5D on the way! What lenses to get?

[996GT2]

After several weeks of searching, I finally found a mint 5D (~10k clicks) with BG-E4 grip for under $1000! The camera should be here in a week or so, and I'm currently looking at glass options.

When I sold my 40D, I sold all of my APS-C glass. Right now, the only lens I have is a 70-200mm f/4L. I'm looking to get a 50mm f/1.8 and an ultrawide like the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 to complete the package. Does anyone have suggestions for a nice, reasonably priced full-frame UWA? I guess I could spend $600 and get a 17-40L, but if the Tamron is nearly as good for half the price then I will probably go for that instead (especially since it is a stop faster at the wide end).

 

[angry hampster]

The 17-35 on the 5D is only *acceptable* corners are very soft and light fall-off is very noticeable. The 17-40 is worlds better in my personal experience, though I have used the 17-35 tamron for 2 weddings now and it's been fine..just have to use it within its limitiations.

Also, the 24-70 is *perfect* for the 5D+BGE4 combo. That's what I'm using 95% of the time I'm shooting.

 

[randomlinh]

welcome =) I have to sell off most of my crop stuff too still, just been sitting on it. Can you even buy the 17-35? I was going to look into it, but it seems discontinued, and I rarely see it for sale.

I'm about to by a 17-40L myself as soon as I get my old gear sold. But I love my sig 50 on the 5D, part of how I justified getting a 5D =) But I'm almost feeling there aren't many, and that crop seemingly had more choices.

16-35: not in my budget
Sig 12-24: possible, a bit bleh in the corners, slower, but also way out to 12
17-40: good balance, and can slap it on my 40D when in a bind

 

[angry hampster]

There is also the Sigma 15-30.

 

[996GT2]

The 17-35 on the 5D is only *acceptable* corners are very soft and light fall-off is very noticeable. The 17-40 is worlds better in my personal experience, though I have used the 17-35 tamron for 2 weddings now and it's been fine..just have to use it within its limitiations.

Also, the 24-70 is *perfect* for the 5D+BGE4 combo. That's what I'm using 95% of the time I'm shooting.

Thanks for the info. From the reviews I've read, the Tamron is pretty sharp corner to corner on a 5D once stoped down. For landscape use, I would most often use the lens at f/5.6-f/11...does it sharpen up in the corners at these apertures?

There is also the Sigma 15-30.

Most sources on the internet say that this lens is even less sharp than the Tamron. Sigma makes a 17-35mm f/2.8-4, but it's supposedly pretty horrendous. The only decent Sigma UWA zoom for full-frame seems to be the 12-24.

welcome =) I have to sell off most of my crop stuff too still, just been sitting on it. Can you even buy the 17-35? I was going to look into it, but it seems discontinued, and I rarely see it for sale.

I'm about to by a 17-40L myself as soon as I get my old gear sold. But I love my sig 50 on the 5D, part of how I justified getting a 5D =) But I'm almost feeling there aren't many, and that crop seemingly had more choices.

16-35: not in my budget
Sig 12-24: possible, a bit bleh in the corners, slower, but also way out to 12
17-40: good balance, and can slap it on my 40D when in a bind

You can find the 17-35 on eBay from time to time for around $300. There aren't that many decent UWA zoom options for full-frame. The only options I've seen so far are the Tamron 17-35 and Canon 20-35. Beyond the price range of those two, the 17-40L seems to be the next step up. I've been interested in the Sigma 12-24 as well, but the lack of corner sharpness and inability to use most filters are definitely negatives.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I saw you take that one on POTN. That was a damn good deal. Way to be first to snag it.

I have a 5D, you can see my lenses in my sig. I am happy with all of them. One thing that you might not have thought about yet: with a 24-70 or 24-105, you're getting almost into the UWA range with your normal zoom. I find 24mm to be quite a bit more dramatic than 28mm (which is what you'd get with a 17-55 on a crop). It is wide enough that I often find I don't have to switch to my 17-40 at all. So you might consider a 24-xx lens before picking up an UWA. I just love the versatility and IS of my 24-105. I can do stuff like 1/6 or sometimes 1/4 second at 24mm (handheld) and get good results.

 

[Madwand1]

A 17-40 f/4 L was the most-used lens on a crop camera for me. With a FF, it usually stays at home while I carry a 24-105. UWA is critical for crop, but on a FF, 24 is pretty wide, and the middle range is more important to have than UW, for most uses.

This is not to say that a UWA lens is not useful. It is, but it's not as critical as on a crop, and it's hard to find a good one which is affordable, esp. on a FF.

On that, consider the Tokina 11-16. Even though the zoom range is limited on a FF due to vignetting, with it you could get a FOV which is wider than on a crop.

 

[randomlinh]

A 17-40 f/4 L was the most-used lens on a crop camera for me. With a FF, it usually stays at home while I carry a 24-105. UWA is critical for crop, but on a FF, 24 is pretty wide, and the middle range is more important to have than UW, for most uses.

This is not to say that a UWA lens is not useful. It is, but it's not as critical as on a crop, and it's hard to find a good one which is affordable, esp. on a FF.

On that, consider the Tokina 11-16. Even though the zoom range is limited on a FF due to vignetting, with it you could get a FOV which is wider than on a crop.

heh, actually, I thought about the tokina as well. From what I've read, seems to be ~15-16mm prime basically. But to be honest, I'm not sure I will use it that wide much. I'd have a huge gap between 16 and 50, heh. And since I don't go below 50 too much, I have fallen on the 17-40.

 

[996GT2]

How about the various 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 UWA zooms out there? I've seen Tokina, Tamron, Cosina, Vivitar, Quantaray, etc. From what I read, they are all based on the same design and the optical performance is quite decent (especially considering the ~$100-150 price). With the money I save over buying a 17-40L, I could fund a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 to round out the package and have the 19-200mm range covered on FF.

 

[firewolfsm]

That Tamron lens is great, I use it for concert coverage, 2.8 is a bit small but it's still sharp.

 

[jpeyton]

XXmm f/1.4

 

[Koing]

Nice.

I'm going to sell my 5D with the grip, spare battery and the 24-105L lense...it gets no use!

Koing

 

[GTaudiophile]

When I got my 5DII I decided to rent some lenses locally for a day or two and then bought the ones I wanted.

I sold my 20D, EFS 10-22, EFS 17-55, and EF 70-200 F4L IS.

My new combo is...

5DII, 16-35LII, 24-105L, 85/1.8.

Some day I will add a 135L or 200 2.8L to the mix as well as keep other primes under consideration, mainly the 35L and 50/1.4.

The 24-70L vs. 24-105L is the biggest debate amongst FF shooters.

The 24-70L gives you F2.8 and less distortion at 24mm.

The 24-105 is lighter, gives you more reach, and is arguably sharper in the center with also arguably better focus accuracy.

I went with the 24-105 mainly because of its reach, versatility, and weight.

The 24-70L, also known as the "brick," is a heavy beast.


Edit: 24mm is still not wide enough on FF for some of the work I do, so I always knew I would need an UWA. At first I bought the 17-40L but corner sharpness on the copy I received was abysmal! I then rented the 16-35L and loved it and ended up buying one.

 

[bigi]

Zooms are dark and just OK.

I'd go with Sigma 50mm f/1.4 + Sigma 150mm Macro f/2.8

 

[corkyg]

Over the past 3 years, the lens I use most with my 5D is the 24-105 L that is its kit lens. Next is my 70-300 DO IS, and my 50mm prime. With FF, the 24 gives about the same coverage as a 16 on a 40D cropper.

 

[Maximus96]

welcome to the club!