taking the FF plunge! Lens decisions?

[Cozen]

I was looking into the 7D, but I realize I really want the higher ISO performance, and now that the 5dm2 firmware is out for video, it looks like I'll be taking the plunge into full frame.





So this decision kinda throws off my lenses now.


Here's what I have:





Tamron 17-50 2.8 (won't fit on the 5dm2)


Canon 50mm 1.8


Canon 100mm 2.8 macro


Canon 20-35mm 3.5 (bought this recently as a wide angle for the 5dm2)





So I'm definitely going to pick up the 85mm 1.8 and I also need a general purpose/event lens. I shoot mainly portraits, landscapes, and events such as weddings/birthdays/concerts(small venue). I'm looking at the 24-70 2.8 or the 70-200 f4 IS. It seems for me the 24-70 won't be long enough on a FF, and the 70-200 f4 IS won't be wide or fast enough. Of course there is the 70-200 f2.8, but it seems a big large to be carrying around all the time. What would you recommend?

[clemmb]

I would recommend the 24-70 2.8. It is probably the best all around. I have the 24-105 f4 on my 5D. I love it. Sometimes I wish I had the 2.8 but most of the time I am ok with the f4. At receptions I use a 580EX with it at ISO 400 or 800 and get great results.


Mark

[Colin]

24-70 is a good solid general purpose lens. Sometimes astoundingly good. But, if you need telephoto reach, it isn't it. Then again, general purpose doesn't usually mean telephoto, though I guess if that's mainly what you do, then, well that would be, wouldn't it?


My 24-70 stays on my 5D most of the time. 70-200 after that, then 16-35, I believe.


24-105 is a good choice too. Little more reach, has IS, wee bit slower with less potential bokeh, but quite solid all around, and it's far smaller!. Forced to choose between the two, I'd still keep the 24-70, but I wouldn't want to give up the 24-105. Sometimes, it's more useful.

[crosbyharbison]

I have the 24-70 and the 70-200 2.8 IS Mark I combo with my 5d II. The 24-70 is on my camera 90% of the time. I keep wanting to upgrade my 70-200 to the Mark II but I don't use it enough!

[Cozen]

If I get the 24-70 2.8, maybe I can skip the 85 1.8 and go the the 135 2.0. Thoughts?





This will give me the lens combo of





20-35 3.5


24-70L 2.8


50 1.8


135L 2.0

[clemmb]

Sounds like a plan to me.

[Garrett-Grimsley]

This will give me the lens combo of


20-35 3.5


24-70L 2.8


50 1.8


135L 2.0
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Solid combo right there. With the 24-70 you don't need the 85, as good as it is. I'd defiantly get the 135.

[Chuck Lee]

If I get the 24-70 2.8, maybe I can skip the 85 1.8 and go the the 135 2.0. Thoughts?


I'm sure the 135 f2 is a spectacular piece of glass but IMHO I'd buy a 70-200 f2.8L non-IS before I'd buy the 135. For just a little more $, the versatility you gain will be far better than the 135mm IQ advantage. The next lens would be a 16-35 f2.8L or a used 17-35 f2.8L. Add primes later. You can then test out what focal length you tend to shoot at most often. Try setting your zoom on a particular focal length and shoot at some non-consequential event. Primes are awesome, but can be trouble if you can't move your feet. You will also open up the camera body more lens-swapping which will increase the dust build up onthe sensor filter.


I also have a 50 1.4 and the 100 f2.8 Macro which I enjoy shooting with as well. I find the 50 is much easier to use than the 100. It's easier to get closer most of the time, not so easy to get farther away. I love the 50 1.4 on the 5D. However, the 28-70 f2.8L zoom is the default mount.

[Cozen]

If I get the 24-70 2.8, maybe I can skip the 85 1.8 and go the the 135 2.0. Thoughts?


