Ok I'm a newbie to the 5D Mk2 and not that familiar with the Canon lenses (coming from the Nikon world) and after some research several times I keep coming up with different lenses at B&H. So, wondered if some could make some recommendations?

BACKGROUND - I do weddings and a little corporate work and will be using this camera for all my movie making. Plus I'm guessing I should stay away from the EF-"S" lenses and prefer the L ones right? However, need to consider both regular and L depending on the cost of each thusly.

Unless convinced otherwise, this is the lenses list I was thinking of getting since again I can't seem to find any other lenses that are appropriate:

15mm
Canon Fisheye EF 15mm f/2.8 Autofocus Lens 2535A003 - B&H Photo


50mm
Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM Autofocus Lens 2515A003 - B&H Photo Video


100mm
Canon Telephoto EF 100mm f/2.0 USM Autofocus Lens 2518A003 - B&H


or.....

100mm
Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Autofocus Lens 4657A006 - B&H Photo


70-200mm zoom
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Autofocus Lens 7042A002 - B&H Photo


. . . and i already have the 24-105 f4 L IS USM lens that i will sell eventually and opt for a 24-70 f2.8 L IS USM since I really don't like the f4 :-(

So, thanks in advance to all who respond.

EF-S lenses are for Canon cameras with the APS-C sized sensor e.g. 7D not the 5DII

The Fisheye is good & relatively cheap for the quality

Dunno about the 50mm F1.4 as I have the 500mm F1.2L which is a fantastic lens but much more expensive

The 100mm F2.8 Macro is a super lens which many rate as good as any 'L' lens but also consider the newish Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro which is double the price but does have IS which is invaluable for any handheld video on the 5DII

I don't know what you don't like about the 24-105mm F4L IS USM lens unless it's just the fact that F4 is the widest aperture. It's a lovely sharp lens, covers a good range & has IS so it's probably my favourite lens for outdoor work. The other zoom in that range the 28-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS is a very good lens for the price even though it seems very plasticky compared to the 24-105mm F4L.

The 24-70 f2.8L zoom does not have IS.

Thanks Nigel . . yeah the f4 is the primary reason. I have always selected Nikon lenses that were fast and that f4 indoors isn't attractive. However, I will maybe keep it. i do like it otherwise.

The zooms will be primarily wedding lenses and thus an IS is preferred. I can't seem to find an IS otherwise that would cover the upper 20ish mm to something around 100 to 150 with an f2.8 that is great glass. Know a Canon lens that does that?

EF-S lenses are for the crop-sensored cameras so no, you do not want them for the 5D. I own most of the lenses you mentioned so here's my take for what it's worth.

The 15mm fisheye is a specialty lens and can create some weird effects, some good others not so. You will get distortion on pretty much any straight line, (tree, pole, horizon etc) that isn't directly in the center of the frame so keep that in mind. Shot in a large room from an overhead position with the subjects close to the frame center can makes a great shot. Panning the camera with this lens can make your viewers want to hurl. You should practice with this lens ALOT and not have it on your camera when something important is needed to be captured. It would be the last lens you mentioned I would recommend purchasing for video work.

50mm 1.4, everyone should own that lens, or something similiar.

100mm both that you mentioned are great lenses and if you were doing Macro stuff I would say go that route but 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. They ususally have a couple of bodies but you get my point. You could do a lot worse than combining it with the 24-70 lens to make a two lens arsenal.

A lot of your choice depends on how much money you have to spend. There are all kinds of lens recomendations on this forum. Also do a little work with the "kit" lens you have because I think you will find it's a pretty good tool. Razor thin DOF focus on static people or still photos can be very nice or become a nightmare when trying to capture actually moving people at a wedding.

Ok I'm a newbie to the 5D Mk2 and not that familiar with the Canon lenses (coming from the Nikon world) and after some research several times I keep coming up with different lenses at B&H. So, wondered if some could make some recommendations?

