Hello everyone, I am the proud owner of a 5D markii camera, using it to shoot video.

Unfortunately I know almost nothing about the different types of lenses and brands and how to get good ones at the best price and know what to get. I have the 24-105mm kit lens.


I already know I want a 50mm 1.4 and a 70-300mm ~f4 lens.

I am told that I can buy some used nikons and get an adaptor for less then buying these new from canon.
What exact models do i look for and where should i buy them? Ebay, Amazon? etc
Thanks in advance!




Here is a question too:

Would this adaptor:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/663101-REG/Bower_ABEOSN.html#reviews

Work with this lens on the 5D:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/247091-USA/Nikon_2137_Normal_AF_Nikkor_50mm.html#reviews

Most people using Nikon lenses on the 5DII buy a cheap adaptor from Ebay along with used old Nikon manual lenses. If you are buying new then buy Canon EF.

Also is the
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III lens with 5d camera
ok for video for the 5d?

or is it terrible compared to the 70-300mm?

The price is quite a bit different and no IS

Now that the 5DmkII can be manually controlled, there is no reason to buy Nikon glass.

There are many Canon, Tamron and Sigma etc. lenses available, new and used. Check B&H and other reputable dealers.

If you already have Nikon glass then the adapters work well.

I use the Canon 50mm f1.4 and it is fine for low light etc. A very sharp and light lens.

I like the better L lenses, both because they are faster and they have much nicer Boketh (out of focus) qualities. The build quality, flair and contrast etc. etc. is also superior in the L's.

Personally I use the L 17-40 f4, L 24-70 f2.8, L 70-200 f2.8 IS, and the L 100-400 f 4-5.6 IS. I also have the 50 I mentioned and the 100mm f2.8 Canon Macro. The L 24-105 f4 is also a great general purpose lens, I use when traveling light. The other great thing about most of the L's is they all have 77mm filter threads, so you don't need to duplicate filters.

I think the 75-300 would be OK, and it can be purchased very inexpensively $100.00 or so. But as with anything you basically get what you pay for. A $100.00 lens can't compare with a $1,500.00 lens, but if it does what you need it to do great.

Expensive Canon lenses keep their value, you may very well be able to sell them for more than new price in a few years.

Now that the 5DmkII can be manually controlled, there is no reason to buy Nikon glass.

I'm sorry, I just cannot agree with this at all.

Nikon SLR glass in the 70s and 80s was king for a reason. A lot of it is EXCELLENT glass. While it is true that a lot of newer Canon glass is excellent optically, if you intend to use this camera with a focus puller, the VERY short throw of the AF lenses is a huge detriment.

Additionally, many people seem to want the new sharp and contrast optics. Frankly, with the problems these cameras have, I am much more interested in the slightly softer, warmer glass from the vintage lenses. I bought an early 70s 300mm prime that is absolutely GORGEOUS on my T2i. And I will be buying a series of fast primes over the rest of the year. I'll probably pick up some nice Canon zoom lenses too, but that won't be for narrative work.

None of this is to say that you NEED to buy Nikon glass, but to assert there is no reason or place for it is a mistake in my opinion.

While it is true that a lot of newer Canon glass is excellent optically, if you intend to use this camera with a focus puller, the VERY short throw of the AF lenses is a huge detriment.

In addition to lacking focus ring-stops, this is also the problem I'm having with Canon AF's. But on the other hand the Nikkor glass have a backwards focus pull -- can't stand it! (as I said in a different post, to work a follow focus on a Nikkor is like suddenly being forced to drive on the left side of the road).

-- peer

In addition to lacking focus ring-stops, this is also the problem I'm having with Canon AF's. But on the other hand the Nikkor glass have a backwards focus pull -- can't stand it! (as I said in a different post, to work a follow focus on a Nikkor is like suddenly being forced to drive on the left side of the road).

-- peer

LOL!!! Some of the follow focus units are reversible. But yes, it can be unsettling. Our current production is using a mix of Canon and Nikon glass so I know the 1st AC is having a devil of a time!

Id be interested to know what old lenses have a longer throw for pulling focus - Id just assumed to get this you would have to step up to cine lenses. So instead of mortgaging your house and buying a zeiss kit with EF mounts - just look for older model Nikon glass?

Id be interested to know what old lenses have a longer throw for pulling focus - Id just assumed to get this you would have to step up to cine lenses. So instead of mortgaging your house and buying a zeiss kit with EF mounts - just look for older model Nikon glass?

Well, for instance... my T2i kit lens (18-55mm) has a focus throw of about 70 degrees to go from full close to full wide. My Nikkor H 300mm prime is about 170 degrees to go from 13ft to infinity. That piece of glass is from about 1972 or thereabouts. Autofocus would take a week trying to move that far. In fact, it's 70 degree throw is 13ft to about 35ft.

