I am new to DSLR Shooting, but wish to buy a 5D3, I will be using it for a wide variety of event, shoots etc.
What would be the perfect lens? I want to buy one good zoomlens, if possible IS USM Lens. What about audio? has it changed much to the 5D2? Or do I still have to go for the separate audio recorder?

Hi David,

The lens that is packaged in the 5D Mk. III kit version, which is the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, is probably the single best zoom lens you can get. If you buy it as the kit, you're saving several hundred dollars vs. buying this lens separately from the camera.

Thanks Chris, but I am looking for a little "faster" lens, as I wonder if that will be good enough for inside ocassions ?

There's only a few options for "faster" zooms. If you can swing it, my all time fav lens is the 70-200 f2.8L USM II. I also have the 24-70 f2.8L and 16-35 f2.8L
I understand the "want" for fast lenses indoors but keep in mind your DOF and the need to accurately focus. It is a PITA with a 3" DOF!

Here's a suggestion for the "real world"...
The mkIII has essentially erased the need to stay in the lower ISOs. You can shoot very clean video and stills at 3200 and useable at 6400! Add Neat video filter to your post process and the noise is gone!!

I have used the mkII and still have a 7D. The 5D is so much cleaner it's ridiculous!
Get the bundle with the 24-105 and Neat for $100 more and shoot away!

I agree about the EF 24-105 f/4.0 L IS, which I own. I also owned the original EF 24-70 f/2.8 L zoom, but traded it in. While optically good, it was large and heavy. Because of the zoom design, it had a hood that could be used for a lamp shade in a living room. No kidding.

The new 24-70 f/2.8 L weighs less, and due to a different zoom design, has a mercifully smaller hood.

But.... It is not shipping yet, and will be quite pricey, and will not have IS.

Which gets us back to the EF 24-105 f/4.0 L IS, which is a very decent zoom. I agree with Chris.

Keep in mind that f/4 might or might not meet your style needs.

I once shot an event with people and their pets with the EF 50/1.4. The following year, I brought the 24-105L. The group was visibly disappointed with the photos from the second year, due to the deeper focus. They weren't photographers. They didn't know DOF from SOL. But they recognized the difference between the romantic feel of the 50mm photos compared to the documentary feel of the zoom photos.

Yes, the 24-105L is a solid, useful lens. Add a fast 35mm or 50mm lens and it expands your artistic and nighttime range.

Another option if you want IS is to get the 100/2.8L IS Macro. That and the 35L are my core lenses. With the 100L, you get more light as well as close focus in a similar size/weight package.

I want to buy one good zoomlens, if possible IS USM Lens.

Sounds like he's not interested in primes, folks. David, I wouldn't worry about the f/4 on the 24-105L. When I purchased my 5D I was concerned that the DOF wouldn't be shallow enough, and that the lens wouldn't be fast enough. In reality neither has proven true. You can get shallow DOF (remember, it's a full-frame sensor) and the exceptional ISO performance of the 5Diii will be more than enough to deal with low-light situations. Also, 24-105 is a great all-around zoom range for a full-frame camera. Much more versatile than a 24-70 or 70-200 (both of which I love!).


What about audio? has it changed much to the 5D2? Or do I still have to go for the separate audio recorder?

Audio control has improved. You can now monitor the signal on the viewfinder or your monitor. For my money, I record to a Tascam and run the signal from there to the camera. That way I have backup, but it's not necessary to do that. You can record direct to the camera if you like.

Even if someone wants a zoom as a primary lens, I'd recommend at least a 50/1.8 for about $100 as an accessory.

Regarding shallow DOF, push the f/4 zoom close to the subject and it can get quite shallow - especially at 105mm. However, go wide enough or pull it back for a wide portrait, and the focus will be quite deep. Even if the zoom covers 90% of one's work, having a prime to help cover the remaining 10% makes a lot of sense.

I think there's a misconception about primes. Some think that with a fixed focal length collection, one has to own a big set and constantly change lenses. That's not my experience. In fact, I often go out to shoot photos with only a single prime. It forces me to look creatively for shots that I might not otherwise see.

For video, I generally use a wide (24 or 28), normal (35), and tele (85 or 100). I typically end up shooting 75% normal, 20% tele, and 5% wide. With a little planning, lens changes are minimized.

But even with zooms, if you want to go from an ultrawide to a long tele, you end up having to change lenses. I find that video is well covered by the 24-105 range, but photos are possibly not.