I have quite a few lenses, but yet, those three are the ones I almost always end up using:
Canon 17-35mm f/2.8L
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L
Carl Zeiss 50mm f/1.4

I have the 500mm F1.2L which is a fantastic lens but much more expensive

Oh don't we all wish for a 500mm f/1.2L ;^)

-- peer

If video is mainly what you are buying the lenses for, IS is probably much less important -- there are at least a couple threads arguing the pro's and con's on that topic. But if you do both still and video with the camera, I'm a strong proponent of spending the extra money for the image stabilization.

In that regard, I have to second Nigel's endorsement of the new EF100/2.8L MACRO IS USM lens. I just got one on sale at B&H for a bit over $800; current and usual price is $944. Note this is the newer IS version. Although a macro, I think this lens would also be great for portraiture in the 0.5m - infinity range. It has three focus ranges, 0.3m-inf (FULL), 0.3-0.5m, and 0.5m-inf.

Attached are a full frame, reduced rez jpg and then a bit-for-bit crop of the subject, a praying mantis on my wife's lemon tree. No other photoshopping of the pic than the crop and conversion to jpg. F4.0 at 1/100th, ISO 100, hand-held. Sweet. I also took some practice shots in the 0.5m- infinity mode of a buddy playing tennis -- other than my rusty photography skills, they were nice crisp stop-action photos.

So if I were thinking of a prime with f2.8 or f4 why wouldn't I just be OK with an "L" class zoom that passes through that range and has IS and USM ?? Wouldn't I in theory be AT the same spot there in somewhere?

That is, a 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM would essentially be a 100mm @ f2.8 IS USM right? Why buy the 100mm anything with that L glass big lens other than weight?

Why buy the 100mm anything with that L glass big lens other than weight?

It rhymes with honey...

-- peer

Yeah Peer I'm thinking the same thing. If I buy the L glass and get the best of the images therein, why have primes that are in the middle of a zoom unless they buy lower light capability (like the 50mm f1.4 as example) or where weight is an issue. But if I have a $1900 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM . . that's gotta be as good as a prime in there unless it is lower in f stop (like the f2.0 as example) other than weight.

I mean like anyone else I'd love to have a zillion lenses just for the fun of it, but I don't want to pack more than 2, 3, or (4 max) lenses if I can get by otherwise.

I'm revising my thinking to the 50 f1.4, the 70-200 f2.8L IS USM, and a 16-35 f2.8L II USM and thats it. Even with that I think I'm well over 5 G notes in glass :-)

Formerly I was using a whole bunch of primes (around 10) with my 5DII and 7D. All great quality for not ideal for fast setups. I like being able to quickly reframe during interviews without having to change lenses / halt the flow of conversation.

After buying the 24-70L 2.8 and 70-200L 2.8 IS II (along with a Singh-Ray variND) things have been greatly simplified.

For low light I'm holding on to a Zeiss 85 1.4 and I'd like to pick up a fast wide to complement it. I'm also holding on to a Nikkor 55mm 2.8 micro for the odd macro shot.

I think that's an optimal setup:
2 fast zooms to cover the range
2 fast primes for low light
1 macro

I also had the 24-105L, sold it, and don't miss it at all. F4 is too slow for me. The 100L IS is a nice lens but (except for macro) the new 70-200L 2.8 IS II is IMHO superior at the same focal length - it's a stunning lens, check the reviews at dpreview and photozone. The only problem is the price, and the weight!

I just got the 5D camera with the kit lens for video shooting.

While its first off amazing shallow DOF, i am curious how much of a difference there is between the f4 and f2.8?

Does anyone have some samples from both lenses so we can see?

I would like to get a faster lens, but want to know if 2.8 is shallow enough or if I should totally get a f1.4 lens

While its first off amazing shallow DOF, i am curious how much of a difference there is between the f4 and f2.8?
You can look up the DOF differences using this calculator: Online Depth of Field Calculator (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html)


I would like to get a faster lens, but want to know if 2.8 is shallow enough or if I should totally get a f1.4 lens
Here's the DOF of my old Carl Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 lens:
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-5d-mk-ii-hd/238784-lens-purchase-5d-recommendations-2.html#post1538071

-- peer

Lots of good advice here!

