lorvey Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

JimRPhoto Loc: Raleigh NC

I bought my 5D used, and my first lens for it was the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L series lens, also used. It is the best lens yet in my "kit" for this camera, even though I have added the 70-200 zoom, and a wider angle lens, all L series. My lenses are all used, or Canon-refurbished. The 24-70 f/2.8 L series offers so much flexibility because it is fast, and has a perfect range to build upon with other lenses. I would suggest you check it out at your local camera store to see if it will suit your needs. Best. JimR

rlscholl Loc: California

You may have noticed that there seem to be two divergent schools of thought. One for light-weight inexpensive primes (e.g., the Canon 40 mm “pancake” lens), the other a general purpose zoom (e.g., the Canon 24-70L or a 24-105L), either of which is much more expensive. A third alternative, given your stated interests, priced midway between the other two would be the Canon 100L macro. Each of the lenses mentioned is an excellent lens. All are relatively mature designs, suggesting that each may be available used, as refurbished, or ocaisionally at discounted sale prices. They are not, however really good substitutes for each other. Whichever would be best for you depends on how you want to use it. One is my personal choice for a “walk-around” lens that is on my 5D II most of the time, but it is not the one I started with. I don’t really know of any way to guarantee choosing which you would be most satisfied with, in the long run. With any luck, you might select the one best for you on the first try. Getting recommendations from others is a good start, but each reflects the priorities of the individual, which may differ from your priorities. Good-luck with your search.

Red Sky At Night

Your dogs are gorgeous!!!

bjwags

Love that picture. Really cool

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

For hiking definitely get the 24-105mm MII. Much more versatile and is fair for flowers.
While dreaming sell the 70 - 200mm and get the 100 - 400mm MII and you have great reach for outdoors hiking and getting small skittish critters and at 400mm you get near macro (it seems) capability that the 70 - 200mm falls way behind on.
But of the 2 standard length zooms the 24 - 105mm would be a better choice for what you outlined.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Handsome dogs!

Jim Bianco

I am going to Sedona a.z. which lens would you take a 24- 85 Nikon 3.5 , a 18-200 3.5 Nikon, or a 50 mm old version in manual only. Taking all kinds of pics. Thanks Jim Bianco

DanielB Loc: San Diego, Ca

This is what makes me crazy - Canon pawns the EFs lenses for the crop censor when in fact the EF only lenses will work just fine on a crop censor. So when someone wants to go to a full frame they are stuck getting new lenses. Too bad really - spending double. So my 2 cents on the EF lens's. Between the 2 lenses 24-70 but the f2.8L. You can find a refurbished or used one for the same price as a new f4. I'd read up on the 24-105 vII before you jump into that lens. I read that it's been rather disappointing. My original versions IS went wonky on me pretty quick with the jitters.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

18-200mm definitely of those you mention.
You will find the others completely lacking.
PS get out of Sedona and go to other really cool places away from Sedona.
It is so commercialized and silly today.
Kind of like Disney Land castle and saying you went to a real castle.