Canon 5d mark iii questions?? Have enjoyed reading the Hog for the past year or so and find a lot of usable information. Thank you, all. Planning on getting a Canon 5D mark III. Will...

Richard2673 Loc: Eastern Oregon

Have enjoyed reading the Hog for the past year or so and find a lot of usable information. Thank you, all.
Planning on getting a Canon 5D mark III.
Will be shooting mostly landscapes and flower pictures. Which of the two lenses would be best suited: Canon L 24 - 70 f4 or Canon L 24 - 105?? (will also get the "L" 100 macro and the "L" 180 macro).
And which of the memory cards would be best??

artwrkz Loc: Easley SC

I shoot landscapes and find that I end up using the 24-105 more often. I shot some sunflowers the other day with it too. I have the L 100 macro as well but find that I don't use that as much as I thought. I did use my 17-40 a lot until I got the 24-105.

Bob Yankle Loc: Burlington, NC

The Canon 24-105mm is my walkaround lens on my Canon 5DMKIII. That being said, sometime I will swap it out for my 16-35mm when I'm shooting landscapes in the mountains. If you still have your 17-40mm, it's still an incredibly sharp lens and does wonders for landscapes.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

Bob Yankle wrote:

The Canon 24-105mm is my walkaround lens on my Canon 5DMKIII. That being said, sometime I will swap it out for my 16-35mm when I'm shooting landscapes in the mountains. If you still have your 17-40mm, it's still an incredibly sharp lens and does wonders for landscapes.

Bob, your opinion please. I have the EF 17-40mm. I was able to shoot the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L when I visited the Canon suite at Indy. I was very impressed with the results. In Sept. I am planning a shooting trip that will include caves. I am hesitant to rely on the 17-40mm and am seriously considering picking up a copy of the 16-35mm. If you have shot both what would be your assessment of the 17-40mm in very low lighting? I know the 1 Dx is extremely comfortable at higher ISO settings and the 17-40 seems to hold it's own when I shoot, but that shooting is in daylight settings. Research indicates definite differences in these lenses, I do not want to go into something without having the proper equipment. I am looking for hands-on experience in these lenses, what say you? TIA

Bob Yankle Loc: Burlington, NC

davidrb wrote:

Bob, your opinion please. I have the EF 17-40mm. ... (show quote)

My 17-40 was incredibly sharp and bright shooting outdoors. When I used it indoors to shoot social events, I always used flash, so do not have any direct experience trying to shoot with High ISO. That being said, high ISO is handled by the camera's processor, NOT the lens electronics - it only processes signals to open and close the shutter, and widen the aperture, so I see no reason the 17-40 wouldn't behave almost exactly the same as the 16-35mm. That being said, I purchased the 16-35mm for that increased real estate and have used it exclusively ever since. I put my 17-40mm on permanent loan to my sister who loves it as well.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Richard - a couple of thoughts. The 5DIII is a wonderful camera. I write just before walking out the door to find some flowers and bees here along the lake in Chicago. I look at your list of lenses and you're talking about overlapping the same lenses, two macros and two mid length zooms. That's not a good approach. If you're interested in the 180L, that's the only macro you'll need. You also don't need two f/4 IS zooms. Although the 24-70 gives up some length, this is the better of the two if you had to make an either / or decision within just these two.

For cards I use 32GB SanDisk cards in both slots.

Roger Lee

The 24-70 is the better lens, any big name card should be fine. I like Trascend's 64g.

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

I think the 24-70mm f/4L is the better lens. The 24-105mm f/4L is in my experience a nice lens but the image quality is at the lower end for an 'L' lens. Zoom lens that are 4x (24x4=96) or more tend to have more compromises in image quality than those with 3x (3x24=72) or less. I personally would save up and get the 24-70mm f/2.8L.

ralphc4176 Loc: Conyers, GA

I have read others' comments about lenses and agree. As far as memory cards go, make sure the speed is sufficient for your camera. Your owner's manual should specify the card speed somewhere. Or you could go to B&H and see which cards they recommend for that camera, then choose the size you want within the speed ratings. I have 8 GB, 16 GB, and 32 GB cards for my cameras; I often use the 16 GB and sometimes the 8 GB; I haven't had a reason to use a 32 GB card yet, but I don't take as many pictures in a day as many others do. Plus I always carry extra cards with each camera. If you shoot RAW plus JPEG, you can fill up an 8GB card in a hurry. If you plan to take a lot of shots at a time, you might want to consider a 64 GB card, but you can usually get two 32 GB cards for less than the price of one 64 GB card.

JosephSF Loc: Sonoma County CA

Although it somewhat more expensive I would match the 5DM3 with the 24- 70 f/2.8L ll. I find it very versatile with great IQ at both ends of the range and it really performs in low light situations as well.

Djack41 Loc: Tennessee

For travel and walk-around, hands down, get the 24-105mm. Sharp and versatile.

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

Hi Richard,

I have the 5D MIII and use the Canon 24 - 70 mm f/2.8 II and 70 - 200 f/2.8 II lenses. They are fabulous and ultra sharp. They are also very expensive. If you can afford the dollars, they will serve you well. You may want to look into extension tubes for macro work. Mounted on the 70 - 200 will produce an excellent setup for flowers, ... Canon sells them, but Kenko sells them for much less and they work very well.

Good luck in your selection(s).
Mark

studavis

I would get the 180 micro lens. It will let you get back for better light and you will not be as apt to chase a butterfly or any thing else.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

davidrb wrote:

Bob, your opinion please. I have the EF 17-40mm. ... (show quote)

I had the 17-40 but now have the 16-35, which does seem to have better over-all IQ. One advantage the 16-35 has for low light shots is image stabilization which can be very helpful under those conditions. Except for the slight extra reach, IMO the 16-35 is the preferred lens.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Richard2673 wrote:

Have enjoyed reading the Hog for the past year or so and find a lot of usable information. Thank you, all.
Planning on getting a Canon 5D mark III.
Will be shooting mostly landscapes and flower pictures. Which of the two lenses would be best suited: Canon L 24 - 70 f4 or Canon L 24 - 105?? (will also get the "L" 100 macro and the "L" 180 macro).
And which of the memory cards would be best??

I have both lenses and find that both the IQ and stabilization of the 24-70 are superior to the 24-105, which is a considerably older lens. Of course, you lose a bit of reach with the 24-70. That's the only area where the 24-105 has the advantage, IMO. The 24-70 also has a macro mode. (More of a close-up mode really). Can be handy for your flower shots. For landscapes I prefer my 16-35 L. Does a fine job and it too is very good for close-up shots of flowers, etc.