thank u Daniel

i foun the L version at 570 euro and the lii version at 1200 euro, double price..... My budget can hold the difference ....

With a 5d there is a big difference in the look of a shot at f4 vs f2. Also the wider apertures glass usually comes with better coatings etc. Add that zooms just don't offer the same sharpness in my experience and that explains my case of heavy and expensive prime lenses. Zooms and fast changes are not what i need, super shallow depth of field interviews and arty B roll is all i want.

Thus an 85mm 1.4 - super sharp and beautiful soft out of focus areas. The autofocus is worthless though but in good light with a stable subject its all good. Many people swear by the 100 macro instead of the 85mm. Also have a 50mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 24 1.4. Add extension tubes and you have macro. All amazing lenses!

PS - in my opinion any discussion about sharper non-Canon glass is way to far up the diminishing returns curve to waste time with.

Happy shooting :)

Another thing to consider is color balance of each manufacturer and lens.

I stick with Canon glass because even though you can get slight variations in color from each Canon lens, if you go from a Canon to a Sigma, for example, the difference is huge- this means more work in post-production and a hassle.

I stick with Canon glass because even though you can get slight variations in color from each Canon lens, if you go from a Canon to a Sigma, for example, the difference is huge- this means more work in post-production and a hassle.

Or maybe non-canon glass will suit some people better -- i.e., less work and no hassle. Although I got my share of L lenses that I'm very happy with, I yet prefer shooting with (when possible) some old Carl Zeiss, Isco, or even a 15mm Sigma. Hence, what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander.

-- peer

Hello guys I would like to have ur thoughts about this lences...


Canon 16-35mm 2.8

Great lens, love it. If you don't need the stop, the 17-40L f4 is about $800 cheaper and sharper at the wide end.

Sigma 24-70 mm 2.8

There are several versions on this. Suffers from the Sigma "get a good copy" issue. There are lots of soft ones out there (again, depending on which version you get). I think Ken Rockwell did a good review on it.


Canon 15mm 2.8 fisheye
Never used it.


I need to shoot a music videoclip and the only lence i Have now is the canon 50mm 1.8 ( I have also nikkor 14-24,24-70 and 70-200 but the nikon to canon adapter that I bought from BH will not come till end of August and I can't w8 till then and I dont know if that adapter will work anyway)

Thats a shame, it's some great glass. I'd rather pay for overnight shipping and get these lenses working than spend a penny on anything else.

For me it's the Zeiss ZE's--I have a set of 6 from 21 to 100 macro (I decided to forego the 18 for various reasons). With my setup I'm able to offer my focus pullers exactly the same accuracy as if they were working with cine lenses (i.e. Master/Ultra primes, S4's etc), which is a big deal because of the critical focus required with these cameras. I've successfully intercut with the Canon zooms, but I'm hoping to find a manual alternative soon.

Ok I'm a newbie to the 5D Mk2 and not that familiar with the Canon lenses [...] I do weddings and a little corporate work and will be using this camera for all my movie making.

[...] if you can afford the 70-200 why bother? 70-200 is so good I know some people who never remove it from the body of their camera.

I completely agree with David -- the 70-200 f/2.8 is my most versatile lens. The only issues I have with it -- its weight & size, and that it has no focus pull-stops (for the follow focus). Still yet, I almost always carry it with me, no matter what shoot it's for.

Apparently the 70-200 is also often used for weddings:
YouTube - Wedding Photographer Falls Into Water Fountain (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbxtfeaEthw)
Poor guy.

-- peer

OK here's my lens selection delima's so far:

CANON 16-35mm f2.8 L USM - i picked up this lens for great width close in, i like the look and feel of the lens but it does NOT have IS and even though it works great i see slight edge blurs when using it for weddings. :-(

CANON 24-70mm f2.8 L USM - i picked this up for all around use and even though i like the look and feel of the lens with flash because it does not have IS i see some edge blur making it difficult to chose for weddings. :-(

im loving the camera and the absolutely awesome shots when the picture is in focus and clean, but im really disappointed that these two above quality lenses do not have an IS version and there is none made by canon. im thinking that a higher f stop with IS would be better or just like a lower f stop if it has IS when using flash.

thoughts ???

