Reading mode: Light Dark

Best Lens to Show Off 5D2 Characteristics

Go to last post
J

jackyyuen

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
394
Reaction score
0
Location
CA, US
If you have 85 1.2 don't think any more...

Between those two mentioned above 17-40 is just fine for its cost. 16-35 version I has quite unsharpened edges on FF. Version II is somewhat better and I like mine very much, but on reviews seems to stand by side of 17-40 (I never had one). So price-wise it might be better choice. However if you are looking for ultimate available quality in wide angle, you should consider primes such as Canon TS-E24 f3.5 II or TS-E17 (don't have them either) or Zeiss 21 f 2.8 ZE (great lens) or famous Nikon 14-24 with a 16:9 reduction (Never tried, but the reviews are stellar)
 
I don't own it, but I've used it many times.

Of course, it may not be the right lens for a specific shooting situation, but that wasn't your question.
 
You are just looking for an excuse to buy a new lens. Please go ahead with any of them. If you want it sharp you have to close down the aperature anyways.
--

What camera do I have? I rather you look at my photos http://www.flickr.com/photos/gavinz
 
I think you got the message.
 
LOL .. you guys really got me.

But I really need that "excuse" to make the move.

I do see 16-35 II is an widest FF zoom lens with f2.8.

Hey Gavin, are you using 16-35 for those beautiful landscape at your flickr?

--
Beginner who love 5D2 since the day 1
http://alohaeveryone.com
JY
 
This impresses me as a very strange question. You want to pick a lens to "show off 5D2 characteristics?" Any lens that does that would be OK? A 400mm prime? A wide zoom?

Reasons for selecting a particular lens are more typically connected to - aside from budget - your intended use of the camera. The answer to the 16-35 v. 17-40 depends a TON on this context.

The short story: The great strength of the 16-35 is its fine performance for handheld photography at UWA FLs in low light or for other reasons at the very largest apertures. It has essentially no advantage over the 7-40 however for such purposes as small aperture tripod-based landscape photography. There are other things to think about as well, including how you feel about the odd 82mm filter thread diameter of the 16-35.

I also wonder why a "beginner" has both the 24-70 and the 24-105? And a couple of L primes? Maybe you should slow down a bit and do some shooting with the lenses you have - any of which photographers put to great use on the 5D2 and a number of other cameras.

Dan
jackyyuen said:
Hi All,
I am thinking to get a new Lens which able to show off a FF camera

I am thinking of 16-35 f2.8 L

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000NP46K2?ie=UTF8&tag=alohever-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B000NP46K2

or I should get 17-40mm for half price?

Any other Suggestion?

Currently I have followings
24-105 f4 L
24-70 f2.8 L
70-200 f4 L
28mm f1.8
85mm f1.2

--
Beginner who love 5D2 since the day 1
http://alohaeveryone.com
JY
Click to expand...
--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
IM: gdanmitchell

Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.
 
Lots of opinions, no right answer. Really the lens that is best is the one that gives YOU the result YOU want to achieve. Catchy question but only answered by YOU.
--
Happy Shooting
regards,
def
http://www.pbase.com/definchdds

 
gdanmitchell said:
This impresses me as a very strange question. You want to pick a lens to "show off 5D2 characteristics?" Any lens that does that would be OK? A 400mm prime? A wide zoom?

Reasons for selecting a particular lens are more typically connected to - aside from budget - your intended use of the camera. The answer to the 16-35 v. 17-40 depends a TON on this context.

The short story: The great strength of the 16-35 is its fine performance for handheld photography at UWA FLs in low light or for other reasons at the very largest apertures. It has essentially no advantage over the 7-40 however for such purposes as small aperture tripod-based landscape photography. There are other things to think about as well, including how you feel about the odd 82mm filter thread diameter of the 16-35.

I also wonder why a "beginner" has both the 24-70 and the 24-105? And a couple of L primes? Maybe you should slow down a bit and do some shooting with the lenses you have - any of which photographers put to great use on the 5D2 and a number of other cameras.

Dan
Click to expand...
I totally concur with Dan's post. This looks like a typical case of collecting lenses, and probably not using them to their fullest? Anyway, if you want to really show off with FF, just get a really big high quality printer and make really big prints.
 
first of all zoom lenses rarely show off a 21mp sensor of any variety, so i'd be looking at a prime

the best characteristic of the 5d2 is the full frame which gives it the bokeh advantage, so i'd be looking at a great bokeh lens.

You have the 85 f1.2 so perhaps the 135 f2 or the 50 f1.2 or even 1.4 has good bokeh if you want so save money.

actually looking at your lens list for an amateur i'm sure your new lens would have to have a nice red ring on it so i'd suggest the 135 f2
 
Hi Dan,

I am sorry, I dont have the 85mm f1.2 L, It was just a typo. I have 85mm f1.8 instead.

by the way, thanks for your suggestion, you have very great landscape photos in your flickr.

Thanks

--
Beginner who love 5D2 since the day 1
http://alohaeveryone.com
JY
 
I had 135 f2, great lens as known! changed it to 100mm macro f2.8 L IS, optically as good as 135 f2 in my opinion, but macro capacity and IS are great and the lens is more versatile. My favourite is 35mm f1.4 L, a shining lens with full frame and sharp even wide open.
 
I don't own the 85mm 1.2, but my 135mm L really shines on my 5D MK II. I also own the 17-40, 24-105, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, TS-E90, 70-200 F4 IS, and a few more.

The TS-E90 also really impresses, but its a MF lens and requires some knowledge to use it. All of the above lenses really produce great images with the camera, none of them have disappointed me.

I also had 24-70, 70-200 2.8L but sold them because I just never used them. I'm waiting for any new lens announcements this spring before I make my next purchase, I'm thinking of a 24mm or 35mm prime.
 
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