Lens for my 5D, have xsi with efs 17-55 and 85mm f/1.8

[calvin_choy]

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

I currently own a canon 450D with the EFS 17-55 f/2.8 lens. I also have the 85mm f/1.8.</p>

<p>Recently I purchased a used Canon 5D, and using the 85mm on it now. I am planning to get a zoom lens for for my 5D. I will be shooting a wedding for friends in september . . . so it will be good to take that into account. I am not a pro, my friends are not expecting pro pictures . . just some extra candids pictures that are better than point and shoot cams. I do see this as an oppertunity to get more experience . . . and planning to do more if I get a hang on it :)</p>

<p>I am not planning to sell my gear of the crop camera . . YET. I find the 450D with the 17-55 a very good combination, especially for travel and as general walk around camera+lens. Try to talk me over? :p<br>

I am currently thinking about the following options:<br>

<ol>

<li>get the 17-40L, it's "cheap" and I dont have a wide angle lens yet. However, I wonder if I really need the 17mm on the short end . . I thought it may be usefull to get group pictures or "special effects" for the wedding . .</li>

<li>24-70 f/2.8, expensive, but I saw that on the forum people found this a VERY usefull lens for weddings . . but not so for walk around because of the weight. I don't find the 17-55mm weight a problem though. However, the 24-70 is basically the same as my 17-55mm . . . so maybe I can better invest in another lens (17-40L) and just use two cameras to cover wide and midrange? If you can talk me over selling the 17-55 I will get this lens . . .</li>

<li>24-105, gives me the most reach between the other lenses. f/4 only with IS. I wonder how this one will perform indoors for weddings. Considering the weight, this lens is suggested as a walk around on the forum.</li>

</ol>

<br />

<br>

I also have to mention that I got a canon 430 EXII and two Nikon SB-26 that I can use as off camera strobes (I have to admit that im still to nervous to really use extra strobes during wedding/events :P)</p>

<p>Any comments/reocmmendations are welcome </p>

<p>Thnx</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I prefer to keep all EF lenses ( I have a 40D 5D2 combo ) However for travel I think the 17-55 on a 450D is a nice combo. IMO the 24-70 is just to big to lug around on vacation so if you want a 2.8 zoom I think thats your best choice. That being said, I don't think anyone can decide for you.<br>

<br /> If you where to sell off your 17-55 I would say replace it with the 24-105 and ad a wider prime. This would give you a great 3 lens combo. Say 35, 85 for low light and 24-105 for outdoors or indoors with a flash. Keep in mind you will get better ISO performance and a shallower depth of field on the full frame sensor so which ever you decide I would get another lens for the 5D.</p>

[harold_motte]

<p>10-22 / 24-70 / 70-200 / 100-400 / 1.4 tc<br>

this should cover all/most of your needs with the 5d Full Frame<br>

too bad your 17-55 will not fit the 5d<br>

I suggest the f/2.8 versions (where designated) if you are doing weddings or other indoor/low light venues</p>

 

[pgranone]

<p>The 17-40 is a nice lens on the 5D. It can produce outstanding landscape shots. <br /> 17mm is wide on the 5D, but for dramatic landscapes that can be just right.</p>

<p>my last photo shoot was landscapes at El Morro National Monument with two 5D's<br /> 17-40 & 85mm 1.8<br>

a nice combo<br>

The 17-40 for landscape wide shots<br>

85mm for details and closer shots</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I bought my used 5D with the 24-105mm L lens, and I love it almost as much on the 5D as I do my 17-85mm EFS lens on the APS-C bodies. However even with IS these are slow lenses for indoor work involving moving subjects. You may need to bite the bullet and get a f/2.8 or faster lens of one kind or another. At the least buy the old 50mm f/1.8 since it is practically free and you already have the 85mm for portrait work.</p>

[pgranone]

<p>my last photo shoot was landscapes at El Morro National Monument with two 5D's<br /> 17-40 & 85mm 1.8<br /> a nice combo<br>

The 17-40 for landscape wide shots<br /> 85mm for details and closer shots<br>

you can see pics from that shoot at this URL<br>

http://cid-5cc40c3b7ccad3c6.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/Public<br>

select NM landscapes<br /> select El Morro</p>

 

[kari v]

