Lenses for 5D3

[devon_mccarroll]

<p>So, after much consideration over the past six months or so, I've decided to get the 5D3, and I'm practically dancing with excitement. (You guys don't want to see me dance. It's scary.) I'm glad a new rebate came on today, because Canon's prices seem to be going up lately--what's up with that? Nikon doesn't seem to be raising theirs. Anyway, I have my husband to thank for not passing out at the price I'm paying.<br /> My question is about lenses. Since the 24-105 f/4 is only an extra $575 (vs. $1150 alone) if I purchase it with the camera, I'm thinking that one is definitely a no-brainer. From what I've read on other posts, it sounds like a good lens. My 28-105 Nikon was my go-to lens 99% of the time, although it was on a crop-sensor.<br /> As I've mentioned before, I do primarily studio food photography, and when I looked back at my shots, I saw that on my current crop-sensor camera, a very old Nikon D80, I've been shooting quite a bit at the longer end of my 28-105, which in "crop" terms has been around the 75-150mm range. I know that shooting FF will mean I can crop my images quite nicely if needed, so maybe the 24-105 will work fine, but I've also seen that the 70-200 non-IS lens can be had for quite a nice price at places like KEH. <br /> I'd also like to try my hand at BIF on our occasional summer RV trips around the state (Washington), but I can't afford the gigantic lenses for that, so I'll probably rent one once in awhile until I win the lottery.<br /> All of that having been said, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the 24-105 and 70-200. Is the 70-200 non-IS usable handheld without the IS, should I ever want to do something other than studio shots with it, or should I save for IS? And for those of you who have owned it, how is the IQ on these lenses?<br /> Thanks all, and I look forward to becoming part of the Canon forums!</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Good move getting the 24-105.</p>

<p>90 tilt-shift is a favorite with food photographers. Check it out.</p>

[rob_h5]

<blockquote>

<p>Since the 24-105 f/4 is only an extra $575 (vs. $1150 alone) if I purchase it with the camera, I'm thinking that one is definitely a no-brainer. From what I've read on other posts, it sounds like a good lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ditto on the Canon 24-105mm L f4 lens that is a GREAT zoom! Its very very sharp and has very useful focal lengths , I think you will find it perfect for food photography. If you can get the Canon 90mm tilt-shift that would also be great for commercial food/product photography, it also is available to rent. And another lens is the Canon 100mm L f2.8 Macro a very popular lens for food/product photography.</p>

<p>Here is a great example from a food photographer using the <strong>Canon 5D Mark III and Canon 100mm f.2.8L Macro lens</strong><br /> <a href="http://nicolesyblog.com/2013/03/07/beautiful-food-in-the-barossa-valley/">http://nicolesyblog.com/2013/03/07/beautiful-food-in-the-barossa-valley/</a></p>

[devon_mccarroll]

Given that the tilt shift is as much as the camera, that is WAY out of my budget for now. I loved my Sigma 105mm macro I used with my

Nikon, so I'll likely get a Canon version of that eventually.

Anyone have thoughts on the 70-200 non-IS?

[rob_h5]

<blockquote>

<p> If you can get the Canon 90mm tilt-shift that would also be great for commercial food/product photography,<strong> it also is available to rent.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Every major photography rental store has this lens for rent. And if there isnt one locally they can always ship it to you. :)</p>

[devon_mccarroll]

Oh definitely, rental is a possibility. First I want to save my pennies to build up a Canon kit though, since I'm starting from

scratch. I only do food photos as a hobby currently, but may be doing stock at some point.

[geoffs1]

200mm is definitely hand-holdable w/o IS.

 

If you don't need the f/2.8 aperture, the 70-200mm f/4 lenses are also very

good. I think the f/4 IS is considered sharper than the mkI f/2.8.

[devon_mccarroll]

Thanks Geoff. I should have said, it's the non-IS f4 I was looking at.