Of course, your choice depends what you want to do with the lenses. Rodger, in your original post, you were trying to choose between a 100mm prime and a 100mm Macro. If you don't need to the macro capability, then the 70-200/2.8L IS USM covers the 100mm range at the same F stop as the macro, albeit with probably a slightly different bokeh (but that might be splitting hairs, especially if you do video only). I don't see much worth in buying the 100mm prime for the extra 0.8 F-stop. If you DO want macro, the tele zoom won't cut it. As you are doing, you'll have to decide on what capabilities you need first, then choose the lenses that fit the bill.

Personally, I want both macro capability and a good zoom L telephoto. I now have the macro and my next purchase will be the newer EF70-200/2.8L IS II USM. They're each best at different things, even though they can take similar non-Macro photos at 100mm.

But that's all about still photography. Skilled, for-hire video shooting is a different animal. Make a list of what sort of stills (if any) and what sort of video shots you need to shoot, and that'll inform your choice of lenses and perhaps camera stabilizers, etc.

thanks to all who are responding. i think "pete" has hit on a special key stroke . . i can see clearly now that the definition of needs is higher than the specs for starters. therein, my needs are as follows:

- weddings (still and video)
- graduation projects (still and video)
- film projects and productions (video)

i won't be shooting much commercial/corporate work. ive sold my video production business and presently training my buyer ops and thus for me, its all about retirement enjoyment projects with a tiny bit of income. therein, for starters i need to focus on my objectives with my new canon gear . . .

- lightest weight that this man will have to carry
- least amount of gear for the most bang opportunities
- portable light weight gear that can fit in a "smart car"
- best overall performance lens wise for stills and video

thus, i can see this clearly pointing to a wide and telephoto higher end zooms, one (two at the most) prime, and the kit lens that i got with the camera (which might yet get replaced to get faster f stop)

therein, im thinking the following:

- 24-105 f4L IS USM (already have)

- Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L (1520)
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Autofocus Lens 1910B002AA - B&H


- Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (1900)
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Autofocus Lens 1910B002AA - B&H


- 50 f1.4 USM (no IS that i know of and 370))
Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM Autofocus Lens 2515A003 - B&H Photo Video


soooooo about 2800 more and i have all the lenses i will ever need for my production projects and ideas for now . . . AND . . . if at any time i see my desires going in another direction i can THEN pick up those lenses.

how's this all sound?

Well, your missing a couple to the " GREAT LENSES " in your list...

The canon 85 1.2 ... one of the finest short DOP you can buy and super fast
The canon 135 2.0 ... one of the sharpest lens on the market, great for portrait work in tight spots
The FANTASTIC canon 200 2.0 or 1.8 if you can find one.. ask any Korean Wedding photog about these
To compliment your 700-200... don't forget to get the 1.4x and the 2.0x extenders.. and yes you can stack them for a great 2.8x to make that 200 go all the way out to 560mm

Also I agree on the Ziess 50mm, the Canon 100mm macro

the 15mm fish is a cool lens... you just need to work with it and you can get two different looks.. one look is the fantastic wide angle, but with distortions (fun pics) and then another look when you know how to post crop the composures.. its too is a very sharp lens. plus you can always use post software to de-fish.
The 15mm works magic in underwater shots too....

I use primes for everything except situations where I must have a zoom, which means shooting interviews. I usually zoom in or out during questions when shooting interviews, and the zoom is necessary for that. I use the Canon L 70-200 f4. Since I light the interviews, the f4 is no problem, and I preferred that to the 2.8 version because it is light enough so it doesn't have to be mounted to a tripod with a collar. For my typical commercial shoots (product, sales training, motivational vignettes with 2-4 actors, etc.) I most often use my Nikkor 28, 35, the Zeiss ZE 50, and the 70-200. I also have a great Nikkor 105. All the primes are sharper than the zoom, although that L zoom is a beautiful lens and well worth the relatively low cost.

Generally now that I have the 5DMKII I try to shoot at at least an f4, better yet a 5.6. The depth of field is usually too shallow at wider apertures, unless I need it for an effect. Even at 5.6, a background just a few feet away is softer that with the 7D at 2.8. I often have to increase ISO to get the DOF I may need for certain shots.

