i had a 14mm mk2 L and a 20mm f2.8 canon lense for landscapes. despite being a quarter of the cost of the 14mm, the 20mm canon took some of my best landscape shots and had the advantage of being able to put lee filters and grads on it.
for wildlife, i had a 70-200 f2.8 l and a 300mm f2.8l mk2. the latter was the most amazing lense i ever used. seriously not cheap to buy one now though....
i still have the 20mm f2.8 canon lense and all my filters and grads if you're looking for a good deal? email@example.com if you want to get in touch.
the 5dmk2 is an amazing body and you won't be dissappointed.
In reply to stroppygob: I got a 50mm 1.4 as a me to me pressie and I love it already. Much sturdier than the 1.8 which always felt plasticky. Very jealous of you impending mkIII, my 40D is getting old now
Just a quick thought that you won't get much out of a 300 for cricket I'm afraid - unless you're the umpire!
I've shot cricket for work in the past just on a 70-200mm with a 1dmk2 which with it's cropped sensor gives me about 270 or something like that and frankly, the pictures were shit because they were far too loose.
You're never gonna get anything close on the stumps/batsman with a 300. 500 and you're getting somewhere.
Depends what you're after though. Sounds like you know what you're doing re' the cricket and fielding shots can be great IF you can get them, which is bloody hard on a ~300 and would be for me at least nigh on impossible on a 500.
So maybe if you're thinking of getting the 300 2.8, get a 1.4x converter as well, which I guess will still give you f4.5 or if you're getting 70-200 2.8 x2 gives conversion to f5.6 max (this is what I shoot on now) and then at least you've got the option. Price shouldn't be dissimilar to that of a cheapish 50mm.
I need to get myself a 50mm though, so I can pretend to be Don McCullin shooting for Life, rather than the grim reality ;)
In reply to stroppygob: Good advice there from Southern Man!
He is right enough, 300mm is too short for cricket and you should be thinking 500mm if you are serious about getting tight action shots.A (good) 1.4x teleconverter on a 300mm might be the way in and more versatile but you will lose some AF response and max aperture will drop off aswell.
A decent 24-70 (fx equiv) is your lens for landscape.Zooms are versatile and the quality nowadays is impressive.
Dont get bogged down with how many lenses you 'need' is the best advice I can offer.
Just in case you've over-looked it - don't forget with your 450D, your 300mm lens is cropped to 480mm equivalent. So the 300mm will feel quite a bit shorter when you move to full frame. A 1.4 converter will get you to 420mm on the 5D3.
Having said that, you will be able to crop pretty well with your new body...
The third lens is tough....16-35mm for bouldering shots, or 50mm f 1.4 for low light..
And with respect to the zoom and multiplier. You are thinking about it all wrong.
300mm is 300mm, irrespective of whether it is on APC or FF - nothing get multiplied!. All that changes is field of view due to the bit of the image circle that the sensor records (smaller on APC). Its a marketing con that they call 300mm "480mm" on APC !
The important thing will be resolution dictated by the pixel size:
450D: 5.20 micrometers
5Diii: 6.2 micrometers
So on a 300mm fixed lens, subjects at same distance from camera (at 100% pixel viewing on screen) will appear bigger (c. 20% by length, 44% by area?) (i.e. higher resolution) taken with the 450D compared with the 5Diii.
In reply to stroppygob:
A mate has the 50 f1.4 on the 5D3, it's stunningly sharp and contrasty, a bargain buy! He also has a horrendously expensive 24f1.4, its amazing, if you get L series lenses on that body, the image quality available will blow you away!
> (In reply to Nadir khan)
> Just thrown in $700 for one, I hope it lives up to the reviews.
You won't be disappointed its a cracking lense.
If you didn't need the length for cricket etc I'd definitely recommend the 70-200 L4 IS as others above have. It's a great all rounder. I've put a 2x converter on and it's a pain to use (no is or af) and I wasn't impressed with the results to be honest.
As for 2 or 3 lenses. I have the two above and the 50mm 1.8. The 50mm is a great lense and cheap for the quality. But it never gets taken out I just end up putting the 70-200mm on. Suppose it depends on what you want to do.
In reply to stroppygob: My canon 17-40 L arrived yesterday, OMFG it looks good. I was on an evening shift yesterday, so I couldn't get out with it. I'm on a morning shift today, so wil walk the dogs at the local nature reserve later, and try to fire off a few shots.
Thanks again to all who have commented and offered advice.
Now to talk the wife into letting me get a new telephoto.....