# Which 3 Primes to go for. Your advice will be appreciated



## Obaidey (Jun 3, 2012)

This is my first post
So, hi to every one

I am seeking your advice about lenses to buy.
But before that, you may want to know the camera to be used on and my purpose of use

*CAMERA:*
I am settled on the 5D Mark III, which will be bought in next 2 months
So far, DigitalRev seems to ask for the best UK price of £2489, that's $3834 ($3195+VAT at 20%), body only

*USE:*
My job has nothing to do with photography, which is a recently revived hobby, caught since I was hooked by my Minolta XD7, bought in 1978
Probably 20% of my use will be on video
The rest will be photo
Of the photo, I will probably be doing 70% indoor family and portraits, 15% landscape, 5% architecture, 5 % (or less) sports, and 5% Macro
I dislike using flash, probably because I don't know how to use it :-[ (willing to learn), hence, a fast lens is a priority

*LENSES:*
After reading quite a bit of your helpful inputs, I think I have settled on primes (I may still change my mind if everyone starts telling me off)
I am hoping that 3 lenses should cover my range
However, I am not sure which 3 primes to get

I am undecided between:
- Either EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM, or EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM 
- Either EF 50mm f/1.2L USM, or EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM 
- Either EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, or EF 180 mm f/3.5L Macro USM

Initially, I was thinking of (14+50+100)
But then, I thought that with a full frame, I will have no trouble with the wide angle and should miss the telephoto effect of 180 if I did not have it. So, I considered (24+85+180)

Which 3 do you think is the best combination?
Or, do you sugget any other combination?

*EDIT:*
Although I would happily climb, crouch, walk and squeeze myself for a better shot, please keep in mind that I am otherwise extremely lazy. Thus, not a person who would like to upgrade too often. Knowing myself, I will probably never sell anything. So, when I buy, anything, I tend to get something that is unlikely to be upgraded by manufacturer too soon. Hence, lasts me for a very long time. Then, chuck it aside after 10 years, until my brother in law finds out, rebukes me, then sells it for me on eBay.
e.g., I replace cars once every 9-12 years. But, when buying, I always go for a recently launched premium German, with all options ticked. At the end, it proves cheaper than upgrading every 2-3 years with a lesser model. I also tend to use my stuff a lot, but really look after them, so they last a long time


----------



## arcanej (Jun 3, 2012)

We're of the similar mind. I bought the 5D3 with a kit lens and then bought the 14L, 50L and the 100L. The only caution is that the 14L is a little difficult to use (you can easily get your feet in a shot, if you don't shoot a building straight on everything is distorted, objects in the edge of the frame will always be somewhat distorted). It is a lot of fun to use however. 

If you don't get the kit lens, I think the 24L, 85L and 180L or the 24L, 50L and 100L would be a lot more utile.


----------



## pwp (Jun 3, 2012)

24 f/1.4II
85 f/1.2II
135 f/2

PW


----------



## hippoeater (Jun 3, 2012)

I went :

35 1.4L
50 1.2L
135 2.0L

for my set up


----------



## elflord (Jun 3, 2012)

pwp said:


> 24 f/1.4II
> 85 f/1.2II
> 135 f/2
> 
> PW



This looks like an excellent setup for family shots, and the 24 covers wide shots (landscapes)

Which of the three would he use for Macro ? The 135L with extension tubes ? 

BTW, this is quite similar to the setup I picked up for full frame -- I have the 35L, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 and 135L -- but I use this almost entirely for family photos. Swapping the 35L for a 24L makes sense if you're shooting landscapes.

Three suggestions for OP: take a good look at the Sigma 85mm if you haven't already. Also, get a flash and learn how to use it. It is indispensible when you have low light and you need some depth of field. Opening up the aperture isn't always an option because the resulting dof could be too shallow for the shot you're trying to take. Given what you're already spending, a decent flash will be the best couple of hundred dollars you spend on gear. If you're going to be using it for video 20% of the time, have you thought about getting some kind of tripod or monopod ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 3, 2012)

From your list, I'd go 24/85/180. Only problem is the sports shooting, which seems not to be a priority (the 85L II and 180L are probably the two slowest focusing L lenses you'll find among the current lineup).

Personally, though, I tend to prefer a combination of zooms and primes. I'd recommend getting the kit lens (a great value when bought with a body).


----------



## samthefish (Jun 3, 2012)

The 100MM 2.8L Macro IS is a great lens, and with its macro capability you can get some great (and unusual) shots. It has very good IS and IQ.

I have the 85mm 1.8 and borrowed the 85mm 1.2L from Canon to see if it would be worth the upgrade. While the $2K 1.2L is a great lens it actually has a few drawbacks compared to its $400 little brother. It's quite heavy/big and much slower to focus. Also the DOF at <1.8 is quite narrow and if your wanted to use it well I think you'd need to have it on a tripod and be doing lots of minor adjustments - I see its best use as a studio lens.

On the flip side the 1.8 85mm has surprisingly solid construction, very good IQ, and much faster focus, so out of the two if I were shooting photos at a family gathering I'd rather have the 1.8 actually.

For just walking around I generally use the 24-105 4.0L and one prime in my bag. For nature shots I carry the 70-200 is II (a great lens in all respects) and the 2.0x extender. One great thing about the 5DMKIII is that you can still get great IQ at ISO 6400 and even higher so where the 4.0 before was kindof pushing it in low light with older models it's less of in issue in my opinion with the MKIII. You could get the 24-105 + 1.8 85MM for less than the 1.2 85mm.

I'd actually recommend renting or borrowing a few of the lenses to see what you think. Of course there is a little less risk buying the L quality lenses because they retain their value pretty well if you trade.


