Sigma 35 and 85 1.4...... had them both for a month and havent shot with anything else since i got them...all my 2.8 L zooms are collecting dust..

I hate the 24/70. Sold mine. Too much CA and S-U-C-K-S (leaf really?) in dust. And no Image Stabilization. Get the 24/105 which has IS and less CA. Only goes to f/4 but I use the 50mm f/1.8 if I need smaller DOF.

Gonna buy a 17-40mm since I just got a home interior shoot

The 17-40 has the worst CA of all by a country mile - but the software can fix it.

Quote from: zeamonkey on January 06, 2014, 05:29

Sigma 35 and 85 1.4...... had them both for a month and havent shot with anything else since i got them...all my 2.8 L zooms are collecting dust..

Sell them to the OP  stockphoto-images.com 

Excellent suggestion Ron 

Check dxo mark what glass performs best with your body, was the sigmas for my 6D.

There is a good reason Canon chose 24-105 L as a kit lens for 5D line. First one I bought was very soft and I returned it. A year later I bought another one and kept it. It is the most versatile walk around lens. Add 50/1.4 for low light and texture/background/product shots since it is very sharp corner to corner. Tamron 90/2.8 VC 1:1 macro is just as good as Canon but cheaper. You will need true macro lens that doubles as a portrait lens sooner or later.

Hello,

Another vote for the 24-105.

I've got the 24-105 kit lens and I've got to say - between the Mark III's low-light capability and the image stabilization, it's a great combination as an all-around lens that lets you shoot hand-held in a wide variety of lighting situations.

...

Best,

Scott

Sure the focal range is better than the 24-70 and therefore has more "benefits" as a walk-around-lens but I'm wondering whether the the 24-105mm produces shallow "enough" depth of field?

I have gotten used to shooting in the 1.8 to 2.8 range with my 50mm prime and love it. Additionally the 24-70 will make life a little bit easier in the lower ISOs I would think. Although I've heard about the great low light performance of the Mark III, I still prefer shooting with ISO as low as possible (as long as I can fully open the lens of course).

Hope this makes sense.

I also think the Canon 24-105mm f/4L is a better choice. It's more versatile, especially if it's the only lens in your bag. Personally, I don't find the f/4 speed particularly limiting since I shoot mostly at f/8 to f/16. The IS is good when hand-holding but remember to turn it off when using a tripod or you will get softer (blurry) pictures.

The lens I use the most, probably about 80% of the time, is the Canon 70-200 f/4L non-IS. It's smaller and lighter than it's f/2.8 big brother and I have no particular need for IS since I shoot off a tripod almost 100% of the time.

Those two lenses are always in my bag. I sometimes also use the 16-35, 24mm TS and the 100mm macro - all Canon - which I rent or borrow depending on need.

The only filters I use are polarizers and neutral density. I use the CPOLs a lot especially outdoors.

To protect the front of the lens (without using a filter) try a screw in METAL lens hood which won't pop off when you bump something.

70-200 (read below) Sold the f/2.8 IS/USM version and bought this. Every bit as sharp and nice little lens. I think people overlook this lens because it's not the Big f/2.8 version. I don't need the IS, why pay for something that's not much use?

Every lens I have has a filter on it from the day I get it, until I sell them. Old school, fine. If I have $1000 - $2000 lens and it gets a chip or scratch, whether it's correctable on images or not, the value of the lens just went down about half.

Imagine yourself in the real world, buying a used lens. Do you buy the one with the scratch in the front element or not?

In any case, it's a personal decision, risk vs rewards, and I'm not going to change, the people who don't aren't changing either. We're just hashing over the same endless debate. Personal choice.

I will testify that the last three UV filters that are cracked, chipped and dented, which I took off and replaced. No one plans on accidents. The filter is insurance against them. Like a wind blowing a tripod over. A car throwing up stones or banging a lens by accident any other way. And I consider myself careful and easy on equipment.

Back OT - I'm with Les on this, if it's someone who doesn't need the wider lens for their main lens, or if someone wants a second REALLY SHARP second lens. Any of the 70-200's from Canon are it. The f/4 is a wonderful lens, just as sharp as the big and heavy f/2.8 and costs much less.

The lens I use the most, probably about 80% of the time, is the Canon 70-200 f/4L non-IS. It's smaller and lighter than it's f/2.8 big brother and I have no particular need for IS since I shoot off a tripod almost 100% of the time.

My most specific "requirements" would be shallow depth of field of the 24-70mm @ f2.8 for portraits.

24-70 is not considered portrait lens on a full size sensor camera. Conservatively, portrait lens is in a range of 80-135mm.

Quote from: stockphoto-images.com on January 06, 2014, 15:47

My most specific "requirements" would be shallow depth of field of the 24-70mm @ f2.8 for portraits.

24-70 is not considered portrait lens on a full size sensor camera. Conservatively, portrait lens is in a range of 80-135mm.

I think you are right. With the crop factor of my Nikon I end up at 75mm already with the 50mm f1.8.

Stupid me, looks like I "have" to get the 24-105...

My wife uses a 24-105 on her 5Dmk2 and she gets super sharp results.  I tried two copies of the 24-105 on my own 5Dmk2 and both copies were soft.

The original 24-70 is a fine lens, lots available second-hand.  Produces first class sharp results.  It has CA problems easily corrected with Canon's DPP.  Buy a good used copy from a reputable dealer - you won't regret the money saved compared to buying the latest Mk2 version brand new.

The 70-200 F4 is excellent.  However mine has sat in the cupboard after I bought the even more excellent 70-300 F4/5.6 L IS.  This is an often overlooked lens that equalls the 70-200 in sharpness and has an extra 100mm reach - something that is useful when used with FF cameras.

A used 24-70 Mk1 plus a 70-300 F4/5.6 (L version) make a fine combination.

I hear you and there is not much I can say against your arguments.

I have to admit that I will be doing footage as well (I haven't mentioned that yet...) and for a bunch of topics I do need a wide angle. Therefore I wanted to start off with a wide angle zoom lens. I'm well aware that I need to cover the longer focal range with the FF. But I have to take things (financially) "slow", otherwise I would buy the combo you mentioned in your last sentence.

Hmm, just checking the price tags now...

The tools on Cambridgeincolour's website will tell you the depth of field for different apertures at different focal lengths and shooting distances.
Obviously, you need to know what sort of distance you intend to shoot from, which depends on what sort of perspective you want.  And any sample shots showing perspective at different apertures would only be useful if they were taken at the same distance that you intend to use.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 07, 2014, 04:31

Well, you could always stand a bit further back with the 24-70 to get the same perspective as with a 90mm lens and then crop the edges off. It really depends on whether you need all 22 million pixels, or would 15 million be enough?  It may seem odd to use a 5D as a cropping camera but if portraits are just one part of your work and the rest of it needs the 24-70 range then it's a reasonable alternative to having to buy two expensive lenses in order to get portraits which probably have far more MP than you really need.

Yes, of course, it's not a huge issue cropping it down.

I still need to check examples of the f2.8 vs. f4 fully open to get an idea of the DOF.

Financially, the 24-105 would fit much better into my budget... if I can save some extra $$$ I might be able to add the 70-300 L as well. Then I'd be set for a while.

However, if someone (of you stock shooters) told me that the performance of the 24-105 is not comparable to the 24-70 I might rather get the f2.8 as a long term investment.

Apparently the 24-105 is sharp enough to make a lot of people happy. If I can get a hand on it to test it, I'll know for sure.

Not just for us, happy users, but for picky inspectors is OK as well.