# Whats a good walk around lens to put on a new 5d Mk iii



## gary (Mar 27, 2012)

I am going to buy a new 5d mkiii and am uncertain about the kit lens, its 10 years old ish and was wondering about getting the new 24-70 but at 28oz its quite heavy without IS so I am stuck. I have a 70 to 200 mkii IS and a 100 macro IS so am looking to supplement what I have. Second question is, I am looking for a good wide angle, 16-35mm or 14mm. Any and all suggestions would help thanks


----------



## FyreStorm (Mar 27, 2012)

I swear by the 17-40mm.


----------



## FunPhotons (Mar 27, 2012)

seriously ... the 24-105 is one of the best lenses in the lineup. I used to take it for granted because it was the 5DmkII kit lens (being the kit lens it has to be mediocre, right?), then happened to notice that most of my best shots came out of that one. 

I like shooting the wide end generally, but that is the best walk around lens on the planet. I owned the 24-70 I too.


----------



## bchernicoff (Mar 27, 2012)

The 24-105 is the best walk-around lens I have used. I suspect that Canon has worked in small improvements over the years...at least the 2010 copy I had is sharper and seems to have better IS than the 2005ish copy I had.


----------



## smirkypants (Mar 27, 2012)

Another vote for the 24-105 as being a nearly perfect walk-around lens. It's a lens create to be good at all things, but it just won't be great at any. This is pretty much the definition of a great flexible walk-around lens.


----------



## Orion (Mar 27, 2012)

gary said:


> I am going to buy a new 5d mkiii and am uncertain about the kit lens, its 10 years old ish and was wondering about getting the new 24-70 but at 28oz its quite heavy without IS so I am stuck. I have a 70 to 200 mkii IS and a 100 macro IS so am looking to supplement what I have. Second question is, I am looking for a good wide angle, 16-35mm or 14mm. Any and all suggestions would help thanks



You have already nice lenses . . why would you need OUR advice when you can do the research for yourself . . since YOU will be the one spending the money  

The people that will advise you on one lens or the other will have used it in the field, and since they have it, they will mostly swear by it or give some other prop in general . . .. but a unbiased review is what you really need from a pro . . . and why not.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Lens-Reviews.aspx
http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/lenses


----------



## drjlo (Mar 27, 2012)

Hate to say it, but with Canon 24-70 II priced at $2300, I am waiting for some test results for the Tamron 24-70 IS..
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/06/tamron24-70_2p8_divcusd


----------



## Jettatore (Mar 28, 2012)

Haven't tried it but I've heard good things about 100mm Macro IS L being a real viable walk around lens.


----------



## D.Sim (Mar 28, 2012)

actually anything can be a walk around lens... anything carriable anyway. 
I like the 24-105, but the 17-40 isn't too bad...


----------



## pwp (Mar 28, 2012)

Given the high iso performance of the 5D3 the f/4 24-105is makes a great deal of sense as a walkaround. 
f/4 is barely a disadvantage any more. My FF traveling light kit for years has been a 5D 1,2 or 3 (coming soon!) without the grip and a 24-105.

My 24-105 outperforms the three 24-70 f/2.8 lenses I've had in every way except for being one stop off the pace. 
It's tack sharp wide open. It has IS. It stretches out to 105. I TRUST this lens. And it's inexpensive.

Previously when I traveled light with a crop body (APS-C) my lens of choice was the f/4 17-40.

But that's my preference. Only you can decide this matter based on the way you like to shoot. Some people's essential walkaround will be a 24 f/1.4II and the next person will feel deprived without a 70-300L. Sift through the viewpoints here, but in the end it's your call.

Paul Wright


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 28, 2012)

gary said:


> I am going to buy a new 5d mkiii and am uncertain about the kit lens, its 10 years old ish and was wondering about getting the new 24-70 but at 28oz its quite heavy without IS so I am stuck. I have a 70 to 200 mkii IS and a 100 macro IS so am looking to supplement what I have. Second question is, I am looking for a good wide angle, 16-35mm or 14mm. Any and all suggestions would help thanks



Agree with those that recommend the 24-105, but the question is are you still planning on getting a 24-70. If so, then the 24-105 _might not be as useful to you_. The 24-105 is only a few ounces lighter at about 24 oz, and will not be as good as the 24-70 II/70-200 II combo. IQ vs. weight. The other consideration is which lens you choose to use for the WA range. I would suggest the 16-35 over the 14 because it is more versatile and can take filters and is less expensive than the 14. If you get the WA zoom first, then you can use a prime in the middle for something like 16-35/50/70-200, and a fast prime would help for indoor shots. And it would be 16-35/24-70 or 24-105/70-200 if you choose a mid-range zoom over a prime.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 28, 2012)

Best walkaround lens? The 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS. Covers moderate wide to quite long, has IS, weather sealing, and optical quality is equivalent to the 24-105mm. You can capture almost everything with just that one lens. Sure it's a little heavy, but if you want light, get a PowerShot S100. Carry it with a Blackrapid strap and the weight is on your shoulder, so it's ok to carry around for the day.

