The best EF lenses for 5D Mk. II?

[Tyler Franco]

Originally Posted by Dan Chung

Tyler,
Are you going to shoot stills as well or just video? there are many more cost effective solutions in manual focus. Also if you want AF but don't need it quick there are Sigmas and Tamrons in the 70-200 range.

If you are staying with Canon glass do you really need the zoom? if not I can really recommend the 135mm f2L either with or without 1.4 and 2x convertors? you could add an 85mm f1.8 as well. These give you a great light/bokeh advantage over a 70-200 f2.8L which was never my favorite lens. The newer 70-200 f2.8IS is better but both are prone to problem with sharpness over time in my experience (I've had two of each and they never fully worked to my satisfaction)

Dan

I'm actually a still photographer first... which I'm sure is why I'm so excited about this camera. My current still equipment is nothing amazing though. My full list of lenses I plan on investing in with the purchase of the 5D Mark II is as follows:

Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens - $1190.00
Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Autofocus Lens - $319.95
Canon Telephoto EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Autofocus Lens - $355.00
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Autofocus Lens - $1574.00

I'm picking up the 24-70 primarily for video purposes. I have a feeling there will be times I'm in low light and would rather bump the ISO up some and stay at f/2.8 than having the camera forcing me to use f/1.4 or f/1.8. Just another type of workaround for not having manual control in video.

I was going with the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS primarily for concert photos as I tend to shoot a lot of them. I liked the speed and the image stabilization along with variable zoom settings. I've never used it though, so tell me if it's too bad!

[Dan Chung]

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

I didn't see anything in there for low light. I like to have a wide angle fast aperture for hand held low light work. Adding the 35mm f/2.0 is not expensive, but the 24mm f/1.4 will give the deepest DOF possible for an f/1.4 focal ratio (and I have a hunch that I will need the wiggle room).

I'm thinking about carrying just the 24mm f/1.4 and 70-200 f/4 L IS.

Daniel, this is a great combination and one I've used myself in the past. The 24mm f1.4L is great and I'm sure the new mkII version will be even better

Originally Posted by Tyler Franco

I was going with the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS primarily for concert photos as I tend to shoot a lot of them. I liked the speed and the image stabilization along with variable zoom settings. I've never used it though, so tell me if it's too bad!

Tyler, if you get a 'good' 70-200 f2.8L IS then it will be fine. Problem I found was that mine got worse with age to the point where I replaced it with a new one, which in turn got softer again. I made several trips to Canon to get them fixed and never really cured it. Other photographers swear by the lens so I guess it is just pot luck. I ended up with a two lens combo of 135mm f2L and a 70-200mm f4L IS instead of the 70-200 f2.8L IS, before changing to Nikon last year. Also forget the 50mm f1.4, never liked it (had 2), it was soft wide open and had barrel distortion. The 50mm f1.8 is as good for less, otherwise look at the 50mm f1.2L or maybe the new Zeiss ZE 50mm f1.4 manual eos lens.

Personally I would probably build a small collection of manual lenses and adapters for video use which can be very inexpensive. Some Nikon or Contax primes are very cheap now and as good as anything else out there. You could have a whole setup for the price of just the Canon 24-70 f2.8L lens. Then just get the stills lenses you want separately.

Also, depending on your shooting style I would go for a 17-40 or 16-35mm f2.8L II wide zoom , a 50mm instead of a 24-70 for stills work. You probably won't miss the gap between 35mm and 50mm, or the gap between 50mm and 70mm.

Hope that helps.

Dan

[Don Miller]

I wouldn't actually buy any lenses until the aperture control issue is sorted out.
The 2x extender is a pretty big compromise in quality and is used by most photogs only with the best big, fast primes. Unless the 2x is absolutely necessary the 1.4x is a better choice. For reach on a budget I really like the 100-400. The downside it that it is a slow variable aperture lens.
The 24-70 is a very good choice for speed and quality as the core zoom lens
Someone doing slower, planned type of shooting on a budget may want to buy a collection of non-L primes. A lot of the low dof demo footage was shot around f2. The fasterst zoom is 2.8.
with both 2.8 and f4 70-200 there a choice about Image Stabilization. As IS was not designed for video, we still need to see how well it works. It seems to me that IS designed for still cameras does not have smooth transitions as video IS.

