# Advice on Canon lenses



## PikkieChick (Feb 12, 2014)

Hi there - Ive recently come into some money & will be upgrading my Canon gear. I currently have the Canon 50D with 18-200mm lens. Im looking at getting the following & would appreciate any advice :

5Dlll kit set - with the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 ll USM lens. 
Lens : Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS ll USM. 
Lens : Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
Lens : Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM or the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM. I know I'll be losing the extra reach without the crop sensor, so maybe the 100-400mm would be better.

I do a lot of travel photography, architecture, landscapes, people shots, wildlife. Any recommendations would be appreciated. 

After reading below comments : Im very lucky that I am able to get this gear at a great price so want to get it while I can. 

Agree it will be heavy gear so I need to be smart about it. So I think the 24-70mm f/2.8L + 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. Also if I go down the Converter route - a 1.4X III or 2XIII ??

The Tilt shifts might be a little out of my range, but Im also considering some primes as well - still learning with these, so would love some advice on what range would be the best : 35mm f/2, 50mmf/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.

Cheers


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2014)

5DIII + 24-70/2.8L II is an excelent combination for general use.

70-200/2.8L IS II is just about the best zoom lens available (the uber-expensive 200-400+1.4x notwithstanding). Great indoors and out for portraits, but not small or light.

17-40L is a good ultrawide lens for landscapes, as long as you plan to shoot mostly at f/8 - f/11, it's fine. The 16-35L II is double the cost, gives you an extra stop of light (useful for low light) and better IQ at f/2.8-f/5.6 (better, but still not stellar).

70-300L is better as a travel lens due to its smaller size, 100-400L is better if you'll use it mostly at 400mm (I have both; before getting the 600 II, I used the 100-400 a lot more, but now that I have the 600 II for reach, I use the 70-300L a lot more than the 100-400).

For architecture/landscapes, I'd consider getting a TS-E 24L II or TS-E 17 over the 17-40L, budget permitting. 

The combination of the 70-200 II + 2xIII is optically similar to the 100-400L at 400mm, but the 100-400 is easier to use and focuses better. If you'll only use the 200-400mm range occasionally, the TC may be the better way to go.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 12, 2014)

This will be day and night diff. in term of upgrading. Be prepare to fall in love with FF.

As Neuro already mentioned, the 24-70 II + 70-200 f2.8 IS II, these are the BEST zoom lenses you can get - PERIOD.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 12, 2014)

Maybe consider the 24-70mm f/4 over the f/2.8, seeing as you do travel photography.


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Feb 12, 2014)

How much crap do you want to carry around with you?

How much experience with primes/fixed focal length lenses do you have?


----------



## eml58 (Feb 12, 2014)

Weight will be a consideration if your doing a load of travelling, especially by air, keep the package as light as possible.

5DMK III Body
24-70 f/2.8 L II
70-200 f/2.8 L II
TSE 24 f/3.5 f/3.5 L II
600 EX-RT Flash
1.4X III Converter (gives your 70-200f/2.8 280 f/4) at the long end & little to no loss of IQ)

All this into a Guru Gear Bataflea 26L Camera Bag, your about as well rigged as you will want to be, for a while.

The 24 TSE will not only do your architecture better then anything else, it's an amazingly sharp Lens & just about perfect for Landscape.

I have the 70-300f/4-f/5.6, not so impressed, OK IQ & light to Carry, but you can't use the Canon Converters with it, noir a bad lens, I'm just not convinced it's in the same league as the other lenses mentioned above.

Good Luck & enjoy.


----------



## jprusa (Feb 12, 2014)

I have both the 24-70 and 70 - 200 but I use the 24-70 most of the time. I have the 17-40 but I have not used it much since I bought the 24-70. Enjoy


----------



## Lurker (Feb 12, 2014)

70-200 and (70-300 or 100-400) seems like duplication (no so much the 100-400). If you want reach for wildlife/birds consider the 400 f/5.6. You don't get IS but it is light, not too expensive, and really good IQ. Rumor has it that a new IS version is coming. :

Also, you mention


> 5Dlll kit set - with the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 ll USM lens.


I think the standard Canon kit lens is the 24-70 f/4. Could be a bundle the seller put together.
Might want to dbl check that.