<blockquote>

<p>However, I wonder if I really need the 17mm on the short end . . I thought it may be usefull to get group pictures or "special effects" for the wedding . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>17mm is fun and can certainly be used for effect (comic or drama) but do try it before buying as anything that wide is not easy to use when you don't want effects. It may be 24mm is all you need and 17-40 is often bought for the 17-20 part.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I love my 5D with 50 1.2L and 24-105 L. Don't use much else on it. I have a 17-40 L but found the wide end too wide most of the time. If I was buying again, I'd be happy with 24mm at the wide end of the 24-105. For travel and hiking, the 450D and 17-55 2.8 is pretty hard to beat. I probably wouldn't bother with APS bodies if that lens wasn't available.</p>

[pgranone]

<p>yes, each person has to decide the focal lengh they need most<br>

I like the view of 20mm on the 17-40<br /> just a bit wider and more dramatic then 24mm</p>

<p> </p>

[bnyc]

<p>I have all 3 of those lenses, and the 24-105 stays on my 5D 90% of the time.</p>

<p>The 17-40 is a great value, very lightweight, and extremely handy when you want that extra wide angle reach. But it's not the right range for an all-purpose lens on the 5D.</p>

<p>The 24-70 is one of the all-time greats and its image quality can't be topped by any other zoom lens. But it's very heavy, and you'll want more reach on the telephoto side too frequently to use it by itself most of the time.</p>

<p>The 24-105 is the Goldilocks lens for the 5D - just the right range for an all-purpose zoom, reasonably light (esp. when you consider the other lenses you can leave at home when this one's on the camera!), great image quality (though not as great as the 24-70 if you care to pixel peep, which I don't particularly), and the IS is something it has over both of your other options. IS is no substitute for a fast lens of course - it's more like a tripod substitute for reasonably long shutter speeds. But don't forget that the 5D is a solid performer at high ISO's, which makes the f4 limitation more bearable (to me).</p>

<p>For me it's a no brainer: if I had to have one lens for the 5D, it would be the 24-105. I rarely carry anything else with me anymore.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I use the 17-40mm L and like it a lot... for landscape and architecture and similar on the 5D and 5DII. I rarely use it for portrait or other "people photography" with the exception of some indoor "street" photography in tight places. I do not think that this would be a replacement for the 17-55 EFS lens that you like on your current camera.</p>

<p>The two L lenses that many FF photographers select to cover more or less similar purposes are the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L and the 24-105mm f/4 L IS. Unfortunately there is no single L lens the is equivalent to the 17-55 for the FF bodies. You can get IS with one and f/2.8 with the other, but not both together.</p>

<p>There are a lot of people using both of these lenses as their "standard" zooms and there are strong partisans for both of them. In the end, both are really fine lenses, so it really isn't a question of which is the "better lens." It is more a question of which has the features that fit best with the type of photography you do and fit into the rest of your lens kit.</p>

<p>The 24-70 has a great reputation for IQ and its f/2.8 aperture can let you create narrow DOF if/when you need it and allow you to shoot moving subjects in low light at a slightly higher shutter speed without raising ISO quite as much. Its zoom range is not as large as that of the 24-70 and it is a pretty big and heavy lens. It won't gain you as much for shooting in low light conditions where the limiting factor is your ability to hand hold the camera rather than the motion of your subjects.</p>

<p>The 24-105 also has a great reputation for IQ. It provides a larger focal length range, especially going longer at 105mm. (Basically you can zoom in or out 2X from 50mm.) The IS feature extends the lens' ability to shoot in low light by 2-3 stops when camera shake at slow shutter speeds is the limiting factor. It is a bit more compact package, especially considering its larger focal length range. While IS helps in the situation described above, it does not help at all when the limiting factor is motion blur from a moving subject. This lens will show a bit more vignetting at the largest apertures and it shows a bit more barrel distortion at 24mm.</p>

<p>So, there are advantages to each - pick the one whose advantages mean the most to you and whose disadvantages mean less or can be overcome by using a different lens in your kit. (Some go with the f/4 24-105 and augment it with a few large aperture primes, for example.)</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[rainer_t]

<p>Some more opinions on general purpose lenses for a 5D can be found in this recent thread:<br>

http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00T4il</p>

[tim_price2]

