Upgrading to a 5D - lens advice please

[helenrosemier]

Dear all,

 

I would love some upgrade advice please. I am currently using a Rebel XT and have the following

lenses:

 

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4

 

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

 

 

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5/4.5

 

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG MACRO

 

I am now planning to buy a 5D. Obviously my EF-S wide angle will not work with that so I am

considering the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L USM. I would appreciate any thoughts on this change to my kit

and wondered if the Canon 17-40 f/4 L USM is worth a look instead (half the price ..etc)? Also does

anyone have a Sigma 24-70 with a 5D? I am wondering if it is a good combination or not?

 

Any thoughts and guidance would be greatly appreciated!

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Helen

[freelance]

Before buying anything I would try the 5D with the lenses you have. A few days ago, I bought a 16-35 and althogh the lens is OK it is not was I expected. I wanted a wide lens for events and now I am using more the 24-105 with the 5D.

 

Read:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00PRaZ

[freelance]

I would consider the 17-40 in case you needed a wider angle

[correct_exposure]

Are you keeping the Rebel?

 

I have the 5D with the 50 and DO. I went with 15 fisheye b/c I can defish it to 12mm instead of the wide zooms. I use DxO Optics Pro with vivid and sharp pre-set and it defishes it perfectly. Results are simply excellent. Try demo at dxo.com. It works with rebel as well.

 

Just some suggestions..

[freelance]

The 15 mm is an excellent lens and very sharp. You can see pictures with this lens in my link. Better than the 16-35. Anyway, I use it only from time to time. If you have to defish a lot of pictures, it is a lot of work. And you only can shoot at 15 mm (that is similar to 12 mm before defishing).

[helenrosemier]

thanks for the thoughts so far - yes am planning to keep my Rebel

[William Michael]

> I am considering the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L USM [. . . ] yes am planning to keep my Rebel <

 

Then the questions IMO, are simple:

 

1. Do you require: FL 16mm faster than F3.5: FL 24mm faster than F4.0; FL 28mm to FL 35mm faster than F4.5?

 

3. Do you require the low light (high ISO) capacity of the 5D from FL 16mm to 35mm?

 

[The above reference 135 format Focal Lengths i.e. `full frame` or 5D]

 

 

***

 

> Sigma 24-70 with a 5D? <

 

Regarding FL coverage of your lenses only, considering your have 70 to 300; if you buy either the EF17 to 40 or the EF16 to 35 AND a 5D those two purchases makes any 24 to 70 lens virtually superfluous.

 

If you bought the 16 to 35: the Sigma 24 to 70 is also virtually superfluous regarding speed, too: also better IQ could be argued in favour of the 16 to 35.

 

I have commented in a few threads and explained this theory of dual format bodies and subsequent requirement for only TWO zoom lenses (16 to 35 and 70 to 200), and thus the superfluous nature of the 24 to 70.

 

Most recently another comment is here, (May 15, 2008; 01:21 a.m.):

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00PSSr

 

***

 

Personal opinion: I would buy the EF16mm to 35mmF2.8L MkII USM, and sell the EF-S 10mm to 22mm F3.5 to F4.5.

 

There a many reasons why I have this opinion but it is rooted in the fact that: Lens speed is the sole defining factor which makes a shot `possible` or `impossible` in any given shooting scenario, if the exposure parameters are at the limit.

 

WW

[g dan mitchell]

"I am considering the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L USM. I would appreciate any thoughts on

this change to my kit and wondered if the Canon 17-40 f/4 L USM is worth a look

instead"

 

The answer to this part of your question depends on what/how you shoot. The 16-35

is certainly a fine lens, but its primary advantage over the 17-40 is low light

shooting, e.g. at f/2.8 and f/4. If that is your major thing, then the 16-35 could be the

lens for you.

 

On the other hand, the 17-40 performs as well as (or marginally and probably not

significantly better than) the 16-35 for landscape and other work typically done at

smaller apertures. Keep in mind that you'll be able to shoot your lenses at nearly two

stops smaller apertures without diffractions blur on the FF 5D. At apertures like f/11

or f/16 the 7-40 is excellent.

