# Moving on from my 7D to 5D MK III 24-70mm, 24-105mm or prime



## Krob78 (Dec 30, 2012)

Okay, I"m thrilled to have finally received my 5D MK III! Coming from my 7D I have some of the longer focal lengths covered, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and the legendary 100-400mm L. Most of my wider lenses are EF-s Lenses like my wonderful EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8... 

I need some wider glass for my 5D III any suggestions? I'm looking at 24-70 f/2.8, 24-105 f/4, or maybe primes like a 24mm or 35mm or 50mm f/1.4... any thoughts?? EF 85mm 1.8 is on my short list, but it's not really wide... 

Thanks!!


----------



## Jesse (Dec 30, 2012)

14-24 L


----------



## Cfunkexplosion (Dec 30, 2012)

Sounds like we are in a similar position. I made the jump from a 7D to a 5D3 about six months ago. I had the Canon 17-55 and the Tokina 11-16 on the wide end. Obviously sold them, and used the 24-105 for a bit as a replacement. I found that I rarely used it after acquiring the 35L and the 85L. I love my 35L, but it isn't super wide, and I plan to get an ultra wide at some point. Thinking about the Tokina 16-28, Canon 24L or 14L, or wait to see if the rumors of a 14-24L are true. I have found that I prefer primes generally, so personally I wouldn't want the 24-105 at this point, even though I think it is better than my old 17-55. If you liked yours that much, it might be a good solution to sort of bridge the gap between two lenses.


----------



## rs (Dec 30, 2012)

The 17-55 is the equivalent of a 27-88/4.5 IS lens on FF, so the 24-105/4 IS will give more range at either end of the zoom with an option of a vaguely shallower DoF. But while it's marginally better, it's not going to give your images the big step up you might be looking for. A 2.8 zoom will make a noticeable difference, and the 24-70 II appears to be sharper than any L prime in that focal length range at 2.8 - but it can't do what a good fast prime can do in terms of subject isolation, and it can't compete with the best in terms of bokeh quality.

If you regularly use your 11-16 at its widest setting, the Canon 14-24 might be worth waiting for. If its anything like the Nikon 14-24, it'll be at least as good (and as fast) as the 14L II, or any Canon prime wider than 24mm. If you can, why not keep hold of the 11-16 and 7D as your ultrawide option until then?


----------



## syder (Dec 30, 2012)

rs said:


> the 24-70 II appears to be sharper than any L prime in that focal length range at 2.8



This isn't true. The 24-70 ii is sharper than any prime @ 24mm - ie where it is sharpest. The 40mm f2.8 50mm f1.4 and 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 are all sharper at the edges and corners than the 24-70 ii. As are lenses like the Sigma 70mm macro.


----------



## rs (Dec 30, 2012)

syder said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > the 24-70 II appears to be sharper than any L prime in that focal length range at 2.8
> ...


Ok, I forgot about the 40 - that is sharper, and those two 50's are a close call at f2.8. Luckily none of those you listed are L primes, so while my point has been disproved, my original statement still just about holds


----------



## elflord (Dec 30, 2012)

Krob78 said:


> Okay, I"m thrilled to have finally received my 5D MK III! Coming from my 7D I have some of the longer focal lengths covered, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and the legendary 100-400mm L. Most of my wider lenses are EF-s Lenses like my wonderful EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8...
> 
> I need some wider glass for my 5D III any suggestions? I'm looking at 24-70 f/2.8, 24-105 f/4, or maybe primes like a 24mm or 35mm or 50mm f/1.4... any thoughts?? EF 85mm 1.8 is on my short list, but it's not really wide...
> 
> Thanks!!



Those are some very different lenses you have on your list.

Some thoughts -- regarding primes, think about which focal lengths you want to have a fast lens. Then get primes for those focal lengths. If you end up getting (for example) 35mm and 85mm primes or 24mm and 50mm you may be able to do without a general purpose zoom. 

Are you looking into ultra wides ? (Canon 17-40, 16-35, various third party options)

For your general purpose zoom, it really depends on whether you care more about f/2.8 or IS and the extra reach. What would you be using the lens (general purpose zoom) for ?