Best walkaround lens? The 24-105mm f/4L IS. Versatile focal length, has IS, weather sealing, quite sharp. Great value when purchased in a kit with a new 5DIII (or 5DII).

Best walkaround lens? The 24-70mm f/2.8L II. Tack-sharp, weather sealed, IS not as important with shorter focal lengths, top optical quality, and f/2.8 gives shallower DoF for portraits.

Best walkaround lens? The 35mm f/1.4L. Combined with a FF body having great high-ISO capability, you can't beat a fast, wide angle prime for walking around at night. 

Best walkaround lens? The 16-35mm f/2.8L II. Captures stunning ultrawide shots that you just can't get with a standard zoom, but at the long end it's useful for general purpose shooting. The fast aperture means good low-light capability. 

FWIW, I just got back from a trip where I took the gripped 5DII, 28-300L for outdoor walkaround, 35L for indoor ambient, and 135L for portraits. I found it to be a very versatile kit. I brought a 430EX II and didn't use it at all. It all fit perfectly in a Lowepro Flipside 300 (which I enclosed in a Pelican Storm im2500 for the plane). 



pwp said:


> Only you can decide this matter based on the way you like to shoot.



Yeah, that's what I meant. But you put it much more succinctly.


----------



## smirkypants (Mar 28, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Best walkaround lens? The 35mm f/1.4L. Combined with a FF body having great high-ISO capability, you can't beat a fast, wide angle prime for walking around at night.


I'm currently in Argentina but I have a new 5D3 waiting for me when I finally get home. I'm really excited to try a fast prime in the evening with the new gear. Really excited. I'm wondering about the kind of dusky field shots I can get. Seriously, I'm about to jump out of my shorts.


----------



## FunPhotons (Mar 28, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Best walkaround lens? The 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS. ...



Good post, as usual. I haven't noticed the 28-300 much. Looked up the review on The Digital Picture, If it wasn't push-pull, a design I'm not fond of, I'd seriously consider one.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 28, 2012)

FunPhotons said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Best walkaround lens? The 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS. ...
> ...



My favourite is the 70-300L - comparible in sharpness to the 70-200 f/2.8 II but with the extra reach. Makes an excellent candid portrait lens too (using f/4 or more)


----------



## gary (Mar 28, 2012)

Thanks to everyone, you have all given me lots of food for thought. I had scoured endless product reviews, but the personal thoughts found here are most helpful. Still undecided but may take the less expensive 24-105 and 16-35 and use the savings for a nice mid range prime, thanks again.


----------



## dunkers (Mar 28, 2012)

I use the 100L macro as a walk around.

Sure I miss some shots, but that lens is so fun to use and you don't disturb your subjects as much thanks to the focal length. Plus, if I happen upon an insect or something I can easily take a shot.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 28, 2012)

FunPhotons said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Best walkaround lens? The 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS. ...
> ...



Seems there's a love/hate thing for the push-pull design. I like it for the way you can very rapidly change focal length, and the fact that the tension ring lets you effectively lock the zoom at any focal length, vs. other lenses with zoom creep that only have a lock when fully retracted. 

There's definitely something to be said for the convenience of a superzoom, especially for travel. The problem is that with most superzooms, you pay a big price in terms of IQ for that convenience. With the 28-300L, the price you pay is size/weight (and cost, of course), but in terms of IQ (distortion/sharpness) it's on par with the 24-105mm.


----------



## sanj (Mar 28, 2012)

Undoubtedly the 24-105 IS.


----------



## Eiremon (Mar 28, 2012)

Buy a "used" 24-105 - there are going to be lots of them floating around in new / mint condition from the 5D Mk III kits. If you don't like it, resell for little/no loss.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 28, 2012)

gary said:


> Thanks to everyone, you have all given me lots of food for thought. I had scoured endless product reviews, but the personal thoughts found here are most helpful. Still undecided but may take the less expensive 24-105 and 16-35 and use the savings for a nice mid range prime, thanks again.



