Best Lens For Canon 5d Mark 2

<p>Hey folks,<br>

I have compiled a list of lenses that I would like to buy and can only afford 3 at the moment. What's your top 3 of these choices? Thanks a bunch!<br>

70-200mm f2.8 IS<br />24-70mm f2.8<br />24-105 L<br />16-35 mm 2.8 IS<br />100mm f2.8 <br />17-40 F4 <br />35mm f/1.4L <br />85mm 1.2 <br />EF 50mm f/1.2L</p>

<p>the answer of course depends on your shooting style and what you are shooting as many folks will (I am sure) point out. But to answer your question... I have most of these and by far I use the 16-35mm lens more than any other. For the other two I suppose I would go with the 85 and 50mm primes for portrait work.</p>

<p>If you don't know the answer to your own question then you don't need a 5D2.</p>

<p>Maybe a hint as to what you intend to photograph?</p>

<p>Well, Since we don't know what you are going to be photographing I'll take a stab at this from this angle.</p>

<p>24 - 105 L<br>

70 - 200mm F2.8 IS<br>

85mm 1.2 for portraits.</p>

<p>How is that?</p>

 

<p>I would take a close look at the following lens. If you are thinking about doing landscapes, then add or change one lens to a wide angle lens. <br>

Canon 85 1.8<br>

Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS<br>

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM<br>

Canon 16-35 mm 2.8 IS<br>

Good Luck! </p>

<p> </p>

'Best' is subjective. For instance, the 24-105 f/4L IS is not the sharpest lens that Canon makes, and it has a bit of distortion that requires

correction in post processing. However, it's still a very solid performer that covers an extremely useful zoom range on a full frame

camera, and the IS is superb. Would this very popular lens fit your needs? Only you can decide that. I wouldn't use it for video due to

the distortion issues, but for still photography I find it very useful.

<p>Which camera with which lens do you own now? Use your existing photos to determine which focal lengths matter to you, and then pick the best lens in that range. What others use and what is best to others, may be useless to you. And what are generally considered the "best lenses" (much what your list looks like), may be a set of lenses that does not help you get the photos you want. For example, do consider that a 70-200 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8 are quite large and heavy. The 85 f/1.2 and 50 f/1.2 are very expensive speciality lenses - the type of lens of which you know you need it, without asking a forum. Most people do not need to have a f/4 and f/2.8 zoom covering the same lengths... so you need to rationale your needs.</p>

<p>Maybe I am all wrong, but it starts you are starting out, and getting the "best gear", spending a load of cash. I'd suggest to start with a lot less, take courses, read books and practise a great deal. In due time, you will find out which gear you really do need, what works for you and what gets you the photos you need. You will probably find you're missing a flash and a tripod on your shopping list.<br>

To get started, get a 24-105 to get started, and nothing else. Shoot loads of photos, and you'll find what your next purchase needs to be.</p>

<p>Your Choices<br />70-200mm f2.8 IS =====>check(very expen$ive, extremely good)<br />24-70mm f2.8 ======>check(very Heavy, very good) <br />16-35 mm 2.8 IS ======>check (this and the preceding 2 lenses is all you will need) <br />24-105 L =======> *check this can be your all around lens but lacks real wide angle. <br />100mm f2.8 ======>this can definately wait unless you get the macro version<br />17-40 F4=======>don't need this since you already have the 16-35 <br />35mm f/1.4L =======>this can definately wait(very expen$ive) <br>

85mm 1.2 ========>this can wait , get the 85mm f1.8, it's lighter, 1/3 the price and very good <br />EF 50mm f/1.2L ======>this can wait , get the 50mm f1.4 it's lighter, 1/3 the price and very good</p>

There's no way a "best lens" can be suggested knowing nothing at all about what you like to shoot, how

close you want to get, the conditions you shoot in, and how your images will be rendered.

<p>Sorry people, I was in a hurry when I posted this. I am shooting portrait/wedding and landscapes as well. I am not BUYING the 5dmk2, I was passed down this camera (yes lucky indeed).</p>

<p>Since opinions about "best" lenses are so very personal and depend so much one what and how you shoot along with what other lenses you own...</p>

<p>... I recommend starting with a single lens at first, making a lot of photographs, identifying what you need to the additional lenses to accomplish for you, and then acquiring lenses that meet those requirements later on.</p>

<p>Your "landscape and weddings" indication frankly doesn't help a lot as a) the most important functional features of lenses for these two endeavors tend to be quite different, and b) among the long list of lenses you provide there are a bunch of different sets of lenses that might make sense for various photographers.</p>

<p>Oddly, among the primes, you have included some very expensive and specialized L primes (excellent lenses, but very costly and not necessarily going to produce better results) and left out a number of excellent non-L prime options.</p>

<p>In general, I would suggest that if you aren't sure yourself what you prefer (and this is a problem!) that you start with a single zoom and that you then build a kit out from there than initially includes only zooms.</p>

<p>You might want to think about a wide prime. The 24mm f/1.4 is a honey, although the newest version is very, very expensive--and i can't afford it. I used to have the older version, and it did well stopped down a bit.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>If you're not sure, just get the standard kit zoom--24-105L--and go from there.</p>

<p>First wedding priorities = 2 cameras, 2 flashes.</p>

<p>Second priorities = whatever lenses you are most comfortable with. For me that has been 35L and 85L, but a standard f/2.8 zoom works for others. 70-200 f/2.8 IS is nice to have for distant subjects during ceremonies. Nothing else is really necessary IMO, just nice to have...</p>