Do you really need the f/2.8 of the 24-70mm? The 24-105mm f/4 does have IS, sounds like the IS may be more important to you? It was for me--I currently use the 24-105 f/4L IS USM, ands the 70-200mm F/2.8 IS USM. Not a bad all-around combo.
SW

I have the 24-70 f2.8. At times in low light, I do feel the need for f2.8. Also, an IS would be really welcome. Before using this lens, I never thought that I will require an IS. I was clicking and filming a tigress with both the 24-105 f4 L as well as the 24-70 f2.8. I felt the need for IS in the 24-70.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

Do you really need the f/2.8 of the 24-70mm? The 24-105mm f/4 does have IS, sounds like the IS may be more important to you? It was for me--I currently use the 24-105 f/4L IS USM, ands the 70-200mm F/2.8 IS USM. Not a bad all-around combo.
SW

don't know if "i need" other than i wanted for video work and was hoping that they lens would cross to wedding work. however, unless i can really hold the camera steady, im not sure i have a win win situation and it's a lot of money to have laying around for use only part of the time. :-(

Also, an IS would be really welcome. Before using this lens, I never thought that I will require an IS. I was clicking and filming a tigress with both the 24-105 f4 L as well as the 24-70 f2.8. I felt the need for IS in the 24-70.

To me, it's the opposite. I recently wrote the following on the 7D forum:
Well, I now tend to believe that the usefulness of the IS might be an urban legend -- at least I'm definitely sure that it's not "absolutely essential for video work." This I found out in a flukeish way after shooting an interview series, when halfway into it realized that I had forgotten to engage the IS (again using the 70-200L handheld). I was about to kick myself, embarrassed of my negligence, (I even contemplated to re-shoot the interviews that were now IS-less). However, when I got to the editing phase, I could not see any difference between the non-IS footage and the one shot with IS activated. (And yes, the IS in that lens works, or at least I can hear the motor).

-- peer

Peer, whether you need IS or not really depends on what you shoot. Considering the range of production out there, it isn't fair either way to say that you need IS or don't need IS (as we've discussed in the 7D forum already :) But I guarantee you, it isn't a myth.

A 200mm on a tripod shooting an interview? You'll never need IS.
That same 200mm, still on a tripod, shooting motorsports in 30mph winds? IS makes a difference (this was me, two weekends ago).

I've also shot out of a helicopter with the 24-105L IS with IS off and on. One was clean, the other was not in any way usable.

Peer, whether you need IS or not really depends on what you shoot. ...I've also shot out of a helicopter with the 24-105L IS with IS off and on. One was clean, the other was not in any way usable.

this is what i am saying. ive just put over 3,000 in lenses and shot my first wedding "temp" shoot (it was a video project and just took my 5dm2 and the two lenses) and did the job like it was real. the edges of the moving subjects are not crisp or clean and you can tell its from movement. feet are blurry and fingers look almost ghosted. it will NOT be sellable material in the end. my nikon d90 with a 100 dollar lens with stabilzation would sell better. and i had taken these pics with the 7d, i have a feeling i would be in court. thankfully im not there yet as i still have two weeks before my first production wedding shoot but as of this moment i'm in a rush to find an answer. ive contacted b&h and provided all the support info i can and hopefully will have some kind of solution by tomorrow because short of that, they close for about 5 days over a holiday and that will have me "at the wall" :-(

. (And yes, the IS in that lens works, or at least I can hear the motor).

-- peer

you should notice a big difference just looking in the viewfinder (easy to see with 5x or 10x magnification).. if you cant see any difference it is most likely broken, the IS components are quite fragile

Considering the range of production out there, it isn't fair either way to say that you need IS or don't need IS

Not fair..?! So it's not "fair" that I couldn't see any difference in my footage using IS vs non-IS...? Jeez.

A 200mm on a tripod shooting an interview? You'll never need IS.

But what you need, Dylan, is to read my post more thoroughly before replying. To help you out, I'll quote myself: "I had forgotten to engage the IS, again using the 70-200L handheld." I.e., no mention of a tripod, but handheld handheld handheld. Okay?!

