A 5D body and no lenses. What to get?

[marcie m]

<p>My sweet dh bought me a 5D for Christmas. However, it did not come with a lens. Initially, I plan on shooting location portraits of children and families and later on weddings. What do you suggest? I was thinking a portrait prime lens and a wide zoom to start out. Perhaps a Canon EF 100mm f/2 or the EF 85mm f/1.8 and the EF 17-55 f 2.8 IS for my wider angle lens? Also, due to funds, I'm not completely against buying off-brand and getting a Tamron.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>The EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM is for APS-C cameras only. It will not fit a FF body. For a walkaround, take a look the EF 24-105 4L IS USM. It's the standard kit lens for the 5D and a friggen jim dandy optic. If you just gotta go ultra wide, the EF 17-40 4L USM is the bargain L zoom. I found it too wide most of the time on FF and find the 24 end of the 24-105 L perfect.</p>

[joyce_wells]

<p>I have the 5D and most of the time, I have the 24-105 f4 L IS on the camera. I have several other lenses, but this one is my "go to", everyday, basic lens. </p>

[kamush1664878711]

<p>I would suggest<br>

1)Wide angle: 17-40 F4 L (Nice color output)<br>

2)Macro lens: 100mm f2.8 L IS (Perfect macro)<br>

3)All around lens: 24-105 F4 L IS (One of the most optically perfect zoom lenses ever)<br>

4)Additional all around lens: 70-200 F4 L IS (Very good quality at both ends... Works perfect with 1.4x extender on APS-C, no experience on FF)<br>

5)If you have enough money: 16-35 L II (Outstanding ultra wide with hard to beat quality... Works perfect with 5D)<br>

Hope it was helpful...<br>

Good luck...</p>

[marcie m]

<p>Thank you all for the suggestions. Do you think these are my fastest options? I found the f/4s to be rather limiting in my Nikon kit.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Well, you can squeeze another stop out if your spring for the EF 24-70 2.8L USM. Stellar optic but a friggen bazooka and no IS. I used to own it but prefer the range and IS of the slower 24-105L. If you're mainly shooting static subjects the excellent high ISO performance for the 5D series makes up for the loss of a stop.</p>

[ben_goren]

<p>Marcie,</p>

 

<p>A superlative option to the Canon 24-70 is the Tamron 28-75. Autofocus isn’t in the

same league as the Canon, but image quality is. And it’s small, lightweight, and a fraction of

the cost of the Canon.</p>

 

<p>If it’s speed you want, get primes. The 85 f/1.8 is an outstanding lens and the standard

focal length for portraiture. The 100 f/2 (or either of the macros, of course) and the 135 f/2.8 are

comparable quality and a good choice if you like tighter framing for your portraiture. Any 50 prime will deliver

the goods for group portraiture. You could shoot a wedding with just a 50 and an 85, though

it’d be a good idea to add a 35 for the dancing and the like — assuming, of course, you know

what you’re doing (where to be when, what exposure to set, and all the rest)…I

wouldn’t recommend it for a beginner.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[chrisjb]

<p>Interesting what you mean by limiting. if your nikon was aps-c then the 5d gives a shallower DOF by format. If talking light 5d is an improvement with higher ISO. will one stop make that much diff to you, if so I`d have a range of primes + 24 105..</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>You want to eventually work weddings? Then, you could literally shoot a wedding with the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM and Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM (or a used mark I version) on two EOS 5D's. A used low mileage 5D is the best full frame bang for your buck.</p>

<p>If you are close to the subject, the 50/1.4 will work in available light. If you cannot get close, then the 85/1.2 will capture breathtaking natural light photos. Both prime lenses will give excellent and superb bokeh respectively.</p>

<p>Another lens to consider is the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L USM to round out your collection.</p>

<p>Prime lenses are my first choice. Zoom lenses if you cannot afford the primes (i.e. 17-40/4 and 70-200/2.8 IS or 70-200/4 IS).</p>

[matthijs]