----------



## Krob78 (Dec 30, 2012)

Cfunkexplosion said:


> Sounds like we are in a similar position. I made the jump from a 7D to a 5D3 about six months ago. I had the Canon 17-55 and the Tokina 11-16 on the wide end. Obviously sold them, and used the 24-105 for a bit as a replacement. I found that I rarely used it after acquiring the 35L and the 85L. I love my 35L, but it isn't super wide, and I plan to get an ultra wide at some point. Thinking about the Tokina 16-28, Canon 24L or 14L, or wait to see if the rumors of a 14-24L are true. I have found that I prefer primes generally, so personally I wouldn't want the 24-105 at this point, even though I think it is better than my old 17-55. If you liked yours that much, it might be a good solution to sort of bridge the gap between two lenses.


Right now I'm mainly interested in picking up something just to get the wider end. My 70-200L isn't going to do that for me... I hadn't thought of selling the ef-s lenses I have or the Tokina 11-16mm, but that's a great option, since the 7D will take ef lenses anyway... Not sure how long I'll hang on to the 7D anyway... 

I hadn't honestly thought about a prime limiting my need for a zoom until you mentioned it, but it kind of makes sense... The only prime I've thought about so far is the 85mm f/1.8 for portrait work, although the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II is certainly great for portrait work as well with my 5d3... 

I love to shoot landscapes as well and that's kind of what I'm most interested in the wider end for.


----------



## Krob78 (Dec 30, 2012)

rs said:


> The 17-55 is the equivalent of a 27-88/4.5 IS lens on FF, so the 24-105/4 IS will give more range at either end of the zoom with an option of a vaguely shallower DoF. But while it's marginally better, it's not going to give your images the big step up you might be looking for. A 2.8 zoom will make a noticeable difference, and the 24-70 II appears to be sharper than any L prime in that focal length range at 2.8 - but it can't do what a good fast prime can do in terms of subject isolation, and it can't compete with the best in terms of bokeh quality.
> 
> If you regularly use your 11-16 at its widest setting, the Canon 14-24 might be worth waiting for. If its anything like the Nikon 14-24, it'll be at least as good (and as fast) as the 14L II, or any Canon prime wider than 24mm. If you can, why not keep hold of the 11-16 and 7D as your ultrawide option until then?



Thanks for the comments RS. I don't use my 11-16 to much. I bought it because I'm a Real Estate agent as well. So I also book shoots for other Realtors for photos for their MLS listings. It's a nice little side income. It works fairly well for that on my 7d, however the issue regarding noise in the shadows exists for me when shooting the 7d, even at f/2.8. I'm hoping the 5d3 will solve those issues for me. That being said, I suppose I won't need to go as wide on ff to acheive similar results with the Real Estate work. 

I'll need to address that as well, but perhaps not as soon...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 30, 2012)

syder said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > the 24-70 II appears to be sharper than any L prime in that focal length range at 2.8
> ...



Not in the center. The 24-70L II has better center sharpness, especially than the 35 f/1.4L at f/2.8.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 30, 2012)

If you can afford it, the 24-70L II zoom lens is absolutely fantastic. I don't shoot wide open at short focal lengths, so it'll be individual. So when I got the zoom lens, I sold my 35 f/1.4L and 50 f/1.2L because f/2.8 and narrower, where I shoot, the zoom was sharper. You may need to open up wider, however.


----------



## MintMark (Dec 30, 2012)

I believe the Tokina 11-16 will fit on a 5DIII and at 16mm it will not vignette. If you search you can find some images where people show how it works on full frame at each focal length.

OK... I just tried on my 6D, it works fine at 16mm. You have to take the lens hood off. It's very wide


----------



## elflord (Dec 30, 2012)

Krob78 said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > The 17-55 is the equivalent of a 27-88/4.5 IS lens on FF, so the 24-105/4 IS will give more range at either end of the zoom with an option of a vaguely shallower DoF. But while it's marginally better, it's not going to give your images the big step up you might be looking for. A 2.8 zoom will make a noticeable difference, and the 24-70 II appears to be sharper than any L prime in that focal length range at 2.8 - but it can't do what a good fast prime can do in terms of subject isolation, and it can't compete with the best in terms of bokeh quality.
> ...



The full frame sensor won't solve all your problems because you will not have enough depth of field if you're shooting real estate shots at f/2.8. Do you shoot these with a tripod and/or flash ? For these issues, look into lighting and/or support. Look for a lens that doesn't have too horrible distortion characteristics at the desired focal lengths.


----------



## Krob78 (Dec 30, 2012)

elflord said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, I"m thrilled to have finally received my 5D MK III! Coming from my 7D I have some of the longer focal lengths covered, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and the legendary 100-400mm L. Most of my wider lenses are EF-s Lenses like my wonderful EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8...
> ...



