Best startup 5D setup?

So, I've been shopping for my first DSLR for a long time now. And I thought I

finally settled on the 40D with a good set of lenses, and that was it. But I

made a very crucial mistake...

 

I took the 50mm 1.4, and I tried it on the 40D. Then seconds later, I tried the

same lens on the 5D. And... I completely messed up all the research and work

I'd done for lenses. I've used a lot of 50s on a lot of film bodies (Canon 7,

Nikon FM2, Nikon F2, Leica SL, Leica R6, just to name my favorite few), and I,

for some reason, didn't mind the cropping on the 40D, until I tried it with the

5D.

 

So I've got to rethink all my lenses. But, unfortunately, I don't have an

infinite budget. With my 40D, my budget was about $3,000, and that was going to

get me the body with a grip and four lenses. But, uh... the 5D is going to

substitute a significant amount of those lenses (I may wait on the grip...),

and even more so if I wait for the successor (it's the 6fps that drew me to the

40D in the first place).

 

Now, I know I'm getting the 50mm 1.4 in any event (I'm also getting a Leica R

to EF adapter to put my 50mm Summicron on the camera; I've seen some beautiful

results). But because of my budget constraints, I think I need to slim it down

to just three lenses. So now I need a decent walkaround lens, and telephoto.

 

The 16-35 is way out of my budget, plus it's not very long, so that obvious

choice is out.

 

100-400 would be an upgrade once I stop bleeding money over this.

 

So, I was thinking I'd do the 24-70 f2.8, and the 70-300 IS.

 

Does anybody have any experience with either of these lenses on a 5D? And does

anybody dislike them? And if so, why? And which lenses of a similar price would

be better?

 

Thanks for listening to me ramble.

"I'm getting the 50mm 1.4 in any event (I'm also getting a Leica R to EF adapter to put my 50mm Summicron on the camera"

 

What? You said "my budget constraints" and you still want to get the Canon 50/1.4? I'm lost.

Heh. Well, the Canon 50mm 1.4 is only a couple hundred bucks. The USM is worth it to me. If the 1.2 (too expensive) and 1.8 (too cheap) were the only options, I'd stick with my Summicron.

Did you know there are two versions of the 70-300 IS? There is the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM DO IS and then there is the less expensive Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM IS. Which one are you interested in?

Oh, definitely non-DO. The small performance increase isn't worth double the price tag to me. Considering the lens will eventually be replaced with a 100-400, the DO just isn't worth the money to me.

Well, depending on the type of photos you like to take, I would recommend the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM IS (yes, I have used it). But, you will be lacking a wide angle prime and/or zoom.

Ah, a 70-300 user! Do you use it on a full frame, or on a cropped camera? If full frame, have you had any bad experiences with vignetting anywhere in its range?

 

Also, I figure 24mm is the widest I'd need. And if I do absolutely feel the need for a wider lens, I can just rent a 16-35 for a day. :-P

Notwithstanding the mass, you probably know that there is approximately a $1000 difference between the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM and Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM IS.

lol Yeah, that's for much, much further down the line, once I have money again to spend on glass. Any telephoto lens I get is going to be a temporary one, so I may as well not go nuts. And the reviews say the price per performance of the 70-300 IS is top notch.

 

Bearing in mind the mass of it... it is kind of intimidating to think about carrying it around. So I may not even get rid of the 70-300, just to have a lighter telephoto for less serious adventures. But that depends on how much I like the 70-300. If it's underwhelming, it can go on eBay when its time comes.

While the 5D is a fine camera - I use one - you can get the same angles of view and most

other lens features on the crop sensor 40D by getting lenses with shorter focal lengths.

 

Dan

I noticed the vignetting nearer the 300mm end with my friend's lens. The lens performs at it's best from 70-200mm. So, for the extra $500, I decided to buy the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM which is a better lens.

And I have used the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM IS on my 5D and Rebel XT.

Yeah, all the reviews I read of it were tested on a cropped-frame sensor, so of course vignetting wasn't too much of a worry for those.

 

But see, that's exactly the kind of advice I was looking for! I forgot about the 70-200 f4 IS. That lens would put my total purchase at just above $4,000, which means I've only added a grand, despite the much higher quality gear.

 

I'm going to ponder if the stabilization is worth it to me. Because I can get the non-stabilized for the same price as the 70-300.

 

That's fantastic! Thanks for mentioning that lens!

What do you want to make pictures of? And what kind of pictures? Prints? Web display?

 

Decide that and most equipment questions fall into place.

 

BK

And I forgot to add that the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM was once part of my tool kit. It was a very good lens but not as good as the revamped IS version. The IS version is sharper at f/4 than the non-IS version. But, if you are a monopod or tripod user, than save the $500 and get the non-IS version. When you hit the lottery jackpot, then get whatever you want.

@BK: Yeah, that's pretty much how I decided on the lenses I have so far. I know exactly how I'll use them. The 50mm 1.4 is a must, the 24-70 is slowly becoming a must, and... the telephoto lens is still up in the air.

 

@Peter: Yeah, after briefly reading reviews, it's clear the IS version is worlds better (despite the non-IS 2.8 being sharper than the stabilized 2.8). I just now need to figure out if 200mm is enough telephoto for me. I luckily work at a Wolf Camera, and have access to this lens. I might be able to borrow it for a day.

