Standard Zoom Wide Lens for 5d Mark iii?

[freemaa5]

I recently upgraded from a 50d camera to a 5d mark iii, and now the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lens that I loved is not compatible. I need to find a lens that is kind of comparable to the Tamrom 17-50 in that it has a wide view and is versatile for shooting weddings, etc. However, with just having spent a decent amount on the camera, I am trying to keep a tight budget. I don't mind buying used, etc but I would love some suggestions/recommendations on what lens would be good to replace my Tamron with? Would f/4 still perform as well as my f/2.8 did? How important is image stabilizer? Any advice is appreciated! Thanks!

[RobertTheFat]

---

@freemaa5 wrote:

I recently upgraded from a 50d camera to a 5d mark iii, and now the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lens that I loved is not compatible. I need to find a lens that is kind of comparable to the Tamrom 17-50 in that it has a wide view and is versatile for shooting weddings, etc. However, with just having spent a decent amount on the camera, I am trying to keep a tight budget. I don't mind buying used, etc but I would love some suggestions/recommendations on what lens would be good to replace my Tamron with? Would f/4 still perform as well as my f/2.8 did? How important is image stabilizer? Any advice is appreciated! Thanks!

---

The Canon lens on a "full-frame" camera (like the 5D3) that is most comparable to your 17-50mm lens on a 50D is the 24-70mm f/2.8L II. If doesn't have an image stabilizer, but at that focal range you can get along without it. For weddings, f/4 is a bit slow (one stop slower than your f/2.8) and therefore less desirable. I think most of us who do indoor event photography use the 24-70 and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. If you find that you need something wider, consider the 16-35mm f/2.8L in its most recent version (III, I think).

[ebiggs1]

"However, with just having spent a decent amount on the camera, I am trying to keep a tight budget."

This was your first mistake.  The lens is far more important than the camera.  Money needs to go for the lens way more than the camera. Do you want top notch photos?  The lens is where its at.

My basic wedding bag has three lenses in it all the time.  These always go with me on every job.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM Lens

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens

Now depending on the church or venue I may add my Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO. I hope you noticed all of them are f2.8 lenses?  "I am trying to keep a tight budget",  I guess you see this isn't going to happen!

For a long time I tried to get by wiht out the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM Lens but since I added it or a similar one it has become indispensable.  It seems you always have more family than lens!

Now there are other off brand lens that fulfill these FL requirements and are less costly.

[Tronhard]

As Ebiggs correctly said the quality is in the lens rather than the body.  Still, you now have this body and you need decent glass for it depending upon your budget and your intent.

So rather than the rather vaguely worded "tight budget" how much in real currency are you prepared to invest - it will help everyone a lot to help you.

What is your level of intended commitment?  Is this a fully professional endeavour - in which case you can write off the expense against earnings, or are you at the serious amateur or some other stage?  Trying to make the break into professional work before you commit to a full business model can be an expensive leap - you want great gear to be able to produce the quality, but if you're not a business the cost is all on you.  If you are in neither of these scenarios (the etc... part of your explanation suggests otherwise) and you taking photos for the pleasure and without the commitment of a pro then get the best second-hand gear you can afford.  You may not be able to afford the range of excellent lenses Ebiggs suggested (fair enough at his level) so you may need to go for something like a 24-70 and a 70-200.   When you get much past 24mm at a wedding the distortion may not be too complementary to your subjects!  Remember that the 50D you are used to is a crop sensor and as such the field of view values for the lenses you used on those bodies should be multipled by 1.6 to get their equivalent values on your FF camera.  So your 17-50 on the 50D was actually behaving like a 28-80mm lens on a 5DIII.

[TCampbell]

The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM II is the closest thing to replicating the angle of view that you had with your 17-50 f/2.8.

It's about $1600.

There is an f/4L version of the 24-70 which is about $900.  You'll lose a stop of light at f/4 and keep in mind that while the f/4 adds image stabilization... imaging stabilization only helps protect against blur caused when the CAMERA moves... it does nothing to help when the SUBJECT moves.

There are other options that offer a bit of wide angle and a bit of narrow angle (tele) ... but the when you shoot full frame, there are a few lenses that pretty much everyone either (a) already owns or (b) they want to own.  The two major ones are (a) the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II (but now it's III) and (b) the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM II.

The "kit" lens that people often got was the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM.  It offered image stabilization and a little more range on the zoon... but you lose f/4.  My guidance was typically "if you can only afford ONE lens" then that's the lens to get.  But if you can afford to add the 70-200mm f/2.8 ... then you could drop the 24-105 and use a 24-70 instead (esp. if that 24-70 can be the f/2.8 version).

Image stabilization is less important at shorter focal lengths.  

The general rule for a full frame camera (and this is a rough guideline) is that you can generally hand-hold the camera steady enough to take a shot at 1/<focal length>    If you were using a 50mm lens... then that'd be 1/50th (just as one example).  But this assumes that (a) you are actually trying to be steady and (b) you understand techniques that give you good stability so you are likely to succeed.     This is things like... spread your feet a bit (baseball stance) and avoid leaning (so your center of mass is centered above your legs... not leaning off to one side) and supporting the camera from below (left palm supports the camera from below and left elbow is tucked in near stomach ... while right hand controls the shutter ... elbows should NOT be out at your sides (like a chicken flapping it's wings).