I'm sure the 135 f2 is a spectacular piece of glass but IMHO I'd buy a 70-200 f2.8L non-IS before I'd buy the 135. For just a little more $, the versatility you gain will be far better than the 135mm IQ advantage. The next lens would be a 16-35 f2.8L or a used 17-35 f2.8L. Add primes later. You can then test out what focal length you tend to shoot at most often. Try setting your zoom on a particular focal length and shoot at some non-consequential event. Primes are awesome, but can be trouble if you can't move your feet. You will also open up the camera body more lens-swapping which will increase the dust build up onthe sensor filter.


I also have a 50 1.4 and the 100 f2.8 Macro which I enjoy shooting with as well. I find the 50 is much easier to use than the 100. It's easier to get closer most of the time, not so easy to get farther away. I love the 50 1.4 on the 5D. However, the 28-70 f2.8L zoom is the default mount.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>








I agree with you on the versatility aspect. I think the 70-200 focal range on a FF is very ideal. But I think people have stated that the 150-200 range is hard to keep steady hand held without IS unless your shutter speed is very high. So getting the 70-200 2.8 IS would be significantly more. Another concern of mine is the size and weight of the lens. I've never used lens so big and for video I'd imagine it will be fairly difficult to use.


The more I think about all these options, the more my head hurts haha. I'm also thinking that the 24-70 will be too short on a FF.........

[Julius]

If you have extremely steady hands ... then the 24 - 70 f2.8. Otherwise, I would highly recommend the 25-105 f4 L IS USM lens. Having IS is a great advantage and you can always just use the auto iso to adjust for the right exposure. Another great lens would be the 70-200 f4 L IS USM....although it's not as fast as the newer version of the 70-200, it produces incredibly sharp images.

[Cozen]

If you have extremely steady hands ... then the 24 - 70 f2.8. Otherwise, I would highly recommend the 25-105 f4 L IS USM lens. Having IS is a great advantage and you can always just use the auto iso to adjust for the right exposure. Another great lens would be the 70-200 f4 L IS USM....although it's not as fast as the newer version of the 70-200, it produces incredibly sharp images.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Both the 24-105f4 and 70-200f4 are very appealing to me. Believe me, in cost and size, they are VERY appealing over the 2.8 versions. But the main point of me jumping to FF is for better low light performance. So it almost seems a waste to get f4 lenses when I need to maximize my low light potential. Am I wrong in thinking this way?

[Colin]

The full frame automatically gets you more than a stop. 1.6x applies to the effective equivalent aperture.... So f/4 on full frame is 'faster' in effect, than f/2.8 on a crop sensor.


But, really, the issue on f/2.8 sans IS vs. f/4 with IS, is better stop motion, and thinner depth of field, more pronounced bokeh, vs. better handheld with available light of stationary objects. The difference in zoom is significant, but not extreme, in my opinion, and the 24-70 is better on the wide side at equivalent apertures, as I recall.

[Cozen]

Well I think I'm going for the 24-70 2.8 or 28-70 2.8 for sure. That being said, I'm more uncertain about my longer focal lengths. 135L? 70-200 f4 IS? 70-200 2.8 IS? The last one mentioned would be great, but I think the pure size and weight of the lens will limit the places I'd take it. Not to mention the price tag.

[neuroanatomist]

1.6x applies to the effective equivalent aperture.... So f/4 on full frame is 'faster' in effect, than f/2.8 on a crop sensor.


The 'crop factor' applies to aperture in terms of effective depth of field, but not light-gathering ability - in other words, you'll have the same exposure settings at f/4 on full frame and a 1.6x crop body. But, the full frame sensor will have less noise, so performance in low light will be better.

[clemmb]

Both the 24-105f4 and 70-200f4 are very appealing to me. Believe me, in cost and size, they are VERY appealing over the 2.8 versions. But the main point of me jumping to FF is for better low light performance. So it almost seems a waste to get f4 lenses when I need to maximize my low light potential. Am I wrong in thinking this way?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





This shot was with the 5D(12.8MP), 24-105 @ f5 and 55mm, 1/25, ISO 800, hand held with IS on.


