Recommend some lenses for 5D Classic?

Looking to play around with this camera and try some new things but not spend too much on lenses.

I have only 40mm f/2.8 right now. Anyone have any recommendations on a budget?

I'm interested in 16-35 f/2.8 or similar (17-35/17-40/20-35?), maybe 80-200 f/2.8? Which is best value?

Also considering 24-105 f/4 and 200mm f/2.8 prime?

I might buy a late model film body if I get along with it so consideration for that as well. Not really trying to collect a lot of primes or anything manual focus, I have too much of that with my Fujifilm gear. I'll likely only use this for fun/casual shots in decent light.

Will 5d classic play with Tamron 150-600G2 btw?

I don't know the EF lens catalogue very well so just thought I'd ask for suggestions.

Depends on what photos you want to take.  I suggest initially a 24-105 f4, which has a good range, followed by a 16-35 f4 for wide angle, then perhaps a 70-200 f4 for moderate telephoto

Perhaps you could be a little more specific about what you mean regarding budget. A EF 16-35L f2.8 doesn't strike me as being a "budget" lens. Most of the lenses you mention are L series (and f2.8 at that), which are generally not the immediate go-to for budget lenses.

You could also perhaps provide some detail about what the use case is - might provide more insight into focal lengths and lens speeds.

Andy01 wrote:

Perhaps you could be a little more specific about what you mean regarding budget. A EF 16-35L f2.8 doesn't strike me as being a "budget" lens. Most of the lenses you mention are L series (and f2.8 at that), which are generally not the immediate go-to for budget lenses.

You could also perhaps provide some detail about what the use case is - might provide more insight into focal lengths and lens speeds.

You're right, I should have been more specific.

I'm not considering the late model/current L lenses but older used versions. I think I have answered some my own question in reading more reviews. I would like to try wide & telephoto 2.8 zooms because I haven't used them before. Willing to opt for 3rd party stuff if the build quality is decent. I'm just interested to play around and see what the technology and photo quality/experience was like from this era because I never experienced any high end gear until much later in my life (~2015.)

I'm thinking 20-35 and 80-200 are too dated. 17-35 or 16-35 v1 and 70-200 v1 will be my target. I'm comfortable to spend a little on a 70-200 as I'm interested in adapting it onto other cameras. Otherwise not interested in spending more than $300-500USD each used for a wide and standard zoom. I'm not sure if there are good 3rd party options in that price range. I don't really want to go f/4 on the wide zoom because I'm interested to see if I can replace a 35mm prime with the wide zoom and I know at f/4 I won't be satisfied in that regard.

Are any of the old Tamron/Sigma alternatives to Canon 24-70 f/2.8 & 24-105 f/4 decent? I know there is also Canon 28-70 f/2.8 but it seems a little pricey given the age. I'm open to variable aperture on a standard zoom but there are so many, 24-85, 28-135, etc. I don't know what is good or not. Everything from the (5d/6d) digital era seems to have had the 24-105 bundled. Is there a modern standard zoom with build comparable to 40mm f/2.8?

7rvar wrote:

Andy01 wrote:

Perhaps you could be a little more specific about what you mean regarding budget. A EF 16-35L f2.8 doesn't strike me as being a "budget" lens. Most of the lenses you mention are L series (and f2.8 at that), which are generally not the immediate go-to for budget lenses.

You could also perhaps provide some detail about what the use case is - might provide more insight into focal lengths and lens speeds.

17-35 or 16-35 v1 and 70-200 v1 will be my target. I'm comfortable to spend a little on a 70-200 as I'm interested in adapting it onto other cameras.

OK - the 70-200 mark 1 will work nicely on the 5D classic - it is not as sharp as the mark 2 at f/2.8 but fine at 13MP full frame,

The 17-35, 16-35 mark 1 etc will have notably soft corners.  The 17-40 is probably a better option used - if you stop down to at least f/9.

Do you need vaguely sharp out of frame areas at f/2.8 at wide angle?

The best option would be a 2nd hand 16-35 f/4 IS - that's sharp wide open across the frame.

Otherwise not interested in spending more than $300-500USD each used for a wide and standard zoom. I'm not sure if there are good 3rd party options in that price range. I don't really want to go f/4 on the wide zoom because I'm interested to see if I can replace a 35mm prime with the wide zoom and I know at f/4 I won't be satisfied in that regard.

Are any of the old Tamron/Sigma alternatives to Canon 24-70 f/2.8 & 24-105 f/4 decent?

If you can buy with a good return policy, the tamron 24-70 VC could be good - but reports and reviews vary - sharpness and AF.

