1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. REMINDER

    Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as AP, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

Lens suggestions for Canon 5d Mk3

Discussion in 'Lens Matters' started by rdavies626, Sep 9, 2014.

  1. ianwaite

    ianwaite Well-Known Member

  2. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Remember that a 50mm on full frame does not give the same angle of view as a 50mm on APS-C; for that, you need an 85mm.
     
  3. southonline

    southonline Well-Known Member

    same here Nissin Di7000 great unit and half the price of the canon - I've used it at varoius locations and extremely pleased with it
     
  4. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member


    I think if you are getting a 5D and 24-105 with baby shots in mind then a flash gun is a good idea especially now the nights are starting to draw in. The 24-105 is an excellent all round lens. I would not rush to buy another just yet - find out what is limiting first.
     
  5. southonline

    southonline Well-Known Member

    hold off getting the flash as the 5D is amazing in low light and I've been taking photos between 3-6000 iso which are numbers I'd never dreamed of before - plus natural light is going to be far better than any flash unless your going to buy diffusers
     
  6. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    Agreed, especially if you are getting a f1.8 lens. These cameras are really the old adage of "photographing black cats in coal cellars" come true. I have taken perfectly respectable hand held images of scenes that I can not see visually.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2014
  7. southonline

    southonline Well-Known Member

    ;o)

    I took a photo in a castle cell last month at 10,000 ISO and it was OK, I couldn't even see the rear wall and put it into manual focus and guessed ;o)
     
  8. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    OK I will see your prison cell and raise you a Mother Shipton's cave image
    [​IMG]

    ISO 12,800 and 1/8 sec I could not see a thing, just pointed the camera and pressed the button, it even achieved focus lock
     
  9. southonline

    southonline Well-Known Member

    :) you can't knock that Roger - its a dam fine bit of kit
     
  10. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Despite this enthusiasm for photographing in the dark I'd still say it is useful to have a flash gun for indoor shots (and outdoor too).

    To the original question, and because my interest is also family, landscape, buildings.

    The first lens addition I made to 24-105 was a 70-200 which from a family photography point of view is very good for kiddies running around. Both F2.8 and F4 IS versions are excellent. They differ a lot in size. The second was more for landscape and I bought the 17-40 F4 (there is now a better 16-35 F4) mainly for "getting it all in" when photographing buildings while keeping the camera horizontal to minimise keystoning. So my suggestion was to wait and see what limits you find first with the 24-105 (long or wide) bearing in mind this is a very useful focal length range on full frame.
     
  11. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Aye, great for kiddies running about but no so good for close focus on newborns and I'd describe the quality of my 70-200 f/2.8 IS2 as adequate rather than excellent. It's pretty good for zoom but it's no macro lens.

    For photographing things the size of a babies head I find my 28-105 does a far better job than my 70-200. The 70-200 is the worst lens I own when it comes to photographing small things! (well possibly except the 19-35 which I didn't bother testing)
     
  12. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    Sorry if I helped lead a diversion, and yes I agree a flash is a very useful, even essential, bit of kit. I use my guns very rarely but I have several family groups hanging on various walls that would just not be any good without a touch of fill-in flash.
     
  13. ianwaite

    ianwaite Well-Known Member

    I think you got a bad one then the 70-200 L in both F4 and F2.8 guises are notoriously sharp and are used widely by press because of this, although the colours can be a little flat in certain lights.

    Ian
     
  14. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    I didn't get a bad one....it's good for a zoom when the subject is a good few metres away.
     
  15. ianwaite

    ianwaite Well-Known Member

    Agreed the 70-200mm is not designed for close up work, I wouldn't consider using it for portrait work unless the subject was several meters away and maybe I wanted an image where the subject was not aware.

    Ian
     
  16. mikeh201355

    mikeh201355 Well-Known Member

    I thought 90mm to 135mm was the classic portrait lens.
     
  17. ianwaite

    ianwaite Well-Known Member

    You also need to look at it's minimum focus distance, for portrait I would normally go with 85mm 1.2L or my 50mm 1.2L wich also gives better depth of field to really pull the subject out of the background
     
  18. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    I prefer the TS-E 90mm....it's quicker to focus ;) :D
     
  19. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Depends on what sort of portraiture you're doing, and to some extent, where you're doing it - but basically, lenses from 35mm to 135mm on 35mm film were generally used at the sort of distance that gives flattering perspective to get framing from environmental portraits to tight head and shoulders shots, wth adult subjects. But in a large studio you might need to go longer - similarly with smaller subjects, such as babies. So all sorts of focal lengths are suitable - I even use my circular fisheye sometimes for fun pictures, but the perspective with that is anything but flattering. ;)
     
  20. rdavies626

    rdavies626 Active Member

    Thanks for all the replies, especially impressed with the low light photo! Im going to have a play with the camera when i get home in just over a week and see what its like. Have in the back of my mind kind of decided on the Canon 600 EX RT! Unless i get persuaded otherwise in the mean time!

    The Canon 70-200mm f2.8 lens looks very nice, but going to be a while before I can look at that. Is there much of a difference between that and the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 for £600 less?




    [h=3][/h]
     

Share This Page