 

Dan

[Stock-Photos]

If you're into portraits, a 2.8 zoom will give better background blur than an F4 lens.

[sattler123]

I just recently compared the 16-35 to my 17-40. I shoot mostly landscapes and speed is not of the highest priority (I have fast primes for low-light shots). My conclusion was that for my style of photography the 16-35 did not offer any advantage over the 17-40 - it was a toss-up, so I kept the 17-40 and sent the 16-35 back to Amazon.

Your needs might be different - if I were a wedding photographer or took lot of portraits, I would have kept the faster lens.

My line-up for the 5D is: 17-40, 24-105, 100-400, 12-24 Sigma, 15mm fisheye, 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8 and soon the 28 1.8 plus the 500 f4 for birding. Mostly I use the 17-40 and 24-105.

[mark u]

Analyse your own shots: how much use have you made of 10-14mm on your 10-22? 15mm and up is covered by your 24-70 on full frame. You might even consider wide primes for the 5D as an alternative to Canon's zooms:

 

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/

 

You might also wish to bear in mind that you may want a longer fast prime as a portrait lens - e.g. an 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2, or perhaps a 90-100mm f/2.8 macro. And remember that you may want something longer for the full frame body too - there is a big difference between 300mm on a crop body and full frame.

[hunghang]

Just as William W mentioned, I'd suggest that you sell your sigma 24-70, save money by not buying another "decent" 24-70 replacement, and put it towards either a 17-40 or (better) 16-35. I am sure that the 16-36, 50, 70-300 combination will keep you happy 98% of the time.

[hunghang]

Oh, and I'd sell that EF-S lens also. The 16-35mm on your 5D will negate the need for that lens. Perfect reason to get that 16-35, and minimize the number of lens you have (whilst maximising on the dual focal lengths of your lenses because you have two bodies).

[steve.elliott]

The 16-35 f2.8 offers twice the low light capabilities and has better vignetting performance on a full frame camera, such as the 5D than the 17-40 f4.

[helenrosemier]

Thanks for all the advice, guys - really appreciate it. I have just ordered the 5D and the

16-35 lens from Warehouse Express and will try to sell the two redundant lenses.

 

Cheers for the help!

 

H

[William Michael]

Thanks for getting back and telling us what you decided . . . many people do not.

 

Cheers,

 

WW

[reneereynolds]

Good for you. The 16-35 is my fav lens on my 5D. The IQ is exceptional and I notice only a hint of softness at the edges when shooting wide open. Happy shooting!

[siamakjafari]

dear helen with regard to your question i should mention that i had sigma 24-70 ,but canon 5D kit has its own 24-105,f/4 and its excellent and if you can find a 35-350,f/3.5-5.6 or 28-300 f/3.5/5.6,would be enough as among my different lenses these two are most useful for all photography purposes,for your information i have 17-40 f/4,canon L 70-200 f/2.8 and sigma 50-500.

warm regards-siamak jafari

[rodeo_joe1]

Tried a Sigma 24-70 on my 5D and it was a total disaster. This lens is a big impressive looking pile of c**p IMHO. The edges and corners were abysmal on full-frame and showed distortion to boot.

 

Sell the Sigma and EF-S lenses, buy the 5D with the 24-105 f/4 kit lens and see how you get on with it. Current deals mean that the 24-105 is practically being given away with the 5D.

 

If you find you really need the f/2.8 aperture, then you'll have to shell out on the Canon 24-70 L lens, or Tamron's 28-75 f/2.8 is an excellent and much cheaper alternative. If you do get the 16-35, then that will cover the shorter end, so you won't need a mid range zoom that goes down to 24mm.

[hunghang]

I am sure that the decision was a well-made one. Enjoy your new kit... I recently traveled to North America on a 5 week trip and that 16-35mm lens was used about 95% of the time on the 5D.