# Which lenses to start?



## eve (Sep 17, 2012)

I just bought a 5D Mark III. Switched from Nikon but just had kit lenses I'm going to invest in one expensive lens -- 70-200 USM II... What else would you get? Will probably buy one more to start (50 mm 1.4? 24-105?) then a third. What would you choose for the walk-around lens (i.e. take pictures in the backyard etc)?

I will primarily take photos of children and people. Want to make sure I can get good bokeh. Thanks in advance for suggestions.


----------



## sandymandy (Sep 17, 2012)

50mm 1.4 or 1.2 or 85mm 1.2 L

Guess just the same lenses you also had with ur nikon.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 17, 2012)

The 70-200 is a great lens, esp outdoors where space is not an issue. For low light indoor ambients, I like the 35L; it's more forgiving than the 50L. A lot of people will recommend the 24-105, but I don't think it's as useful if you intend on getting more lenses and the new 24-70 II looks to be a great performer (albeit a very costly one, at least initially). For general travel, I like the 16-35, 50, 70-200 combo which gives you a large focal length range and low light capability.


----------



## AmbientLight (Sep 17, 2012)

It depends if you like the versatlility of zoom lenses or prefer primes or a mix of both.

For zooms I would suggest adding the 24-70mm f2.8 Mark II. Then you might add the 16-35mm wide angle zoom.

You can also mix this with primes. I would suggest the following:
85mm f1.2 Mark II for portraits
50mm f1.2 for wider portraits and as a general standard prime lens
24mm f1.4 Mark II or 35mm f1.4 for wide or not-so-wide low-light usage
14mm f2.8 for ultra wide shots

It depends on your requirements which prime(s) you buy first.

I have left out the rather expensive big whites, so as to not make super-expensive recommendations.


----------



## willis (Sep 17, 2012)

24-105 F4L is pretty nice walk-around lens, though.
But if you want everything out of 5D3, try out 85mm F1.2L II, 35mm F1.4L, 24-70mm F2.8L MKI/II, 70-200mm F2.8L II and 16-35 F2.8L II. 8)


----------



## Axilrod (Sep 17, 2012)

AmbientLight said:


> It depends if you like the versatlility of zoom lenses or prefer primes or a mix of both.
> 
> For zooms I would suggest adding the 24-70mm f2.8 Mark II. Then you might add the 16-35mm wide angle zoom.
> 
> ...



She said she wanted to invest in _one_ expensive lens, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. The 85mm, 24-70 II and 14mm are as expensive as that, and the 24mm and 50mm aren't far behind, so I'm guessing those are out of the question.


----------



## Axilrod (Sep 17, 2012)

eve said:


> I just bought a 5D Mark III. Switched from Nikon but just had kit lenses I'm going to invest in one expensive lens -- 70-200 USM II... What else would you get? Will probably buy one more to start (50 mm 1.4? 24-105?) then a third. What would you choose for the walk-around lens (i.e. take pictures in the backyard etc)?
> 
> I will primarily take photos of children and people. Want to make sure I can get good bokeh. Thanks in advance for suggestions.



With only the 70-200 you're going to want something a bit shorter, a 50mm may feel a bit limiting but would be a good choice for a 3rd lens. I think the 24-105 is a bargain for what it was an has excellent image quality. I'd suggest that or the original 24-70mm. If you want good bokeh go ahead and get the 50mm f/1.4, if you dont mind manual focus I prefer the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4.


----------



## eve (Sep 17, 2012)

This is very helpful. I'm definitely getting the 70-2000. Ideally, I would like to get something I can use in the house or backyard that is affordable, then eventually spring for the 24-70. Sounds like the choices are the 50 mm or 24-105?


----------



## Half Way To Nothing (Sep 17, 2012)

24-105 F4L great lens...


----------



## IIIHobbs (Sep 18, 2012)

Consider the 24-70 f2.8L as your one great lens. With all your comments about around the backyard and inside, this lens will be on your camera most often. Spend money where you will use it most. Save up for the 70-200 f2.8L if you like, or grab a 135 f2L or 200 f2.8. The 70-300 is also worth considering asyour second lens if you need more reach.