----------



## spinworkxroy (Jun 3, 2012)

All i can say is…you most likely will want a 50mm. Weather it's the F1.2 or F1.4…id budget is no issue of course go L for everything BUT..the F1.4 ain't a bad alternative considering the price.
Since you mentioned 70% family portraits, the 50 and 85 will be handy.

i personally wouldn't go for 3 primes..maybe 2 primes and 1 zoom..like a 16-35 or 17-40..just for landscapes and walkabouts etc…
The 50 and 85…mainly for portraits..they're great…i especialyl love my 85mm…but the 50 is a great and light walkabout lens


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 3, 2012)

Obaidey said:


> This is my first post
> So, hi to every one
> 
> I am seeking your advice about lenses to buy.
> ...


 
For that 70% indoor family portraits, 85mm is the traditional portrait focal length, but for a group, 50mm might be better.

For the 15% landscape, the 17mm TS-E if you can do manual focus, or the 24mm L. 14mm is very wide which makes it a specialty lens.

For telephoto, consider a zoom like the 70-200mmL (f/2.8 IS MK II)

Get the 24-105mm L kit lens with your camera. It is ideal for outdoor use and may become your most used lens.


----------



## preppyak (Jun 3, 2012)

Obaidey said:


> Of the photo, I will probably be doing 70% indoor family and portraits, 15% landscape, 5% architecture, 5 % (or less) sports, and 5% Macro


Since landscape and architecture are about 20% of what you do, the 17mm or 24m TS lenses might suit you well. The 24mm T/S is only a little more than the 24L, and for architecture it will make the difference. You lose the auto-focus, which could be a deal breaker, but you gain a lot of control of your focus plane.

Then if you're going with primes, I'd say the 50L and 100 macro L would probably fit your other needs, as they'd give you two focal lengths for portraits, and two different things (50L for shallow DOF, 100L for sharp across the frame). Agree with others about getting the kit lens though, with the ISO abilities of the 5dIII, you may find the 24-105 to be a good lens for following around your family, with one of the primes for more specific moments. And if you decide you don't need a macro lens, I'd get the 135L instead of the 100L, as that would cover your sport needs and portrait needs at the same time.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 3, 2012)

Based on your max budget of 14L II + 85L II + 180L, I'm suggesting 4 lenses which would be less than your max budget: 16-35L II, 50L, 100L and 135L + TC (optional).

The 16-35L II is much more versatile for landscape, architecture and indoor use (and less expensive) than the 14L II. The 24L II is a great lens, but it might not be wide enough if you're constrained for space. The decision between the 50L and the 85L II is based more on what you prefer than anything else. I find the 85L II to be sharper wide open and is great for patient subjects, but I find the 50L to be much more versatile. It focuses much quicker than the 85L II (chasing kids) but is a little softer wide open. Plus the 85mm focal length is too close the 100mm that I would recommend as a macro. The 100L works well for portraits as well being a great macro lens. The 135L would be used for tight portraits and sports and it takes Canon TCs, thereby extending your kit's focal length range.


----------



## preppyak (Jun 3, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> Based on your max budget of 14L II + 85L II + 180L, I'm suggesting 4 lenses which would be less than your max budget: 16-35L II, 50L, 100L and 135L + TC (optional).


This is a great set of options too.


----------



## sanj (Jun 3, 2012)

Be realistic, you are not a pro photographer but a keen enthusiast. So I recommend (by the way my recommendation is used by may pros as well)

16-35
24-105
50 1.2

And trust you me you cannot predict the kind of photography that you would do in future... This combo gives you a good range.


----------



## olivander (Jun 3, 2012)

I'd go 14mm, and the 24mm 1.4 AND then at the top end of things get the 50mm 1.4 and 85 1.8 (the combined cost is less than another L).

I used the version 1 of the 14mm and I wasn't impressed, I thought what a waste of cash. I recently had the chance to borrow the Mark II. Blew me away.

But it's a lens I'd probably pull out once a month. But it really adds a unique perspective to your shot. But it's highly specialised.

I own both the 85 1.2 and 1.8, I favour the 1.8 because of the AF, and practicality of it, it's a really good lens. The 1.2 is grew when I know I'll be screwed for lack of light and that really awesome effect it has from 1.2-2, but if I'm going to shoot above 2, there's no point, she's so damned heavy and really slow. She's like that girl you know you really want... And you get the opportunity and you get together, and then you realise, she's really really really slow, and only great fun in specific situations. So you go for her cheaper, sluttier sister that everyone has...

I shoot low light mainly, and I carry the 24mm, for pretty much everything, at the moment it doesn't leave my camera (that may be because my 50mm has lemonade from someone pouring half a glass all over my gear, but that's another story).

If you want longer lengths, I honestly think the 70-200mm, or the 135, by god, those lenses, I love the 135, but if I need really really super sharp, images I just go back to 85mm, otherwise I'm just using it to crank the zoom.


----------



## paulc (Jun 3, 2012)

24 TSE on the wide end.


----------



## gmrza (Jun 3, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> For that 70% indoor family portraits, 85mm is the traditional portrait focal length, but for a group, 50mm might be better.
> 
> For the 15% landscape, the 17mm TS-E if you can do manual focus, or the 24mm L. 14mm is very wide which makes it a specialty lens.
> 
> ...



I have to agree about the 24-105 - there is a reason why it is so popular (apart from being sold as a kit lens with the 5DIII) - because it is so versatile.

I agree with Neuro as well - I prefer a combination of zooms and primes.

I would probably start with the 24-105mm, and then go for a 70-200mm zoom - if you go for the f/2.8 that is a great portrait lens. After that, I would start with primes. I would probably start with the 50mm f/1.4 and then look at an 85mm lens.


