# Suggestions for Zoom Lens for Canon Mark 5D Mark iii



## heidi.nelson (Mar 18, 2013)

Which lens do you like best between the two (the 70-200 does not have IS but is an L lens, etc) or neither...looking to shoot outdoor portraits and candids of families and children, and some landscape photography, etc. I really appreciate your response -- I am slowly adding to my lenses (I currently own an 85mm 1.8 prime lens and a 50mm 1.8 prime lens for my Mark iii -- I have other lenses but they are all EF-S lenses so they do not work with my full frame Canon -- Thank you so much, Heidi


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 18, 2013)

The 70-200/4L will give you better IQ than any of the other options.


----------



## atosk930 (Mar 18, 2013)

If budget and wide-angle is the concern, I can recommend the 28-135. This is what I used for 70% of my pictures. Otherwise, go with the 70-200.


shot with the 28-135



Walking the Bridge by atosk89, on Flickr


----------



## rs (Mar 18, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 70-200/4L will give you better IQ than any of the other options.


+1

And the Tamron 17-50 is for crop cameras


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 18, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 70-200/4L will give you better IQ than any of the other options.


+1
Not to mention at a highly affordable price.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 18, 2013)

I wouldn't of picked any of these lenses but thats just me.

The 70-200F4L is you best bet.


----------



## heidi.nelson (Mar 18, 2013)

Thanks so much for the feedback....I am definitely leaning towards the 70-200 mm f/4L after hearing your comments ...the photo taken with the 28-135 is also beautiful -- I will look more into this lens too either now or down the road.


----------



## Inspiron41 (Mar 18, 2013)

70-200mm/2.8L and 85mm/1.2L are my lens of choice for doing portraits and candids. As everyone said with IQ, go with 70-200/4L. 

but then you mentioned "landscape photography". You'll probably be better off with 28-135.

you gotta pick your battle now, which one you favor doing more? Landscape or portraits?


----------



## jrh (Mar 18, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 70-200/4L will give you better IQ than any of the other options.



+1

I had the 28-135 and the variable aperture and inconsistent image quality drove me nuts. The 70-200 zoom range takes on a whole new view thru a FF compared to a crop. I use my 70-200 2.8IS 70% of the time on my mk3. Maybe look for a marked down Canon refurbished 70-200 with IS.


----------



## well_dunno (Mar 18, 2013)

+1 for the 70-200. 

Also, as it was mentioned earlier, Tamron 17-50 is for crop cameras even though it has EF mount. Hence it is not an option for 5D mk3...


Cheers!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 18, 2013)

The 70-200mm f/4L is by far the best of those you listed. The 28-135mm IS is the worst on FF its horrible, but fair on a crop. (Tamron 17-50 is not FF).



I've had all on my 5D series cameras (except for the 17-50). The Canon 70-300mm IS is good and can sometimes be found for about or under $300, but choose the 70-200mmL, its way better.



You should check out the lens ratings done by a pro tester at photozone. You can then decide for yourself.



http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff


----------



## darrellrhodesmiller (Mar 18, 2013)

the 70-200mm range is a really nice range for portraits.. the F4 or the F2.8 lens are both very good lenses you couldnt go wrong with either. i'm surprised no one has mentioned the 24-105mm f4 L lens. its another very versatile lens.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 18, 2013)

darrellrhodesmiller said:


> the 70-200mm range is a really nice range for portraits.. the F4 or the F2.8 lens are both very good lenses you couldnt go wrong with either. i'm surprised no one has mentioned the 24-105mm f4 L lens. its another very versatile lens.



It looks like she is trying to stay under $500-$600. There are a ton of more expensive zooms that are very good.


----------



## Toronto (Mar 18, 2013)

If your buying a 5D mkIII put good glass on it, the 70-200 F2.8 IS II, accept no substitute! I'm not being elitist but don't skimp on glass with full frame and IS does make that much of a difference.