Image stabilization boosts the odds in your favor of using even slower shutter speeds.  Often by at least 2 shutter stops... and some newer systems get closer to 4 shutter stops.  Just note this is not a guarantee... it simply tilts the odds of success in your favor.  This means the more you can do to be steady (instead of expecting IS to save the shot), the better off you are.

[ebiggs1]

"...you want great gear to be able to produce the quality,..."

Two things these guys talked about.  This statement is right on.  You have to produce quality, no doubt.  I tell all would be wedding photographers you need to offer and provide something they can't get somewhere else.  Why pay you when all you have is amateur gear, and uncle Bob or the goofy guy next door can do the same thing with his Rebel kit for free?

The other thing.....

"Image stabilization boosts the odds in your favor of using even slower shutter speeds" "The "kit" lens that people often got was the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM."

You will be on a heavy duty tripod most of the time so no IS is a not a deal breaker.  For years I used and loved that lens.  Made a lot of money with it. Recommended it to alot of folks.  I sold a ton of them for Canon.

             Thanx not expected Canon!

But things and times change.  Since I got lenses in the wider end like the 16-35mm, I have come to see it is far more desirable and usable for weddings than the added FL from 70 to 105mm. 

Here is a family shot I did on a recent wedding.  This is only the grooms side. The bride had a similar family group. I was backed up against the first row of pews.  If you don't have a UWA lens this ain't gonna happen.

I guess the point is, you need what you need.

[ebiggs1]

"Often by at least 2 shutter stops... and some newer systems get closer to 4 shutter stops."

While this is true you can benefit from IS and the better it is, the better, you are not taking snapshots.  Situations like walking down the isle is mostly hand held but like I said earlier, you will (should) be on a tripod most of the time.

[Waddizzle]

---

@freemaa5 wrote:

I recently upgraded from a 50d camera to a 5d mark iii, and now the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lens that I loved is not compatible. I need to find a lens that is kind of comparable to the Tamrom 17-50 in that it has a wide view and is versatile for shooting weddings, etc. However, with just having spent a decent amount on the camera, I am trying to keep a tight budget. I don't mind buying used, etc but I would love some suggestions/recommendations on what lens would be good to replace my Tamron with? Would f/4 still perform as well as my f/2.8 did? How important is image stabilizer? Any advice is appreciated! Thanks!

---

While I am no wedding photographer, I do shoot a lot indoors, most frequently without a flash.  The wide f/2.8 aperture reallly helps.

Like others have already pointed out, the best Canon choice would be the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II USM.  It is the closest equivalent to the FOV that you had with the Tamron and the 50D.  For weddings, you probably want to have something wider in your bag, like one of the aforementioned EF 16-35mm f/2.8L lenses.  I have the Mark II version, and absolutely love it.   Another good lens to have is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM, for those closeups and portrait shots. 
.

If I had to choose just one, I would go with the 24-70.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@freemaa5 wrote:

I recently upgraded from a 50d camera to a 5d mark iii, and now the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lens that I loved is not compatible. I need to find a lens that is kind of comparable to the Tamrom 17-50 in that it has a wide view and is versatile for shooting weddings, etc. However, with just having spent a decent amount on the camera, I am trying to keep a tight budget. I don't mind buying used, etc but I would love some suggestions/recommendations on what lens would be good to replace my Tamron with? Would f/4 still perform as well as my f/2.8 did? How important is image stabilizer? Any advice is appreciated! Thanks!

---

While I am no wedding photographer, I do shoot a lot indoors, most frequently without a flash.  The wide f/2.8 aperture reallly helps.

Like others have already pointed out, the best Canon choice would be the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II USM.  It is the closest equivalent to the FOV that you had with the Tamron and the 50D.  For weddings, you probably want to have something wider in your bag, like one of the aforementioned EF 16-35mm f/2.8L lenses.  I have the Mark II version, and absolutely love it.   Another good lens to have is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM, for those closeups and portrait shots. 
.

If I had to choose just one, I would go with the 24-70.

---

I'm not a wedding photographer either. But I have shot a fair number of wedding-like events, the main difference being that I was often able to dictate the ambient lighting, while a wedding photographer usually can't. If I had to go with just one lens, I believe I'd choose the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. It's a stop slower than the 24-70, but it gives you some extra reach that you're almost sure to need. I've used the 24-105 on a 5D3 for evening events indoors at ISO 2000 (even when I couldn't control the light) with little or no discernible noise, so it can be a practical choice.

Realistically, I think most event photographers (including me) use two cameras, often with a 24-70 and a 70-200, because we think we need that much reach and don't have time to change lenses on the fly. But if that isn't possible, the 24-105 can feasibly be made to do the job.

[Waddizzle]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

I'm not a wedding photographer either. But I have shot a fair number of wedding-like events, the main difference being that I was often able to dictate the ambient lighting, while a wedding photographer usually can't. If I had to go with just one lens, I believe I'd choose the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. It's a stop slower than the 24-70, but it gives you some extra reach that you're almost sure to need. I've used the 24-105 on a 5D3 for evening events indoors at ISO 2000 (even when I couldn't control the light) with little or no discernible noise, so it can be a practical choice.

Realistically, I think most event photographers (including me) use two cameras, often with a 24-70 and a 70-200, because we think we need that much reach and don't have time to change lenses on the fly. But if that isn't possible, the 24-105 can feasibly be made to do the job.

---

Yes, the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM is the standard kit zoom.  For indoor shooting, I would rather have the extra stop than the extra reach.  I can always crop a photo slightly to make up for the extra reach in 24-105 compared to 24-70.  But, I am more limited making up for the one stop difference in aperture.