inexpensive wide angle and telephoto for 5dm2?

[Todd Ovick]

16-35mm II f/2.8L USM


70-200mm f/4L or f/2.8L I or II IS


300mm f/4L IS USM

[alexniedra]

16-35mm II f/2.8L USM


70-200mm f/4L or f/2.8L I or II IS

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

[Mark Elberson]

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.

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.

[Josh]

16-35mm II f/2.8L USM
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

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.

[EdN]

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.

[Cozen]

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.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

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?

[btaylor]

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. [

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?
<p style="CLEAR: both"]

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.

[Cozen]

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"

[neuroanatomist]

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.

[Fast Glass]

This lens is awesome if you really enjoy photoshopping out CA.

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.

I'd reccomend the Tokina 11-16mm. Designed for used on FOVCF, but on FF it will function as a sweet little 16mm Prime.

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.