Reading mode: Light Dark

Lenses for ny new 5D

Go to last post
was the reason for considering the 135L. it is color and microcontrast that make the real difference to my eye, and of course the bokeh. also, i forgot to mention the 135L focuses significantly closer than the 2.8, which as you see in my post above is something that makes a difference to me.

i am not trying to tell you what to do--you obviously have a pretty clear idea of your needs. note that i did not say 'get the 24L instead of the 2.8'--that is a greater price gap for less clear benefits (though still discernable, for some applications--note that the focusing is faster, silent, and offers full-time manual on the L, which for street photog is important). it is just that in the case of the 135, the dollar savings is less significant than the other options, while the benefit is pretty clear. it couples well with the 1.4tc too.

regarding zooms--i wasn't particularly thinking of wide zooms (16 or 17--though i have the 16-35 and it is great for reportage, which is what i use it for). i was thinking particularly of the 24-70 and the 70-200s, which are excellent, and don't introduce much distortion. i was insufficiently specific.

as for 'not at a level exploited by today's sensors'... well, personally i can't say the 5d will be my last camera.

whatever you eventually decide, the great thing is it would be hard to go far wrong (with primes, anyhow), and i'll bet you will get a lot of use out of your lenses. good luck.
 
I was not satisfied by the affordable Canon primes at 35mm or below.

I did use all of the affordable Canon wide primes like 20mm 2.8, 24mm 2.8, 28mm 2.8 and 35mm 2.0. And I did use the 16-35 2.8L and 17-40 4L. Surprisingly the IQ delivered by the zooms was at least as well. Really good IQ at that focal length with the named lenses comes at aperture 4.0 or rather 5.6 on a 5D. I simply went for the 17-40L since it is not to heavy, affordable, comes with all L-comfort/features, handles really great on a 5D and gives a very good walkaround/wide/ultrawide lens.

If I did care for the speed at that focal length I would have bought the 16-35 2.8L or I would have bought the 24mm 1.4 anyway.

For all other focal lengths there are very good primes out there. Namely 50mm 1.8/1.4, 85mm 1.8/1.2, 100mm 2.0, 135mm 2.0, 200mm 2.8, 300mm 4.0 (IS).

I do own the 24mm TS which I like a lot. If you do not care for the manual focus this could easily be the only wide lens you need. I use it with a Kenko 1.4 TC quite often.

So why not:

5D plus:
------------------------------------
24mm TS
35mm 2.0 or 17-40L
50mm 1.8
(85mm 1.8) or 100mm 2.0
135mm 2.0 or 200mm 2.8
and some Kenko 1.4 TK

TORN
 
Firstly, thanks for the time and experience sharing!
TORN said:
I was not satisfied by the affordable Canon primes at 35mm or below.

I did use all of the affordable Canon wide primes like 20mm 2.8,
24mm 2.8, 28mm 2.8 and 35mm 2.0. And I did use the 16-35 2.8L and
17-40 4L. Surprisingly the IQ delivered by the zooms was at least
as well. Really good IQ at that focal length with the named lenses
comes at aperture 4.0 or rather 5.6 on a 5D.
Click to expand...
Or even f/11 and f/16 for even rendition corner to corner.
TORN said:
I simply went for the
17-40L since it is not to heavy, affordable, comes with all
L-comfort/features, handles really great on a 5D and gives a very
good walkaround/wide/ultrawide lens.
Click to expand...
Yes, I thought of that but the lack of sharpness in corners at f/5.6 and above does not bother me as much as barrel distortion I can see in many 17-40 pictures. It works fine as long as there is no wall or straight line near the border.