[Chris Hurd]

Is there a consensus that non-L glass will be suitable for HD 1080p video?

I have to agree that IS on these lenses probably won't lend themselves very well to the video mode.

And pardon my ignorance and laziness... what's the amount of light lost in the 2x and 1.4x extenders?

[Dan Chung]

If non L glass is suitable for 12 megapixel full frame sensors then yes, it will be enough for 1080p. The issues are more about how each lens copes with flare, barrel distortion, colour rendition etc... some non-L lenses are great, others are not. The L designation itself only means that aspherical elements are used in its design, sometimes they are not necessary for optimum sharpness. As an example the 100mm f2.8 USM macro is not an L lens but is far, far sharper than the 70-200 f2.8L IS or even the 85mm f1.2L II. The 85mm f1.8 and 100mm f2 will probably out resolve the 70-200 f2.8L IS as well. In the older non-USM lens range the 24mm f2.8 is great, the 35mm f2 OK and the 28mm f2.8 pretty average. Some L zooms are pretty average too, especially the 28-300 and 35-350. I have used all these lenses pretty much day in day out so have a pretty good idea. Before I changed to Nikon I wrote an old blog post here http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...n_the_bag.html

The 1.4x has a one stop light loss, the 2x has 2 stops.

Dan

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Dan Chung

Some L zooms are pretty average too, especially the 28-300 and 35-350.

Thanks Dan; I sure appreciate your feedback. Those are the two particular zooms that I felt would be best suited for adapting to video use because of their high zoom ratios (almost 11x and 10x respectively... put a geared ring around the zoom ring and fabricate or adapt a controller). If they're only just average, then perhaps they'll still do a decent job with HD in this camera.

[Don Miller]

A new interesting prime that is designed to be sharp wide open(except the corners) is the Sigma 50mm 1.4. It's expensive for a Sigma at $500ish, but still half the price of the Canon 50 1.2L, and sharper below f2. I haven't used this lens yet and I don't know about the more subjective areas such a bokeh.

The reality check at 50mm is that all 50mm primes get sharp by f2. Will you really be shooting video at 50mm much below f2? Who's pulling focus?


Zooms I've shot wide open without too much hesitation:

Nikon 14-24 2.8 with Canon adapter (parafocal?)
Canon 24-70 L 2.8 (a prime is better)
Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS
Canon 70-200L f4
Canon 70-200L f4 IS
Canon 100-400L IS (slow and not as good as the above group from 100-200mm, not parafocal?)

If the above group gives too much dof, is too slow, or sharpness is critically important by f2:

The "I need sharp at F2" group:

Below 50mm:
-The Canon L primes
-Possibly the less expensive Canon 35 f2
-Some third party primes for Contax (Zeiss), Leica (few and $$$), and Zuiko (few are better than Canon). I don't have faster than 2.8 in contax, group, so my experience at f2 is limited.

50mm: Canon 1.2 and 1.4, Sigma 1.4, various contax adapted to Canon.

85mm: Canon 1.2, Canon 1.8 (borderline at f2), contax 85 1.4, the new Zeiss 85 1.4

100mm: Canon f2 macro (borderline at f2), certainly other macros

135mm: canon f2

200mm: Canon f2 IS

Nothing longer I'm aware of that has f2.

The problem with using f2 or faster classic primes, like that were made for contax by Zeiss, is the price. When this "alt" lens thing started this glass were often great deals. Now the fast and good old lenses are expensive. Part of the market has collectors which pushes the price beyond what is logical as an image making device.

Zeiss is starting to make Canon mount, but don't assume these lenses are better than their Canon or Nikon equivalent.

