Opinions On Best 'Walk Around/General' Lens For Canon 5D mkII

Hi folks,

Apologies if this has been asked a few times before.

I'm looking to buy a Canon 5D mkII and I'm after opinions on the best lens to buy for general photography. I'll be taking scenic/architecture and general portrait images etc.

One that has been recommended and appears to get very good reviews, is the Canon 16-35mm f/4 EF L IS USM lens.

This could be a starting point but open to all opinions please.

Maybe spend anything up to £1000 for right lens on Canon or Canon fit if I like what I hear

Thanks very much in advance for your help

It's really hard to be definitive. A couple of questions...

• What's your first preference? Ultra wide, wide, standard, or short telephoto? What about your 2nd preference? 3rd?
• Is a fast aperture more useful to you than a zoom range? 

Really, the only person who can pick the right lens, is you. But with answers to certain questions, we may be able to help steer you in the right direction.

Thanks Jonathan and all others so far for your answers.

To answer your question Jonathan, I'm just looking for something with an 'average' focal range.  I'm not looking for a long telephoto and my main subject will be architecture and general buildings etc but with a smattering of landscape photography.  It may be a long time before I can afford a second lens (even if I ever do get one) so want one to suit the above needs.

With regards to the f/2.8 or f/4, I think most would take the latter if a lens were available that was affordable.  My other question I was going to ask elsewhere, was how is are the higher priced Canon f/4 lens in general to lower light, indoors but reasonably lit

Thanks again

HampshireIan wrote:

Hi folks,

Apologies if this has been asked a few times before.

I'm looking to buy a Canon 5D mkII and I'm after opinions on the best lens to buy for general photography. I'll be taking scenic/architecture and general portrait images etc.

One that has been recommended and appears to get very good reviews, is the Canon 16-35mm f/4 EF L IS USM lens.

The 16-35/4L IS is a superb lens, one of Canon's best - but way too wide for everyday use. However if your main interest is scenic (I assume you mean wide landscapes?) and architecture then it might still be a very good choice, provided you also have something for the normal/short tele range. You could pair it with the inexpensive but excellent 85/1.8 for example.

Otherwise pick one of the 24-70s or 24-105s.

Thank you Steve, I understand what you're saying about the 16-35 maybe being too wide.

The thing I cannot get out of my head, is the really excellent reviews for the above lens.

Are the 24-70 and 24-105 in the same league, image quality wise?

HampshireIan wrote:

Thanks Jonathan and all others so far for your answers.

To answer your question Jonathan, I'm just looking for something with an 'average' focal range. I'm not looking for a long telephoto and my main subject will be architecture and general buildings etc but with a smattering of landscape photography. It may be a long time before I can afford a second lens (even if I ever do get one) so want one to suit the above needs.

With that question, I was trying to determine if a high quality and somewhat lightweight prime lens would work for you. I, for instance, could probably do just fine with a 35mm prime because for me greater control over the depth of field is more useful than a range of focal lengths most of the time. Hence...

With regards to the f/2.8 or f/4, I think most would take the latter if a lens were available that was affordable. My other question I was going to ask elsewhere, was how is are the higher priced Canon f/4 lens in general to lower light, indoors but reasonably lit

Hence the question about apertures.  I was trying to determine if F 1.4 would have been useful to you vs a zoom lens with a constant F4 aperture. Three stops allows for a significant difference in light gathering and dof conttol. Obviously this can be negated with IS with stationary subjects but your original post mentioned portraits. Landscapes, or at least the components which can be affected by wind, aren't always motionless either.

Thanks again

If none of this (prime talk) sounds like the right solution for you and you would be better served by a zoom lens then I would recommend either the 16-35 f4L IS or the 24-70 F4L IS. The former obviously gives you access to a very wide angle of view while the latter gives you a longer focal length as well as near macro magnification which could end up being useful for your portraits.

Thank you very much Jonathan - i'm not sure I fancy a prime lens personally.

I have to say that i'm swaying towards a 24-70 at this stage with the extra zoom.

Your input is very much appreciated

HampshireIan wrote:

Hi folks,

Apologies if this has been asked a few times before.

I'm looking to buy a Canon 5D mkII and I'm after opinions on the best lens to buy for general photography. I'll be taking scenic/architecture and general portrait images etc.

One that has been recommended and appears to get very good reviews, is the Canon 16-35mm f/4 EF L IS USM lens.

This could be a starting point but open to all opinions please.

Maybe spend anything up to £1000 for right lens on Canon or Canon fit if I like what I hear

Thanks very much in advance for your help

you cannot purchase "THE BEST LENS" for walk around for 1000 pounds, as the tittle of your post indicates, but the best walk around lens i have had and i do have, has to be canon ef 24-70 f2.8 II! it is wide enough at the wide end and the reach is perfect for walk around in the city and most landscape situations, IMHO! that has been my experience. it is perfect for weddings and group shots, although not as efficient and wider for group photog as the new 16-35 f2.8 III, though. although some may prefer primes but i find primes too limited, unless you like running back and forth

Thanks very much for your input.  And indeed, you are right about the 'best' not being purchasable for up to £1000 but I suppose i'm just looking for the best I can get for my money.

Oh, how i'd love to be able to buy the 24-70 f/2.8L but just cannot stretch

HampshireIan wrote:

Hi folks,

Apologies if this has been asked a few times before.

I'm looking to buy a Canon 5D mkII and I'm after opinions on the best lens to buy for general photography. I'll be taking scenic/architecture and general portrait images etc.

One that has been recommended and appears to get very good reviews, is the Canon 16-35mm f/4 EF L IS USM lens.

This could be a starting point but open to all opinions please.

Maybe spend anything up to £1000 for right lens on Canon or Canon fit if I like what I hear

Thanks very much in advance for your help

Personally I am not a fan of the 24-105 lenses as there are too many compromises but I understand the appeal.  I do have the 24-105 STM and from what I've seen of other users of the two 'L' versions, the 24-105 STM is in the same league at a lower price and a lighter weight (albeit with no weather protection and possibly slightly slower AF).

Since you can get a refurbished one for $375 or brand new for $599 you would have cash left to buy a prime for special situations where you want ultimate image quality or depth of field control that exceeds the possibilities of most zooms.  The 35/2IS would be an excellent candidate or even the 50/1.8STM would be interesting.

I will also note that I own the 24-70/2.8LII and agree with other posters that it is an outstanding midrange zoom.  However, I don't get inspired by it.  It feels more like the tool for a professional who is using it for the job.  You are much less likely to miss a key shot at an event or session.  But also less likely to create a special image you might get with a prime.

HampshireIan wrote:

Thank you Steve, I understand what you're saying about the 16-35 maybe being too wide.

The thing I cannot get out of my head, is the really excellent reviews for the above lens.

Are the 24-70 and 24-105 in the same league, image quality wise?

The 24-70/4L IS doesn't wow me the way the 16-35 does, but it's sharp enough when stopped down a little. It's a good, well-built standard zoom. I've never had a 24-105 so I'll let others comment on that.

It doesn't really matter how good the 16-35 is, if it's the wrong focal range for you.

The lenses recommended in this thread for you are great advise.  My suggestion is purchase used and that will extent your dollars.

First getting a used mk 1, when a mk 2 is available will save you bucks, both are available in the 16 - 35, 24 - 70, and 24 - 105.  When purchasing, you look on the ring of the lens and around it is writing, there is where you will see what version the lens is.  By the way, with version 1 (mk 1),  there will be no writing saying what version it is, Canon is a little kinky that way.  But all version 2 and higher (mk 2, etc higher) will be marked.  All the above lenses are very good in their original one version.

Primes: you might develop an appreciation of primes for night photography.  I own two 5D versions (2 and 4) but when on vacation I grabbed an earlier Rebel series camera and use my 35 - 135 lens and my 35 prime f 2; the f 2 allows me to grab some great hand held shots of cities at night. My 35 - 135 will be replaced by my new 24 - 105 f4 mk 2 lens, after shooting with the 35 - 135 for 22 years.  It is a great underrated lens for travel.

I have bought several photography items used, including my 5D mk 2, studio lights, and lenses.  Most people under utilize their gear then sell it, never purchase used gear from a pro, usually their product has been beaten to death.  Pro's don't worship their equipment like amateurs do and it is usually reflected in the dings and scratches you'll see on the body of their cameras and lenses.