Third party lenses for 5DIII

Just blew my entire camera-equipment budget on the 5DMIII. Thought I was going to go 6D, but after a week of shooting concerts with my 7D, I realized how important the AF system is, especially it's peripheral AF point performance. I feel like my shooting has gotten to the point where I don't to feel limited by my equipment, and I think the 6D has a few too many factors that make it less than ideal for concert shooting.

Anyway, the money I was going to spend on the 6D and a new lens went to the 5DMIII body. So now I don't have a general zoom for the 5D, as I've been shooting with the 17-55 EF-S on the 7D (and plan on using both bodies at concerts for now). So looking for advice. I need a relatively fast general zoom in the 17/24 to 50/70mm range. Should I get a cheaper Sigma or Tamron, or just use primes on the 5D (40 2.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.8) until I can afford the 24-70L? I guess with the 40mm 2.8, I'm only really losing about 12mm on the wide side once you calculate the crop factor on the 17-55 on the 7D, right?

And if I wait for the 24-70: REALLY wait for the 24-70II, or buy the earlier version on eBay?

Thanks for any advice!

REALLY wait for the 24-70II.

Since you put no time frame on this, hopefully not to long.

Hi gbc,

Why keep both? One wide, one telephoto without a lens change? Your 5DIII will blow away the high ISO and sharpness performance of your 7D. Take a look at the 60D ISO Chart results that Bryan just posted. Selling the 7D plus 17-55 will give you a good chunk of cash to play with.

GBC,

First off...congrats on your purchase. I bought the 5DIII in February and am about 2,000 shots into using it. I have to echo Patrick, for what you are describing, I would think that the 5DIII would excel. I would be very tempted to sell off the 7D and 17-55 lens to fund FF gear.

If you don't have much cash, the 24-105 "Kit" lens is typically available "in new condition" for ~$800 on ebay or craigslist, and I've seen them going for less. I know f/4 isn't as "fast" as an f/2.8 lens, but it has IS and will be faster for equivalent framing/DOF than the 17-55 f/2.8 on the 7D, which is equivalent to f/4.5. Plus you get the benefit of better ISO performance (I am using up to ISO 12,800). I have had good luck with the 24-105 f/4 on the 5DIII at high ISO in low light around the house.

Getting back to your original question, the third party lens I've heard very good things about the tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC. A couple of links:

First, ISO 12233 crops from Bryan

A comparison of 24-70 lenses at lensrentals

A shootout comparison by the camera store

For the money, a good option. But it seems that the canon 24-70 f/2.8 II is the king, if you can afford it.

A quick summary of options (in order of increasing price):
1) Buy a "like new" 24-105 f/4 "used" for $600-$800
2) Buy a couple of standard primes such as the 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, etc
3) Buy the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC
4) Buy the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II

Thanks for the replies. Selling the 17-55 is definitely part of the plan. But I'd definitely like to hang on to the 7D. Partly just to have a backup body, and partly for the extra reach with my 70-300L for BIF and other wildlife. Though I'm sure a crop of the same shot on a 5D might be better, but the burst rate of the 7D is a plus too. And the 7D isn't getting a great price on ebay or craigslist it seems, so I'll probably just keep it for convenience.
But I think I will wait and buy the Canon 24-70. Since my justification for buying the 5DIII was to get a more pro setup, it seems like I should wait for the better lens as well.

I understand your logic, but here is the way I would think of it.

$800 for the 17-55, $1000 for the 7d gives you $1800 US. $2,049 buys the 24-70mm II at B&H. You will need $240 +/- This gives you Canons best higher MP camera with Canons best in class Zoom.

What you give up is a backup and a OK BIF set up, but not a great BIF setup.

I see no need to keep the 7D for "reach" or the extra 2 fps. Cropping gives equivalent IQ at low ISO, better IQ above ISO 800. The better, more consistent AF of the 5DIII means an equivalent keeper rate despite the lower frame rate.

The only reason I see for keeping the 7D is if you *need* a backup body (paid gigs, for example). Else, sell it and the 17-55 and buy the 24-70 II.

Well, you guys have pretty much convinced me. So any recommendations on a wide-angle to replace the Tokina 11-16 I have that's also EF-S only? Obviously gonna sell that as well if the 7D goes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gbc

Well, you guys have pretty much convinced me. So any recommendations on a wide-angle to replace the Tokina 11-16 I have that's also EF-S only? Obviously gonna sell that as well if the 7D goes.

---

The canon 17-40 is a good choice for a reasonable price. The 16-35 is great too but comes at a much higher price point. I think people are generally very pleased with the 17-40 on a full frame body.

24mm on FF is like 15mm on APS-C, so you're already pretty wide. The 17-40L would be the most likely candidate for UWA on FF, but if you shoot a lot wide open, you may want to consider the 16-35L II.

FWIW, I shoot a lot of birds/wildlife, and I haven't used the 7D since getting the 1D X, and I'm confident that would be true with a 5DIII as well. I'll be selling it soon...

The equivalent lens would be the 16-35mm f/2.8 or the 17-40mm. Any thing over 24mm you will prefer to use the 24-70mm because it is so much better.

For me I find 24mm wide enough. A few mm less you start seeing lens distortion. I have had a 16-35mm for years, now that I have the 24-70mm I am going to sell it. If the wide lens look is what I wanted I think I will choose one of Canon or Zeiss primes to compliment the 24-70mm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

For me I find 24mm wide enough. A few mm less you start seeing lens distortion. I have had a 16-35mm for years, now that I have the 24-70mm I am going to sell it. If the wide lens look is what I wanted I think I will choose one of Canon or Zeiss primes to compliment the 24-70mm.

---

I don't use my 16-35 very often, but when I do the majority of shots are <24 mm. I like having an ultra wide option, but the 14L is a bit too wide. I hope Canon brings a 14-24ish lens to market. The only prime I've considered as a replacement for the 16-35 is the TS-E 17mm. But sometimes, like this shot at 17mm, 1/25 s, f/3.2 and ISO 12800, a faster aperture and AF help to capture the right timing...

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/ind...ch=30052;image

I have a bit of the same dilemma. I am moving to FF from the 7D. I bought the EFS 10-22 a year ago and very rarely used it. But wide angle photography is something that I think I could get into. For now, I am focusing on the rest of my FF kit, but, I have been watching and a couple forum members seem to be taking excellent photos woth the Samyang 14 mm f/2.8.

A few from Ben Taylor:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ben_tay...in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ben_tay...in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ben_tay...n/photostream/

While I will get other lenses first, I am debating between this (~$450) and the 17-40 f/4 for my FF wide angle option.

Well that cinches it. Selling the 7D and my two EF-S lenses to fund the 24-70II. Really came around quick on that. Just going all in.
Insanely excited for the 5D, and it should get here tomorrow. Have a concert to shoot tomorrow, and gonna be real tempted to take it with. But guess I'll give the 7D one last show, for old time's sake.
Thanks for all the input!

Enjoy! And please share some pictures