What the best lens range for 5D Mark III?

I'm tossing up selling my 7D and all EF-S lenses towards the Mark III. The only thing holding me back is the crop and flash advantage of the 7D.

If I pull the trigger, I already have the 24-70mm f/ 2.8 but need to know if these are the two lenses I would need to start off with.

16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

70 - 200mm f/2.8L IS II USM (+ extender)

Thats what I have except for the 16-35. Not enough $ in my pockets for one.

If you get the 16-35 and 70-200, you would have pretty much the entire general range taken care of with Canon's best lenses (well, the MKII of the 24-70 supposed t be smoking). I didn't like the extender on the 70-200, but others have no issues with it. I thought it was too soft for my preferences.

If you need longer you could get the 70-300L or 100-400 instead of the 16-35L because 24mm is pretty wide on Full Frame. If you shoot mostly wide, the 16-35 is great and the extender on the 70-200 for seldom long shots would work.

It depends on whether you usually shoot wide or long. Also, if you don't need the 2.8 on the 16-30, you could get the 17-40 f/4. I sold the 16-35 a while back and went with the 17-40 because I decided I really didn't need the 2.8 on my wide shots.

What lens or lenses do you feel you used the most with the 7D?

The 17-40 isnt a bad alternative to the 16-35 and it would leave you enough left over to buy at least one fast prime which you will appreciate on the full frame body.

Seriously looking at where you are from I would be going the 70-200. Even though I don't have a 16-35, I have a 17-40, I rarely use it with my 5D2, The 24 end on my 24-70 or 24-105 is wide enough for anything I do with the FF, in fact I mainly use my 35L or 70-200L even for landscapes these days. It is often spoken about, ultra wide angle lenses getting too much in a picture that shows very little detail because everything is so small, which is why I never use the 17-40 in the scrub. I mainly use it in close quarters like cityscape situations, which is something you don't have a lot of! The 70-200 could be used very effectively to pick out points of interest when you are out and about. I even use it inside sometimes at family gatherings, you just have to have enough room between you and the subject.

Thanks guys this is great advice....the lens I use most often with my 7D is the 15-85. This is the best all rounder lens I've ever owned.

I'm starting the think the money spent on the 16-35 mm won't be cost effective to my work which is part time photographer for the local paper.

I like the idea of the 70-200 for indoor portraits but can see the advantages for the 100-400 for shooting horse races etc. The extender is now on the back burner.

I will go back today to Harvey Norman today and do another wide angle comparison with these lenses. The 24-70 might be wide enough for me after all.

The best scenario would be to keep the 7D and off load my 550D but that will leave my wife short of her favourite camera!

I'll keep you in the loop.

Lone Rider wrote in post #15291447
I'm tossing up selling my 7D and all EF-S lenses towards the Mark III. The only thing holding me back is the crop and flash advantage of the 7D.

If I pull the trigger, I already have the 24-70mm f/ 2.8 but need to know if these are the two lenses I would need to start off with.

16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

70 - 200mm f/2.8L IS II USM (+ extender)

that's an excellent kit. similar to what i own.

The 2xIII with the 70-200II is on par with the 100-400. Don't turn the back burner off yet. I went with the 500.00 extender rather than the 1600.00 100-400. Below is a 100% crop of using the extender with the 70-200:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

I've just done a 7D vs.5D Mark III comparison with my current lens line up.

The results have made me think whether this camera upgrade exercise is worth it or not.

SIGMA 10-20mm - as expected vingetting on the corners (below 14mm) but above this the image looks good and is very wide. Suitable for my purposes in both cameras.

CANON 24-70 - wide enough for my purposes. Perfect for portraits on both cameras.

CANON 70-300 DO - 4.5 - 5.6 f zooms extremely well on both cameras. No need to spend $2K on a white lens as I only use the reach for my outdoor work.

Heres the clincher....the flash on the 7D has saved me on several low light occasions when I needed an additional light source straight away. A 5DIII can't do that.

So if I got the Mark III I would only need to sell one lens....the 15-85...or I could save myself a bucket of money and keep the 7D.

It seems to be a no brainer.

I would think that the 5DIII would be much better at high ISO than the 7D, negating the pop up flash on the 7D. Pick up a used 430 II flash. Get the 70-200 2.8 II. It's a great lens.

Instead of a 16-35, I'd go with a 17-40 and either a 135L or 100L Macro. Both are fantastic portrait lenses with really nice bokeh on the 5DIII, and the 100 gives you Macro and IS too. Ask yourself how often you need the wide angle in low light and will use F2.8?

Check out the last few pages of the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 Lens Sample Photo Archive in this forum. Evan has been experimenting with an Kenko 1.4x extender, your Sigma, and a FF body.
https://photography-on-the.net …ead.php?t=14306​4&page=302
I still see some vingetting, but it looks minor. I was also wondering why you wouldn't stick with that 70-300 DO for a while and experiment -- you probably have learned how to use that lens and do Post-processing -- I bet it would be fun on a FF format.

Here's a brand new review of the 100L Macro to back up my previous statement: http://www.canonrumors​.com …on-ef-100-f2-8l-is-macro/

I have the 16-35/24-70/70-200 f/2.8 zoom trinity. In moving from crop to full frame, I'm using the 70-200 significantly more often than I used to. And an extender for the 70-200 is seeming like a fair idea now, since I don't have anything longer. 24-70 is still my default walkaround type lens, which I love. 16-35 was a pretty huge change, going from wide to ultrawide. I still like the 16-35 for hiking and such, but apart from that it doesn't get a whole lot of use. Of the three, I could most easily get by without the ultrawide 16-35. 24mm is actually fairly wide now, on full frame. But I can do some terrifically exaggerated shots now at 16mm.