New Shiney 5D Mark II, what is the new lens line up?

[Stock-Photos]

<p>My lenses for my 5D include <a href="../photo/8243626&size=lg">Sigma 12-24,</a> <a href="../photo/9437713">Canon 24-105</a> , <a href="../photo/8605994">Canon 100-400</a> , <a href="../photo/2056354">Canon 50MM 1.8</a> , <a href="../photo/8846215&size=lg">Canon 85MM 1.2 II</a> & <a href="../photo/7829899">Canon 100MM macro</a> .</p>

<p>24-105 is not the best for landscapes as it has lots of distortion:</p>

<p><a href="../photo/7656289&size=lg">Canon 24-105 distortion</a></p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>Whow! I think this is the first time I was ever happy I didn't buy a lens. I was upset I couldn't find a 5D Mark II kit when I purchased my camera. No stock anywhere. I was going to return non-kit in to Adorama and pay upgrade to 5D kit with 24-105. I figured this would be a perfect upgrade of 17-40 on FF camera. It was also the replacement to Tamron 28-75 F2.8. However, After reading this thread and doing more research I think I wll pass on this one. If I have to replace Tamron however I will get the Canon 24-70 F2.8L. </p>

[soe_post]

<p>For weddings, you'd want to cover group shots in tight spaces (your Tamron should work) as well as zoom, like 70-200 f/2.8 IS, for shooting from afar or getting profile shots with nice bokeh. If I had the same set up as yours, I'd use the Tamron (EF-S lens, right?) on the 40D and 100mm f/2.8 on the 5D and not buy any new lenses. However, if you had a Canon 16-35 f/2.8, you'd be able to swap the lens with between the 2 bodies and get coverage as if you had 4 lenses!</p>

[touchinglightphotography]

<p>Tough call! I have to say that after a few years of being a fanatical fan of the Canon zooms (Ls), I find that increasingly, I am using primes for perhaps the majority of all of my photography. I am a real fan of the Canon 24mm TSE (tilt-shift) for landscapes. There are times when the wind is blowing and the wildflowers are swaying that the only way to capture the image is with the TSE, where the ability to tilt the focal plane allows the use of a much wider aperture and a faster shutter speed, and the focus near and far is visibly better than simply using 24mm on the 17-40 at a narrow aperture. Of course...it is not a complete substitute for the 17-50 you have...sometimes you just gotta have 17mm! The 135 f/2 is a fantastic lens and actually tolerates a Canon 2xII Teleconverter remarkably well ... sharper in my tests than the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L (which can be a fairly soft L lens especially at the edges). The 135 f/2 is a great lens for some sports, and I would think would also be excellent for wedding and portrait work in the right situations. Many of my friends have the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L or the f/4L ... both sets of friends rave about their 70-200s, clearly a favorite both for the sharpness and the focal length covered. You already have the wide end well covered with your lenses...so if anything, I'd probably consider the 70-200 as the next lens for portraits and weddings...and even for landscape/nature/city (details). ...no matter what, I'm sure you are still raving about your 5D MK II...no complaints here!</p>

[leo indrawan]

<p>if I were you, i will trade 10-20 lens into 17-40 L, while you can trade your sigma 30mm to EF 50 f:1,4.<br>

While for wedding, 24-105 L IS, is best choice compare to 24-70.<br>

You will get the extra reach at 105mm compare to 70mm, and get IS too.</p>

[maximphotostudio]

<p>Darren, now that you have a full frame body, you have to get a 15mm 2.8 fish. The wide angle perspective will blow you away.</p>