-- peer

....t, I'll quote myself: "I had forgotten to engage the IS, again using the 70-200L handheld." I.e., no mention of a tripod, but handheld handheld handheld. Okay?! -- peer

peer, r u saying in movie mode the 5dm2 will auto focus? continuously or when you hit the af button only? also, what about ability to manually control ISO during the shoot. is this capacity there?

this is what i am saying. ive just put over 3,000 in lenses and shot my first wedding "temp" shoot (it was a video project and just took my 5dm2 and the two lenses) and did the job like it was real. the edges of the moving subjects are not crisp or clean and you can tell its from movement. feet are blurry and fingers look almost ghosted. it will NOT be sellable material in the end.

This doesn't sound like it has anything to do with IS or lenses at all - blurring on the edge of moving subjects is due to low shutter speed, blurring of the entire frame is due to camera movement and can be improved with IS. What shutter speed did you shoot the wedding at?

Maybe I'm not quite getting the intent of some of the recent posts, but it seems as though there may be some misunderstanding of what the IS function does for you. It stabilizes camera shake and so allows you to use a slower shutter speed when photographing subjects. That helps tremendously to get a sharp image when something is static within the frame (no hand shakies), but if you're slowing the shutter speed to get the shot, it can hurt you when there is relative motion in the frame.

If you don't want motion blur, keep the shutter speed at least as fast as the length of the lens in mm, eg 1/200th for a 200mm lens. Any slower and something that's in motion relative to the framed image will be blurry even if you're using IS. With IS, you might shoot a very crisp image of a person at 1/80th and 200mm when they are standing still (and you otherwise might not have had enough light to get the shot), but when they go to scratch their nose, all the IS in the world won't prevent their arm being a blur.

EDIT: Looks like Evan said the same thing at the same time, but much more succinctly.

Pete's right, but you generally have different considerations for video - high shutter speeds tend to eliminate too much motion blur and create a stutter-y look in video. This is often used for a specific effect (opening scene of Saving Private Ryan, fight scenes in Gladiator, etc) but unless you know you want that effect you won't want to crank the shutter speed up. "Standard" shutter speeds will be 1/48 for 24p and 1/60 for 30p - lower than that and you'll get excessive blurring on movement (I suspect this is Rodger's issue), higher than that and you get the stutter effect from too little motion blur.

IS for video use is about making the shot look more stable, not about reducing blurriness. An important consideration for this is the type of IS a lens has - some have a 'panning' mode that only stabilizes vertical movement (i.e. 70-200 f/2.8 IS) , while others have only a single mode (i.e. 24-105mm f/4 IS). With the single IS lenses the IS can introduce it's own problems. If you pan or have a moving background in the shot the lens will try to stabilize this, hit the end of it's range of stabilization, then snap back to the middle of the stabilization range. This introduces a jerky, mechanical look to the motion of the shot - I've had it happen both on handheld shots where I was moving the camera and on shots from a moving vehicle where the subject and camera were still but the background was moving rapidly. It's a bit of a catch-22 with these lenses though - without IS a shot from a moving car would likely have too much vibration to be useable, with it you may get the IS artifacts.

This doesn't sound like it has anything to do with IS or lenses at all - blurring on the edge of moving subjects is due to low shutter speed, blurring of the entire frame is due to camera movement and can be improved with IS. What shutter speed did you shoot the wedding at?

standard setting for flash, 1/60th

Not fair..?! So it's not "fair" that I couldn't see any difference in my footage using IS vs non-IS...? Jeez.



But what you need, Dylan, is to read my post more thoroughly before replying. To help you out, I'll quote myself: "I had forgotten to engage the IS, again using the 70-200L handheld." I.e., no mention of a tripod, but handheld handheld handheld. Okay?!

-- peer

Again Peer, maybe do a quick check to see if your lens' IS is functioning ok. What most experience is a world of difference with handheld / shoulder mounted shots taken with or without IS. I currently have a 17-55 in for repair (expensive repair!) as the IS stopped working, quite a common complaint apparently.

