Lens Question

B

BC_Chai

Member
For landscape photography and cinematography would this be a solid lens combo with the 5d? (currently have the 60d and switching to the 5d)

Canon 17-35mm f2.8l USM
Canon 50mm f1.4 USM
Canon 70-200 f4l USM

Will I feel the gap of a midrange zoom? would it be worth selling the 50mm and upgrading to a 28-70 for the mid range shots?

Thanks! So excited for my 5d!
 
Those lenses do cover the needed focal lengths nicely. The problem with WA zooms* is less quality (17-35 f2.8 is questionable, is it not 16-35 now, by the way?) and pronounced distortions. If you are shooting landscapes (where you have time to change lenses) or cinematography (zooming while shooting does not work all that well with these lenses and DSLR), why not get a set of faster primes? Like 20, 35, 50, 85, 135 and 200mm? Might cost about the same.

*) meanwhile the 70-200 zooms are really good.
 
canon 20mm- $500
canon 35mm- $250
canon 50mm- Already Have it
canon 85mm- $350
canon 135mm- $800
canon 200mm- $600

vs.

canon 17-35- $500
canon 50mm- have
canon 70-200- $500

we're talking a lot more for the prime, and I shoot a fair amount of action sports so zooms are nice.

how would a 24-70 and 70-200 combo fair? better than the one I listed in the OP?
 
You mentioned only landscape and cinematography, so I answered your question.

16-35 f2.8 costs $1600, 17-40 f4 is $700. Are you talking about used prices?

24-70 is a good lens, but has barrel distortion at WA. 24-70 and 70-200 would cover practically everything, yes.

I used to have the 16-35 f2.8 and it was unusable. I had it serviced twice, but it was totally unusable, sharp only in lower left corner. So I got the 20mm prime.
 
I'm talking used, and I found a 17-35 for $550, but I think thats a little sketchy. Would you recommend getting a 28-70 (old 24-70). 70-200, and 20mm prime? What do you think of yours?
 
With 28-70 you would need something wider at least for landscapes. 20mm f2.8 is a good lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top