----------



## revup67 (Sep 18, 2012)

Let me add to your confusion. the Canon 100mm L USM IS 2.8 Macro - is razor sharp and with it's built in 1x Macro it's quite versatile and close ups of flowers looks insane. I've even used it in my portrait studio on the 5D Mark III and only the F2 200mm at $4800 rivals its sharpness (see http://www.the-digital-picture.com Tools then ISO and compare lens sharpness). A real sleeper is the 200mm 2.8 L USM II lens. Also razor sharp and you can get excellent intimate shots with this one (i just posted some photos in the Lens Gallery) and for a walk around the 24-105 F$ L with its constant aperture works real well that offers a nice wide angle when you need it up to your 105. It's a fact that primes will give you the sharpest quality, if you are not afraid to move back and forth then primes are the way to go.
PS if you go to the site above you will see there's little difference between the sharpness of the 1.4 50mm and 1.2 mm. should you choose that lens. The 70-200 IS USM II 2.8 lens is outstanding but for that price of $2199 you can get most of the 3 I listed above (total $2657 - B and H has a $120 off on the 100mm) and you'd have all L glass as well. These 3 lenses are also all 3 lighter in weight.


----------



## AmbientLight (Sep 18, 2012)

The 100mm L Macro is an excellent lens, but its focal length is within the range of the 70-200mm. For a general walk-around lens this focal length is too long. I therefore stick to recommending the new 24-70mm f2.8 Mark II, which covers anything from wide angle to short tele in form of just one lens.

Okay, so the OP won't be able to do macro shots to begin with, but specialized lenses can be added later. I already listed a variety of specialized lenses I would recommend adding.


----------



## aires (Sep 18, 2012)

Want a cheap zoom alongside the 70-200: get the excellent Tamron 28-75 2.8.
Want a great prime alongside the 70-200: get the 35L


----------



## sandymandy (Sep 18, 2012)

Samyang 35 1.4 is also good. I wonder how the new sigma 35mm 1.4 will perform =)


----------



## Steve Campbell (Sep 18, 2012)

Consider the 17-40 as a nice wide angle. It can be bought used on a regular basis for around $700-$750 and takes the same filter as the 70-200 2.8. The 24-105 is a very versatile lens with the latest IS system. It also takes a 77mm filter.


----------



## AmbientLight (Sep 18, 2012)

This sounds like deja vu to me. My first EF lenses were the 24-105, 17-40 and then 70-200 IS. With this kit you have a lot of overlap between zoom ranges and you are limited to f4 for anything below 70mm focal length.

This set costs less and I still happily use both f4 zooms, but I found myself adding fast primes to offset the slower zooms. I am shooting mostly primes now. You will have a more useful lens in the new 24-70mm zoom, which limits you only to f2.8, which is fast enough for many purposes.


----------



## revup67 (Sep 18, 2012)

AmbientLight - yes, I can see the 100mm AND the 200mm prime's I had suggested are within the range of the 70-200. I had also suggested the 24-105 zoom as the OP mentioned backyard type use. Wouldn't it be great to have a wide angle then? the 70-200 doesn't cover this range at all especially if on a cropped sensor so how does the OP accomplish this need for family shots or entire backyard shots? Why would she get another 4th lens later to do macro if at present that does interest her (may not have considered this earlier).

These are all good scenarios from all that have suggested just trying to offer other options like everyone else to consider. PS failed to mention prime's will outshine a zoom all day long. I don't use zooms for portraits for this specific reason and I own numerous of both primes and zooms.


----------



## eve (Sep 18, 2012)

This is all so helpful. Sounds like I should first spend my "big" money on the 24-70 and maybe get a prime like 85 mm for portraits and save for the 70-200 (Or have I totally misinterpreted the discussion?).


----------



## Razor2012 (Sep 18, 2012)

The 70-200 2.8II and the 5DIII is an awesome combo. Shooting indoors low-light is just great. I picked up the 70-200 2.8II, the 16-35II and waiting for the 24-70II.


----------



## IIIHobbs (Sep 19, 2012)

eve said:


> This is all so helpful. Sounds like I should first spend my "big" money on the 24-70 and maybe get a prime like 85 mm for portraits and save for the 70-200.



^This

Makes the most the most sense to spend your money on the lens you will use most. As for a portrait lens, if you are working in a studio or with a tripod, the 85L is where it is at. For handheld and subjects less static, I recommend the 135 f2L. It is very fast and gives you a bit more range (great for kids) along with a wonderful bokeh at f2.


----------



## Steve Campbell (Sep 19, 2012)

Is budget a concern? Some of the lens combos mentioned here are obviously top of the line, but they also come with a price. 70-200 2.8 II, 24-70 2.8 II, 16-35 2.8 II. Who wouldn't want that combo? However, new, these lenses will run around $6500 plus any tax that applies. If the OP can afford this fine, but not many people have all these lenses or pick them all up at once. The f4 zooms are a bit more affordable. Maybe the 70-200 f4 IS should be considered. It's really sharp, light and affordable. If you have a 24-105, maybe you have overlaps, but that's if you carry everything you own with you. Sometimes you just want one body and one lens. The 24-105 is great for that.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Sep 20, 2012)

EF 200/2 ;D


----------