Thanks for the thoughts Elf. I'd like something quite wide, yet maybe reticular to use for my Real Estate work. That being said, I want something that is going to be better suited for landscape work, as I do more of that than the Real Estate. Sounds like I may need 2 options! Perhaps 1 lens isn't enough on the wide end, just as one lens isn't enough on the long end for me... 

I get a lot of use from my 70-200 f/2.8 but it doesn't negate my need for my 100-400mmL by any means... 

So perhaps I am better asking what two lenses would suit me better for the wide end? One for interior real estate type work and one for landscape work... And the 85 f/1.8 is definitely on my list, although not wide... The other thing is something wider in case the 70-200mm doesn't give me enough room to shoot a portrait if perhaps find myself in tight quarters...


----------



## Krob78 (Dec 30, 2012)

MintMark said:


> I believe the Tokina 11-16 will fit on a 5DIII and at 16mm it will not vignette. If you search you can find some images where people show how it works on full frame at each focal length.
> 
> OK... I just tried on my 6D, it works fine at 16mm. You have to take the lens hood off. It's very wide



Yes, I tried it on my 5d3. It will only work at 16mm, but just barely! It seems to have a rectangle almost, around the outside of it... Took hood off. It seems almost too much for any landscape work, but may work out okay for Real Estate. I'll try a few shots inside rooms and see how it pans out... 

I had asked about the ultra wide end as well, due to someone mentioning to me that there is a wide Canon lens that is reticular, keeping the barrel distortion to the bare minimum and helping keep the lines straight. I wasn't sure about it and the guy that told me about it, didn't know what lens it was, just that it was an EF lens...


----------



## Krob78 (Dec 30, 2012)

elflord said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > rs said:
> ...


I do use my tripod always for Real estate images and my flash as needed. I know the FF sensor won't solve all the issues with that, but it accepts so much more light than my crop sensor on my 7D, I thought it could be very helpful in post... My 7d has major challenges with noise in the shadows...


----------



## Krob78 (Dec 30, 2012)

MintMark said:


> I believe the Tokina 11-16 will fit on a 5DIII and at 16mm it will not vignette. If you search you can find some images where people show how it works on full frame at each focal length.
> 
> OK... I just tried on my 6D, it works fine at 16mm. You have to take the lens hood off. It's very wide


You're right about that Mint, it's very wide on the FF!


----------



## rs (Dec 30, 2012)

Krob78 said:


> I had asked about the ultra wide end as well, due to someone mentioning to me that there is a wide Canon lens that is reticular, keeping the barrel distortion to the bare minimum and helping keep the lines straight. I wasn't sure about it and the guy that told me about it, didn't know what lens it was, just that it was an EF lens...


All Canon lenses other than the fisheyes are designed to be rectilinear. Having said that, the two existing full frame ultrawide zooms (16-35 and 17-40) have plenty of distortion, so they're not perfectly rectilinear. The EF-S 10-22 is much better from the distortion point of view, but that doesn't help you at all.

A good prime or correcting in post are your options. It'll be interesting to see what the rumoured 14-24 is like from the distortion point of view, but we'll have to wait for reviews before we know - Canon usually publish MTF charts and say nothing about distortion.

If you want to go for a prime and 14mm is too wide, consider one of the TS-E lenses (they're the ultimate architecture/landscape lenses) or something like the 21mm Zeiss.


----------



## Krob78 (Dec 30, 2012)

rs said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > I had asked about the ultra wide end as well, due to someone mentioning to me that there is a wide Canon lens that is reticular, keeping the barrel distortion to the bare minimum and helping keep the lines straight. I wasn't sure about it and the guy that told me about it, didn't know what lens it was, just that it was an EF lens...
> ...


I'm definitely interested in how the 14-24mm will review and more importantly, real world... Is there extra work involved in producing images with the TS-E lenses? What is it about the tilt/shift that makes them so good for landscape and architectural? I've heard that before...


----------



## rs (Dec 30, 2012)

To get the best out of TS-E lenses, you're restricted to a tripod and live view. If you're taking an architectural shot with a wide rectilinear lens and you don't want the building to look like its falling over, or the interior walls falling in, you can't point the lens up or down. That can really restrict the placement of the lens and stop you getting the pics you want. A TS-E lens allows you to shift the lens, and using a combination of that and changing where it's pointing, you can correct for it in camera.

Also, the tilt changes the plain of focus from being a flat plain parallel to the sensor to almost any angle you like - so for landscape shots you don't need to suffer from diffraction at f22 to get the ground near and far in focus - just set the lens so the plain of focus is lined up with the ground, focus on that, and choose a sensible aperture such as f8 or f11 for maximum detail.