These are lenses I've used. I'm sure we can add to this list. Some older Nikons work well on Canon too. But all the different series of Nikon lenses confuses me, so I don't really follow these lenses. But if you have Nikon lenses with aperture control it may be worth checking out compatibility with Canon.

[Tyler Franco]

Originally Posted by Dan Chung

24mm f2.8 is great

It's funny how all this works. It really must vary from lens copy to lens copy because I have this lens, and while it isn't bad, I've never been overly impressed with it.

[Daniel Lipats]

One of the reasons I thought I could get away using a cheap lens on the 5D2 is because I figured that what makes a lens expensive is not necessarily the optics but the electronics & motors inside. Since for video we really don't care how fast the lens can AF, how noisy the motors are, or how fast it can adjust the aperture.

I was under the impression that a good cheaper zoom lens would be visually indistinguishable from an L series for example. Especially if we are lowering the resolution down to 1080 and compressing the image. But if the lens is poor the end image will only be worse.

Originally I was planning to use the Sigma | 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro DF Autofocus Lens | 548101 and just deal with its limitations. A mattebox should be enough to negate the flare problem I had read about in reviews.


I have been somewhat discouraged by recent posts though, and I am now leaning to the 24-70 f/2.8L. I figure that if I invest the money in a 5D2 I should get a lens that will make the most of the camera.

Anybody have any experience with the Sigma zoom?

[Daniel Lipats]

This seems like a nice lens too: Tamron | 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di Autofocus Lens for Can | AF09C700 - $349.95

Please correct me if I'm wrong but after going over some data and reading reviews, the 28-70 f/2.8L series is only about 5% - 10% better. $761.00 more expensive, is it worth it?

[Dan Chung]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Those are the two particular zooms that I felt would be best suited for adapting to video use because of their high zoom ratios (almost 11x and 10x respectively... put a geared ring around the zoom ring and fabricate or adapt a controller). If they're only just average, then perhaps they'll still do a decent job with HD in this camera.

Chris I think those lenses are going to be OK, just not as good as the 16-35mm f2.8L, 24-70 f2.8L and 70-200 f2.8L. It is not just about sharpness but also contrast, flare handling and look. I also don't like the way both lenses telescope out when zoomed making a mattebox and rails practically impossible to use (this is another reason I dislike the 24-70 f2.8 too).

Originally Posted by Daniel Lipats

One of the reasons I thought I could get away using a cheap lens on the 5D2 is because I figured that what makes a lens expensive is not necessarily the optics but the electronics & motors inside. Since for video we really don't care how fast the lens can AF, how noisy the motors are, or how fast it can adjust the aperture.

I was under the impression that a good cheaper zoom lens would be visually indistinguishable from an L series for example. Especially if we are lowering the resolution down to 1080 and compressing the image. But if the lens is poor the end image will only be worse.

As you are realising the lens is probably the most important part of the equation. Generally lenses are more expensive because of the better glass as well mechanics of it. That said there are exceptions if you choose wisely. A cheap 50mm f1.8 will beat pretty much any Canon zoom for look and sharpness at most apertures. Don't get hung up on the sharpness and downsampling issue though, there are many other ways to judge a lens and its suitability for video.

Originally Posted by Tyler Franco

It's funny how all this works. It really must vary from lens copy to lens copy because I have this lens, and while it isn't bad, I've never been overly impressed with it.

I think this lens suffers from sample variation. It was not the sharpest wide open but I liked the way it rendered the whole image, it is a matter of taste.

Originally Posted by Daniel Lipats

This seems like a nice lens too: Tamron | 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di Autofocus Lens for Can | AF09C700 - $349.95

Please correct me if I'm wrong but after going over some data and reading reviews, the 28-70 f/2.8L series is only about 5% - 10% better. $761.00 more expensive, is it worth it?