----------



## Kernuak (Jun 3, 2012)

While the 24-105 is a very useful lens, it is more a jack of all trades. For that reason, you may want to consider a 24mm prime for landscapes, it depends how important the image quality is to you. I used to use the 24-105 for landscapes, but on full frame, the corners are quite soft, but it does depend on the scene, as to whether that is a problem. I went for the 24mm f/1.4 MkII in the end, as I was going to be photographing some northern lights, otherwise I'd probably have leaned towards the 24 TS/E. In your case the tilt and shift might make more sense with the architecture and it does give you more flexibility with landscapes. Neither the 14mm or the 17mm Tilt and shift allow you to use filters without modifications to holders, as the front element bulges, so that is something to bear in mind. Although I don't shoot many portraits, I have found the 24-105 to be ideal, especially in fast moving scenarios, where you might need to vary the focal length. That would also negate the need for a portrait prime to start with, then you can always add one later, if you want to try out selective focus. In fact you could always hold off on a wideangle prime if you have the 24-105, then you can judge whether the results are good enough for your needs. That leaves macro and sports. The 24-105 could cope with outdoor sports if not too far away, but it isn't one of its fortes, so the 70-200 f/2.8 MkII would make more sense, particularly as it is reputed to be as sharp as many primes and the two combinations would give you alot of versatility at lower cost. Macro-wise, the 180mm macro would allow you to stand back from insects, but it depends what you're shooting. If it is more static subjects, then a 100mm or even less focal length would be better, particularly in restricted spaces. The 135mm can also be used as a close-up lens, if you add all 68mm of a Kenko extension tube set, that gives you around half life size. If you want to save a bit of money, have a look around for the non-L 100mm macro, it is at least as good as the L version, in terms of IQ and focuses slightly faster from what I have read, so can make a useful portrait and short telephoto lens. I'm certainly very happy with it and used to use it for wildlife at feeding stations in low light before I got my 135.

I forgot to mention the 50 f/1.4, as cheap as it is, it is worth having in your bag for when you need it. It may lack a little contrast compared to other lenses, but it is definitely useful.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 3, 2012)

IMO (too as others said) a combination of two primes and one zoom might give you a high flexibility:

24mm/2.8 IS (after price has settled) - 24mm great for landscape and IS might help for your 20% of video
-> if it will come available: sth. like 50mm/1.8 IS (just a guess of mine) for standard situations
-> if compact lens is 100mm/2.0 - a great lens, very compact, very clean and realistic image files
100mm/2.8 non-IS macro - for macro shooting/high versatility, low price
70-200/2.8 IS II (perhaps with TC) gives you reach and helps a lot for video / low light via IS funcionality and good close focus

This might be a 3000 $/EUR lens set wich gives you large flexibility and is - by IS - helpful for video (24 + 70-200) and an optional 2x TC gives you longer reach. And Canons tele zooms are in many aspects prime quality (except sometimes contrast in contralight situations but that is the difference between sth. like 15 vs. 5 lens groups ... mere physics).

Best - Michael

EDIT:
About flash usage: I don't like flash too, because standard use gives ugly photographs.
But you can use a standard external flash by a reflector. I built mine by myself:


aluminum strip glued to a cartoon of roughly 15 x 15 cm with some "overhang" to fix it via a rubber band to the movable flash head (Speedlite 380ex)
the mentioned cartoon was colored a little bit yellowish to get warmer flash colors

Area of cartoon means softer light but still directional, the higher distance between light and lens avoids red eyes and the yellowish coloring gives better color rendition - flashes are usually to cool compared to sunlight, especially sunlight during morning and evening hours and compared to incandescent lamps.

About your remarks about buying things: That's just my style of purchasing products (if possible) - buy good things which last a long time so you have no hassle with purchasing decisions and it IS cheaper on the long run!


/[/font]


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 3, 2012)

Back in the dark ages of the 70's and 80's, I used: 20 f/2.8, 35 f/2, 85f/1.8, 200 f/4 (replaced with a 200 f/2.8 ) and 50 macro.

Now, my standard kit is: 17-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, 100-400 and 100 macro. There is no way I would go back to an all-prime kit and the only time that I use my primes is when f/2.8 just isn't fast enough. The 300 f/2.8 is the exception to that rule and I'll use that with 1.4x and 2x TCs until Canon gets the 200-400 out the door.


----------



## K-amps (Jun 3, 2012)

I am closer to your second set:

24 f/1.4II
85 f/1.2II 135 f2 Faster focus, Sharper, No CA
180 Macro very sharp and useful.


----------



## EvilTed (Jun 3, 2012)

16-35 F/2.8 II
24-70 F/2.8 II
70-200 F/2.8 II

I know you asked for primes, but given that you state you are lazy, this is a better approach and will give you maximum range without getting off the couch 

ET


----------



## Viggo (Jun 3, 2012)

24 f1.4 L II, 50 L and 85 L.


----------



## Cgdillan (Jun 3, 2012)

I would go 

24mm f/1.4 II
50mm f/1.2
70-200 f/2.8 IS II - 4 stops of IS help a lot in the dark.


----------



## Northstar (Jun 3, 2012)

> EvilTed said:
> 
> 
> > 16-35 F/2.8 II
> ...



I agree with this combo for two important reasons:

1. Primes are nice, but zoom capability is even better IMO - changing lenses because your prime is too long or short is a pain, and it also means that occasionally you MISS a shot...and maybe even drop something while switching. 2.8 on these zooms with the 5d3 and it's high ISO capability will work very well 

2. IQ with the above named zoom lenses is so close to the "L" primes that it's noticeable only to expert pixel peepers

If you really want a prime, drop the 16-35 from this recommendation and add the 50 or 85. But I would bet that the 24-70 and 70-200 will cover 95% of what you need....and the 24-70 will stay on your camera 90% of the time based on the type of shooting you're describing.


