the sake of pedantry, 55mm is only partway to bridging the "gap" to 70mm. :cuckoo:

Sensible suggestion though and one I need to mull over. Thanks:thumbs:
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people face a bit of a hurdle with EF-S. But, when you consider that a) crop format is the future, and b) EF-S lenses are sometimes sharper than L lenses, they really make sense. Not to mention smaller, lighter, faster, cheaper.

Sure they are not built like a tank-like L but they're pretty good. Nothing wrong with the 10-22, 17-55 or 60 macro at all. 18-55 IS kit and 55-250 IS are more cheaply made, but both damn sharp and exceptional value including IS.

And look what you get - EFS 17-55 is crop frame equvalent to 24-105L on full frame, but a whole stop faster - big difference. EFS 55-250 IS is virtually identical spec to the giant 100-400L on full frame - a fraction of the size and weight, and price, yet the same range.

Cool pun on foot zoom BTW :thumbs:
 
The 24-70 is my most used lens. IS is nice but f2.8 is f2.8

My ideal 3 lens set up for full frame is:
24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8
85 1.2
Click to expand...

Wack a 16-35 2.8 in there and that sounds nice!
 
HoppyUK said:
EFS 17-55 is crop frame equvalent to 24-105L on full frame, but a whole stop faster - big difference.
Click to expand...

OTOH the whole stop is needed to create the same DoF effect as the FF would see.

IMO there is often great emphasis on having every single mm covered but unless it's a super-zoom the chances are the one you want won't be on the camera anyway. Also images can take a fair amount of cropping.

Personally I'm thinking increasingly of a 24..70 f2.8 and a 135mm (only) as mentioned above. If they did a 24-90 f2 IS that would do me just fine.
 
thanks for the replies folks, lots of useful + practical advise - I appreciate it :)

I need to get a "feel" for FF having only used crops before as daft as that sounds!! I used to use my nikon 12-24 a lot so I'm guessing that means the 17-40 is probably the ideal match, at least until I work out which focal length suits me best on FF 24 or 35.
 
FWIW, I use the 24L as my landscape lens on my 5D2 (previously 5D).....it's a good performer and provides the AOV that suits my taste.

Bob
 
To me, all of the focal lengths you have listed seem very small.

What lenses do you currently have on your crop. To get the same effect as the ones you like, multiply by your crop factor. that should be a good starting point.
 
tikkathreebarrel said:
OTOH, and purely for the sake of pedantry, 55mm is only partway to bridging the "gap" to 70mm. :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

How many of your current shots have been taken between 55mm and 70mm? I wouldn't be bothered in the slightest by having a gap of 15mm in my lens line-up. :)
 
17 - 40, 24-105 (the walk around), 70 - 200mm 2.8 is (portraits) - for starters

then primes for fun when you want the mad backgound blur - 50mm 1.4 is cool

the only pain for me is 24-70 2.8 - it overlaps too much with the 24-105 - but the 2.8 and extra picty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top