Need Canon Lens Advice

[patrick9x9]

Ok, so I'm thinking I'm going to get the 5D3 and Canon is offering a rebate on lens if purchased with it. I currently have 24-105L, 100-400L, and 10-22 EFS which won't work with the 5D3. So here are my choices, which one do you think would benefit me most based on my type of photography, mostly landscapes, both day and night.

EF 50mm F/1.2L
EF 16-35mm F/2.8L

Also I can only get one before an upcoming Alaska Photogrophy cruise.

Thank you.

[Black Pearl]

The 16-35mm is the same as your 10-22mm on a FF body so if you are used to that range you are going to want that range again.

If you want a 50mm then get the 1.4 as its a belter and the cost difference makes the 1.2 a bit 'specialised' shall we say.

[Geoff F]

Just a thought, Brian. But even with a lens rebate you are going to spend more money than purchasing just a body if you also get a lens.

So to make economic sense to me, any rebate lens should be something which you really need; otherwise don't bother.

If you want a 1.2 lens, then I suppose that 50 mm may make some sense, as Robin suggested.

[patrick9x9]

Thank you Robin and Geoff. Yes as a matter of fact I do love the range I have with my 10-22 on my 7D, so 16-35 it is.
As far as the 50mm, yes I will give that some more thought. The 1.4 is much cheaper and makes more sense. With the exception of my 10-22, I always try to buy L series, but I certainly love my 10-22.

Thank you both for the advice.

[inkista]

If you don't need the f/2.8 of the 16-35L II, another possibility is the EF 17-40 f/4L USM. Not quite as costy, same ultra-wide focal length range, smaller/lighter, and pretty much the same max. aperture you had with the 10-22. Most folks say that the performance is on a par with the 16-35 II. Given that you're doing landscapes and not environmental portraiture, it may be a better fit.

Also, be sure you know about the 50/1.2L's focus shift issues before getting one. There's a reason the "Holy Trinity" of L primes is the 35L, 85L, and 135L...

[Black Pearl]

It would be worth reading some reviews (try photozone) before stepping down to the 17-40mm on a FF body. While the 16-35mm isn't with it's issues it is far better optically at its wide end - kind of the whole point of the lens - than the 17-40mm which is a bit grim at 17mm.

[patrick9x9]

Thanks everyone for your advice. I got the 16-35. Kathy I will definitely check out the Holy Trinity of L primes you suggest. Thank you.

[Colin Southern]

Thanks everyone for your advice. I got the 16-35. Kathy I will definitely check out the Holy Trinity of L primes you suggest. Thank you.

For what it's worth, I "almost" have the "holy trinity of primes" (I have the EF14mm, EF85mm, and EF135mm), and also have the "holy trinity of zooms" (EF16-35, EF24-70, and EF70-200).

I use the "holy trinity of zooms" approx 100 times more than any of my primes.

IMO, primes are specialist lenses (usually only useful if you need something faster than F2.8, which isn't often because of the razor thin DoF); if I needed 50mm I'd simply dial up 50mm on a zoom and "job done". If it were a low-light situation I'd use a tripod or "up the ISO".

On the other hand, 16 to 24mm is currently missing from your range -- so "good choice"

[msdarkroom]

I realize you already purchased a lens - good choice IMO.
Next time around here is something to consider...

I sold the 50 1.4 and got this Zeiss 50: http://amzn.to/JvlU7I
It's an awesome lens. It literally slows me down and forces me to makes better decisions (it's MF). Love this lens.
Highly recommended!

-MS