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.
Gah I have the perfect image to show from when I asked him how the Toki was performing on the 5d, but it isn't watermarked for some reason.As much as I'm sure he wouldn't mind some free advertising, I'll have to wait tillI talk to him next to get the pic for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Glass
I tried both lenses last week on my 5D2. Hihi that Sigma is really cool, although for the money I still bought a 50mm prime. It was almost like a fisheye. Really sharp, but distortion was horrible haha, but what would you expect [:P]
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdN
Thanks for everyone's suggestions so far.
For wide angle, I currently have a 20-35 f3.5 which I think will be wide enough, but I'm not sure how it will perform color/contrast wise. I've been looking at the 17-40L, but how's the bokeh on this lens? I know it's a wide angle, but I won't always want a greater DOF on those type of shots. The 16-35L is out of my budget right now. I've also heard of the 20-35L 2.8 which is a much older lens. There is currently one available locally in my area for a decent price. Anyone try this lens?
As for telephoto, I want something decent, but not huge, super heavy, and attention grabbing. I would like to be able to travel relatively light (i know this is hard). The 70-300 IS is appealing for it's size/range/price. Anyone try this lens on a 5dm2? Is it like rolling around on 4 donuts on a Ferrari?
Sorry I can't help you with the 20-35 f/3.5 but I have used the 17-40mm f/4L on a 5d MkII and I was very impressed. Definately an improvement over the 40D + 10-22mm f/3.5-4 combo that I was using. For half the price of the 16-35mm I think it's an excellent option. [
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cozen
Kind of... but at the end of the day the photographer makes the photo and not the lens so if that's what you are limited to in your budget then it's not a bad piece of glass by any means. I realise you are looking at something over the 200mm range but the 70-200mm f/4 lenses perform really well (especially the IS version) and with the 21Mp on the 5D Mkii you should be fine to crop heavily to achieve the same results as the 70-300mm (more than likely with better IQ). The 70-200mm f/4's are reasonably inconspicuous apart from the colour and they're not huge.
Hope this helps.
Cheers, Ben.
yeah I've definitely considered the 70-200 f4 IS, but coming from crop bodies, I feel the 200mm isn't long enough for FF. Keep in mind, I will have the 135L for those "money shots"
Having tried a borrowed 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens, I agree with Bryan that the softest/worst part of that lens' range is the 200-300mm zone. So if you're seeking good IQ and longer than 200mm, the 70-300mm lens is not ideal. That lens also suffers from some 'convenience' issues (rotating front element, no full-time manual focusing). I think you'll get better IQ in a cropped image from the 70-200mm f/4L @ 200mm than in an uncropped image from the 70-300mm @ 300mm.
If you still want longer than 200mm and you want good IQ, the 300mm f/4L IS is an excellent prime in the same price range as the 70-200 f/4L IS, or for more versatility (and more $), there's the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS. We're clearly getting out of the 'inexpensive' range, though.
You might also consider picking the end of the overall range which you'd like to concentrate on first (i.e. just wide or just long), and getting the best quality lens in that range that you can. Sounds like you may have the wide end covered ok for now with the 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5, but if your longest lens is the 135mm f/2L (a great lens!) you might want to look at the 70-200/4IS, 300/4IS or 100-400.
Alright Cozen I don't know if this is going to be of any help anymore, but I'll do it anyways.
I traded my 50D for a 5D2 knowing that I'd loose the long tele end, and I agree with others like Ben that with the 21mp you could crop a lot from a picture and still achieve max quality. For the long end I can't really recommend a good valued lens above 200mm. Perhaps you could look at 3rd party lenses, but I don't have any experience with them.
I did try a few wide angles last week on my 5D2. I tried the 17-40L and the sigma 12-24 and here are some perspective shots if you'd be interested. Note that the 40mm and 17mm shot are with the 17-40 and the 24mm and 12mm shot are from the 12-24 and that I wasn't standing at exact the same spot during these photos due to switching lenses.
40mm
http://www.fruityview.nl/tdp/40mm.jpg
24mm
http://www.fruityview.nl/tdp/24mm.jpg
17mm
http://www.fruityview.nl/tdp/17mm.jpg
12mm
http://www.fruityview.nl/tdp/12mm.jpg
Oh and a shot of 12mm perspective of my brother just to show you guys the effect. I guess the 17-40 will have distortion at 17mm as well, but unfortunately I didn't test it the same way. 12mm gives a pretty cool view and you'd be amazed how close you are to your subject. For my brother it was hard to understand that he was entirely in the frame while I was like standing a meter away or so.
Here it is.
http://www.fruityview.nl/tdp/12mmd.jpg
Anyway good luck with picking a lens or 2 [;)]
Jan
Jan,
Thanks for your sample pics. That Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 looks pretty cool! What was your overall opinion of it?
Jan, is that shot of your brother a crop or did you shoot vertical? I'm hoping it's the latter and that's normal stretching, otherwise that lens is buggered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Glass
Get the latest version of DPP. It will automatically remove and distortion or CA introduced by many Canon lenses, their characteristics are known and accounted for. No need for sliders or the like.
