5D MKIII + Which lens??

Jason Parnell

Jason Parnell

Messages
24
Name
Jason
Edit My Images
No
Okay so here goes, I am looking to purchase a 5D MKIII body only in the next few days.

I have looked at the
10-20mm Sigma f3.5 EX DC HSM and this says its for sensor format APS-C £399
+
17-40mm canon f4L USM and this is for full frame sensors £629

what differences would I see in the image due to the sensors? never had a full frame but after a wide angle lens.

any advice to how this all works?

Currently using 450D
 
The 10-20 isn't really intended for full frame bodies such as the 5d

17mm is very wide on full frame so I'd go with the 17-40
 
Last edited:
I'm sure I read this a while ago, Never Ever try to fit an EF-S lens for APS cameras to a full frame DSLR, I don't think that is not just that you would not get a proper image but you could also damage the camera.
 
Last edited:
16-35, 17-40, or 14mm prime. Depends really what other lenses you have. I had the 24-105 so went with a 14mm prime.
 
Hotshots said:
I'm sure I read this a while ago, Never Ever try to fit an EF-S lens for APS cameras to a full frame DSLR, I don't think that is not just that you would not get a proper image but you could also damage the camera.
Click to expand...
The Canon lenses have a modified mount because some of them encroach into the mirror box and would damage the camera. So canon make them impossible to mount (a hacksaw will un-modify it though)
Third party lenses don't encroach so they can't cause damage, but they don't provide the necessary coverage either.

There are cheaper options than the 17-40, but s/h is the best option.
 
Hotshots said:
I'm sure I read this a while ago, Never Ever try to fit an EF-S lens for APS cameras to a full frame DSLR, I don't think that is not just that you would not get a proper image but you could also damage the camera.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input guys but as quoted above, it brought back a thought and I remember something on this too now. So basically I have to stick with ES lenses. I was worried if I spent the money on the 17-40mm that I wouldn't get the wideness of the image that I would with 10-20mm but the sensors are different so therefore it may give an even balance.

Phil when you say s/h what does this mean (Sorry if this a common abbreviation I should know haha)
 
Jason Parnell said:
Thanks for the input guys but as quoted above, it brought back a thought and I remember something on this too now. So basically I have to stick with ES lenses. I was worried if I spent the money on the 17-40mm that I wouldn't get the wideness of the image that I would with 10-20mm but the sensors are different so therefore it may give an even balance.

Phil when you say s/h what does this mean (Sorry if this a common abbreviation I should know haha)
Click to expand...

the 10-20 on aps-c will be as wide as the 17-40 on full frame.
 
thanks yanovitz. Just out of curiosity is there some sort of lets say formula in which you can calculate the outcome with the crop and full frame?
 
Ryte awesome, feel stupid all of a sudden. Pretty sure this is something I should know! Being self taught this is pretty much how I have learned. Well that's another bit info into my knowledge bank :D

So using my EF 70-200mm f4L on my 450D, the 70mm is actually 70 x 1.6 = 112mm.

By Jove I think I've got it! lol
 
Of course yes otherwise it wouldn't be listed as 70-200mm haha. Thanks for the link! Loving this forum :D Wondering now if I actually have any knowledge I can share with you guys that you may not know haha!
 
when I bought my 5d3 I used a 17-40 as my walkaround lens for a year and loved it (along with a 50mm/70-200 when needed). Occasionally wished it was a little longer but generally speaking did an admirable job.
 
Either a 17/40 ,16/35 or if you want really wide Sigma 12-24, but I find the 24/105 is invariably wide enough on my 5D 11
 
Jason Parnell said:
....Phil when you say s/h what does this mean (Sorry if this a common abbreviation I should know haha)
Click to expand...
It means second hand.

That lens is built for pro use, so a used one, especially with light use, will be like new, and if you want to sell it on later, you'll have lost very little. In fact with the right timing, people often make a profit buying and selling s/h lenses.

IIRC they're around £450 used.
 
gill said:
when I bought my 5d3 I used a 17-40 as my walkaround lens for a year and loved it (along with a 50mm/70-200 when needed). Occasionally wished it was a little longer but generally speaking did an admirable job.
Click to expand...
Gill i have exactly those lenses 70-220 and a 50 prime but also a 28-135mm. I was generally looking for a walk around lens, one i don't have to keep switching. and usually city shots i tend to stick with the 18-55 standard as its the widest i own.
 
troutfisher said:
Either a 17/40 ,16/35 or if you want really wide Sigma 12-24, but I find the 24/105 is invariably wide enough on my 5D 11
Click to expand...
Troutfisher, glad you brought up sigma, i was wondering if there was any 3rd party canon fit makes/models i could look at. Will take a look and see what it has to offer.
 
Phil V said:
It means second hand.

That lens is built for pro use, so a used one, especially with light use, will be like new, and if you want to sell it on later, you'll have lost very little. In fact with the right timing, people often make a profit buying and selling s/h lenses.

IIRC they're around £450 used.
Click to expand...
Thanks phil, i took a wild guess at is meaning s/h after i posted, ive noticed there is a for sale section on here which i can not access yet :( boo hoo.. in time and ill be able to have a good look, but i will say this i am one of those people that are a bit :/ with second hand stuff.
 