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.67/IMG_5F00_0142.jpg


Here is 100% crop


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.67/IMG_5F00_0142_2D00_100_2500_.jpg

[Colin]

1.6x applies to the effective equivalent aperture.... So f/4 on full frame is 'faster' in effect, than f/2.8 on a crop sensor.


The 'crop factor' applies to aperture in terms of effective depth of field, but not light-gathering ability - in other words, you'll have the same exposure settings at f/4 on full frame and a 1.6x crop body. But, the full frame sensor will have less noise, so performance in low light will be better.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



Maybe my words were chosen poorly. The sensor itself is, in total, gathering more light, however, the light intensity per area of sensor does not change, so, yes, in terms of exposure requirements for a given ISO sensitivity, yes, that doesn't change. you see it in being able to (all else being equal) use a higher ISO sensitivity for a given noise level.


I never claimed to be Daniel [8-|]

[Chuck Lee]

But I think people have stated that the 150-200 range is hard to keep steady hand held without IS unless your shutter speed is very high.


Cozen,


It's simple. 1/focal length = min shutter speed. I shoot 1/200 at 200mm most of the time indoors. That's the fastest shutter speed I can sync with flash fill with my 5D. A 135mm is going to want at least 1/135 shutter speed. Can you handhold slower. Yes, but the keeper rate is reduced. That doesn't negate the versatility. IS is fantastic, but you can't stop human motion much below 1/60th. There are many exceptions but I wouldn't accept IS as the sole remedy. I've shot wedding vows with a Tamron 70-300 f3.5-5.6 on a Pentax K100 at 220mm plus @ 1/15th shutter speed that are fabulous. Of-course the camera was on a tripod. I had IS but still opted for the tripod. It's not as restrictive as you might think. Especially with the "Slick" pistol grip I have.


The value I enjoy from my older used Canon L glass is worth the little extra I give up. Don't count out a used 70-200 f2.8L (non Is) Man, I hate designating that. From now on it is what it is


70-200 f2.8L


70-200 f2.8L IS


70-200 f2.8L IS II


Fabulous zoom lenses. All of them.

[Mr.Le]

I happen to use both, the 70-200 F4L IS &amp; 135L. Outdoor sports = 70-200. Portraits &amp; indoor sports = 135L. For weddings, depending on the condition these 2 get swap back and forth.


So it's all really depends on what you need to do w/ your equipment. I think you know which one will suite you best.

[Cozen]

I happen to use both, the 70-200 F4L IS &amp; 135L. Outdoor sports = 70-200. Portraits &amp; indoor sports = 135L. For weddings, depending on the condition these 2 get swap back and forth.


So it's all really depends on what you need to do w/ your equipment. I think you know which one will suite you best.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>








I'm almost debating skipping the 24-70/24-105 and grabbing both of the 135L and the 70-200 f4IS. Reason being the 70mm on a FF is almost wide enough for most uses other than group shots and wide landscapes. I can use my 20-35mm or 50mm for those applications until it comes time for a 24-70 range lens. How does the 70-200 f4 IS perform for indoor events (non sports such as concerts/bdays/weddings)?

[Daniel Browning]

The 'crop factor' applies to aperture in terms of effective depth of field, but not light-gathering ability





Well, that depends on how you define "light-gathering ability". If you mean "per area", then you're right. But if you look at "total" light gathering ability, then it's clear that full frame does have more.


Which definition you use will depend on what your purpose is. If you're advising a novice on how to get a good exposure in daylight, talking about per-area light makes more sense.


On the other hand, if you're trying to determine which camera+lens combination has the most light (and least amount of noise), then the amount of light per area is completely immaterial: all that matters is the total amount of light (and sensor technology).


For example, if you looked only at per-area light, it would dictate that f/2.8 on a digicam has more light (and therefore less noise, AOTBE) than f/5.6 on a DSLR. But in reality it does not, which is clear if you look at total light: an integration of light per area and total amount of area, where it is clear that f/5.6 on a DSLR has more light and less noise than f/2.8 on a digicam.


I'm sure you know all of this already, but I just wanted to point out that "per-area" is not the only valid way to interpret "light gathering ability".