Printable View
What does everyone recommend for fairly inexpensive but still decent IQ super WA and telephoto lenses for the 5dm2? I'm thinking less than 24mm and greater than 200mm. If anyone can post images taking with said recommendations, that would be great. Thanks.
16-35mm II f/2.8L USM
70-200mm f/4L or f/2.8L I or II IS
300mm f/4L IS USM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd Ovick
He said inexpensive! [;)]
I think the best, but cheapest of all 200mm+ lenses is either the 300mm f/4 L IS USM or the 400mm f/5.6 L USM. These lenses have excellent image quality and equally impressive build quality to go along with it. Note the lack of Image Stabalization in the 400mm f/5.6 L.
In terms of ultra wide angle lenses, I would recommend looking at the EF 17-40 f/4 L USM. It has good image quality, and best of all, it's priced (relatively) nicely.
Other bang-for-the-buck lenses I recommend? The EF 70-200 f/4 L USM and the EF 135 f/2 L USM.
- Alex
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexniedra
I'll second that. If you're shooting stopped down it performs very similarly to theEF 16-35mm f/2.8 L for half the price. If you want an even cheaper option and don't mind going 3rd party I'drecommendtheTamron SP 17-35mm f/2.8-4.
Inexpensive is relative, The Canon17-40mm L is relatively inexpensive for a "L" lens, but is excellent, particularly when stopped down.
As far as longer than 200mm, the choice might be something like a 70-300mm IS, or a 300mm F/4 L. all of these produce good images, the "L" lenses are the best.
Pretty much any Canon lens produces excellent images when you stop them down by 2 stops, the big $$ buys sharpness at wider apertures and sturdy mechanical construction.
You can save money by going to 3rd party lenses, this is a minefield, with some having focus or sharpness problems, and others being really excellent. Read the reviews, and believe it if the reviewer found problems, you will almost certainly find the same ones.
Look for an older EF300 F/4.0 L USM on the used market.I picked up a non-IS for $500 last year. It is tack sharp and MUCH lighter than the Ef 300 f/2.8.
You might also considertheEF 24-70 f/2.8 for wide angle work as it doubles as a magnificent portrait lens. It will probably set you back $1,000 or so used.
I second the 17-40 f/4. For a cheap tele in the same price range as the 17-40, I suggest the 70-300 IS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd Ovick
This lens is awesome if you really enjoy photoshopping out CA. I'd reccomend the Tokina 11-16mm. Designed for used on FOVCF, but on FF it will function as a sweet little 16mm Prime. A friend of mine has one on his 5dMk2 and swears by it as one his most valuable lenses.
I also recommend the 17-40 mm F4 L for your wide angle. If you could swing the *little* extra for the 300 mm F4 L IS, you won't be disappointed. You will be using it for YEARS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
That maybe betrue, but CA is really easy to fix in DPP. You just drag the sliders about until most if not all the CA is gone, plus DPP has distortion and vigenette removal too which is to easy to use. Just drag it all the way to the right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
That would indeed be an interesting lens on FF, is there any way you could gleep an image from your friend?
Another lens that you might be interested since we are in the 3rd party realm is the Sigma 12-24mm, that thing issowide! And is about the same price range as a 17-40mm, which is a good lenstoo.
John.