----------



## gary (Feb 13, 2014)

I have the 24-70 and 70-200 you are considering and if you can afford them then absolutely get them. I agree with Neuro that the 2x III TC is the best way to go instead of the 100-400 as their are daily rumours that it will be replaced soon. I have the 16-35 and have and continue to enjoy it and bought it in preference to the 17-40 for the reasons others have explained. Knowing your wide range of interests a TSE may help better than the 16-35 or 17-40. I recently travelled to China with the whole kit and I can tell you it is heavy and whilst if I left anything back I may worry that I hadn't the right lens at the right time, I will on my next trip.


----------



## pdirestajr (Feb 13, 2014)

Or you can just get a 1dx and one lens and call it a day.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 13, 2014)

PikkieChick said:


> Hi there - Ive recently come into some money & will be upgrading my Canon gear. I currently have the Canon 50D with 18-200mm lens. Im looking at getting the following & would appreciate any advice :
> 
> 5Dlll kit set - with the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 ll USM lens.
> Lens : Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS ll USM.
> ...



For travel... I'd lean towards the 6D, a 70-200 f/4L IS. I'm a strong guy... and holding onto the 5d mkiii and the 70-200 mkii all day and I feel it in my wrists and forearms. 

Also, it doesn't sound like you are doing a ton of action shots so I'm not sure the shots per second and the advanced AF is really worth it. 

For portrait, I'd consider a 135L or a 85L... but I realize going from a super zoom and having to switch lenses can be annoying.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 13, 2014)

gary said:


> I have the 24-70 and 70-200 you are considering and if you can afford them then absolutely get them. I agree with Neuro that the 2x III TC is the best way to go instead of the 100-400 as their are daily rumours that it will be replaced soon. I have the 16-35 and have and continue to enjoy it and bought it in preference to the 17-40 for the reasons others have explained. Knowing your wide range of interests a TSE may help better than the 16-35 or 17-40. I recently travelled to China with the whole kit and I can tell you it is heavy and whilst if I left anything back I may worry that I hadn't the right lens at the right time, I will on my next trip.



I was thinking tilt shift too... but never having used one... I really have no freaking clue on whether someone would find it beneficial. I just know architecture people swear by them.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 13, 2014)

Mr_Canuck said:


> How much crap do you want to carry around with you?
> 
> How much experience with primes/fixed focal length lenses do you have?



Agreed... but someone will definitely need to get an insurance policy on all this gear. Especially before you go abroad. You don't want a travel opportunity ending up with a robbery... in the hotel or out on the town.


----------



## PikkieChick (Feb 13, 2014)

Thanks everyone for your comments - Im very lucky that I am able to get this gear at a great price so want to get it while I can. 

Agree it will be heavy gear so I need to be smart about it. So I think the 24-70mm f/2.8L + 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. Also if I go down the Converter route - a 1.4X III or 2XIII ??

The Tilt shifts might be a little out of my range, but Im also considering some primes as well - still learning with these, so would love some advice on what range would be the best : 35mm f/2, 50mmf/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 13, 2014)

PikkieChick said:


> Thanks everyone for your comments - Im very lucky that I am able to get this gear at a great price so want to get it while I can.
> 
> Agree it will be heavy gear so I need to be smart about it. So I think the 24-70mm f/2.8L + 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. Also if I go down the Converter route - a 1.4X III or 2XIII ??
> 
> The Tilt shifts might be a little out of my range, but Im also considering some primes as well - still learning with these, so would love some advice on what range would be the best : 35mm f/2, 50mmf/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.



The sigma 35 f/1.4 is really sharp and impressive, but the 35L still beats it in terms of pretty bokeh... No clue about the 35 f/2.

I don't like the canon 50's. The 50L is supposed to have a magic bokeh (though I've never tried it). All of the 50's aren't sharp until you get to f/2.8 or so... which I think is a problem.

I had the 85 f/1.8 and I really liked it... but there is some purple fringing in high contrast areas... and some people don't like it, but I really liked the len, even wide open. I didn't like the 3ft minimum focusing distance.

Not sure about the 100 f/2... but I hear good things about it. I have a 100L and I REALLY like it. it is incredible for portrait, macro, sports, etc. It is just very versatile.


