New 5D Mark II - what lenses do I need?

[ryan_ryan1]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I have recently upgraded from my T3 to a used 5D Mark II that came with a EF 24-105L lens. I am going on a round the world trip in a week and am wondering what lens would be must haves for shooting city areas day and night and landscapes day and night. I hope to have some chances to shoot auroras in Finland too! <br>

<br />So in addition to my 24-105L I am struggling as to what other lenses I might need/find useful or even need? Maybe a 50mm or 40mm prime for night walk around? I was am pretty close to buying a Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 for night lanscapes/auroras/milkyway but am a little concerned with the super wide angle distortions. Would a 20/24/28 fast(2.8 or less) prime be better for this shooting night landscapes/auroras? And lastly a basic telephoto for the rare occasion I might need it.</p>

<p>Any thoughts are GREATLY appreciated as I am very new to the Full Frame and time is running out!</p>

<p>Thanks!<br>

Ryan</p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>Hey Ryan - Although I've not owned a full-frame Canon camera (we own Canon cropped bodies) I'm thinking about your upcoming trip and what you might find to shoot, and my first reaction is that you have one lens that is "wide-ish" to "telephoto-ish". It's about equal to a 17mm at the wide-end on our cameras, and when I shoot in cities I shoot a lot with a 10-22mm, so I would want something wider; and I definitely would personally want something longer for a round-the-world trip, because who knows what you'll find? Perhaps fixed lenses at both those ends, just to round out the kit? I'm not going to start throwing out specific models - we use L lenses pretty much exclusively except for that 10-22, and that may not be in your budget.</p>

<p>And, I'm jealous of your upcoming trip by the way.</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>we use L lenses pretty much exclusively except for that 10-22, and that may not be in your budget.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just to avoid any confusion/misinterpretation, the 10-22mm won't work on full frame - it's EF-S.</p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>Understood Keith - I'm fully aware of the difference between EF and EFS lenses - the comment was to indicate our preference for L lenses where ever possible, and to preface the notion that budget might not work for the OP. It was all about comparisons, and the few wide-angle zooms available on Canon cropped sensor cameras are unfortunately EFS lenses. I'm saying that it makes sense to me to get something wider than the 24-105.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Unless you know of some use that will require more focal length or less focal length, that lens will cover it all. I just got back from a Med/Aegean cruise where 95% of my shots were with a 5D3/24-105mm combination. I also carried a 15mm diagonal fish-eye and a 70-200mm zoom. I used both for a handful of shots. I shoot thousands of images per month and know how to use specialize lenses. If you're not already using these types of lenses, then I'd start with the 24-105mm and only start looking for another lens when you want to take some shot that it will not do. It's an excellent lens and I think you'll be extremely pleased with your results.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>David Cavan, what are you talking about? 24mm is plenty wide for most travel photography on a full-frame camera, like the OP's 5D MkII. What does "equal to a 17mm ... on our cameras" mean? A 10-22 is going to be a "special use" lens on a full-frame sensor.</p>

<p>You start out saying, "I've not owned a full-frame..." so maybe that's why you seem confused. I've used FF since 2008. Believe me, 24mm is a nice wide lens on a FF sensor.</p>

<p><a title="Grand Canyon Snow Clouds Sunrise by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5327/9714618944_e6d21d41ca_c.jpg" alt="Grand Canyon Snow Clouds Sunrise" width="800" height="534" /></a></p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Get a Canon 17-40? Coupled with the 24-105 you already have, you're ready for most eventualities. You might want something like the Canon 50mm f1.4 too, depends on your style.</p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>David Stephens - one person's "special use" is another persons' go-to lens. It's one of mine - including many shots in the US SW, including the Grand Canyon. We're sharing opinions here, and my opinion is that 10mm on a cropped sensor, or around 17mm on a full-frame is not at the "special use" end. Were I to own an FF, 24 would not be wide enough. That's my point.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>I have the Canon 5D II and for general photography use the 17-40L and 70-300 L for most shots. The non L 70-300 is also very good. I also use the 24-105 L, the 100 f2.8 Macro and 50mm f1.8. I find the high ISO performance of the 5DII is good but for a lot of night photography a small tripod would be my first choice rather than faster lenses.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Think about carrying around and changing extra lenses. Many people really don't need that. If you need wider than 24mm will provide, then take two, three or seven overlapping shots and stitch them together.</p>