[John Crowe]

<p>The 24-105 L is not a great lens and there have been discussions on photo.net of buying it anyway as a combo and then making a couple of hundred dollars by selling it. Something you could consider. The 70-200/4 L is an excellent lens. You don't need IS when using a tripod or when doing sports. </p>

<p>I would not like the overlap of the 24-105 and 70-200. I'd be more inclined to look for a used 24-70/2.8 L or even better a couple of primes, to go with the 70-200.</p>

<p>While cropping from a full frame image is one possible route, you'd get far better image quality by filling the frame. Buying the right lens for the job is still ideal.<br>

<br>

Why are you switching from Nikon? I went from Canon (25 years) to Nikon (3 years) and now (2 years) use a combination of Nikon and Canon lenses on my 5D II.</p>

[rob_h5]

<blockquote>

<p>The 24-105 L is not a great lens and there have been discussions on photo.net of buying it anyway as a combo and then making a couple of hundred dollars by selling it<br /> I'd be more inclined to look for a used 24-70/2.8 L...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I disagree. I have shot many times with the <strong>Canon 24-105L f4 zoom lens</strong> on the Canon 5DMKII and I have found it to be an excellent lens very sharp, superb color and contrast and last but certainly not least a <strong>very useful focal range. </strong>The only drawback is as I often mention is its speed, f4 is not fast to say the least but this is what happens when you have this focal length range. As far as the combo thing, that happens in all camera-kit packages where the lens included is either not very good or not needed because the photographer already has one similar. The Canon 24-105L f4 zoom lens is an exception...one of the very very few Canon "kit lenses" I recommend.</p>

<p>But I do agree that the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens is the best in the Canon "mini zoom" under 100mm range, it is more expensive but if you can swing it got for it! Either zoom lens though is fine.</p>

<p><strong>Canon 24-105L f4 review </strong><br /> <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a><br /> <strong>.</strong></p>

[devon_mccarroll]

<p>John, I have issues with Nikon's quality control and customer service, but beyond that, I just don't like the ergonomics of their cameras anymore. The Canon feels so much better in my hands. And given that I've been shooting with a nearly seven year old D80 and ten year old 28-105 3.5-5.6 lens, I doubt I'll be unhappy with any light cropping I do shooting with the 24-105 and 5D3! And I can always rearrange my setup and just bring my subjects closer. <br>

I don't need super fast lenses, and f/4 is plenty shallow as far as DOF for any of the food photography that I do, so it seems that the 24-105 will be a fine start for me. Given that I'm spending three times more than I've ever spent on a camera, I'll just be using the one lens for now. Planning to add to the arsenal down the road. I might get the 85mm 1.8 at some point, although when I search for it at BH Photo, it doesn't show up now.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>My main lenses when not doing wildlife work are the 24-105/4L and the 85/1.8 (along with the 50/1.8 if I'm shooting with a crop sensor body). The 85/1.8 should be available anywhere and there's a rebate on it right now. It's certainly not discontinued or in short supply (as far as I know). It's on the B&H website, you just have to use the right search terms to get to it - <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12182-USA/Canon_2519A003_85mm_f_1_8_USM_Autofocus.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12182-USA/Canon_2519A003_85mm_f_1_8_USM_Autofocus.html</a></p>

<p>The 24-105/4L IS is a pretty good lens. Not as good as some primes in that range, but more than good enough for very pleasing images that will stand up to moderate pixel peeping. Those who demand pinpoint sharpness in the corners of the full frame image with a lens wide open when viewed at 100% on a large monitor might be slightly disappointed, though they'd probably be disappointed with most (if not all) lenses. It vignettes a bit at 24mm, and distortion is noticeable but nothing mild tweaking can't cope with. At $575 it is indeed a "no-brainer".</p>

