I just got a 5d mark iii and had a question

J

Jonathany26

Active member
I just got the Canon 5d mark iii, I also have the Sony EX-1 which I STILL love after all these years as a great run and gun camera, my first DSLR was the Panasonic GH2 which I still have and still LOVE the look and how crisp it is, I have two Panasonic lumix lenses and a couple old Nikon manual lenses, I love how crisp and clear the video is and it's not even hacked. The bad part is it is not good in low light even with my 20mm 1.7 Panasonic lens. I have ALWAYS like the look and film feel of the 5d, I will still continue to use my GH2 for projects that require it and my Sony EX-1 for a lot of my industrial run and gun work. I look at the 5d I just bought as another tool in my tool box. I shoot everything from corporate video to cable commercials to music videos to documentaries. With the 5d mark iii I only bought the body because I was not sure what my first all around lens should be in a zoom, should I get the 24-70 F2.8 Canon L or the 24-105 F4? Will the 2.8 be over kill for a FF camera? I know indoors it will come in handy, but I have seen some video from my friends 5d mark iii with the 24-105 F4 and it looked great even indoors, not sure what his iso setting was. Thanks in advance for any advice you guys have.
 
24-105 F4L works great with the 5D3, especially hand-held with IS. The range is also excellent vs. the 24-70. The 24-70 is a sharper, faster lens, however the 24-105 is the best all-around lens for the 5D3. If you have to shoot super low light at F4, you can run ISO 12800 and clean up with Neat Video (not an ideal solution, but workable).

5D3 + 24-105 F4L, ISO12800, cleaned up with Neat Video, sharpened (Premiere Pro):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbzF2e5beS4
 
Last edited:
i don't know if it is only me or not, but i find the colors on 24-105 f4 over-saturated. i have been looking at many videos of 24-105 and tamron 24-70. i am also in confusion, which one to buy. Of all the videos i saw of 24-105 and tamron 24-70, tamron looks sharper and the colors are quite natural but 24-105 seems to be too saturated. but i still would like to go for 24-105 for its reach and tamron for 2.8.

Also i don't understand how f2.8 would be helpful in low light except for the closeup shots. as f-stops decreases in numbers the focal plane also gets smaller. so i guess it won't be possible to get a wide shot with everything in focus.

this 2 lens are really making my decision tough. i also do corporate videos but i think i will go for tamron 24-70 f2.8 vc.

i am just about to get 5d mark iii but the lens decision is making me think again and again. i just want to ask if anyone else find 24-105 saturated in colors? its also cheaper than 24-70.
 
Higher color saturation is a sign of excellent optics/multicoating. You can always desaturate in post.
 
Payal- these lenses that you are talking about 24-105 and 24-70 are all constant aperture, so you won't have any change in Fstop in the zoom range.
 
If you ever want to shoot stills, you can't go wrong using Canon L lenses. They have the best autofocus performance on their native Canon cameras. One of the things the 24-105 does the best is contrast. It is a great looking lens. Not the sharpest in the world, or with the best geometry, but it is still an "L" and is sharp enough.
 
24-105 is an absolute bargain

24-105 is an absolute bargain

Its a really great all-around lens and there are a ton of 5d3 kit lenses being sold cheap. I picked one up a few months ago when I bought my 5d3 for $550, brand new, no box. This is my second copy, I sold my first with my old 5d2 last year. Its just so versatile, its a great run-and-gun lens, and I use it for event coverage when shooting stills - FOV goes from wide to a short tele, fast focusing and the IS is great. Combine it with a good vari-ND filter and you have an awesome, all-weather, one lens setup. I live in Florida so I'm shooting near the beach a lot, the 24-105 is my crappy conditions lens. I'm a CPS member so I can just send it to Canon every year to get cleaned and tuned for free - no worries at all.

I looked at the Tamron 2.8, but the cost was significantly higher for one stop and the 5d3 is so clean I felt no need to go 2.8 on the zoom. I used the cash saved to help fund the new Sigma 35/1.4 - which is an absolutely stunning lens and a beast in low light. The Sigma and the 24-105 are my two keeper lenses that I'll always have with the 5d3. The rest of my lens lineup seems to be in constant flux, but those two are always with me.
 
swanny said:
Payal- these lenses that you are talking about 24-105 and 24-70 are all constant aperture, so you won't have any change in Fstop in the zoom range.
Click to expand...

i agree that there won't be any change in Fstop, but what i meant was it won't be possible to get everything in focus in full wide i.e @ 24mm f2.8.

if there is a conference going on around a table and i want to take a wide shot (establishing shot) where in everything is in focus, if i shoot @ f 2.8 i won't have everyone in focus. to do that i will have to go below f 2.8 to say f4 or f5.6. so i was thinking how f2.8 will be useful? for closeups its fine cuz there will be only 1 subject.
 
The thing the 2.8 lens gives you, is the option to go that low. That doesn't mean that because you have a 2.8 lens, you HAVE to shoot in 2.8 all the time.
 
Payal-

I bought my 5d3 with tamron 24-70 it a great lens but here the problem the focusing and the zoom is diferent from canon lenses so i needed the extra reach so i decide to buy the 24-105 canon lens and that when i found out it oposite in focus and zoom in canon zoom is in the back and front for tamron. Focusing is oposite of both lens canon turn left for infinity and tamron right so i decided to stick with canon cause most all of there lense are the same. It's important to me cause you can get confuse if you change from tamron to canon that my bad expirience that i totaly did not notice so i sold the tamron lost money on it now i stick to one lense company canon. Or i could have stay with tamron lenses but they are not much choices like canon. 24-105 canon is my all round lens i use most but evan it fix f4 it does get darker when you zoom inn buy the f4 stay same there is a slight ramping in this lens that little annoying.
 
Unless you need 2.8, there's no reason to get the tamron if you're doing mostly video.

Yeh, the Tamron's slightly sharper...but remember, video on the 5d3 is essentially downscaled to 2 mp. You won't notice much of a difference in video.

Last time I read, higher saturation's a good thing when it comes to lens optics. ;)

Haven't tried the tammy 24-70, but the other tamron (17-50, 18-200,) lenses I've used before had really horrible, grinding focus rings with tiny focus throws. Also having used Canon and Sony exclusively, the reverse focus on the tamrons throw me off really badly. I can't get used to it...


Oh, and just for your information, even with the 24-105, it's very difficult to get a group of people in focus at 24 f/4. F/4 is a lot shallower on FF than you might think. Coming from an EX1 and gh2, you might not notice just how shallow Full frame is, like me when I went from small chip sonys directly to the 5d3.
 
I think i will go for 24-105 for the reach and good optic quality and for low light situation 50mm 1.8 as it's very cheap but good lens. what do you say? 24-105mm f/2.8 + 50mm f/1.8 vs tamron 24-70mm f/2.8.
 
dhardjono said:
Payal-

I bought my 5d3 with tamron 24-70 it a great lens but here the problem the focusing and the zoom is diferent from canon lenses so i needed the extra reach so i decide to buy the 24-105 canon lens and that when i found out it oposite in focus and zoom in canon zoom is in the back and front for tamron. Focusing is oposite of both lens canon turn left for infinity and tamron right so i decided to stick with canon cause most all of there lense are the same. It's important to me cause you can get confuse if you change from tamron to canon that my bad expirience that i totaly did not notice so i sold the tamron lost money on it now i stick to one lense company canon. Or i could have stay with tamron lenses but they are not much choices like canon. 24-105 canon is my all round lens i use most but evan it fix f4 it does get darker when you zoom inn buy the f4 stay same there is a slight ramping in this lens that little annoying.
Click to expand...

That is a very valid point in my opinion...
Its very difficult to work with lenses that focus in the opposite direction, it gets very comfusing and that is the reason I gave up on tamrons.
If you go with the canons you can also use sigmas and samyangs, so you have many choices.
 
is there limitation in using 24-1005 f4 vs tamron 24-70 f2.8 in terms of shutter speed/iso available? will i get the same shutter speed/iso in either of the lens?
 
payal_choksi said:
i don't know if it is only me or not, but i find the colors on 24-105 f4 over-saturated. i have been looking at many videos of 24-105 and tamron 24-70. i am also in confusion, which one to buy. Of all the videos i saw of 24-105 and tamron 24-70, tamron looks sharper and the colors are quite natural but 24-105 seems to be too saturated. but i still would like to go for 24-105 for its reach and tamron for 2.8.

Also i don't understand how f2.8 would be helpful in low light except for the closeup shots. as f-stops decreases in numbers the focal plane also gets smaller. so i guess it won't be possible to get a wide shot with everything in focus.

this 2 lens are really making my decision tough. i also do corporate videos but i think i will go for tamron 24-70 f2.8 vc.

i am just about to get 5d mark iii but the lens decision is making me think again and again. i just want to ask if anyone else find 24-105 saturated in colors? its also cheaper than 24-70.
Click to expand...


I used the 24-105 for a while and recently sold it after getting the Tamron 2.8 24-70 VC.
Pro's of the Tamron - almost dead silent VC, so it's super quiet for handheld shooting. Sharper @ 2.8 than the Canon @ F/4.
Cons: Not as much range, heavier, and somewhat noisy focus ring. The Tamron vignettes wide open too, which can be a pro or a con.
I also did a walk around test with both lenses and found the VC/IS more effective with the Tamron.

At the end of the day having a much sharper lens from 24-70 with a quieter image stabilization was more important than the reach.

If you're always using an external audio recorder and want the 70-105 range, get the Canon. I love my Tamron. P.S. The Tamron focuses backwards also.
 
Donald Ong said:
Unless you need 2.8, there's no reason to get the tamron if you're doing mostly video.
Click to expand...
I completely disagree with this. My video looks far better with sharper lenses. I notice it quite a bit - the 24-105 / 24-70 both set to F/4 is quite a difference sharpness-wise; the 24-105 really needs at least 5.6 to get sharp.
 
swanny said:
The thing the 2.8 lens gives you, is the option to go that low. That doesn't mean that because you have a 2.8 lens, you HAVE to shoot in 2.8 all the time.
Click to expand...

This. Also, the reason you're using a 5d3 in the first place is you're going to shoot stills TOO sometime, right? Go with the 2.8. The 24-105 noisy IS drove me nuts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top