<p>A fast-50mm is a specialized lens thats only claim to fame is bokeh or situations where you need speed. The 5D2 is so good at high ISOs that you really don't need a faster lens than f/4, even for night shooting.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, there's a place for a 17mm lens (I own a 15mm/2.8 Canon) but the perspective is unusual and harder to compose for many subjects. I'd only recommend ultra-wide for advancing photographers that have mastered a regular wide angle. Most ultra-wides are going to require correction to remove geometric distortion. They can be fun, but you don't want to be experimenting on a once in a lifetime trip.</p>

<p>Here's a hand held, night shot taken with the 5D2/24-105mm combination at ISO 3200:</p>

<p><a title="Cinderella's Castle at Christmas by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7174/6572734913_515d47cc98_z.jpg" alt="Cinderella's Castle at Christmas" width="640" height="638" /></a></p>

[dcstep]

<p>David Cavan, you said that you don't even own a full-frame camera. Believe me, shooting at 10mm on a full-frame camera is "special use". I own full-frame and crop-sensor bodies. The lenses required are quite different, which you don't seem to understand.</p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>David Stephens - I AM NOT RECOMMENDING A 10mm LENS ON A FF CAMERA. <br>

My comment was about a 17mm equivalent for the FF - but facts shouldn't get in the way of a good argument, I guess.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>From my previous post: David Stephens - one person's "special use" is another persons' go-to lens. It's one of mine - including many shots in the US SW, including the Grand Canyon. We're sharing opinions here, and my opinion is that 10mm on a cropped sensor, or around 17mm on a full-frame is not at the "special use" end. Were I to own an FF, 24 would not be wide enough. That's my point.</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

[dcstep]

<p>I asked you what you meant because your post was unclear and confusing, talking about "our cameras" etc. Now you've said what you meant.</p>

<p>Why don't you post a picture taken with you "17mm equivalent" at 10mm, if that's your bread and butter?</p>

<p>Here's a geometrically corrected picture taken with my 15mm on a full-frame. I think that ultra-wides are really great at showing "big skies" and super wide perspectives, but I'd only advise them for someone that hasn't already worked a good bit at 24mm on full-frame, or equivalent:</p>

<p><a title="Approaching Storm by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7422/9574120866_2050f32559_c.jpg" alt="Approaching Storm" width="800" height="533" /></a></p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>We've hijacked the OP's post already David - I'd be quite happy to have this discussion in a parallel thread comparing the impact of wider lenses on FF and cropped-frame Canon cameras. It could be interesting.</p>

<p>By the way - I think I had been quite clear in my earlier post, and in my first post. But whatever, let's move on.</p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>double post</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Only in your penultimate post does it seem clear to me what you meant to say.</p>

[david_ammer]

<p>You've already got a terrific all-around travel lens. If you don't mind carrying more, perhaps a 35/2IS for night action (which also makes a handy 56mm on your T3 if you haven't sold it), or a 50mm (again a nice 80mm on T3). Or simply a 430exii plus an ETTL cord (for people - night and day), or even more simply a tripod (for non-people). Assuming you were using an EF-S 18-something on your T3, I agree with others that you might first get used to 24mm on full-frame (already ~15% wider than 18mm on crop) before committing to something even wider. For tele, perhaps a 200/2.8L, or 70-200/4L (+ or - IS) depending on your speed vs zoom preference, and your budget. FWIW I was very underwhelmed by the non-L 70-300 with my 5Dii on the long (200+) end. Last, maybe a high-quality circular polarizing filter for your 24-105? Have fun!</p>

[Nick D.]

