# A 4000$ budget for Lenses on 5D3... need suggestions



## maass (Apr 14, 2013)

Hello CR folks,

I recently bought a 5D3 and 50mm 1.8.This is my first investment and I am based out of India. 
I mostly shoot Low Light , Landscape , Street Photography and Slow Shutter captures. 

Before taking up 5D3 I had an experience of working with my colleague's Canon60D , 18-135(kits lens) ,70-200mm f4 and NikonD7000 50mm f1.4,70-200mm f4. 
I had some severe limitations while shooting Landscapes and didn't get enough experience on wide-angle shots :-[
I will be travelling to Ladakh,a landscape,rich cultured,wildlife Himalayan Range in the month of July and I am looking for suggestions to get some 'real' gear.
All I can say that this will be my starting point to get into some real action 

I can spend up to 4000$ on the Lenses.
Please share the gear details based on your own experience.

Regards
Hari

---------------------------------------------------------------

Update : 
Thanks for the suggestions Guys 
I decided on getting 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 

Hari

---------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## ChilledXpress (Apr 14, 2013)

Your about $9000 short of a 600mmL...


----------



## dirtcastle (Apr 14, 2013)

What focal range(s) do you need to cover? 

What is the widest you need to go?

What is the longest focal length you might need?

With your widest and longest focal lengths (plus any specialty needs like macro, tilt-shift), we will be able to give you a better answer. For example, if you don't need anything wider than 24mm, it would be a very different list than if you need to go as wide as 16mm/17mm.


----------



## Eli (Apr 14, 2013)

I'd suggest getting the 24-70 II, such a great general purpose lens that can be used for landscapes as well. Having one great lens whilst traveling is ideal, you don't want to be carrying around so much gear.
Then a general purpose lowlight prime like the sigma 35 f1.4.


----------



## ecka (Apr 14, 2013)

I don't know how you feel about it, but I like traveling light. I'd take only 2 primes and a tele zoom, but it is easier for me to choose, because I already know what focal length I prefer. Do you? If not, then maybe renting few L zooms could be a good idea. 16-35L, 24-105L and 100-400L should do well + that 50/1.8'II.
My dream UWA lens is TS-E 17L, so it would definitely be on the list (the only reason it's not, is because I don't have $4000 budget to spend ), but for traveling I'd grab the 24/1.4L, which is much more versatile and a better lens for the trip. 70-300L would be my tele-zoom choice for traveling and 40STM is great for hanging around my neck all day long (same as 50/1.8'II) . I love macro, so I would buy a macro lens (sigma 150 or canon 100L), but I would travel without it, I'd get an extension tube set instead (for my 40STM).
I know that many would suggest the standard 24-70L'II USM + 70-200L'II IS USM combo (which costs more than $4k). It is great, when it is wide enough, long enough and fast enough for the job, but I wouldn't travel with these two workhorses.


----------



## Zv (Apr 14, 2013)

16-35 f/2.8L II would be a good start though if weight is an issue maybe the 17-40 f/4L. I like the size and weight of the 17-40 and it's fairly wide enough to capture what I need (buildings, architechture, landscapes etc). 

I would recommend the 70-200 f/4L IS over the 70-300L as its lighter and has a constant f/4 aperture throughout the range. Though it depends on what kinda range you need, maybe pick up a 1.4x tele convertor to go with it. 

Since you already have the 50mm 1.8 I don't see any advantage of getting the 40 STM other than size difference (which isn't much really). The fifty is really versatile and the fast aperture will work well in low light. 

So with the wide and lens and 70-200 that prob still leaves you 2K to spare. Buy some extra memory cards and spare batteries and use the rest to enjoy your holiday!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 14, 2013)

My new favorite travel kit is the Tamron 24-70VC and the Canon EF 70-300L. You could get these two and still have at least $1300. If you could find used copies of the 17-40L and the 135L for your remaining balance (doable) you would have most situations covered quite well. The 135L responds very well to a 1.4x teleconverter and provides a near 200mm f/2.8 prime.


----------



## J.R. (Apr 14, 2013)

maass said:


> Hello CR folks,
> 
> I recently bought a 5D3 and 50mm 1.8.This is my first investment and I am based out of India.
> I mostly shoot Low Light , Landscape , Street Photography and Slow Shutter captures.
> ...



I'm presently in India and could offer some hands on advice 

Do you plan to buy from the US and someone will transport it for you in India? If so, you lose on your warranties and also get stuck at the Indian customs with the gear if you are really unlucky. I was questioned over my own gear (purchased from India) at the Indian customs and I was lucky to have copies of all invoices on my iPad. 

