What lenses would you buy ?

[lightwriting by swapan]

<p>If you<br>

1) Use <strong>1Ds MK III </strong>and upcoming upgrades<br>

2) Use <strong>only L</strong> lenses<br>

3) Shoot <strong>Portrait/Landscape and Macro </strong>with some wildlife<br>

4) Image quality is all that matters ( in 35 mm format).</p>

<p>Your input will really matter. Please help.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Dholai</p>

 

[bueh]

<p>Hmm, since money doesn't matter the 50/1.2, 85/1.2 and 200/2.8 for portraits, the 100/2.8 for macro and at the very least the 24/1.4 for landscape. Maybe the 35/1.4, too (both wide primes also work great for portraits). And for something wider, possibly one of them superwide zooms (16-35 or 17-40). But don't ask me how to carry all this stuff...</p>

[William Michael]

<p>That question is like Santa asking what I what for Christmas - I have been restrained, and sensible, this would be my kit to do address those tasks:</p>

<p>(Landscapes mainly):<br>

TS-E17 and TS-E 24L MkII</p>

<p>(Portraiture mainly & some Landscapes):<br>

24LMkII; 35L; 50/1.2L; 85LMkII; 135L; 200/2.8L; 300/2.8L (MkII possibly) 500/4L</p>

<p>Wildlife: the Medium and longer Primes, above.</p>

<p>Macro:<br>

100/2.8L IS Macro; 180/3.5L Macro</p>

<p>Other Stuff:<br>

x1.4MkII: set of 3 Kenko Rings </p>

<p>If allowed two non L lenses:<br>

TS-E 90 (Portraits & Landscape) & 50/2.5M (Macro) </p>

<p>WW</p>

[martin-s]

<p>Hi Swapan,</p>

<p>we've just finished a stunning trip through Tamil Nadu and Kerala.<br>

Our guests (mostly Canon users) carried a wide range of lenses. Common ones were the 16-35mm L II, the 100-400mm L IS, 100mm L IS macro and the f1.2 85mm L II.</p>

<p>So for your intended use of Portrait/Landscape and Macro these would fit perfectly and cover a lot of subjects.</p>

 

[philip_wilson]

I shoot similar subjects but can add sports and I do very little macro. As has been said the new TS lenses are

amazing. I use the 17F4 and a 1.4x to get 24mm but buy both if you can. I also find my 16-35 F2.8 II to be very useful

but lower quality. I use the 24-70 F2.8 as a standard zoom and both the 85F1.8 and 100 F2.8 IS macro for portraits.

The 85 F1.2 is probably a better lens than the F1.8 but it lacks the magic of it's FD predecessor and does not appear

that much better in my tests. I would also suggest you add a longer lens such as the 70-200F4 IS. I would suggest

the F4 unless you shoot low light or sports in which case the F2.8 is a better buy. I have both but the F4 lens is much

more compact and portable. Other lenses to consider are the 35 F1.4 a good 50mm (e.g. F1.2 or F1.4) and the 135 f2

[lightwriting by swapan]

<p>This is wonderful.</p>

<p>Thanks a lot, friends.<br>

This will make my life so much easier to decide what I buy.<br>

What about the Zeiss lenses for Canon ? My Nikon friends swear they are the best!<br>

Thanks again</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Don't listen to your Nikon friends, Dholai. They swear Zeiss lenses are the best because they've only got Nikkors to compare them to. ;-)</p>

<p>William has pretty much exhausted the field of superlative EF lenses for your applications. I would also take Philip's advice, and add the 70-200/4 L IS, which is my favourite EF zoom.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>I shoot a 1Ds MkIII and insist on very high quality lenses.</p>

<p>Landscape, 17mm TS-E, no other lens that can be fitted to a Canon body can come close.<br>

Portraits, covers a variety of styles, for environmental images the 35mm f1.4. For head and shoulders I really like my 50mm f1.4, not an L but mine is perfect. For head shots the 100mm f2.8 IS L macro is superlative, at f5.6 or f8 it is so frighteningly sharp it will give you a nose bleed.<br>

Macro, 100mm IS L, just superb.<br>

Wildlife, the new 200-400 f4.</p>

[RickDB]

<p>Your Nikon friends may be right about the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 - an awesome lens. Having said that I, if I had to choose between that and the 17mm TS-E, I think I would keep the 17mm TS-E. As for zooms, the 70-200mm/f4 L IS is fantastic.</p>

[w_t1]

<p>I would start with a 70-200 of your choice and spend some time learning LR and/or PS. You can always buy more lenses.</p>

<p>I'm really curious why "our input will really matter."<strong>?</strong></p>

[linda_jones1]

<p>Totally agree with Scott Harris, only add the 24-105f4 is L for in between walkaround. Add a 1.4x teleconverter for a 70-200f4IS. Mine is extremely sharp.....hmmmm thats 7 lenses ;)<br>

or go 12-24, 24-105IS, 70-200f4IS, 200-400f4IS and the 50 1.4----would cover everything</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>There are plenty fo great lenses, but it seems if you own a $8000 camera, you should probably pretty well know what you need when it comes to photography. I'm also curious as to why our input matters. I would think someone that has invested so much in a camera would know exactly what they want/need. That being said, its hard to suggest lenses based on the limited criteria. If IQ is all that matters, then it seems like you should only buy primes. 100mm f/2.8L IS macro is supposedly amazing and can work double duty, portrait and macro. The 85mm f/1.2L is a wedding staple, as well as the 50mm f/1.2L. The 35mm f/1.4L is supposed to have some "magic." And for wildlife, it seems the 500mm f/4L is the unanamous choice for wildlife and bird photographers. I have limited use with these actual lenses, but I doubt there would be so much hype about them if it weren't true.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>"so frighteningly sharp it will give you a nose bleed."<br>