----------



## 7enderbender (Mar 18, 2013)

Of those choices I'd go with the 70-200 f/4 and a roll of black gaffer's tape...


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 18, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> darrellrhodesmiller said:
> 
> 
> > the 70-200mm range is a really nice range for portraits.. the F4 or the F2.8 lens are both very good lenses you couldnt go wrong with either. i'm surprised no one has mentioned the 24-105mm f4 L lens. its another very versatile lens.
> ...



And that squarely points to 70-200L f/4 non-IS.


----------



## 7enderbender (Mar 18, 2013)

Toronto said:


> If your buying a 5D mkIII put good glass on it, the 70-200 F2.8 IS II, accept no substitute! I'm not being elitist but don't skimp on glass with full frame and IS does make that much of a difference.



I don't think that's good advice. Clearly, we're looking here at a $500-ish budget so suggesting a $2000 lens is likely not very helpful. Would I have bought a 3000 dollar camera to put the (venerable) 50 1.8 on it? Probably not. I would always invest in good glass first as well before buying the latest and greatest (more or less disposable) body.
But what's done is done and I'm sure even on a tighter budget there are plenty of other choices before the big heavy white 2.8. I actually decided against it when it was in the budget. Doesn't make sense to me and I didn't like it much when I used it before.
In this case and with a bigger budget I would have suggested the 135L for this purpose. But I'm not sure that would've helped the OP either since even used it's likely more than the choices she lists. And she has the 85 already so there goes that.


----------



## heidi.nelson (Mar 18, 2013)

Thanks so much for the replies....I finally decided to upgrade a few months ago and bought a 5D Mark iii after much research. I would love to have the IS version of the 70-200 f4/L, but I am trying to stay on a budget (yes, I did buy a Mark iii and I do agree that I need a good lens for it) -- now the question will be for me to wait and purchase the 70-200 with IS or buy without....or look at another option all together -- hearing all of these comments, I am going to definitely purchase an L lens, just whether the IS is worth the extra $$....if money were no option, my decision would be easy. I run a small photography business and have been investing in equipment as I go (like many of us) - my last purchase was a good monitor calibration device a few weeks ago. I appreciate all of the responses!


----------



## heidi.nelson (Mar 18, 2013)

BTW, my budget isn't completely set -- I could possibly do $800 or so, or even wait to purchase an $1100 or so lens, but I would need to wait a while before that option, etc. I wanted a good camera and I went back and forth for a long time as to whether to start upgrading lenses or buy the camera first. I know I probably did things backwards, but through the winter months, using mainly the 50mm and 85mm in my small studio (for mainly children) has worked just fine with my Mark iii. I just want a good zoom lens starting for my outdoor portraits and some landscapes (besides the two other EF lenses that I own). I went from a T1i to a 5d Mark iii...yes, huge jump. I got a lot of great practice on my rebel and the EF-S lenses that I had with it. Down the road, I will keep adding to lenses but if the 70-200 F4/L would be a good recommendation (without the IS) this is what I would look at buying based on the comments....I guess I'll just have to decide whether to buy now without IS or wait until I can afford IS....decisions, decisions....


----------



## tphillips63 (Mar 18, 2013)

A lens not listed, but mentioned, that is a good option, but a bit more expensive, 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, lightly used can be had for around $800, I know it is more but I would probably wait for that one over any of the others including the other L for what you listed you want to shoot. Especially with the 5D Mk III high ISO quality.

It may not be the best lens made but it has great coverage and is a lot better than the 28-135.


----------



## Denyen (Mar 18, 2013)

Well as one suggested. Have a go at the 24-105mm. They are pretty easy to find used and I have also seen them very heavily discounted in stores. It's a ton of fun, really versatile and (imho) has good IQ.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 18, 2013)

For a general purpose zoom, the 24-105L on FF is excellent. For a tele zoom, the 70-200/4L IS is also excellent (IQ on par with the 70-200/2.8L IS II). 

Heidi, which is more important - a general purpose lens or a telephoto zoom?