It's too bad that Canon doesn't offer the equivalent of the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS for full frame. It's great that the updated 24-70 is smaller and lighter, but it's too bad that it's so expensive and doesn't offer IS.

thanks everyone,
my main worries are because of my shooting style, I will be in and out of focus if the lens is not fast enough, but as I understand I can push the 5D3 rather far so I can shoot comfortable with lets say F4? I am used to videocamera's and I can shoot inside totally open and can correct when needed, but the DSLR works different don't they? And yes I will get a prime but as I am new to this I want to start with a zoomlens (just because I am used to working with zoomlenses) and get some hours of working with the setup, before I buy other lenses. But thanks for your suggestions !! Its a shame the autofocus does not work in videomode.

"Audio control has improved. You can now monitor the signal on the viewfinder or your monitor. For my money, I record to a Tascam and run the signal from there to the camera. That way I have backup, but it's not necessary to do that. You can record DIRECT to the camera if you like. "
What setup should I then use? does that mean I have to use the beachtec adapter? As microfoons I use require xlr inputs. Or do you know some other application I can use?
__________________

Though I've got and love the 24-105 f4L i've been eying the new Tamron 24-70 2.8 with IS - it'll sell for $1300.

Jon makes good points. The EF 50 mm f/1.4 (which I have) is reasonably priced, so the OP could buy it as well as a zoom.

Regarding the EF 100 mm Macro f/2.8L IS ( which I also have), the other poster must have far better skills at focusing than I have.

Another option if you want IS is to get the 100/2.8L IS Macro. That and the 35L are my core lenses. With the 100L, you get more light as well as close focus in a similar size/weight package.

I just bought this exact same combination to add to my existing lenses. Actually, the 35mm f/1.4L was a wedding present, and will be used to with my 5D Mark III during my honeymoon! As the Canon rep at this year's NAB told me when I tried the lens, "Be careful with that lens... you'll never want to take it off your camera!" The 100mm f/2.8L IS (the new one) is also very, very nice. The original version was on my wish list for many years, but I finally bought the new version a month ago.

I just shot a reception with the 24-105 and mkIII and I can tell you it is awesome. I shot at f4 1/50 at 8000 ISO and it was clean and clear. It felt like shooting with the 50 1.4 but with about 8 ft more DOF and the ability to reframe... I am hooked. This camera is as much a revolution as the mkII was.
BIll

"Be careful with that lens... you'll never want to take it off your camera!"

So true! I took my 5D2 to a restaurant to shoot photos of the family. I took a single lens: the 35L. The restaurant was *extremely* dark, and the 35L gave me just the right framing and allowed me to shoot without flash. In fact, the last few times I shot photos, the 35L was the only lens I brought. :)

i have the excellent 24-105, but recently used the 35 2.0 to film a Kung Fu class. I had it set up on a 5D mkii, Cavision rig with FF and a monopod screwed into the bottom, a smallHD DP6, a Singh Ray variable ND, a Rode video mic pro and a Zoom H4.
I really enjoyed this set up!!!! the 35 2.0 is nice and light. the 24-105 with all the other gear would have been really taxing, and i doubt the zoom would have been used that much anyway. the 2.0 allowed me to get really creative with DOF (deep and shallow) and i am really happy with the images i captured. the monopod was a great addition! i could brace it on my belt or leg with the rig on my shoulder, and it was rock solid. the shoulder unit alone is so front heavy that it can be really tiring, but with the monopod, i could shoot for hours. and i could lift the camera high above my head, gripping the monopod or bracing it on my chest. i think i have found my perfect run and gun set up. it was very stable, versatile and easy to get really creative!
anyway, long story short, i found the cheap 35 2.0 lens great to shoot with, and did not miss zoom at all. i would highly recommend it in addition to the 24-105. that is, if you can't afford the 1.4...

I don't see any need for IS function in wide lenses, so much prefer the 16-35mm L or 17-35mm L f/2.8 lenses for ultra-wide settings, and the 24-70 f/2.8 L for most normal wide work (the latter is a fantastic lens to work with and in my opinion it is a far better lens than the 24-105mm).
The IS can be of benefit at the 105mm end, but if you are going to use that medium telephoto lens setting a lot in your filming, I think the 100mm L Macro Is is a far better option and also has a better image stabilizer.

Do I recall correctly that a "II" version of the 35 f/1.4L is in the works?

EF 35 f/1.4L II
Canon filed a patent back in 2011, so yes, it will eventually be produced, but not for a while yet I think.

Canon filed patent for EF 35 f/1.4L II

Patent Publication No. US 7,944,625
Published 2011.5.17
Filled 2009.8.5

Specifications

Focal Distance: 34.59
Fno: 1.45
Half angle of view: 32.02
Image Height: 21.64
Lens Length (mm): 126.93
Back Focus (mm): 37.98

Here are the actual inner glass elements of the lens in the patent:

Currently, the exchange rate is poor for buying Japanese products. (They're either priced high or the margins are really thin for the manufacturer.) Lately, that means that new Canon models (Extenders III, 5D3, 24-70L, 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8 IS) are priced much higher than the previous models. The trend is making the "wait for the new model" thing less appealing.