I use primes for everything except situations where I must have a zoom.....

Nice explanation with details that make a lot of sense. I think for my application, I will need that wider aperture for the situations where my light source is available church lighting (no flash instructions) and for my movie scenes (the latter being my real reason for wanting the 5dm2) where I want to minimize my set lighting to acquire a more natural look and develop shadows. However, even with the latter I could more than likely use primes especially to get better low light extremes. I did pick up the 50mm f1.4 canon and still debating the "next step" :-)

I use primes for everything except situations where I must have a zoom, which means shooting interviews. I usually zoom in or out during questions when shooting interviews, and the zoom is necessary for that. I use the Canon L 70-200 f4. Since I light the interviews, the f4 is no problem, and I preferred that to the 2.8 version because it is light enough so it doesn't have to be mounted to a tripod with a collar. For my typical commercial shoots (product, sales training, motivational vignettes with 2-4 actors, etc.) I most often use my Nikkor 28, 35, the Zeiss ZE 50, and the 70-200. I also have a great Nikkor 105. All the primes are sharper than the zoom, although that L zoom is a beautiful lens and well worth the relatively low cost.

Generally now that I have the 5DMKII I try to shoot at at least an f4, better yet a 5.6. The depth of field is usually too shallow at wider apertures, unless I need it for an effect. Even at 5.6, a background just a few feet away is softer that with the 7D at 2.8. I often have to increase ISO to get the DOF I may need for certain shots.

Sane, rational explanation and exactly where I find myself. That said, I will be on a job at the end of August back in Africa doing intervals in available light (rural locations, poor or no artificial lighting, huge dynamic range during the day). I've just replaced my D3 with two 5DIIs but don't do interviews under these conditions often enough to justify the expense of a fast zoom at the moment. I'll take the Zeiss ZF lenses I already have (18, 28, 50M, 85 & 100M), tripod mount a wide and hand hold a tele for some dynamic CUs. I'll also be taking a rotary ND filter or two (ND2-ND400). Rayqual/Cameraquest adapters seem to be working fine.

If this project takes off properly, perhaps I'll get a nice/fast 70-200 and 16-35 for these situations.

...I have the 500mm F1.2L which is a fantastic lens but much more expensive
.

I'm so tired of lugging around the 500mm f1.2 and getting severe lumber pain. I find that particular lens is far too heavy for the 5D and too big to fit inside my Mercedes, so may need to buy a large pick-up truck to transport it, and a large crane just to lift it onto the tripod. :)

I think they have that lens with the truck built right into the bottom of the lens - so basically you drive it to where you want to shoot. Trucks crankshaft actually powers the AF on that suckka!!

new on the mARK II field! :)

i just bought this wonderfull baby and am so exchited with it! this machine really produce amazing video!

I bought it AS as body only with a cheap lens canon 50mm 1.8
I also bought 3 more batteriew and the hoodman 3.0 .... and a nikon to canon adapter by bower

Now i have desided to buy another lens and as a new one to dslr videography I would like to ask which lens should be my next target?


thanks!!! :)

I might recommend the EF 85mm f/1.8 for portraits and "two shots." Or the EF 28mm f/1.8 for a wide, but natural view. With those three lenses, you would cover the middle range - and you would have matched speeds. They are all f/1.8. The nice thing about that is that you can change to any lens without needing to add more light. Also, because they are Canon lenses, you get autofocus and proper exposure readings.

The above suggestion assumes that you are shooting "people scale" narrative films.

On the other hand, if you shoot extreme sports, a super-wide lens or fisheye is the ticket. For extreme sports a super wide for up close work, a long telephoto for distant action, and a normal prime for interviews is the way to go.

Another possibility is to get a 100mm f/2.8 macro. You can use it for portraits and two shots, but also film stuff up close. This is really handy for showing handwriting and other clues.

The right choice really depends on your subject matter and how you want to present it.

I might recommend the EF 85mm f/1.8 for portraits and "two shots." ....

Guess I'm not up on "two shots" ? Can someone explain those?