Hate to throw myself into this slightly contentious discussion, but shooting tight closeups as a B camera on a 2nd gen. 70-200, I found that I got better results with the IS engaged. I was doing one of those slow drifting-around type of closeups where the camera is constantly in motion.

Even though I was using a top-notch head, I found just enough of my "humanity" showing up in the shot (heartbeat, hand jitter on the panhandle etc) that I had to work really hard to avoid this. During a card change I flipped on the stabilizer and everything got REALLY easy. I never felt like the IS was fighting me or overshooting.

Not fair..?! So it's not "fair" that I couldn't see any difference in my footage using IS vs non-IS...? Jeez.


If you can't tell a difference between IS an no IS at 200mm handheld, one of three things is possible:
1) your IS was off or broken both times
2) your IS was ON both times
3) you have the arms of Hercules himself, rock solid like chiseled marble.

Because *I* can tell the difference between IS on and off handheld, and its a big difference. With IS off, tripod mounted, I can tell when my hand touches the tripod handle. So if you can hand hold it and not tell between on and off, then it has to be one of the above 3.



But what you need, Dylan, is to read my post more thoroughly before replying. To help you out, I'll quote myself: "I had forgotten to engage the IS, again using the 70-200L handheld." I.e., no mention of a tripod, but handheld handheld handheld. Okay?!

-- peer

And what you need Peer... is to be A TOUCH LESS RUDE please..

Read my post one more time.
I wasn't saying you shot on a tripod... I was pointing out that SOMEONE WHO IS NOT YOU should not need IS if they are shooting interviews on a tripod at 200mm.

My point, one more time, is that some shooters will never need IS, whereas some will live and die by it, and that what's good for Peer Landa is not necessarily good for every other shooter out there. IS is not a myth as you believe... IS has saved my ass and made my shot on numerous occasions. And I'm not the only one, as you can read by other's posts as well.

[...]
200mm on a tripod shooting an interview?
[...]
at 200mm
[...]
at 200mm.


Again, I'll rehash my previous post, hopefully a bit less rude this time: I would appreciate if you, Dylan, would try to read my posts more thoroughly before replying, (as my mom always told me, being perceptive is the key to success):

Please tell me, where have I said "at 200mm"...?

-- peer

Let's all play nice, kids.

As the consummate Hollywood professional and the heck of a nice guy that he is, I normally take Charles' observations about camera matters as authoritative. However, since FedEx should be delivering me my own 70-200L IS II USM tomorrow, I'll check out IS vs non-IS. I'll share my experience here and give you all the final word (as long as it agrees with what Charles said...)
;-)

Rodger, is there any way you can post a short clip of your video so we can see the specific problems that are troubling you?

....However, since FedEx should be delivering me my own 70-200L IS II USM tomorrow, I'll check out IS vs non-IS. I'll share my experience here and give you all the final word (as long as it agrees with what Charles said...) ;-) ...

I would love to hear the results of this from a pro.

...Rodger, is there any way you can post a short clip of your video so we can see the specific problems that are troubling you?

OK, what I zoomed in and saw in the camera is NOT what I seen in Mac Previewer. The images are way better than the screen on the Canon camera revealed. The blur I thought I was looking at, simply was not there.

Secondly, I also need to learn more about the camera and lens scenario. B&H responded the specific lenes may have to be back focused and if that is the case they recommend I contact Canon and send both the camera(s) (5dm2 & 7d) to Canon and let them do it. Anyone know how to check this issue? A link perhaps?

Lastly, I could sell every picture that I did not delete in the camera while shooting (yeah I critique my work while shooting) and the pics reveal i need a lot of education on the 580EX2 flash and how to set the camera's light reading areas properly to get the right exposures. most of my pictures are center lighted and the edges around the subjects basically dark (underexposed) im sure this is based on the camera's "weighted" setting but therein i haven't studied this system by comparison to my former 100% nikon flashes and cameras thinking. i hope i get there quick. two weeks is my biggest shoot of 2010 and id prefer not to rent nikon gear when i have all this canon.

BTW, I love the 16-35mm f2.8 II USM for closes and wide and the 24-70mm f2.8 USM for all around plus on the 7d for now I have mounted the 24-105 f4.0 IS USM for my assistants shooting since she is a former Nikonianon (sp) also.

So some eduction and maybe I might turn this out after all. ALSO BTW, I had purchased a 50mm f1.4 USM for about 400 and when it arrived it rattled. The second time I used it, two parts fell out of the back and after reassembling it, the lens was no longer useful. I do hope that Canon products are much more reliable than that and that I only got a one in a million defective one? B&H of course gave me 100% refund including shipping, but if Canon primes are this weak like that one, will I even want one. Let alone if I have an expensive L glass zoom, why would I want a prime otherwise unless for the f1.8 ??

Please tell me, where have I said "at 200mm"...?

Even at the 70mm side of the 70-200 you should be able to tell the difference between IS on and off in the viewfinder/LCD. If you can't see it, it may not be working.

I would love to hear the results of this from a pro.That would be Charles and Dylan, not me. At this juncture, my videography and photography are merely expensive hobbies.

Very disappointing reply from Rodger about wanting to hear from a professional. This camera has actually been championed by the non professional shooter film maker. I found this same attitude from pro shooters at a recent meet up. These are the guys that have been shooting TV video for 30 years. They are the guys that are saying you can't take this camera off a tripod in the first place, or you can't record a bit of sound to the camera in a one man shoot situation. They are surprised when you pull out your camera and a Nikon lens is mounted on it, loaded with Magic Lantern, and say, something like, " How did you do that, (add a stammer and stutter) Well, I want to be able to have IS and have good sound." They have all these "can'ts" and "don'ts" that have been legislated by some or because they heard someone else say it about this particular camera, and as pros they have accepted a line, without actually going it and trying it themselves. Peter, with this camera, you are a pro....

Does anyone else use Nikon/Zeiss primes with this camera?

When I bought my 5DM2 I didn't opt for the kit lens but chose instead to go with the 17-40mm f/4 L which I'm very happy with.

However my other prosumer camcorder rig is XH A1 with Letus Adapter and several Nikon & Zeiss primes. (Zeiss 35/2; Nikons 24/2.8; 50/1.2; 55/2.8 (micro); 85/1.4) I also have a Sigma Aspherical 14mm which I rarely use.

I find this selection to be enough for my 5DM2 shooting needs... By the way, the Nikon 50/1.2 works superbly with the 5DM2. Anyone recommend any others I might benefit from?

Kris

I've used Nikon lenses on a 5D, and I am building a complete set to use on my 550D. Also building a full set of Pentax screw-mount lenses as well.

There is so much good glass out there to be had for those willing to venture into them. I find AF lenses terrible for video use on these cameras, The focus feels terrible and there is no aperture ring.

I've used Nikon lenses on a 5D, and I am building a complete set to use on my 550D. Also building a full set of Pentax screw-mount lenses as well.

There is so much good glass out there to be had for those willing to venture into them. I find AF lenses terrible for video use on these cameras, The focus feels terrible and there is no aperture ring.

was looking at your profile of hardware and wondered where one can go to find out more detail on how to use and get the most out of the 5dm2 and 7d since this is all im going to use for video cameras. im selling off my xha1, xha1s, and hv40 so i need to know rather quickly how to make this baby work . . that is the system?

Rodger,

Be careful about selling off your prosumer camcorder gear so quickly, especially if you do any broadcast work (DSLRs for the most part are not approved cameras). I do a lot of work on my 5D2 now, but I still use my Letus DOF adapter rig sometimes too.

The DSLRs have issues and limitations with them that may not suit your work. In particular, look into the 'rolling shutter' ('jello' effect) and aliasing/moire issues with them first. Certain shots, I still use my camcorder.

If you want to look into using the Canon 5D2/7D for filmmaking, I've written a somewhat comprehensive guide that you may or may not find useful here:

Optimising your 5D Mark II for filmmaking | kriskoster.com (http://kriskoster.com/2010/08/optimising-your-5d-mark-ii-for-filmmaking/)

Rodger, Be careful about selling off your prosumer camcorder gear so quickly, especially if you do any broadcast work (DSLRs for the most part are not approved cameras).....

Thanks for the heads up Kris. I am selling them as part of selling off my healthy video production business. I can't do it anymore. Too much work for an old man. I should have sold a year ago but I held out in hopes I wouldn't have to. However, what is, is.

About two years ago I purchased a D300 and D90 (backup) and used the D90's dMovie feature and found it to be OK. But the point is I got back into photography recognizing that I would be selling off my much physically harder video business and thus would become a photographer who sets up, points, shoots, and goes and sits down, instead of standing around all day and lugging audio and video gear with multiple rigs. However, when I seen this 5DM2 arrangement and looked at the images coming off the camera, I fell in love with both camera stills AND its video capabilities and thus I will sort of have the best of both worlds. I will have an astonishing still camera with great film movie capabilities which is where my heart now rests . . movie production, having produced two award winning movie shorts and at this time planning number three for shooting over the winter HOWEVER I was going to shoot the movie with the XHA1s but if I could get up to shoot speed quick enough (by November, December or January, then I would much prefer to use the 5DM2 and 7D with the lenses I have and maybe a couple primes (if the primes are any good, since the first 50mm f1.4 Canon I bought fell apart in my hands at the second use)

Thus, I will read your pamplet and anything else you can shoot at me, this is how I learn . . and . . if anyone is near Pittsburgh or Cleveland and interested in a days tutoring pay, I'll even buy their lunch along with the pay for the day.

(if the primes are any good, since the first 50mm f1.4 Canon I bought fell apart in my hands at the second use)

This is why I only buy metal and glass primes. No plastic, no rubber. Buy good glass and you'll never have to worry about this kind of thing.

Does anyone else use Nikon/Zeiss primes with this camera?

Yeah, I've got a couple of Nikkor primes... :)
24 f2.0
24 2.8
28 2.8
35 2.0
50 1.4
55 1.2
85 1.8
85 2.0
105 2.5
135 2.8
180 2.8

Soooo much goodness there! :)

Is your glass mostly AI or AiS?



The sad thing is you could put together that full set, in excellent or excellent+ condition, for the price of 1 "L" zoom.

This is why I only buy metal and glass primes. No plastic, no rubber. Buy good glass and you'll never have to worry about this kind of thing.

i guess i thought the canon 50mm f1.4 was good glass. i couldn't find a canon 50mm L lens at b&h. maybe among the 100 or so i roused through there was one. will try again.

Does anyone else use Nikon/Zeiss primes with this camera?

Yeah, I've got a couple of Nikkor primes... :)
24 f2.0
24 2.8
28 2.8
35 2.0
50 1.4
55 1.2
85 1.8
85 2.0
105 2.5
135 2.8
180 2.8

Okay then, I'll be even a bigger braggart -- I got the following primes: 8 Nikkor, 2 Zeiss, and one Iscorama -- that's a total of eleven primes, the same amount that Dylan Couper got. But since my Isco and Zeiss' are so much more unique (and pricy), I expect Mr. Couper will concede, being such a class act ;^)

-- peer

Very disappointing reply from Rodger about wanting to hear from a professional. This camera has actually been championed by the non professional shooter film maker. I found this same attitude from pro shooters at a recent meet up. These are the guys that have been shooting TV video for 30 years. They are the guys that are saying you can't take this camera off a tripod in the first place, or you can't record a bit of sound to the camera in a one man shoot situation. They are surprised when you pull out your camera and a Nikon lens is mounted on it, loaded with Magic Lantern, and say, something like, " How did you do that, (add a stammer and stutter) Well, I want to be able to have IS and have good sound." They have all these "can'ts" and "don'ts" that have been legislated by some or because they heard someone else say it about this particular camera, and as pros they have accepted a line, without actually going it and trying it themselves. Peter, with this camera, you are a pro....

"Professional" means someone who makes a living at a stated activity. "Amateur" means they don't. Let's not make any generalizations about people's attitudes or abilities or knowledge based on that. Owning this or any other piece of gear does not make you a pro--it makes you an equipment owner.

Can we agree that the best people to give advice on this issue are those who simply know what they are talking about? (I for instance had the one experience I noted above; these Canon IS lenses are relatively new to me, and I wouldn't be able to compare the varying IS effects of the different generations of those lenses--it's quite possible that someone who is an avid hobbyist could teach me about that)!

i guess i thought the canon 50mm f1.4 was good glass. i couldn't find a canon 50mm L lens at b&h. maybe among the 100 or so i roused through there was one. will try again.This is the one that you missed. It is a fabulous, sharp lens, can be used to film by candlelight & is probably my favourite of all the lenses that I own Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Autofocus Lens 1257B002AA - B&H
Here is a good review of this lens
Canon 50mm f/1.2 (http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f12.htm)

Very disappointing reply from Rodger about wanting to hear from a professional. This camera has actually been championed by the non professional shooter film maker. I found this same attitude from pro shooters at a recent meet up.

Chris - I may be wrong, but in fairness to Rodger, I think he believed Pete to be the pro he wanted to hear from when he wrote that line. At least, that's how I interpreted it.

Lost in translation, perhaps? I can see how you thought he might have meant it differently! Ambiguity of the line could be read both ways!

DYLAN - That 55 1.2, is that a Micro? I have the 2.8 and find it fast and sharp enough for me... How do you find it?

Yeah, I've got a couple of Nikkor primes... :)
24 f2.0
24 2.8
28 2.8
35 2.0
50 1.4
55 1.2
85 1.8
85 2.0
105 2.5
135 2.8
180 2.8

HI Dylan, I had a similar set of Nikkors (my range was 20mm through 135mm) until recently.

I see missing from your list are the 50 1.8 and 55 2.8 - two of my favourites. I had two copies of the 50 1.4 and the 1.8 beat them in sharpness and contrast (easily) at every aperture from 1.8 up. I'd read this but could hardly believe the slower, cheaper lens was superior until I tested it for myself. The 55 2.8 macro is delicious, you outa get yourself one...

2) I say "had a similar set" because I've begun selling it off after trying out a couple of Contax Zeiss with C/Y - EOS adaptors. Until I tried them myself, I had a feeling the mystic surrounding Zeiss was perhaps derived from snobbery... boy I was wrong. They really do have a special quality. I haven't touched my Nikkors since getting a Zeiss 50 & 85... now I want more! I'm going the Contax route because I can't afford the ZE option at present...

The two Nikkors I'm planning to keep are the 55 macro and the 105 2.5

So I just put this out there to tempt you, now that you have your prime set complete :-)

Josh

Replies to:

Josh - I'll probably try a few Zeiss at some point. I've gone specifically with Nikon because I want to avoid having a different "look" whether color tone/sharpness by interchanging lens brands, as I usually shoot 3-4 cameras and need them to intercut... and of course the cost effectiveness. When I get some, they'll probably be personal use only... well... at least to start.

You bring up a good point though, that most people assume the fastest lenses are the best, and it's simply not true. THere's some great 2.8 lenses for sure. Plus, who ever shoots the fast lenses wide open? The 55 1.2 doesn't get sharp until 1.8 (of course, the 1.4 doesn't get really sharp till 2-2.8)

Peer: Yes, I'll give props to anyone who buys Zeiss! I own 2-4 copies of many of the lenses in my list though, so it's not cost effective for me to buy 4 Zeiss 50 1.4's, 4 Zeiss 30 f.2's etc...

Kris - I give props to Ken Rockwell KenRockwell.com (http://kenrockwell.com) for most of the Nikon lens buying choices I've made

Perrone - Thanks! Yeah, that's the beauty of Nikon lenses... with only 3 exceptions, every lens in my list can be found for $100-$300 It's easy to put together a good range for $1000.

i guess i thought the canon 50mm f1.4 was good glass. i couldn't find a canon 50mm L lens at b&h. maybe among the 100 or so i roused through there was one. will try again.

I am not on the Canon glass bandwagon, and never will be again. Too many other people out there do it better. At least for primes. If you want electronic zoom lenses, Canon is the place to go. For anything else, I'll pass.

Chris - I may be wrong, but in fairness to Rodger, I think he believed Pete to be the pro he wanted to hear from when he wrote that line. At least, that's how I interpreted it. . . .

You're completely right Kris. I just wasn't clear in my reference. Sorry.

