New lenses for full frame, ditched the EF-S ones

Blasted

Blasted

Suspended / Banned
Messages
927
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok, I’m about to pull the trigger on a 5D mark III. As I had a 7D previously I’ve had to get rid of the non compatible lenses. This leaves me with the following line up

Canon 70-200 F4
Canon 100mm F2.8 macro

What would be your suggestions on where to head lens wise?

My style of photography is pretty much everything, but I’m edging towards portraiture and landscape for the main part. Budgets aren’t huge.

I’m reading good things about the cheaper primes such as the 85mm F1.8, also the new sigma’s are supposed to be really good.

Or there is the option of going for a 24-70 F2.8 mark 1.

I’m also going to be doing a friends wedding next year so that’s also in the back of my mind.

Thanks in advance.
 
The 24-70 is a great lens so if funds allow I'd go for one of those.
The 85 - good lens but doesn offer a great deal more than the macro will give you. With the Mk 3 you can up the Iso to compensate for the loss of aperture on the lens (macro and 24-70 being 2.8 the 85 being 1.8).
I'd certainly be looking at a 50 1.8 because bang for buck its great value and although the 24/70 covers the range and despit what I said above the 50 is just so small and unobtrusive, whereas the 24/70 is a big lens. Plus the 50 is a lot smaller than either the 85 of the 100 macro so well worth having.

You'll probably want a flash gun too, they forgot to put that into the 5D :)
 
I almost bought a 1.4, bit more expensive and from searching the net I found the Canon one wasnt as robust as I would have liked, I believe the Sigma is better but I've been put off Sigma from the past due to quality issues and onward compatability. I know the current and recent ones could be re-chipped (hopefully) but Canon do have a habit of messing up 3rd party lens makers.
 
I actually own all the lenses mentioned and my fav lens on my 5d mkii is the 85mm it's class!!! So sharp and worth every penny, I've recently purchased a 100mm L macro and that's also a super lens for crop portraits brings out so much detail in the eyes :)
 
I have a 24-70mm Mk1. Super lens, totally dependable.
But I still prefer taking my 5D3 out with my 35mm F2 and 85mm F1.8 in the bag. Two lovely lenses!
 
Blasted said:
I was wondering how much there is in it between the 85, 35 and 50mm primes versus the 24-70 mk 1.
Click to expand...

I have the 24/70, a 50 1.8, a 100 2.8 macro, an 85 1.8 (all canon)
The primes are sharper than the zoom, lighter and generally really lovely to shoot with but if I only want to take one lens I take the zoom.
I bought the 85 because I had an 85mm on a 35mm film camera years ago and its a wonderful lens to use (some criticise there can be some CA), then I bought the macro cos I like shooting flowers and because I could afford both (sorry). If I was on a tight budget and I'd bought the zoom already I wouldnt buy the 100 and the 85, I'd just buy the 100 macro.
If I hadnt bought the zoom I'd buy the 4 primes you have mentioned, 35, 50 85 and 100 macro (assuming I wanted to shoot macro) although the 85 with tubes makes a great macro lens for occasional use.

Matt
 
For landscape you will typically need a 24-*** or 17-40L type lens. You could get away with the 100/2.8 macro or the 70-200mm for portraits in all honesty. Yes they aren't as wide an aperture as the 85mm or 135L but they could still suffice if funds are low.

Personally I prefer primes over a 24-105/-70L type lens.

I get away with a 17-40, 50, 135 & the same macro that I never hardly use! I found 50 & 85 too close.
 
LeeRatters said:
For landscape you will typically need a 24-*** or 17-40L type lens. You could get away with the 100/2.8 macro or the 70-200mm for portraits in all honesty. Yes they aren't as wide an aperture as the 85mm or 135L but they could still suffice if funds are low.

Personally I prefer primes over a 24-105/-70L type lens.

I get away with a 17-40, 50, 135 & the same macro that I never hardly use! I found 50 & 85 too close.
Click to expand...

The old 135 2.8 SF isnt a bad lens either for the money :)
 
24-70 f/2.8 of some description. I haven't used one but the Tamron 24-70 VC gets good reviews and has stabilisation. Much as I liked using primes, modern zooms have caught up pretty well as far as IQ goes and sometimes footzoom simply isn't an option.
 
Blasted said:
I was wondering how much there is in it between the 85, 35 and 50mm primes versus the 24-70 mk 1.
Click to expand...

I have all of those lenses. At F2.8 the 35mm and 85mm primes win in sharpness and contrast. However the 50mm F1.8 is probably on a par with reduced contrast overall. My experience anyway.
 
I've got a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 HSM, which is really good, not sure if it's on a par with a Canon MkI but it can't be far off. I've also got a 35 f2, a 50 f1.4 (had a 1.8 but mine wasn't too great so I upgraded) and the 85 f1.8 and the primes are excellent for events such as parties and weddings. If you don't mind an overlap of focal lengths the Canon 24-105 f4L IS is also a great walkabout lens and it worked fantastically at a recent wedding I did and also a gig I was at (but used a speedlite for the gig as well as the lighting was almost non-existant).
 
Another vote for the 17-40 of you're wanting to do landscape, had mine for a couple of months now and very pleased with it.
 
Blasted, yesterday I made the same jump. Well from a 7d to full frame. I was lucky in that only one of my lenses are ef-s. I was left with 24-05, 50 1.4, 70-200.

However don't discount the 24-105. With the 7d when using high iso you would notice it. Even at 6400 iso, which was max for the 7d the 5diii will be perfectly clear and usable. Atleast that is my experience, so far.

