Canon Full Frame Lens help

[Sp12]

So, I'm getting (as a gift) an old full frame Canon Mark camera sometime around late November, and am looking to get a few (or maybe one just one) lens for it.

I have a 500$ soft budget for the lenses, but am willing to go up to ~650 if there's good reason for it. I'm willing to shop Ebay/craigslist.

I do just about every type of photography, but especially like travel photography (would like a decent walk-around lens with some zoom, but I have a P&S megazoom if that's hard to get). I do some macro/portraits as well as some architecture/landscape. I've been recommended to get a solid 50mm prime lens with most of my budget, but I'm interested in hearing some other opinions.

So, here's a listing of the lenses I'm considering.

Modded Canon 35-80mm f/4-5.6 (http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2051391) ~50$

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II (Nifty fifty) ~100$ (I'm not really sure on this one, but for the price it seems OK)

EF 135 w/ Softfocus ~125 used (Portrait as well as general use)

And then I'm wanting a wider-angle lens for landscapes/architecture or a telephoto of some sort for travel/nature. However, I'm finding that most of the lenses in my price range are EF-S, and therefore unsuitable for a full-frame camera.

I'm really open to any suggestions, I've researched but I've not really been able to really come to a lot of solid conclusions.

 

[996GT2]

Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8: $350

OR

Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS: $250

 

[slashbinslashbash]

996GT2's got a good list started there. The Sigma 24-60 is another choice along the same lines and budget. 24mm is appreciably wider than 28mm, but you'd be missing on the long end. Supplement with a 75-300mm (and hold your nose while doing so) and you'd have a pretty good zoom range covered.

You could probably find a Canon 17-40 f/4L for under $650. Unless you have an overwhelming interest in wide-angle, though, I'd go for a combo of other, cheaper lenses.

Keep in mind the modded 35-80 becomes a dedicated macro lens. The older film lenses along those lines are super cheap, though, and can help you cover a zoom range. For $300 total you could probably pick up a used 28-90mm, a used 75-300mm, and a 50mm/1.8. This would give you a wide zoom range in the zooms, and good image quality in the 50. Or spend $300 on the (significantly nicer) 50/1.4 and you could still pick up the other two and be within your $500 budget.

A used 28-135 is a good deal as it (inexplicably, IMO) comes bundled with many crop-body Canon DSLR's, leaving a good number of them on the market. The image stabilization is handy and the focal length range is fantastic. The 28-135 + 50/1.4 option might be what I would go for, all things considered.

I would also like to know where you can find the 135mm Soft Focus for $125. Those normally run $400+.

 

[corkyg]

I have an "old" full frame EOS 5D. My most frequently used lens is the 24-105mm. Next is my 50mm prime. The closest you cite is the 28-135mm.

 

[speedy2]

Let's see.

Used Canon 17-40mm f/4 L - $600~

Or

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 - $400~

and/or

Sigma 105mm f/2.8 MACRO - $300~


I always like to go through the Image archive on POTN

17-40mm - http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=134756

Sigma 50mm - http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=527827

Sigma 105mm - http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=229362

 

[corkyg]

Of those three choices, I would pick the Sigma 50mm. The Canon 17-40 is a wide angle zoom - all wide angle on a full frame. 50mm and zoom with your feet.

 

[Maximus96]

I would go with a really good prime, like a sigma 50mm for your budget

 

[Sp12]

So, at this point I'm pretty confident that I'm getting:

A 35-80 to mod (~25$ on ebay).
A 135 softfocus (~125$)

And then up in the air:

And then a 50mm/1.4 prime (~300$)
Or a 50mm/1.8 prime (~100$) plus a wide-angle.

I've been thinking and I think I'd prefer a wide-angle to a telephoto, but it seems like a good lens is out of my price range and would make a better purchase later. What other, cheaper wide-angles are there (if any?).

 

[slashbinslashbash]

So, at this point I'm pretty confident that I'm getting:

A 35-80 to mod (~25$ on ebay).
A 135 softfocus (~125$)

And then up in the air:

And then a 50mm/1.4 prime (~300$)
Or a 50mm/1.8 prime (~100$) plus a wide-angle.

I've been thinking and I think I'd prefer a wide-angle to a telephoto, but it seems like a good lens is out of my price range and would make a better purchase later. What other, cheaper wide-angles are there (if any?).

There aren't many great choices here, as the low-end of the DSLR market is solely in the crop body lenses, and full-frame UWAs are pretty much "blah" for crop bodies, so the demand is pretty low; so you will have to find older film-oriented lenses. Fortunately there are a couple of reasonable choices, and the lack of demand has made them fairly reasonably priced on the used market:

Tokina 19-35mm (<$200 when you can find one)
Canon 20-35mm f/3.5-5.6 (several on ebay for <$300)
Canon 22-55mm f/4-5.6 (under $100 -- believe it or not, this is a full-frame-compatible lens, although it was designed as a kit lens for the EOS IX film camera which used APS film)

More expensive models are the Canon 17-40mm f/4L, 16-35mm f/2.8L, 16-35mm II f/2.8L, 17-35mm f/2.8L, and 20-35mm f/2.8L (all probably $650 or higher, used).

One way that a lot of people edge into the UWA range on full-frame is to buy a 24-xx lens. 28mm was the bottom of the wide end for standard zoom lenses for many years, but 24mm opens it up quite a bit compared with 28mm. 24mm is considered the place where "ultra-wide angle" begins for a full-frame sensor, as it is equivalent to the short side of the sensor (24mm x 36mm), and it is certainly wider than the average person is used to seeing. So something like the Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 lens would cover a "wider than usual" range (although its long end is obviously not terribly long).

I would still like to know where I could get a 135mm soft-focus lens for $125?

 

[angry hampster]

Tamron's 17-35 f/2.8-4 is not a bad lens for the price. I paid $270 for mine. The corners are a bit soft wide open, but it's really not bad.

 

[996GT2]

Tamron's 17-35 f/2.8-4 is not a bad lens for the price. I paid $270 for mine. The corners are a bit soft wide open, but it's really not bad.

Actually, the one I had was softer in the corners compared to my Canon 20-35mm USM that only cost $180. Ended up selling the Tamron.