Author Topic: Getting Canon 5D Mark III, which lens is a must-have? (Read 24366 times)

stockphoto-images.com · « **on:** January 05, 2014, 07:40 »

I'm planning on getting the Mark III soon but I'm torn about which first lens to get.

I was thinking about the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM. to cover most shooting scenarios.

Is anyone using this lens or would you recommend another lens?

Thanks in advance and happy New Year!

jjneff · « **Reply #1 on:** January 05, 2014, 08:21 »

I have used my 24 70L the most! so yes I would say that lens, I also use the 50 1.4 and I just got the 100mm 2.8L macro this Christmas, great lens as well. But all around as a first lens my vote is the 24 70L

Ron · « **Reply #2 on:** January 05, 2014, 08:32 »

24-70L II - make sure its the II

fritz · « **Reply #3 on:** January 05, 2014, 09:21 »

Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM is a must-have lens.
Take a look!
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews?sort=rating

stockphoto-images.com · « **Reply #4 on:** January 05, 2014, 11:46 »

Thanks for all your responses! I greatly appreciate it.

Can't wait to get macro gear at some point but I have to get something more versatile for the start.

stockphoto-images.com · « **Reply #5 on:** January 05, 2014, 11:48 »

How is the sharpness on that 24-70mm ? Is it still miles away from the sharpness of a prime or do these pro zoom lenses come pretty close to a prime?

Goofy · « **Reply #6 on:** January 05, 2014, 12:19 »

I use my 24-70 canon lens about 80% of the time! Sharpness is spot on! Super piece of glass!

MatHayward · « **Reply #7 on:** January 05, 2014, 13:38 »

Yes, I agree with you all...the 24-70 f/2.8L II is a great lens. Very sharp, very fast. Others lenses I use about as much are the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II and the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS. If you plan to only have one lens, then the 24-70 is really the only choice in my opinion.

You will love the 5D Mark III, it's worth every penny!

-Mat

Goofy · « **Reply #8 on:** January 05, 2014, 14:13 »

I totally agree with Mat! Also I don't use any protective glass over my lens just a hood- I figure why would I put a $20 piece of glass over a very expensive glass? The hood protects it from light and dropping it...

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #9 on:** January 05, 2014, 14:13 »

The L zooms are very sharp and you can also use Canon's own custom correction filter in DPP to remove what little distortion or CA there may be, if the camera doesn't have automatic correction for different lenses built into it.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #10 on:** January 05, 2014, 14:22 »

I have the 24-70mm v1 and it's a nice very sharp lens. The 70-200mm f/2.8 goes great with it.

stockphoto-images.com · « **Reply #11 on:** January 05, 2014, 15:04 »

Wow, great feedback! Sounds like this lens is worth the money.

Thanks again for taking the time to respond.

noodle · « **Reply #12 on:** January 05, 2014, 15:11 »

Quote from: Goofy on January 05, 2014, 14:13

I totally agree with Mat! Also I don't use any protective glass over my lens just a hood- I figure why would I put a $20 piece of glass over a very expensive glass? The hood protects it from light and dropping it...

I have a friend who subscribes to this way of thinking - me on the other hand, I always put a clear glass filter on all of my lenses, I want nothing, nada, zero chance of scratching or dirtying my glass. I only use Hoya or B&W clear glass filters, so no $20 filter for me. I think the impact of this filter in front of the lens produces negligible negative results.

BTW the 24-70 II is an unbeatable piece of glass. Superb.

leaf · « **Reply #13 on:** January 05, 2014, 16:31 »

24-70 for me too. I use that lens the most I'd say. Second in line is the 70-200 which is perhaps my favorite lens. I would almost recommend that as the first lens but the 24-70 is a bit more versatile. Start with the 24-70 then start saving right away for the 70-200

In regards to a filter on the front. I just use the lens hood. If you are paying that much for a lens, why wreck it with a cheap (or expensive) filter. If the front piece of glass ever does get a very nasty scratch in it, you can always send it away for repair and get the front glass replaced - it's not like you need an entire new lens. You need some pretty bad scratching before it will affect the photo as well. Stick a small piece from a post it note on your lens and see how much you notice it? Now do you think you'll see the effects of a tiny scratch?

