# which lens for 5D Mark II?



## canon23 (Mar 20, 2012)

Hi everyone, I am going to get the 5D Mark II but not sure which lens to get along with it: 24-70 or 24-105??? (the next lens I'm going to invest in after this will probably be in a year with budget of $1,000 to $2,000).

I'm still an amatuer, and want to focus on landscapes (vacations), and portraits, but with the aim of becoming a wedding photographer. But at the moment, I'm still learning (w/great interest). 

Your feed backs are much appreciated! Thanks.


----------



## jalbfb (Mar 20, 2012)

go with the 24-105. that's what I have with my 5D2 and will stay with whenever my 5D3 eventually gets here.  With the 105 you have a little more reach. It's a great walk around lens, great for landscapes and close up portrait-like pictures. So that's my vote/recommendation.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 20, 2012)

canon23 said:


> Hi everyone, I am going to get the 5D Mark II but not sure which lens to get along with it: 24-70 or 24-105??? (the next lens I'm going to invest in after this will probably be in a year with budget of $1,000 to $2,000).
> 
> I'm still an amatuer, and want to focus on landscapes (vacations), and portraits, but with the aim of becoming a wedding photographer. But at the moment, I'm still learning (w/great interest).
> 
> Your feed backs are much appreciated! Thanks.



Which lens(es) do you have currently?


----------



## canon23 (Mar 20, 2012)

currently, I have the rebel kits lens, 18-55, 50mm 1.8 II, and tamron 18-270. I just purchased the 24-105 last week, but returning that because I'm looking to upgrade my body, thus figured, it makes much more sense puchasing a new lens along w/the mark ii as a kit (either 24-105 for $3k at B&H) or 24-70 w/canon's current rebate. * note, i'm looking to sell my rebel xsi, 18-55 and tamron 18-270 *


----------



## Tijn (Mar 20, 2012)

24-105L will suit you fine. It's lighter, cheaper, has wider range and has IS. Full-frame gives f/4 more blur at the same framing than f/2.8 does at the same effective focal length on a crop camera (and that's enough for most purposes). Of course f/2.8 on full-frame would allow to blur the background even more, comparable to what f/1.8 did on your crop.
Only consider the 24-70L if you're shooting in low light without flash frequently, and value that more than the benefits of the 24-105L.
The 70-300L would nicely compliment either lens as a next (future) lens. The 24-105L IS is a better all-rounder than the 24-70L though.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 20, 2012)

The 24-105 is a better choice, given that it will be your only lens. At f/4, it will struggle in low light (subject motion blur), so you might need a few fast primes as well within the same range (good start with your 50 f/1.8) in the future. You can push up the ISO higher than on your Rebel, but you will have more noise, less dynamic range than if you shot at low ISOs.

You'll be losing a lot of range on your long end going to FF, but ultimately you'll have a year to figure out what range is most important for you to invest in.


----------



## CowGummy (Mar 21, 2012)

just found this thread by searching in the forum and as I have a very similar question I figured I'd try my luck here rather than start a new thread:

I've recently been asked to assist with shooting a wedding. It's not what I usually shoot, but the main photographer for the wedding has asked if I would be happy to assist her as second shooter for the day. She is a good friend of mine, but will also be paying me a small fee for my work so I want to make sure I do a decent job here.

I will bringing the gear that's in my signature, and feel happy shooting with the 25-105L when needing the zoom or outside, especially along with either the 430exii or the Vivitar 285. The sore eye to me has always been the 50 1.8ii in my camera bag... 

So I would like to know what people think as far as either upgrading the 50 1.8ii to the 1.4 or instead add the 85 1.8 to my setup? The reason that I would want to consider replacing the 50 with the 1.4 is because of all the obvious reasons but most of all I hear the 1.4 will focus a lot faster? 
Or would I be better advised to stick with the 50 1.8ii and add the 85 1.8 for the portrait shots??
Basically would the 50 1.4 + 24-105 cover most situations or will I benefit more by having the additional prime in the way of the 85 1.8 on the day?

