What's the best lens to choose for zoom, telephoto and wide angle?

<p>Hi, I live in New York City and have an interest photographing objects (everything is up for grabs) that are up close, far away, moving, landscape, ball games, and shots of people in various neighborhoods. Of course, I will be using it while travelling anywhere I go like Morocco. I'm planning on purchasing a Canon Mark II and was wondering about the lenses that could help me capture my desired images. Since the Mark II is already expensive for me can anyone recommend a lens that combines zoom with telephoto or is that not a reality? If those are sold separately, then what are good choices for the three lenses I could use that are below $800.<br />Thanks!</p>

<p>Two great lenses in your price range are the Tamron 28-75mm and the Tamron 70-300mm. If your camera is full frame which the mark II seems to imply these two lenses will give you quality coverage from 28mm wide angle up through 300mm telephoto with the two lenses together costing less than $1000. Good luck!</p>

<p>If you can get the 5D MK II kit, this one comes with the 24-105 at a cost of around $2,699.00 for the kit and $2,079.00 for the body only, the lens itself is about $1,149.00. That kit would be a good saving. The 24-105 is a good walk around lens for a Full Frame body and this is one of my preferred lens for that type of photography when I go out and need a light kit.</p>

<p>Thanks Gil. I looked up the Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD Lens and it said it was for Nikon. Will it fit a Canon camera?</p>

<p>Thanks Daniel for your help!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I looked up the Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD Lens and it said it was for Nikon. Will it fit a Canon camera?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The one with a Nikon mount will not, but the one with the Canon mount will. Tamron makes that lens for Canon, Nikon and Sony mounts. I have one for my 7D, though it doesn't see much use lately.</p>

<p>If you want a one lens solution for your 5D2, Tamron offers a 28-300, as well, Canon offers a 28-300L w/ better IQ, but of considerable size (plus, it's glaringly white - and will stand out in Moroccan streets)</p>

<p>Another recommendation for the really super EF 24-105mm IS. It's even an L lens (for luxus?). It's a big bargain in the kit with the camera body. I also think the mark ii is a very good option if you don't need the more sophisticated, but much more expensive, mark iii.</p>

<p>Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina - the big three of the independent lens makers, make versions in most of the major lens mounts. Just be sure that you get the one in the mount you need. </p>

<p>Also remember that Canon "digital only" lenses (EF-S) will not mount on a 5D body. The independent 'digital only' lenses will mount, but they produce image fields that are too small for the "full frame" sensor on the 5D models.</p>

<p>All of the information has been so helpful to me. Thank you so much for the responses!</p>

<p>Carolynn, I should mention to you that you're using the word "zoom" in a strange manner that suggests you might not know its real meaning. (Many people misuse this term.) I only mention this because understanding the meaning of the term might help you in understanding discussions of these lenses. A "zoom" lens is simply a lens with adjustable focal length. There are wide angle zooms, normal zooms, telephoto zooms, etc. (for example the 24mm-105mm f/4 L IS). In contrast, a "prime" lens is simply a lens with a single focal length (for example the 50mm f/1.4).</p>

<p>I, too, would recommend the 24-105 as a "normal" zoom for your 5D MkII. That would fit within the $800 budget if you get it as a kit lens with the 5DII (a very good bargain). For a telephoto zoom, consider the 70-200 f/4 L. The non-IS version is (or at least was) in your price range. Either that, or consider the 70-300 IS non-L lens. It's well within budget and a pretty good lens -- quite a bargain.</p>

<p>If your <em>combined</em> lens budget is less than 800, I would suggest the 28-135 IS and the 70-300 IS (non-L version). That said, it would really be a pity not to put a better normal zoom lens on a 5DII.</p>

<p>I agree with everyone that has recommended getting the camera with the 24-105 lens as a kit as it is a great bargain. The lens is terrific. You didn't say how far out you wanted to zoom out to, but if you want to zoom out to say 200mm then an option would be to get a 2x teleconverter and use it with the 24-105mm lens to get it to become a 48-210mm lens. If you want to go out to say 300mm then I would add the 70-300mm IS lens (ther non L version as it is much cheaper and of decent quality).</p>

<p>I have owned the 5D MkII since 2008 and have a MkIII coming in this week. I'll also highly recommend the 24-105mm as a "kit" lens and then supplement that with the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS (refurbished or used). That's a complete kit, unless you develop some "special need."</p>

