# 24-105 or prime lenses on 5D2 ?



## wolf33d (Apr 2, 2012)

Hello, 

I just got the 5D2 and I had the 450D before. 
I need to capture landscape, portrait, everyday life, macro is a plus.
I have two option : 

- the 24-105 which is good in landscape, portrait, and walk around but not great in each part. The big + for me is that it is very easy, weight, and less expensive. 

-14mm 2.8 samyang (landscape) + 50mm canon 1.4 (walk around) + 100mm 2.8 L IS macro (portrait + macro). The + is definitely the aperture which will allow me to capture photo in low light condition and beautiful bokeh. It will allow me to do macro also. 
It sounds that this is the perfect combination but the problem is the weight (3 lenses), the price, and the fact that I will have to change it often. For exemple I am in the street with the 50mm, I see a cat somewhere and have to shoot at 100mm, impossible to change the lense quickly. 

Can you help me ? 

Thank you.


----------



## akclimber (Apr 2, 2012)

My opinion, as a former "primes only" kinda guy:

I use a 24-105 f/4 IS on my 5D2 as a walk around, do everything sort of lens. I really love it for that. Yes, it has some downsides like some distortion (particularly wider than 35mm), vignetting and it's kinda slow at f/4 but man, I find the image quality to be pretty darn good and the IS very useful. The range is nice too but I do sometimes wish it had a bit more on the long side. I still have a bunch of primes for special circumstances but the 24-105 is certainly my most used jack of all trades, fun, worry free lens.

Good luck with your decision!


----------



## Kernuak (Apr 2, 2012)

Put some extension tubes on and you can even do some extreme closeups with the 24-105 .




The Blusher Wideangle by Kernuak, on Flickr

While I don't do alot of portrait photography, it is also a very good portrait lens. It may not be as sharp as say, the 135 f/2, but it is more versatile in rapidly changing shoots and you don't always want the sharpness the 135 gives you. Personally, I would say that the 50 f1/4 would make a poor walkaround lens, it's too short and the AF isn't always the most reliable. It does come in handy for certain landscapes though, provided you have other options as well. I used the 24-105 for most of my landscapes over the past couple of years, until I got the 24 f/1.4 MkII and apart from the corners at the wide end, it holds its own, even then, the corners are acceptable most of the time. I've also used it as a travel lens, when I had to travel light, not that I liked limiting my options that much.


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 2, 2012)

First of all - congratulations on 5d2 and welcome to CR.
Referring to your questions I think yo've made your selection quite good. As mentioned the first and second choice have their pros and cons. I'd rather ask: when and if at all are you going to upgrade your lenses in the future? I'm asking because at start 24-105 would cover your needs somehow: less quality and specialization but more versatile, as stated before. 14mm on FF is very very very wide. Landscapes with 24 may be good enough. Portraits and macro much better with prime you chose. What I think as well is that if you want to catch a cat with 100mm on FF, you could be surprised a bit - 70-200 would be more than welcome in such a case.

Second question - you desire to achieve best quality at start or best versatility? Better quality = primes. 
Shooting landscapes - 14 mm will win, if you will correct distortion in PP. 
Shooting street - 50 mm is great on FF, though 35 mm might be even better.
For macro and portrait - you might not choose better if you want to use one lens for both.

Finally I'd say - if you want to capture everyday life less than 30%-40% of your work - take primes. 
If you intend to buy more lenses quite soon - take 24-105, later 100L and 70-200(2.8 or 4 depending on budget).


----------



## elflord (Apr 2, 2012)

wolf33d said:


> Hello,
> 
> I just got the 5D2 and I had the 450D before.
> I need to capture landscape, portrait, everyday life, macro is a plus.
> ...



If you have to be able to change focal length quickly, then you have to have multiple bodies or a zoom lens. But -- do you really have to shoot at 100mm ? The thing about rapidly changing focal length is that you're also rapidly changing perspective -- that 100mm shot is more or less an isolation portrait. It's as if you set out to do street photography and then all of a sudden you're switching gears and becoming a wildlife shooter. If you see an eagle hovering above you and you want to take a picture of that, you will probably need 300mm or longer. 

I think the bottom line is that if you need to be able to take different types of pictures in very rapid succession, you are really better off with the 24-105mm. If you're more goal oriented, a good collection of primes makes sense. 

Ultimately you will probably want to enjoy the best of both worlds and get the 24-105 as an outdoor walkaround lens, and then a selection of primes for whatever else you want to do.


----------



## wolf33d (Apr 3, 2012)

Thanks a lot for the answers. I think that I will go for prime because I wan buy it one by one and the aperture is definitely necessary. On my 450D, i was extremely often at 1.8 on my 50mm and I really like to play with bokeh so it is the best option for quality. 
Versatility is still a good argument, but maybe less important that IQ...
Usually I take my time when I shoot and I think about what I am going to shoot and how. That is maybe an indication to go for primes, because the 24-105 is more for people who shoots rapidly. 
Any other comments ?


----------



## EvilTed (Apr 3, 2012)

50mm F/1.8 for $100 is a way better lens.
I have both and the 24-105 is getting sold ASAP...


----------



## katwil (Apr 3, 2012)

There’s nothing wrong with opting for an all-prime line-up, but do consider that now that you’re moving to FF from APS-C, your crop factor goes away. The images you saw on your 50mm lens on the 450D now will look like 80mm on the 5D ii.


----------



## recon photography (Apr 3, 2012)

The 100ml f2.8l with extension tubes and a 2x tele converter will give extreme macro i dunno about the 24-105 with extension tubes.... 


the 3 lenses you mentioned make what i would considered the best reasonably priced trinity of primes go for it!


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 3, 2012)

EvilTed said:


> 50mm F/1.8 for $100 is a way better lens.
> I have both and the 24-105 is getting sold ASAP...



The Plastic Fantastic sure is nifty, and absolutely deserves a place in (almost) every photographer's kit. I haven't compared mine with my sniny new 24-105, but I'm sure they'll both hold up quite nicely -- especially at apertures wider than f/4!

But I don't think it's really fair to compare the two. Even if the prime is a better 50 than the zoom, the zoom can go twice as wide and twice as long, and has image stabilization to boot. Indeed, as far as General Porpoise's lenses go, I don't think there exists anything that really could be said to be better than the 24-105.

Sure, pick any single criteria (except for image-stabilized standard-range zoom) and you'll find all sorts of lenses that do better than the 24-105. And it's not hard finding situations where the 24-105 simply can't do what another lens can (the 90mm TS-E springs to mind, or the 65mm MP-E), even though it covers the same focal range.

But if you had to pick only one lens to cover the broadest possible range of real-world non-specialized photographic requirements? Nothing's going to beat the 24-105.

...with the possible exception of the yet-to-be-released Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 with image stabilization. If its optics are on a par with the 24-105 and if the AF motor doesn't suck, it'll become a must-have lens. If Bryan likes the lens, it'll sell like hotcakes.

Cheers,

b&


----------