Gear in India is almost 30% expensive due to the high customs duty so your "real" budget for the lenses will be toned down to $ 3,100. 

I'm surprised you didn't opt for the 24-105 f/4 L kit lens with the 5D3. It came in exceptionally cheap with the kit. If you do need this lens you can check with a Canon Image Square outlet who will be able to help you with a new lens marked as "Used". Some people trade the kit lens at the outlets at the time of buying the kit and make a fast INR 5-10K profit so you might get a good deal. 

For a trip to Ladakh I'd suggest getting a general purpose zoom and you could choose between the 24-105, 24-70. The Tamron lens looks good but their service in India is a joke. Tamron usually plays the blame game citing problems with camera bodies should you run into any problems with the lens. 

Were you satisfied with shooting at 18mm on the 60D? That's effectively 29mm and shooting a wide angle 17mm will present an even greater field of view. If you do need a wide-angle, you could choose between a 17-40 or a 16-35. Based on your choices you could take your pick with the 70-200. All Canon variants are excellent. 

BTW, most dealers will give you a discount of 3-4% on the retail price but you could get a 8-10% discount on the retail price if you buy from the distributor directly. If you can buy from New Delhi, send me a PM - I have the contact details of the distributor.


----------



## Jay H (Apr 14, 2013)

The first two requirements you mention are low light and landscape, for this I would opt for a 24mm 1.4L - my favorite Canon lens.

My most used lens is the 16-35mm 2.8L I have never used the highly regarded 24-70mm since I already have the 24-105mm. Regarding the 70-200mm, I have the 2.8 IS version and wish I would have opted for the 4.0 IS - the 2.8 is heavy - or the 70-300mm 4-5.6L IS - almost a pound lighter.


----------



## dolina (Apr 14, 2013)

16-35/2.8 II
24-70/2.8 II
70-200/2.8 IS II

If possible.


----------



## candyman (Apr 14, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> My new favorite travel kit is the Tamron 24-70VC and the Canon EF 70-300L. You could get these two and still have at least $1300. If you could find used copies of the 17-40L and the 135L for your remaining balance (doable) you would have most situations covered quite well. *The 135L responds very well to a 1.4x teleconverter and provides a near 200mm f/2.8 prime.*




What is your experience on IQ when using the 1.4 on the 135L?
And, is that 1.4 MKIII?


----------



## RC (Apr 14, 2013)

dolina said:


> 16-35/2.8 II
> 24-70/2.8 II
> 70-200/2.8 IS II
> 
> If possible.


+1. Rent the 16-35 if you can't go over $4000


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 14, 2013)

maass said:


> Hello CR folks,
> 
> I recently bought a 5D3 and 50mm 1.8.This is my first investment and I am based out of India.
> I mostly shoot Low Light , Landscape , Street Photography and Slow Shutter captures.
> ...


Since landscape is what you value most, I'd recommend:
17mm TS-E ($2200) for Landscape
40mm f/2.8 ($150) for street
Sigma 35mm ($899) for low light 

a total of $3249. 

You will need a good tripod and head, which will run you $600-$1000, so I left $750 room to buy that. If prices are higher in india, you will have to compromise, as I have listed New USA prices.


----------



## ewg963 (Apr 14, 2013)

dolina said:


> 16-35/2.8 II
> 24-70/2.8 II
> 70-200/2.8 IS II
> 
> If possible.


Great choice the trinity


----------



## stipotle (Apr 14, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> maass said:
> 
> 
> > Hello CR folks,
> ...



Brilliant.


----------



## SwampYankee (Apr 14, 2013)

In general prime lenses are sharper than zooms and usually a bit faster. I'd go 24mm (don't need the L here) 100mm 2.8L Macro (medium telephoto, IS) and the 200L 2.8 (no IS, but cheap for an L, fast and sharp). This is a great, sharp lineup with your 50 1.8 (a very sharp lens). you go 24 to 200 with the sharpest lenses available for your camera and all are 2.8 or faster. not even close to $4,000 since all of these lenses get a significant rebate during the next 2 weeks. Why don't you throw in a good flash to round things out. BTW, get yourself and extra battery or two. Wish I had your problem


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 14, 2013)

candyman said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > My new favorite travel kit is the Tamron 24-70VC and the Canon EF 70-300L. You could get these two and still have at least $1300. If you could find used copies of the 17-40L and the 135L for your remaining balance (doable) you would have most situations covered quite well. *The 135L responds very well to a 1.4x teleconverter and provides a near 200mm f/2.8 prime.*
> ...