----------



## robbymack (Jun 3, 2012)

since you are self described as lazy, I'd say zooms will be more friendly than primes. Since you also aren't afraid to spend money either then the 2.8 zoom trinity would do you fine. You could also get a 50L for those really low light situations. 

Honestly, my best advice, buy the kit 24-105, use it for a bit then decide what else you need. You might find that after 10 years your brother has nothing of yours to sell on ebay...


----------



## HarryWintergreen (Jun 3, 2012)

Tse 24 II
85 F1/2 II
135 2.0


----------



## Obaidey (Jun 3, 2012)

robbymack said:


> since you are self described as lazy,


What I meant, is that I am lazy with selling stuff that I do not need
I would happily climb, crouch and walk to get a better shot
Sorry that I did not make it clearer earlier


----------



## Goshdern (Jun 3, 2012)

I asked this very question a year ago. I ended up with 2 zooms and a prime after asking what 3 primes to buy.

16-35 II
85 1.2L II
70-200 2.8 IS II

In hindsight I believe we made the right choices with the zooms. I would have gone with the 100 L macro because of macro and IS if I could do it again, but having said that, the 85 1.2L II is the closest thing to perfection I've used.

I would consider a 580EX II too, ETTL has gotten to a point where you can salvage some horrid lighting.


----------



## IIIHobbs (Jun 4, 2012)

Lots of opinions a good advice here.
Your desire for prime lenses has merit. But having not shot recently, and jumping in with a 5DIII, consider purchasing with the kit lens and get started familrizing yourself with your new camera. Regardless whatever lens you buy next the 24-105 can be kept or sold depending.
If it is only primes you want to use eventually, I currently use the 50 f1.2 and the 135 f2 (the 135 is on my camera the most). The 24 f1.4 II also deserves your consideration.
Lots of good information on all of these here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews


----------



## DanielW (Jun 4, 2012)

Buy Syl Arena's Speedlighter's handbook!
Flash is a great tool! Fear not!


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 4, 2012)

Obaidey said:


> Initially, I was thinking of (14+50+100). But then, I thought that with a full frame, I will have no trouble with the wide angle and should miss the telephoto effect of 180 if I did not have it. So, I considered (24+85+180)



You suggested only prime lenses, so you probably have thought about it and that's what you want ?! There are some top-grade zooms out there nowadays, ye know...

Since you don't plan to do only macro, imho go for the 100L instead of the macro-specialist 180L because of f2.8, faster af and IS for about half the price. And get a Kenko 1.4tc for added working range when you need it, useful for all other lenses, too. The 100L is also very useful for dual-use for portraits and substituting part of the 70-200/2.8 if you don't want to afford or carry the latter. Last not least, the 100L is the most fun lens to use with little weight, with IS and without minimal focal distance.

As for telephoto, 180mm on ff really doesn't cut it - if you want that, get an additional 70-300L (like me ) or a 300mm+ prime.



Goshdern said:


> I would have gone with the 100 L macro because of macro and IS if I could do it again, but having said that, the 85 1.2L II is the closest thing to perfection I've used.



This is really something only you can decide for yourself - maybe you get around trying the 85L and 100L for portraits and see if the f2.8 is enough for you, the good thing about the 100L that it's actually 100% usable with open aperture so no need to stop down.



Obaidey said:


> I am undecided between:
> - Either EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM, or EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM
> - Either EF 50mm f/1.2L USM, or EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM
> - Either EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, or EF 180 mm f/3.5L Macro USM



So given YOUR question (and not what everybody else would ask or buy) I'd get 24/50/100 unless you really want ultrawide. For "wide" decide between the sealed 24L with af or 24tse for landscapes.


----------



## ecka (Jun 4, 2012)

If I had the money I'd get:
TS-E 17mm f/4L - for landscapes and architecture
EF 35mm f/1.4L USM - for indoor
Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 - for macro and portraits

or EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro USM - if manual focus is out of the question
or EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM + Sigma APO 150mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro - if you can justify buying 4 primes.

I wouldn't use a prime lens for action and sports, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM is a better tool for that.


----------



## Tcapp (Jun 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> From your list, I'd go 24/85/180. Only problem is the sports shooting, which seems not to be a priority (the 85L II and 180L are probably the two slowest focusing L lenses you'll find among the current lineup).
> 
> Personally, though, I tend to prefer a combination of zooms and primes. I'd recommend getting the kit lens (a great value when bought with a body).



+1. I love my primes, but love zoom at the telephoto end. I would get the 85 1.2, 24 1.4, and the 70-200 2.8 IS.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 4, 2012)

scrappydog said:


> Obaidey said:
> 
> 
> > - Either EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM, or EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM
> ...



To me it's kinda like saying, either a 50mm or a 600mm, swinging the 14 and the 24 from the same branch. They couldn't be more different, and they have a VERY uniqe look both of them. The 14 is extremely wide with LOTS of dof, even at 2,8. And very difficult to use for general stuff as you need to put a subject very close to get some depth and impact in the picture. SImply relying on a UW perspective is going to get old very fast, I have owned it, so I know. 

The 24 is VERY cool with the pretty wide angle and the very shallow dof (compared to the 14) which is a completely different look. The 24 can be used for millions of things the 14 can't.

If you want the very best wide-wide lens, get the TS 17, it can do whatever, and the 14 can't do any of them. With the 14 I found myself always trying to shoot things dead on, or else you will get extreme converging lines, which you can fix with the TS 17. The 14 is hugely limited lens, but for great landscape photographers, it can make some astonishing, truly epic.

