Best Indoor Lens for 5d Mark III

[PhotoGuy123]

I have been going back and forth for months now about buying the 5d3 with the 24-105 kit lens. My only worry is that it will be slow at F/4. The 24-70 seems to be never coming out and the used V1s that are sold on e-bay are ridiculously expensive with no warranty. I shoot mostly indoors but will take a trip soon where I would use the lens outdoors as well.

I am also considering the 70-200 F/2.8, but not sure if it would be not wide enough indoors.

To clarify, I don't intend to take pictures of groups of people indoors, it will either be portraits and head shots or just full length body shots.

Thanks for your help.

Currently using 60D with 17-55mm.

 

[billythek]

The 24-105 f/4 can be used indoors. I do it all the time with my 5D2. The 5D3 has even lower noise at high ISO than the 5D2, so just crank the ISO up. Sure, there will be times when you may want a faster lens, but it is far from unusable. The IS comes in handy, too.

The 70-200 f/2.8 may not be the best choice for photographing the interior of rooms, but is quite useful at a basketball games, so a lot depends on what you mean by "indoors".

If you require even faster lenses, there are the primes.

--

• Bill

 

[PhotoGuy123]

Thanks, when I mean indoors, I mean inside our house, not indoor basketball. So we are talking about a few feet of room, not more.

As for the primes, I think the 24 and the 35 would be just too wide. 50 F1.2 looks really nice but there are just way too many complaints about back focusing.

24-105 "sounds" really ideal, but I'm just very scared that I will realize I have wasted 900 bucks on an unusable lens when F/4 will be too slow.

The 24-105 f/4 can be used indoors. I do it all the time with my 5D2. The 5D3 has even lower noise at high ISO than the 5D2, so just crank the ISO up. Sure, there will be times when you may want a faster lens, but it is far from unusable. The IS comes in handy, too.

The 70-200 f/2.8 may not be the best choice for photographing the interior of rooms, but is quite useful at a basketball games, so a lot depends on what you mean by "indoors".

If you require even faster lenses, there are the primes.

--

• Bill

 

[billythek]

Thanks, when I mean indoors, I mean inside our house, not indoor basketball. So we are talking about a few feet of room, not more.

As for the primes, I think the 24 and the 35 would be just too wide. 50 F1.2 looks really nice but there are just way too many complaints about back focusing.

24-105 "sounds" really ideal, but I'm just very scared that I will realize I have wasted 900 bucks on an unusable lens.

Not unusable at all. I probably have it on my camera more than any other lens. It is a very useful "walk around" lens. There are some trade-offs, of course. You will find some people who hate it, but lots love it. Let me say again, IS is very nice to have. What you may gain in resolution, potentially, with the 24-70 you will lose if you cant hold the camera still. If it turns out you really hate the 24-105, you can always sell it and get back most of the cost.

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is an awesome lens, but is very heavy, not very discrete, and not that pleasant to haul around. It will take awesome portraits, though.

The 50 f/1.2, yeah, it takes a special person to master one of those. I've heard that the new autofocus in the 5D3 considerably improves the keeper rate, though. The cheaper primes are also surprisingly sharp. Don't rule them out just because they are not "L" lenses.

If you don't mind doing the focusing yourself, the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 is a great lens for the money, and very useful indoors.

 

[PhotoGuy123]

Thanks, in terms of the IQ how does 24-105 stack up against 70-200.

And I totally understand what you mean by the weight, but I'm not really the type of guy who walk around with his camera for 5 hours everyday. I think even the 24-105 coupled with the 5d3 that weighs around 1.5kg is heavy enough (I do realize 70-200 would add another 600-700g).

Thanks, when I mean indoors, I mean inside our house, not indoor basketball. So we are talking about a few feet of room, not more.

As for the primes, I think the 24 and the 35 would be just too wide. 50 F1.2 looks really nice but there are just way too many complaints about back focusing.

24-105 "sounds" really ideal, but I'm just very scared that I will realize I have wasted 900 bucks on an unusable lens.

Not unusable at all. I probably have it on my camera more than any other lens. It is a very useful "walk around" lens. There are some trade-offs, of course. You will find some people who hate it, but lots love it. Let me say again, IS is very nice to have. What you may gain in resolution, potentially, with the 24-70 you will lose if you cant hold the camera still. If it turns out you really hate the 24-105, you can always sell it and get back most of the cost.

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is an awesome lens, but is very heavy, not very discrete, and not that pleasant to haul around. It will take awesome portraits, though.