I just want to hear which lenses I should go with and how to get the most and best from them. Until I purchased the 5DM2 in June and the 7D in August I was 100% Nikon and had been for more years than most of the ppl in here are old and the switch over to Canon has been a welcomed move since I love the XHA1s and how wonderful the lens on it is, and want to get that same kind of PLUS look out of my 5DM2 and 7D as best as I can and as quickly as I can.

See, Ive been working profusely to get up to speed as quick as possible since I am a full time photographer and videographer and intentionally created an opening in July and August and half of September to sell all my nikon and buy all the Canon so I can learn, get experienced and up to speed by the first real pro shoot with this new gear next weekend. I'm right now very nervous. I don't feel "up" on the 580EX II and only about 60 to 80% on the 5DM2. So, this week will be my last chance to get on course.

So all the pro help I can get or amateurs who use their cameras lots is very welcomed to this newbie to Canon photography even though I have a lot of experience in photography.

Hope that helps to clarify some ?? :-) And again, sorry about the confusion.

Although I've never been a photographer, for as long as I can remember I've always been snubbed by Nikon users for owning a Canon! :-) I've worked alongside many a Nikon photographer who have poked fun or instigated a jibe remark against Canon.

Perhaps traditionally, Nikon has always been perceived as the go to camera for professional newspaper photographers. At least that was my perception growing up, I don't know how true to life that perception is.

I'm not certain such a bias exists in the videography world. Can't speak for everyone, but I think most videophiles couldn't give a sweet jesus what brand name we use as long as the VT looks hot on the box. If there was a Nikon 5D mark II or a Nikon 7D, you can bet your life I would have bought into Nikon bodies instead.

The fact I use a Canon body with Nikkor lenses means I at least prefer the glass they make!

Perhaps the best advice is to go with what you know. You say you've been 100% Nikon, there's no need to sell all your lenses. For video work, they look awesome on a 5D or 7D (can't speak for photography usage). Nikon make great glass and it can be bought cheaply for the most part, especially manual primes.

But it all boils down to how you work. I own one Canon lens, the 17-40/f4 and I do use it a lot, mostly for amateur photography and some timelapse work. For everything else, I use the Nikkor/Zeiss primes. I set everything manual anyway and never use autofocus, so that solution works for me.

Why not have a play for a while with different combos and see what works best for you?

But if I could afford cine lenses, I'd be buying those!

Josh - I'll probably try a few Zeiss at some point. I've gone specifically with Nikon because I want to avoid having a different "look" whether color tone/sharpness by interchanging lens brands, as I usually shoot 3-4 cameras and need them to intercut... and of course the cost effectiveness. When I get some, they'll probably be personal use only... well... at least to start.

You're absolutely right, it's best to stick to one family. On reflection I realise it is for stills (for which I use the 5D more often than video) that the Zeiss imprint is really starting to grow on me - it has a slighted affected, dreamy look - and actually for video work I probably prefer the Nikon look.

I had a set of Canon primes - not L primes but the next tier down - 28 1.8, 50 1.4, 100 2 etc - and spent a day testing them against the old AIS Nikkors. Not only are the Nikkors mechanically / ergonomically superior for video work, but they at least matched the Canon primes optically, and in most cases beat them - and of course they were smaller and cheaper. After which, I sold all my Canon primes.

The two Canon lenses I do keep (and for corporate work I use for 90% of shots) are the 24-70 L and 70-200 L IS II - the later is a fantastic lens... so versatile.

I really would add a macro (55 2.8 or 3.5) to your set. The sharpest lens I have, and very cheap.

(of course, the 1.4 doesn't get really sharp till 2-2.8)

Once more, in terms of CA, sharpness, contrast, my 50 1.8 easily beat both copies of the 50 1.4 at f2 and F2.8... I ended up selling the 1.4s

. . . Perhaps the best advice is to go with what you know. You say you've been 100% Nikon, there's no need to sell all your lenses. For video work, they look awesome on a 5D or 7D (can't speak for photography usage). Nikon make great glass and it can be bought cheaply for the most part, especially manual primes....

so what there's some mount that goes on the nikon lens that makes it work on a canon? and will the auto focus and all the other bells and whistles work just fine?