Best Lenses for Canon 5D3?
I apologize if this thread is already out there, however, I searched and didn't find one. I will be purchasing the Canon 5D3 very soon and looking for lens suggestions. I shoot high school sports, family portraits and landscapes. I know I need the 70-200mm f2.8 L but I'm not sure between the 24-70mm II or the 16-35mm II?
0
Comments
If you plan to do any individual portraits too I highly recommend the EF 135mm, f2L USM as well. It's got that wonderful "magic" of smooth tonality coupled with blistering sharpness on a FF body. Rent one if you need convincing.
Edit: I also moved this to the Cameras forum, which is where you'll find lots more lens questions.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Personally, I have all three of the lenses you listed. I went with the 16-35 over the 17-40 for night photography and indoor events which are both applications where F2.8 is very useful. And the 24-70 is for indoor events as well. When I shoot shorter in the studio, I usually just pick up the 24-105. It's extremely sharp at the smaller apertures I tend to favor with studio lights. Oh, and you're definitely not going to use F2.8 on group shoots. An F4 lens is more than fast enough.
Link to my Smugmug site
What lens do you recommend for outdoor family portraits?
I think the 24-105 would be perfect in just about every case. Don't get me wrong, the 24-70 MKII is a killer lens, but wicked expensive and the 24-105 is absolutely sharp enough for portraits especially when stopped down a bit. Plus you get the flexibility of being able to shoot up to 105mm.
Mind you I'm predicating all this on you saying that you had to choose between the 24-70 OR the 16-35. You can cover the range you need within your budget now, and give up very little.
Link to my Smugmug site
You are correct in going with the f/2.8 version of the 70-200 for sports. It's the bees knees for low light. You will love that lens.
Canon often does package rebates for all these listed here, saving $400-600 more. One is going on now through March 30th in the US.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
Those are completely different needs. Typically you need a fairly wide-angle lens for group portraits, while an individual or a 2-shot portrait looks much better with a moderate telephoto (head-shot or head-and-shoulders) or standard/normal focal length (3/4 or full-length).
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
you could get the 17-40 f/4 L & 70-200 f/4 L IS if you don't need the 2.8 aperture or wont' be shooting in low light or will be using off camera lighting.
The lens is sharp, handles well, fast to focus, bright, and delivers background blur that is very appealing.
The hidden benefit of using it over a zoom is that you can't screw up the perspective with a prime. You pick perspective when you mount the lens. Framing with a zoom means that you delegate perspective to whatever you get from where you are standing. With a prime like the 135, it means that you crop if you are a bit too far away, but you keep your chosen perspective. It means stepping back when too close, and that can be impossible and you wind up with really tight images. But the 135 always means I'm shooting the perspective I want when I'm shooting people.
the 24-70 2.8 gets my vote but I would also get some primes for portraits
SmugMug setup & customization services. Contact me!
Proud & helpful Smugger since 2009. Please hire me for Support Hero!!
I first contacted Jill V. in April 2011 & I even wrote a poem.
What lens do you recommend for taking a portrait of four people? How many people does the 135 cover?
Depends on how far away you stand...
Seriously, it probably is not the right lens for groups, something I typically don't shoot that much. But when I do, I go for the 24-70 (I have a Mk I)
For an environmental group portrait you might even go wider (slightly).
It partly depends on the group arrangement and photographic intent, but the wider end of a standard zoom is generally a good starting point.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
If by portraiture you mean "shots of people" then any focal length will do. But the term often implies a certain perspective that makes for a more flattering shot. And if that's the case, you want to step back and zoom in. Or step back and use a prime lens.
The accepted wisdom I've read is the 85-135 is where the magic is. I personally shoot 135mm and love it. I used to shoot at 100mm and it looks way better than 50mm, back when two primes were all I had.
How much is too much?
I read once of a portrait done with at 200mm (f/2.8) in a big enough studio of a single person. The photographer wanted the flattened perspective to better flatter the subject. They normally shot with a shorter lens.
When is it too little?
I'll shoot 70mm when crowded and as low as 50mm when under duress. It's problem solving time when I find myself having to drop below 50mm.
I agree, for shooting people distance is important because of the more flattering perspective created by the longer distances thus the longer focal lengths