Canon - What Lens?
Discussion
Hi All,
I'm a fairly amateur photographer with an EOS 5D mk 3. I am an planning to take the camera to Florida later in the year and would like to carry around no more than two lenses. What lens would you recommend for general family photos, preferably one lens for everything !
Thanks !
I'm a fairly amateur photographer with an EOS 5D mk 3. I am an planning to take the camera to Florida later in the year and would like to carry around no more than two lenses. What lens would you recommend for general family photos, preferably one lens for everything !
Thanks !
Agreed 24-105. It's my goto on my 5D mk3, but consider what you are planning to do and if you need to take something longer as well, or if you need it at all?
Florida has great light, a phones camera is pretty good these days, and do you want to be carrying a DSLR around all day, around the parks etc. Just a thought
Florida has great light, a phones camera is pretty good these days, and do you want to be carrying a DSLR around all day, around the parks etc. Just a thought
The recommendations for any smartphone for holiday shots are ok for social media/only viewing on small screens. However, the images completely fall apart when viewed and/or printed at say, A3.
Obviously it’s up to you, but the 5D3 is a very good camera, and on a special holiday, I wouldn’t want ropy pictures at all.
Obviously it’s up to you, but the 5D3 is a very good camera, and on a special holiday, I wouldn’t want ropy pictures at all.
Edited by Tony1963 on Wednesday 28th August 19:17
Agree on the 24-105mm lens, it's my most used lens. If it isn't wide enough for static subjects, can take two (or more) photos of the left and right view and stitch them together later in a photo editing app. I would therefore choose a telephoto lens rather than wide angle as a second lens choice. You could also consider using a tele-convertor rather than a second lens though this would be better off with an f2.8 lens for auto focusing.
Tony1963 said:
rene7]24-105 + one these [see pic said:
That 35-350 is going back a bit!In response to the OP, I'd suggest a nifty fifty as a backup to the 24-105. Better image quality and offers low light flexibility.
goldbazinga said:
An amazing feat to design a lense with that range, but IIRC it was never favourably reviewed.
In response to the OP, I'd suggest a nifty fifty as a backup to the 24-105. Better image quality and offers low light flexibility.
The so called nifty fifty is ok but so fragile. In response to the OP, I'd suggest a nifty fifty as a backup to the 24-105. Better image quality and offers low light flexibility.
Also, many find 40mm the ideal ‘normal’ lens, with 50mm feeling like a little telephoto.
Craikeybaby said:
Having had both the 50mm (f1.4) and the 40mm pancake lens on my 5D, I preferred the 50mm, as it was 2 stops faster than the 24-105.
I find it quite interesting regarding wide aperture lenses, as even when I have one fitted, I tend to try to avoid using it wide open unless absolutely necessary due to low light/need for a faster shutter speed. Not only is the image quality usually better, but often I find that using them wide open brings another set of problems due to the very shallow depth of focus. One example would be if taking a photo of a person that is at a very slight angle, you can easily end up with one eye sharply in focus and the other blurred.The other factor these days is that as camera sensors have improved in performance, you often can use smaller apertures even in low-light situations and still use reasonably quick shutter speeds.
I tend to use a 24-105 f4 the most for general photography, and very rarely ever use my 50mm f1.8.
The 24-105 is a bit limiting at the wide end, and a bit short at the long end, but if I was only able to take the one lens, it'd probably be that one.
For more specific stuff where weight isn't an issue, I'll use an 11-24 (also f4) for wide stuff, and longer stuff, a 70-210 f2.8, or 120-300 f2.8 (Sigma).
These are on Canon 5Dmk3 and Canon R5 bodies, so full frame.
Another thing to bear in mind now with apertures is that time has moved on. With mirrorless you’ve a lot more freedom to use lenses with smaller maximum apertures and still be able to autofocus, and high iso images are more than useable unless you’re printing very big/selling commercially.
I think I’d feel lost if I went back to my old 5D3 now!
I think I’d feel lost if I went back to my old 5D3 now!
Edited by Tony1963 on Saturday 31st August 09:40
By coincidence I have two Canon 5D camera bodies.
The 24 - 105 L lens is one I generally have on the camera to start, for everyday shots. It performs well and provides a useful range. Worth investing in good quality lenses as these vastly improve results straight away. I am not in any way a professional photographer and my speciality is more akin `happy snaps`....
The next lens on my list is one I've owned for best part of 30 years. Its the 100 - 400 L lens and it has a stabiliser to improve the overall results especially when taking the 400 option. This lens comes into its own when we are travelling on holiday and are taking landscape shots.