I had my 70-200 fall out of my bag once when switching lenses. It felt from backpack height onto concrete (It didn't have the lens hood on). It dented the rear metal a bit and damaged the IS but it kept on working. I ended up having to send it for repair.. but they were able to repair it... an expensive fall but cheaper than replacing the entire lens - they are built very very well.

stocked · « **Reply #14 on:** January 05, 2014, 16:38 »

28-75mm 2.8 Tamron much lighter much cheaper but optically superb. I prefer it over my 24-70 L v1 most of the time.

Goofy · « **Reply #15 on:** January 05, 2014, 16:58 »

if you do decide on the 70-200 make sure you have a gym membership to get your arms, shoulders and back in shape because you will need it lol!

MarcvsTvllivs · « **Reply #16 on:** January 05, 2014, 18:23 »

I agree with the 40mm 2.8 STM pancake being surprisingly useful. Also, I think the kit 24-105 f/4 USM is pretty good, especially since it has IS.

elvinstar · « **Reply #17 on:** January 06, 2014, 00:09 »

Quote from: leaf on January 05, 2014, 16:31

In regards to a filter on the front. I just use the lens hood. If you are paying that much for a lens, why wreck it with a cheap (or expensive) filter. [...] You need some pretty bad scratching before it will affect the photo as well. Stick a small piece from a post it note on your lens and see how much you notice it? Now do you think you'll see the effects of a tiny scratch?

Is it just me or are those 2 statements kind of contradictory?

ComfortEagle2095 · « **Reply #18 on:** January 06, 2014, 00:42 »

I like the 24-105 f/4 IS too. I find I rarely have to change a lens when I have this on my camera. For close in work I use the 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens and for long reaches I use the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS.

leaf · « **Reply #19 on:** January 06, 2014, 00:55 »

Quote from: elvinstar on January 06, 2014, 00:09

Quote from: leaf on January 05, 2014, 16:31
In regards to a filter on the front. I just use the lens hood. If you are paying that much for a lens, why wreck it with a cheap (or expensive) filter. [...] You need some pretty bad scratching before it will affect the photo as well. Stick a small piece from a post it note on your lens and see how much you notice it? Now do you think you'll see the effects of a tiny scratch?
Is it just me or are those 2 statements kind of contradictory?

how are they contradictory? Maybe I am blind to my own statement.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #20 on:** January 06, 2014, 03:52 »

In my experience the protection a filter offers is more about the shape of the filter thread than the state of the glass. A sideways knock on a wall or dropping the camera is unlikely to harm the glass but is very likely to bend the front rim. I've got a wrecked 24-70/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8 with a bent rim. In both cases, the glass is still perfect. The 70-200 would still be unharmed if it had had a filter on it at the time it hit the floor.

stockphoto-images.com · « **Reply #21 on:** January 06, 2014, 03:58 »

I was considering getting the B+W UV-Filter F-Pro MRC 010M SH to protect the front glass.

So far I was lucky never dropping any of my gear or bumping into things but I do want to take some precautions when I spend that kind of $$$ for a lens.

Obviously a lens hood should also do the trick but then the front glass is "exposed" to all kinds of conditions.

Are the B+W Pro series filters degrading the light in an obvious visible way or are they not really noticeable in the images later?

oxman · « **Reply #22 on:** January 06, 2014, 03:59 »

I hate the 24/70. Sold mine. Too much CA and S-U-C-K-S (leaf really?) in dust. And no Image Stabilization. Get the 24/105 which has IS and less CA. Only goes to f/4 but I use the 50mm f/1.8 if I need smaller DOF.

Gonna buy a 17-40mm since I just got a home interior shoot

mbjayasekara · « **Reply #23 on:** January 06, 2014, 04:27 »

Canon 50mm f1.4 or 1.2!

stockphoto-images.com · « **Reply #24 on:** January 06, 2014, 04:34 »

Quote from: mbjayasekara on January 06, 2014, 04:27

Canon 50mm f1.4 or 1.2!

They are on the list later down the road but I'm looking for one lens that helps me cover a common focal range.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Getting Canon 5D Mark III, which lens is a must-have? (Read 24366 times)

stockphoto-images.com

jjneff

Ron

fritz

stockphoto-images.com

stockphoto-images.com

Goofy

MatHayward

Goofy

BaldricksTrousers

PaulieWalnuts

stockphoto-images.com

noodle

leaf

stocked

Goofy

MarcvsTvllivs

elvinstar

ComfortEagle2095

leaf

BaldricksTrousers

stockphoto-images.com

oxman

mbjayasekara

stockphoto-images.com

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors