Best Indoor Lens for 5d Mark III

[Steve Balcombe]

Yes, but not because it's full frame. It's because it's a generation newer and has been given a high-end AF system. (And so it should at that price!)

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.

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.

 

[zlatko]

For the situation you describe ("inside our house" ... "a few feet of room"), the best indoor lens is the 35/1.4L. Close second choices would be the 50/1.2L and the 50/1.4. A little further down the list would be the 28/1.8 and the new 28/2.8IS. The 24-105 is a fine lens, but would rank low on my list of "indoor" lenses. Of course, it all depends on what you're photographing. That's why the comment above about the 17mm lens makes a good point ...

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.

http://www.zlatkobatistich.com

 

[PhotoGuy123]

35mm in FF is 21mm in crop. That is way too wide for me, as I said, I don't like staged shots (having 4-5 people smiling to the camera would be a good use case for a wide lens), instead I'd like to zoom in on my subjects and go for a natural portraits. To do that with a 35mm lens, I'd have to get pretty close to them.

I think I am just going to get the 5d mark 3 bundle in adorama that comes with 24-105 AND 50mm F1.4. I'll use the 50mm for indoor shots that require lots of light (which will probably be 10-15%), and use the 24-105 for the rest. Once the 24-70 II comes out and the first production batch is fully out in 6 months, I'll sell those two lenses and get the nice legendary 24-70 II.

For the situation you describe ("inside our house" ... "a few feet of room"), the best indoor lens is the 35/1.4L. Close second choices would be the 50/1.2L and the 50/1.4. A little further down the list would be the 28/1.8 and the new 28/2.8IS. The 24-105 is a fine lens, but would rank low on my list of "indoor" lenses. Of course, it all depends on what you're photographing. That's why the comment above about the 17mm lens makes a good point ...

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.

http://www.zlatkobatistich.com

 

[Peter 13]

Actually, it is. On FF, AF errors are less visible due to the different enlargement factor. My 5D2 (not 5D3) focuses much better than my supposedly better 50D in terms of AF. Not even close.

Yes, but not because it's full frame. It's because it's a generation newer and has been given a high-end AF system. (And so it should at that price!)

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.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

No it isn't Peter. You're confusing sharpness with focusing accuracy. Quite different things.

Actually, it is. On FF, AF errors are less visible due to the different enlargement factor. My 5D2 (not 5D3) focuses much better than my supposedly better 50D in terms of AF. Not even close.

Yes, but not because it's full frame. It's because it's a generation newer and has been given a high-end AF system. (And so it should at that price!)

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.

 

[mmullen]

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

funny question!!

While I generally dislike the the application of the word "best" to any general situation (such as 'indoor'), I did not find it odd that the OP specified which camera the lens was to be used on.

Most importantly, by specifying '5D III' the OP made clear it was FF. But secondly, the pixel density has a very significant effect upon the resulting performance of the lens.

For example, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is a brilliant lens on a 5D, but significant short comings are exposed when the lens is used at 200mm wide open on a 5D III.

Posters seeking advice will do well for themselves when they provide as many details as possible about the intended application.

--
Mike Mullen

 

[Peter 13]

No, I am not. Read what I wrote again. The same physical AF system would provide AF errors as a certain fraction of the f/2.8 DOF (with the most sensitive AF points). Well, on crop, that is f/4.5 eq. DOF. If you have, say, 1/3 DOF accuracy at f/4.5 vs. 1/3 DOF at f/2.8, you have a much worse focusing system.

No it isn't Peter. You're confusing sharpness with focusing accuracy. Quite different things.

Actually, it is. On FF, AF errors are less visible due to the different enlargement factor. My 5D2 (not 5D3) focuses much better than my supposedly better 50D in terms of AF. Not even close.

Yes, but not because it's full frame. It's because it's a generation newer and has been given a high-end AF system. (And so it should at that price!)

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.

 

[Collett]

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.

If you are looking for a one lens solution, its hard to beat the 24-70F2.8. I have v1, and it is no slouch! The increased cost is not worth the upgrade to a vII for myself, but only you can decide if it is worth the cost & wait. I must admit I would be looking at the vII over the vI if I did not own vI.

I would also be looking at the 35L and 50L for the needs you mention. Not as versatile as the zoom, but that 2 stops advantage will give you much more DOF control and low light usability over a F2.8 zoom. I own the 50L personally, and it ranks #1 for my most used lens. It seems people either love or hate this lens, and I just don't get the hate. It is sharp at F1.4 (see below), focuses very well & fast even on the 5dII and in low light using the center point (that is the advantage you will have w/ the 5dIII), very very nice contrast, saturation, better flare control than other lenses, and a bokeh and background rendering that sets it apart from other L lenses. It is not a great bargain, but in my case with it on my 5dII about 80% of the time, it has turned out to be a bargain. I believe that paying big bucks for incremental improvements in a lens does make sense when one gets a lot of use out of that lens. Not so if it just sits on the shelf.
Here is a shot w/ the 50L on the 5dII at F1.4.





--
Jim

 

[Kent Christian]

Just my opinion I have the 24-104 that I purchased with the 5d mark iii , but I do not use it at all

I love the Canon 24-70 for indoor shots. The new 40mm is also a fun indoor lens

Kent

 

[DerStig]

Well unfortunately they don't make 24-70 anymore and I sure as won't pay 1.5k for a 5 year old lens (that was actually the best used 24-70 I found, not a joke).

I got my camera with the kit lens 2 days ago. I also grabbed a Sigma 50mm F1.4 for indoor shots. The kit lens with the prime works great really. In fact, I'm so surprised the ISO performance of this camera that with the kit lens + ISO 8000, I'm getting amazing shots. The only reason why I'm using the prime is for the bokeh, not really for the low light performance. God knows how much of an improvement the V2 24-70 will be with its F2.8 aperture.

Just my opinion I have the 24-104 that I purchased with the 5d mark iii , but I do not use it at all

I love the Canon 24-70 for indoor shots. The new 40mm is also a fun indoor lens

Kent

 

[MirekE]

Best Indoor Lens for 5d Mark III

I think this is very subjective choice. My favorite #1 for low light indoor shooting with DSLR is Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 and #2 Canon EF 35/1.4.

The focal length is neither too wide nor too narrow, in really bad light I can shoot at approx. 1/30 sec and although not very small, the size is less conspicuous than fast zooms.

Stopped down both lenses are also great for landscape.

 

[itsDing]

35mm on FF is 56mm on a 1.6 crop camera

 

[Skip M]

We just bought the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC and are extremely pleased with it. Sharpness seems to be on a par with my Canon 24-70 v1, focus just a tad slower, a litlle cooler colors. Sucker's BIG, though, 82mm filter size. Weight seems to be between my 24-70 and the 24-105 f4 that my wife got rid of to get this lens.
Caveat: We're shooting with the 5D, not the 5D3.
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
http://skipmiddletonglamourshooter.blogspot.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart

 

[MirekE]

35mm on FF is 56mm on a 1.6 crop camera

To clarify: 35mm on a FF camera.