Just before I retired I went mad and bought a 11 - 24 L lens. This doesn't get used much but for internal or architectural shots this does offer amazing solutions.
This photo of Lympstone Manor restaurant was one of the first shots using the 11 - 24 L lens.
Being so old I started with rolls of film and 100 or 400 ISO it took a while to start playing with raising the ISO settings in fear of screwing up the quality. Wow you can really push it and when you want good depth of filed and fast shutter speed this offers a great `get out of jail` option. If you're going to Florida there should be plenty of natural light but I'd suggest playing with ISO settings before you go just to see what can be achieved.
The 24 - 105 L lens is one I generally have on the camera to start, for everyday shots. It performs well and provides a useful range. Worth investing in good quality lenses as these vastly improve results straight away. I am not in any way a professional photographer and my speciality is more akin `happy snaps`....
The next lens on my list is one I've owned for best part of 30 years. Its the 100 - 400 L lens and it has a stabiliser to improve the overall results especially when taking the 400 option. This lens comes into its own when we are travelling on holiday and are taking landscape shots.
Just before I retired I went mad and bought a 11 - 24 L lens. This doesn't get used much but for internal or architectural shots this does offer amazing solutions.
This photo of Lympstone Manor restaurant was one of the first shots using the 11 - 24 L lens.
Edited by GJB on Thursday 5th September 11:47
Being so old I started with rolls of film and 100 or 400 ISO it took a while to start playing with raising the ISO settings in fear of screwing up the quality. Wow you can really push it and when you want good depth of filed and fast shutter speed this offers a great `get out of jail` option. If you're going to Florida there should be plenty of natural light but I'd suggest playing with ISO settings before you go just to see what can be achieved.
Edited by GJB on Thursday 5th September 11:56
Late to the party but I've got a 5D III and an R7, and I'd like to offer a couple of alternative suggestions:
24-105L is a good lens, and it's got enough length to be a great walkabout lens, but it's widest aperture is only f/4, which limits the bokeh (blurred backgrounds) you can get from it...not a problem for landscapes and a lot of city-photography, but not so good for portraiture.
I had one and I ditched it in favour of a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8. The Tamron is lighter and feels more fragile, but it's sharper and it can deliver the most wonderful bokeh if you want it to. it's also usefully cheaper (both new and 2nd hand). The latest Sigma Art lens in the same zoom-range is supposed to be even better.
Zoom-wise there's a bunch of good suggestions above. I've got the 100-400IS L Mk2, and it's a genuinely good lens (better than the old Mk1) but is properly heavy (1400g from memory), which means I only take it out when I need the reach. For those occasions I just need a bit of reach I've also got a Canon 70-200 IS L f/4. 200mm is a little measly on a full-frame camera, but it's a light lens, easy to use and also very sharp with decent IS onboard.
If I was just wanting a zoom lens on a full-frame I'd be looking at what high-quality 300mm lenses were around - good compromise on reach and weight. I used to have the (original) non-L 70-300 IS, and that was a decent lens but optically you could tell it wasn't an L. If I hadn't gone for the pair above, I'd have probably looked at what Tamron and Sigma have to offer in that bracket, but I know Canon have now got a 70-300L...if you can find one.
24-105L is a good lens, and it's got enough length to be a great walkabout lens, but it's widest aperture is only f/4, which limits the bokeh (blurred backgrounds) you can get from it...not a problem for landscapes and a lot of city-photography, but not so good for portraiture.
I had one and I ditched it in favour of a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8. The Tamron is lighter and feels more fragile, but it's sharper and it can deliver the most wonderful bokeh if you want it to. it's also usefully cheaper (both new and 2nd hand). The latest Sigma Art lens in the same zoom-range is supposed to be even better.
Zoom-wise there's a bunch of good suggestions above. I've got the 100-400IS L Mk2, and it's a genuinely good lens (better than the old Mk1) but is properly heavy (1400g from memory), which means I only take it out when I need the reach. For those occasions I just need a bit of reach I've also got a Canon 70-200 IS L f/4. 200mm is a little measly on a full-frame camera, but it's a light lens, easy to use and also very sharp with decent IS onboard.
If I was just wanting a zoom lens on a full-frame I'd be looking at what high-quality 300mm lenses were around - good compromise on reach and weight. I used to have the (original) non-L 70-300 IS, and that was a decent lens but optically you could tell it wasn't an L. If I hadn't gone for the pair above, I'd have probably looked at what Tamron and Sigma have to offer in that bracket, but I know Canon have now got a 70-300L...if you can find one.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff