Opusx300 wrote:
Just purchased canon 5d iv. I have no lenses yet and a $1500 budget for lenses. i shoot mostly portrait and landscape. I am thinking one prime and a medium zoom. Any suggestions as to best lenses and why you think they are best would be appreciated. Thank you.
$1500 isn't a lot to work with, but thankfully your needs are pretty straight forward.
I'd recommend a Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM for the landscape photography... about $1000 new (hood included).
And get a Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM or EF 100mm f/2 USM for the portraiture... either of those will be in the $500 or less range, plus the cost of a hood (not included).
I'd love to recommend the new EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM or the legendary EF 135mm f/2L USM for portraiture, but either of those would completely blow your budget. Eventually you might want to upgrade to one or both of those.
I'd NOT recommend the EF 24-105L IS USM... either version. Sure, they're okay... or even quite good... just not as great as some of the other Canon mid-range zooms. In fact, the old EF 28-135mm IS USM can rival the original 24-105L in almost all respects.... focus speed, IS performance, close focusing ability, IMAGE QUALITY at all the focal lengths they share.... at about 1/3 the cost (which might be why Canon recently discontinued the 28-135... they'd rather sell you a $1000 lens than a $350 lens that does just as good a job).
The new 24-105L "II" primarily improves the IS system. It's also got the new Nano USM AF, a bit quieter and smoother, which might be beneficial while shooting video. It also may be more durable and better sealed for weather resistance, although only time will tell for certain (the original 24-105L proved to be no more reliable/durable than the non-L 28-135mm... even though the L-series lens
seems less plasticky and better built). Image quality of the II is not all that different by all accounts (read the reviews and look at the MTF charts for them all).
IMO, the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM is a better choice as a mid-range "walk-around" zoom. Better image quality, less distortion, MUCH closer focusing ability, more compact and equal in other ways (max aperture, 3 to 4 stop IS, etc.)... and it actually costs less than the 24-105 II. Just not quite as large a range of focal lengths.
Or, if the size, weight and much higher price are manageable, the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L "II" is uncompromising with superb IQ (though it's not stabilized and isn't particularly close focusing). But for almost half the price, the f/4L comes awfully close to the same IQ
and has stabilization
and has a macro mode that gives 2X to 3X greater magnification than any of the other zooms.
But for landscape photography, if it were me, I'd want the wider 16-35mm.
And I'd rather have an f/2 or f/1.8 lens for portraiture... than an f/4.