PhotoPlus Practical Photoshop N-Photo Digital Camera World
Go Back   Digital Camera World Forum > Cameras & Equipment Forums > Lenses

Lenses Let's talk glass - from ultra-wide to super-tele.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 27-10-11, 08:27 AM
dgazz dgazz is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 9
Which 4 lenses for a Canon 5d Mark II

Hi All!

I currently have a Canon 500D with a Nifty Fifty & 17-85mm

Providing Canon do not bring out a newer version of the Canon 5d Mark II anytime soon, I intend buying this camera at Christmas :-)

So, I'd like to buy 4 lenses for the body.

1) Fish Eye
2) Macro
3) Wide (for landscape)
4) Portraits/Everyday use

My budget is up to £700 per lens.

In everyones exeprience could you give me some recomendations please?
Maybe one recommendation of a higher price & one lower price per lens?

Would really help me! Thanks Guys!
Daniel
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 28-10-11, 04:36 PM
wavemachine's Avatar
wavemachine wavemachine is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: East Devon
Posts: 2,529
Images: 18
I'll get the ball rolling here are some ideas:-

1. Sorry no idea
2. Canon EF 100mm f2.8L Macro IS USM Lens (Great for portraits also) non IS version is cheaper and also very good.
3. Depends how wide you want to go you may find number 4 is enough but there is the Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 II DG HSM and the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is very nice but way over budget.
4. Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM (Over budget but a good walk about and great for portraits) also consider the 24-105 F4L IS for more zoom. Closer to budget have a look at Sigma AF 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM (DX)
__________________
Dave
_______

We are now villagers but we are not savages!

My Daughter shortly after we moved house.

366 Project and my other efforts on FLICKR

Last edited by wavemachine; 28-10-11 at 04:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-01-12, 03:08 AM
gx617 gx617 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2
Images: 6
135 f2.0, 50mm f1.2, 35mm f1.4
just get 3 more expensive ones.
these 3 are my favorite on my 5dmk2 (along with the 85 1.2l and 300 2.8l is but those would blow the budget.
a great alternative would be the 16-35 2.8l and the 50 1.2l. the 16-35 is a great compromise lens!
I've had the 8-15 for a while now and am not all that impressed. the 16-35 is a much better "fisheye" after using both.
the non is 100mm is a gret macro I didn't see the advantage to upgrade to the is l version. the 180 3.5 macro is great (my wife's favorite macro lens) but would blow the budget as would the 65, 1-5 macro. it's hard to use anyway.

get the first three I mentioned and a used 100 2.8 macro.
if you don't care about speed (and some sharpness) get a 16-35 instead of the 35 and 50. you would have a great kit with the 135 f2.0, the 100 2.8 macro, and the 16-35 f2.8l.

don't get the 24-70 2.8 unless you like sucking dirt into your body every time you zoom. only lens I have ever gotten rid of. replaced with the 50 1.2 and 35 1.4 and 24 1.4.

Last edited by gx617; 05-01-12 at 03:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-01-12, 02:02 PM
Jimbo_715 Jimbo_715 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 18
Images: 7
I dont know if this helps any..

I recently got myself a 2nd hand 5D MkII and have the following

- Canon 70-200 L f4
- Canon 24-105 L f4
- Sigma 50mm f2.8 Macro (Would have prefered Canon's new 100mm Macro but couldnt stretch to that)
__________________
Facebook Photography Page

http://www.facebook.com/pages/James-...86347588073403
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump