Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   Canon Lenses (
-   -   Lenses For MKIII (

Tonyv49 Apr 23, 2007 12:57 AM

I am number 1 one on the list for the MKIII at my local camera shop. I sold off all my Nikon equipment so I could get this camera. My only problem is that I don't know Canon lenses. I know I will be getting the 100-400mm IS USM lens but I need to know what other lenses to get for portrait, landscape and a general all purpose walk around lens. Also, does Canon have an equivelant lens to Nikons 18-200 VR lens (that was my favorite)?

Like I said I am new to Canon and I really need help with lenses. I want to get the best I can for this camera.


peripatetic Apr 23, 2007 1:38 AM

Well there are a couple of obvious candidates..

The new 16-35L f2.8 Mk II will give a 35mm equivalent of 21-46mm, which should take care of your wide-angle needs.

The 24-105 IS f4 L is a nice walkaround, and covers 31-136mm equivalent.

The premier portrait lens is the 85mm f1.2 L, but you could equally use the 85mm f1.8 at a fraction of the price, or even one of the medium telephoto Macro lenses. The Canon 100mm f2.8 or Sigma 150mm f2.8 are both excellent. and (my new favourite) both have lens tests for these lenses.

nymphetamine Apr 23, 2007 1:49 AM

1 Attachment(s)
the 85 L is stunning.. the below image is from the camera with AWB adjusted. Taken in a Thai Restaurant in a very dim light at iso800 on a 5D.

The 5D and teh 85L is lethal :))))) i love it...

there is no noise reduction or sharpening..straight from the camera with some AWB adjustment

nymphetamine Apr 23, 2007 1:53 AM

1 Attachment(s)
one more from the same set up....AWB adjustment..The sharpness is from the camera....and i shoot raw...:))))

Get the 85L its an awesome lens...

JohnG Apr 23, 2007 6:54 AM


I'm a little confused by your post. You want to buy a $4400 pro camera and you want to know if there is a consumer super-zoom available for it (18-200 vr equivelent)?

Also, portrait & landscape work. Out of curiosity why did you choose the mk III? Why not say a less expensive but still outstanding 5d? The dynamic range and full frame sensor would seem to be a better fit for this style of photography.

But back to the question at hand. I think the recommendations given are spot on - 85 1.4 and 16-35 are probably an outstanding combo for your landscape and portrait needs. I also agree with the 24-105 as the best offering for a walk-around.

Tonyv49 Apr 23, 2007 1:40 PM

I was a Nikon person for about a year. I read about the breakthrough camera Canon was coming out with (MKIII) and was quoted a price of $4399. I originally looked at the 5D but that goes for about $3700. Why not spend the difference and get the latest.

I sold my tax business a while ago and I found out that I have a brain tumor. I don't know how long I have so I decided to get the newest Canon out there. At least I'll have something to fill my days learning the camera.

Your comment made me sound like a fool.....My philosophy is if you want it, and can afford it..then get it. When I bought all the Nikons and lenses I didn't know much about photography but as I went along I learned. This is what I want to do with the MKIII. I just don't know much about Canon lenses and I was just asking some advice.

I would still appreciate any feedback about lenses. I figured I would get 4 when my camera comes in.



nymphetamine Apr 23, 2007 3:27 PM

I read about the breakthrough camera Canon was coming out with (MKIII) and was quoted a price of $4399. I originally looked at the 5D but that goes for about $3700

the 5d is def less than the price u have mentioned. Its around 2400-2600. And pretty new condition 5Ds are going at around 2000 from reputed forums. The difference is atleast 2k between 5D and teh Mark III at current market.

thats the average price with no rebates. There are lot of users who bought the camera during the rebates for around 2100 who are selling them now for around 2200-2300.

As JohnG said, the difference can be invested in better glass. And 5D is not a mediocre camera. Its a wonderful camera.

sorry to hear about ur illness. Hope things get better.

Regarding the lens, personally i would vouch for 24-105. Great versatility. Nice reach and IS and constatn F4 apertuer. Unless u need F2.8 in this range this lens is one of the best i have used.

I have some primes too. I had the 85mm f1.8. Its a wonderful lens for the cost(300)

Then i got my hands on a 85L and havent looked back. Its around 1500 while i picked a used one for around 1000. I sold my 85mm F1.8 since the L is never out of the camera.

the 135L is a brilliant lens. Very sharp and excellent built quality.

70-200 f2.8 (non Is or IS) Both are good. Non Is is sharper. Cost difference is around 600 i guess

for tele the 100-400L is good. 400L prime is better and 100-300 from sigma is best among the three (with a 1.4x tele too)

I have the 120-300 and can vouch for it. Its a great lens. Constant f2.8. takes both 1.4x and 2X and at 600mm the pictures arent bad. Costs around 2500 though.

these are some of the lens's u can look at. for very wide angles i use the sigma 12-24. No issues at all.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:04 AM.