Might as well go slow because prices are pretty high now. Now if the prices were like they were at the end of last year... then it'd be a different story!


----------



## FunPhotons (Mar 29, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Seems there's a love/hate thing for the push-pull design. I like it for the way you can very rapidly change focal length, and the fact that the tension ring lets you effectively lock the zoom at any focal length, vs. other lenses with zoom creep that only have a lock when fully retracted.
> 
> There's definitely something to be said for the convenience of a superzoom, especially for travel. The problem is that with most superzooms, you pay a big price in terms of IQ for that convenience. With the 28-300L, the price you pay is size/weight (and cost, of course), but in terms of IQ (distortion/sharpness) it's on par with the 24-105mm.



I shouldn't talk - I haven't spent much time with a push-pull never having owned one, and I don't believe you can really understand something without having owned it for six months. 

I'll keep that lens in mind - I hate heavy lenses however which is probably the bigger downside for me.


----------



## EvilTed (Mar 31, 2012)

I'll sell you my 24-105 that came with my kit.
I've taken 10 shots with it and already know it's not for me.
I prefer primes.

I'll give you a great price and throw in a B+W 77mm UV filter.

Ping me if interested.

ET


----------



## Tracy Pinto (Mar 31, 2012)

I really like the 17-40mm for up close street shots as I pass people.


----------



## takoman46 (Mar 31, 2012)

I prefer the 24-70 over the 24-105 because of the f/2.8 over f/4. Plus with the ISO performance of the mkIII, I don't feel that not having IS is any disadvantage. But for a casual walk around lens, I normally take my 24 f/1.4L. It's probably the most fun lens for me since I can just pull the camera up and snap a photo at a field of view comparable to what my eyes can focus on.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 31, 2012)

I have great affection for the 24-105 f/4. I understand why people might go for the 24-70 f/2.8 however might I put forward that the 24-105 is a better walkabout lens

- has 4x zoom instead of less than 3x for the 24-70, making it more versatile

- IQ is as good as the 24-70

- noticably lighter (200g)

- cheaper (and easier to find a used version)

I am not sure how useful the f/2.8 would be - I know it is 1 stop faster, but with the low light capabilities of the 5DIII I would suggest that the main benefit would be shallower DOF. I guess if shallow DOF is the dealmaker then the 24/70 is the way to go, else the 24-105 is the more logical choice


----------



## TexPhoto (Mar 31, 2012)

The 24-105 is such a great choice for this, that should make it a kit.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Mar 31, 2012)

The 24-105 is an amazing walk around lens.


----------



## pwp (Mar 31, 2012)

Contact EvilTed and make an offer on his 24-105 f/4is. This question comes up fairly often on CR. Do a search of old posts and add up the number of photographers who nominate the 24-105.

Paul Wright


----------



## EvilTed (Apr 1, 2012)

some people like mid range zooms, while others like primes.
it's a matter of personal taste and photographic style.

personally, a fast 50mm prime and a few steps forward or back will give youth the equivalent of 24-70.
F/1.2 or F/1.4 is a lot better than F/2.8 if you are shooting in low light.

I think you need to try both a 50mm prime then a mid range (heavy) zoom and then decide which you'd be happier walking around all day with 

I'm serious about selling the 24-105 so if you are interested, ping me before I put it on EBay.

ET


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 1, 2012)

EF 50mm 1.4 or 1.8. Because its too good for the monies and is a must for a full frame camera. 

I liked the 50 on aps-c but I fell in L0vE <3 with that focal length all over again when I got my 5Dc. It's a classic perspective and gives a un-contrived look to things. 

If you've got the budget, the 50mm 1.2 is an utter stunner in IQ.


----------



## RunAndGun (Apr 1, 2012)

I was skeptical at first about the 24-105 when I got my first MKII in '08, but it is REALLY a good all-purpose walk-around lens. I was shocked at how much I was using it. And at how much I liked it. Zooms are versatile and necessary, depending on what you shoot, but if you really want to open up your creativity and force yourself to think and look at things differently and creatively, get a few nice, fast primes. But since the question is about a good walk-around lens, go with the 24-105.


----------



## EvilTed (Apr 1, 2012)

And why do you consider a 50mm prime to not be a good walk around lens?