All the recommendations here are really helping. Most of my film shots are gong to be close up face shots during conversations, eyes for expression, wide shots in low light and low light night shots. The f2.8 or lower will be preferred for the light issues and for the most part my compositions will usually be a DOF of around 9 to 18 inches or much more on the wider shots except a few special circumstances where the DOF will be intentionally limited to 3 to 6 inches.

Guess I'm not up on "two shots" ? Can someone explain those?

Let me Google that for you: Let me google that for you (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=two+shot&l=1)

-- peer

Let me Google that for you: Let me google that for you (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=two+shot&l=1) -- peer

never mind. sorry i asked.

For tight closeups, the minimum focus distance is as important as the focal length.

For instance, you might get a 200mm lens, but if it can't focus any closer than 5 feet from the focal plane, you can only get so much magnification.

The perfect closeup lens is probably the Zeiss 100/2 Makro. That lens is not cheap, but has near zero distortion, and is sharp as can be. It's moderately fast at f/2. Consider that a 200mm f/2 or f/1.8 will cost much more. Most macros and long lenses are f/2.8 or slower.

This lens is only a 1:2 macro. It's not a full on 1:1 macro, like the Canon EF 100/2.8.

Here's a review...
diglloyd: Mini review of Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar (http://diglloyd.com/articles/ZeissZ/ZeissZ-100f2.html)

You don't want to go with a 50mm macro. You'd have to get twice as close, which would give more perspective distortion (big nose, little ears.)

Another interesting choice would be an 85/1.4 lens with an extension tube. The extension tube lets you get more magnification, though it reduces the effective light. For instance, if you double the 85/1.4, you get a 170mm f/2.8 with good close focus distance. The 85/1.4 would give you nice, fast portrait shots, but when you want to get even closer, add a tube and get the shot!

I've got the EF 200/2.8L II and the EF 100/2.8 Macro. If I want the eyes, I go with the macro. The 200L just doesn't focus all that close. And if I add a tube or extender to the 200L, it becomes an f/5.6 lens, which isn't bad at 400mm, but I need some light to make it work.

I'm so tired of lugging around the 500mm f1.2 and getting severe lumber pain. I find that particular lens is far too heavy for the 5D and too big to fit inside my Mercedes, so may need to buy a large pick-up truck to transport it, and a large crane just to lift it onto the tripod. :)

I am wondering if such a glass will ever be made. My 400 f2.8 L IS at 5.3kgs is the heaviest among the canon's current line up. A 500mm f1.2 will be really a monster. I guess it would require couple of people to handle it.

I own the 24-105 f4 L IS as well as the 24-70 f2.8 L USM. I pick up the 24-105 if the subject is going to be at a distance. Else, 24-70 is used.

The 100mm f2.8 L IS USM with its hybrid stabilisation appears to be good for video.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

I am wondering if such a glass will ever be made. My 400 f2.8 L IS at 5.3kgs is the heaviest among the canon's current line up. A 500mm f1.2 will be really a monster. I guess it would require couple of people to handle it.

Well, the closest might be the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 that can be had for a whooping $29k at B&H:

Well, the closest might be the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 that can be had for a whooping $29k at B&H:

hehehehehe. show up with that at a wedding. ur gonna get boosted foot first by the priest. :-)

Well, the closest might be the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 that can be had for a whooping $29k at B&H:

hehehehehe. show up with that at a wedding. ur gonna get boosted foot first by the priest. :-)

There's actually one B&H customer who wrote a review of this lens after he purchased it:
"This lens has brought new meaning to photography, it's probably one of the best lenses ever developed, if you could put together the money, you should do it, best investment I've ever saved for. The only con I think I've ever had was carrying it around, and being pulled over by the police on my way to the airport because they thought I had a rocket launcher in my car."

-- peer

Regarding that 27,000 dollar lens . . . that is definitely out of my price range let alone my production style. most of my shoot subjects will be in the 5 to 20 feet away range with the odd scenario of 50 to 150 feet. so i don't need to shoot a fly from a block away (or more) but will look into that tube idea.

UPDATE: I did pick up the 50mm f1.4 and mid week getting the 16-35 f2.8L is usm glass. and will prob hold for the 70-200 f2.8 till the end of the month when ive sold off the rest of the nikon gear.

Regarding that 27,000 dollar lens . . . that is definitely out of my price range let alone my production style.
Well, no one here was actually seriously suggesting this lens -- it was just a silly thing I started off from Nigel Barker accidentally putting one zero too many in "I have the 500mm F1.2L which is a fantastic lens but much more expensive."

UPDATE: I did pick up the 50mm f1.4 and mid week getting the 16-35 f2.8L is usm glass. and will prob hold for the 70-200 f2.8 till the end of the month
This is almost exactly the series of lenses I run -- i.e., I think this setup will cover you perfectly.

-- peer

Well, the closest might be the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 that can be had for a whooping $29k at B&H:

Another kinda-close lens would be the CZ Master Prime 150mm f/1.2.

Another kinda-close lens would be the CZ Master Prime 150mm f/1.2.

is this a canon lens? i will only buy canon lenses.

is this a canon lens? i will only buy canon lenses.

No, it's Carl Zeiss (well, technically it's ARRI in this case).

i will only buy canon lenses.

I bacon powder -- is this some kind of contract you have with Canon or is it just a brand loyalty thingee..? It surely can't be due to quality reasons since there are a slew of better lenses out there.

-- peer

I bacon powder -- is this some kind of contract you have with Canon or is it just a brand loyalty thingee..? It surely can't be due to quality reasons since there are a slew of better lenses out there.

-- peer

ive been in the video business pumping out over 150 videos a year for nearly 7 years now while shooting stills on nikon only cameras and lenses (the latter for over 5 decades) and in 2008 i came across the canon xha1 that seemed like a really cheap camera body to me but was a way i could get into HD without the expensive P2 card system like our Panny's had.

well, the image was astonishing. i mean it was so film looking that i had to shoot gads of footage and gained all kinds of "presets" knowledge on the camera and therein i studied the camera and found that the secret to its' amazing image was in: 1) the high density population imager; 2) its digic analog to digital processing; and, 3) its high end HD lens.

it was the latter that woke me up after 5 decades of photography but only a year and a half as digital. glass, imager, and hopefully a good body (just for security and reliability) therein, i recalled years of experience in photo clubs and how many pointed to the canon lenses.

so, i decided i wanted "full frame" and "canon lenses" which would give me a great glass, great imager, and a decently reliable body. again, the 5d mk2 like the xha1 and now the xha1s doen't have the most pro feel body but has an image with the L glass that is amazing and i like it tremendously. therein, i will be canon only. after all, they make one of the best lenses on the market, they made the camera, thus their lens should work exactly like the camera wants it to. i like single source responsibility and simple. those are winning combinations to me. maybe even synergy.

therein, i will be canon only. after all, they make one of the best lenses on the market, they made the camera, thus their lens should work exactly like the camera wants it to.

"Their lens should work exactly like the camera wants it to" -- hey, I've been shooting with Canon glass since 1973, so yes, I'm truly a Canon die hard, but I'm sorry, to me your statement sounds like you've never heard of Lomo, Leica, Zeiss, Arri, etc.

-- peer

"Their lens should work exactly like the camera wants it to" -- hey, I've been shooting with Canon glass since 1973, so yes, I'm truly a Canon die hard, but I'm sorry, to me your statement sounds like you've never heard of Lomo, Leica, Zeiss, Arri, etc.

-- peer

i have used leica, zeiss, and arri, and none of them provided me with anything that i haven't gotten from the high quality L glass from canon. sorry. but its a thing. plus the zeiss have a stiff focus ring (at least on the two i used) which won't work well with my rubber to ring follow focus. also, and although listed last not necessarily the least important, is budget. im trying to keep my budget reasonable AND value applicable rather than extravagant which is why im still out on the "back up" camera . . where in, i think that the canon L will give me absolute excellent images for a reasonable value while the others you mentioned above, will charge an arm and a leg for slightly better images (in my opinion) for weddings, commercial, film shoots, and documentaries wherein at least 70% of my camera work will be stills and 30% video.

on the "back up" camera, the jury is still out wherein im tossed between the 7d and the T2i. i believe the latter will be suffice for a back up since i will not be doing a lot of work demand where i can just reschedule till my 5dm2 is back were it out for some reason except of course for weddings . . where i believe that the T2i will suffice for the 2nd camera and the "back up" without breaking the bank AND for great B camera on my film shoots. however, at this very moment im leaning toward keeping my d90 until my last major weddings are over in september then decided. who knows?

i have used leica, zeiss, and arri, and none of them provided me with anything that i haven't gotten from the high quality L glass from canon. sorry. but its a thing.