:) haha<br>

and I notice you changed your surname. . .</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"its hard to suggest lenses based on the limited criteria"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>An unusually question, yes, but - “limited”?<br>

Aren't the four points assiduously specific?</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I like to say that if you are considering a whole kit of lenses and have to ask people what lenses to buy...</p>

<p>... it is most likely not the right time to be buying a lot of lenses.</p>

<p>Sorry, but I think you need to hear this.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I like to say that if you are considering a whole kit of lenses and have to ask people what lenses to buy...</p>

<p>... it is most likely not the right time to be buying a lot of lenses.</p>

<p>Sorry, but I think you need to hear this.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>:-)<br>

<br />Tis true William. I had doubted the practicality of useful resolution above 21mp on the 135 format, the new 100 macro has changed my mind. Hitting the Nyquist limit over several stops in the f5-f9 range, before diffraction starts hitting, just makes me want more lower down the f stop range.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott Harris.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Harrison, you are making me dribble . . .<br>

I almost want to "upgrade" and buy a new 100L . . .<br>

nah . . . <br>

I am happy in “better than mediocrity land” at 100mm - I shall have the TS-E 17L, first.<br>

Take care, yerself.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[zack_zoll]

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00YDnB"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3882389">Mark Pierlot</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Feb 14, 2011; 08:54 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Don't listen to your Nikon friends, Dholai. They swear Zeiss lenses are the best because they've only got Nikkors to compare them to. ;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suppose I could have quoted any comment about the Zeiss lenses to start off my response, but as a Nikon user this one seemed the most appropriate :)</p>

<p>As far as Zeiss lenses go (on Canon and Nikon), they have advantages and disadvantages. I haven't done every possible comparisons, but I find the Zeiss 50s and 85s, for instance, to be both sharper than any of the Canon and Nikon versions, and more often than not to give me a picture that I like less. For lack of a more intelligent way to say it, I feel that the Zeiss lenses sacrifice smoothness and overall 'vibe' to acheive their superior sharpness. Certainly if you shoot like Ansel Adams or Minor White the Zeiss is a better choice, but I find their 35mm format lenses to be more sterile than the Nikon and Canon primes in the $1K+ range.</p>

<p>Then again, having the manual controls on the physical lens often makes them better options for video.</p>

<p>If it were my endless supply of money, I'd actually buy a Nikon 85mm 1.4D and a Nikon-> EF converter if you were thinking of manual operation. Again the Zeiss is sharper, but I just think that the vibe of that Nikon lens beats all the others. For zooms and the 50 though, stick with Canon.</p>

 

[morten_lohmann]

<p>Why is it surprising that someone with a proper camera asks for advise on glass? Does having a 1 mean you automatically have to know everything about every single lens out there?</p>

<p>I have been shooting 1's pretty much since they first came out (film days), and I still ask around whenever I buy a new piece of glass. I know what I want and what I need, but real first hand experience from someone who has been using a piece of kit for some time, can be a great help. Believe it or not, but the L in the product number doesn't automatically make a lens amazing. </p>

<p>Mediocrity often starts with thinking you can't learn from other peoples experience. </p>

[matthijs]

<p>24/1.4 II<br>

50/1.2L plus Zeiss 50/2 MP<br>

100/2.8L Macro<br>

70-200/4L IS</p>

<p>But actually I'd not buy a 1DS-III because I really like smaller form factors. A 5D-II (and a 7D and a 600D) would be enough. Until Canon puts the 7D AF in a 5D body, at which time I'd only want a 5D and a rebel.</p>

<p>And actually I'd also want a 28/2.8 and a 50/1.8 because every now and then I want to go lightweight.</p>

 

[zack_zoll]

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00YDtq"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6438665">Morten Lohmann</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Feb 15, 2011; 05:21 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Believe it or not, but the L in the product number doesn't automatically make a lens amazing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is an excellent point. Just like Nikon's 'ED' lenses. the 'L' just denotes a piece of flourite glass. The 100 f/2 is an excellent lens, and doesn't have any flourite. If you're not shooting wide open the 50 1.4 is as good (or better) than the 50 1.2, and that doesn't have flourite either.</p>

 

[johne37179]

<p>I'd like a lens that is not on the market. I'd like a lens that provides about 210 degrees of undistorted coverage with no drop off at the edges. I really don't care how fast it is. Fast lenses have almost become an irrelevancy, except when a very shallow depth of field is required. I used to go for the fast lenses and had a Nikkor 55:1.2 back in the day. I don't know what I'd do with a lens like that today. Most of my shooting is at F 8 - F 11. I'd like a lens that is crisp at F 32, but I guess I'll have to wait for all of my wishes to come true.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p><em>the 'L' just denotes a piece of flourite glass</em></p>

<p>Not true. It also talks about the build of the lens. It also talks about the QA that went into the lens and weather resistance of the lens. And other stuff... such as flare resistance and edge to edge sharpness.</p>

<p>The only non-L lens I use that holds a candle to L's is the 85mm 1.8.</p>

[morten_lohmann]

<blockquote>

<p>The only non-L lens I use that holds a candle to L's is the 85mm 1.8.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You sound like just the kind of customer that every company dream about. </p>

<p>But you are right on some points. L lenses are better build than non-L's. There is no question about that. But to say that they are all fantastic, is just silly and points towards a serious lack of objectivity.<br>

Some of the lenses I use the most, are not L's and I will bet you everything I own, that you would never be able to tell from the photos. Not even if you compared them with ones I have taken with L glass.</p>

<p>The fact is, that there are many great lenses out there, not sporting the fancy L. Even Sigma and Tamron have some very nice things to offer.</p>