[Edit]

For grins, I mounted the Nikkor onto my T2i, and took a shot. Then I mounted a more modern Sigma zoom (both say they are 300mm glass but....) and took a similar photo. The difference is striking. But exactly what I'd expect, and exactly what I wanted.

Id be interested to know what old lenses have a longer throw for pulling focus - Id just assumed to get this you would have to step up to cine lenses. So instead of mortgaging your house and buying a zeiss kit with EF mounts - just look for older model Nikon glass?
My old classic Carl Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 has a very long & smooth throw (that isn't backwards either), and its DOF & bouquet is just beautiful. Other fast and long-throwing lenses worth looking into are the f/1.1 Voigtlanders.


For grins, I mounted the Nikkor onto my T2i, and took a shot. Then I mounted a more modern Sigma zoom (both say they are 300mm glass but....) and took a similar photo. The difference is striking. But exactly what I'd expect, and exactly what I wanted.
Yea, your Canon DOF is definitely shallower, and it also seems like there's a focal length difference (unless you were standing on different spots while shooting). Would be nice if there were some colors in there, to see the bouquet differences.

-- peer

Yea, your Canon DOF is definitely shallower, and it also seems like there's a focal length difference (unless you were standing on different spots while shooting). Would be nice if there were some colors in there, to see the bouquet differences.

-- peer

There is a focal length difference. The tripod never moved. So either the Nikon is longer than 300mm or the Canon is shorter. There is some halatation in the single coated Nikon but that's expected and desired. If I wanted razor sharp glass I'd be buying new L lenses or ED glass.

As for colors, see the attached images. These are from the same porch, slightly different subject. Believe it or not, the saturation in this image was not TOUCHED. I corrected the luma range, added a slight curve, adjusted the white balance a bit cooler, and there we were... And that is the Nikon by the way.

Now that the 5DmkII can be manually controlled, there is no reason to buy Nikon glass.Except that you can buy old but very good Nikon lenses at low prices so if you are on a tight budget you can assemble a collection of good Nikon primes for the price of one Canon L lens.

Except that you can buy old but very good Nikon lenses at low prices so if you are on a tight budget you can assemble a collection of good Nikon primes for the price of one Canon L lens.

Well, if you are looking for Nikkor glass, I might have some for you.

-- peer

Well, if you are looking for Nikkor glass, I might have some for you.

-- peerI already have my own collection that I was just about to put on eBay. When I first got the 5DII I needed manual lenses to defeat the auto-aperture & also wasn't sure which lenses would really suit my shooting style & subject matter. I therefore took the opportunity to buy a variety of cheap but good Nikkor lenses to play with. I now never use them as I get manual control with the new firmware & prefer the EF lenses for auto-focus & have mostly replaced all the Nikkors with a Canon equivalent. One exception where I don't yet have an EF replacement is a really lovely 180mm F2.8 ED which is a super lens but I don't carry it in my bag any more & so rarely use it.

When I first got my mkII I got a Nikon 50 f1.4, very nice lens, with an adapter from B&H, that adapter worked very well.

I got adapters to use some old Canons as well, those adapters have optics in them and really soften the image.

I tried the partial unscrew lens to keep the setting. All these adapters and methods worked, but they were a PITA.

I shoot a lot of stills as well as video, I have a 7D as well and a few older Canons. So I really like to use the auto focus and aperture/shutter priority modes. I often use the auto focus to set up the shot in still mode using the viewfinder, and then switch to video mode. Something I never do with my video cams. Mostly because the monitoring pretty much sucks on these DSLR's. This way I can nail focus very quickly.

For follow focus I simply use the same method I use on my EXcams. A zip-tie around the focus ring, with the end sticking out anywhere from 1/2" to 3", this works very well, focusing myself or have an assistant pull focus. And it costs about 10 cents.

So for me it makes the most sense to use Canon specific lenses. That is not to say that anyone is wrong in using Nikon glass, for whatever reason this works for you, economic or esthetic.

There are even adapters for using real cine primes on the 7D, AbelCineTech sells those. I would love to have one of those, and a few of those lenses. But I personally can't justify it until Canon improves the codec or enables full quality HDMI or HD-SDI out, so you can record to a NanoFlash or AJA.