I'd take a look at some third party options if your looking for a bargain:
200+
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/549255-REG/Sigma_737101_150_500mm_f_5_6_3_DG_OS.html
24-
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/302698-REG/Sigma_200101_12_24mm_f_4_5_5_6_AF_Lens.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
Josh thanks for asking. No it was a vertical portrait-orientated shot. It isn't cropped and as far as I know the only thing adjusted was vibrance level -100 in lightroom. I still thinks it's kinda looking fisheye, but remember I was really really close to my brother, so I guess you could expect such distortion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Elberson
No problem! It is really cool actually! I was just battling over buying a ultrawide for my 5D2 or a 50mm fast prime.
The 17-40 was really cool, although I wasn't convinced that buying this lens purely for the 17-24 difference was worth the price. I thought 17mm wasn't too big of a difference.
The sigma was a little too expensive for me and my mind kept wondering towards the 50mm prime. Finally I bought the new Sigma 50mm 1.4 prime and thusfar I love it.
Anyway since I only had like 20min of shooting with both lenses, I didn't make a lot of pictures, but I can tell you a few things I noticed.
I will also post a few full-sized jpegs to show you a bit more and have you make a few decisions of your own.
The Sigma is really sharp! I liked that a lot.
The size/weight is pretty good, it feels good in your hand and on your camera (5D without grip)
Disliked the fact that you can't put filters on it to protect it. The glass is round (don't know the proper word for it)
There was a little chromatic aberation, which you'll probably see in the full-size. But not more than the 17-40L.
I don't know how you call it (light fall off perhaps?) but it seems that you get a bright "spot" on the picture and I assume it's from the sun. But the sun was very hard anyways.
Here they are:
12mm full size
12mm full size distortion
Hope you can do something with these. Anyway for me the 17-40L wasn't worth the price, considering I've already got the 24-105 and the 17-24 difference wasn't big enough for me. If I would consider buying an ultra wide again in the future, I would definitely try out the Sigma again. I can't really make a good conclusion on it since I haven't had enough time with it to create an honest and more reliable opinion, but for me the first idea of it is very positive, it could definitely bring a create side out.
I also don't know if I'm right about it, but distortion at 17mm could be even less than distortion from the 17-40 at 17mm, but I didn't try it so I can't tell you [:P]
Good luck and I hope this helps a bit!
Jan
Oh Ps: the pictures are straight out of the camera, with max open aperture and no postprocessing done. Used adobe standard profile and autoWB. AV mode +2/3 exposure if I remember correctly.
If you're interested, I also got an f10 picture from the landscape photo. Give me a signal if you want to see it [Y]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
I think you're absolutely right. Although I don't see the lenses both tested on FF, on a 1.6x body the PZ tests show that the Sigma 12-24mm has substantially less distortion even at 12mm (0.6% barrel) than the Canon 17-40mm at 17mm (2.5% barrel).
Sigma 12-14mm distortions
Canon 17-40mm distortions
--John
I scored a copy of the EF 17-40mm f/4.0 <span style="color: #ff0000;"]L via a trade with my father-in-law. He took my EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. Anyway, I do feel that there is a pretty significant difference between 17mm and 24mm. It's nothing like 12mm though!!! If I were to consider the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 I think I would probably sell my EF 17-40mm f/4.0 <span style="color: #ff0000;"]L<span style="color: #000000;"]. I'm not sure if I want to go that route though. I think the 17-40mm focal length is pretty versatile for either close-quartered indoor shooting or walk-around landscape shooting. The Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 is much more of a specially lens. That being said, I rarely remove my EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L from my 5D soI guess if I was going out with the purpose of shooting with an ULTRA wide perspective the Sigma may fit the bill.Oh well, I am taking a break from buyingglass. I'm focusing onfinding the limitations (if any) of my current gear andfind myself much more interested in updating my studio setup. I do really appreciate your insighton the Sigma though. That lensrarely gets brought up. I'm anxious for Bryan to review it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
<div>
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Wow if that would translate to a FF-equivalent it would be pretty awesome! Definitely worth trying this out for architecture and stuff like that where distortion plays a big role.
Substancially? To be honest I find the results pretty remarkable and really interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Elberson
Yea that would be great! I know there is a significant difference between the 17 and 24mm on FF, but for me it wasn't significant enough to buy the 17-40L, that's what I meant to say [;)]
For a walkaround lens the 17-40 beats the Sigma, I admit to that, and also the fact that you could still use filters like polarizers is a big plus, but 12mm is a real big plus for the Sigma. Also the way it handled on my camera and the results I got, (No less imagequality compared to the 17-40L, for at least I could see at 100% and only a few sample photos) , make the Sigma a very interesting lens to at least check out [A]
If I would have lived in a country or place where I could get more out of an ultra wide angle lens I would definitely have bought it. But to be honest, 24mm is often too wide around here, knowing that you also get bits and pieces of the concrete jungle in your photo. It's pretty hard for me to use a 12mm lens without photographing stuff I don't want to.
But I guess for architecture etc it would be a remarkable lens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Elberson
Me too [:P] Now I've got to learn how to get more out of my gear and learn more about taking photos. The photography season has opened and I'm eager to learn!
</div>
Hey Sheiky,
Can you post the RAW copy from 17-40mm at 17mm? I would like to see how it corrects in DPP.
Thanks,
John.
I suppose I can do that yes [:D]
<span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]Wait a minute please [:P] what kind of picture do you want? I've got a landscape shot just like the previews. I've got a head-shot and I've got a close car-shot. You can find chroma in all of them.
Alright I just sent you a personal message with the link. Good luck!
If others need them, just ask [:D]
Jan