kroogs Hatchling 1 post Joined Oct 2008 More info | Oct 12, 2008 17:16 | #1 Hi all,
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Oct 12, 2008 18:52 | #2 Three winners. www.zivnuska.zenfolio.com/blog
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jmintz Member 68 posts Joined Feb 2007 More info | Oct 12, 2008 19:06 | #3 I've got the 16-35 2.8 (mk 1) and 70-200 2.8 IS on a 5D, and those, with my 50 1.4, pretty much cover everything I could possibly think of. Good choices. Josh Mintz: http://www.photosbyjosh.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
SkipD Cream of the Crop  20,476 posts Likes: 165 Joined Dec 2002 Location: Southeastern WI, USA More info | Oct 12, 2008 19:14 | #4 kroogs wrote in post #6483241  Here are a few I've been drooling over: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle That's the combination of lenses I have for my 20D (except that I have the original 16-35 f/2.8L lens) and they would be equally good (though with a wider field of view) on the so-called "full-frame" cameras. Skip Douglas
LOG IN TO REPLY |
argyle Cream of the Crop  8,187 posts Likes: 24 Joined Apr 2007 Location: DFW, Texas More info | Those are three good choices. With the increase in camera resolution to almost doubling that of the current 5D, you will definitely need quality lenses...the camera will really highlight the weaknesses of lesser lenses. "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son". - Dean Wormer
LOG IN TO REPLY |
PerryGe Batteries? We don't need no... . . . or cards.  More info | Oct 12, 2008 22:32 | #6 Zooms? Ew! Go prime. For the same price as those 3 zooms you could probably get a drool-worthy set of primes. OR stick with the 16-35, and get a 35L, 85L, and 135L - the holy trinity. argyle wrote in post #6484076 Those are three good choices. With the increase in camera resolution to almost doubling that of the current 5D, you will definitely need quality lenses...the camera will really highlight the weaknesses of lesser lenses. I've actually found the opposite to be true. Whatever people say, I've found that crappy lenses look better on my 5D than on a cropped body... Perry | www.perryge.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
SeattleSpeedster Goldmember  More info | Oct 12, 2008 22:35 | #7 Ive heard people bantering about that the 17-40 was just about at its resolution limit and this was before the 1Ds mkIII. Fuji GFX100s and A7R II | Zeiss 85mm f1.4 Otus and 28mm f1.4 Otus | Fuji GF23mm, GF45-100mm and GF32-64mm | Canon 200mm f1.8 Canon 70-200mm 2.8 ii | Zeiss 100-300mm | Zeiss 16-35mm f4 | Zeiss 135mm f2 | Zeiss and Sony 50mm f1.4 | Mavic 3 Pro and Inspire 2 X7 drones | https://mikereidphotography.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
sunnygirl Goldmember  1,057 posts Likes: 5 Joined Jun 2008 Location: Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia More info | Oct 12, 2008 22:37 | #8 perryge wrote in post #6484794 Zooms? Ew! Go prime. For the same price as those 3 zooms you could probably get a drool-worthy set of primes. OR stick with the 16-35, and get a 35L, 85L, and 135L - the holy trinity. I've actually found the opposite to be true. Whatever people say, I've found that crappy lenses look better on my 5D than on a cropped body... Interesting observation about crappy lens..... Susan
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such! 2933 guests, 136 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