I know there is also Canon 28-70 f/2.8 but it seems a little pricey given the age. I'm open to variable aperture on a standard zoom but there are so many, 24-85, 28-135, etc. I don't know what is good or not.

24-85 is old and not very good at the long end.   Good in its time on film when not enlarging too much.

7rvar wrote:

Andy01 wrote:

Perhaps you could be a little more specific about what you mean regarding budget. A EF 16-35L f2.8 doesn't strike me as being a "budget" lens. Most of the lenses you mention are L series (and f2.8 at that), which are generally not the immediate go-to for budget lenses.

You could also perhaps provide some detail about what the use case is - might provide more insight into focal lengths and lens speeds.

You're right, I should have been more specific.

I'm not considering the late model/current L lenses but older used versions. I think I have answered some my own question in reading more reviews. I would like to try wide & telephoto 2.8 zooms because I haven't used them before. Willing to opt for 3rd party stuff if the build quality is decent. I'm just interested to play around and see what the technology and photo quality/experience was like from this era because I never experienced any high end gear until much later in my life (~2015.)

I'm thinking 20-35 and 80-200 are too dated. 17-35 or 16-35 v1 and 70-200 v1 will be my target. I'm comfortable to spend a little on a 70-200 as I'm interested in adapting it onto other cameras. Otherwise not interested in spending more than $300-500USD each used for a wide and standard zoom. I'm not sure if there are good 3rd party options in that price range. I don't really want to go f/4 on the wide zoom because I'm interested to see if I can replace a 35mm prime with the wide zoom and I know at f/4 I won't be satisfied in that regard.

Are any of the old Tamron/Sigma alternatives to Canon 24-70 f/2.8 & 24-105 f/4 decent? I know there is also Canon 28-70 f/2.8 but it seems a little pricey given the age. I'm open to variable aperture on a standard zoom but there are so many, 24-85, 28-135, etc. I don't know what is good or not. Everything from the (5d/6d) digital era seems to have had the 24-105 bundled. Is there a modern standard zoom with build comparable to 40mm f/2.8?

Myself, on a 6D, happy w. 28mm F/2.8 IS, 35mm F/2 IS, 50mm F/1.4, 100mm F/2, 135mm F/2 primes... also have a zoom 24-105 F/4 IS Mk ii

28mm F/2.8 IS: This lens is very very small, has IS and fewer distortions than a 24-70 or 24-105 zoom. Not very popular because of its limited aperture for a prime, therefore can be found for less than its "official used price"

35mm F/2 IS: Well known and recommended, nothing more to add, yes, it's good

50mm F/1.4: This lens is underrated but is very sharp indeed when closed down, very light and small, and yes, it is better than the "Nifty Fifty" 50mm F/1.8. I got a few unique pictures with artistic looks at night at F/1.4 which were impossible to shoot at F/1.8

100mm F/2: A "mini" cheaper and much smaller 135mm f2, also very sharp, nice bokeh but not "superlative" as the 135mm. Also will not take extenders as not an L lens. But good value, very small, nicely built and sharp

135mm F/2: The one lens providing really "magic" out of my 6D... a very very creamy bokeh and a "spot on" level of sharpness and contrast for portraits, skin rendering.

Important to note that the 135mm F2 is one of these lenses that can accommodate a 2x extender ... and still be .. SHARP!

And at the end only, my zoom..

EF 24-105 F/4 IS Mk ii: Bought 2nd hand, a little disappointed.. If compared to my primes, even an old design from the early 1990s, not even "L" lenses, not even IS.. as my 50mm F/1.4 or 100mm F/2.. provide nicer rendition
Also, it is BIG and HEAVY and IS has only 2 stops

The 2 ones I will keep:

50mm F/1.4: It has been my 1st lens on a digital SLR and I have dozens of thousands of pictures with this lens, so cannot sell it..

135mm F/2: The front glass, just looking at it.. it screams "I am a beautiful optic".. And yes, the combination of this very "dreamy and soft" bokeh with exactly the level of sharpness and contrast and colours you want for skin rendition makes this lens pretty unique I think for portraits.. Would be curious to see a comparions with the newer 135mm F/1.8 from Sigma and Sony. Probably slightly sharper, but do they provide such beautiful shots???

Hope it helps

Gaul

gaul wrote:

7rvar wrote:

Andy01 wrote:

Perhaps you could be a little more specific about what you mean regarding budget. A EF 16-35L f2.8 doesn't strike me as being a "budget" lens. Most of the lenses you mention are L series (and f2.8 at that), which are generally not the immediate go-to for budget lenses.