How about used? There are a couple of 70-200/4 IS on my local Craigslist for a bit over $800, and 24-105's list for ~$700-800 and I expect often sell for a little less.


----------



## heidi.nelson (Mar 18, 2013)

I have also considered the 24-105mm f4 L IS lens....I am actually mad at myself for not buying it as part of a kit-package when I bought the Mark iii at the time....


----------



## Jay H (Mar 18, 2013)

As an owner of a 70-200mm 2.8 IS, I wish I would have opted for the 4.0. The 2.8 is heavy.

Between the 24-105mm and the 70-200mm, I would pick the 24-105. You get IS and it is a great walk around lens.


----------



## heidi.nelson (Mar 18, 2013)

In terms of sharpness, would one say the 24-105mm f4 L lens and the 70-200mm f/4 L lens are going to be similar?


----------



## Toronto (Mar 18, 2013)

The 70-200 F4 is very sharp as is the 24-105, the difference will be distortion which the 24-105 has a bit off. Which lens will depend on what your shooting, remember that a long zoom ( the 70-200 ) is great for portraits and some sports but it is suddenly lost indoors for groups or when ever you need a wide angle for landscapes. The 24-105 while an excellent walk around lens distorts a fair bit at the wide end enough so that a cheaper 3rd party wide angle would be a better buy if your needing to shoot wide. I know your on a budget but sometimes it is worth it to use what you have and save a while longer to invest in the gear you really need later rather than playing the lens buy and sell game. I have my own studio and have gone through dozens of cameras and lenses to find out that at least with lenses your almost always at one extreme or another, wide or slightly long and rarely in between. In the end my 2 most used lenses are the 70-200 and 16-35, my 85, 50, 135 24-70 are collecting dust as are the aps bodies ( we have canon mkII/Nikon d700 for FF and nikon D300/D7000 pentax aps ). This is all over time and if I know one thing is that you will always want to eventually get one of those big white lenses eventaully, so why not save and make the investment once, not several times over.


----------



## RGF (Mar 19, 2013)

not listed - 70-300L


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 19, 2013)

RGF said:


> not listed - 70-300L



I thought about that, but the OP lists outdoor portraits as a main intended use, and for that the wider the aperture, the better. An f/5.6 lens isn't ideal for portraits.


----------



## heidi.nelson (Mar 19, 2013)

Thank you for all of the advice -- it is really appreciated as I am expanding my equipment. Such great information! I've gone back and forth on the 24-105 a lot as well as the others....I have been able to narrow down my choices down some which is great. As we still have several feet of snow outside I still have some time and some upcoming projects in which to put money towards a lens so I'll have to see if I can bump up my budget or look for a good used/refurbished lens.


----------



## drock1317 (Mar 27, 2013)

Toronto said:


> If your buying a 5D mkIII put good glass on it, the 70-200 F2.8 IS II, accept no substitute! I'm not being elitist but don't skimp on glass with full frame and IS does make that much of a difference.


NO SUBSTITUTE! For sure the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II is one of the best lenses ever. But if money is an issue, the 70-200mm 2.8 IS mkI is already an extraordinary lens. I was able to get mine 3 years ago for $900 because the seller was switching to Nikon. Great for videos as well.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 27, 2013)

If you can only have one multi-purpose lens for the 5DIII, the 24-105 would have to be it. It's probably the best standard zoom combination ever made for any format, ever. Yes, it'd be nice if it was faster, but it's got a fantastic focal length range, image stabilization, and awesome optics.

As has also been mentioned, the original non-IS 70-200 f/2.8 is another superlative lens, probably second only to the new IS version amongst telephoto zooms.

You might also want to put some thought into your preferred holy trinity of primes. You could do a lot worse than to get either the 28 f/1.8 or the 35 f/2 plus the 50 f/1.4 plus either the 85 f/1.8 or the 100 f/2. It depends a lot, of course, on what, exactly, you're shooting as well as your style.

Cheers,

b&


----------

