Options
Which lens?
24-70 f2.8 Mark I or 24-105 f4 IS? That is the question.
Situation. Sold 7D with 17-55 2.8 IS. Bought 5Dmk3 and love it! Gotta find a replacement for the 17-55 which was amazing.
What I shoot...Portraits (families, engagements, seniors) and I 2nd shoot weddings.
What I have...70-200 2.8 IS mk2 and cheapo 50mm. (the 70-200 is now much more usable for sessions on a full frame).
I like the idea of IS on the 24-105. The 5D3 can easily make up for the loss of one stop of light (using higher ISO).
I am currently borrowing a 24-70 2.8 mk1 for a week from a wonderful photog. :clap I love this lens! I was considering saving up and getting the 24-70 2.8 mk2 but how much better can this lens get for $1000 more?
Advice?
Ziggy will hopefully chime in too (he is the one that convinced me to get the 17-55 a couple of years ago...THANK YOU!).
Situation. Sold 7D with 17-55 2.8 IS. Bought 5Dmk3 and love it! Gotta find a replacement for the 17-55 which was amazing.
What I shoot...Portraits (families, engagements, seniors) and I 2nd shoot weddings.
What I have...70-200 2.8 IS mk2 and cheapo 50mm. (the 70-200 is now much more usable for sessions on a full frame).
I like the idea of IS on the 24-105. The 5D3 can easily make up for the loss of one stop of light (using higher ISO).
I am currently borrowing a 24-70 2.8 mk1 for a week from a wonderful photog. :clap I love this lens! I was considering saving up and getting the 24-70 2.8 mk2 but how much better can this lens get for $1000 more?
Advice?
Ziggy will hopefully chime in too (he is the one that convinced me to get the 17-55 a couple of years ago...THANK YOU!).
Michael
<Insert some profound quote here to try and seem like a deep thinker>
Michael Wachel Photography
Facebook
<Insert some profound quote here to try and seem like a deep thinker>
Michael Wachel Photography
0
Comments
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I am leaning toward the 24-70. Especially since I am borrowing one and love it. I guess I am looking for validation.
The other issue is going to be the "old" 24-70 or the upcoming "new" one. I hate decisions like this.
<Insert some profound quote here to try and seem like a deep thinker>
Michael Wachel Photography
Facebook
I am still using the old Canon EF 28-80mm, f2.8-f4L USM and it gives me what I need in a standard zoom. When it fails, I will purchase the version I, 24-70mmL.
The larger aperture (f2.8) gives much better DOF control versus an f4 lens, although I do spend a lot of time at f4 for candids. The f2.8 also activates the "high precision" AF capability of the Canon 5D MKII, allowing more reliable autofocus, especially valuable in low light.
For portraiture, eventually you may want the Canon EF 135mm, f2L USM. This lens has some of the best bokeh in the business, is scary sharp at f2, and just basically rocks. Nothing else like it on the planet (in my experience).
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
+1
I would suggest that you rent a 24-70 II to see if it is any better than the mark I (as soon as the rental places get the new lens in April). The mark I does indeed rock and it's hard to beat as a standard lens. The difference between it and the f4 is about using the extra stop of light. I shoot a 5d2 with the mark I 24-70 and when shooting no-flash, available light I find myself shooting wide open and near my comfort limit on ISO. I tend to like shooting in the dark as I call it. I've read that the 24-70 f2.8L is sharper than the 24-105 f4L, and has better performance in corners on full frame. Supposedly the mark II 24-70 has better optical performance (we'll have to see) and weighs less (welcome at the end of the day).
For portraiture, the 135mm f2.0L gives you shots that people will ask you about. I have it, I love it, and I use it in large rooms for candids as well as portraiture. The perspective of the focal length on a full frame does all the right things to your people shots, even when they are not "portraits." It handles well, is rather sharp, and lets you do DOF magic whenever you want. This lens on a 5d lets you count DOF in terms of individual hairs. At just under a thousand US dollars it is cheap as L glass goes. You owe it to yourself to rent it and see. Oh, and it shoots in the dark a full f-stop faster than an f2.8 zoom. Those of us who shoot it tend to say things like "pry it out of my cold dead fingers"
Consider yourself validated! In addition to the other points already mentioned, your 17-55/2.8 is basically already giving you the DOF you would see out of the 24-105, so it would not be an upgrade in that respect.
Well if you can afford it, why not? But if it's a stretch then have no fear and get the mark 1 without regret. Just micro-adjust your body with it and you're good to go. I think the 24-70L's copy to copy variation reputation was conceived before the days of MFA.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
+1 on Nak's assessment on the 24-70. I'd also be inclined to consider the mkII since you don't already have the I; if the II is as reliable, uebersharp and amazing as it looks on paper, it will be a very worthy partner to the 70-200is II and a step up from the capable but not-always-reliable Mk I. It's hugely disappointing they've set the price as high as they have, but if the $ are there, it seems it could be worth it to a full-time professional, in the same way the added cost is worth it to get the extra sharpness the 70-200II offers.
