5D lens advice. Major decision anxiety.

[jakob_lagerstedt]

<p>Hey folks, I have a Mark II coming to me but I can't make up my mind regarding lenses. I mostly do candid street, portraiture, architecture HDR and some events. I never use flash and prefer fast lenses...I'm also a blur and bokeh junkie for anything people related. At this point I only have the 85mm 1.8 that fits FF and I'm considering going all primes and using my feet for zooming. My choices are:<br />

Canon 24-70 2.8<br />

or <br />

24 L or 35L and Sigma 50mm 1.4<br />

or <br />

Canon 28 1.8 and Sigma 50 1.4 and save myself some $$$. <br />

My long term plan is to get the 135 L regardless of choices above.

 

 

 

 

 

</p>

[bueh]

<p>You need to check out these lenses in person. Personally, I would lean toward option three and think about adding a 20mm or 24mm f/2.8 lens. The reason is that I am uncomfortable with the weight and weight distribution of the L lenses from 1) and 2).</p>

<p>And I am not sure if the 135mm is long enough for candid street portraiture... maybe the 200L prime is a better choice. It is hardly larger or heavier but gives you a longer reach. The drawback is 1 stop less light and that you need faster shutter speeds.</p>

[jackie_baisa]

<p>The first one is, obviously, not a prime. And I agree that primes are the way to really go.<br>

I have the 50/1.4 and it stays on my camera about 80% of the time. No joke. I adore that lens. The downside? It has a known defect that affects a small percentage of their lenses, where the autofocus craps out. Just be aware that if anything starts getting weird, send it back for repairs (or a new one). That said, it's (obviously) my favorite lens that I own. And I shoot a lot of the same things you do (minus the street stuff) and don't like using flash, either.<br>

Also, and I cannot stress this enough, rent all of those lenses (www.rentglass.com is a good place to start... there are others) BEFORE YOU BUY. I was just convinced that I wanted to buy the 24/1.4 for architecture and wide-angle portraits outdoors. I didn't like it too much. I ended up barely using it. I can see the benefits of it, but I just didn't see myself using it ENOUGH to buy it. (Will I rent it again? Yes.)<br>

Lastly, the 135 is my absolute favorite Canon lens. Every time I rent it, my soul dies a little bit when it's time to ship it back. It's definitely time for me to own it.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I love primes too but sometimes you need a zoom and with the ISO ability of the 5d2 F4 is often enough even without flash so don't overlook the 24-105 as a zoom option. My prime kit is 28 1.8, 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 and this kit works well for me and all 3 lenses can be purchased for less then 1 L prime. All are small and easy to handle and share the same filter thread ( I also have a 100 macro non is that shares this as well )</p>

<p>My most used setup is a 24-105 and 50 1.4 on a 5D2. I can do almost anything with this setup.</p>

<p>I do hear L primes are great but I cannot really justify the cost for what I do the non L primes suffice.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Another vote for the EF 24-105 f/4L IS. It's a great general purpose lens and plenty fast enough when used on a camera with great high-ISO performance, like the 5D2.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Another vote for the EF 24-105 f/4L IS. It's a great general purpose lens and plenty fast enough when used on a camera with great high-ISO performance, like the 5D2.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>The 24-105/4L is a great lens but don't let anyone tell you it's light-weight. Go try it on your mkII to make sure you are comfortable with the weight.</p>

<p>Also, as good as this lens is, I think it's the limiting factor on even the 5D mk I's image quality, so probably even more so on the mkII. It's a great zoom, but if you're looking for ultimate image quality, you're probably better off with the high quality primes. It's very convenient to walk around with though.</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>The 24L is perfect for the street. I agree with you and use only fast primes. The 85L is my favorite lens for that camera.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Either the 35 L or the 24-70 is my suggestion. You will need to handle them to decide. The 35mm is particulary good for rapid shooting of people (as long as you are reasonably close of course) and it has plenty of bokeh on tap (it's f1.4); the 24-70 is more versatile, but rather cumbersome.</p>

[ryan_k]

<p>I would suggest the EF 200 2.8 L for the candid work. It's black(not white and gray) so it is not so obvious that you're taking pics on the street, it is wonderfully sharp at 2.8, and I picked up mine from Keh for US 550.00. You'll also want to pick up a 20-50mm prime as well, so that you can compliment your long reach with a wide angle for architecture. <br>

Primes > Zooms in my opinion. </p>

[dcstep]

<p>There's a lot to like about primes, but realize that software, like DxO's Optics Pros will correct for most of the geometric errors of zooms at their extremes. Don't just look at uncorrected test images, but look at actual corrected shots. Even without correction, the EF 70-200 f/4L IS is stunning. The EF 24-105mm f/4L IS needs some help, but after correction it's very good, even at its wide end, opened up.</p>

<p>With film, we depended on lenses alone to give us the best geometric accuracy possible in our images. Now that we're digital, small, known imperfections are easily corrected automatically with software. Also, gone are the days when I film was topping out at ASA 200. We can now push to ISO 800. 1600 and beyond with many top cameras.</p>

<p>There are places for primes. I own a 500mm f/4L IS and plan to buy a 17mm TS-E within the next year, but we need to make our lens selections considering all the technology availalbe to us in the 21st century. Primes may or may not > zooms, in my opinion, depending on the application and correction technology available for each lens compared.</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>For normal zooms the 24-70 f2.8 and 24-105 F4 are commonly used on the 5D. Both are good lenses. I have the 24-105 and I have found IS to be really helpful when hand holding.</p>