The 50 f/1.2, yeah, it takes a special person to master one of those. I've heard that the new autofocus in the 5D3 considerably improves the keeper rate, though. The cheaper primes are also surprisingly sharp. Don't rule them out just because they are not "L" lenses.

If you don't mind doing the focusing yourself, the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 is a great lens for the money, and very useful indoors.

 

[billythek]

No question that the 70-200 is a superior lens in terms of image quality.

Except when you need 24mm.
--

• Bill

 

[misolo]

Do you find your f/2.8 lens bright enough with the 60D? This will give you the answer you are looking for: f/4 on the 5DIII will give you the dept-of-field control of f/2.5 on the 60D, and the low-light ability you'd have with around f/2 on the 60D. On the other hand, this means that with f/4 on the 5D you're not gaining much in low-light ability relative to f/2.8 on the 60D (although you do gain focal range with the 24-105 relative to the 17-55).

Have you considered buying primes? May be a good choice given your description of what you do. I sometimes take the 5DIII plus these three in the bag, still surprisingly compact:

28/1.8 (environmental portraits at close range) + 40/2.8 (for a normal field of view and for when you want the camera as compact as possible, it's a wonderful little lens) + 85/1.8 (for tighter portraits)

In response to another comment in the thread: the 50/1.2 is a wonderful lens, but it does require you to go through a bit more of a learning curve.

I have been going back and forth for months now about buying the 5d3 with the 24-105 kit lens. My only worry is that it will be slow at F/4. The 24-70 seems to be never coming out and the used V1s that are sold on e-bay are ridiculously expensive with no warranty. I shoot mostly indoors but will take a trip soon where I would use the lens outdoors as well.

I am also considering the 70-200 F/2.8, but not sure if it would be not wide enough indoors.

To clarify, I don't intend to take pictures of groups of people indoors, it will either be portraits and head shots or just full length body shots.

Thanks for your help.

Currently using 60D with 17-55mm.

 

[Travis Trout Photography]

I have a 5DMKII and the 70-200 f/2.8, 24-105 f4, 16-35 f/2.8, and the 50 f/1.4. My favorites for inside a house is the 50mm f/1.4 by far. It's a heck of a lot cheaper than the 1.2 and much easier to use. I will also use the 16-35 occasionally as well. I just bought the 24-105, so I haven't had a chance to use it much, but I imagine it will be used a lot indoors as well, since like said before you can just bump the ISO up. I have found that the 5DMKII is usable all the way to 4000 ISO with very minimal noise.

I would never use the 70-200 inside a house unless you have very large rooms. There is a minimum focus distance of about 4 feet. Which means your usually stuck in some corner of the room or on stair cases trying to get a shot.

I would seriously look at either the 50 1.4 or even the 50 1.8 (less than $100). Although, if you get the 24-105 as a kit lens than you should be fine for a while. You could always get the 50 1.8 if you needed a faster lens.

--
-- Travis

 

[joger]

the best lenses for a 5D III are the same as for any other FF Canon ;-)

funny question!!

Dependent on what you do - I would regard a non AF as the best indoor lens (=architecture) - it's the TS- E 17

just my 2 ct

--

isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top

ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'

“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein

 

[Steve Balcombe]

I have been going back and forth for months now about buying the 5d3 with the 24-105 kit lens. My only worry is that it will be slow at F/4.

[snip]

To clarify, I don't intend to take pictures of groups of people indoors, it will either be portraits and head shots or just full length body shots.

I think this is pretty simple actually. The 24-105L isn't a top-drawer lens but it is extremely good and covers a very wide range of uses in one lens. For indoor use that isn't of fast-moving subjects, image stabilisation is actually more useful than a large aperture. This is because you can't use the large aperture in situations where you need depth of field. In practice f/4 is a very usable aperture especially on full frame.

Then for your more tightly-framed portraits, get yourself the bargain priced 85/1.8. It's a bit harder to use due to no IS, but worth the effort.

 

[meland]

PhotoGuy123 wrote:

24-105 "sounds" really ideal, but I'm just very scared that I will realize I have wasted 900 bucks on an unusable lens when F/4 will be too slow.

The 24-105 is such a useful lens for many different subjects that I really doubt you will waste your money on it, nor other than in exceptional circumstances are you likely to find it too slow. But after having used it for a while, should you then feel the need for a faster aperture lens, you will then know what focal length you favour from your experience with the 24-105 and then you can perhaps start looking at the various primes within the range 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm or 100mm. I like the 85/1.8 for my preferred head and shoulders portraits but you may have something different in mind.