<p>I'd go 24-105 plus primes.</p>

<p>The 24-105 as main workhorse and the primes for lowlight and portrait.</p>

<p>Suggested primes: 50/1.4 (Canon or Sigma) and 85/1.8 (or 100 L Macro if money isn't too big a problem).</p>

<p>You could also skip the primes and go 70-200/2.8 but that's a pretty hefty lens to lug around for a whole day. (But a significant number of pro's do so.)</p>

<p>The 85/1.2 is a bit of a specialty item and very expensive.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><em>"[i have a] 5D it did not come with a lens. Initially, </em><strong><em>I plan on shooting location portraits of children and families </em></strong><em>and later on weddings. What do you suggest? I was thinking a portrait prime lens and a wide zoom to start out. Perhaps a Canon EF 100mm f/2 or the EF 85mm f/1.8 and the EF 17-55 f 2.8 IS for my wider angle lens? Also, due to funds, I'm not completely against buying off-brand and getting a Tamron. </em><br>

<em>[referring to f/4 zooms] Do you think these are my fastest options? I found the f/4s to be rather limiting"</em><br>

<br>

Buy a EF50F/1.4 (or EF 50F/1.8MkII) and an EF35 F/2. Those two lenses will do all the tasks you cite as your initial requirements. Both FL and fast apertures will serve well for Weddings, later. <br>

<br>

All three are well priced and very good value for money.<br>

<br>

Think long and hard about the zooms you want and the kit you eventually want to build. If you intend to do Weddings you will require at least one more body, perhaps two, and the format of those bodies is integral to your lens cache.<br>

<br>

There are many threads on this topic in the Wedding Forum.<br>

<br>

I am in the business of taking Photos, not buying and selling lenses, so I have the opinion to buy once and attempt to get it right: If you move into Weddings then your greatest thinking will centre around your main working zoom (if you use a zoom) and that will likely be either a 24 to 105 or the 24 to 70 . . . and there are 76 zillion threads on that comparison.<br>

<br>

I avoid all that stuff and use neither. Opting for a <strong><em>dual format kit</em></strong> which makes the 24 to 70 / 105 range zoom superfluous for my needs: as I have a 16 to 35F/2.8L and a 70 to 200F2.8L.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p dir="ltr">I'd start with a 24-105 and 50/1.8. Very good and very versatile lens and a cheap prime, just to see if the whole prime business attracts you. I'd also get a 430EX.</p>

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

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

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

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

 

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

</p>

 

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>My first lens with a full frame would have to be 70-200 2.8IS. You said you will shoot portraits and later on weddings, their is not a better zoom lens than the 70-200 2.8 IS. I would not recommend the 430 EX flash, go for the 580. 580 EX can take external battery pack which will help you during the weddings. v/r Buffdr</p>

[jajurek]

<p>To the Matthijs Claessen suggestion I'd add next prime: EF 200/f2.8L. Not too expensive, very sharp and fast.</p>

[john_bellenis]

<blockquote>

<p>3)All around lens: 24-105 F4 L IS (One of the most optically perfect zoom lenses ever)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have nothing particularly against this lens and most of its shortcomings - serious distortion, extreme light fall off at 24mm with wider apertures, etc. - can be corrected in post processing. It's full of compromises, but it's versatility makes it a worthwhile lens and many people love it for it's range, size and IS.</p>

<p>However, I am hard pushed to think of a WORSE Canon L zoom optically - let alone the claim that it's one of the most "optically perfect zoom lenses ever"...</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>85mm 1.8<br>

17-40mm f/4<br>

then either 70-200mm or 100-400mm down the road</p>

[w_t1]

<p>Why not keep it simple and get the 50 1.8 lens for starters, you can't go wrong, shoot with it for a quarter and see where you want to go with lenses. I have a bunch of lenses most mentioned here already, but nothing like keeping it simple. when i started out back in film days used nothing but a 50 for over a year.</p>

<p>About a hundred bucks at B&H and you can be shooting new years day if you order now.</p>

[ae_ingveld]

<p>I agree with William W, 50mm 1.4 and 35 2.0 or 28 1.8. After that I´d get the 85mm 1.8 :)</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>Stick a pinhole on it. You will be fine.</p>

[marcsharp]

<p>Three Lenses:<br /> 24-70mm f/2.8L (I've heard rumors an image stabilized version is coming soon. You might wait, or go for the 24-105mm f/4L IS)<br /> 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, and<br /> 50mm f/1.4</p>

[hugh_j.]