----------



## wsmith96 (Feb 13, 2014)

PikkieChick said:


> Thanks everyone for your comments - Im very lucky that I am able to get this gear at a great price so want to get it while I can.
> 
> Agree it will be heavy gear so I need to be smart about it. So I think the 24-70mm f/2.8L + 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. Also if I go down the Converter route - a 1.4X III or 2XIII ??
> 
> The Tilt shifts might be a little out of my range, but Im also considering some primes as well - still learning with these, so would love some advice on what range would be the best : 35mm f/2, 50mmf/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.



I hear that the 35 f2 IS is a really good lens, but I don't have experience with it. I use an 85mm F1.8 on a crop camera for indoor sports and it has served me very well. I would love to see what this thing will do on a full frame... and I'll get my chance this weekend with a 5D Mk III. I'll let you know what I think about it, but I know others on here have used this lens on a full frame. Perhaps they can give you better feedback on it.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Feb 13, 2014)

PikkieChick said:


> Thanks everyone for your comments - Im very lucky that I am able to get this gear at a great price so want to get it while I can.
> 
> Agree it will be heavy gear so I need to be smart about it. So I think the 24-70mm f/2.8L + 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. Also if I go down the Converter route - a 1.4X III or 2XIII ??
> 
> The Tilt shifts might be a little out of my range, but Im also considering some primes as well - still learning with these, so would love some advice on what range would be the best : 35mm f/2, 50mmf/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.


With this combination (24-70mm f/2.8L + 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. and a 1.4X III or 2XIII) you are covering a full range of options and more. 
I have the 35mm f/2 IS and I love it. It is lighter than the Canon f1.4 and Sigma f1.4. You loss I stop of light and some bokeh quality but you have 3-4 IS stops that really helps. 
I also had in the past the 100mm f/2 and I used a lot for indoor sports with a 7D and the Sigma 85mm f1.4 that really rocks in terms of bokeh and IQ but, I sold them BOTH to buy the 100mm f/2.8L IS MACRO and I am very satisfied with my decision, no regreats at all. I can do portrait, macro, low light and more with this lens.


----------



## JPAZ (Feb 13, 2014)

First, congratulations.

Second, I moved from a 50d to the 5diii and you can see the stuff I have below. But, travel is a whole different thing. When I went to Denali, I took lot's of stuff. When I went to Bosque del Apache, I took lot's of stuff along with a rented 300 2.8 and a 2x. But when I travel and will be carrying my equipment rather than working out of a vehicle, my tried and true is the 17-70 + 24-104 + 70-200 f/4 IS. I know there will be some folk dancing in low lighting or some Griffen Vulture way off in the distance or a cave temple that my 14 would be perfect for, but for almost all of my travel shots f/4 is wide enough and 24 through 200 should be a good enough range. And this all goes into my Retrospective 7 making it handy and light enough to carry anywhere. 

So I can see why you want that range of lenses and certainly can't disagree with what everyone here has said, but look at your experience with the crop sensor, do some simple math, and then see what you really are willing to carry.

JP


----------



## shhooter (Feb 13, 2014)

I have 5D3 + 50 f/1.4, 17-40, 24-70 f/2.8L II, 70-300 f/4-5.6L and don't even think about buying gear anymore. This kit does everything i need it to do and more.

24-70 f/2.8L II stays on about 90% of the time and i really only bring tele when traveling. Doubt i'll ever go back to primes after using the 24-70 II lens, it's much sharper than my 50 f/1.4 stopped down. However, it's also sick right now with Canon Service because of a coating defect...

For tele, the 70-200 2.8 is technically the better lens but for as little as i shoot long the 70-300L with its compact size + extra length is right for me. Note, the 70-300L does not fit the Canon extenders, but you can get the Kenko 1.4 and it works great on the 5D3, AF isn't even terribly affected. Carry a 70-200 2.8 around for a bit before buying one to see if it's right for you, it's a seriously big lens and calls a lot of attention to itself which is not desirable when traveling.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 13, 2014)

eml58 said:


> Weight will be a consideration if your doing a load of travelling, especially by air, keep the package as light as possible.
> 
> 5DMK III Body
> 24-70 f/2.8 L II
> ...


Except for the bag, which I don't know, I could have written this. But to add something, I would consider a fast prime, either a 35 or 50 f1.4.


----------



## traveller (Feb 13, 2014)

The best way to know what you need to buy, is to know the limitations of your current kit; what is it about your current kit that you don't like? Don't just say "image quality", be specific: the 50D is capable of making stunning images and whilst the 18-200 doesn't have the best reputation, it isn't a total dog at all focal length-aperture combinations. 