Really, at f/11 those little lenses are great and can barely be felt in a backpack. I would have been wary of their built but apparently no one reports problems. Anyway, at $250 a pop I won't lose sleep if I have some trouble every 5 years.
TORN said:
If I did care for the speed at that focal length I would have
bought the 16-35 2.8L or I would have bought the 24mm 1.4 anyway.
Click to expand...
The 24/1.4 distorts a lot more than the f/2.8. The TS-E is king, for most of my applications anyway. I just like the idea to have a nice little 24 in a pocket. Again, the price makes that hard to resist, especially since the 24/2.8 seems to be the best of the Canon small wides.
TORN said:
For all other focal lengths there are very good primes out there.
Namely 50mm 1.8/1.4, 85mm 1.8/1.2, 100mm 2.0, 135mm 2.0, 200mm 2.8,
300mm 4.0 (IS).
Click to expand...
Yeah, all those are great.
TORN said:
I do own the 24mm TS which I like a lot. If you do not care for the
manual focus this could easily be the only wide lens you need. I
use it with a Kenko 1.4 TC quite often.
Click to expand...
I've seen reports of the Canon 14TC working with the TS-E lenses. since it is supposed to be better, at least with the 135/2, I'll go for that one.
TORN said:
So why not:

5D plus:
------------------------------------
24mm TS
35mm 2.0 or 17-40L
50mm 1.8
(85mm 1.8) or 100mm 2.0
135mm 2.0 or 200mm 2.8
and some Kenko 1.4 TK

TORN
Click to expand...
--
Stéphane

http://www.lumieredargent.com
 
StephaneB said:
Yes, I thought of that but the lack of sharpness in corners at
f/5.6 and above does not bother me as much as barrel distortion I
can see in many 17-40 pictures. It works fine as long as there is
no wall or straight line near the border.

The 24/1.4 distorts a lot more than the f/2.8. The TS-E is king,
for most of my applications anyway. I just like the idea to have a
nice little 24 in a pocket. Again, the price makes that hard to
resist, especially since the 24/2.8 seems to be the best of the
Canon small wides.
Click to expand...
Do you own these lenses? I am a bit surprised since I do/did and come to quite different results:

1. The difference in barrel distortion between 24mm 1.4, 24mm 2.8, 17-40 4L or 16-35L at 24mm and 24mm TS is less than 15% and all lay between 0.55 and 0.7% with the 24mm 2.8 being the "worst" of the pack in this respect and the TS being the best.

At 20mm and especially at 17mm there is quite some barrel distortion with the 17-40L. But at 20mm the 20mm 2.8 is still not better and there is no 17mm prime (from Canon at least).

2. You will not get sharp corners with the 20mm 2.8 or 24mm 2.8 on a 5D as well - not even at aperture 11 or 16.

Apart from that I would recommend the 24mm 2.8 over the Canon 20mm or 28mm anytime. If it had aperture 2.0 I would have kept it as well. If one of those is a keeper then it is the 24mm 2.8.
StephaneB said:
I've seen reports of the Canon 14TC working with the TS-E lenses.
since it is supposed to be better, at least with the 135/2, I'll go
for that one.
Click to expand...
Since the TS are manual focus there is nothing the Canon TC can do to prevent you from using it ;-) I must admit I do not like the Canon policy to build in functions to prevent you from using a TC with the lens you like but if you do use it with lenses above 100mm or manual lenses anyway you will not bother.

Let us know what you choose and how you like it.

TORN
 
Torn,

Thanks so much for the time you take on this. I appreciate being corrected, that's when I learn something :-)

My current conclusion is... none. Mostly I should think more about it. Even the 24-70 is nagging now. If it was not for the weight of it...

The weight of a zoom or two in the bag is the same as the little primes collection, but once on the camera it is an entirely different story. I hate the attention I got when I was using the 28-70/2.8 on the EOS 3 as well. The Leica M6 has got me used to small, relatively light and being ignored.

I will re-read all I can find and spend a few more nights sleeping over it.

--
Stéphane

http://www.lumieredargent.com
 
I can sympathise with you as I am myself considering a collection of small primes, to replace the 24-70L at some times when I want to go light.

After reading reviews, 24/2,8 and 35/2 and maybe 50/1,8 appeal.
I own 28/2,8 and am not too enthusiast about it (CA). It is for sale.

I asked a similar question a few weeks ago about quality of the the compact primes vs the L zooms (24-70) but did not get much response. Most people seem to consider the small primes mostly for cheaper price.

I finally plan to buy 24/2,8 and 35/2 and 50/1,8 and test them myself. Then keep them or resell with some loss if they don't satisfy.

Good luck with your choice.
 
As for the longer Canon primes, all will agree that imagequality is very good. You can not go wrong there.
 