----------



## Krob78 (Dec 30, 2012)

rs said:


> To get the best out of TS-E lenses, you're restricted to a tripod and live view. If you're taking an architectural shot with a wide rectilinear lens and you don't want the building to look like its falling over, or the interior walls falling in, you can't point the lens up or down. That can really restrict the placement of the lens and stop you getting the pics you want. A TS-E lens allows you to shift the lens, and using a combination of that and changing where it's pointing, you can correct for it in camera.
> 
> Also, the tilt changes the plain of focus from being a flat plain parallel to the sensor to almost any angle you like - so for landscape shots you don't need to suffer from diffraction at f22 to get the ground near and far in focus - just set the lens so the plain of focus is lined up with the ground, focus on that, and choose a sensible aperture such as f8 or f11 for maximum detail.


That's pretty cool! Thanks!


----------



## elflord (Dec 30, 2012)

Krob78 said:


> I do use my tripod always for Real estate images and my flash as needed. I know the FF sensor won't solve all the issues with that, but it accepts so much more light than my crop sensor on my 7D, I thought it could be very helpful in post... My 7d has major challenges with noise in the shadows...



Depends -- if you're shooting at f/2.8 to get faster shutter speed, FF won't really help because you need to stop down to get the same depth of field so it's a wash. Shooting at f/2.8 on FF is like shooting at f/1.8 on APS-C.

So bottom line is -- FF will help if you're shooting at ISO 100 and f/8 but not if you're using it to get higher shutter speed. Also, fast lenses won't necessarily help much, distortion characteristics are more important

regarding tilt shift the two things it buys you are optical correction of perspective distortion (e.g. straightening out converging verticals for example which is a common problem with wide angle lenses) and also they can help add depth of field


----------



## Krob78 (Dec 31, 2012)

elflord said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > I do use my tripod always for Real estate images and my flash as needed. I know the FF sensor won't solve all the issues with that, but it accepts so much more light than my crop sensor on my 7D, I thought it could be very helpful in post... My 7d has major challenges with noise in the shadows...
> ...


Being on the tripod and needing most of the real estate work to be in focus, stopping down to f/8 and using iso 100 or slightly more shouldn't be to big of an issue I'm thinking, for that type of work... 

The tilt shifts sound intriguing, I imagine expensive too. Seems like the majority feels like a wider zoom like the 24-105mm isn't a good idea. If I'm going zoom I need to look at the 24-90MM, I'm thinking version 1 or version 2 would be fine. 

Seems like primes are the most recommended lenses though. I'll start pricing out 14mm, 24mm, 35mm and probably look at a 50mm 1.4, although it sounds like that might not get much use... maybe not wide enough...

Thanks for all the help guys!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 31, 2012)

Maybe for a different topic or a different time, but I think if you had a TS lens and really learned to use it, you'd be one happy real estate photographer .


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 31, 2012)

If budget is not an issue, the new 24-70 II is the way to go. On my copy, Reikan FoCal showed the sharpness at f2.8 is 985. Not many zoom lenses out there have this kind of sharpness at f2.8. 

My comment is based on real life shooting.....let me know if you want to see some photos with 5D III.

Many owners of 24-105 claimed their copy is razor sharp, but the Canon MTF chart doesn't indicate that at all. Again...I owned 2 copies of 24-105 in the past and I didn't see that. I ended up shooting alot with 50mm f1.4 @ f1.8 to 2.8.


----------



## pardus (Dec 31, 2012)

I upgraded my 7D to a 5Diii this fall. I had the Sigma 10-20mm F3.5, it sort of worked on my 5D at 17mm above but never felt that it was a sharp lens. I got the 16-35mm 2.8L and love it. I shoot some real estate as well and you need to be under 20mm for 50% of most houses. I also have the 24-105mm F4L IS and really glad I took that over the 24-70mm F2.8L. I use that lens mostly as my walk around or if I am only taking one lens out. The IS and reduced shutter for me make a way bigger improvement then the extra stop of light. I can shoot 1/30 sec no problem with it. I also have the 50mm 1.4 and 70-200 F2.8L and covers everything I need.

Also if you keep your camera level, distortion is very minimal on 16-35mm for shooting rooms and easily corrected in RAW processing.


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 31, 2012)

LOVE my 24-105 over my former 24-70 brick. I had a sharp copy nothing against the IQ but the weight and heft was just a pain. I have started doing RE gigs and I really have the Jones for a Zeiss 15/18/21. Just wish they didn't have vignetting issues. Well the 18 has it bad. I guess I wish they didn't cost so much, yeah, that's it.