There is no "right" answer...

Or from B&H site talking about the 35mm F/1.4 as a walk around lens on the 5D MK2.
Maybe this will give you some perspective 


"I shoot travel, street and event photography and use a Canon 5D II. Before buying the 35mm 1.4, I mainly used a 24-70mm. Now the prime lens stays on my camera most of the time. In fact, on my recent trip to India and Nepal - I never used the 24-70mm at all. 

The quality of the images is simply beautiful, and I found that many of photos on my trip were keepers. 

But more importantly, this prime lens made me approach my craft differently. I got in closer and played with composition more. It really is the perfect focal length for me."


----------



## Drizzt321 (Apr 1, 2012)

FunPhotons said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Best walkaround lens? The 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS. ...
> ...



I've looked at this lens a bit before, and while it's weather sealed, with it being a push-pull design does it have as much resistance to fine dust or other particulate matter? Sure, other zoom design like the 24-105 isn't necessarily completely resistant, but is the 28-300?

That, and it's also a BWL, and so may not be quite as inconspicuous  :


----------



## Flake (Apr 1, 2012)

I have this lens, and dust has never been a problem for me, the push pull zoom is great when you have such a large focal range to get through. Can you imagine the number of turns needed to get a lens from 28 - 300mm? Push pull means it's almost instant.

It's not a walk around lens though, unless you're really well built, you'll need a monopod to rest it on, and forget using the camera strap, you'll need a special one for the tripod mount and then it'll give you back problems if you wander around for any time!

It's a big white and really attracts unwanted attention at times, but on the other hand there's no alternative if you want to capture everything in only one lens. The question I suggest you ask yourself is how much will you need the 100 - 300mm focal length while out? The 24 - 105mm covers such a useful range with little weight and lower profile that it's almost a no brainer. The lens suffers from poor close focus and magnification so a set of 72mm close up filters is useful. Other than that it's a great all rounder and it's with good reason it's bundled as a kit. You should consider buying the kit as this saves some money over buying seperately.

And thank Canon for providing such a choice, if you were a Nikon shooter you have the 24 - 70mm f/2.8 and that's it, or compromise IQ with a much lesser lens.


----------



## akiskev (Apr 1, 2012)

24-105 for sure.


----------



## djcrispy (Apr 1, 2012)

Not that I have my MkIII yet (this week it might arrive!), but I agree with ET that a 50mm prime lens is perfect for "walk around". How a 28-300mm lens ends up in the discussion where walking around is considered is beyond me.

The spirit of this post is what lens can one comfortably and effectively. A high quality prime lens that doesn't require undue strength or attract undue attention makes perfect sense. The kit lens obviously sounds like it fits that bill as well. The f/4.0 is one downside to that particular lens, but if you don't care that much about DOF, and you do want to zoom (rather than stepping in/back at times) that may be your best bet. From what I've read, the 50mm f/1.2 is the premier prime lens (feel free to correct me on this, posters) in that it combines size with high IQ and at f/1.2 is obviously very fast. But with this new sensor, who knows how important this will end up being (the speed, that is).


----------



## bycostello (Apr 1, 2012)

24-70mk2,,, it was built for the 5d3


----------



## jasonsim (Apr 1, 2012)

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM ... no doubt a great walk around lens when you don't know what the subject may be. Also great for a travel lens.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Apr 3, 2012)

F1.2 and you pick the focal length.


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 4, 2012)

djcrispy said:


> Not that I have my MkIII yet (this week it might arrive!), but I agree with ET that a 50mm prime lens is perfect for "walk around". How a 28-300mm lens ends up in the discussion where walking around is considered is beyond me.


and why would it not fit the walking around bill? Its not overly heavy, at 1.6kgs, not much heavier than a 70-200.

If you consider the fact that you won't have other lenses to carry around, you're probably going to end up lighter overall. 

That, and you have a full 272mms of focal lengths to choose from more than that prime, in both directions, means you can shoot wide, zoom in, and pretty much shoot any outdoor situation.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 4, 2012)

RunAndGun said:


> I was skeptical at first about the 24-105 when I got my first MKII in '08, but it is REALLY a good all-purpose walk-around lens. I was shocked at how much I was using it. And at how much I liked it. Zooms are versatile and necessary, depending on what you shoot, but if you really want to open up your creativity and force yourself to think and look at things differently and creatively, get a few nice, fast primes. But since the question is about a good walk-around lens, go with the 24-105.



