UKC

Got the EOS 5D MK III and now needing some lens advice.

I only want to carry 2 lenses.
Need wide angle.
Up to 200mm ish (in old slr money).
Budget of £1000- £1500.

Any recommendations?

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Do you want to buy new or would you buy second hand or grey market?

24-105mm f4 L IS and 70-200mm f4 L IS would be around £1500 off the top of my head. Cheaper if you get grey import but then you don't get a warranty. Is 24mm wide enough for you?

In reply to BStar:

May need something a bit wider. Most of my photography will be landscapes.

I've just seen a used EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM. Any thoughts on that one?

In reply to estivoautumnal:

It's a cracking lens, I love it. I've only used it on my 500D though, not on a camera with a full-frame sensor.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

The 17-55mm lens isn't compatible with the 5D, or any full frame camera. It is an EF-S lens, full frame sensors are only compatible with EF lenses. If you are used to crop sensors, 24mm on full frame is equivalent to 15mm on a crop sensor.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Erm, hate to be rude, but if that's your budget, surely you're at the point with your photography where you know yourself?

But anyway-
www.simplyelectronics.co.uk is amazing for lenses, grey imports but come with a warranty.

The 24-105 f4L is awesome, worth every last penny. The IS technology more than makes up for the F4 max aperture.

For a wide angle lens try the Tokina 11-16 F2.8 AT-X PRo. The best lens ever and no arguments! The colours are just incredible, the F2.8 aperture is very useful and distortion only becomes apparent at 11mm but even then it's barely noticeable.

In reply to Barry Chuckle: Ooops sorry the Tokina won't work with a full-frame sensor

In reply to Barry Chuckle:

Again, the 11-16mm is an EF-S (crob body) compatible lens only. He has a full frame camera. If you want wider, there is the Canon 17-40mm f4 L lens, or the more expensive 16-35mm f2.8 L lens.

In reply to BStar: Yes, I realised that after posting. It's my favorite, I get a little carried away with it sometimes.

In reply to Barry Chuckle:


I'm not hugely impressed with my one, especially since I got a 17-40 f/4 L which is much sharper.

In reply to the OP: I'd be considering the 24-70 (f/2.8 I think) and the 70-200 f/4 (non-IS). I have the latter and it's a good bit of kit. Not sure of the price for these 2 lenses, it might be more than £1500 but not a lot more - the 70-200 is £500-ish.

In reply to Barry Chuckle:

Yeah it's a cracking lens, I have it too, so much better than the cr*ppy Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 I had. Well actually I had 3 of them over the course of 2 years, all of them ended up with the infamous soft left hand side and went back for repairs etc. I didn't see your retracktion before I replied.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

I find you have to use a much higher ISO than you would normally expect to get the best out of it.

In reply to BStar: Yup, the Tokina has been up El Cap, Half Dome, been dropped god knows how many times, had the manual focus ring caked up with dust and grit (the grinding noise was painful to hear) and it's fine, not had to send it away once!

In reply to BStar: Just had a look at your Flickr stream, some nice work on there! Any chance you could have a quick look at mine and offer some pointers?

In reply to BStar:

Good information. Thanks.

In reply to Barry Chuckle:


I'll have a look at the Tokina.

Up until 18 years ago I worked in the photography industry. Various hats. Since then I've only owned a compact and been a snapper at best. Now I want to get back into photography. I don't think I've lost many of the skills just the up to date knowledge of equipment.

In reply to Barry Chuckle:


Ok, I'll read all of the replies first!

In reply to Barry Chuckle:
>

I think I'l give them a miss.

http://www.trustpilot.co.uk/review/www.simplyelectronics.net

In reply to estivoautumnal:

I have a crop body currently but been spending a lot of time thinking about this and I may upgrade to full frame at some point.

Having looked at loads, I eventually bought a 17-40L and have a 70-200L (non IS). I think that for a full frame, the 17-40L would be well nigh perfect as a wide lens. If I had the money, however, I would go for the 16-35L which is simply stunning. Again, if I had the money, I guess I would go for the 70-200L IS. Whether you would feel the need for a mid range zoom or fixed focal lens (around 50mm) I don't know. I think pros don't worry so much about having a gap in focal lengths and I'm starting to find that too.

Incidentally, I also have a 100L IS macro which is simply superb and I can't speak highly enough of it. It would be a great macro and portrait lens on a full frame body. It's really a little long on a crop of portrait but useful and so sharp etc it's incredible.

All the above are Canon lenses btw.

In reply to estivoautumnal:
If you need a wide zoom you have go to go for the Canon 17-40mm. I have had one for a few years now. Its tough and super sharp.
Then maybe go for a Canon 70-200 either F4 or F2:8. (I have the F2:8 but the F4 is good too ).
All the Wideboyz stuff was shot on just these two lenses.
The Canon L lenses are superb, don't be afraid to buy second hand cos they are made to last and most people look after gear really well.

In reply to estivoautumnal:
Also they are both great on full frame and cropped bodies.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

I've never used simpleyelectronics but I have purchased several lenses through digitalrev.com. I would certainly recommend them as an importer.

I break my lenses down into 3 categories... ultra wide, mid range, and telephoto, if you only want 2 lenses then there will be a compromise.