----------



## elflord (Dec 31, 2012)

Krob78 said:


> The tilt shifts sound intriguing, I imagine expensive too. Seems like the majority feels like a wider zoom like the 24-105mm isn't a good idea. If I'm going zoom I need to look at the 24-90MM, I'm thinking version 1 or version 2 would be fine.



not sure what you mean, there's 24-70 and 24-105. 

These are great general purpose zooms ... but maybe not the best choices as specialized landscape or RE photography lenses. These are more your "walkaround" lenses. 



> Seems like primes are the most recommended lenses though.



The issue is distortion. Zooms generally have heavy barrel distortion at the wide end, so if you're shooting at 24mm a lot, a lens that is 24-xx will give you a lot of barrel distortion whereas even an inexpensive prime (e.g. the 24mm f/2.8) will not. The new 24-70mm for example is sharper at 24mm than the 24mm f/2.8 prime but has much more distortion. 

However, if you shoot with an ultra wide like the 17-40 or the 16-35, it's already well out of its widest by 20mm, so you should be able to shoot at 24mm without much trouble with distortion. 

Tilts are great but expensive, about $2k for the wide angles (e.g. 17mm or 24mm)


----------



## 7enderbender (Dec 31, 2012)

Krob78 said:


> Cfunkexplosion said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like we are in a similar position. I made the jump from a 7D to a 5D3 about six months ago. I had the Canon 17-55 and the Tokina 11-16 on the wide end. Obviously sold them, and used the 24-105 for a bit as a replacement. I found that I rarely used it after acquiring the 35L and the 85L. I love my 35L, but it isn't super wide, and I plan to get an ultra wide at some point. Thinking about the Tokina 16-28, Canon 24L or 14L, or wait to see if the rumors of a 14-24L are true. I have found that I prefer primes generally, so personally I wouldn't want the 24-105 at this point, even though I think it is better than my old 17-55. If you liked yours that much, it might be a good solution to sort of bridge the gap between two lenses.
> ...




If the main goal is having a wide angle lens for landscapes I would start with the Zeiss 21mm Diastagon or one of Canon's TS lenses.

For an all purpose zoom and to close you gap I would look for a good copy of the original 24-70 and not the new expensive plastic version. I have the 24-105 and can't really get myself to like it. It's sharp and all but it gets pretty little use and I much prefer my 50 over it as an all purpose lens. It's good for studio type work - though I bet I'd be happier with a 24-70 and may still try to trade it one day. The build quality is pretty _meh _as well.


----------



## rs (Dec 31, 2012)

Although the TS-E's are the best for architecture, with the right technique and right software, you can do it on a budget with good results with something like a 17-40 and a tripod.

Just do the usual - carefully align the camera, use an aperture for maximum detail (probably around f11 for depth of field, corner sharpness and avoiding diffraction), and take the shot at the lowest ISO possible for the dynamic range needed - possibly 50 or 100 - if you control the lighting, this shouldn't be an issue. 

Just make sure you correct for lens distortion before shifting in software. Please note that the more you do the shift correction digitally, the less of the original image you'll retain, so you'll need to shoot quite a bit wider to compensate.

The issues with this approach are lots of shifted pixels, and using just a cropped part of the sensor. A TS-E allows for you to do the same effect in camera, using the entire FF sensor with no pixels shifted around.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 31, 2012)

Krob78 said:


> Okay, I"m thrilled to have finally received my 5D MK III! Coming from my 7D I have some of the longer focal lengths covered, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and the legendary 100-400mm L. Most of my wider lenses are EF-s Lenses like my wonderful EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8...
> 
> I need some wider glass for my 5D III any suggestions? I'm looking at 24-70 f/2.8, 24-105 f/4, or maybe primes like a 24mm or 35mm or 50mm f/1.4... any thoughts?? EF 85mm 1.8 is on my short list, but it's not really wide...
> 
> Thanks!!



24-70 2.8 II is good and will deliver the same edge to edge sharp pics on the 5D3 as your 17-55 2.8 IS did on the 7D. 

The 24-105 cost a lot less and has IS but it won't be as crisp edge to edge as the 17-55 was (or even quite as sharp anywhere).

There is the upcoming 24-70 4 IS. Perhaps it would be most similar to your 17-55 in that you get the same degree of low DOF ability and IS. Hopefully it does better than the 24-105. The MTF suggest it will be similar to the 24-70 2.8 II at the long end although not quite as good on the short end although better at either end than the 24-105. It remains to be seen.