When I got the 5D I resurrected my ancient '70s pre-AI Nikkors out of their bag in my basement. I'm using the 24mm, 35, and 105. I also got a Zeiss ZE 50 and Canon L 70-200. I shot an entire commercial production the past 2 days almost exclusively with the 24 and 35, using the 50 for only a couple of shots. The zoom is mostly for interviews so I can change focal length quickly between questions. I have the cheap eBay adapters but may replace them with the Cinevate from B&H which allegedly fit tighter. I also put 77mm stepup rings on all my lenses so they all accept my 77mm filters. I had to get 77mm lens caps too and found the old metal threaded ones at B&H for under $8 each. With the stepup rings I use the same 77mm collapsable lens hood on all the lenses as well.

I found this string amazingly interesting & informative. After having been in the Nikon camp since the 70s, I've decided to make the leap to Canon, with a 5D II.

I have a pretty sizable collection of AI & pre-AI fast primes, and I was discouraged at the thought of having to start from scratch.

Sounds like I'll be able to make good use of what is otherwise some fine glass, until I decide to move into some Canon lenses.

The only Nikkor I was hesitant about was the 24mm f2.8. It has an unusual segment of rear flange that sticks out a little farther than any of the other Nikkors. It looked as if it might hit the mirror on the Canon. My daughter, however, is a jeweler, and it occurred to me that she routinely cuts and grinds things that cost a lot more than that lens. So she cut off the offending portion of flange, perfectly smooth. Lens works great. I couldn't live without it on most of my shoots.

I, like many of you, have a mixture of Canon and Nikon glass. The focus direction doesn't bother me in the least. For shooting only video, the Nikons, even though the prices have inflated up, are still a better value than most of the Canons. That said, the Canons are obviously better if you shoot video AND stills. Not having AF on the Nikons makes shooting any stills other than locked off still subjects very tough.

A very nice lens that I would use instead a Nikon, if the focal length suited you, is the Canon 70-200 F4, a great lens. It is reasonable cost, very sharp and looks great. While I like the 70-200 2.8, it is such a beast, way too heavy and at 2.8, usually has too shallow of a DOF, I ended up stopping it down to F4 ot 5.6 anyway to obtain better DOF so why spend the extra money and lug the extra pounds for the 2.8 version?

My favorite lens for my 5D MKII though is the Nikon 105mm 2.8D Micro, it has leagues better contrast and is considerably sharper than any of my other lenses. I used to think my 85mm 1.8 Nikon AI looked good but I recently switched between it and the 105mm 2.8 D on a shoot and the difference was immediately apparent, the 105mm 2.8D is a LOT sharper. Brilliant lens.

I have the Canon 17-40 F4L, the Canon 70-300 F4.5-5.6 IS, the Nikon 50mm F1.4 AI, the 85mm F1.8 AI and the 105mm 2.8 D Micro. I prefer having the manual aperture ring on the Nikons over the rotating knob on the 5D MKII used for aperture adjustment with Canon lenses. I am still looking for a wide angle 2.0 or 2.8 prime, perhaps the 24mm or a 20mm.

Dan

I, like many of you, have a mixture of Canon and Nikon glass. The focus direction doesn't bother me in the least. For shooting only video, the Nikons, even though the prices have inflated up, are still a better value than most of the Canons.

I totally agree, except for "the focus direction doesn't bother me in the least" part -- Nikkor lenses aren't just affordable, but also very sharp. If it wasn't for this very issue (focus direction) I doubt I'd even own any Canon glass, besides the 70-200 f/2.8. But I thank the gods that Carl Zeiss got it right -- as I've said many times, my absolute favorite lens is an old 55mm f/1.4 Zeiss prime: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-5d-mk-ii-hd/238784-lens-purchase-5d-recommendations-2.html#post1538071

-- peer

My favorite lens for my 5D MKII though is the Nikon 105mm 2.8D Micro, it has leagues better contrast and is considerably sharper than any of my other lenses. I used to think my 85mm 1.8 Nikon AI looked good but I recently switched between it and the 105mm 2.8 D on a shoot and the difference was immediately apparent, the 105mm 2.8D is a LOT sharper. Brilliant lens.

Dan

I'm happy to read that -- I have the 105mm Micro that I've been using on various Nikon bodies (FM, FE, FA & D70). Once I purchase the 5D, I'll give it a critical look. It's been great on everything, especially the film cameras, and I'll be interested to see what this lens (and other Nikon glass) looks like with 5D.

Not having AF on the Nikons makes shooting any stills other than locked off still subjects very tough.


And 100 years worth of photographers just smiled.. It's not THAT hard. I still shut off AF for many subjects. Especially in poor light.

I agree with Dan, that L 70-200 f4 is an excellent lens. It's light enough so you can still mount the camera on the tripod--no need to mount the lens by a collar. It intercuts well with my pre-AI Nikkors (though they are sharper). The f4 on the L lens is no problem. I tend to shoot most things at f4-5.6 to get enoug depth of field to maintain focus.

