A move to the 5d Mk II

So i finally did it, I placed my pre-order for the new Canon 5d Mk II body. I have been dedicated to film since i first learned

photography, and while i have played with friends digital cameras I had yet to jump into the market. I still plan to shoot my old canon f-1

and a-1 from time to time as well as my good friend the Mamiya RB67 which i have used for so long for my artwork. I have been

scanning film for a while and the process really has lost me some jobs due to the turn around time expected nowadays.

Regardless, I am posting this in hopes that i could get some advice on the lenses i will buy to begin with. My budget demands that i

stay around $6000 total including the Mk II. I have been shooting on my Mamiya for so long that my knowledge and upkeep on the new

35mm lens technology is a bit rusty. I have been doing some research, and narrowed down some of the lens possibilities, but I have

bowed to the knowledge of the collective experience and intellect of this board before and it is has rarely led me astray.

That being said, I will tell you the types of photo's i tend to shoot as well as my desires to a certain degree. I tend to shoot a lot of

flat things (part of my job is 2d art-reproduction), walls, paintings, the ground, architectural elements. Often very flat things. I do however

shoot some portraits and an occasional sporting event. I utilize macro photography very often with these flat subjects, often zooming

very far in. I tend to shoot very wide subjects as well (long horizontal walls of buildings), so an ultra-wide or fisheye with a program like

DxO could do the trick. Since i began shooting I tended to sue the tripod for every shot, so i am used to it being part of my process.

This being said, I still like to shoot into the dusk and in the morning so speed of the lens still is an issue to some degree.

My primary 35mm setup used to be: a 50mm 1.2, 100mm Macro, 16mm wide (not fisheye). I have every Mamiya SEKOR RB67

compatible lens for my Mamiya setup. I had originally toyed with the idea of buying the Mamiya ZD back and adapter for the RB, but the

HD video and portability factor of the Mk II combined with the similar IQ led me to the pre-order. I had long liked the 5D Mk I, but wanted

to seethe 2nd version before i jumped in. And now I am here.

 

Here are the lenses I have been considering with the limited research i have done. (I can't buy all of them obviously..6K limit...but some

combination to give me a quality kit that i can feel comfortable going out and shooting with)

 

Canon:

16-35mm L

14mm L II

15mm fisheye

17-40mm L

24-105mm L (comes with the kit for 3499, so is tempting)

100 Macro

180mm L Macro

85mm 1.2 L I and II

70-200mm IS 2.8 or 4

70-300mm (not DO IS)

100-400mm L

 

 

Sigma:

50mm Macro

 

Tamron:

SP90 Macro

 

 

Any help from this great community would be so helpful for me. I hope to give back with my own experiences as i tread more into this

new part of my work. Thank you all in advance.

 

aaron

Get the 24-105 as part of the kit ( cant go wrong ) and ad the 70-200 2.8 with maybe a prime 50 and your set for anything.

My gut reaction is definitely the 100mm macro or perhaps the 180mm if you need more working distance.

 

You might consider the 24mm Tilt-Shift for some of those requirements. Otherwise I would lean towards the 24-105. Pay attention to close-focusing limits of the zooms and make sure you can get as close as you need to the surfaces you intend to photograph.

 

Until you decide you really need extra shallow DOF, the 100mm could double for portraits.

 

For the tele it depends on what sports and how close... If you are pretty close then the 70-200 will work very nicely and possibly work for some portraiture as well (again until you need/want that very shallow DOF from a fast prime). If the high ISO noise is as well controlled as the previews suggest, then the 100-400 would be tempting for the extra reach. However if you had purchased some of the lenses I already mentioned you might be running up against your budget, and you might need to go with a lower cost tele zoom.

My full frame kit consists of (soon to be 5D Mark II), 24-105mm IS, 17-40mm, 70-200mm IS 4.0, 35mm 2.0, 50mm 2.5 macro and 85mm 1.8 (or 100mm 2.0). To buy this kit today with rebates in place comes in just under $6k. Not too heavy, fits in a reasonably small bag, goes anywhere and does just about anything I need to do. These are all very good lenses for their purpose. Unless you have some special needs this kit should serve you very well for as long as you need. Good luck!

Nothing about the 24-105 L appeals to me -- too many compromises in its zoom ratio plus it's slow.

 

Unless you already KNOW you need the very pricey 85 1.2 I'd suggest the 85 1.8 instead.

 

The 16-35 2.8L is *perfection* so that lens is a keeper on your list. Get the non-IS 70-200 2.8L if you need that range.

IMHO - for your stated purpose - the 24-105 f/4L, 70-200 f/4L, and tilt/shift 24 f/3.5L (or 45 f/2.8) would serve you well, and come in

under budget. I use all of these lenses on a 5D and 1D3, and they all provide very high IQ. Unless you need to freeze motion, the

70-200 f/4 is 1/2 the weight and considerably smaller than the f/2.8 version, and is optically equal. You could also add a 24mm

extension tube, which can be used on both the 24-105 and 70-200 for macro work. Welcome to digital...