<p>I'll probably upset a few people here but in my opinion after the 2 months use of The 24-105 F4 is its not that great a lens. It does the job but to be quite honest its distortion at 24 mm, vignetting wide open and bokeh are i disappointing and not really worthy of the L series tag or its price. Its very sharp and well made and the IS works well. Its a good solution for travel and video.<br /> The 70-200 F4 IS (and non IS) is an excellent lens with extremely good sharpness, no distortion or noticeable vignetting. its a joy to use and worth the money.<br /> You would get far better value for money using a 60d with the 70-200 F4 IS and getting something like a Sigma 17-70 F2.8 which is a surprisingly good lens with low distortion and excellent bokeh (I got great results with Nikon D300S).</p>

<p>If you use Digital Photo Professional (free with Canon cameras) and its DLO (digital lens optimization) program, I suspect that you'll be very pleased with the performance of the 24-105mm at its wide end. Don't use wide to medium zooms without DLO or the similar program features available with Lightroom and DxO Optics Pro and others.</p>

<p>With a 70-200mm I'd really recommend getting IS, if you can afford it. At its long end, particularly with a 1.4x TC attached, you'll find the IS very handy in lots of lighting situations. Most users need to be shooting at 1/300-sec. and shorter to hand hold that lens at its long end.</p>

<p>Which makes me think of one of the big advantages of the 5D MkII, its excellent high-ISO performance. Don't hestitate to turn the ISO up to 1,600 3,200 and even 6,400. It's stellar in this regard. You'll see the noise, but it's easily managed.</p>

<p>I do endorse David Stephens view on the Canon 70-200 F4 I am impresed by the results with the new 1.4x extender. The cost of both will be in the region of $1600 double the posters budget ans 2x the cost of the 70-300 <br>

I may be old fashioned but i don't want to have to use software to compensate for deficiencies in lens design. I'm not impressed at all with Canons Digital Photo Professional; for one thing its another addition to my workflow. LR3 and LR4 does a good jop with all lenses;not just Canon.<br>

The 24-105 just does not compare with Sigmas 12-24 Verson2. At 24mm it has no vignetting, no significant distortion until 15mm and even then only becomes noticeable at 12mm. But the Sigma is not a cheap lens, costing almost as much as the 24-105. <br>

If you do want to shoot in very low light then a 5D2 or 3 is great; but even the 60D or 7D will work OK up to 3200 ISO. The 5d2 has a stop more low light performance; but otherwise a 7 D or 60D would be better for wild life / sport due to the crop factor and higher speed and focusing.</p>

 

<p>Regarding Digital Lens Optimization, whether with DPP, LR or DxO, I think that many of us are very happy with the results of digital correction, particularly for lens errors such as vignetting, chromatic aberration, barrel distortion, etc. I understand Dave Perkes' position that he wants to start with as sharp and image as possible. I prefer the versatility of zooms, combined with highly effective automatic software to render excellent results.</p>

<p>I don't use DPP and DLO because it's slow and clunky; however, its results can be stunning, based on the testing that I've done, comparing it to DxO. I prefer the smooth, intuitive interface of DxO Optics Pro, but DPP is an outstanding solution for those that can't or don't want to invest in an additional software. BTW, I understand that LR has lens correction modules. You have to load them in after LR has been installed and many people fail to take this step. I highly recommend that all LR users at least give it a try.</p>

<p>I did not like the user experience of DPP either</p>

<blockquote>

<p>BTW, I understand that LR has lens correction modules. You have to load them in after LR has been installed and many people fail to take this step. I highly recommend that all LR users at least give it a try.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I did not have to do much to load the profiles in LR. You just use the drop down menu in LR and select any new lens you use. after that its pretty well automatic once you have checked the "enable profile correction" box for the images you want to correct. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'll probably upset a few people here but in my opinion after the 2 months use of The 24-105 F4 is its not that great a lens. It does the job but to be quite honest its distortion at 24 mm, vignetting wide open and bokeh are i disappointing and not really worthy of the L series tag or its price. Its very sharp and well made and the IS works well. Its a good solution for travel and video.</p>

<p><br />The 70-200 F4 IS (and non IS) is an excellent lens with extremely good sharpness, no distortion or noticeable vignetting. its a joy to use and worth the money.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is also my experience with these two lenses. The 24-105 is decent but not exceptional in good light and very mediocre in lower light, and has atrocious bokeh. The 70-200/4 IS shines in any and all conditions I've put it through (though there are rare occassions when I wish it were an f/2.8). I got rid of my copy of the 24-105, but will never part with my 70-200.</p>

<p>If I were you, Kimberly, I'd get a 70-200/4 L IS and a couple of non-L primes such as the 85/1.8, 50/1.4, 40/2.8, or 35/2, depending on which focal lengths you prefer.</p>