Yea, it must be a "thing". To me, though, comparing (and even preferring) Canon L glass to Arri, Lomo, and Zeiss, is like going for a 2007 Corvette instead of a 1987 Ferrari F40, or to compare a Bud Light to an Orval Trappist. Yes, most people prefer Budweiser, and yes, we all are different -- and I accept that.

-- peer

I saw an experienced politician deal with an inflammatory analogy recently. His reply was something like, "That doesn't mean anything. Your analogy doesn't make any sense." :)

BTW, I could see comparing an EF-S zoom to Budweiser, but an L lens? Certainly not.

I could see comparing an EF-S zoom to Budweiser, but an L lens? Certainly not.

But I always hear that Budweiser is the King of Beers -- you mean that's not the case...? (I thought being a King must be a Luxury thing, just like the "L" in Canon's lenses...)

-- peer

....To me, though, comparing (and even preferring) Canon L glass to Arri, Lomo, and Zeiss, is like ....-- peer

for the benefit of the lesser experienced readers i will attempt to explain. without a doubt the other lenses mentioned will be beneficial over the Canon L glass. however, to what extent? that is, if they were markedly better for double the cost, for some where budget isn't issue, then so be it. however, for those who are trying to outfit themselves with a decent and really lets face it much better than decent outfit as has been outlined by the initiator of this thread and his expectations therein, the L glass Canon is great. more than great really.

however, if one wanted to go all the way to the highest end glass and has the budget for it, then why suffice with digital at all. why not go film even super 35 for the film work then its 100% arriflex and arri primes then one has the premium set up. however, for this photographer with limited budget who is selling off his business and re-outfitting himself with something that will give him some photo wedding and commercial work and the ability to go out and just maybe make yet a third award winning movie with his less than half dozen lenses and maybe two primes in the lot, he will be totally satisfied that he doesn't have the premium or the top of the line or of the industry, but really really excellent equipment for a moderate price that fits his less than 10,000 total investment for a 5dm2, T2i, 5 lenses, full rail red rock micro matte box rig, and some filters (already have them) for a great photographer set up with excellent film/video shoots for his movie work.

yes there is a path that is far better but at a cost and overshot for the work titled herein. so in closing, it is this writers perspective that one should always review what they really intend to do and how much they have to do it with and then make the most reasonable move toward accomplishing that goal. one might find themselves less than what the industry says is "great" but then "blair witch" was produced for less then 20K with low end equipment by comparison to the biggie producers but it certainly did ok financially and the look was atrocious compared to a harrison ford movie. but then again, the composition with decent gear is what it is all about. given one has excellent gear like mentioned herein, with the right composition they can end up with an image that many will say, "wow, had to hasselblad and arri to get that look." :-) happy shooting all. i love my canon gear and have yet to miss my nikon's.

I own a 200/2.8L II and also use ZE 21/2.8, 35/2 and 85/1.4 lenses. IMHO, the 200L is as crisp as can be. The picture quality is every bit the equal of the Zeiss lenses - even for photos, let alone video.

The big difference is focusing. AF is a great asset for long lenses. And I love the ZE 21mm for photos, since focusing with a wide is so easy.

Not long ago, I shot a small event with a 24-105/4 IS. The photos turned out very good with a really high hit rate. I then tried the 85/1.4 for some portraits of children with a slightly narrower DOF. I got more failure than success. It was daylight, so IS was not a factor. It was just bloody hard to nail the focus up close with an 85mm lens for photo-quality sharpness without AF. I ended up using a loupe and x10 mag, since I only have the stock viewfinder screen, and the results were still so-so.

