Best lens set up for 5D II

[wattsgallery]

Looking to move from crop (40D) to FF (5D II) in the next few weeks. Borrowed a 5D II for a few weeks at the start of the month and now dont think I can go back.

The obvious questions -
What lenses do you currently have?
- 10-22mm great lens but will have to go
- 28-75mm 2.8 Tammy great on crop but may not hold up to FF
- 50 1.8
- 200 2.8L

What type of photography are you into?
This is difficult and a bit of a mixed bag (per my website). While I personally enjoy Landscape and Wildlife (and would like to shoot more sport - yes I considered a 7D:)) I find I do a lot of portraits of kids etc as that is what the friends and family (and I suspect clients) want. So a bit of everything really!!

How serious are you?
Thats a tough one but I can say I am not keen to sacrifice image quality (although weight is weighing on my mind - sorry:o)

My thinking -

24-70 2.8/50 1.4/70-200 2.8 or 4 IS [worried about the weight:Doh:]

or

17-40/50 1.4/70-200 2.8 or 4 IS

But open to other ideas. I know there is a weight and substantial price difference in the set ups above but I am sure many have had to grapple with this and I would like to learn from your experience. I have tried the 24-105 for a couple of weeks on the 5D and was a bit underwhelmed for the price I have to say but I know many swear by it.

For serious wildlife work I would hire longer/faster teles so not trying to cover that in my standard kit. I'm also not set either way on primes or zooms although while my 200mm is great IQ the fixed 200 is limiting - but I also am scarred of barrel creep in zooms that really bugs me - I know I am just a real complainer!!! Any help very much appreciated. And if you are reading this and going this in a thousand threads please include the links as I would love to read them but can't get the search results.

Thanks guys.

[wattsgallery]

Sorry all

I realise that my post title might be a bit subjective. Perhaps 'best' is a bit too debatable. What would be great is to hear what set up people who have a FF camera have, the rationale and if they are happy with it.

Thanks

[Xenedis]

What would be great is to hear what set up people who have a FF camera have, the rationale and if they are happy with it.

I've shot with full-frame DSLRs since 2006.

My lens lineup (unchanged since mid-2008) is as follows:


16-35/2.8L II
70-200/2.8L IS USM
35/1.4L
85/1.2L II
135/2L
180/3.5L Macro
300/2.8L IS USM


I use my 16-35 almost exclusively for seascapes, of which I shoot a lot. It mostly stays at 16mm, as I like the wide view. It is currently my most used lens.

My 35, 85 and 135 get used for portraits, but I also use my 135 for still-life, as it has basically the same 3' minimum focus distance as the 85, but provides a tighter crop. I also use my fast primes for shooting bands -- a very fast low-light rig. It's been a while since I did a gig shoot, though. The 35 is also a good, general-purpose indoor lens. If I had to go out and shoot street-based photography with two primes only, the 35 and 85 would be the two I'd take.

My 70-200 is a general-purpose tele which gets used for events, bands, portraits and miscellany.

Macro lens = self-explanatory. The longer focal length allows a greater working distance, and this lens also has a tripod collar, which is more convenient, as only the camera needs to rotate rather than the tripod head moving.

As for the big 300, I use that for aviation, wildlife and the odd portrait. It's a stunner of a lens. I have both the 1.4x TC and 2x TC, and use those for the same subject material.

I love all of my lenses; they don't leave me wanting in any way.

My macro lens is the most difficult to use, not for any lack on its part, though; I'm just not a good macro photographer, and the depth of field with that lens is very shallow, even when stopped down.

[wattsgallery]

Thank you so much for the detailed reply Xenedis. I am not sure I can stump up for that much gear but it is an extremely useful post.

Its funny you have the 35 1.4. I am somewhat inexplicably in love/lust with it - figuratively speaking. It seems inpractical but I just can't take it out of my thoughts in considering a kit (even if I had to 'pair' it with a 17-40 and a 70-200). Hmmmmmm.......

Will be keen to catch up for a seascape shoot with the group in Sydney.

Cheers
Josh

[Xenedis]

Thank you so much for the detailed reply Xenedis. I am not sure I can stump up for that much gear but it is an extremely useful post.

Thanks Josh. Naturally I didn't buy it all at once. :-)


Its funny you have the 35 1.4. I am somewhat inexplicably in love/lust with it - figuratively speaking. It seems inpractical but I just can't take it out of my thoughts in considering a kit (even if I had to 'pair' it with a 17-40 and a 70-200).

It is a stellar lens, and on a full-frame camera provides for a very useful focal length. It's great for photographing people at dinner parties or doing any sort of interior low-light work where a wider focal length isn't needed.