The 24 2.8 prime is no better than the zooms.

The 24 1.4 II is very good, although if you don't need the f/1.4-2 much then the 24-70 2.8 II pretty much covers it since it's a really good zoom (the 24-105 doesn't do as well as the 24 1.4 II even at f/6.3-f/11 for landscapes).

The new 24 2.8 IS might be decent enough.

The 24 T&S II is very good and lets you adjust all sorts of things that you can't with a regular lens, it is specialized though and Samyang is coming out with one soon for a fraction of the price, maybe that one will be good (their 14mm is crazy good other than TONS of distortion).

Zeiss 21mm 2.8 is very good.

17 T&S is good if you want fancy, specialized ultra-wide work.

A 35 1.4 or 50 1.4 is nice for some low DOF work and such. I've been wary of sigma in the past but their 35 1.4 is getting amazing reviews and apparently the AF isn't bad on it. The Canon 50 1.4 has dodgy AF, an ancient and unique AF design that also is prone to breaking but it performs well optically for a standard 50mm design (an exotic-type design might do better wide open though). I'd favor a 35 1.4 over a 50 1.4 on FF, I think, but it's up to you.

50mm definitely is not wide, 35mm is only starting to get wide.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 31, 2012)

syder said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > the 24-70 II appears to be sharper than any L prime in that focal length range at 2.8
> ...



agreed

but it is sharper than most other standard zooms across the range though and it does have everythign built-in instead of a mess of swapping primes all the time.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 31, 2012)

Krob78 said:


> I had asked about the ultra wide end as well, due to someone mentioning to me that there is a wide Canon lens that is reticular, keeping the barrel distortion to the bare minimum and helping keep the lines straight. I wasn't sure about it and the guy that told me about it, didn't know what lens it was, just that it was an EF lens...



They have a 14mm, pretty pricey. The samyang has less CA and may be sharper but it does have a lot of distortion so the Canon is better if that matters a lot. For architecture and stuff there is more than barrel distortion to deal with and tilt and shift can help fix buildings, wall, trees, etc. leaning away and back as they rise up and you can adjust focal plane in some case to get DOF to better fit the scene. Canon 17 T&S is ultra-wide, rectilinear with tricks.


----------



## elflord (Dec 31, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> The 24 2.8 prime is no better than the zooms.



It has much less distortion than the 24mm-XXX zooms at 24mm.


----------



## Krob78 (Dec 31, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, I"m thrilled to have finally received my 5D MK III! Coming from my 7D I have some of the longer focal lengths covered, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and the legendary 100-400mm L. Most of my wider lenses are EF-s Lenses like my wonderful EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8...
> ...


Wow, that was a wealth of information! Thank you! I've decided to pretty much give up on the 24-105mm based on everyone's opinion/review of that lens. I'll hold out for the 24-70 f/2.8 whenever I decide to go for a wider zoom for the 5d3. 

In the meantime, I'm checking out the local array of 24mm, 35mm, 17mm primes oh and a 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8. The 85mm will happen very quickly, based on the rave reviews I've read of it. 

I'm leaning strongly toward the 24mm prime for my first wide prime for the FF... I like the wide end of my 17-55mm on the 7d but sometimes wish it was 16. So I think the 24mm will give me just a tad more within the frame on my 5d3 than the 17-55mm does on my 7D, which sounds perfect. Now just to find a good deal!!


----------



## Krob78 (Dec 31, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, I"m thrilled to have finally received my 5D MK III! Coming from my 7D I have some of the longer focal lengths covered, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and the legendary 100-400mm L. Most of my wider lenses are EF-s Lenses like my wonderful EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8...
> ...


Found 24mm 2.8 IS for $629
24mm 1.4 for $1140
28mm 1.8 for $449
Still looking... not sure if the 24mm f/1.4 is worth the difference over the f/2.8 version. I'd be using it mostly for landscapes at f/8 - f/16 mostly... with the 5d3 good high iso performance, I tend to think the 2.8 would be sufficient. Is my thought flawed?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 31, 2012)

No, for landscape f/1.4 is not needed and in fact, the 2.8 version would be just as sharp or sharper than the 24 f/1.4 prime at f/8 to f/11, especially in landscape photography.


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 31, 2012)

Krob78 said:


> [...]
> 
> Still looking... not sure if the 24mm f/1.4 is worth the difference over the f/2.8 version. I'd be using it mostly for landscapes at f/8 - f/16 mostly... with the 5d3 good high iso performance, I tend to think the 2.8 would be sufficient. Is my thought flawed?