The 24 is my absolute go-to wideangle on my 5d3, wonderful wonderful lens. And tricky focus? No, but there have been a bad batch or two of this lens, I replaced two copies because the focus was all over the place, but my third one is rock solid (thanks to Reikan Focal).

The 50 is tricky focus P


----------



## Obaidey (Jun 4, 2012)

Thanks to every one, for the extremely valuable advice
I wouldn't mind more, so please keep them coming

There seems to be a recurrent theme emerging
- The EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM (launched 2001)....edit: oops. I meant *2010*. Sorry about the mistake and thanks to *Tcapp * and *Razor2012 * for pointing this out
- The EF 100 f/2.8L Macro IS USM (launched 2009)

I am taking everyone's advice on board, and my final lens's choice will probably be somewhat different from what I was initially considering


----------



## codewizpt (Jun 4, 2012)

I have 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4 and 135mm f2.

I'm thinking on buying a 85mm


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 4, 2012)

Obaidey said:


> Thanks to every one, for the extremely valuable advice
> I wouldn't mind more, so please keep them coming
> 
> There seems to be a recurrent theme emerging
> ...



For ambient light indoor portraits, faster lenses are really helpful -- f/2.8 is too slow when the light is dim. Take your pick amongst the 35L, 50L or 85L based on your preferred focal length. All three are great lenses.

I love the 70-200 for sports and portraits in good light, but it is large and heavy (3.75 lb). If you had a higher emphasis on sports (less than 5%), I'd suggest the 70-200. However, if you value weigtht and discretion, another option might be better for you. It really comes down to a trade amongst weight, cost and discretion.


----------



## Tcapp (Jun 4, 2012)

Obaidey said:


> Thanks to every one, for the extremely valuable advice
> I wouldn't mind more, so please keep them coming
> 
> There seems to be a recurrent theme emerging
> ...



Pretty sure the 70-200 2.8 IS II didn't launch in 2001. I was in like, middle school back then. Maybe the version 1 did, but the II is fairly new...


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 4, 2012)

You can look below to see my Choice. I chose these three because im on APS-C and Full frame. With this, i can cover all my needed focal lengths from 24-200mm.

24mm - 24mm @ full frame

35mm - 24mm @ 1.6X

50mm - 50mm @ Full frame

85mm - 50mm @ 1.6X

135mm - 135mm @ Full Frame

200mm - 135mm @ 1.6X

Its worked for me really well.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jun 4, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> Obaidey said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks to every one, for the extremely valuable advice
> ...



Wasn't it launched early in 2010?


----------



## Tcapp (Jun 4, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > Obaidey said:
> ...



Sounds about right... Google knows...


----------



## Obaidey (Jun 4, 2012)

You are both right. 
EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Was launched in March 2010, not 2001
My mistake
Typo
Apologies, I have corrected it
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/telephoto_zoom/ef_70~200_28lis_ii_usm.html


----------



## DigitalRev (Jun 5, 2012)

Hi, 

Noticed that you are looking to purchase the Canon 5D Mark III, and just want to clarify that the price of £2,469.99 (current), which is all inclusive and shipping is free. With that said, you can now have a higher budget for the lenses.


----------



## Cgdillan (Jun 5, 2012)

DigitalRev said:


> Hi,
> 
> Noticed that you are looking to purchase the Canon 5D Mark III, and just want to clarify that the price of £2,469.99 (current), which is all inclusive and shipping is free. With that said, you can now have a higher budget for the lenses.



You guys rock


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 5, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> For ambient light indoor portraits, faster lenses are really helpful -- f/2.8 is too slow when the light is dim. Take your pick amongst the 35L, 50L or 85L based on your preferred focal length. All three are great lenses.



Even if this might be contrary to some enthusiast's view "larger aperture is always better" ... is the 85L with a large open aperture really a fix for noisy sensors at bad lighting indoors?

This might be the case with the wider-angle 35L, but afaik the depth of field of the 85L is so thin (and f2.8 on my 100mm or f1.8 on 50mm is thin to begin with) that it's great for carefully composed artistic portraits, but it is a bit misleading to suggest for your average indoors (or portrait) shot "f2.8 with IS too slow? Just take f1.2!".


----------



## dirtcastle (Jun 5, 2012)

I would recommend starting by picking the ONE lens that gets you most excited. For some it is the dreamy 85L. For others it is the amazing versatility of the 100L macro. For many it is the all-around magic (and bargain) of the 135L.

Pick that one lens, and then work the rest of your quiver around it. Don't get fooled into thinking that three lenses will ever give you perfect coverage. Because they won't. The reason why you got so many responses is that choosing lenses ALWAYS requires a compromise, even for those who have every lens (and sherpas to carry them).

Let's say you choose the 100L as your most exciting prime. In that case, it would probably make sense to decide between 24/50/100 or 24/100/180. If you went with that last one, I think most everyone on here would agree that it would make sense to get the 70-200 instead of the 180.

Aside from that, I usually just ditto what neuro says.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 5, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > For ambient light indoor portraits, faster lenses are really helpful -- f/2.8 is too slow when the light is dim. Take your pick amongst the 35L, 50L or 85L based on your preferred focal length. All three are great lenses.
> ...



Sometimes you just don't have a choice because you can't control the lighting. Shot my kids preschool show last night using a 70-200 f/2.8 on a 5DII at ISO 3200 and was only getting shutter times of about 1/30-1/60s most of the time. I was in the second row, but the stage is large, so I couldn't use my fast 50mm prime, and my flash won't reach well. If I'm only concerned about one subject, I'd gladly trade thinner DOF for speed. Zooms give you composing options, primes give you DOF/shutter speed options. It is up to the user to make that trade to determine what setting combination will produce the desired effect.