You could also perhaps provide some detail about what the use case is - might provide more insight into focal lengths and lens speeds.

You're right, I should have been more specific.

I'm not considering the late model/current L lenses but older used versions. I think I have answered some my own question in reading more reviews. I would like to try wide & telephoto 2.8 zooms because I haven't used them before. Willing to opt for 3rd party stuff if the build quality is decent. I'm just interested to play around and see what the technology and photo quality/experience was like from this era because I never experienced any high end gear until much later in my life (~2015.)

I'm thinking 20-35 and 80-200 are too dated. 17-35 or 16-35 v1 and 70-200 v1 will be my target. I'm comfortable to spend a little on a 70-200 as I'm interested in adapting it onto other cameras. Otherwise not interested in spending more than $300-500USD each used for a wide and standard zoom. I'm not sure if there are good 3rd party options in that price range. I don't really want to go f/4 on the wide zoom because I'm interested to see if I can replace a 35mm prime with the wide zoom and I know at f/4 I won't be satisfied in that regard.

Are any of the old Tamron/Sigma alternatives to Canon 24-70 f/2.8 & 24-105 f/4 decent? I know there is also Canon 28-70 f/2.8 but it seems a little pricey given the age. I'm open to variable aperture on a standard zoom but there are so many, 24-85, 28-135, etc. I don't know what is good or not. Everything from the (5d/6d) digital era seems to have had the 24-105 bundled. Is there a modern standard zoom with build comparable to 40mm f/2.8?

Myself, on a 6D, happy w. 28mm F/2.8 IS, 35mm F/2 IS, 50mm F/1.4, 100mm F/2, 135mm F/2 primes... also have a zoom 24-105 F/4 IS Mk ii

28mm F/2.8 IS: This lens is very very small, has IS and fewer distortions than a 24-70 or 24-105 zoom. Not very popular because of its limited aperture for a prime, therefore can be found for less than its "official used price"

35mm F/2 IS: Well known and recommended, nothing more to add, yes, it's good

50mm F/1.4: This lens is underrated but is very sharp indeed when closed down, very light and small, and yes, it is better than the "Nifty Fifty" 50mm F/1.8. I got a few unique pictures with artistic looks at night at F/1.4 which were impossible to shoot at F/1.8

100mm F/2: A "mini" cheaper and much smaller 135mm f2, also very sharp, nice bokeh but not "superlative" as the 135mm. Also will not take extenders as not an L lens. But good value, very small, nicely built and sharp

135mm F/2: The one lens providing really "magic" out of my 6D... a very very creamy bokeh and a "spot on" level of sharpness and contrast for portraits, skin rendering.

Important to note that the 135mm F2 is one of these lenses that can accommodate a 2x extender ... and still be .. SHARP!

And at the end only, my zoom..

EF 24-105 F/4 IS Mk ii: Bought 2nd hand, a little disappointed.. If compared to my primes, even an old design from the early 1990s, not even "L" lenses, not even IS.. as my 50mm F/1.4 or 100mm F/2.. provide nicer rendition
Also, it is BIG and HEAVY and IS has only 2 stops

The 2 ones I will keep:

50mm F/1.4: It has been my 1st lens on a digital SLR and I have dozens of thousands of pictures with this lens, so cannot sell it..

135mm F/2: The front glass, just looking at it.. it screams "I am a beautiful optic".. And yes, the combination of this very "dreamy and soft" bokeh with exactly the level of sharpness and contrast and colours you want for skin rendition makes this lens pretty unique I think for portraits.. Would be curious to see a comparions with the newer 135mm F/1.8 from Sigma and Sony. Probably slightly sharper, but do they provide such beautiful shots???

Hope it helps

Gaul

My experience is similar except with the EF 85mm f/1.8 rather than the EF 100mm.  That lens is on the camera a lot. I shot outdoor events in beautiful Fall weather here in the SE USA with this combo for the last two Saturdays.  On the first one, distances were longer than I anticipated and I wished I had the EF 135mm but the 85mm produced good images.

