5D Classic Lens Setup

I've just managed to bag myself a 5D classic and I'm looking at the lenses I have.

Canon 17-40L F/4
Canon 50mm F/1.8 MkII
Canon 70-200L F/4 IS

Do you thing it would be worth getting another couple of primes for low light / indoor use, I was thinking 35/85mm?

I do have a 580exII also.

I felt that my 85mm lens really came to life on FF, I never was completely happy with it on my 30D.

The 35L is really nice on FF too.

35 is awesome on the 5D. I like 50 on crop, but hate it on FF. The 100 f/2 is also amazing and probably my favorite lens that can be had for <$350. I miss that one. If cost is a concern I'd be looking at the 35 f/2 and the 100 f/2 which you could definitely get both for less than $600. If the budget is unlimited you've got the 24L mkII, 35L, and 85L.

dave_walton wrote in post #11954174
I've just managed to bag myself a 5D classic and I'm looking at the lenses I have.

Canon 17-40L F/4
Canon 50mm F/1.8 MkII
Canon 70-200L F/4 IS

Do you thing it would be worth getting another couple of primes for low light / indoor use, I was thinking 35/85mm?

I do have a 580exII also.

Dave,

Not really answering your question but as we both have the 17-40L can you answer the following - I am torn between the 24-105L and the 70-200L for my next lens. My main concern is that the 24-105 has too much of an overlap and the 70-200 has too much of a gap. In your experience with your listed lenses do you think the 70-200 and 17-40 is too much of a gap (is that why you bought the 50 prime)?

Sorry for the thread hijack

Eddie

I have the lenses that you have and all are great on the 5D. I dont find the 50 all that useful, but perhaps thats me. (Full confesssion I have 3 50mm lenses and I dont know why). I think you would be well served by either a 85 1.8, 100 f2, or if you really want to be blown away the 135L. Check the 5D or 135L user threads to see why.

xpfloyd wrote in post #11955404
Dave,

Not really answering your question but as we both have the 17-40L can you answer the following - I am torn between the 24-105L and the 70-200L for my next lens. My main concern is that the 24-105 has too much of an overlap and the 70-200 has too much of a gap. In your experience with your listed lenses do you think the 70-200 and 17-40 is too much of a gap (is that why you bought the 50 prime)?

Sorry for the thread hijack

Eddie

Eddie, I've had the 17-40, 24-70, and 70-200 (still have the last two). My take on it is that IF you're happy with the 17-40 then I would get the 70-200. To me the 40-70mm range is the most boring range of all. Some people would contend that it's the "most useful" range and to them I'm sure it is, but I just don't care for the 50ish range. I sold the 17-40 because I preferred my 24-70 to it @24mm and even though I would like to keep something wider, at the time it was the lens that hit the chopping block. If you're satisfied with the 17-40 performance my opinion would be to go longer and not worry about the 30mm gap in the middle.

Thanks for the reply, you still think longer if it was a 24-105L with 65mm extra?

xpfloyd wrote in post #11955404
Dave,

Not really answering your question but as we both have the 17-40L can you answer the following - I am torn between the 24-105L and the 70-200L for my next lens. My main concern is that the 24-105 has too much of an overlap and the 70-200 has too much of a gap. In your experience with your listed lenses do you think the 70-200 and 17-40 is too much of a gap (is that why you bought the 50 prime)?

Sorry for the thread hijack

Eddie

I think it comes down to how you are going to use the lens too. You are right that its fairly easy to ignore/avoid the gap between the 17-40 and 70-200. But if you are trying to use that setup on a daytrip or walkaround situation you end up changing lenses a lot. The glory of the 24-105 despite the overlap, is that it goes from wide to portrait length tele without the need to change lenses or carry the whole kit.

gonzogolf wrote in post #11955521
I think it comes down to how you are going to use the lens too. You are right that its fairly easy to ignore/avoid the gap between the 17-40 and 70-200. But if you are trying to use that setup on a daytrip or walkaround situation you end up changing lenses a lot. The glory of the 24-105 despite the overlap, is that it goes from wide to portrait length tele without the need to change lenses or carry the whole kit.

This is 100% true. Having one lens that does 24 and 100mm both very well is very appealing. I haven't shot with the 24-105, but I imagine if I had I would love it.

And Eddie, I don't know how I would feel about the 105 vs. 200. I've had 3 different 100mm primes and I really love the focal length, but I know that when I use a 70-200 (I've had 3 different zooms at that range as well) I keep wanting to go longer with it. In a vacuum, the 24-xxx zoom would be the best "only one" lens of the three ranges in question.

And while gonzo is spot on that the 24-105 is the best single lens solution, I'm personally the guy who either drags too much gear around in a messenger bag or just throws the camera over his shoulder with one lens because it "forces creativity"

35L! It is glued to my camera.

When I had my 300D I had a 18-55 as a walkabout lens so roughly 28-88 full frame equivelent. I found it just a bit short from time to time. Now that I have upgraded to a 5D im looking for a replacement walkaround lens from the L lenses. I do want to keep the 17-40 though as im loving it for landscape stuff. Its just the overlap is niggling at me. Also looking at the 70-200 its a fair bit longer than the 24-105 which to me is not what I want in a walkaround.

Think I may have answered my own dilema there......

Again sorry for the complete thread hijack

I own 3 lenses that that can do 100mm. Personally I cant stand people who want every mm covered without overlapping. It's not the end if the world ya know
To the OP: i'd keep what you have, if you like the 50mm you could replace it with the 50 1.4

reprazent wrote in post #11955622
I own 3 lenses that that can do 100mm. Personally I cant stand people who want every mm covered without overlapping. It's not the end if the world ya know
To the OP: i'd keep what you have, if you like the 50mm you could replace it with the 50 1.4

Im not looking for every mm covered im just asking for peoples views about my second lens covering 2/3 of the focal range of my first lens. Hopefully not to much offence has been caused

I have
17-40
35L
85 F1.8

This combo is just as prefect as it can get. 85 for most portrait work I do, 35 for some environmental portrait work. 17-40 or 35L for general walk-around.

xpfloyd wrote in post #11955681
Im not looking for every mm covered im just asking for peoples views about my second lens covering 2/3 of the focal range of my first lens. Hopefully not to much offence has been caused

ah, it wasn't directed at you personally
anyway, you were wondering if a 24-xx lens would be the right decision for you.

If I already owned the 17-40, I'd probably go for the 70-200 first. If you find yourself not going wider than 24mm much you could replace it with a 24-105, or even the tamron 28-75.