I am not writing this to make the old clichéd suggestion like "Ansel Adams could make a masterpiece with a box-brownie", but rather to get you to think about where the weaknesses of your current kit lie. If you are annoyed that your images at focal length xx are soft, then you know that this is an area that is important to you and that you should spend money to cover. If you complain that the 50D produces noisy images, this suggests that you are working at the limits of your camera ISO range and lens aperture: the 5D Mk.III will obviously help, but you'll benefit just as much from faster lenses; likewise, if you are struggling to get shallow depth of field. If you want 22MP to help you crop images, perhaps you need longer lenses. 

I'm sorry if you were looking for a "just buy the xx-xx and xx-xxx" type of reply. If that's the case, then I'd suggest that you already know what you want and that you should just go ahead and buy it! All the lenses suggested on this thread vary from very good to excellent and I doubt any will truly disappoint. Just be aware that the more lenses you own, the more you'll end up carrying; I wouldn't want your photography to move from being fun to becoming a chore!


----------



## NancyP (Feb 13, 2014)

If you want inconspicuous and light, I would consider the Shorty Forty 40mm f/2.8 STM or for more money the 35mm f/2 IS . People are more relaxed around a smaller camera. People tend to crowd around if they see a Big White hanging off your camera, plus when you travel you should be conscious of thieves who grab and run when they see fancy-looking cameras.

Save money for a good pack and a good tripod.


----------



## PikkieChick (Feb 18, 2014)

After much debate & hanging out in a camera store carrying around the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS on a 5D3, I think I've decided to flag the 70-200mm f/2.8 due to the weight.

I think I'm now looking at for my 5D3:
17-40 / 24-70 f2.8L II / 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS
I was also considering the 24-105 f/4L IS USM as a general walk around lens with a bit of extra reach over the 24-70mm f/2.8L ll

The other combinations is to ditch the 24-105 & get the 16-35mm instead of the 17-40mm, so:
16-35 / 24-70 f2.8L II / 70-300 f4-5.6L IS

Thoughts anyone ?


----------



## Eldar (Feb 18, 2014)

That is a very good troika. You may want to add a fast prime (or two) over time though. The new Sigma 50mm ART could be highly interesting (if it is worth the pre release hype). 

The 70-200 f2.8L IS II is definitely superior to the 70-300, but the 70-300 is also a very good lens and underrated by many. I use it a lot on travel, because of its compact size. 

The 17-40 is a lot of lens for the money, but I would rather have a fast UWA prime, probably a Zeiss.


----------



## PikkieChick (Feb 18, 2014)

Eldar said:


> The 17-40 is a lot of lens for the money, but I would rather have a fast UWA prime, probably a Zeiss.



Yes agree re Primes and I will do that once I see what focal lengths I use the most. What about the 16-35mm instead of the 17-40mm ?


----------



## Eldar (Feb 18, 2014)

PikkieChick said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > The 17-40 is a lot of lens for the money, but I would rather have a fast UWA prime, probably a Zeiss.
> ...


The 16-35 is a much bdebated lens. It gives you one extra stop, but at a considerable price difference. An advantage is that it has the same 82mm filter size as the 24-70 II. The IQ difference at f5.6 is neglectable. The 17-40 is smaller and lighter. They both have edge softness and CA issues, which is why I prefer the 15mm Zeiss and 17mm TS-E lenses.

It is important to think through what you will use it for. I rarely use wider than 24mm if people are in the frame, due to distortion.


----------



## bholliman (Feb 18, 2014)

The 24-70 2.8 II and 70-300L are two terrific lenses. If size and weight are really important for travel, you may consider the 24-70 F/4 IS instead of the 2.8 II, as it's much lighter and nearly as good optically. If you did this, I would defiantly recommend a fast prime 35-85mm) as well, as with two f/4 zooms, your ability to shoot shallow DOF would be somewhat limited.



Eldar said:


> PikkieChick said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



This is excellent advice. I rarely shoot wider than 24mm, so decided to go with the inexpensive Rokinon 14mm 2.8 instead of one of the more expensive UWA zooms that are really not particularly good IMHO. The Zeiss 15mm and 21mm as well as the 17 TSE are other great options depending on how much you want to spend.


----------