I also have the EF 28mm f/2.8 IS, which I have very good experience with. 
I had the EF 35mm f/2 IS for many years but recently sold it because it wasn’t getting used. And then I needed it a week later!  The 28mm was not a good substitute on that occasion because it was a low light event and I really needed the f/2.  And that is something to consider when planning to use a zoom as a “one size fits all needs” solution.  Sometimes a fast prime is what you really need.  
I took a trip to China a few years ago with the 5D, the 28mm and a 50mm f/1.8 stm. And I rarely used the 50mm.  But I might have used the 85mm had I had it with me. If I took that trip again (one day I hope) I would probably just add the 85mm. But these decisions are very personal. A lot of people want a long zoom for travel. For me, I can think of maybe three travel situations over 10-15 years where I wished I had a long zoom but I didn’t lose any sleep over it.

gaul wrote:

EF 24-105 F/4 IS Mk ii: Bought 2nd hand, a little disappointed.. If compared to my primes, even an old design from the early 1990s, not even "L" lenses, not even IS.. as my 50mm F/1.4 or 100mm F/2.. provide nicer rendition
Also, it is BIG and HEAVY and IS has only 2 stops

Sorry, this incorrect. The original EF 24-105L had 3 stops of IS and the EF 24-105L ii has 4 stops of IS (as per Canon's spec).

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=1072&LensComp=355

I have owned both and found that the IQ of the two lenses is pretty similar. The Mk ii has better IS, less flare, a better hood, a zoom lock (to prevent the creep that is common on the older Mk i lenses). But the Mk ii is also slightly larger, heavier and more costly.

Hope it helps

Gaul

I sold my original 5D 13 years ago, but back then I used the following lenses onit:

Canon 15mm f2.8 Fisheye - loved that lens. Very sharp and ideal if you want a diagonal fisheye

Canon 20-35 f2.8 L - my late film era uktrawide - was generally happy with it, but I dropped it...

Canon 17-40 f4 L - never very happy with it, but OK if well stopped down.

Sigma EX HSM 12-24 - as wide as it got at the time, not perfect, but generally I liked it better than the 17-40. I had bought this for APS-C, but it covers full frame. Still have it and still use it sometimes...

Canon 28-135 IS USM - not L level, but fairly reasonable

Canon 24-105 f4L - bought it soon after the 5D at launch of the lens.  A bit poor at 24mm wide open, and I had to have the aperture cable and IS unit replaced, but probably my most-used lens for a decade.

Sigma EX HSM 70-200 f2.8 - a little soft wide open, but close to the performance of the Canon equivalent after that.

Canon 28mm f2 8 - the first one. Horrible scratchy AF motor, but decent otherwise.

Canon 35mm f2 - the first one. Very small lens, pretty sharp stopped down a bit.

Canon 50mm f1.4 - quite an old-fashioned lens, soft wide open but pretty sharp from f2 or f2.2, and  I liked both attributes.

Canon 50mm f2 5 Compact Macro - Canon's sharpest EF 50, horrible lAF motor but fantastic lens.

Canon 85mm f1.8 - classic lens for a classic camera.

Canon 100mm f2.8 USM Macro - sharp, quiet, great prime option.

Canon 135mm f2.8 SF - everyone always praises the f2 L, and rightly so, but this lens is cheap and great, even if you never use the soft focus function

Canon 200mm f2 8L - mines the Mk I. Excellent lens.

Canon 300mm f4 L - the non-IS version, very sharp.

What would I recommend?

For ultrawide,  the latest lenses really are the greatest. The previous f2.8 L lenses all have their weaknesses and I wouldn't recommend any of them. The 16-35 f2.8 L IiII is magnificent,  but pricy. The 16-35 f4 L IS is the very best option. 17-40 f4 L probably the best budget option, but...

Standard zoom, the 24-105 is OK either version, the 24-70 f4 L a fair bit better.

Tele zoom, unless you really need f2.8, then a 70-200 f4 L - the non-IS is very cheap, the IS very decent.

Some of those old primes I mentioned can be very cheap, and are a lot of fun, but the 40mm you already have is sharp and tiny.

7rvar wrote:

Looking to play around with this camera and try some new things but not spend too much on lenses.

I have only 40mm f/2.8 right now. Anyone have any recommendations on a budget?

I'm interested in 16-35 f/2.8 or similar (17-35/17-40/20-35?), maybe 80-200 f/2.8? Which is best value?

Do own most of the mentioned lenses:

Let start with the 80-200 F2.8L aka magic drainpipe. a very nice old lens. build like a tank, It;s a full metal lens, heavy and not weather sealed. If you can find a decent copy you should get it. Has ARC drive, not as quick as a 70-200 F2.8L USM kens but still reasonable quick. Optical a nice and good lens. The newer 70-200 F2.8L Non IS version might be a bit better but not by much. The IS versions are a another step up optically.

the 17-40L is an okay lens but has some flaws (see the many reviews online) with some soft corners, but with a APS-C sensor the lens perform very nice.