<p>I'm going to be a contrarian here, and suggest that if you love the 17-55 on your rebel then get a much different range for your 5D. For travel and the wedding you plan to shoot, the rebel with 17-55 is an excellent choice for the wide to medium tele end, so why spend more money on a wide lens for the 5D? What you are missing is a longer lens for portraiture and longer distance type shots. A great choice for portrait lens on the 5D is the 70-200/2.8IS or 135/2. Since you are more limited on funds, the 70-200/4IS would make a good alternative to the 2.8IS. It will go a little against conventional wisdom to use the cropeer for wide and FF for tele, but at least you'll have a much more versatile kit. You'll probably also find that almost all of your "wow" shots from the wedding will be shot with the longer lens.<br>

I use a 5D+24-70 and 1dm2+70-200/2.8IS for weddings, and find that I can cover 99% of situtions with them and a 580ex. On rare occasions I find I need wider than 24 on the 5d, which is why I just picked up a tammy 17-35. I envision using it for less than 5 shots a gig, which is why I chose not to go with a 17-40 - it just didn't seem worth the investment. You also have to realize that while it may be fun to shoot things with a distorted perspective, people don't like to see pictures of themselves that way.<br>

As for a fast prime, sure it would be nice to be able to go flashless, but if you drag the shutter and use a good diffuser you can live without one.</p>

[tim_price2]

<p>Oh, I forgot to mention that I would rather have the 70-200 with IS than the faster 135/2. The reason is that churches are often badly lit, and many priests ban the use of flash. So, putting an IS lens on a monopod will end up getting you better results for those times than the fast prime. There is also the utility of the zoom for those priests that will only let you shoot from the side aisles and not the center aisle.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p>For the wedding I'd either use the 450D + 17-55/2.8 IS or borrow/rent 24-70/2.8 and use it on the 5D. To buy a zoom for the 5D I'd recommend the 24-105/4 IS.</p>

<p>FWIW, I currently have 40D + 17-55/2.8 IS and like it a lot. I had the 24-105/4 IS but traded it for the 17-55/2.8 IS. I have no wish to get another 24-105/4 IS. I guess it's because I have no wish to get a 5D..... :-)</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

</p>

[calvin_choy]

<p>First off, I want to thank you all for the replies!</p>

<p>I am not planning to buy any EFS lenses anymore, because I actually started switching to fullframe. However, I will keep a crop camera with my 17-55 f/2.8 as backup and light weight travel DSLR.<br>

After reading the comments, I don't think I will get the 24-70 f2.8, since I basically have that one on my XSI now. The 17-40 f/4 price sounds tempting . . but if im not going to shoot landscapes, adding some money to get the 24-105 seems to be a better overall choice --> zoom + wedding.</p>

<p>The fact is that I never really used zoom before, and especially at f/4. Given the IS, will I able to shoot without flash at ISO around 800 ~ 1600 ? An how bad is the light decay at 105mm ? will I get much "darker" background if I drag the shutter to aroudn 1/60 (compared to focal lengths around 55mm~85mm)? I think I will use the flash most of the time ON camera, bouncing off the ceiling.</p>

<p>I can understand that primes can solve the problems with light indoor (when no flash used). However, for a wedding I think changing primes will be a bit unhandy for a amateur like me :) </p>

[calvin_choy]

<p>Oh, I forgot the option about the 70-200 f4 IS lens. For indoor, wouldnt that lens be too much ? It doesn't look like a lens to drag around indoors for a long period of time . . . and how often do you need a reach larger than around 100mm ? Furthermore, wouldnt I have problem with flash light ? since I can imagine a large amount of light fall off at 200mm . . .</p>

[tim_price2]

<p>It is possible to get away without flash indoors - it all depends on the church/venue and how overcast it is that day. As for falloff of the flash power, yes you will lose a lot of power just bouncing into a high ceiling. Shooting with a diffuser or reflector is an absolute must, with a reflector being the better choice for throwing light any distance. Joe demb makes the flip-it, and there are many do-it-yourself instructions on the internet.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p dir="ltr">Indoor with an f/4 lens might prove too slow WRT both shutter speed and AF speed. I'd consider a 100/2 or 135/2 instead.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

</p>