I'm a wedding videographer primarily. I've done a few commercials and corporate pieces- but the bulk of my work is live events (ie weddings). I recently began production on my first music video. I figured it would be the perfect time to jump in with the 5DmkII and get my feet wet. We finished up the first scene tonight and have 4-5 others scheduled.

These were shot with a 50 1.2L and 135 2.0L. Some people complain about the 50 1.2 being a finicky lens- I found it wonderful to work with! Maybe the issues are more prominent on the super-high res photo side.



Got done shooting the first scene for a music video I'm producing. We have about 4-5 more scenes to shoot but I'm pleased with the results of the first.

Here are some untouched stills directly off the FCP timeline (only down-sized 50%):

http://www.msprotege.com/members/LazerBlueP5/unborn01.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/LazerBlueP5/unborn02.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/LazerBlueP5/unborn03.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/LazerBlueP5/unborn04.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/LazerBlueP5/unborn05.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/LazerBlueP5/unborn06.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/LazerBlueP5/unborn07.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/LazerBlueP5/unborn08.jpg

These are pretty stunning Glen. I did a wedding yesterday (I'm NOT a wedding videographer but there as a guest ) and my 50 1.8 didn't get anything as smooth as this. Beautiful images.

Can you post it on Vimeo when you've finished editing?

I for one would love to see it.

Cheers

Avey

The 50mm 1.2L is incredible in low light for both stills & video work. We film a lot of interiors & with this lens are now able to just use ambient lighting (windows & room lights) without any need to lug lights along to the shoot. It 'sees' better in low light than the human eye so that when you open the aperture right up the room is brighter on the recording than it appears in real life without looking washed out & underexposed.

Very nice! which picture mode did you use?

Is this just lit with ambient lighting or did you light this with video lights?

Looking really nice Glen. If your stuff looks this good right out of the gate, imagine how great it will look once you get some more experience under your belt!

Good work, thanks for sharing.

Dan

The 50mm 1.2L is incredible in low light for both stills & video work. We film a lot of interiors & with this lens are now able to just use ambient lighting (windows & room lights) without any need to lug lights along to the shoot. It 'sees' better in low light than the human eye so that when you open the aperture right up the room is brighter on the recording than it appears in real life without looking washed out & underexposed.

I rented the lenses for this shoot however I'm thinking about investing in either a 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, or 135 2. Out of those which do you feel is the superior glass?

Very nice! which picture mode did you use?

I just reduced the contrast to 0 and reduced the saturation a few notches.

Is this just lit with ambient lighting or did you light this with video lights?

Looking really nice Glen. If your stuff looks this good right out of the gate, imagine how great it will look once you get some more experience under your belt!

Good work, thanks for sharing.

Dan

Hey Dan, I brought a full light kit but only ended up using two lights. A tota + umbrella as key, and a pro light on dimmer for hair light.

Thanks for the kind words. I enjoy these types of shoots (ie where I can actually "control" things).

I rented the lenses for this shoot however I'm thinking about investing in either a 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, or 135 2. Out of those which do you feel is the superior glass?

To me, the key is a large aperture and a flat field. Looking at the test results, I'd lean slightly toward the 85 f/1.2.

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM Lens Vignetting Test Results (http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=121)

A quick scan showed the corners to be

35mm -.35 @ f/1.4
50mm -.4 @ f/1.2
85mm -.3 @ f/1.2
135mm -.2 @ f/2.0

The 135 is table flat, but that's 1.3 stops slower than the 50 or the 85. Stop the 85 to f/2.0 and the falloff is only -.1.

But frankly, I don't think you can go wrong with any of these, but my preference would be for one of the three fastest lenses. You should really choose based on field of view and perspective.

If you can back up far enough, you can get your subjects in the frame. But we can't always punch out walls. Is the 85mm too tight?

On the other hand, you can always push the 35mm closer to get the tighter shot. But with that comes an exaggerated perspective.

Then again, there's price. The 85mm costs about 1/3 more than the 50mm.

If I wasn't worried about cash or not being able to backpedal far enough, I'd get the 85mm. If cash and space are tight, get the 50mm. If you buy soon, you can probably get your rental fee applied to the sales price.

BTW, how did you feel jumping from the 50mm to the 135? Personally, I like big perspective jumps, but you need to have enough space to frame things as you'd like. Did you feel the need for an intermediate lens, or did you have enough space to get the shots you wanted?

Needless to say, your still captures look fantastic!

I rented the lenses for this shoot however I'm thinking about investing in either a 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, or 135 2. Out of those which do you feel is the superior glass?

85mm 1.2 would be if you can get it wide open with electronics still functioning as it has servo focus that does not allow you to use it without power from EF mount.
I personally can't stand messing around with EF/EOS lenses as those are so uncontrollable when compared to other brands manual lenses. So all our Canon lenses stay on the old photography 5D and MKII gets sub par (for 22Mpix) manual lenses that are good for video.
Samyang 85mm f1.4 (with EOS mount) will be my next video lens as it is comparable to my 85mm f1.2 Canon

$300 85mm f1.4 Samyang/Polar pics: Picasa Web Albums - Pepe_203 - Nikkor Polar ... (http://picasaweb.google.com/sapphire.boy/NikkorPolarSharpnessSamples?authkey=I4Y3qjbKA9M#)

T

These look fantastic. Any chance we could see the full 1080p grabs?

These look fantastic. Any chance we could see the full 1080p grabs?

That would be nice, but a short 1080p video of the shoot would be great as well.

Great shots.

I rented the lenses for this shoot however I'm thinking about investing in either a 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, or 135 2. Out of those which do you feel is the superior glass?

I'm thinking about a tank, motorcyle, or biplane. Out of those, which do you feel is superior? It depends! If you want to fly, a tank wont be much help. If you want to withstand hits from explosive ordinace, the motorcycle is not going to achieve that. If you want the thrill of high speeds on the open road, a tank is not the optimum choice. Apples and oranges.

In the same way, the choice of what glass is superior depends principally on what you want to do with it. The 35, 50, 85, and 135 are all completely different lenses. None of them do the same thing. The 50mm can't take a wide angle landscape. The 35mm can't take a headshot. The 85mm can't do an environmental portrait. And so on.


You should really choose based on field of view and perspective.


I agree with Jon.


A quick scan showed the corners to be

35mm -.35 @ f/1.4
50mm -.4 @ f/1.2
85mm -.3 @ f/1.2
135mm -.2 @ f/2.0


When electronic connection is preserved, the 5D2 automatically corrects vignetting for their own lenses.

When electronic connection is preserved, the 5D2 automatically corrects vignetting for their own lenses.

I've been meaning to test this. I know they correct it for photos. Have you confirmed that it is corrected for video as well? If so, that's a strong nod toward Canon lenses - even the mid line, such as the 28mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2.0. Each of those cost about $350 - $420, saving a lot, compared to an L lens.

On the other hand, even though these only lose about a stop (1, 0.3, 1 and 1.3 respectively) on paper, if they have dark corners, they will lose more sensitivity with falloff correction enabled. You figure that the camera has to dim the center or raise the gain on the corners to flatten things out. That means the L-lenses are doubly good - they are fast by spec, and even faster when you compare brightness in the corners.

I've been meaning to test this. I know they correct it for photos. Have you confirmed that it is corrected for video as well?


Yes, I'm 100% certain. I appreciate it a lot for videos with the 24mm f/1.4 II.

I'm thinking about a tank, motorcyle, or biplane. Out of those, which do you feel is superior? It depends! If you want to fly, a tank wont be much help. If you want to withstand hits from explosive ordinace, the motorcycle is not going to achieve that. If you want the thrill of high speeds on the open road, a tank is not the optimum choice.

Get the biplane. Fly fast and low and avoid mean people who would try to blow you up.
...Sorry...

However, if I understand the question, it was which was superior GLASS. Glen well knows the benefits of different sized lenses, I think. Though his question does lead one to believe he's asking about the sizes, so I don't know. If I could only own one lens, it would likely be my 85mm. But I'm happy I have a few to choose from.

As to the glass, I can only offer a few links:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech.htm#cameras
Lens Evaluations (http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html)
Find these links and more in this thread:
Redrock Micro: create the cinema experience :: View topic - Resources for 35mm lens information, FAQs, and reviews (http://redrockmicro.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=114)

Hope that sort of helps.

Yes, I'm 100% certain. I appreciate it a lot for videos with the 24mm f/1.4 II.
That's sweet. Fast glass + falloff correction = mucho goodness!

BTW, my current plan is to get fast(ish), mid-level Canon glass to own, and to rent the expensive L glass on demand. I'll be using skill(?) and/or Mylar to set the aperture.

I've got the 50mm f/1.4 and plan to get the 100 f/2 soon. I'll rent the 85 f/1.2 as needed. Similarly, I'll buy the 28 f/1.8 and rent the 24 f/1.4 L II. I also plan to buy the 200 f/2.8L, since it's the most affordable L glass. The 200 f/2.0 is out of my reach...

We've got Nikon lenses to cover 24mm to 200mm, but it's not as fast as the lenses above. The more I shoot, the more I appreciate the need for fast, flat glass.

To help fund this, I'm selling my photo 70-300 IS zoom:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/private-classifieds/234490-canon-ef-70-300mm-f-4-5-6-lens.html

Get the biplane. Fly fast and low and avoid mean people who would try to blow you up.


Good one! :)


However, if I understand the question, it was which was superior GLASS.


I'm trying to help illustrate the fundamental flaw in the question itself, to point out what I see as its lack of purpose and utility.

What has better gas mileage, a space shuttle or a bicycle? The answer is bicycle, but does that really help the person who asked the question? If a 35mm has worse flatness of field than 135mm f/2, does that mean the 135mm is superior? No, they are just too different to compare. A 35mm can never be used the same way as 135mm, just like a bicycle cannot go to space, and the space shuttle cannot be used on dirt trails. First you have to decide what you want to do; only then can the question be asked of which is the best way to do it. To ask in the opposite order does not lead to useful information.

It doesn't matter how the lenses differ in aberrations, MTF, falloff, field curvature, distortion, etc., because they can never be used in the same way. I could see the sense in comparing lenses with smaller differences, like 85-vs-100 or 30-vs-35, because the difference in AOV/perspective is small enough that they can be used for roughly the same purpose.

I rented the lenses for this shoot however I'm thinking about investing in either a 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, or 135 2. Out of those which do you feel is the superior glass?

Here's a site that might help you out... but each of those lens' your asking about are included in the list of the Canon Magic lens list.... :-)

Photography Equipment Reviews (http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/index.htm)

your just missing a few... the 100mm macro is not an L designated lens but should
be included in your list... works great as a macro lens and many claim it to be one
of the best portrait lenses in the Canon line... a very sharp lens

Canon | 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Autofocus Lens | 4657A006 | B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/194451-USA/Canon_4657A006_100mm_f_2_8_USM_Macro.html)

We can tell you liked the 50 1.2... the 85 1.2 is the same lens, just a little more reach...
both are fantastic lenses for low light super shallow DOF. As you know both are like holding
a glass grenade :-)

The only other lens that would beat out the 50 or 85 is the 200 1.8, which has been replaced by the 200 2.0... either the 1.8 or 2.0 will spoil you forever though, so don't go there unless you can handle what some folks call " Canon L Fever " , your pocket book will thank you... and they are not the glass grenade, they are the glass football :-)

One more site for you....

FM Reviews - Canon prime lenses (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=2)

With the lenses that you rented your experiencing the best of what the 5DMKII can do...