Jason Parnell said:
Thanks phil, i took a wild guess at is meaning s/h after i posted, ive noticed there is a for sale section on here which i can not access yet :( boo hoo.. in time and ill be able to have a good look, but i will say this i am one of those people that are a bit :/ with second hand stuff.
Click to expand...
The world needs lots of people buying brand new lenses, it keeps the second hand price down.:D

Seriously, if you can afford new then feel free, I'm the guy who'd much rather have a second hand Audi than a brand new top of the range Mondeo. The Canon L lenses are built for daily pro use, and are often owned by people who just like to have 'the best' and don't really use them. Battered versions are bargains and still work perfectly, mint ones are still quite a saving on new, and like I said, look after them and you'll get your money back. I paid £750 for my 70-200 about 8 years ago, I'd get close to that if I sold it tomorrow. Whereas my 300d brand new cost me £750 and is worth about £80 after 10 years.
 
Phil V said:
The world needs lots of people buying brand new lenses, it keeps the second hand price down.:D

Seriously, if you can afford new then feel free, I'm the guy who'd much rather have a second hand Audi than a brand new top of the range Mondeo. The Canon L lenses are built for daily pro use, and are often owned by people who just like to have 'the best' and don't really use them. Battered versions are bargains and still work perfectly, mint ones are still quite a saving on new, and like I said, look after them and you'll get your money back. I paid £750 for my 70-200 about 8 years ago, I'd get close to that if I sold it tomorrow. Whereas my 300d brand new cost me £750 and is worth about £80 after 10 years.
Click to expand...

Yh totally see your point, just call me a funny buggar. Cars second hand yes, never had a brand new one lol. I guess if i seen one and i had a really good feeling about it then possibly buy a second hand lens, and tbh it seems like there is a fair few people and if not and hopefully everyone here looks after there lenses then buying one second hand from the for sale section might be worth doing when it becomes available lol.
 
JBuk said:
The 10-20 isn't really intended for full frame bodies such as the 5d

17mm is very wide on full frame so I'd go with the 17-40
Click to expand...

+1. I use the 17-40 .. great lens. And it can be bought for a lot less than £600 as the OP suggests.
 
Phil V said:
The world needs lots of people buying brand new lenses, it keeps the second hand price down.:D

Seriously, if you can afford new then feel free, I'm the guy who'd much rather have a second hand Audi than a brand new top of the range Mondeo. The Canon L lenses are built for daily pro use, and are often owned by people who just like to have 'the best' and don't really use them. Battered versions are bargains and still work perfectly, mint ones are still quite a saving on new, and like I said, look after them and you'll get your money back. I paid £750 for my 70-200 about 8 years ago, I'd get close to that if I sold it tomorrow. Whereas my 300d brand new cost me £750 and is worth about £80 after 10 years.
Click to expand...

I agree, Phil.

There are a lot of 17-40's on Ebay. I feel it's a lens many get early on and then find it's much easier to go with the 24-105 or some similar zoom. I rarely use my 17-40 and as much as I love it I am finding it hard to justify.
 
JennyGW said:
I agree, Phil.

There are a lot of 17-40's on Ebay. I feel it's a lens many get early on and then find it's much easier to go with the 24-105 or some similar zoom. I rarely use my 17-40 and as much as I love it I am finding it hard to justify.
Click to expand...
I never had mine long, but I shoot crop and bought it as a std zoom, then replaced it with the 17-55 (eventually) which is a much better lens for that.

Other lenses I've also bought and sold: 135 2.8 sf, 200 2.8, 18-55is, Sigma 17-50 2.8.

The Canon 100mm macro was out of budget by about £100 so I bought the Tamron 90, which one day I'll sell and buy the Canon (with the addition of approx £100).

Playing with loads of lenses is cheap if you go s/h, it's a money pit if you buy new.
 
Again, little bit funny regarding s/h. Searched ebay, alot from new (Hong Kong etc) some stating UK Seller doesn't mean its a UK product, and the second hand ones on there, well they don't look much cop, I'm just fussy.

Well I think I have made up my mind in which I want to go for, so thank you all for your input and opinions, I can honestly say I have a learnt a few things from this post.

SO THUMBS UP!!!
 
I was at a wedding the other week and was quite happily using a 24-70 L mkII until it came to group shots. The church ground was a bit limited and there was a lot of people so I swapped to my 17-40 L and got everyone in. There's a huge difference between 24 and 17 on a 5D mk3 and I was the only one who could get the whole group in compared to everyone else with their compacts, bridge cameras, phones, even an Ipad shooter and two other people with dslr's. I rarely use my 17-40 but it's great to have it when needed. As the saying goes, it's better to have and not need than need and not have.
 
Would just like to say, I have purchased the 5D MKIII got a free battery grip and adobe software, plus the 17-40mm f4L lens with a further £35 discount thanks to Wex Photographic!! Should arrive tomorrow! Excited!!!
 
id recommend prime lenses as they are great fun very fast and cheaper if you don't have the need to have a red ring on the end of your lens i feel they are your best bang for buck!
 
I have a 5D MKII. I've got the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM and Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM. I've got a couple of primes as well but the 24-70 is rarely of the camera. It really is a great all-rounder.
 
Daniel Giles said:
id recommend prime lenses as they are great fun very fast and cheaper if you don't have the need to have a red ring on the end of your lens i feel they are your best bang for buck!
Click to expand...
I purchased a 5d3 at Christmas and have since bought a 35mm1.4l and a 85mm1.8 and didn't take the 85mm off the camera for nearly the whole of Hampton court flower show. When I did want a wider shot I put my 17-40 on.
I would defiantly recommend a 85mm1.8 (s/h around £200-230)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top