I have the 1.4x MKII. The image quality is excellent. I have used that combo in event work considerably already. The Canon extender introduces less CA than the Kenko does. Color contrast stays strong wide open, and, of course, the bokeh remains excellent. Here's a near 100% crop from a Canon 6D, ISO 3200, at a dimly lit event (a funeral actually - and yes, people do hire me to shoot funerals. As a minister I bring the appropriate understanding of the event). I suspect the IQ is pretty close to an equivalent shot with one of the 70-200 f/2.8 zooms with a much, much lighter tool. You can actually do a separate AFMA with the extender attached (and the body registers it separately). I found this made a nice difference.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 14, 2013)

The only solid recommendation I can give is not to skimp on the tripod. If you like doing long exposures then that's going to be one of your most handled pieces of equipment, and chances are better ones won't come along any time soon.


----------



## vmk (Apr 14, 2013)

RC said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > 16-35/2.8 II
> ...




+1


----------



## maass (Apr 15, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> What focal range(s) do you need to cover?
> 
> What is the widest you need to go?
> 
> ...



Widest I might be going for - 15-20
Longest focal length - this is little tricky as the two lens I have used were 70-200.



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> maass said:
> 
> 
> > Hello CR folks,
> ...



Thanks ,that looks pretty good for me except I badly need a 24-70. I loved this lens more than any lens I have ever rented.



J.R. said:


> maass said:
> 
> 
> > Hello CR folks,
> ...



I will be in US for a month on a work assignment.So I will be buying the lens during my return.
Thanks for the tips on "Indian Customs" Even I had a bad time three years back on some Electronics stuff :-[
I am based out of Bangalore.


----------



## dirtcastle (Apr 15, 2013)

If your budget is a hard $4k, and you get the 24-70 L (I or II), your choices will be limited on the wide end and long end. An aperture of f/2.8 isn't optimal for low light (but decent with high ISO). Most of the great low-light primes are in the 24-85mm focal range. So there's a big opportunity cost of getting a 24-70mm, if you are on a tight budget.

If you get the 24-70mm L II -- and if f/2.8 is good enough for your low-light shooting -- then up your budget and get the "zooms trinity", as others have suggested (or wait until you can afford it).

But, if you have a hard $4k budget and want a good prime, I will suggest some alternatives.

WIDE: The EF 16-35mm L is a solid choice. It's IQ/sharpness is not as good as the 14/17/24 Ls, but it's cheaper and has a big range.

MID: You have several choices under $1000: EF 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, Sigma 50mm f/1.4. And there's also the 50mm L, which is a bit more expensive and sometimes tough to master.

LONG: If you need range above 70mm, then I feel like it's mostly a choice between Mark I or Mark II of the 70-200mm f/2.8 L series. If you can do without a zoom range (and 200mm reach), the EF 135mm f/2 is probably Canon's best value lens and has stellar IQ.

Here are two alternatives to the zooms trinity:

EF 16-35mm L ($1429)
EF 50mm L ($1400)
EF 70-200m L f/2.8 I ($1400)

OR

EF 16-35mm L ($1429)
EF 50mm f/1.4 ($400)
EF 70-200m L f/2.8 II ($2400)


----------



## eml58 (Apr 16, 2013)

RC said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > 16-35/2.8 II
> ...



This is it, If your in the himalayas you'll need to think of weight, these 3 Lenses + 5DMK3 Body in a Back Pak, your covered, only thing I'de add would be the 1.4x Converter & the 600EX-RT Flash, if not the 600 EX go for the 430EX cheaper & you only loose the RT function, still a good flash. Take images & have a great time, think "Snow Leopards".


----------



## lonelywhitelights (Apr 16, 2013)

no one. not a single person (unless I missed it) has mentioned the 24-105mm f/4L lens

are we all forgetting how great this lens is or are we all blinded by the new mark II 24-70 f/2.8 

just the fact that the 24-105mm is so affordable now makes it even more attractive and we can't deny that zoom range is extremely helpful and versatile.

with $4,000 to play with you could pick up some fantastic lenses, no need to gun for the brand new $2,000+ lenses

16-35mm f/2.8L II
24-105mm f/4L (or maybe the new 24-70mm f/4 IS USM)
70-200mm f/4L (non IS version)

and I would also consider the 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 lenses by Sigma - they are incredibly good for much less than the Canon versions

and you may end up with money to spare. like I said - no need to gun for the new $2,000+ lenses


----------



## RC (Apr 16, 2013)

lonelywhitelights said:


> no one. not a single person (unless I missed it) has mentioned the 24-105mm f/4L lens
> 
> are we all forgetting how great this lens is or are we all blinded by the new mark II 24-70 f/2.8...