I would stay away from the 70-300 the MkII will be pretty demanding on your lens's, 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 2.8 are great (I have them)as are most you listed, I would say buy the basics and see what you need from there. The 16-35 II is a little better than the 17-40 but twice the cost and a larger filter size. If your doing any hand holding the IS is worth it. You might also consider the 300 f4, nice and sharp at a reasonable price. Ross

Very wide: Nikon 14-24/2.8 + adapter. You lose AF but it's 500$ cheaper than the 14/2.8 II. You said that max aperture is important but allow me to question that a bit. In UWA you seldom use it wide open so the Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 will save you several hundreds of dollars, and will be significantly wider. Dusk and morning? Well, that's what tripods are for.... :-)

 

Flat objects and macro: 100/2.8 or Sigma 150/2.8. The 180/3.5 L is too expensive for your budget

 

Sports and portraits: 70-200/2.8 IS. Nothing else fits here so well.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

My view is if not selling MF why not continue to use the lenses,(should be adapters for them AFAIK) you`ll have LV to focus with, flat surfaces and art require flat field lenses like macro, I presume you use an art reproduction bed and lighting, To keep walls in perspective TS 24 & 45 maybe a better option than PS or climbing ladders to be even. I do it this way as my tripod extends to 9 feet bit of a pain tho. juz my 02c

As Tommy says, with the 24-105 you cannot go wrong. A prime for low light (depending on your priorities: 50 1.4, or

85 1.8 or 28 1.8). And for macro, the 100 mm Canon (or the 50 with extension tubes, no much difference for macro,

but you lose the other 100 mm 2.8 posibilities).

 

Do not forget to disable the 24-105 IS when you don't need it. You get sharper pictures:

 

Aaron:

 

I've been surprised by how often I use the 24-105/4 IS instead of my primes. I would definitely go with

the kit that includes this.

 

Beyond that, what's your current film kit? If you need a fast lens solution, I also like the 35/1.4.

 

For a telephoto, I really like the 300/4 IS. It's small enough to carry around for extended periods, but

still delivers great quality. Still very good using the 1.4x extender.

 

Those three lenses cover 95% of what I shoot. I would stay away from the 50/1.4. Eventually, it will

become a paperweight when the autofocus mechanism fails. Not a question of if. A question of when.

The 85/1.8 is nice and relatively inexpensive, and I used it a lot before getting the the 24-105. The 135/2

is fantastic, but it's a very specialized lens.

 

I'm also surprised that I'm happy with the macro quality of the 300/4 + 500D closeup filter + 1.4x

extender.

 

Use all of these with 5D. I'd start with the 24-105 and then add more as you have the need. With the

increased quality in higher ISOs, you may find yourself not needing a lens as fast at the 35/1.4.

 

 

Eric

If I could only have one lens, it would be the EF 24-105 L IS. This is the single most useful lens I own and it stays on my 5D probably 90-95% of the time. The IQ is absolutely awesome, and the focal range easily covers 90+% of my photography.

 

If I could only have two lenses, then the second one would be a 50mm prime. I have the EF 50 /1.4, but from what I have read the new Sigma 50mm is slightly better, but also slightly more expensive.

 

If I could only have three lenses, then the third would be one of the 70-200 L ISs. I own both the F/2.8 and F/4, and if I had to choose between them I would pick the F/2.8. But, it would be a difficult choice. Technically speaking, I think the F/4 may be slightly sharper, but the difference is very minor. The F/2.8 is better in low light and gives you better control over DOF, which to my taste means better IQ for certain shots. It also works with both 1.4x and 2.0x TCs and retains auto-focus, so it can double as a fairly long telephoto better than the F/4. I have used the F2.8 with both 1.4x and 2.0x TCs and I thought the results were very acceptable, although the images were softer with both TCs and quite noticably softer with the 2.0x. The disadvantages of the F/2.8 is it is substantially more expensive, and much heavier and bulkier. It works well if you will be shooting with it for a couple of hours, but if you will be lugging it around all day doing the tourist thing or hiking in the woods, then the F/4 version is much more desirable.

 

I don't do much macro photography, so I can't comment on macro lenses.

Thanks for all the advice everyone. I had never even thought of a TS lens and it's weird because i used to own one for my FD setup

before i traded it in for the ultrawide. It was just too difficult to use on the fly, but with the digital sooting technique i think i could utilize it

much better. I was looking at the 90mm TS lens and it gets great reviews for optical quality. Anyone have any hands on with it?

 

I am still a little concerned over the wide angle fix that I have (and i do love my ultrawide shots)

 

I am still teetering back and forth on a few lens. This is so tough!

 

Aaron