<p>I have a short review at <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/canon_ef_24-105_review.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/canon_ef_24-105_review.html</a></p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Another who finds the EF 24-105mm lens to be excellent. ALL LENSES ARE COMPROMISES, the question is what is compromised, for what reasons, and whether you can live with it.</p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>I use the 24-105mm f/4L IS and the 70-200mm f/4L IS as my main lenses when not using my 500/f4 for BIF.</p>

<p>Keep in mind, particularly when using zooms, you're not using the lenses to their full potential unless you use Digital Lens Optimization software during your Raw conversion. DLO comes as part of DPP (Digital Photo Professional) which ships with all EOS cameras. DLO corrects for geometric distortions, vignetting, CA, etc. at each focal length and each aperture.</p>

[devon_mccarroll]

Thank you David! Good to know! And if you ever get bored with your 500 f/4 and feel like giving it to a worthy person, I'd

be happy to take it off your hands...

[dcstep]

<p>When I put together the scratch to move up to a Series II super-tele, I'll let you know Devon. ;-)</p>

<p>BTW, LightRoom has plug ins that do much the same thing as DPP's DLO modules (separtate ones for each lens and body) but you have to activate it and/or perhaps download it. I use DxO Optics Pro for my DLO. The free one that comes in DPP is functionally great, but DPP is clunky to use vs. LR and others.</p>

[devon_mccarroll]

I don't have Lightroom, just Photoshop CS6, but I am looking forward to being able to tether with the included software. With Nikon, I had

to pay an extra $150 for tethering software.

[dcstep]

<p>Devon, then I'd suggest doing your Raw conversion with DPP (with DLO turned on of course) and saving to tiff and doing any further adjustment needed in PS. If you need nothing other than Global Exposure, Contrast, RGB Curve, then you could convert direct to JPEG and avoid PS on those shots.</p>

<p>DPP is an exceptionally competent program, it's just not as user friendly as LR or DxO. Of course, everything is more user friendly than PS. ;-)</p>

<p>I have no "real" tethered experience and only did it once to familiarize myself. Of course, I'm mostly shooting in the woods and not in a studio.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>If you had bought the 24-105 closer to when it first came out, but after they corrected the weird pinpoint flare issue, it would have been a SUPERB lens. If you had bought it a while ago when the rash of Mark II lenses were starting to come out, I think you would have found the lens was rather horrible. It now seems to be getting somewhat better.</p>

<p>One can make no assurances as to whether the lens will continue taking usable images. You may find that with the passage of time it again becomes superb, with people having multiple orgasms over its images. Or it may suck. Only time will tell. Meanwhile, if you don't concern yourself with what others say, you may go on happily using the 24-105 in blissful ignorance, as though it's simply another useful tool in your kit. (Psst! I think you'll like it!)</p>

[devon_mccarroll]

Wow, mixed reviews on that lens. I still think it will be a big step up from what I've been working with. The other thing I've

considered is starting out with the 85mm 1.8, and maybe the 100mm non-IS macro, keeping in mind my tight budget after

the camera purchase, and the fact that I shoot 99% of the time with a tripod.

[kirigoi]

<p>I have to say I love the 24-105, I prefered it to the first 24-70 L. By all accounts the 24-70 IS II is better but you really have to pay for the improvements. The 24-105 certainly produces "usable" images! And for the price you'd have to be daft not to get it.<br>

<br /> To add to what David was saying, you can certainly use Photoshop CS6; when you import a raw file Adobe Camera Raw can correct for vignetting, distortion and chromatic aberation, so turn what is a very good lens into a superb one. Just make sure to turn it on (for some reason it's off by default). DPP is an excellent bit of software, but it adds an extra step into image processing, so if you already own and have familiarity with PS there seems little reason to use that as well.</p>

<p>Enjoy the new camera!</p>

[devon_mccarroll]

Thanks Mark! I'm watching to see if the price comes down again since I missed the last great promo, but I probably won't

wait long. I'm itching to get it and get to know it, especially before we head out for our first RV trip of the season.