----------



## IIIHobbs (Jun 5, 2012)

Obaidey said:


> CAMERA: 5D Mark III
> USE: 80% Stills / 20% Video (70% indoor family, 15% landscape, 5% architecture, 5 % sports, 5% Macro). I dislike using flash
> 
> LENSES: Initially, I was thinking of (14+50+100), but then…
> ...



Based on what you told us at the beginning, Full Frame, Best in Class Glass, Primarily Indoor Shooting w/o Flash, you should consider the following trio (they are all sharp, light and fast with great AF speed):
24 f/1.4L II - This will suit your Interior, Architecture and Landscape needs beautifully.
50 f/1.2L - This will also suit your Interior, Architecture and Landscape needs beautifully, but with a different point of view (great for Video also).
135 f/2L - Though not on your list, this lens will easily support your Sports, Video and Macro needs very well and is a great portrait lens.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 5, 2012)

IIIHobbs said:


> 135 f/2L - Though not on your list, this lens will easily support your Sports, Video and Macro needs very well and is a great portrait lens.



When advising this for "macro", we need to clarify what "macro" really means: it's not shooting your average flower which you can certainly do with any 135L or 70-200L just fine, but "macro" is targeting 1:1 when the internal mechanism that only real macro lenses have goes to work, boosting magnification and sending the actual aperture down the drain. And for e.g. shooting an insect and resolving the distinct insect eyes, you need a real macro or a mpe65.


----------



## K-amps (Jun 5, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> IIIHobbs said:
> 
> 
> > 135 f/2L - Though not on your list, this lens will easily support your Sports, Video and Macro needs very well and is a great portrait lens.
> ...



MP-E65 is 20% Macro, 80% Micro  Macro's are 1:1 with little to no magnification.


----------



## elflord (Jun 5, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Even if this might be contrary to some enthusiast's view "larger aperture is always better" ... is the 85L with a large open aperture really a fix for noisy sensors at bad lighting indoors?
> 
> This might be the case with the wider-angle 35L, but afaik the depth of field of the 85L is so thin (and f2.8 on my 100mm or f1.8 on 50mm is thin to begin with) that it's great for carefully composed artistic portraits, but it is a bit misleading to suggest for your average indoors (or portrait) shot "f2.8 with IS too slow? Just take f1.2!".



Depth of field doesn't just depend on aperture. For example, dof is very thin with an 85mm f/1.2 at 5ft (less than an inch) but at 15 foot the dof is almost a foot -- comparable to f/4 at 8 foot. So sometimes it can help you get more shutter speed.

However, if you need more depth of field, it's generally useful to have a flash. I suspect it's common for enthusiasts to go through an intermediate phase where they have figured out that point and shoot flashes are awful, but haven't yet figured out how flash, when used effectively (which generally means not blasting it directly in the subject's face), can improve both the quantity and quality of the lighting.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 5, 2012)

elflord said:


> Depth of field doesn't just depend on aperture. For example, dof is very thin with an 85mm f/1.2 at 5ft (less than an inch) but at 15 foot the dof is almost a foot -- comparable to f/4 at 8 foot. So sometimes it can help you get more shutter speed.



You're correct of course, I always mistake indoors for "close quarters" and portraits for closer-up distance, both generating a thin dof. But shooting group portraits, a large stage or a church do qualify as "indoors", too.


----------



## IIIHobbs (Jun 6, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> When advising this for "macro", we need to clarify what "macro" really means: it's not shooting your average flower which you can certainly do with any 135L or 70-200L just fine, but "macro" is targeting 1:1 when the internal mechanism that only real macro lenses have goes to work, boosting magnification and sending the actual aperture down the drain. And for e.g. shooting an insect and resolving the distinct insect eyes, you need a real macro or a mpe65.



Truth (not a Macro; agree).

With the percentage for Macro use listed as 5%, I suspect that the 100 and 180 Macro Lenses will be used much more often as standard telephoto lenses by the OP and therefore offered the 135 as an alternative for better performance in the greater area of use.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 6, 2012)

IIIHobbs said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > When advising this for "macro", we need to clarify what "macro" really means: it's not shooting your average flower which you can certainly do with any 135L or 70-200L just fine, but "macro" is targeting 1:1 when the internal mechanism that only real macro lenses have goes to work, boosting magnification and sending the actual aperture down the drain. And for e.g. shooting an insect and resolving the distinct insect eyes, you need a real macro or a mpe65.
> ...



I use my 180 for close up and macro for 95% of the time. 

Just love the 135 though


----------



## Obaidey (Aug 12, 2012)

OK
Results
I took the plunge
Finally
Thank you for all your advice

After settling on buying my DSLR, 5D III, I was initially wondering which 3 primes to buy with it
So, I asked you for advice
I bought the 5D Mark III, as already planned
But, not body only
I bought it, with kit lens, following the advice of so many of forum members

Yes, you convinced me
The whole package cost me £2608, from e-infinity in Hong Kong (It included all duties and Tax), on eBay
That is around £1000 cheaper than Jessops
Here, is just under 2 minutes of silent video, showing the box unpacking, and includes a written description of my buying experience on YouTube
Please skip it if you are not a camera anorak, and get annoyed easily. It reminds me of watching paint dry.