If you rely on f/8 - f/16 to get enough DOF an image stabilized lens might be the better choice for you - for interior photographs and landscape - the 24 IS might be the best suited lens for these applications. So your thoughts are absolutely not flawed IMO.

And don't forget the 40mm f/2.8 - it's a great lens. I use it very often on my 40D (64mm equiv) but use my old 24mm f/2.8 (38mm equiv) with great joy on my 40D - so the 40mm will be my "wide angle" on a FF camera if I buy one (for me, 100mm feels as a standard lens for landscape etc. ... to cut out the nice views out of the well populated and technisized landscapes in germany).


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 31, 2012)

The 24-105L was given a bad rap, was it? It occupies a very unique place in the Canon line...focal length range, image quality, IS, build.... All things considered it is a damn good lens.


----------



## elflord (Dec 31, 2012)

Krob78 said:


> In the meantime, I'm checking out the local array of 24mm, 35mm, 17mm primes oh and a 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8. The 85mm will happen very quickly, based on the rave reviews I've read of it.



before you rush out and grab the 85mm f/1.8, take a look at reviews of the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 (photozone.de, lenstip, thedigitalpicture.com). Blows the canon f/1.8 away and gives the f/1.2 a run for its money.


----------



## elflord (Dec 31, 2012)

Krob78 said:


> Found 24mm 2.8 IS for $629
> 24mm 1.4 for $1140
> 28mm 1.8 for $449
> Still looking... not sure if the 24mm f/1.4 is worth the difference over the f/2.8 version. I'd be using it mostly for landscapes at f/8 - f/16 mostly... with the 5d3 good high iso performance, I tend to think the 2.8 would be sufficient. Is my thought flawed?



You'd basically be paying more for a combination of a fast aperture and wide angle, but you don't need a fast lens. So no need to spend extra for the f/1.4. Of your list, the 24mm f/2.8 is the best choice hands down.


----------



## Krob78 (Feb 4, 2013)

elflord said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > The tilt shifts sound intriguing, I imagine expensive too. Seems like the majority feels like a wider zoom like the 24-105mm isn't a good idea. If I'm going zoom I need to look at the 24-90MM, I'm thinking version 1 or version 2 would be fine.
> ...


 "not sure what you mean, there's 24-70 and 24-105." Thanks Elf, I meant 24-70mm, typo... 

I picked up a 24-105mm and I find it okay... just okay... even after MFA I'm okay with it... just okay... Picked up an 85mm f1.8 and love it, but not for landscape or real estate. I think the 24-70mm would have been a better choice for me for a zoom, now however I think I'll look into selling the 24-105mm albeit brand new and look for another prime, as you and others suggested, likely a 24mm... That feels plenty wide for me for now... although the 16-35mm might work out nicely too...  Just not in love with the 24-105mm.


----------



## Krob78 (Feb 4, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> If budget is not an issue, the new 24-70 II is the way to go. On my copy, Reikan FoCal showed the sharpness at f2.8 is 985. Not many zoom lenses out there have this kind of sharpness at f2.8.
> 
> My comment is based on real life shooting.....let me know if you want to see some photos with 5D III.
> 
> Many owners of 24-105 claimed their copy is razor sharp, but the Canon MTF chart doesn't indicate that at all. Again...I owned 2 copies of 24-105 in the past and I didn't see that. I ended up shooting alot with 50mm f1.4 @ f1.8 to 2.8.


 "Many owners of 24-105 claimed their copy is razor sharp, but the Canon MTF chart doesn't indicate that at all. Again...I owned 2 copies of 24-105 in the past and I didn't see that" I agree with you on that Dylan!


----------



## tgara (Feb 5, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> Okay, I"m thrilled to have finally received my 5D MK III! Coming from my 7D I have some of the longer focal lengths covered, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and the legendary 100-400mm L. Most of my wider lenses are EF-s Lenses like my wonderful EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8...
> 
> I need some wider glass for my 5D III any suggestions? I'm looking at 24-70 f/2.8, 24-105 f/4, or maybe primes like a 24mm or 35mm or 50mm f/1.4... any thoughts?? EF 85mm 1.8 is on my short list, but it's not really wide...
> 
> Thanks!!



I think folks are over-thinking this. If you are looking for something wider than the 24 end of your 24-105, I suggest you rent a few lenses first before you buy. I would start with a 17-40 f/4 and a 16-35 f/2.8. Both of those will do well with your landscape photography. I use the 17-40 myself. It's great on my 5D3 and 7D.


