lens advice for a full-frame

Hello all, after getting tons of great feedback from members of this forum, I finally bought an upgrade to replace my T3 Rebel. It was not an easy choice, but since the vast majority of the photography I do is landscapes, I finally chose the 5DII instead of the 7D. The first lens I bought for it is the 70-200 F4L IS USM. Since I'm coming from a crop body, the 70-200 is going to feel like a 43-125 for me, which I'm thinking will be a very usefull zoom range. In fact it will likely be my walk around lens.

I'd love to get some advice on a lens recommendation for closer subjects. Since I just plunked down a healthy amount of cash on my new body and telephoto, I'm hoping to find a wider lens that doesn't break the bank. It doesn't have to be an "L-series", in fact it can't be...I can't afford another one right now. It doesn't even have to be a zoom, if there are good recommendations for a prime that would be useful. Eventually I'll be upgrading to another L series, but in the meantime, I'd really like to keep it in the sub- $300 dollar range if possible. Before the obvious question gets asked...why didn't I buy the 5DII with the 24-105 kit lens? Basically because I know eventually I'll want a 24-70 instead of the 24-105, and the 70-200 F4L IS seems to be just about the most highly praised and regarded lens that doesn't cost in the several thousands of dollars.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

There are four contenders off the top of my head.

28-135
24-85 which is discontinued and you will have to get used
Tamron 28-75/2.8
Sigma 24-70/2.8 non HSM which is also discontinued and will have to find used.

There are also a bunch of old kit 28-105s out there used but I haven't heard many good things about them.

17-40 for landscapes. See if you can find a used one. You will want wider than 24mm for landscapes IMO.

Numenorean wrote in post #15204501
17-40 for landscapes. See if you can find a used one. You will want wider than 24mm for landscapes IMO.

That's also what I was thinking since you are into landscape. It is an L but it is reasonably priced.

Thanks guys. Yeah, the 17-40L is the next on my list of serious lenses. But even used, it's still going to be too expensive for a while. I'm more looking for an interim lens until I can afford the 17-40. I stumbled on the Nifty fifty and think that may do the trick for now. The price is right.

Jedi5150 wrote in post #15204533
Thanks guys. Yeah, the 17-40L is the next on my list of serious lenses. But even used, it's still going to be too expensive for a while. I'm more looking for an interim lens until I can afford the 17-40. I stumbled on the Nifty fifty and think that may do the trick for now. The price is right.

It's a plastic hunk of junk that doesn't belong on a 5DII.

Numenorean wrote in post #15204536
It's a plastic hunk of junk that doesn't belong on a 5DII.

Tell me how you really feel about it. J/K

I definitely see what you mean, but it has gotten some very good reviews for clarity considering it's extremely low price point. To be honest, I don't think that anything besides an L-series lens will really feel like it "belongs" on my 5DII, but it's either buy something cheap or live with a minimum focal length of 70mm until I can save. The camera body arrives this coming week, so I'll give it a go at seeing how long I can get by with just the 70-200.

The 50 1.4 would be far better if you wanted a cheap 50. And 50mm is so close to 70mm that I don't see the point. Especially not if the vast majority of your shots are landscapes.

35 f2 is a really great lens. Sharp, cheap($250 used), f2. Mine was sharper than the 35L I owned in the center and equal from f2.8 and up.

40 2.8 pancake

Yould may be go for a prime. 50/1.4 or 40/2.8 are good option but I am afraid they are too long for your landscape work. If you want to go wide and do not mind manual focus, you could look at Samyang options.

Jedi5150 wrote in post #15204442
Since I'm coming from a crop body, the 70-200 is going to feel like a 43-125 for me, which I'm thinking will be a very usefull zoom range. In fact it will likely be my walk around lens.

I'm surprised nobody's said anything about this yet. Without getting technical, the 1.6x FOV conversion only applies when moving from FF to crop, not the other way around. 70-200 on FF has the same field of view as well...a 70-200.

Edit: I think I may have misinterpreted what you wrote. If you meant that your 70-200 on FF will be as if you were using a 43-125 on an APS-C body, then you can disregard what I wrote.

I don't understand how your 70-200 will feel like 43-125. It will now be a true 70-200.

I would vote on saving for a 17-40 or used 24-105 ( these are getting very affordable and its really excellent on a 5d2 ). Mix in a nice cheaper prime like 85 1.8, 40 2.8 or 50 1.8/1.4 when you can and you have a lens set that can cover a lot.

If your looking to keep it really cheap for now go with the $150 pancake. If anything its fun.

Tommydigi wrote in post #15205464
I don't understand how your 70-200 will feel like 43-125. It will now be a true 70-200.

I would vote on saving for a 17-40 or used 24-105 ( these are getting very affordable and its really excellent on a 5d2 ). Mix in a nice cheaper prime like 85 1.8, 40 2.8 or 50 1.8/1.4 when you can and you have a lens set that can cover a lot.

If your looking to keep it really cheap for now go with the $150 pancake. If anything its fun.

For people who have never used FF or film and only have used crop, that is their only point of reference. His 70-200 on full frame would feel like a 43-125 on crop.

He listed a $300 budget, the L's even used will blow that away.

I have full frame and crop but I still don't get it. 70-200 on full frame will be 70-200. Yes if you had a 43 to 125 lens on APS-C sensor it would give the equivalent of 70-200 but he has a 70-200 so I guess I don't see how its relevant.