I would have been better off using the 200L at a bit more distance. I would have been able to blur the background, deliver stunning quality, and gotten a higher hit rate.

For video, I certainly prefer the Zeiss focus ring, but for photos, there are times when manual focus works well, and times when it doesn't. Glass quality doesn't matter when you don't get the shot.

Good comment there. Whatever gets the shot.

To my eye both the L and the Zeiss lenses seem equally sharp and both provide a nice look to the images. I prefer the Zeiss because they seem to have better build quality, especially when it comes to the focusing rings. I think the L 85 f1.2 is a superb lens and looks great, but I really do not like that electronic focus ring that has almost no feel to it. It feels like if you breath on it, it will shift. That's an exaggeraton, of course, but it has even less "touch" than the lens on my XH A1. If I get an 85, I'd get the Zeiss equivalent. My Canon 70-200 L f4 has a much better feel than the 85, but still not as solid as the Zeiss lenses I've used. The only Zeiss I have at the moment is the 50 f1.4. It feels as solid as my old all metal pre-AI Nikkor 35 and has an even better focus throw. For still photography, I'd go with the Canon lenses, I'm sure. But for video, I prefer the Zeiss and old Nikkors.

All this is not to say the L lenses aren't good--they are. I just prefer the Zeiss build. Some people are saying the Zeiss are sharper for going to the big screen, but I really can't tell any difference in that area. Both look great.

Well, since I don't do much interviews, I mainly have a set of primes and 1 zoom for my fiction work. They are

14 2.8L - Fantastic wide angle with low distortion. This lens gives you a perspective no other lens can give in full frame. There's a Sigma 12-20 zoom (something like that). Tried it, but has distortion at the wide end.

24 1.4- This is the lens I'm using the most. Excelent color, extremely good for low light. Excelent for medium close ups and for some close ups. Gives them a diferent look from the standard 50mm look.

50 1.4- Its the lens I use most for portraits. I love natural light and this lens is a most for low light situations.

135 2.0- the sharpest lens I have. Its true, the word of mouth is this is one of the sharpest lenses Canon does, and it really is the sharpest from my set. Excelent for small telephoto shots. Gives a ver, very good bokeh, but "demands" a tripod due to its lack of IS.

16-35mm zoom- Wide shots and Low DOF shots are what I require from my DSLR's, and this Zoom, while 2.8. provides a very good "wide" coverage for those situations were I just can't switch lenses. However, I feel the need for a 70-200 2.8L IS. Its great for events, like motorsports.

Lenses I used and found very useful for motorsport coverage

Motorsport shooting is something I do once a year professionaly, and I've found this set of lenses to be very useful

70-200 2.8 IS- Very, very good lens. Never tried the II, but the I one was excelent and versatile for Paddock and pit-lane coverage. Still a bit short for on the track

28-300L IS - This is an underrated lens, and was an excellent all round lens for on track coverage. The push zoom takes a while to get used to, but its very sharp and has an unbeatable range.

Lens I would love to try out on the track: 300 2.8L prime, 400 2.8L Prime.

Notice: from 200mmm above, the rolling shutter effects gets close to being uncontrolable. Still shots, no panning or very very slow panning only!

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


Canon 16-35mm 2.8

Sigma 24-70 mm 2.8

Canon 15mm 2.8 fisheye

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)

Hello guys I would like to have ur thoughts about this lences...
Canon 16-35mm 2.8
Sigma 24-70 mm 2.8
Canon 15mm 2.8 fisheye


The Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 is a very nice and useful lens, (next to my 70-200 f/2.8, I use this lens the most).

I had a Sigma 15mm f/2.8 that was VERY nice (and is more affordable than the Canon), and it's built like a tank.

The Sigma 24-70 I don't know at all.

-- peer

thank u for ur quick reply Peer,

I just found out that there are

2 series of CANON 16-35 the Li and the Lii , the li is half price of the lii

does the lii worth the extra cost?

...[is] the lii worth the extra cost?

The new version has less barrel distortion, less flare, more contrast/sharpness (especially in the corners), and slightly better bokeh. If the budget can handle it, I would say it's worth it.