Reading mode: Light Dark

Lenses for ny new 5D

Go to last post
S

StephaneB

Senior Member
Messages
1,220
Reaction score
608
Location
LU
Hi

I've sold most of my Ag equipment (kept the Leica) for a neat pile of $. I already got a 50/1.8 with hood and a 28/2.8 by chance from a second hand shop. I plan to buy the rest new, namely:

20/2.8
24/2.8
35/2
85/1.8
135/2.8 SF
200/2.8
24/3.5 TS-E
45/2.8 TS-E
1.4x TC

As you can see, I'm not into zooms :-)

Coming from Leica, Zeiss/Rollei, Large Format with German optics etc..., I know about high end lenses and what they give and don't give. Everything is a compromise.

I am posting this just to know if someone had a particularly bad experience with any of these lenses and if that or those person could describe it. Good experiences are welcome too, of course.

Regards,

Stéphane

http://www.lumieredargent.com
 
My kit right now is 5D +

15 2.8 Fisheye - Sigma, neat lens
24 2.8 - Great sharp lens (Selling my zoom 24-70 2.8L)
35 2.0 - Awesome lens, cheap, but still great bokeh and sharp
85 1.8 - about the most verstatile portrait lens, sharp and fast
135 2.0 - best lens on Full Frame, love it (I wouldn't go for SF)
1.4x - use it with 135 2.0 to make it to be close to 200 2.8

--
http://www.madeincamera.com ~ http://www.genesm.com

http://www.flickr.com/photos/genesm/
 
I have recently started using a 5D after four years with a D60. I love the 5D by the way, it has moved things on a notch or two in several respects. Metering, dynamic range and tonal range in particular.

I like primes too. With the D60 I felt I possibly had too much reach with my 100 f2.0, 135 f2.8 and also with a 70-200 f2.8 zoom. With the 5D, if anything, the latter two now feel possibly a little short. I can use the 100 indoors without difficulty now, whereas I could never do that with the D60. I find I've got the big zoom on the 5D most of the time.

In a nut, with the 5D aim long !
 
They are pretty good these days. Try picking up a Tamron 28-75 for $330.

And why wouldyou want a 20mm and a 24mm prime? Pick one.

And with the list of primes you want, I'm quite surprised to see you have the cheap 50 f1.8. Replace it with the 50 f1.4 instead.
 
I have that Tamron 28 -75 and it feels very short on the 5D. I've also had the 50mm f1.8 for years. To me it easily represents the best value lens that Canon sell. Just because it's light and maybe feels cheap doesn't mean it isn't tack sharp with beautifully saturated colour.
 
Hellashot said:
They are pretty good these days. Try picking up a Tamron 28-75 for
$330.
Click to expand...
I know zooms. I used to have a 28-70/2.8 L on an EOS 3 years ago. I remember it was very good but also extremely heavy. I am not ready to go back to that. A Tamron 28-75, sorry, is not my idea of a good lens, too much distortion.
Hellashot said:
And why wouldyou want a 20mm and a 24mm prime? Pick one.

And with the list of primes you want, I'm quite surprised to see
you have the cheap 50 f1.8. Replace it with the 50 f1.4 instead.
Click to expand...
I currently use the 1.8 and it is quite good. I'll probably replace it by the 1.4 sometimes later.

Thanks

--
Stéphane

http://www.lumieredargent.com
 
consider the 100 USM macro a really a sharp lens
 
The primes shorter than 85mm that you have aren't that great. (The 85mm f/1.8 is great, however.) I was going to suggest the 24-70 f/2.8L (which is mostly better than the 28-70 it replaces while being wider also). If weight is an issue, try out the 24-105 f/4L IS. The IS feature is the newest version and is terriffic. The lens is very sharp; at f/5.6, I'd dare to say it might be sharper than some of your wide primes. The 24-105 is shorter and narrower and lighter than the 24-70 f/2.8.
 
i was going to suggest that you trade the 85 for the 100mm macro. i did, and don't miss the 85 at all. it is perfectly good, but the 100 is hands-down better (better microcontrast, color, sharper, and even better bokeh (smoother)), and i was always running up against the close focus limit on the 85 for portraits and details.

also, i honestly can't imagine why you would go for the cheaper 135. the l lens is not that much more--cheap by top of the line standards--and it is a chance to use an excellent lens, often in the running for canon's very best on offer, instead of a pretty good one.

i think i understand the preference for primes, i am with you on that (the 50/1.4 has been my primary lens for some time now), but don't fool yourself--the cheap line of primes will not necessarily give you better image quality than the l zooms (though of course the primes are much lighter).

my own strategy is to own fewer lenses but get the best quality avalible. in fact i am looking to trade in my 50 for the new 1.2, once i can try it out myself and see if i like it. suit yourself though, obviously.

you might let us know your intended use for these lenses--if your primary purpose is landscape, eg, then the lenses stopped down heavily will be nearly as good as the l line, but if you do walkaround and portraits where oof areas are more important, then they don't hold up as well.
 
Aha! A prime lover! it's great to see that they still exist!

my humble advise is to drop the Canon 20mm f2.8 and swap if for a Sigma 20mm f1.8. It's cheaper, faster and sharper...with less distortion too.

although you have a fine list of lenses, I would consider dropping the 135mm and 200mm for the mightly 70-200mm f2.8 IS. It's so versatile and covers the range that you need and it's just as sharp.

Gareth Cooper

--
http://www.pbase.com/gazzajagman

'Science is what we dream of, technology is what we are stuck with' Douglas Adams
 
Rock Lee said:
The Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 is 510g
The Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 II is 765g
Click to expand...
I did not say the Tamron is heavy, I said it is not my idea of a good lens. Good zooms are either heavy or slow. Good fast zooms with little distortion are heavy and expensive. There only one, really, the 24-70/2.8.

