What lens for 5D3?

MikeFromMesa · Apr 13, 2012

I made a trip to my local camera store to try the 5D2 and 5D3 to see if I wanted to upgrade from my 7D. While I was not too impressed with the high ISO performance of the 5D2 (it seemed about 1 step better than my 7D), I was very impressed with the 5D3 at higher ISOs. Since I camp in the US National Parks and tend to take wildlife photos in the late afternoon and early evening, high ISO is important to me. And, when I found that the 5D3 could focus easily with my 100-400/Kenko 1.4 TC combination (something my 7D will not do), well, that sort of made up my mind.

My problem now is what lenses to get. Most of my specialty lenses are Canon EF so they are not an issue, but I also have the Sigma 10-20 and the Canon 15-85. Both of those are crop lenses so I need to replace both. The problem is money.

The replacement for the 15-85 would normally be the 24-105 and I can get that, at a discount, as part of a kit. The replacement for the Sigma 10-20 is more difficult. Canon's 16-35, is $1700 US at Amazon and that is too much for me. There is a Sigma 12-24 that is full frame, but that is also expensive at about $950 US at Amazon and I have no idea of its quality. I have an old kit Canon 28-135 kit lens that I don't use, but never sold. So my choices seem to be:

1) Buy the 5D3 kit with the 24-105, and try to do without an ultra wide-angle lens. The Sigma is too new to find used versions around (even Amazon does not offer this lens used),

2) Buy the 5D3 body, use the 28-135 kit lens and buy the Sigma 12-24. That would cost about the same as option (1) and give me coverage in all areas, but I would be using a less-than-stellar lens for most of my shooting with a brand new 5D3 for the next year or so and, since I never use that lens, I don't really know how good it is or is not.

3) Try to find some wide prime to replace the UWA. I don't know of any such lens, but perhaps there is something like that out there.

Most of my photos are family, landscape and wildlife. I currently use the 100-400 for the wildlife, 15-85 for the family and 10-20 for landscape with each taking about 1/3 of my shots.

Any suggestions as to any other options I may have? Or advice? Just how bad is the 28-135? I have tried it on my 7D around home and it seems OK, but I have never used it on a vacation so I worry that I might end up with really bad and irreplaceable images from a trip.

Sorry for the length of this post, but I felt I needed to explain why I was asking.

Doug MacMillan · Apr 13, 2012

Consider the 17-40 as an alternative to the 16-35 for UWA. It's half the price and most reviews say that stopped down to normal landscape f stops (f8 or so), it's just as sharp. The better high ISO of the 5D3 will help compensate for the one stop slower maximum aperture.

The UPS truck is out delivering my new 5D2 and 17-40 as I type. I'm looking forward to a fun weekend!

cheddargav · Apr 13, 2012

From what I'm reading I don't see a major need for the supposed massive improvements in high ISO the 5D3 would give you, so it would appear to be that you simply want to pay 2x the amount for the latest camera (which is fine if that's what you want). But since it then means you're compromising on the lens, it doesn't really make sense to me.

Better lenses is what you need (imo)

Good luck with your decision making
--
http://www.twitter.com/gavphotography

80driver · Apr 13, 2012

Had a 28-135 for a 40D once and was unhappy with its build and optical quality.

The 24-105 is a much better lens but still suffers from some of the shortcomings of a zoom in that on the long end it isn't quite as good as at shorter focal. Using that on a 5D3 now (my first FF DSLR)

While I don't own a simple wide angle prime for my canon (I have a 17mm TS-E, but that is for my architectural inclinations and totally not what you are looking for either functionally nor pricewise) I do have a 21 mm prime for my Leica and I am surprised how well that single focal length works for me. Based on that I would suggest looking at a Canon 20mm 2.8 which brand new isn't exorbitant and probably available at a very reasonable price used.

There is an argument to be made for the learning that takes place with the limitation/discipline of primes. I don't totally buy into that, but the optical quality of primes are generally superior to the zooms at that focal length and smaller and lighter than zooms.

I would also highly recommend renting a lens first. I've rented through lensrentals.com and have been very happy with the experience.

chironNYC · Apr 13, 2012

I also went from the the 7d to the 5d3, and in my view it is totally worth it--it is a body that I plan to keep and be happy with for many years.

I think the advice about the 17-40mm is good, as is the suggestion about primes. I understand the dilemma you are facing.

cheddargav said:
From what I'm reading I don't see a major need for the supposed massive improvements in high ISO the 5D3 would give you, so it would appear to be that you simply want to pay 2x the amount for the latest camera (which is fine if that's what you want). But since it then means you're compromising on the lens, it doesn't really make sense to me.

Better lenses is what you need (imo)

Good luck with your decision making
--
http://www.twitter.com/gavphotography

MikeFromMesa · Apr 13, 2012

80driver said:
Based on that I would suggest looking at a Canon 20mm 2.8 which brand new isn't exorbitant and probably available at a very reasonable price used.

Thank you for your post.

I had not thought of this lens since it is close to the 24mm of the zoom, but I will take a look at it when I next go to the camera store. When I use the 10-20 with the 7D I normally find myself shooting at 10mm so I was thinking more about 15 or 16, but 20 might do.