Another advantage of the 25-105 is that is has IS meaning it's easier to shoot hand held with, and overall for the price I don't think it's easy to beat. Another nice benefit is that it's weather sealed (although I think most full frame lenses are).

Whilst others are advocating primes, I would say that if you use them you are pretty limited to what you can do and for everyday use they are not that practical.
 
Thanks for the input chaps:thumbs: The camera is now ordered and I'm going to need something to dress her in.

I did say budgets were not great, but I can push the boat out a bit more than the cheap of the cheap, although i'm not quite at F1.2L or 24-70 mark 2prices.

I have been coming round to the idea of the better sigma lenses, they seem to be getting good reviews.

Like I said I currently have a 70-200 F4 and 100mm f2.8, I think I struggle at the wider end, I had a 10-22 on my 7D and although its a great lens it didnt get used much.

so what to add for about £600? of course the intention will be to add to the inventry in the future.
 
I'm in a very similar position about to push the 'buy' button on either the Mk3 or 70D (long story..there's a thread about it) so just like to say there's some good info here.

If I were to go down the Mk3 road I was thinking of adding either the 100mm f/2.8L macro (which you have) or the 135mm f/2L for lower light portraits, in addition to the brilliant 24-105mm f/4L which I used for a few months on my T3i and absolutely loved. I have the 70-200mm f/4 IS which I'd swap for the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L though - but not sure this would be fast enough for your needs.

In reality, I'd also like to say I'm very happy with and would likely use the 24-105 most of the time as this was usually wide enough for me on the APS-C, so on the Mk3 I see this being absolutely ample for my needs day to day. IQ is great. Also fits the bill budget wise! :thumbs:
 
It certainly wouldn't compete with the 100mm f/2.8 for isolation, but it would certainly get your wide-mid tele covered which is what I thought you were after? May have got the wrong idea.
I wouldn't worry about the sharpness either, as most Ls are pretty damn good sharpness wise, this one included. At least that's my opinion..my standards may differ slightly from others!:)
 
MatBin said:
I almost bought a 1.4, bit more expensive and from searching the net I found the Canon one wasnt as robust as I would have liked, I believe the Sigma is better but I've been put off Sigma from the past due to quality issues and onward compatability. I know the current and recent ones could be re-chipped (hopefully) but Canon do have a habit of messing up 3rd party lens makers.
Click to expand...

You can buy a dock for the newer lenses and update them that way.

Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM | C
Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM | A
Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 DG OS HSM | S
Sigma 30mm F1.4 DC HSM | A
Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM | A

The 35mm is a peach.
 
Last edited:
jivemonkey said:
It certainly wouldn't compete with the 100mm f/2.8 for isolation, but it would certainly get your wide-mid tele covered which is what I thought you were after? May have got the wrong idea.
I wouldn't worry about the sharpness either, as most Ls are pretty damn good sharpness wise, this one included. At least that's my opinion..my standards may differ slightly from others!:)
Click to expand...

You're quite right, I need to concentrate on the mid-tele range, its just a bit of a toss up about which way to attack it. I always had the 24-105 down as bit of a nothing special lens, maybe thats not the case. After spending a lot of money on a 5d MK 3 I dont want to comprimise the performace by having naff glass.
 
Looking at what you already have I would go for the 17/40 or if funds permit the 16/35.
The reason being you already have the 70/200 and the 100 macro and I think you might find , as I did that the extra 100mm the 70/200 has over the 24/105 is not really worth it.
I sold my 70/200 for that reason.
Having said all that ,yes the 24/105 is nothing special ( its nowhere near as sharp as my 24mm TS_E but not much is ) its just good all round!
 
Last edited:
Blasted said:
My concern with the 24-105 F4 is if it would be fast enough to give good subject isolation and the overall sharpness.
Click to expand...

Its a superb all round lens. I would say its more than fast enough on a 5dIII for general shots outdoors, for me anyway.

Now if your looking for something a little special for portraits, I would recommend the Canon 135mm f2.... Fast with sexy Bokeh.
 
Blasted said:
My concern with the 24-105 F4 is if it would be fast enough to give good subject isolation and the overall sharpness.
Click to expand...

I was concerned about this when I added a 5D3 to go with my 60D. I used a DOF calculator and compared the DOF of a 24-105 on FF with my 17-55 2.8 on the 60D.

At roughly similar FOVs the 24-105 at F4 gives roughly the same DOF as the 17-55 at F2.8.
 
Blasted said:
thanks,

what is your 5d lens line up?
Click to expand...

Sigma 15-30 (I think, rarely use it - not sure it works, wife uses it on her 50D)
24-70 2.8L
70-200 f4 L IS
400 5.6L
100-300 (old one, 3.5/4 - I think - doesnt get much use tbh)
100 2.8 macro
50 1.8 mk2
85 1.8
135 2.8 SF
1.4x
2.0x

Matt
 
Last edited:
Blasted said:
thanks,

what is your 5d lens line up?
Click to expand...

50mm 1.8 mk2 ( + ear defenders - it's loud!)
24-105 F4L
70-200 F2.8 L IS 2

I keep my 60D largely for my 8mm Samyang which is great fun! Thinking of getting the 14mm for the 5D
 
I have a 5D MKIII and the 24-105 f4 and the Sigma 50mm f1.4.

I use the 50mm for portraits. Yes you could use the 85mm, but I find with the 50mm I can use it for more situations, and if I want a full body shot, not have to move so far back.

If that helps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top