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.