When you put the super fast lenses on the camera you get a couple things...
The camera turns on the more sensitive focus sensors, because the faster lenses allow more light into the camera so it can use the more sensitive sensors

The camera knows what lens is on the camera and allows you to fine tune the front/back focus points.. with a fast lens wide open you dont have much DOF to play with, so the fine tuneing can be important for proper focus.

And the camera adjusts for vignetting on each lens....

your just missing a few... the 100mm micro is not an L designated lens but should
be included in your list... works great as a macro lens and many claim it to be one
of the best portrait lenses in the Canon line... a very sharp lens

Canon | 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Autofocus Lens | 4657A006 | B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/194451-USA/Canon_4657A006_100mm_f_2_8_USM_Macro.html)
I'll second that! I just bought my wife this lens for her birthday. I have seen it described as the most fun per dollar of any Canon lens & you can see what they mean Alice Barker's Photo- powered by SmugMug (http://barkerstest.smugmug.com/gallery/8067936_LGAJv#525597642_7cM4y)

I'm trying to help illustrate the fundamental flaw in the question itself, to point out what I see as its lack of purpose and utility.On the other hand... the question can relate to which lens to buy first, and which one to own vs. rent. If one of the lenses has poor glass, you probably wouldn't want to buy it - it would be better to wait for a superior II version before buying in that range.

All said, the 85mm is at the top of my list. It's narrow enough that it provides pleasing faces. It's wide enough that you can back up and get two people's upper bodies side by side when shooting in a home. It's good for over the shoulder shots as well. With another $350 you can get a new 50mm f/1.4 for the wider, normal interior shot. It's a nice bread and butter solution, when filming people - as done in the screen grabs.

If you want head shots, the 135 is the way to go. In fact, it can do the 85mm job if you can back up far enough. We did a film recently where we jumped from 50mm covering two people at a distance to head shots, and it was too jarring a leap, IMHO.

Wide lenses work for people when you put an object in the immediate foreground and give the faces some distance. They're also nice for establishing shots. Long lenses (200+) can be used on people when you're outdoors and can really back up. They're great for making people or objects in the background unnaturally large compared to the subject.

Of course, if you shoot wildlife, bugs, or the pyramids, YMMV. But for people in narrative work, the 85mm is right in the sweet spot - especially, if you can only back the camera up so far.

And fortunately, the 85mm f/1.2 is a really sweet lens.

Regarding the 100mm f/2.8 Macro, it really doesn't substitute for a fast prime, but would definitely be lots of fun per dollar.

I've got my hands on a Nikon 105mm f/2.8 Micro AF (which has an focus ring, unlike the newest version.) While I'm torn between Canon and Nikon because of the lack of aperture control, for a macro, I lean toward the Nikon. Why? Because with macro shots, you can really take your time to get them right. If I have to snap a few photos to nail the focus and exposure, it's simply not a problem. I'll take the aperture ring over the auto focus, metering and IS, thank you.

That's not the case for fast primes, aside from maybe the wides. If you want a photo of kids, cats, dogs, wildlife, etc., you really want to be able to grab the camera, turn it on, put it in auto and shoot the moment. Sure, I want an aperture ring for video, but I hate losing the photo functions - except for with the Macro. Macros compress space - but expand time.

Thank you all for the input it's been very educational and much appreciated!

PS Here's a shot of my Cinevate Pegasus on the shoot...

http://www.msprotege.com/members/LazerBlueP5/pegasus.jpg

Gorgeous frame grabs, Glen. Very nice work.

Cool shot, Glen. Nice "little story" in that one shot.

What's the slider you're using?

Cool shot, Glen. Nice "little story" in that one shot.

What's the slider you're using?

Hey Matthew, it's a Cinevate Pegasus Heavy Lifter.

Thanks! Looks great!
I just ordered the slider from GlideTrack.
www.glidetrack.com (http://www.glidetrack.com/)
It's a slider - not a "tracking device" but I'm hoping it will be quiet enough for my work.

Keep up the great work!