 

[treepop]

surprised nobody has suggested the Tamron 24-70, the Canon 35L, or the Canon 50 1.4 (or 1.2 if you've got money to burn). All 3 of these lenses would be better for low light than the 24-105. You would of course lose functionality by going prime and you would lose 35mm on the long end if you got the Tamron. But these are well worth it for what you get in return (IMHO).
--
never stop learning

 

[PhotoGuy123]

If F4 in 24-105 in FF same as F2.0 in my 60D crop, then there is no problem. But I might be shooting moving people indoors, not always static. So when making the aperture comparison, don't assume I will be utilizing the IS much, I don't think I can go below 1/100-1/125.

PhotoGuy123 wrote:

24-105 "sounds" really ideal, but I'm just very scared that I will realize I have wasted 900 bucks on an unusable lens when F/4 will be too slow.

The 24-105 is such a useful lens for many different subjects that I really doubt you will waste your money on it, nor other than in exceptional circumstances are you likely to find it too slow. But after having used it for a while, should you then feel the need for a faster aperture lens, you will then know what focal length you favour from your experience with the 24-105 and then you can perhaps start looking at the various primes within the range 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm or 100mm. I like the 85/1.8 for my preferred head and shoulders portraits but you may have something different in mind.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

If F4 in 24-105 in FF same as F2.0 in my 60D crop, then there is no problem. But I might be shooting moving people indoors, not always static. So when making the aperture comparison, don't assume I will be utilizing the IS much, I don't think I can go below 1/100-1/125.

If we're going to give you the best advice on this, I think you'll need to tell us what you mean by 'moving people'. You've already said not sports, but the problem is that going all out for aperture by buying a prime could be out of the frying pan into the fire - if people are moving around then keeping them within the depth of field at very large apertures is not always easy. So - 'moving people'?

 

[DerStig]

Very similar to my use case. You will probably want 24-70.

If F4 in 24-105 in FF same as F2.0 in my 60D crop, then there is no problem. But I might be shooting moving people indoors, not always static. So when making the aperture comparison, don't assume I will be utilizing the IS much, I don't think I can go below 1/100-1/125.

If we're going to give you the best advice on this, I think you'll need to tell us what you mean by 'moving people'. You've already said not sports, but the problem is that going all out for aperture by buying a prime could be out of the frying pan into the fire - if people are moving around then keeping them within the depth of field at very large apertures is not always easy. So - 'moving people'?

 

[PhotoGuy123]

I shoot a lot of parties, cocktails, and kids birthday parties. Most of the time I shoot silently without people knowing. I like natural shots as well. I don't like using flash as it disturbs people.

If F4 in 24-105 in FF same as F2.0 in my 60D crop, then there is no problem. But I might be shooting moving people indoors, not always static. So when making the aperture comparison, don't assume I will be utilizing the IS much, I don't think I can go below 1/100-1/125.

If we're going to give you the best advice on this, I think you'll need to tell us what you mean by 'moving people'. You've already said not sports, but the problem is that going all out for aperture by buying a prime could be out of the frying pan into the fire - if people are moving around then keeping them within the depth of field at very large apertures is not always easy. So - 'moving people'?

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Ok. The easiest way is to use f/4 or even f/5.6 and gain some shutter speed by using a higher ISO speed. With a 5DIII you will get superb results at ISO 1000+. Others will be able to give you more specific advice on just how high to go, but for lively kids' party shots a bit of noise is a complete non-issue. For those candid shots shots at a cocktail party, zoomed right in from the other side of the room, IS can be very useful, though here I must admit f/2.8 would be nice to have. The only way to get both is with the new Tamron 24-70 VC.

Just to get a handle on this depth of field thing, if you take as an example 105 mm, f/4, and a subject distance of 12 feet, the calculated depth of field is slightly less than a foot. At 70 mm f/2.8 you'd have to move in to 8 feet to get the same framing and now your DoF is about 8 inches. It really is an issue. If you want a lot of keepers at a kids' party f/8 is not unreasonable.

By the way the "full frame advantage" you refer to below isn't two full stops, it's 1 1/3 stops roughly. There's a generation advantage with the 5DIII as well, but I've seen enough arguments about how much that is to know that I want to keep out of it!

Do remember though that if you use all this "advantage", what you end up with is a shot you could have very nearly got with the 60D and 17-55/2.8...

I shoot a lot of parties, cocktails, and kids birthday parties. Most of the time I shoot silently without people knowing. I like natural shots as well. I don't like using flash as it disturbs people.

If F4 in 24-105 in FF same as F2.0 in my 60D crop, then there is no problem. But I might be shooting moving people indoors, not always static. So when making the aperture comparison, don't assume I will be utilizing the IS much, I don't think I can go below 1/100-1/125.