Besides, you compare a wail about lens with a specialised tele.
 
GazzaJagman said:
Aha! A prime lover! it's great to see that they still exist!
Click to expand...
Definitely :-)
GazzaJagman said:
my humble advise is to drop the Canon 20mm f2.8 and swap if for a
Sigma 20mm f1.8. It's cheaper, faster and sharper...with less
distortion too.
Click to expand...
Not so sure.

Look at this comparison: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=375&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=244&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Camera=9&CameraComp=9

The Canon comprehensively beats the Sigma. French magazine Chasseur d'Images, who runs precises lens tests, says the same.
GazzaJagman said:
although you have a fine list of lenses, I would consider dropping
the 135mm and 200mm for the mightly 70-200mm f2.8 IS. It's so
versatile and covers the range that you need and it's just as sharp.
Click to expand...
I considered the 70-200/2.8 non IS, but decided agains it because of the weight. Then considered the f/4 IS which seems very good indeed, but again, I'm not a zoom guy and f/4 is rather slow. I plan to use the Ee-S screen designed for manual focus and that one requires f/2.8 to be clear. The 24 TS-E is already pushing it a bit.

--
Stéphane

http://www.lumieredargent.com
 
Understand your desire to work with single focal length lenses... with that in mind:
StephaneB said:
I've sold most of my Ag equipment (kept the Leica) for a neat pile
of $. I already got a 50/1.8 with hood and a 28/2.8 by chance from
a second hand shop. I plan to buy the rest new, namely:

20/2.8
24/2.8
35/2
Click to expand...
Ok, you're going to have 4 affordable wide angle Canon lenses... of which only one is really thought to be a good performer (the 35/2 .) I find it is a good lens for me though there is just enough CA to want to use ACR's CA tools.
StephaneB said:
85/1.8
135/2.8 SF
200/2.8
Click to expand...
I too prefer the 35/85/135mm trio as a lens set. However, in this case I wonder if you wouldn't get more for your money by just getting the 135/2 and just using the 1.4x with it rather than buy the 200/2.8? I have the 135 and don't feel a need to get the 200.
StephaneB said:
24/3.5 TS-E
45/2.8 TS-E
Click to expand...
Are these for architecture, landscape, fine art?

You don't have a normal or long lens for walking around, that can focus relatively close... does that bother you?

-gt
 
xtoph said:
i was going to suggest that you trade the 85 for the 100mm macro. i
did, and don't miss the 85 at all. it is perfectly good, but the
100 is hands-down better (better microcontrast, color, sharper, and
even better bokeh (smoother)), and i was always running up against
the close focus limit on the 85 for portraits and details.
Click to expand...
Hmm, good point, I'll give a second thought to it.
xtoph said:
also, i honestly can't imagine why you would go for the cheaper
135. the l lens is not that much more--cheap by top of the line
standards--and it is a chance to use an excellent lens, often in
the running for canon's very best on offer, instead of a pretty
good one.
Click to expand...
For portraiture, biting sharpness is not wanted. For landscape, stopping down is not a problem and report on the 135/2.8 all mention its excellent sharpness. The 135/2 is at a level not exploited by today sensors anyway.
xtoph said:
i think i understand the preference for primes, i am with you on
that (the 50/1.4 has been my primary lens for some time now), but
don't fool yourself--the cheap line of primes will not necessarily
give you better image quality than the l zooms (though of course
the primes are much lighter).
Click to expand...
All zooms except the 24_70/2.8 have heavy distortion at the wide end, sometimes at the long end too. I give higher priority to straight lines than to ultimate sharpness.
xtoph said:
you might let us know your intended use for these lenses--if your
primary purpose is landscape, eg, then the lenses stopped down
heavily will be nearly as good as the l line, but if you do
walkaround and portraits where oof areas are more important, then
they don't hold up as well.
Click to expand...
Landscapes with almost all of them, depending on how heavy I can/want to be. They'll be all in the car anyway.

Walk around, tourism with the 24, 35, 50 and 85.

Architecture with TSE.

Portrait with 85, 135 and 200.

I know a lens costing $800 is better than another one costing $250. I've been on that route, up to Leica lenses bought new. Very satisfying, but on the other hand, for having used them, II think the Canon cheap primes are very under-rated.

--
Stéphane

http://www.lumieredargent.com
 
greentoe said:
greentoe said:
20/2.8
24/2.8
35/2
Click to expand...
Ok, you're going to have 4 affordable wide angle Canon lenses... of
which only one is really thought to be a good performer (the 35/2
.) I find it is a good lens for me though there is just enough CA
to want to use ACR's CA tools.
Click to expand...
Some will say the 24 is the good one of the three. All the research points to all 3 being great value.
greentoe said:
greentoe said:
85/1.8
135/2.8 SF
200/2.8
Click to expand...
I too prefer the 35/85/135mm trio as a lens set. However, in this
case I wonder if you wouldn't get more for your money by just
getting the 135/2 and just using the 1.4x with it rather than buy
the 200/2.8? I have the 135 and don't feel a need to get the 200.
Click to expand...
Because the 135/2 costs more than the 85/1.8 and 135/2.8 together. To me that's not worth it. The argument about the 135/2 + 1.4 TC is good, though. I'll give it a hard thought, thanks :-)
greentoe said:
greentoe said:
24/3.5 TS-E
45/2.8 TS-E
Click to expand...
Are these for architecture, landscape, fine art?
Click to expand...
Landscape, fine art, architecture.
greentoe said:
You don't have a normal or long lens for walking around, that can
focus relatively close... does that bother you?
Click to expand...
I already have the 50/1.8.

--
Stéphane

http://www.lumieredargent.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top