The oldest is the 20-35 F2.8L - Not as wide, soft at the corners, stopping down to about 5.6 does give better results. It's also not a quiet little lens, the ARC drive focusing is noisy and not that fast. But still fun lens to play with (on digital and analog)

The 17-35 F2.8L came after the 20-35, still a bit soft at the corners wide open. and like the 20-35 no really close focusing, a bit wider, with USM a bit quicker with focusing. Don't like the standard sunhood,

F16-35 F2.8L (mk I) a step up compared to it's predecessors (20-35, 17-35) better in close fosusing, still a little bit soft at the wide end at F 2.8. Weather sealing. And quick with AF.

Also considering 24-105 f/4 and 200mm f/2.8 prime?

EF 24-105 F4L IS is a nice all round lens an other option could be a EF 24-70 F4L IS

The EF 200mm F2.8 Is a nice little tele lens, There are two version, optical the same but the mk I has a "build in" lenshood and the mk II has a plastic detachable lenshood.

I might buy a late model film body if I get along with it so consideration for that as well. Not really trying to collect a lot of primes or anything manual focus, I have too much of that with my Fujifilm gear. I'll likely only use this for fun/casual shots in decent light.

I do use the Eos 3 and 1V on a regular base and also own a few more.

Will 5d classic play with Tamron 150-600G2 btw?

Might work but also could be causing issues with older Eos bodies.

I own two Sigma C series telezooms and those do cause problems with older analog Eos bodies (IS/OS goes crazy and can't get a proper focus) But do work on the Eos 3 and 1V.

I don't know the EF lens catalogue very well so just thought I'd ask for suggestions.

There are a lot of lenses you could choose form even if you only go with Canon EF lenses. there are even a lot of non L series lenses that are very nice to use and are cheaper than the second hand older L series lenses.

Rock and Rollei wrote:

I sold my original 5D 13 years ago, but back then I used the following lenses onit:

Canon 15mm f2.8 Fisheye - loved that lens. Very sharp and ideal if you want a diagonal fisheye

Canon 20-35 f2.8 L - my late film era uktrawide - was generally happy with it, but I dropped it...

Canon 17-40 f4 L - never very happy with it, but OK if well stopped down.

Sigma EX HSM 12-24 - as wide as it got at the time, not perfect, but generally I liked it better than the 17-40. I had bought this for APS-C, but it covers full frame. Still have it and still use it sometimes...

Canon 28-135 IS USM - not L level, but fairly reasonable

Canon 24-105 f4L - bought it soon after the 5D at launch of the lens. A bit poor at 24mm wide open, and I had to have the aperture cable and IS unit replaced, but probably my most-used lens for a decade.

Sigma EX HSM 70-200 f2.8 - a little soft wide open, but close to the performance of the Canon equivalent after that.

Canon 28mm f2 8 - the first one. Horrible scratchy AF motor, but decent otherwise.

Canon 35mm f2 - the first one. Very small lens, pretty sharp stopped down a bit.

Canon 50mm f1.4 - quite an old-fashioned lens, soft wide open but pretty sharp from f2 or f2.2, and I liked both attributes.

Canon 50mm f2 5 Compact Macro - Canon's sharpest EF 50, horrible lAF motor but fantastic lens.

Canon 85mm f1.8 - classic lens for a classic camera.

Canon 100mm f2.8 USM Macro - sharp, quiet, great prime option.

Canon 135mm f2.8 SF - everyone always praises the f2 L, and rightly so, but this lens is cheap and great, even if you never use the soft focus function

Canon 200mm f2 8L - mines the Mk I. Excellent lens.

Canon 300mm f4 L - the non-IS version, very sharp.

What would I recommend?

For ultrawide, the latest lenses really are the greatest. The previous f2.8 L lenses all have their weaknesses and I wouldn't recommend any of them. The 16-35 f2.8 L IiII is magnificent, but pricy. The 16-35 f4 L IS is the very best option. 17-40 f4 L probably the best budget option, but...

Standard zoom, the 24-105 is OK either version, the 24-70 f4 L a fair bit better.

Tele zoom, unless you really need f2.8, then a 70-200 f4 L - the non-IS is very cheap, the IS very decent.

Some of those old primes I mentioned can be very cheap, and are a lot of fun, but the 40mm you already have is sharp and tiny.

Nice walkthrough of the EF lenses that were popular over the last decade and a half. Agree with your comments on the ones I have owned (24-70mm f/4, 85mm f/1.8) but disagree on the 100mm f/2.8 macro USM. I just bought one and I am waiting on a return authorization as we speak.  The latest L version seemed much better in my local store - but I only had it on the camera for a few minutes. The problems on the one I am returning could be sample variation or just an old lens with quality problems that developed over time.  Buying older equipment used can be a little time consuming and frustrating.