Guilty, have the 24-105, love it, but want a 24-70 II


----------



## dirtcastle (Apr 16, 2013)

lonelywhitelights said:


> no one. not a single person (unless I missed it) has mentioned the 24-105mm f/4L lens



The 24-105 is a great lens! It is the only Canon L with IS in the 24-70mm range. That said, I find myself using it less and less, in favor of more specialized lenses. Still, for trips or treks with only one lens... it's gotta be the most versatile L zoom.


----------



## TAF (Apr 16, 2013)

My recommendations:

1. 24-105L
2. 70-200L or 70-300L (with IS in either case)
3. Zeiss 50 f1.4
4. Short 40
5. 17-40L

(I have 1-4, and am saving for 5)


----------



## m_holorge (Apr 16, 2013)

Other than tripod, flash, and filters, suggestion for landscape is 24 1.4 L II, or 16-35 L II ($1400), if you're investing hard on it, go with TS-24 L.
Suggestion for normal range purpose is Sigma 35 1.4 ($900), and your owned 50 1.8 II (a great great lens) I do not suggest 24-70 2.8, actually, not as useful as 35 1.4 for IQ for low light. Face it, you don't need 40-70 range usually other than wedding case, do you?
Suggestion for long range purpose is 70-300 L IS, or 70-200 F4 IS. If you have a backup APS-C sized camera, a 70-200 F4 IS is better and enough. ($1200)

Note, for HDR shootings, lens doesn't matter, go nude with no filters.

Lastly, tripod is the most important gear you'll use for a long time.


----------



## ecka (Apr 16, 2013)

lonelywhitelights said:


> no one. not a single person (unless I missed it) has mentioned the 24-105mm f/4L lens
> 
> are we all forgetting how great this lens is or are we all blinded by the new mark II 24-70 f/2.8
> 
> ...



You missed it, I did


----------



## J.R. (Apr 16, 2013)

ecka said:


> lonelywhitelights said:
> 
> 
> > no one. not a single person (unless I missed it) has mentioned the 24-105mm f/4L lens
> ...



I too mentioned it ... in fact I was surprised the OP didn't buy it as a kit lens.


----------



## hawaiisunsetphoto (Apr 16, 2013)

Given your budget, I'd recommend:

1) 24-70mm f/2.8L II -- tack sharp, rivals primes, also good in low light with high iso 5D Mark III 
2) 135mm f/2.0L -- great bokeh, fast, light
3) 85mm f/1.8 -- cheap, light, fast, unobtrusive, decent lens
3) good tripod and ballhead





Hello CR folks,

I recently bought a 5D3 and 50mm 1.8.This is my first investment and I am based out of India. 
I mostly shoot Low Light , Landscape , Street Photography and Slow Shutter captures. 

Before taking up 5D3 I had an experience of working with my colleague's Canon60D , 18-135(kits lens) ,70-200mm f4 and NikonD7000 50mm f1.4,70-200mm f4. 
I had some severe limitations while shooting Landscapes and didn't get enough experience on wide-angle shots :-[
I will be travelling to Ladakh,a landscape,rich cultured,wildlife Himalayan Range in the month of July and I am looking for suggestions to get some 'real' gear.
All I can say that this will be my starting point to get into some real action 

I can spend up to 4000$ on the Lenses.
Please share the gear details based on your own experience.

Regards
Hari
[/quote]


----------



## bholliman (Apr 16, 2013)

hawaiisunsetphoto said:


> 1) 24-70mm f/2.8L II -- tack sharp, rivals primes, also good in low light with high iso 5D Mark III
> 2) 135mm f/2.0L -- great bokeh, fast, light
> 3) 85mm f/1.8 -- cheap, light, fast, unobtrusive, decent lens
> 3) good tripod and ballhead



+1 1&2 are two of Canons best lenses

You could also substitute the 50 1.4 for the 85 1.8 if you wanted a wider low light lens.


----------



## maass (Apr 25, 2013)

Thanks for the suggestions Guys 
I decided on getting 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 8)

Hari


----------



## bholliman (Apr 25, 2013)

maass said:


> Thanks for the suggestions Guys
> I decided on getting 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 8)
> 
> Hari



Great lenses, enjoy!

Post some of your shots here when you have time.


----------