And 100 years worth of photographers just smiled.. It's not THAT hard. I still shut off AF for many subjects.

Ditto -- I never use AF for stills.

-- peer

I don't use AF either for anything. Tried it once, too slow.

Not having AF on the Nikons makes shooting any stills other than locked off still subjects very tough.


I'm with Dan on this one. Ask the world's top 100 sports and wildlife photographers (the 2 subjects that are the fastest moving and need long lenses, surely the toughest tests) how many of them use manual focus for moving subjects and I'm sure you'll find the answer is nearly or actually zero.
I shoot MF all the time on Varicams etc., so I like to think I know what I'm doing, but in stills I can't even get close to the speed and accuracy of my D3's AF.

Steve

Steve,

I think there are a number of factors at play.

If you ask 100 of those same still photographers to shoot on an F5, how many of them would be instantly lost? Yea, their cams shoot 8fps. Which on film would give the exactly 3-4 seconds before reload.

The lenses are different as well. The physical movement of an AF lens is vastly different than it's MF counterpart, which makes focusing manually a chore.

Last fall, I went out to a night soccer game with a friend. He handed me his 40d with a nice lens. I hadn't shot sports stills for many years, after it being my bread and butter for so long. As I put the camera to my eye and got familiar with the shutter release, it all started coming back. The autofocus was hunting though. I flipped it off, and started getting some decent shots. My friend wandered over and said, "You can use the live view by pressing this button". I tried it for a few shots then went back to the viewfinder. We stood next to each other for a while shooting. I was on the long lens, he was wide. I'd take shots in 1-3 frame bursts. His bursts were 6-10 frames.

That small exercise made a few things abundantly clear to me. The shooting styles of today, are quite different than the shooting styles of the past. The carefully considered focus and framing of those of us who grew up with film, has largely been replaced by the push and pray that many of us saw as digital started to come to the fore. That's probably a condescending phrase, but I am saying what it was called when I was shooting. Back then, the autofocus wasn't good enough to keep up. Today's cameras have AF that is generally good enough, if there's enough light.

Basic idea like pre-focusing seem to be lost on today's generation of shooters. As are things like going wider in the camera with the idea of printing zoomed in. That was a common technique in sports photography to make sure that you didn't screw up the framing, and the resolving power of film let you re-frame in post. Today's better cameras let you do the same, but early digital cameras didn't really give you enough pixels to do that.

I bought a new 35mm film camera this year. I wonder if I could hand that camera to a "modern' shooter and have them be productive with it. I wonder what they would do if I put a non-AIs lens on it so that no metering information showed up! :)

I think the problem Perrone is that the AF systems do take a bit of getting used to. I too am from the old school of film and manual focus (and as I said I still use it for video work and for some stills when I use my video lenses for stills).
Folks don't use your old school ideas of pre-focussing and shooting wide ideas because they're not needed so much now, the cameras can help you out.
Legendary bird photographer Art Morris said of AF than in the previous 20 years or so as a top bird photographer he only made a handful of what he could call bang on in-focus shots of flying birds - when the excellent AF on Canon bodies got established he was getting more than that on every roll!
I don't like AF either and I don't shoot enough stills to be totally familiar with it but all these pros can't be wrong, when you get used to it there's no comparison. Read any number of interviews with wildlife and sports photogs and you'll see they all agree.
Steve

Well, I now have two decent AF cams. I am going to shoot a bunch of sports stuff this fall, so we'll see how it goes!

One thing that most serious switch to very quickly is turning off the AF activation via the shutter button, instead you do it with a button by your thumb. In this way when you lock focus you can then release the button and reframe and shoot without focus shifting. I'm sure there are plenty of other tricks too, and tons of settings to get right for what you're shooting.
Steve

Ask the world's top 100 sports and wildlife photographers (the 2 subjects that are the fastest moving and need long lenses, surely the toughest tests) how many of them use manual focus for moving subjects and I'm sure you'll find the answer is nearly or actually zero.

Since I got my 5D and installed a follow focus on it, I stopped using the AF altogether. Wouldn't surprise me if that would be the case also for some of those "top 100 sports and wildlife photographers" -- i.e., if they tried & got used to a good follow focus, they might prefer that over automatic focus, (just like a racercar driver wouldn't use an automatic transmission ;^)

-- peer

There've been lots of great wildlife and sports photographers long before there was auto focus. I doubt very many of them at all use auto anything. One of my lenses works with AF. I may try it out to see how it works. Back when I had a 20D for stills, I tried it on some different lenses, not very successfullyl.