Opinions on lens options

With the price dropping on 5DIII's, I plan one getting one in the not too distant future.

I have a 70-200 f/4L, and an EF 28-135. (and a 100 macro)

Should I get the 5DIII body + 24-105L kit, or..

Body only and a 17-40L, and just bridge the gap between that and the 70-200 with the trusty old 28-135?

Types of photography: macro, hummingbirds, family, travel (landscapes), pretty much in that order.

The kit price is tempting, and the 24-105 would make a nice general use lens. Think I'll regret not being able to go wider?

Well the 10-22 in your signature would be similar to the 17-40L on FF, so could you do without that wide perspective??

hsmoscout wrote in post #15160401
Well the 10-22 in your signature would be similar to the 17-40L on FF, so could you do without that wide perspective??

I've thought about that, but the wide end of my 28-135 would be equivelant to 17.5 (so, in the middle of my 10-22 on a crop). I wonder if that would be wide enough. Granted, the 28-135 is the least sharp of the lenses in this discussion, but not terrible.

24mm on ff will be like 15mm on crop. If you find yourself using wider than 15 on your 10-22, you will likely miss it. But, 24 on ff is still pretty wide. If i were you, i would get the 5D III/24-105 kit, and hold onto the 28-135. If you find you miss the wide end, sell the 24-105 and pick up a 17-40.. and let the 28-135 be your walkaround lens. Once you use the 24-105, i have a feeling you won't particularly want to go back to using the 28-135.

I'd get the kit personally. The 24-105 is a cracking good lens, and perfectly suited to the 5Ds. Only you know if 24mm would be wide enough for your needs though... I'm in the process of selling my 17-40 because 24 is about as wide as I like to go.

1Tanker wrote in post #15160428
24mm on ff will be like 15mm on crop. If you find yourself using wider than 15 on your 10-22, you will likely miss it. But, 24 on ff is still pretty wide. If i were you, i would get the 5D III/24-105 kit, and hold onto the 28-135. If you find you miss the wide end, sell the 24-105 and pick up a 17-40.. and let the 28-135 be your walkaround lens. Once you use the 24-105, i have a feeling you won't particularly want to go back to using the 28-135.

Thanks. I won't be getting rid of the 28-135, regardless; I'm keeping my 40D and will probably keep it attached to that if I get the 24-105. That'll become my wife's camera

Maybe I should rob a bank. If I get away with it, I can get whatever gear I want; if I get caught, I won't need it anyhow

IMO, the photographer's mid-range zoom lens should be the best in his kit. Because most of his/her images may be shot with that lens. I shoot 66% of my 1.6x images with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 33% with my 70-200mm f/4L IS. I probably shoot less than 1-2% of my imagery with all my other lenses put together.

The 28-135mm may not be the best lens in the Canon inventory. But in some cases it is a close rival to the 24-105mm f/4L IS lens.

Here is a website with a comparison of the 28-135mm and 24-105mm lenses.

http://www.acapixus.dk …raphy/24_to_105​/index.htm

RPCrowe wrote in post #15160565
IMO, the photographer's mid-range zoom lens should be the best in his kit. Because most of his/her images may be shot with that lens. I shoot 66% of my 1.6x images with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 33% with my 70-200mm f/4L IS. I probably shoot less than 1-2% of my imagery with all my other lenses put together.

The 28-135mm may not be the best lens in the Canon inventory. But in some cases it is a close rival to the 24-105mm f/4L IS lens.

Here is a website with a comparison of the 28-135mm and 24-105mm lenses.

http://www.acapixus.dk …raphy/24_to_105​/index.htm

I think that depends heavily on your style! I use my sig 85 for 70% of my shots, my 35 for 15%, and the last 15% split between everything else.

RPCrowe wrote in post #15160565
.....
Here is a website with a comparison of the 28-135mm and 24-105mm lenses.

http://www.acapixus.dk …raphy/24_to_105​/index.htm

Thanks for the link. Not as much difference as I would have expected.

I have a 40D, and I am also planning on getting a 5DIII next year. I have the 17-55 f/2.8but it wont work on a FF body, same with your 10-22. get rid of the 28-135, and 10-22 and get the 24-70 f/2.8L II, and you will have a great lineup. -rick

alazgr8 wrote in post #15160598
I have a 40D, and I am also planning on getting a 5DIII next year. I have the 17-55 f/2.8but it wont work on a FF body, same with your 10-22. get rid of the 28-135, and 10-22 and get the 24-70 f/2.8L II, and you will have a great lineup. -rick

As long as I have the 40D (which I'm keeping), I'll never sell the 10-22; Awesome lens. And I'm not quite ready to spend $2,300 on a 24-70, but appreciate the input

That's how I feel about my 17-55. Good luck in your quest to find the perfect lense lineup. That's what we are all searching for. -rick

LV Moose wrote in post #15160613
As long as I have the 40D (which I'm keeping), I'll never sell the 10-22; Awesome lens. And I'm not quite ready to spend $2,300 on a 24-70, but appreciate the input

LV Moose wrote in post #15160613
As long as I have the 40D (which I'm keeping), I'll never sell the 10-22; Awesome lens. And I'm not quite ready to spend $2,300 on a 24-70, but appreciate the input

I was going to suggest keeping the 10-22 since you were hanging onto the 40D. Since that is your plan, I would get the 5D3 with the 24-105L. If you need to recover some money, sell the 28-135 instead.

I also kept my EFS 10-22 instead of exchanging it for a 17-40L after buying a 5D3 + 24-105L in the spring. I do not shoot ultra wide very often, so the 10-22 on my 7D works fine to fill that occasional need. This approach has the added benefit of helping to reduce lens changes if you carry both bodies.

I'd get the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC over the 24-105L as a general purpose lens. Both good lenses but you would get a bit more by having f/2.8 IMO.

dave_bass5 wrote in post #15163345
I'd get the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC over the 24-105L as a general purpose lens. Both good lenses but you would get a bit more by having f/2.8 IMO.

Another option, thank you. And $1,000 cheaper than the Canon 24-70L, but not quite as good optically, although it is stabilized. Always trade-offs.