Lucky you! And I'm sure you buy at cost too, right? Read this review for fun!

 

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5255/lens-test-canon-70-300mm-f45-56-do-is-usm-af.html

:-) I get some handy discounts.

 

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/201-canon-ef-70-300mm-f45-56-usm-is-lab-test-report--review?start=1

 

I read that review on the DO IS, and bearing in mind the resolution charts, it seems like its advantage is really only its size. And I drive everywhere I go. So this doesn't have to travel on a plane. The 70-300 non-DO or the 70-200 f4 will easily fit in my back seat. Hell, the new 800mm would. lol

"I took the 50mm 1.4, and I tried it on the 40D. Then seconds later, I tried the same lens on the 5D"

 

That was a *big* mistake, as you know now. I held off getting that lens until I was getting a 5D, where it is the classic combo, I love it. I put it on a 1.6 crop body a few times: it is kind of depressing, looking down a long narrow tunnel at short telephoto.

 

For another lens, I'd strongly recommend the 24-70. It will do for almost *everything* on the wide end. It is by far the main lens on my 5D. I currently don't have anything wider. It's also good for near-macro.

 

I might get the Canon 16-35II down the road, not sure. It's very expensive, and I have most of that range covered. Still...

 

For telephoto I have the 70-200 f2.8 IS. I got this before the f4.0 IS version was offered. If I was making a decision today I might tip to the 4.0 version: it's 1/2 the weight, a fair bit cheaper and very sharp.

 

If you want more reach a lot of the time, say birds/small wildlife, the Canon 100-400 is a good, versatile range.

>> "I took the 50mm 1.4, and I tried it on the 40D. Then seconds later,

>> I tried the same lens on the 5D"

 

Same here. Except I wasn't even using a good lens, just my everyday 28-135!

 

Anyway, for long reach, you won't really be satisfied with 300mm (unless all you need it for is to shoot distant portraits). Don't waste your money on it. 400mm is the way to go.

 

1) 100-400 is not "that" expensive. You may find a used one for 1000-1100, just have patience and keep looking.

 

2) Get 400mm/5.6 prime. Fantastic lens. No IS, but depending on your need that may be ok (it would be for me).

 

3). Try 3rd-party options, such as Tokina 80-400 (no IS) or Sigma 80-400 OS (or any of the other tele-zoom from sigma).

If the 70~200/4L IS isn't long enough, consider adding the Extender 1.4x. Extenders usually don't work very well with zooms, but this combination seems to be an exception - performance is excellent, and of course the lens on its own is absolutely stunning.

 

Since you are planning to have a fast 50mm prime (one way or another!), you might consider the 24~105 rather than the 24~70. For me, the 24~105 range is almost ideal for a single lens on the 5D (incidentally, there's no Canon equivalent for 1.6-factor), and I prefer to use the f/4 zooms with the alternative of really fast primes like the 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and 135/2L for when I need them, rather than use the f/2.8 zooms.

The short version a good setup 17-40F4, 50F1.4, 70-200F4 (no IS). The other version 24-105F4IS, 100-400LIS, with your Summicron. I have option one, the 70-200F4 is a little on the short side for sports, especially LAX.

I think there is a danger of contemplating the navel here. I would recommend you go with

either of Gerry's suggestions. I have his first proposed set-up. You will not be disappointed.

Read the reviews for these lenses; they are all tops. You can always get the Canon converter

for the 70-200 (all be it at the loss of up to a couple of stops) if you really feel you need the

extra length.

I was in the same boat when i got my 5d, picked up a 50mm and got a 24-28 sigma f2.8 for

day to day stuff, its a good lens and good price too.

 

24-70mm on a ff is a great range, really covers alot

I am waiting for the 5D successor personally. Having used a 5D for the past year with all

of the F2.8L zooms, it was painful not to jump in and buy the 5D given the pricing, but it

is showing its age a bit with lack of live view and slow FPS etc.

 

The 24-70 f2.8 is a the best walking around zoom you can get. If I had to have one lens

on a full frame, it is state of the art. But in the long run, it is neither a dramatic wide or a

telephoto so becomes a bit redundant if you progress down the canon L glass path (the

Fluorite brick road?). Not a bad crowd/street lens though, if you like

photojournalist/realist pictures.

 

The 17-40 and 70-200 f4 lenses are a great pair, but will leave you wanting something

more indoors.

 

The f2.8 16-35 and the 70-200 IS are hands down the best zooms in the canon system,

especially the 70-200. Both are pricey, but are worth the money you pay for them. And it

is no coincidence that there is a 50mm shaped gap between the zooms.

 

The image quality of the f4 L lenses is not substantially less than the f2.8 versions, but the

wider aperture makes the lens a lot more versatile. The 70-200 f2.8 is a telephoto

portraiture lens!

 

As mentioned, 200 is a little short for sports, but the 1.4x teleconverter works really well

with the 70-200 and the IS claws back the stop that you lose.

 

Going from 70 to a long telephoto zoom is a bit of a stretch. If you really need the

sports/wildlife capability, then the 100-400 or a fixed focal length tele are a better bet.

 

My current system is:

40D, 28/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5

 

I am saving for:

5D successor

70-200 f2.8 L

16-35 f2.8 L in that order