----------



## SJ (Feb 5, 2013)

I have 7d + 10-22, 18-135 & 24-70L II and last week I bought 5dm3 and im very happy. ihmo, 24-70L II or 24-105L is perfect combination for ur 5dm3. Dont worry about f/4 because 5dm3 high iso is great. (just imho)

For me, 24mm on FF is not wide enough, so im using my 7d+10-22mm for landscape. .

Enjoy ur new camera & lens..happy shooting


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 5, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > If budget is not an issue, the new 24-70 II is the way to go. On my copy, Reikan FoCal showed the sharpness at f2.8 is 985. Not many zoom lenses out there have this kind of sharpness at f2.8.
> ...



I have a good copy of the 24-105 but for what i use this lens for I'm usually shooting it at f8 so its sharp 

A really nice wider option I have also picked up is one of these
voigtlander 20mm it has les distortion than the 16-35 which is one of my favourite lenses
but i carry the 20mm voigt and the 40mm pancake pretty much everywhere and my 85mm for portraits

http://www.kenrockwell.com/voigtlander/20mm-f35.htm


----------



## TeenTog (Feb 6, 2013)

I would go with either the 17-35 or the 16-35 if you eant super wide, but otherwise I would say go with the 24-70


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 6, 2013)

The 24-70 2.8 II is the one that will give you edge performance on the wide end on your 5D3 that you were used to getting with your 17-55 on your APS-C.

Some of the wide primes could too if you want to pay less than the zoom (zeiss 21, canon 24/28 2.8 IS, canon 24 1.4 II) but the zoom is a lot more flexible.

Of you could go tamron 24-70 vc or, once price drops a bit, canon 24-70 f/4 IS if you really want IS and will trade a bit of IQ for it.


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 6, 2013)

If you want ultra-wide immediately while you wait on something else, just get the Samyang/Bower/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8. It's $399 and sharper than the $2300 Canon 14LII, can't go wrong really. Distortion is much worse than the Canon but that's easily correctable in lightroom, there are presets available for it. 

But 14mm is REALLY wide on Full Frame, I mean if the widest you had before was the 17-55, 17mm on a 7D looks like 28mm on a 5D, so its' going to be a massive difference.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 7, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > If budget is not an issue, the new 24-70 II is the way to go. On my copy, Reikan FoCal showed the sharpness at f2.8 is 985. Not many zoom lenses out there have this kind of sharpness at f2.8.
> ...



Yup, that is why most of us were saying to look at the 24-70 II (or 24 2.8 IS, 24 T&S II, zeiss 21mm) and forget about the 24-105L.

(and perhaps tack on a bower 14mm if you want something ultra, crazy wide in addition, sometimes on sale for $299)


----------



## Frodo (Feb 7, 2013)

I think that this thread contains too much negativity about the 24-105. I had a 5D (classic) with the 28-135 (ex-film days) and found the move to the 24-105 to represent a significant and visible step forwards. I then bought a 7D. Although this had more pixels, the IQ of the 5D image was invariably superior, especially with higher ISOs and shadow detail. I then replaced my 5D with a 5DmkII and noticed an improvement is IQ. This combination is noticeably better than that of the 7D. 
When comparing my 24-105 with my 50mm 2.5 macro, I see little difference. Both lenses out-resolve the 5DmkII in the centre and the macro at the edge, and the 24-105 at the edge when stopped down a couple of stops.
I haven't used either 24-70 f2.8 so can't comment. The DXO graphs for sharpness show the 24-105 to be similar to the original 28-70, although the new 2.8 is better. Those graphs also show the 5dII/24-105 to be sharper than the 7D/17-55. I'd like avoid debate about DXO, but just to say that it gels with my understanding of lenses I own.
And by the way, I had a 20mm f2.8 and was very disappointed on FF, and found that the 20-35 (3.5-4.5) was much superior.

I conclude that I am very happy with the 5DII / 24-105 combination. I will going on a week-long hike in New Zealand's South Island in a week. I will take my 5DII, 24-105, my Samyang 14mm and a small tripod. My 7D, 50mm, and 70-200 will stay home.

The new 24-70 f2.8 provides some future-proofing should a higher resolution sensor come available, but you pay quite a price premium for that.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 8, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Be able to get sharp picture at f2.8- WIDE OPEN - is priceless. I just don't see myslef shooting f8 in lower light, even on FF.


----------