Thanks!


----------



## tuankid (Mar 21, 2012)

Try out some primes. I had the 24-105 but sold it for my 135L. Happy since then


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 21, 2012)

CowGummy said:


> So I would like to know what people think as far as either upgrading the 50 1.8ii to the 1.4 or instead add the 85 1.8 to my setup? The reason that I would want to consider replacing the 50 with the 1.4 is because of all the obvious reasons but most of all I hear the 1.4 will focus a lot faster?
> Or would I be better advised to stick with the 50 1.8ii and add the 85 1.8 for the portrait shots??
> Basically would the 50 1.4 + 24-105 cover most situations or will I benefit more by having the additional prime in the way of the 85 1.8 on the day?
> 
> Thanks!



I borrowed a friend's 50 f/1.4, and I found it to be a bit soft wide open.

I would think it might make sense to complement the first shooter's gear rather than duplicating it. If your friend is using the 70-200, then it might make more use to use a fast 35 or 50 prime and vice versa.


----------



## acoll123 (Mar 21, 2012)

I bet you will start seeing more 24-105's on the used market. A lot of people are ordering the 5DIII kit which includes the 24-105 just to get it sooner than the body alone . . .

I just sold my 24-105 to help finance a pre-order of the new 24-70. I shoot a lot of sports/low light action and need the faster aperture - if not for that, the 24-105 was a great walk-around lens - I even liked the semi-macro (.5x) function - great for product/detail shots.


----------



## birdman (Mar 21, 2012)

This may be an unpopular reply, but the 28-135 IS typically performs close to the 24-105 L in all respects, except wide open and past 100mm. I have tested both and honestly, there is not much difference. Not $600+ anyway. 

The 28-135 has much more distortion, and needs to be stopped down more. If it were me, I would go 28-135, 50/1.8 or 50/1.4, and 85/1.8. All of those would be nearly same total price. Your overall flexibility and IQ would be much greater, IMO. Hope this helps


----------



## Bosman (Mar 22, 2012)

canon23 said:


> Hi everyone, I am going to get the 5D Mark II but not sure which lens to get along with it: 24-70 or 24-105??? (the next lens I'm going to invest in after this will probably be in a year with budget of $1,000 to $2,000).
> 
> I'm still an amatuer, and want to focus on landscapes (vacations), and portraits, but with the aim of becoming a wedding photographer. But at the moment, I'm still learning (w/great interest).
> 
> Your feed backs are much appreciated! Thanks.


I have shot both a lot of weddings and a lot of sports. One thing i found is primes are a hassle unless there is time and you have choices about where you are positioned. As for weddings you can get amazing images with the 24-70 on one camera and the 70-200 on the other. Nothing else needed. same with sports. I shoot finishline shots with the 24-70 2.8L and it focuses just as fast as my 70-2002.8L II, no kidding i cant tell. For non finishline shots i use the 70-200. While the range of the 24-100 F4 will be good you will always feel limited and the low light fast speed of the 24-70 will far out weigh the 24-105 f4 focal distance factor. I am tempted but the focal distance but the perfection of the 24-70 just cant be outdone inmo.
You could always start shooting weddings with a 24-105 on a 7d and prob do the whole wedding but for the most flex you need 24-200mm shooting. Its tough to decide. Cash sometimes limits your vision. I personally don't plan to own any F4 or larger lenses at any point in my life.


----------



## Jettatore (Mar 22, 2012)

Both lenses are amazing lenses. Study both here.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=173736&page=615
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=142974&page=347

Since you say wedding photography I would have to agree with the gentleman above me, simply because of the obligatory toast + dance which is more often than not taking place in a low-light environment. If you are really good with/shooting everything with a flash then the 2.8 here will not likely matter as much but I've gotten nicer shots in these settings with higher ISO and the natural lighting of the event than with the use of a flash, but I will readily admit that at this current moment my flash photography skills are absolutely horrendous and unless it's done by an expert, I always prefer the natural light of the scene + post production editing.


----------