If we're going to give you the best advice on this, I think you'll need to tell us what you mean by 'moving people'. You've already said not sports, but the problem is that going all out for aperture by buying a prime could be out of the frying pan into the fire - if people are moving around then keeping them within the depth of field at very large apertures is not always easy. So - 'moving people'?

 

[PhotoGuy123]

So F4 in full frame is same as F2.5 in crop (all things being equal)?

That's not bad at all. My main reason for FF isn't IQ, its AF. Although IQ is one of the reasons.

I wish I could find a decent 24-70.

Ok. The easiest way is to use f/4 or even f/5.6 and gain some shutter speed by using a higher ISO speed. With a 5DIII you will get superb results at ISO 1000+. Others will be able to give you more specific advice on just how high to go, but for lively kids' party shots a bit of noise is a complete non-issue. For those candid shots shots at a cocktail party, zoomed right in from the other side of the room, IS can be very useful, though here I must admit f/2.8 would be nice to have. The only way to get both is with the new Tamron 24-70 VC.

Just to get a handle on this depth of field thing, if you take as an example 105 mm, f/4, and a subject distance of 12 feet, the calculated depth of field is slightly less than a foot. At 70 mm f/2.8 you'd have to move in to 8 feet to get the same framing and now your DoF is about 8 inches. It really is an issue. If you want a lot of keepers at a kids' party f/8 is not unreasonable.

By the way the "full frame advantage" you refer to below isn't two full stops, it's 1 1/3 stops roughly. There's a generation advantage with the 5DIII as well, but I've seen enough arguments about how much that is to know that I want to keep out of it!

Do remember though that if you use all this "advantage", what you end up with is a shot you could have very nearly got with the 60D and 17-55/2.8...

I shoot a lot of parties, cocktails, and kids birthday parties. Most of the time I shoot silently without people knowing. I like natural shots as well. I don't like using flash as it disturbs people.

If F4 in 24-105 in FF same as F2.0 in my 60D crop, then there is no problem. But I might be shooting moving people indoors, not always static. So when making the aperture comparison, don't assume I will be utilizing the IS much, I don't think I can go below 1/100-1/125.

If we're going to give you the best advice on this, I think you'll need to tell us what you mean by 'moving people'. You've already said not sports, but the problem is that going all out for aperture by buying a prime could be out of the frying pan into the fire - if people are moving around then keeping them within the depth of field at very large apertures is not always easy. So - 'moving people'?

 

[Steve Balcombe]

So F4 in full frame is same as F2.5 in crop (all things being equal)?

It's "equivalent", yes. If you use the equivalent focal length and the equivalent aperture you can get the same depth of field and background blur. You can also use 1 1/3 stops higher ISO speed to maintain your shutter speed, with no noise penalty.

But as I said before, doing all this kind of defeats the object of switching to full frame.

That's not bad at all. My main reason for FF isn't IQ, its AF.

Full frame doesn't have inherently better AF - the 7D's is better than the 5D2's for example and they are near enough the same generation. It's true that the 5DIII has outstanding autofocus, but you also lose some of the benefit by switching from an f/2.8 lens to an f/4 lens. Here you would have to go for the 24-70 or a prime.

It's a reasonable bet that the 7D replacement will get something similar to the 5D/1DX AF sensor, in performance if not in number of AF points. Maybe that would be a better move for you?

 

[PhotoGuy123]

5d3 has far better AF than 7D. In addition, I'd like to start getting big prints as well which is something I cannot do right now.

My point was, F2.8 right now is decent enough for me in crop. I need to deal with noise around 1600 iso, but its not bad. If I can do the same with 24-105 and 5d3, then thats great.

So F4 in full frame is same as F2.5 in crop (all things being equal)?

It's "equivalent", yes. If you use the equivalent focal length and the equivalent aperture you can get the same depth of field and background blur. You can also use 1 1/3 stops higher ISO speed to maintain your shutter speed, with no noise penalty.

But as I said before, doing all this kind of defeats the object of switching to full frame.

That's not bad at all. My main reason for FF isn't IQ, its AF.

Full frame doesn't have inherently better AF - the 7D's is better than the 5D2's for example and they are near enough the same generation. It's true that the 5DIII has outstanding autofocus, but you also lose some of the benefit by switching from an f/2.8 lens to an f/4 lens. Here you would have to go for the 24-70 or a prime.

It's a reasonable bet that the 7D replacement will get something similar to the 5D/1DX AF sensor, in performance if not in number of AF points. Maybe that would be a better move for you?