Fill in the Lens Gap: I use a 5dMkii exclusively for landscape work and now only have two lenses for it, a 16-35 2.8L and a 70-200 2.8L. As you can see, there's a substantial gap...

BullMoose Loc: Southwest Michigan

I use a 5dMkii exclusively for landscape work and now only have two lenses for it, a 16-35 2.8L and a 70-200 2.8L.

As you can see, there's a substantial gap between the 35 and the 70. My question is... What's the best way to fill this gap?

24-70 2.8L zoom at about $1,400
50 1.2L prime at same $1,400
50 1.4 at $350
50 1.8 at $100

Quick, someone talk me out of the first two and save me at least a grand.

Before anyone says anything, yes I know there are cheaper places and refurbished ways to go and I know how to Google reviews.

I would like help from people who don't get paid or sponsored to review equipment and who have to plunk down their own money.

Thanks for your help.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

BullMoose wrote:

I use a 5dMkii exclusively for landscape work and ... (show quote)

Since you like the zooms...and since you already have 2/3 of a good trio of lenses....I'm going to say go for the new 24-70 II lens.

I know...it hurts....but it won't hurt forever and I think you'll be happier in the long run.

I've owned ALL of those 50's and none will satisfy...even the 1.2L....it's soft wide open, the 1.4 is prone to getting jammed and the 1.8 is an 80 dollar throw away lens that is good to have but no substitute for an L lens.

BullMoose Loc: Southwest Michigan

rpavich wrote:

Since you like the zooms...and since you already have 2/3 of a good trio of lenses....I'm going to say go for the new 24-70 II lens.

I know...it hurts....but it won't hurt forever and I think you'll be happier in the long run.

I've owned ALL of those 50's and none will satisfy...even the 1.2L....it's soft wide open, the 1.4 is prone to getting jammed and the 1.8 is an 80 dollar throw away lens that is good to have but no substitute for an L lens.

Thanks, that's what I was afraid of, and that's the way I was leaning anyway. Oh, well.....the grand kids college fund can wait!

So you think the "nifty fifty" as most call it, is a waste of money? I don't need a carry-around lens and camera (I have a micro 4/3 for that). I thought it was too good to be true.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

rpavich wrote:

Since you like the zooms...and since you already have 2/3 of a good trio of lenses....I'm going to say go for the new 24-70 II lens.

That would be my recommendation. Look for refurbs, and look on eBay.

elie Loc: France

rpavich wrote:

I've owned ALL of those 50's and none will satisfy... the 1.4 is prone to getting jammed and the 1.8 is an 80 dollar throw away lens .

is it a joke? I don't know of 50mm jamming more than other lenses. and like other photogs i know, i've got many good photographs done with it.

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

Do you really need something in that range for your style of photography?

My first suggestion would be the 24-70 2.8L zoom at about $1,400. The second option would be the Canon 24-70mm f/4 L.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

For me, the 24-70 in some iteration is a no-brainer. I'm a firm believer that in most situations a high quality zoom results in better images than prime lenses. The first step in taking any photo is to determine the perspective, or camera position, which is done mostly with the feet and eyeballs. Then, and only then, you hope you have a lens that will properly frame or crop the image as desired without lots of image-degrading PP cropping. A high quality zoom allows you to crop in the camera to maximize the quality of the final image. If you are stuck with only prime lenses, the lens determines the perspective or camera position, not the camera.

BullMoose Loc: Southwest Michigan

jackm1943 wrote:

For me, the 24-70 in some iteration is a no-braine... (show quote)

Thanks, this is exactly how I feel about zooms vs. primes. I always shoot on a tripod and often in awkward positions. With a prime, I feel I would be limited in the final composition by where the tripod is setting.

I've heard often that primes are sharper than zooms, but never have had any problem with good quality zooms. Sharp is sharp. With a landscape vista, not close-up work, the zooms seem to be hitting the sweet spot more than good enough.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

BullMoose wrote:

Thanks, this is exactly how I feel about zooms vs. primes. I always shoot on a tripod and often in awkward positions. With a prime, I feel I would be limited in the final composition by where the tripod is setting.

I've heard often that primes are sharper than zooms, but never have had any problem with good quality zooms. Sharp is sharp. With a landscape vista, not close-up work, the zooms seem to be hitting the sweet spot more than good enough.

Agreed. I have no doubt that good primes may be a little sharper than good zooms, but not after lots of cropping to get the desired composition.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

flip a coin on the two cheaper fifty's,either one is a good bet.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Well, here is my thought - this "gap" is not really worth filling ! - especially on full frame. For me, this 40-65mm is a dead zone. So, save your money, or get a good macro, or the lightweight F4 version of the 70-200 - OR maybe try the new 40mm pancake !

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Here is another idea - Tamron SP 28-105 aspherical LD F2.8 all the way - an older lens - about $280 used. I have and use one - GREAT on full frame !

Dave Johnson Loc: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Hey Bull Moose, I also have the 16-35 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 but to fit between I opted for the 24-105 f4 for the image stabilization and extra 35mm at the long end. That being said if you always use a tripod IS is useless to you. I like the extra reach of the 24-105 f4 but I'm told the 24-70 f2.8 has slightly better image quality and is an excellent lens. For the zoom vs prime debate I have to say I love my Canon zooms but my Sigma 105 Macro prime is the sharpest lens in my bag.

BullMoose Loc: Southwest Michigan

imagemeister wrote:

Well, here is my thought - this "gap" is not really worth filling ! - especially on full frame. For me, this 40-65mm is a dead zone. So, save your money, or get a good macro, or the lightweight F4 version of the 70-200 - OR maybe try the new 40mm pancake !

Excellent point. This is where I've been since I got the 5dmkII and the two lenses I have. That gap hasn't really been an issue, except for a couple of times I can think of.

Lots of good feed-back here. Fill the gap or not? Prime vs. zoom? 50L vs. 50plastic? 24-70f2.8 or 24-70f4? Canon vs. 3rd party?

Decisions, decisions.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

My thoughts would be the 50mm F/1.4.
As imagemiester said "maybe you don't really need to fill this gap".
The lens you buy will probably spend a lot of time in your bag instead of on the camera.
But there is a good case to be argued for having at least one very good low light lens in the kit.

I shoot a lot at dusk right past where the LCD screen goes dark with my 17-40 F/4L.
I use autofocus then fine tune it in live view.
One night my screen was dark, I couldn't focus because it was too dark to see to get focus, I didn't have my torch with me.
I put the 50mm F/1.4 on and was able to autofocus for another 15 minutes.