# Moving on from 20D



## kcjohnston (Apr 4, 2013)

I finally surrendered my 20D for a 5d Mark iii. I own a 24-105 f/4L and a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L. I typically like to shoot sports games(night also under lights), scenery, and of course people. Any suggestions on adding one or two quality lenses?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 4, 2013)

kcjohnston said:


> I finally surrendered my 20D for a 5d Mark iii. I own a 24-105 f/4L and a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L. I typically like to shoot sports games(night also under lights), scenery, and of course people. Any suggestions on adding one or two quality lenses?


On a FF body, a 70-200mm f/4L IS would be reasonably close to your 24-105mmL on a crop. It is wicked sharp. The f/2.8 is a tad sharper and a lot more expensive. I have both, but I'm going to give up the f/4, too much duplication.


----------



## kyle77 (Apr 4, 2013)

Sounds to me like a 135L would fit nicely in your kit.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 4, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> kcjohnston said:
> 
> 
> > I finally surrendered my 20D for a 5d Mark iii. I own a 24-105 f/4L and a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L. I typically like to shoot sports games(night also under lights), scenery, and of course people. Any suggestions on adding one or two quality lenses?
> ...


I just can't say enough nice things about any of the 70-200's.... and they are WAY sharper than the 100-400.... so much sharper that it almost has the same resolving power as the longer lens, but at twice the speed for the F2.8 versions. That extra speed can be nice when shooting night games, plus with the 5d3's higher ISO performance you are going to end up with night shots that are hard to believe.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 4, 2013)

How sharp is 70-200 f2.8 IS II?


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 4, 2013)

Why 24-70 f2.8 II? The photo below was taken indoor, f2.8, 1/125, 1250ISO - no flash. I should have set the shutter speed a bit slower.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 4, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > kcjohnston said:
> ...


+1 for the 70-200, especially the IS Mk II 2.8.


----------



## bholliman (Apr 4, 2013)

+1 for a 70-200 2.8 II

The f/4 version is great (lighter and less expensive), but I find I need 2.8 for indoor sports and it helps to have the extra aperture available for night stadium shots as well.

The 135L is a lighter, cheaper option to the 70-200's, but less flexible. However, it also will give you and outstanding portrait lens.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 4, 2013)

Congratulations on the upgrade! I made the same move last year.

I agree with the others suggesting the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. For portraits, a fast 50 or 85 prime would be nice. A f/1.2 or f/1.4 at that focal length range will give you much more DOF options over the 24-105.


----------



## emag (Apr 4, 2013)

You (OP) said nothing about price......therefore the 70-200/2.8II IS is the one, no question. If you can, just get it. If you have to stretch or wait a little while, it's worth it. If it's out of the question for now and you don't want to miss shots, there are a number of very good compromises, sort through the ones recommended in the responses. Can't go wrong with an L prime if that's the choice.


----------



## kcjohnston (Apr 5, 2013)

Thanks for all of the comments / advice. I just ordered the 70-200 2.8 II. Can't wait to try it!


----------



## bholliman (Apr 6, 2013)

kcjohnston said:


> Thanks for all of the comments / advice. I just ordered the 70-200 2.8 II. Can't wait to try it!



Congrats! Post some pictures after you have had some time to shoot with it.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 6, 2013)

kcjohnston said:


> Thanks for all of the comments / advice. I just ordered the 70-200 2.8 II. Can't wait to try it!



Awesome...congrats

One down and one more to go - 24-70 f2.8 II next ;D


----------

