# Which two lenses should I get



## jhechter (Apr 8, 2011)

Hi,

I am purchasing the Canon Mk11 5D. I want to get two lenses. I am thinking about

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens and Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens

or

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens and Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM Lens

or a combo I have not thought about.

I shoot mostly landscape and travel. I do shoot sports every once and awhile.

Thanks Jeff


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 9, 2011)

Those are very different combinations, but will work fine, get what you need, we may want something that does not work for you.

Buying a 5D MK II with the 24-105mm L seems like a excellent deal, since you save $$$ on the combination and can always resell the lens for more than your cost if you don't like it.

I have the 24-105 as my outdoor walkaround lens, and the 70-200mm f/4 L to supplement it. For indoor low light use, I have a group of primes.

My 100-400mm L stays on my 1D MK III for wildlife or sports unless I'm taking both to a shoot where one is a backup.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2011)

I think a great two-lens travel combination for the 5DII is a 24-105mm f/4L IS and a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. The former is a great walkaround lens on FF, the latter i slong enough for travel shots (altnough not wildlife), and fast enough for sports/action.


----------



## Flake (Apr 10, 2011)

Reading your post I think you are hoping to cover the maximum focal range for 'minimal' cost, but as a landscape & travel solution I don't think that's the best idea.

The 24 - 105mm f/4 IS L is pretty good, but at the wide end it does suffer a number of problems, so I'll reccomend the 17 - 40mm f/4 L which again at the wide end loses performance unless stopped down. A wide angle lens is a must for both travel & landscape, this one is reasonably priced and will hold its value.

Buying the 17 - 40mm L will save a lot of money over the 100 - 400mm L enough to afford an excellent alternative, the 70 - 300mm f/4 - 5.6 USM IS (not the L version). According to my quick calculations this would leave enough money to also afford a flash gun or a 50mm f/1.4 as well !


----------



## ronderick (Apr 11, 2011)

Neuro just revealed my standard travel gear (though I ended up switching the 5D2 for the 1D4 and only have the MKI version of 70-200mm f/2.8 IS). 

I think most people agree that you can't go wrong with the 5D2 + 24-105mm combo. For both 5D2 and 1D4, I'd say that the 24-105mm sits on the camera body almost 90 percent of the time.

Now, I think the second lens would vary depending on your priorities. I use the 70-200 f/2.8L IS as a fast/long distance/indoor lowlight option, as well as the option of popping on the 1.4x extender to get a slightly longer reach if push comes to shove. 

However, if you like lighter weight, the 70-200mm f/4L IS would be a better option. Of course, you can still use the extender for this lens.

I don't know about the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6L IS, but many reviews are saying positive thing about this lens. However, you can't use the extender option for this lens (though I think the size and weight is the biggest plus for this baby - albeit a bit slow).

The 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS probably has the best reach, and with the size approx. comparable to the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. However, you need to decide if ur OK with the push-pull zoom and lack of weatherseal.

So... if compact travel gear is ur top priority, go for the 24-105+70-300 option.

If you want a balance btwn size and picture quality, try the 24-105+70-200(f/4) option

If reach is your biggest concern, the 24-105+100-400 would be the best.

If you really have to make room for sports/fast action shots, the 24-105+70-200(f/ 2.8L) is probably the best choice (though be warned... your back will start hurting soon).

---

Now, as an add-on to the above options, you might want to consider popping in extenders (1.4x or 2.0x - ur choice) for better range coverage at the expense of picture quality and speed - though this option won't work for the 70-300mm.

If you choose the slower combos but still need a fast lens option, just get the affordable and fast 50mm f/1.8 - it's small enough to fit ur baggage and something that'll give you speed when there's no other choice.


----------



## caMARYnon (Apr 11, 2011)

ronderick said:


> So... if compact travel gear is ur top priority, go for the 24-105+70-300 option.
> 
> If you want a balance btwn size and picture quality, try the 24-105+70-200(f/4) option
> 
> ...



Excellent. Thanks. I have the same dilemma and your answer start to solve the problem


----------



## mreco99 (Apr 12, 2011)

i think this is a popular setup.
I too am going this way but instead of the 24-105 4L, will probably go for the 24-70 2.8L. Its not got IS but the images are a little sharper and great for low light.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2011)

mreco99 said:


> the 24-70 2.8L. Its not got IS but the images are a little sharper and great for low light.



It depends on what you're shooting in low light. If your subjects are moving, then f/2.8 is certainly better. But if your subjects are static (building interiors, etc.), then the 24-105mm wins - a stop less aperture plus a 3-stop IS means a 2-stop benefit over the 24-70mm.


----------



## LFG530 (Apr 14, 2011)

IMO, you have to get at least one 2.8 lens in the combo, so the 24-70 would be the best choice (and it delivers better IQ in good light, gives you more light and allows you to do better portraits (more bokeh)). So that might be a simple minded but it makes all the difference in my mind. Have you considered 24-70 and 100-400 since the reach of 300mm isn't that big on ff? (the lost between 70 and 100 isn't that important IMO)


----------



## jhanken (Apr 14, 2011)

I have the 5D Classic, which I bought with the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens, and subsequently added the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM Lens and a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 lens. I love that combo, I feel like I am ready for most any event. 

I have never tried the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, so I can't comment there, except that is probably pretty spiffy. What I would say is that don't worry too much about overlap in your focal length. In most outdoor situations a little overlap in your zooms is a nice thing, prevents a lot of swapping, which takes time and can foul your sensor with dust, etc.