Why the hate for the 50mm? Is a superb walk around lens, it's not too wide and not to long. Right smack in the middle and can open up to 1.8 and lower. Sharp as a tack stopped down, sucks in light wide open and cheap as chips. What's not to love?


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 4, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> RunAndGun said:
> 
> 
> > I was skeptical at first about the 24-105 when I got my first MKII in '08, but it is REALLY a good all-purpose walk-around lens. I was shocked at how much I was using it. And at how much I liked it. Zooms are versatile and necessary, depending on what you shoot, but if you really want to open up your creativity and force yourself to think and look at things differently and creatively, get a few nice, fast primes. But since the question is about a good walk-around lens, go with the 24-105.
> ...



Why the hate for a zoom? Everyone has their own taste, and preferences. Yes, the 50mm is a good lens that can open up and give you some great bokeh for your shots, but you're trading that in for a bit of versatility. back to a wall but need to go wider? Whoops. Bit far from your decisive moment? Whoops. That added range could help.

Not to say that the50mm isn't a superb walk around lens, just because most people are suggesting the 24-105 as a first choice, its just far more versatile. 

Seriously. No where in that post you quoted did he mention he hated the 50mm. Neither has anyone else.


----------



## EvilTed (Apr 4, 2012)

What Daniel said...

and I just bought a 50mm 1.2 as my walk around lens for my MK3 

For sale, one brand new, never used 24-105...

"Zooms are versatile and necessary, depending on what you shoot.."

I could argue mid-range zooms are unnecessary, regardless of what you shoot, but I don't think you'd understand 

ET


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 4, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > RunAndGun said:
> ...



I dislike the 50 1.8 because of the hexagonal bokeh shapes. The 1.4 is almost OK.

I guess the walkabout lens usefulness depends on where you a walking. In a city a 50 or 35 would be good, in a forest then perhaps the 24-105.


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 4, 2012)

EvilTed said:


> What Daniel said...
> 
> and I just bought a 50mm 1.2 as my walk around lens for my MK3
> 
> ...



I could also argue that 1.2 is unnecessary for a walk around, but would you understand?

Everyone has their preferred system, for whatever reasons it is. Is that fact so hard to get your head around that you're so willing to knock anyone for suggesting it with a snide allegation?


----------



## Joellll (Apr 4, 2012)

Most likely you will find this suggestion useless but I would suggest a Voigtlander ULTRON 40mm f/2.

It's really small and light. No autofocus but I can live with that. The flare is lovely if you try really hard to make it flare.

Bottom line is it's compact and simple.


----------



## EvilTed (Apr 6, 2012)

D Sim,

I do apologize, I was a little drunk and making fun of you, sorry 

ET


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 6, 2012)

EvilTed said:


> D Sim,
> 
> I do apologize, I was a little drunk and making fun of you, sorry
> 
> ET



10 minutes on the naughty chair for you then ;D ;D ;D


----------



## EvilTed (Apr 7, 2012)

Oooh, the naughty chair, I like the sound of that 
Any pics?????

ET


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 7, 2012)

EvilTed said:


> Oooh, the naughty chair, I like the sound of that
> Any pics?????
> 
> ET



Dont do self portraits ;D


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Apr 9, 2012)

35mm f1.4


----------



## Wideopen (Apr 10, 2012)

The kit 24-105 is A pefect all arounder...I usually use a 24-70 and or a 50mm 1.4 prime for a walk around lens


----------



## JR (Apr 13, 2012)

The kit lens would make for a nice walkaround lens if you are looking for a zoom and cannot wait for the 24-70 mkII. Then again you need to decide what is more important: weight and IS (for the 24-105), or sharper and faster zoom but heavier (24-70).

Answer that question and you will pick the right one for you.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 13, 2012)

I have the 70-300L as my ff walkabout lens.


----------



## birdman (Apr 18, 2012)

I would go with the 70-200 f4.0 IS if you can go with the longer FL. I would use a 70-200 coupled with a 50/1.8 in my pocket. This is an excellent pairing IMHO


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 18, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Best walkaround lens? The 35mm f/1.4L. Combined with a FF body having great high-ISO capability, you can't beat a fast, wide angle prime for walking around at night.
> ...


Completely agree. This lens, despite being one of the oldest in the lineup is simply fantastic. Personally, it is the ideal (or slightly short of ideal) focal length for hitting the streets. It really depends on how you shoot as to what lens you should get, though.


----------