All I can say is that I currently own the 24/2.8 and 35/2.0 (as well as a 50/1.8 Mk 1), and I'm generally speaking very happy with all of them. I also used to have the 200/2.8L, and it was a fantastic lens for what it is. (I sold it because it turned out I didn't actually have much use for what it is.)

Petteri
--
[ http://www.prime-junta.net/ ]
[ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
 
i think you'll find that the 5D is a quite demanding camera in that it requires top glass to achieve top results. having come from Leica M's myself I can understand the wish to keep working with small and portable primes, but there is something to be said for chaning that approach when you move to a DSLR. First of all, the 5D is not small or light and there is no where to hide it. Secondly, frequent lens change will attract dust to your sensor (the weather-sealing is poor enough as it is on the 5D, e.g. you will have dust in your VF within a week or two, there is no way around it).

Canon's wide primes are all consumer primes, some without USM, cheap builds, no sealing etc. I'd test/rent a 17-40/4 L to see how you do with it. You'd be surprised how many 5D shooters have retired their primes in favor of a 24-105/4 L IS - great all around lens on a 5D. It would be my suggestion, along with a 50/1.4 and/or a 85/1.8 (one of Canon's best consumer lenses bar none).

p.
 
nordilux said:
i think you'll find that the 5D is a quite demanding camera in that
it requires top glass to achieve top results.
Click to expand...
I think this is the most repeated legend on the net. Or one of them. To produce the same print, the 5D will in fact be less demanding on the lens than a 30D. The enlarging factor is much less and pixel size bigger. Sensor area counts a lot, like it did with film, where a medium format would always trump a Leica.

With 100% on screen peeping, it is another matter, maybe.
nordilux said:
having come from
Leica M's myself I can understand the wish to keep working with
small and portable primes, but there is something to be said for
chaning that approach when you move to a DSLR. First of all, the
5D is not small or light and there is no where to hide it.
Click to expand...
Well, coming from 645 and 6x9, I find it minuscule, now :-) The M is not that small either. Smaller than a 5D, certainly, though.
nordilux said:
Secondly, frequent lens change will attract dust to your sensor
(the weather-sealing is poor enough as it is on the 5D, e.g. you
will have dust in your VF within a week or two, there is no way
around it).
Click to expand...
I guess, I had the same thing with the EOS 3. Oh well.
nordilux said:
Canon's wide primes are all consumer primes, some without USM,
cheap builds, no sealing etc.
Click to expand...
And very under-rated.
nordilux said:
I'd test/rent a 17-40/4 L to see how
you do with it. You'd be surprised how many 5D shooters have
retired their primes in favor of a 24-105/4 L IS - great all around
lens on a 5D.
Click to expand...
This is more and more debated, actually. And f/4, no thanks.
nordilux said:
It would be my suggestion, along with a 50/1.4
and/or a 85/1.8 (one of Canon's best consumer lenses bar none).

p.
Click to expand...
--
Stéphane

http://www.lumieredargent.com
 
I personally think that we need to be smart about our lenses. Dissing all of the L lenses is not the smartest move. I think having a mixed bag of good lenses for different purposes is better than having one or the other. I feel that my kit is most optimal for lots types of photography:

15 2.8 Fish
24 2.8
35 2.0
85 1.8
135 2.0L

And I have a 24-70 2.8L which I love, but selling due to the size and weight - might be getting a Tammy 28-75 instead...
--
http://www.madeincamera.com ~ http://www.genesm.com

http://www.flickr.com/photos/genesm/
 
I understand your feelings about the weight of the 24-70 & 70-200 2.8's...but they are really very sharp lenses...although I tend to agree w/you that prime's...like the 90 ts-e are critically sharp...all these pieces of equipment are used for certain applications and to perform specific functions in various disciplines photographicallly. Seems that you have a handle on what you want to pursue...so go w/it..but I would not let weight obfuscate a lens when it can and does perform exceptionally well(24-70).
--

 
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.

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.
Click to expand...
The 100 mm is nice as a macro, but as a telephoto lens the 70-200 f/2.8 IS beats it. I want a better macro then the 100 mm for my 5D. Some of Canon's zooms are as good as primes, and certainly better than most non- L primes. The 70-200 f/2.8 is a killer walking lense for the 5D, perfect for grabbing people pics.
 
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