Bought from E-infinity. Box contents: Canon EOS 5D Mark III + 24-105 f/4L IS USM Kit lens صامت

As you know, initially, I was thinking of just buying primes
I asked for advice
And, a certain non-prime kept appearing in your messages
It was the Canon 24-105 f/4 L
I initially thought "f/4?, what? No way!"
Which shows you my ignorance, and the desperate need of the likes of me, to seek advice

What really clinched it for me, are 3 main things
1- As mentioned, the repeated suggestion of the 24-105 f/4, which was not even in my initial list. It kept coming up in many forum members replies
2- As a video lens, which I was planning to use as a significant proportion, you do not want to use a wide open lens. So, anything wider than f/4, will have a very narrow depth of field, and probably have only a part of subject in focus. Then, with any movement, this will go out of focus. Especially that the 5D III (unlike the 650D, which is a bit surprising), does not autofocus on video mode  In addition, with video, you will not be able to tell the difference between top of range and a much cheaper lens, even in highest resolution HD (Note to self: 650D is probably a much better choice for video, with its swivel screen and autofocus on the move. Sadly, neither is available on 5D III, for unknown reasons)
3- This message, made a lot of sense


robbymack said:


> Honestly, my best advice, buy the kit 24-105, use it for a bit then decide what else you need


What a fantastic idea
As a beginner, I had no clue which focal length I will be using, most
So, with a 24-105 zoom, and after a while of use, I can check which focal length I was choosing most, then buy the relevant prime
I really wished that the 85mm, comes up as one of my frequent uses
Unfortunately, whenever I check, it seems to be around the 50mm, which I keep choosing again and again, unconsciously
There are other quotes that tempted me into buying the kit lens
So, thank you for all


neuroanatomist said:


> I'd recommend getting the kit lens (a great value when bought with a body).





Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Get the 24-105mm L kit lens with your camera. It is ideal for outdoor use and may become your most used lens.





gmrza said:


> I have to agree about the 24-105 - there is a reason why it is so popular (apart from being sold as a kit lens with the 5DIII) - because it is so versatile.



*OK*
I already bought my 5D III with 24-105 L Kit lens

A 100L Macro is on its way (bought from the same dealer, for £569)

A 50/1.2L may be the next step

For video, who knows, I may buy a 650D (or 700D next year), and stick my 24-105 on it all the time, then use it as a video-camera and a holiday workhorse, while keeping the 5D III and the primes for more artistic leisurely use


----------



## pdirestajr (Aug 12, 2012)

IMO starting with 3 lenses is a bit crazy. Why not get one zoom (or prime) and see what focal lengths you prefer? Reading reviews is very different than actually shooting.


----------



## Obaidey (Aug 12, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> Why not get one zoom (or prime) and see what focal lengths you prefer?


Very sound advice
Thank you
As mentioned in my last post (few inches above), this is exactly what I have done.


----------



## M.ST (Aug 12, 2012)

Forget the 24-105 IS Kit lens

If you want zoom lenses get the 16-35 II, 24-70 II and the 70-200 II.

If you want primes get the 24 mm 1.4L II, 50 mm 1.2L and the 135 mm 2.


----------



## Cannon Man (Aug 12, 2012)

No matter what you decide you must get the 85 1.2 II, awesome lens.

If you have the budget get the TSE 24 II, 50 1.2, 85 1.2 II.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 12, 2012)

Hmm, this is a fun question. If I could only keep 3 of my primes, my answer would be different because I have so many. I'll never part with my 24L. I will part with my 35L and 50L if I buy the new 24-70L II. I won't part with my 85L, nor my 135L. Going beyond that requires more specialized shooting, so I'd say I'd keep a 24L, 85L, and 135L. Expensive lineup for sure, but let's just pretend you could get them at Walmart.

Out of all of my primes, I'd keep the 24L, 85L, and 200L. IMO, the 300 and up lenses you just can't count, because anybody needing those will already be so specialized. If a 200-400L zoom lens comes out though, boy that would be interesting.

Can I just buy 3 of the 24L's and count that? ;D


----------



## Obaidey (Aug 12, 2012)

Cannon Man said:


> No matter what you decide you must get the 85 1.2 II, awesome lens.





Obaidey said:


> So, with a 24-105 zoom, and after a while of use, I can check which focal length I was choosing most, then buy the relevant prime
> *I really wished that the 85mm, comes up as one of my frequent uses*
> Unfortunately, whenever I check, it seems to be around the 50mm, which I keep choosing again and again, unconsciously


 :'( :'( :'(


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 12, 2012)

Obaidey said:


> Cannon Man said:
> 
> 
> > No matter what you decide you must get the 85 1.2 II, awesome lens.
> ...



Minus the f/1.2 to f/2.8 range, I'm thinking at all other apertures that the 24-70L II zoom lens will outperform all of the 50mm primes. I definitely think it will outperform the 35L. I am selling my 50 primes and 35 prime to get the 24-70L II after I see some field testing. I no longer require wider than 2.8.


----------



## Obaidey (Aug 12, 2012)

*What is the secret of this ancient 135*



bdunbar79 said:


> I won't part with my 135L.


I noted that the more recent the lens launch, the more likely it is better, and popular
New technology is better, obviously
Like 70-200 /2.8L IS II = 2010
100 /2.8L Macro IS =2009
and 85 /1.2L II = 2006
However, I am a bit puzzled by the EF135mm f/2L USM = 1996 !
So popular this one
It must be really good
However, it surely is due to be replaced
Or perhaps it is so good, they wouldn't replace
But, come on! 16 years?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 12, 2012)

*Re: What is the secret of this ancient 135*



Obaidey said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I won't part with my 135L.
> ...



Absolutely agree. The ONLY reason I use it for basketball, is that you are far enough away that if you open it up to f/2, you don't really have any DOF problems on a particular player, ie the entire player stays in focus, while the background blurs. This would certainly not be true of the 50L opened to f/2. I'd buy a 135 f/2L II for sure, especially if it had IS! To answer your question though, yes, it is a spectacular lens. For covenience though, the 70-200L II IS does pretty well at 135mm.