THAT SAID... you're using and liking the 24-70 I you're borrowing, and at its best it's a gorgeous lens - mine often delivers shots nearly as sharp as my primes. Point here being that I believe the 5d3 will let you microadjust the AF for different ends of a zoom lens. Many user reports of a known anomaly on copies of the 24-70I (ie that it will be great at the long end, but then need af adjustment for back/front focus at the wider end, or vice-versa). If that features works accurately, you could save yourself $1k and just get a MkI
I can have the money for the new one. OR I could get the old one and something else?
I like the idea of the "old" 24-70 and another goodie! What do you guys think?
<Insert some profound quote here to try and seem like a deep thinker>
Michael Wachel Photography
Facebook
The "old" 24-70L plus a 135L seems like a no-brainer, for the same money as the "new" 24-70L alone.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I have the 70-200 2.8 IS mk2. Would it be worth getting the 135 as well? The 70-200 is pretty insane for portraits.
<Insert some profound quote here to try and seem like a deep thinker>
Michael Wachel Photography
Facebook
You can count hairs with the 70-200's also, so for IQ the biggest difference is that it is more shallow (not sure how much more though) If you feel 2.8 isn't shallow enough then I'd get 135, but in terms of IQ the 70-200 is also insane as you say
I personally prefer the 70-200 for the versatility. For me it is just so much more convenient and the pics I get already have very shallow DOF for my taste.
Yes, I prefer to have both. The 70-200mm, f2.8L lenses have great versatility. The 135mm, f2L has a great "personality". I generally don't get too excited about lens design and lens performance, but the 135mm, f2L has this very special bokeh which just melts the background. The zoom's bokeh is much more complicated, by comparison.
I am not kidding that there is nothing else on the planet quite like the Canon EF 135mm, f2L USM. It really is something special.
From PhotoZone.de, here is the 70-200mm, f2.8L bokeh example:
http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_28_ff/highlights.jpg
... and the 135mm, f2L bokeh example:
http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/canon_135_2_5d/bokeh.jpg
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
That's a tough call. I have the same lens, which is also why I don't have a 135L... yet. I had a 135L for a couple months, but then I sold it to finance a 5DII. It was a dream lens, but the 70-200/2.8II is at least as sharp and sparkly. I think the biggest benefit to the 135L next to the 70-200 is its stealth factor around other people. It's nowhere near as big and it's black. Much less conspicuous. Someone here referred to it as her "spy lens" at wedding receptions. You could even shoot street with it. You can't do that with a big white 70-200 unless you don't mind looking like a tool.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
The 135mm f2.0L, besides being smaller and less conspicuous than the uber-versatile 70-200 f2.8L and 24-70mm f2.8L, handles better. What do I mean by that? I had my 5d2 with 135mm in my right hand and a drink in my left. I saw the shot and one-handed brought the camera up, focused, and fired. I got the shot, about a half second before the people looking at me realized what I had done. One of them is extremely self-conscious about how they look in pictures, mandating that you shoot them unawares. One of two such images I got of them that evening, one of which is now in their family album. The 135 is an excellent tool for making people look good, but the point here is how it handles. BTW - I didn't even slosh my drink in the slightest.
I have trouble shooting my 24-70mm f2.8L this way. Too much weight, too much torque on my right wrist to cleanly shoot a one-handed grab shot. I can not imagine shooting a 70-200 zoom one handed this way with any success at all. There's a reason why they put a tripod foot on them.
One-handed grab shots are not my preferred way of shooting, not by any means. But often I find that I am socializing a bit whilst shooting candids, so I have the strap around my neck and my right hand on the camera as it hangs. Shooting "in the moment" I may not have time to get my left hand under the camera before I need to fire. I might have something in my left hand. The body position of having the camera down, not in both hands, tells people around you that you aren't shooting just now and so they relax and turn that part of their brain to standby. This goes ten-fold if you have a drink or snack in your left hand. That clearly says "off duty, no worry" to people who react to cameras. They go back to enjoying the reception and you capture them being carefree before they realize what you just did. And at 135mm, you may be far enough away they don't realize at all. "I can't believe you just did that." Then you show them the image and they beg for a copy of it, telling you they look crappy in everyone else's photos.
One-handed grab shots is not the only trick for your bag of tricks. You have a ton of better tricks/techniques that work better most of the time. The 135mm f2.0 puts this trick in your bag to use as you see fit. That's what I mean by it handles better. It's like having a free stop of IS. (Those of you who shoot shorter focal length primes can stop laughing now).
....Off to think and ponder.
<Insert some profound quote here to try and seem like a deep thinker>
Michael Wachel Photography
Facebook
The bag was really important for me so I am not lugging thousands of dollars of gear around in a $40 back pack!
Now to start saving up for a 135 f2!!!
<Insert some profound quote here to try and seem like a deep thinker>
Michael Wachel Photography
Facebook
Congratulations to you, but make sure that your wife knows that she is a "saint".
Seriously, it's great to have someone who believes in you to that degree.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Thanks Ziggy! My wonderful wife really does support and encourage me. She actually kept prodding me to get the 5d3. She even was even okay if I wanted to get the 1DX!
My 7D made all the money for my toys. Now it is time for the 5D3 to make some cash for the 135L. First paid shoot with it is this weekend.
<Insert some profound quote here to try and seem like a deep thinker>
Michael Wachel Photography
Facebook