Ultra wide - 17-40mm f4 L vs 16-35mm f2.8 L vs a 3rd party lens (a compatible tokina etc)
Mid range - 24-105mm f4 L IS vs 24-70mm f2.8
Telephoto - 70-200mm f4 L vs 70-200mm f4 L IS or 3rd party equiv

Earlier someone suggested the 24-70mm over the 24-105mm, I would disagree with this for landscape work. Image stabilizer is worth a whole lot more than 1 stop of aperture in landscape work. Again, for a telephoto lens, I would strongly recommend Image stabilizer if you can afford it, it makes hand holding long shots a whole lot more successful.

Unfortunately with them choices you wouldn't have an ultra wide angle, and if I'm honest, most of my landscapes are taken with ultra wide angle lenses.

17-40mm and 24-105mm would be a good option, but then you don't quite get the zoom you wanted.

In reply to BStar:

Looking at the replies it may be better for me to go with 3 lenses rather than 2. I want to use them on a couple of long cycling trips that I have planned so the 2 lens thing will always be a compromise. My budget can be increased, I was just trying to be sensible.

Ultra wide and telephoto may be my first choice adding a mid range later on.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Two lenses is plenty, learn to see and work with the focal lengths you have in the bag and dont get bogged down with gear.The gap between 40mm and 70mm isnt massive at all so If you need ultra wide, do the 17-40 + 70-200 combo.If you feel like you are missing out within that gap then buy a cheap 50mm prime, they are nice, light and fast.

In reply to SeanB:


This is exactly what I was saying too. For the best bang for your buck, would be hard to beat and the OP should learn to use this equipment properly.

In reply to SeanB:
Three lenses and a FF body, sounds like a right mare, for a bike trip?! It's enough of pain humphing that lot around on a hill trip!

In reply to dek:

With the exception of my tent it will possibly the heaviest single item that I'll be carrying! 3 lenses would be too much, that's why I am trying to limit it to 2 and even that will be weighty.

In reply to all:

Thanks everyone for the advice. It's now a decision between

17-55 f2.8
or
16-35 f2.8

and

70-200 f4
or
70-200 f2.8

I'll try them out in the shop.

In reply to Skyfall:

My last SLR was a Canon A1 so it's been a while.

In reply to BStar:


That was me, I think. As for your point, well I disagree completely.

I suggested the 24-70 because it marries well with the 70-200, not because of its smaller minimum aperture. But in any case, the optics are generally better on f/2.8 lenses.

In contrast, I can't see any benefit whatsoever in the image stabilisation function unless you're not using a tripod. You do use a tripod, I take it?!

In reply to estivoautumnal:


I'm sorry if my comment sounded a little rude, wasn't meant to at all: I meant it positively ie. that's a really a good but not overly expensive set up and would let you grow into it. But I see you're keen on the 16-35 which I do think is a smashing lens.

In reply to estivoautumnal:


I've owned both of those and currently own the 2.8. It's built like a brick-shithouse and is pin sharp but it's also very heavy. I've trashed my 1Dmkii mount by running around with the thing mounted on it for a few years at work.

Since the f4 is also the b****ocks, I'd consider (I'm sure you have) what you want the extra stop for? If it's for bokeh or whatever or you expect to be shooting in super low-light conditions, or if you're shooting sport through the winter then fair enough. If it's for average low light conditions however, )say weddings/the interior of a church etc) I'd consider the image stabilised f4. I shot a lot of weddings (church interiors) with this mounted on a 5Dmki (1600 max iso) and never really had a problem, I'm very steady handheld though. On the other hand on your 5Dmkiii with it's brilliant low light capabilities, f4 IS is probably going to more than enough is most situations.

2.8 is great though

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Fair enough, we are all allowed an opinion. My opinion would differ to yours. I quite like the overlap that the 105mm gives, it means you don't have to change lenses as often. And the image stabilisation is great when you haven't got your tripod with you or you don't want to faff with setting one up for that particular shot. As for sharpness, you are right, the 24-70mm f2.8 is without a doubt sharper in tests, but you would expect that from a lens that is nearly £1000 more expensive from Jessops. The 24-70mm (mk2 in this example as that is all they offer online) would be above the maximum budget for both lenses that the OP wanted.

In reply to BStar:

Of course we're all allowed an opinion!


Well we are talking about landscape photography, and for this I'd consider the use of a tripod to be fairly essential. Even using a tripod, cable release and shutter lock-up I find it's far from trivial to get acceptable front-to-back image sharpness. Without a tripod, there's just no way it would be possible - in my opinion!

In reply to estivoautumnal:

New or second hand 16-35 II and 70-200 F/4 IS (£1200 or £1600).

Job done. But, for £60 second hand, you'd be daft not to pick up a 50mm f/1.8.

I have a totally mint 24-105 f/4 L going for £450 & p+p, should you decide to go that route.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

You realise the 17-55 f2.8 doesn't physically fit on your camera right? Get yourself a second hand 24-105 and then work out whether you want wider or longer. If you feel the f4 isn't bright enough get something else like the tamron 24-70 2.8 vc. I'm not entirely sure you know what question you need to ask yourself so I'd suggest reading up on the basics a little.

In reply to Hannes:

Yes I do. Spoke to local camera shop today and got some sound advice.

Thanks for your concern but I'm up to speed on the basics.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

As you're obviously just starting out in the SLR world, why not go for 28-135mm as a walk-about lens. It will give you landscape to reasonably good action shots up close, and the 16-35 mm when you're specifically shooting landscapes.

Anything more than 135 mm but less than 300 mm won't really suit anything in particular. If you get into say sport or nature photography then you could add the 100-400 mm and maybe a macro.