<p>Hi, 70-200/ f4 with or without IS it is lite and very good optically, with 24-105 it's good travel combo, my 2 cents for travel lite:)<br>

24 is wide enough for most cases, F4 or F2.8 do not make much difference at night, you will need tripod anyway for shooting milkyway. </p>

 

[ed_avis2]

<p>Get the 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens. Then your camera will be small enough to fit in a (man-sized) jacket pocket and you can take it everywhere. It also looks less conspicuous than the big red-stripe lens.</p>

<p>For a bit less money you could get the 50mm f/1.8 instead, but I think the new pancake is generally held to be better.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>As for the original question, the 24-105mm IS L lens is fantastic. On the 5Dii and a little willingness to pump up the ISO, you can do dang near everything with that one lens. Mine lives on my 5Dii and formerly on my 5D (classic) much of the time.<br /> Ultrawide is nice. I personally was well covered with that on APS-C for that and I got an older Sigma 15-30mm which is a lot cheaper than either the 12-24 that replaced it, or the 16/17-35/40 Canon lenses.<br /> I had very long ago bought the original EF 75-300mm IS when it was still new, and when I went to 35mm sensor, I got a very nice EF 100-400mm IS (an another oldie, but still in the line-up). I also bought a used 50D to use for telephoto, since I had as much new bells-and-whistles on the 5Dii as I personally needed.</p>

<p>Anyhow, "cutting edge" technology can be awfully sharp and bloody sometimes.</p>

<p>Oh, and they're right that a nice prime is good - I have a bunch but use a 35mm f/2 and a 50mm f/1.8 the most often.</p><div></div>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Getting back to the original question, for wide angle NIGHT photography and landscape work I would recommend the 28mm f/1.8 or the 35mm f/2 lenses if you're on a budget. If money is not an issue then the 24mm f/1.4L is incredible, as is the 35mm f/1.4L.</p>

[jimadams]

<blockquote>

<p>I am struggling as to what other lenses I might need/find useful or even need?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I carry two lenses with me at all times. A Canon 24-70 <em>f</em>/2.8L and a Canon 70-200mm <em>f</em>/2.8L IS. And sometimes a Canon 2X converter. </p>

<p>Those are my suggestions. Good luck!</p>

[pto189]

<p>With your new 5D II and the kit lens 24-105, you can cover 80% or even 90% of the shots. If you also need a longer lens, buy the 70-200 f/4L. On the other side, if you need an ultra wide lens, buy the 17-40 f/4. You can also add the 40mm pancake to your package. By the way, buy the 430 EX II especially for fill flash.</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Although I come from Nikon side, the FF view is the same as it's on the Canon. I have seen some really good results from 17-40. If you're going to deal with Aurora Borealis, I'd stick to something close to F2.8 or better. Perhaps you could rent Zeiss 21mm specifically for that ? Other than that 24-70 + 200mm would probably cover most of your shots. To keep things relatively light-er, a 50/1.8 would work as well. I'd probably choose something little wider, since I don't like the "normal" look of the 50mm.</p>

<p>The shot below was taken with 24/2.8 lens <strong>at F3.5</strong>, since I don't like using it wide open. I felt that I could have used 20 or 21mm to make it perfect.</p>

<p>Enjoy your trip and come back with loads of photos.</p>

<p>Les</p><div></div>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Ryan, it is hard to ask somebody else what is the ideal kit for <em>you</em> - because we all have a different style of shooting. The discussion between the Davids is a clear case: where many will say 24mm is wide enough on FF, some simply do not find it wide enough. There is no right or wrong here, it is all about preference - your individual preference. I know I am glad to have a wider option (but as a Nikon user, my exact lens choices are not very useful), as well as longer lenses. A trip like yours? I'd carry my widest lens, and the smallest ~200mm option I can find.</p>

<p>So, you can make it a lot easier on yourself by looking at the photos you made with your T3 before: what kind of focal lengths do YOU prefer, did YOU actually really use? Make sure you cover the equivalents of those focal lengths first and foremost.<br>

A second thing is that ultra-wide angles need some time to get used to, and to learn how to use effectively. And reading your post, you do not have a lot of time. I'd only carry gear I am familiar with, and which I've used before. Holiday photos - certainly a trip like yours (I'm green with envy...) - you can make only once. You do not want to miss them because you're struggling with gear you do not know well enough. Keep it simple, and use an approach you know well.</p>

<p>Most important, enjoy the trip, it really sounds awesome!</p>