I must say, I am impressed with the 70-300 f/ 4-5.6 L IS USM, in most outdoor sports scenarios, even early evening, I can still shoot at 1/1000 sec exposure or greater at ISO 400, so I can stop baseballs and soccer balls in mid air, even in that golden evening sun, and with fabulous clarity and focus.


----------



## Flake (Apr 14, 2011)

I often wonder when I read replies, if posters have actually taken the time to read & understand what the OP has asked, as so many of them seem to reply to a question which relates solely to them & their requirements!

_"so the 24-70 would be the best choice (and it delivers better IQ in good light, gives you more light and allows you to do better portraits (more bokeh)"_

Here's what the OP said he wanted the kit for:

_"I shoot mostly landscape and travel. I do shoot sports every once and awhile."_

Unfortunately he doesn't say where in the world he is, nor where he intends to travel to, but here in the UK for 4 months of the year there simply isn't enough light to use a non IS lens. For landscape photography f/2.8 is pretty much redundant, so it's either a tripod, or IS. The 24 - 105mm has a 3 stop advantage over the 24 - 70mm f/2.8 all the time because anything less than f/5.6 for landscape or street / architechture is unuseable.

F/2.8 lenses cost more money - they weight more and are larger, just what you don't want when you're travelling especially when there's an F/4 version (70 - 200mm) which costs half as much and weighs about half as well. A lens like the 70 - 300mm (non L) will still produce great results is a bargain price and is great as a walk around if it's needed. I'm really surprised though that given the OPs requirements (landscape & travel) that I'm the only one to reccommend a wide angle lens! Does no one here actually have a wide angle lens? I know they're not as sexy as the big white ones, they don't cost as much & they don't have IS, and Canon doesn't make particularly good ones. Surely though for any landscape photographer a wide angle is an essential requirement.


----------



## branden (Apr 14, 2011)

jhechter said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am purchasing the Canon Mk11 5D. I want to get two lenses. I am thinking about
> 
> ...


I have the same body you have. Really, any of those lenses you are considering will make you happy. Another one to consider is the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS, although I think you'll be happiest with EF 100-400mm lens, so long as you aren't concerned about its size/weight. 

One thing to consider before deciding, is renting some of this equipment you're considering. You can probably rent each of these lenses for under a $100/week (the 100-400mm might be more) and try them out in the real world. I have done this several times, and it has helped. For instance, renting dissuaded me from purchasing the otherwise highly regarded EF 16-35mm f/2.8L, not because it isn't an excellent lens, but just because it wasn't really "my style".

I have seen the EF 100-400mm lens produce some excellent work, so I'm interested, but I'd definitely borrow that before committing, because I am afraid of the bulk of that large a lens. 

My point is: you're not going to make a wrong choice with those options in front of you.


----------



## This is the Edge (Apr 15, 2011)

Take this with a grain of salt since I use a 7D but I have to say that the 70-200 2.8L IS II is fantastic! I just got back from Switzerland (I will post pictures in the near future) and used this lens a lot. When I enlarged the image to 100%, it was tack sharp (without using software sharpening). On a FF it will not get nearly the reach as it would on a Crop but still...With an extender it should be excellent for indoor and outdoor sports.

The other lens I used was the 17-40 4L. To me, it seemed more than wide enough for landscape photography. It should be fine on a FF for UWA work. It doesn't seem to be as sharp at 100% as the 70-200 but what zoom is?

I got to hang out with one of Switzerland's top freelance press photographers. He shoots Nikon but loved my setup. He really loved the 17-40 as that really jives with the kind of work he does. If his shop didn't have $100K in cameras and lenses he would give Canon a shake. He loves their lenses. He like Nikon's color rendition better however. He had an interesting perspective after shooting for 20 year. Skimp on the camera and invest in lenses if that is you only financial option. A Rebel with an L lens will outperform a 5D MKII with a cheap kit lens any day.

I have rented the 24-70 2.8L in the past and love that as well. Overall, I would suggest renting and seeing which lenses you like best.

My 2 cents


----------



## branden (Apr 15, 2011)

This is the Edge said:


> A Rebel with an L lens will outperform a 5D MKII with a cheap kit lens any day.


I have actually done this and I completely agree. Attaching it to my 5D MkII is why I hate the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (the cheapest kit lens that you can attach to a non-APSC body). The 300D with a nice lens attached is still a decent backup camera.


----------



## FOB2009 (Apr 16, 2011)

If I could only choose 2 lenses (which I often do for travel) for my 5DII, I'd take the 35/1.4L and the Zeiss 100/2.0. The Zeiss 100 is my favorite lens, and is perfect for portraits and macro. Since the distortion is near zero, you can also use to stitch landscapes. The Zeiss 21/2.8 is better than the 35/1.4 for landscapes, but the 35/1.4 is more versatile (low light, travel, street). 

Since you are interested in sports, the 135/2.0L might work better for you than the 100 (since the 135 has more reach and AF), and of course you can add the 1.4 or 2x extenders as needed. I don't have the 2x extender but the 1.4 works great (turning it into a 189/2.8).

It looks like most everyone else is recommending zooms, but do consider at least one prime. The sharpness and low light capabilities are addictive. I have the 24-105 (it was my 1st lens), but with 5 primes (21, 35, 85, 100, 135) it rarely gets used. I definitely agree w/ the posts that advise not to skimp on lenses.

Hope this helps!


----------