----------



## Obaidey (Aug 12, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I am selling my 50 primes and 35 prime to get the 24-70L II after I see some field testing





bdunbar79 said:


> I will part with my 35L and 50L if I buy the new 24-70L II. I won't part with my 85L


Wise words. 24-70L II is still very expensive. And, not very well known quality. Interesting to see it debated. The old 24-70L was (as I heard from a lens rental company) the most hit and miss they had. Hopefully they cracked it with the II


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 13, 2012)

M.ST said:


> Forget the 24-105 IS Kit lens
> 
> If you want zoom lenses get the 16-35 II, 24-70 II and the 70-200 II.
> 
> If you want primes get the 24 mm 1.4L II, 50 mm 1.2L and the 135 mm 2.



+1


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 13, 2012)

i carry the following 3 primes every where with my 5d3 and the combo is awesome and also not crazy expensive
voigtlander 20mm f3.5 color skopar SLII its small light and awesome for landscapes
canon 40mm f2.8 pancake super sharp small light convenient excellent image quality
sigma 85 f1.4 super sharp fast awesome for portraits and super low light.
these 3 lenses cover most stuff produce fantastic results are relatively compact and light fitting in a small bag and provide outstanding versitility and coverage.


----------



## zrz2005101 (Aug 13, 2012)

since your primary purpose is portrait, for primes I would go with 35L 85LII and the 200L IS, just my opinion though.
However, I'm going for 35L 85LII and 135L on that note.


----------



## Axilrod (Aug 13, 2012)

I think you made the right choice, congratulations on your purchase, the 5DIII is a stellar camera. Buying multiple lenses at the same time (especially primes) can be more detrimental than beneficial. The primes take time to learn, and when you get a new lens it's best to keep it attached to your camera for a few months to get used to it. I don't think you could go wrong with a 35mm or 50mm if you want to check out a prime in the future, they're great focal lengths. Also if you want a bit longer of a reach the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is arguably the best zoom in the world, close to as sharp as the 135 f/2 and definitely sharper than the 200mm f/2.8.


----------



## Cgdillan (Aug 13, 2012)

35L | 85L | 135L


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 13, 2012)

Which 3 primes? My 3 choices are 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L, 200L


----------



## zrz2005101 (Aug 13, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Which 3 primes? My 3 choices are 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L, 200L



+1
lol, that's what I'm looking to have in the future  but first 24LII 85LII 135L are must haves,, I just wish the 85LII improved optically too and not just the AF part compared to the Ver.I


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 13, 2012)

Realistically if you would ever have the 70-200L IS II lens, you could honestly substitute those as long as you didn't need wider than 2.8.


----------



## zrz2005101 (Aug 13, 2012)

The one point of having primes is for the extra stops of light and their reliable performance. Yes the 70-200 II is more than outstanding but even with IS sometimes it cannot have the picture just because the object may be moving too. Turning up ISO means losing IQ so having the extra stop of light is very helpful.


----------



## Joellll (Aug 13, 2012)

I'm going to break the rule by saying a 16-35 to cover both 14mm (it's really a bit too wide) and a 35mm prime.

Then for the other 2 lenses you can have a bit more reach without sacrificing the focal lengths in between. I'd recommend 100L for more variety, but 85L has amazing bokeh. This is for you to decide whether you want more background blur or more close up shots. Both are very good portrait lenses. As for tele, I'd recommend 70-200L, but that will overlap with 85 or 100, so if you want something light, 200 2.8 is a great choice. Or else 135L is also fine if you end up choosing the 85.

If I were to make the decision it would be:
16-35
50L
100L
because I don't really need the reach. I'd go for a 7D if I want to shoot far. Also, 16-35 gives you more versatility when you're indoors. You won't be going wide open if you're taking group shots anyway.


----------



## Razor2012 (Aug 13, 2012)

zrz2005101 said:


> The one point of having primes is for the extra stops of light and their reliable performance. Yes the 70-200 II is more than outstanding but even with IS sometimes it cannot have the picture just because the object may be moving too. Turning up ISO means losing IQ so having the extra stop of light is very helpful.



True enough, but I've been doing alot of event shooting lately and find the 5DIII and 70-200II to be an almost unbeatable combination of speed and performance. Wide open with auto ISO I had alot of good images at 12800. I personally don't feel a person is losing that much in IQ. I prefer (in this situation) being more flexible with my zoom.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 13, 2012)

zrz2005101 said:


> The one point of having primes is for the extra stops of light and their reliable performance. Yes the 70-200 II is more than outstanding but even with IS sometimes it cannot have the picture just because the object may be moving too. Turning up ISO means losing IQ so having the extra stop of light is very helpful.



Yes true indeed. However, you must evaluate what you are shooting. If I'm only doing sports for instance, and I shoot at f/1.8, I'm going to lose my job. I can't go wider than f/2.8 due to DOF issues anyways. If you are doing portraits and weddings especially, yes you can go wider.


----------



## Cannon Man (Aug 14, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Obaidey said:
> 
> 
> > Cannon Man said:
> ...



I am also looking for the 24-70 II. I am sure it will be much better than the 50 1.2 at all the same apertures.
When i compare my 85 1.2 II to my 50 1.2 the 50mm is much softer.

I wish they make a new 50mm, i don't care if it would be 1.4 i just want good image quality.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 14, 2012)

zrz2005101 said:


> The one point of having primes is for the extra stops of light and their reliable performance. Yes the 70-200 II is more than outstanding but even with IS sometimes it cannot have the picture just because the object may be moving too. Turning up ISO means losing IQ so having the extra stop of light is very helpful.



Yes but everytime you turn the aperture wider, you thin your focal plane. Much rather have to remove noise than have a completely OOF shot because I didn't get the focal plane correct. This is especially true on shorter focal length lenses when you're doing close ups.


----------