In the case if a 17-40, while that includes the 35mm focal length towards the long end, it's three stops slower than the prime, so if low-light shooting is what you do, it's hard to beat.


Will be keen to catch up for a seascape shoot with the group in Sydney.

I tend to head out weekly or fortnightly, so keep an eye on the NSW forum, as I tend to post my meet proposals there.

[ausguitarman]

When I started out I had a 50D and all bar one of my lens purchases where based on a FF upgrade.

It's funny you mentioned the 24-105 as I found it underwhelming on the 50D but as soon as I strapped it on the 5DMKII it came into it own. Love the shots it produces.

IMHO you cant go past the 50 1.4. I love it as a all rounder prime. I was at family friends wedding the other night and it was nearing total darkness inside the reception venue. Got some great shots at 1.4 ISO 3200 as I need to keep the shutter speed up due to bad hand shake.

The 70-200 F4's been on my mind for a while now but some of the shots from the 70-300 IS stop me. I've been leaning towards the 200L 2.8 II of late as a friend has one and it's a great lens.

[coolie21]

I went for the 24-70L for the extra stop over the 24-105 and its hardly ever off my camera. I reasoned that it would complement a 70-200, if I ever get one... Its a heavy beast though, I believe the 24-105 is a lot lighter
I have the 17-40L, 24-70L, 50 1.8 and 135L plus a 1.4TC
The 17-40 is a lot better on my full frame than on the crop

[wattsgallery]

I went for the 24-70L for the extra stop over the 24-105 and its hardly ever off my camera. I reasoned that it would complement a 70-200, if I ever get one... Its a heavy beast though, I believe the 24-105 is a lot lighter
I have the 17-40L, 24-70L, 50 1.8 and 135L plus a 1.4TC
The 17-40 is a lot better on my full frame than on the crop

Thanks for the reply that is great. I do like landscapes but had reasoned that if I got the 24-70 I might avoid the need for a wide angle as 24 is pretty wide on FF and the 24-70 is supposed to be good at 24 (unlike my experience if the 24-105 at 24mm). Was I wrong with that?

Cheers

[Cindytoo]

I have the Canon 5 Mk II and find that the camera is not suitable for multiple photos of a moving objects at full frame. Example a bird or aircraft moving above at close distance and six photos to be taken. The camera shoots at 3.8 FPS. Lens use is the Canon 100-400mm IS L.
I guess RAW 1 and at faster CF Card at 266x would be better than a 133x and may have fixed the problem. I changed to RAW 1 but no quicker. Will a faster card help or is it the 3.8fps camera the problem.
For original poster, I suggest you consider if you will have a need for a camera that is slow for certain subjects. Land-Seascape, portrait the 5D mk ii is very good but the 7D was what I needed.

[Chase1]

My wife has the 5D mk1II and I shoot with the 40D, some of our lens line up includes the.24-70, 24-105 70-200, 100-400, 50mm 1.4 and 100 macro all very good lenses on the 5d mkII and of course the 40d.

Cheers Graeme

[darylcheshire]

I have a 5D Mk II but started with the 5D.
My first lens bought with the camera was the 50mm 1.4.
Since my hobby is railways the wide angle lens suits me so my next lens was the 24-70 f/2.8L
After a suitable interval I bought the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS for no good reason. (I'm not married so don't need a reason)
It was my first and only telephoto lens and it is a compromise to getting the 28-300mm 3.5-5.6L IS which I thought is heavy. It is my only lens with IS. I'm not counting the 70mm part of my 24-70mm

Finally after a couple of years and reading reviews and rethinking my interests, I recently obtained the 400mm 5.6L for birding/wildlife and I'd like to try it at motor racing.

I'm considering getting the 50mm 1.2L but am concerned by the mixed reviews which i think are due to user error in not understanding the narrow DOF and the unreliability of auto focus in low light levels. However since I already have the 50mm focal length covered with two lenses, I wonder if this would be an extravagance and if I would notice the quality if I looked at two identical photos taken with the 50mm 1.4 and the 50mm 1.2L. One reviewer said there is a definite difference between the two. At the moment, I considered the 400mm lens to have a higher priority than the 50mm 1.2L.
I've always been a fan of the 50mm prime and even with my 24-70 zoom, I find myself taking many photos at 50mm anyway. The wide angle is usually for confined spaces such as between a train and the platform. On the other hand I sometimes feel self concious with a largish 24-70mm on public transport and often take the 50mm instead.

Many years ago I would use the FD 28mm f/2.8 and jump out at railway stations whilst the driver is changing the staff, but nowadays that's not possible with the electronic doors.

Daryl.