The 35L currently goes for $1,380 - $1,500, new. I'd guess that the new model (when/if introduced) would go for closer to $2K. That makes a used 35L I look pretty appealing.

Well I bought the camera with the kit lens and I like it. The only thing is that I can hear the autofocus when I am using the internal mic. I got also a Zacuto viewfinder and ND fader from LCW. Getting used to the menu is proving difficult, but I will get there! Trying to find a workflow that will allow me to use ISO, aperture fast. And you can use autofocus while filming!! I thought you couldn't do that.

I shot at f4 1/50 at 8000 ISO and it was clean and clear. It felt like shooting with the 50 1.4 but with about 8 ft more DOF and the ability to reframe... I am hooked. This camera is as much a revolution as the mkII was.
BIll

Were you shooting with a flash?

Maurice, I don't do photography at all, but the DJ kept turning off my lighting so I had an issue with light and it soaked it right up. Now, I've had some experience since then where 8000 at f/4 didn't cut it, but it is truly remarkable.
Bill

Here's what I am using on the 5D MIII for video:

-Kit lens, 24-105mm L IS
-Rokinon 35mm 1.4 manual lens

I am liking the 24-105, and the IS is needed for handheld, but not a miracle worker. It helps, but my handheld shots still look handheld. Just smooths the bumps some. I find that I am really wanting something longer and tighter... the 70-200 would probably be that lens. Maybe later I can afford it. For 90% of the shots, I have a variable ND filter attached to do quick iris changes. It also allows for more wide open f4 work but I am finding that I hunt for focus and the LCD is not sharp enough to critically judge focus while recording.

If anything, I am struggling with focus on the 5D with the EF lenses. In practical terms, that means I am closing the iris to maximize depth of field. I am finding that run and gun work is requiring f8 and higher so that I can have some latitude with focus.

Now, my Rokinon 35mm f1.4 lens. It is awesome. $400 bucks I think I paid. So worth it. It is manual, which I prefer over the EOS lens for video. I did a shoot last night in almost pitch black, could barely see with my eyes and punched the ISO all the way up on the 5DMIII. I was able to get a shot with that lens that no other video camera that I use (EX3, HDX900, etc.) could match. Yes, there was noise but it was so much more usable than a standard videocamera gained up to, say, 30db. Awesome. Dialed back the ISO to around 8000-10000 and had very acceptable video noise. The depth of field at 1.4 is so incredibly tight, that it makes life very difficult to focus properly. Especially in the dark, you really spend most of your time judging focus in the little LCD. But, it is awesome, too.

I really want a zoom lens that mirrors a broadcast lens spec, like the new Canon and Fujinon PL mounts. However, $40k is not an option for me. Will make do with EF lenses for now.

If I were to buy another lens, I would probably try the 70-200 f2.8. Maybe experiment with some wider lens options like a 16mm.

The range would be great on the 70-200 mm f/2.8 but, I think that you might come out better using a fixed lens for video. I'm new to Canon but, if you can find a 200 mm f/2.8, that would probably give even better footage.

I owned the 200/2.8L II and have the 70-200/2.8L IS II at work. I use both on a tripod. Both lenses are awesome optically.

The advantages of the 200/2.8L II are low cost, small size, low weight, and stealth. But without IS, you need a REALLY good tripod setup. Any little wiggle is seen in the image. Of course, you could stabilize in post.

I'd rather have the 135/2L as it's faster, less sensitive to vibration, and is a more useful focal length for me.

The advantages of the 70-200/2.8L IS II is that it has a zoom range, the optics are as good as the 200/2.8L prime, and the IS removes micro-vibrations wonderfully. It makes the camerawork invisible. The downsides are that it's expensive, large, heavy, and flashy. I wouldn't want to shoot long takes handheld with it. Give me a monopod at the least.

My personal lens in this range is the 100/2.8L IS Macro. Unlike the 24-105, it provides f/2.8 speed. It has hybrid IS, which works great. It's a comfortable size, weight, and color. It's relatively affordable. Not to mention that you'll never run into a minimum focus distance limitation with it!.

But if you have the cash, will use a tripod/monopod, and don't mind the size/weight/flashiness, the 70-200L IS II is a fantastic lens. If it were smaller, lighter, and black, it would be ideal. :)

I use the 24-70 f2.8L quite a bit--that's a nice versatile lens. Also the 70-200 f2.8 and 135 f2 are real beauties.