<blockquote>

<p>Stick a pinhole on it. You will be fine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LOL.. I find it sort of strange that you're a Nikon user and was given a 5D - but with no lens.</p>

[marcie m]

<p>Yes, I cracked up over the pin hole answer too. Thanks for the laugh. To answer the Nikon question. I was a full time professional 12 years ago, got a desk job and just kept a regular seasonal shooting gig using that company's equipment. My personal equipment was all film based and now <em>very</em> beat up. I'm starting fresh with Canon because I prefer their digital interface over the Nikon. No commentary on which is better, I am simply more comfortable with how Canon laid their controls out.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"I was a full time professional 12 years ago . . .[and I]</em></strong> <strong ><em >kept a regular seasonal shooting gig using that company's equipment. </em></strong><strong><em>"</em></strong><strong ><em ></em></strong><br>

<br>

Revealing that information changes my opinion and my response: -<br>

<br>

> Did you shoot W&P before? <br>

> If so, what was your full rig?<br>

> Do you want to replicate that or are you looking to diversify with style and are looking into a lens cache to suit a transformation?<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>The 24-105mm IS L is just soooo handy.</p>

<p>A couple of inexpensive (well, everything is relative) primes will give you some lowlight capability.</p>

<p>Honestly, the "plastic fantastic," the EF 50mm f/1.8, is not quite so fantastic on the 35mm sensor as it is on the APS-C bodies, but it is still very good and it is, I think, Canon's cheapest lens. Used, on big auction sites like eBay, with a little patience you may get it well under the list price or even the used prices from the big stores. It is light, amazingly rugged despite how it looks, and a very decent optic all-around.<br /> The 35mm f/2 is more money, but also a very good low-light lens, especially if you are willing to crank up the ISO.<br /> You might want to look at a telephoto zoom as you go along. The EF 70-300mm IS lens is a another relative bargain, again, with decent optics especially in the 70-200 range. I have its predecessor which is a lot worse and still get a lot of use out of it.</p>

<p>The various L lenses are simply superb, but the costs are pretty high too, with a few exceptions. Add these and sell the cheaper ones as you decide what you need and use.</p><div></div>

[marcie m]

<p>William W:<br /> > Did you shoot W&P before?<br /> Yes, however my full time job was working for community newspapers and free-lancing for wire services. It was one of those jobs where you needed a second one to "pay" for it, LOL. I did that by shooting mostly PR and evening events.<br /> <br /> > If so, what was your full rig?<br /> Bodies: FM2, N90, N8008. My newspaper didn't give me an equipment stipend so I never bought the F4. But to be honest, I found it rather heavy. Lenses: 50 f/1.8, 28 f/2.8, 35-105 f/3.5-4.5, a 20mm super fast lens on occasional loan to me and a Tamron 70-300mm with some outrageously slow speed but still gave me the zoom I needed for sports. I had a love hate relationship with my 35-105: I loved how I could go around with <em>just</em> that on the camera if I wanted to travel light while I cursed every low light situation I found myself in with it. Flashes: SB-24, SB-28 and a Metz 45 CL.<br /> <br /> > Do you want to replicate that or are you looking to diversify with style and are looking into a lens cache to suit a transformation?<br /> I'm starting fresh and I'm not shooting news anymore. So no, I'm not looking to replicate. I would prefer to start off with high quality lenses and then add on as I reestablish my shooting. I appreciate your questions and thoughts. Thank you.</p>