<p>I also have the Sigma 50 F1.4 and it is an amazing lens for the price. Bokeh is great and I have not had any issues iwth my copy.</p>

<p>I personally prefer zoomsover he all primes approach due to the greater flexability of the zooms over primes. But there are times when zoom isn't the best choice. thats why I also got the 50mm.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>I have the 24-70, 50mm f1.4 and 35mm f2.0 (on full frame 5D). Depending on the situation all 3 are useful. If it's gotta be one, the 24-70 is <em>the</em> choice, it can even do in-a-pinch macro. I also have the 24-105, and it would be a good sub. for the '70.: it's IS is a plus, plus it's lighter, more compact and a bit more reach. I prefer the '70 most times, though.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I don't buy the "got to use primes" argument. It might have been true twenty years ago but IMO you would lose little to nothing by using an array of L zoom lenses. But then i don't do or much look at lens tests, I just use the things. To me what I gain by being able to frame right quickly, and having to change lenses less, is more than I lose on quality. </p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>20 years ago the zooms were much worse relative to primes where today the best zooms are very good indeed. That doesn't mean that in a careful test against a high quality prime, the modern high quality zoom is going to win. But unless you're very careful with your techniques you won't suffer for using a modern, high quality zoom.</p>

<p>If you ARE trying to get maximum quality out of a full frame 18MP+ sensor, I would submit though that the high quality zooms, such as this one, ARE the limiting factor. I did an informal test with my 5D mk I and the 24-105/4L against a Sony A350 with the Minolta 50/2.8 prime and the latter won. When I changed to the Canon 50/1.4 the Canon was back on top. That was on a tripod with a cable release with the IS systems off looking for the most possible detail in the shot.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Good point David, but how did you process the resulting RAW images from your test? In my experience, geometric and distortion correction in competent software must be factored into any such comparison. Zooms have narrowed the gap to primes AND new software has further narrowed the gap and, in some cases, closed it at many focal lengths and apertures.</p>

[steven_moseley1]

<p>"Another vote for the EF 24-105 f/4L IS"</p>

<p>...yep, great choice...as long as you love distortion....</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Steven no lens is perfect. The 24-105 does a lot of things well. </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>And the 24-105 exhibits the barrel distortion that everyone harps about only at the wide end. And it's readily correctable in post. And the 24-105's resolution figures are at least as good as those of the esteemed 24-70. And... (Shall I stop now?)</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Mark said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And the 24-105 exhibits the barrel distortion that everyone harps about only at the wide end. And it's readily correctable in post.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. You have to look at images after correction to get the true measure of performance. These days the correction can be done automatically as part of the RAW conversion. Consider that when chosing a lens and don't live by "rules" that were applicable during the old film days.</p>

 

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>I love primes too BUT the 70-200 2.8 IS lens is just as sharp as any prime I have put it against. The only prime that beat it was a 135 F2. So zooms are just as good in those range. My favorite prime is 35 1.4L and the best zoom is 70-200 2.8 IS. Like most here I say rent it for about a week and it will help you decide. v/r Buffdr</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I would go with the 24-70 F2.8 for me this replaced the 24-105 and I prefer the faster lens. While it is big and heavy I do not find this an issue on my 5DII. I am not against primes - indeed in over 25 years of film shooting I rarely used zooms but shot lenses like the FD85 F1.2, 24 F2, 50 F1.4 etc... On digital (for me the 1DIIN, 7D and 5DII) I find that while I own primes like the 85 F1.8, 35 F2 and 50 F1.4 I rarely use them. I have concluded that I will migrate my primes to being specialist lenses (85 F1.2, 24 Tilt shift, 300 F4 IS etc...) and use zooms for general purposes. I am not sure about others but I find little advantage with the 50 F1.4 over the 24-70 F2.8 as i generally have to shoot the 50mm lens at F2 to get reasonable edge sharpness on the 5DII. Similarly with the 85 F1.8 and the 70-200 F2.8 non IS I see little advantage with the 85 F1.8 as it needs to be shot at F2. Conversely the 100 F2.8L IS is a lens which offers a lot of performance advantage over an L series zoom.<br>

Buy the 24-70</p>

[nathan_b]

<p>+1 on the 24-70 f/2.8. You have the 85 already and are getting the 135 for tight portraits. Go with the fast normal zoom glass. It's a fantastic lens and will probably stay on your body full time. The 24-70 is what a lot of commercial pros will have as their on body walkaround for events and candid work.<br>

I'm also a +1 fan of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Worth every penny and every ounce.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>I had a 28-70/2.8. Too unwieldy. F/2.8 was too slow for night time street photography. My favourite is an 85/1.2. It lets in lots of street light at a shutter speed greater than 1/100 s at ISO 400. Beautiful bokeh!</p>

<p>I recommend you stay with primes in the standard to short telephoto range. Since your heart is set on the 135/2. Just get it over with, buy it and forget the 24-70/2.8 (24-105/4 IS included).</p>

[mochoajr]

<p>Another vote for the 24-105 f4 L as an all around lens. Also consider the 70-200 f4 L, great for hand holding versus the f2.8 and about $1000 cheaper. </p>