MikeFromMesa · Apr 13, 2012

Doug MacMillan said:
Consider the 17-40 as an alternative to the 16-35 for UWA. It's half the price and most reviews say that stopped down to normal landscape f stops (f8 or so), it's just as sharp. The better high ISO of the 5D3 will help compensate for the one stop slower maximum aperture.

Thanks for your suggestion. I should have thought about this lens.

Doug MacMillan said:
The UPS truck is out delivering my new 5D2 and 17-40 as I type. I'm looking forward to a fun weekend!

Hope you are happy with it! Be sure to post.

MikeFromMesa · Apr 13, 2012

chironNYC said:
I also went from the the 7d to the 5d3, and in my view it is totally worth it--it is a body that I plan to keep and be happy with for many years.

It is a hard decision for me. The cost seems higher than it should be and I keep telling myself that I can save some money if I wait for another 6 months. Then, of course, there may also be a "7D2" at lower cost. The cost of waiting is losing whatever shots I might get this next 6 months. The higher ISO is a big draw for me as is the ability to actually use a 1.4 TC if I need to.

chironNYC said:
I think the advice about the 17-40mm is good, as is the suggestion about primes. I understand the dilemma you are facing.

Yes, I also think that is a good idea. I use UWA much more frequently than I ever expected to and this lens is close to being the equivalent of the 10-20 range I have now with the advantage of having a constant aperture and high enough quality to be an L lens.

gdanmitchell · Apr 13, 2012

If you are, as you suggest, mostly doing outdoor photography with the ultra wide, I'm surprised that you did not mention the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L. This is a fine lens for ultra wide landscape photography on full frame cameras and it is both less expensive and smaller/lighter than the 16-35. The 16-35 is a fine lens, but no better than the 17-40 for stopped down small-aperture ultra wide work.

Take care,

Dan

MikeFromMesa said:
I made a trip to my local camera store to try the 5D2 and 5D3 to see if I wanted to upgrade from my 7D. While I was not too impressed with the high ISO performance of the 5D2 (it seemed about 1 step better than my 7D), I was very impressed with the 5D3 at higher ISOs. Since I camp in the US National Parks and tend to take wildlife photos in the late afternoon and early evening, high ISO is important to me. And, when I found that the 5D3 could focus easily with my 100-400/Kenko 1.4 TC combination (something my 7D will not do), well, that sort of made up my mind.

My problem now is what lenses to get. Most of my specialty lenses are Canon EF so they are not an issue, but I also have the Sigma 10-20 and the Canon 15-85. Both of those are crop lenses so I need to replace both. The problem is money.

The replacement for the 15-85 would normally be the 24-105 and I can get that, at a discount, as part of a kit. The replacement for the Sigma 10-20 is more difficult. Canon's 16-35, is $1700 US at Amazon and that is too much for me. There is a Sigma 12-24 that is full frame, but that is also expensive at about $950 US at Amazon and I have no idea of its quality. I have an old kit Canon 28-135 kit lens that I don't use, but never sold. So my choices seem to be:

1) Buy the 5D3 kit with the 24-105, and try to do without an ultra wide-angle lens. The Sigma is too new to find used versions around (even Amazon does not offer this lens used),

2) Buy the 5D3 body, use the 28-135 kit lens and buy the Sigma 12-24. That would cost about the same as option (1) and give me coverage in all areas, but I would be using a less-than-stellar lens for most of my shooting with a brand new 5D3 for the next year or so and, since I never use that lens, I don't really know how good it is or is not.

3) Try to find some wide prime to replace the UWA. I don't know of any such lens, but perhaps there is something like that out there.

Most of my photos are family, landscape and wildlife. I currently use the 100-400 for the wildlife, 15-85 for the family and 10-20 for landscape with each taking about 1/3 of my shots.

Any suggestions as to any other options I may have? Or advice? Just how bad is the 28-135? I have tried it on my 7D around home and it seems OK, but I have never used it on a vacation so I worry that I might end up with really bad and irreplaceable images from a trip.

Sorry for the length of this post, but I felt I needed to explain why I was asking.

--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Google Plus: https://plus.google.com/u/0/102554407414282880001/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell

joema1 · Apr 13, 2012

MikeFromMesa said:
...wildlife photos in the late afternoon and early evening, high ISO is important to me...what lenses to get...The replacement for the 15-85 would normally be the 24-105...The replacement for the Sigma 10-20 is more difficult.

10-20mm on a 7D is equal to 16-32mm on a 5D3. I've shot with a 7D, have a 5D3 with both 24-105 and 17-40 lenses, and I'm happy with them.

The 5D3 has much better high ISO performance than the 7D. The control layout and general feel is similar -- it feels like a big 7D but with improved AF and high ISO.

The high-ISO video of the 5D3 is also much better (if that's important for you). The 24-105 has IS, which is important for hand-held video.

Despite the overlap in focal range between 17-40 and 24-105, I think they're both useful, esp. for your situation. 24mm is fairly wide on a FF camera but not wide enough for certain outdoor wilderness shots.

Search

What lens for 5D3?

MikeFromMesa

Senior Member

Doug MacMillan

Senior Member

cheddargav

Senior Member

80driver

New member

chironNYC

Senior Member

MikeFromMesa

Senior Member

MikeFromMesa

Senior Member

MikeFromMesa

Senior Member

gdanmitchell

Veteran Member

joema1

Leading Member

Keyboard shortcuts