<p>I started out with a 40D, and had a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 and the Canon 70-200 f4 IS. That covered a lot of my needs for both landscape and portrait work. Since going to my 5D MK I, I got rid of the Sigma, and added:<br>

Canon 17-40L<br>

Canon 100 2.8 macro USM<br>

Canon 50 1.8 MK I<br>

Canon 85 1.8<br>

I tend to use the 17-40 mainly for landscapes now. I use the primes and the 70-200 for portrait work. I know the 85 may seem a little redundant since that focal range is covered with the 70-200, but I like being able to shoot very wide open with the 85 and the 50 prime, as well as those 2 lenses being good in low light without a flash (although I use a flash way more now on and off camera). I think Dan and some of the other people here have given you good advice. Get something like the 24-104 or 24-70, and look at what focal lengths you use the most. I know some people who use the 24-70 extensively without primes because they figure 2.8 is fast enough. It all comes down to personal shooting style and the results wanted. Good luck, and lucky you for getting a MK II given to you! I wish! : )</p>

<p>Does Canon even make a 16-35 mm 2.8 with IS? I just looked at their site and also at B&H and could not find one. They do have one without "IS" though!</p>

<p>For weddings I'd want the 24-70/2.8 L and the 85/1.2 L (or 135/2 L). For portraits either the 85/1.2 L or 135/2 L.</p>

<p>I am not sure which 70-200/2.8 you are considering but I highly recommend the non-IS lens at less than half the price of the IS II. You could also consider a used 70-200/2.8 IS original at a bit more than the new non-IS one. One of these would make a good all purpose landscape/sports/wildlife lens.</p>

<p>The 16-35/2.8 L is the best introduction to landscapes, but way down the road if you develop a real interest and keen ability the 17 TS-E is incredible.</p>

<p>So, while I don't like ovelap in lenses, for your needs I'd consider the 16-35/2.8 L (no IS on this lens), 24-70/2.8 L, and 70-200/2.8 L. Once you use the 70-200/2.8 L for awhile you can determine if you would prefer the 85/1.2 L or 135/2 L for weddings/portraits.</p>

<p>Another out-of-the-box solution for landscapes would be to replace the 16-35/2.8 L with a Nikon 14-24/2.8 and Nikon G to Canon EOS adapter. You don't need or really want autofocus for landscapes anyway, but doing tripod mounted landscapes with stopped down metering does become a methodical and thoughful process that can be rewarding in itself. </p>

17-40/4L

50/1.2L

100/2.8L IS Macro

 

The 17-40 is tough, compact and has a nice ultra wide to wide normal range. I've heard some complaints about soft

corners but I'm pretty happy with mine.

 

50L a very nice 50 if you like to shoot (near) wide open. If you'll use f4 and up the 50/1.4 is as good or better.

 

100L macro does everything I want in a medium sized black package.

 

For all the other lenses a case could be made. But you asked for a set of three and this is mine.

 

M.

<p>first would be a set for weddings, then a second set for landscapes, and finding an intersection<br /> probably 24-70mm for weddings, and 16-35mm (better wider open) as well<br /> for landscapes, 17-40mm for f/11 shooting (lens better stopped down), and some 70-200mm version<br /> quite different sets without a common lens, using a 2 lens choice<br /> I wouldn't recommend 24-105mm nor a 50mm f/1.2 or 85mm f/1.2 for weddings, and when picking just 3 lenses between weddings and landscapes. But some people could do with just that 1 lens for.... everything. Not me.<br>

17-40mm is tough until it drops from 3 feet. I dropped it and 24-70mm. 17-40mm cracked the casing by the mount all the way through. 24-70mm shattered the filter, but no damage to the lens.<br>

17-40mm is nice because it's compact and great at f/11 to f/16. It starts out at f/4 and not best wide open so limiting for low light, where 16-35mm would be better [but 2.5 times the cost so better when used a lot once purchased..... such as for weddings, low light...... or if it's the heaviest lens in a 3 lens setup that could be ok too].</p>

<p>"Does Canon even make a 16-35 mm 2.8 with IS?" Nope. And they don't (yet) make an IS version of the 24-70 either.</p>

<p>More evidence that our OP might be well served by not rushing to buy a bunch of lenses all at once?</p>

The f/2.8 zooms would be great for weddings but heavy for hiking of any distance. The f/4 zooms are much easier to

carry but might limit you somewhat in dark churches. If I were shooting a wedding with primes, the 35 1.4L and the 100

2.8L macro would be a very flexible combo, especially with a 70-200 of some variety for extra reach.

 

My two favorite lenses for landscape photography are the 70-200 f/4L IS and the TS-E 24 f/3.5L II. If Canon made a

35mm tilt shift lens, that would be at the top of my wish list. I'll buy the 45 if and when Canon upgrades it to the flexible

design used by the 17 and the 24 II.

<p>Anybody asking about over $13,000 worth of lenses should know what they need! Get the 24-105 and use it for two months, see what else you need and go from there.</p>

<p>I agree with Scott. You are throwing out some really high end lenses into that list. Don't dump a bunch of money on 3 >$2k lenses without knowing what you need. In fact, if you are relatively new to all of this, get one of Canon's non-L zooms to learn the camera for a month or so, then rent the whole lot of lenses for a week and see what you like.</p>

<p>35 and 85, and save the rest of your money to make some prints</p>