I had a Tamron 28-75XR DI for a short while, it was a quite sharp lens. People report that it too suffers in quality from sample to sample, so test the one you are going to buy on the camera first. For video use its focus ring may be a bit too rough too, it has no damping to speak of. Personally I liked its weight but rejected it due to slow focus (not an issue for you) and lower build quality than the Canon 24-70 f2.8. I also did not like its bokeh but that is personal taste. Whether it is worth the extra $761 is up to you, but generally in lenses it is that last little extra bit of performance that costs the big bucks.

The other issue everyone should be aware of is the differing colour representations of the different brands. This is not too much of a problem with stills, but with video it will be more obvious if you change lenses a lot. Bokeh is equally important to me, the way a background is rendered is as important to me as maximum aperture. It will ultimately be easier to find a common look if you stay within one brand of lens, however there are of course exceptions that prove the rule.

Dan

[Dan Chung]

Originally Posted by Don Miller

The problem with using f2 or faster classic primes, like that were made for contax by Zeiss, is the price. When this "alt" lens thing started this glass were often great deals. Now the fast and good old lenses are expensive. Part of the market has collectors which pushes the price beyond what is logical as an image making device.

This is true but there are still bargains to be had, and even at inflated prices some of the fast primes are still cheaper than EF or Zeiss ZF or ZE equivalents. Then there are the f2.8 lenses which can be especially good value and usable wide open with no problem.

If I had to pick cheaper favorites they would include the Manual Nikkor 16mm f2.8, 24mm f2 or f2.8, 28mm f2 or f2.8, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.4 or 1.8, 55mm f2.8 Micro, 85mm f2, 135mm f2.8, 180mm f2.8, 200mm f2 or f4, 300mm f2.8 and 500mm f4P. Also the AF 20-35mm f2.8 and older 2 touch 80-200 f2.8 zooms are great on a budget. All can be bought for far less than their EF equivalents.

If you want some nice examples of what can be done there are plenty around. Here is one WTSell: Lens - Nikon Lens Sales (Letting go of many fantastic manual nikon lens) - ClubSNAP Photography Forums (although his lens prices seem very high)

In the UK the best two sources for used Nikon on cheap I have found to be Jacobs pro lounge in London's New Oxford street Jacobs Digital Photography & Video and Aperture photographic Aperture Photographic Tel. 020 7242 8681. In the USA try here http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/Produ...BCL=&GBC=&GCC=

Dan

[Mike Thomann]

Actually you may want to consider the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM over the f/2.8L. The f/4L is the next generation lens with improved fluorite lenses etc and the next generation four-stop reduction IS system rather than the three-stop reduction IS system of the f/2.8L. That pretty much makes up for the difference in lens speed for hand-held use. In extensive lab tests the f/4L is placed over the top among all other Canon zoom lenses and also among a boat load of primes as well. It's also less expensive, smaller, and half the weight. I've read many user reports that the 2.8L is so front heavy that people have difficulty holding it steady and they were more than thrilled when switching to the newer f/4L. If you don't plan on buying a ton of these expensive lenses, you may want to really look into this lens before making your decision.

I'm also considering the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM for a single run-and-gun lens, although it too only has the three-stop reduction IS system and it's only about 85-90% as good overall as the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM in lab tests. Any thoughts as to whether that difference could even be noticed at 1920x1080 as opposed to high-res photography?

[Mike Thomann]

Originally Posted by Bob Thompson

If you are considering a zoom lens it should be parfocal. Parfocal means that it will retain its focus throughout the zoom range, this is not a problem with stills photographers as they are not zooming while taking a picture but for video it is critical

Current & Discontinued models are

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III
EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6
EF 17-35mm f/2.8L USM
EF 20-35mm f/2.8L
EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 28-80mm f/2.8-4L USM
EF 50-200mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
EF 50-200mm f/3.5-4.5
EF 70-210mm f/4
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 II USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 II
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6
EF 80-200mm f/2.8L
EF 100-300mm f/5.6L
EF 100-300mm f/5.6
EF zoom lenses with Super Inner Cam focusing, which include most of the non-L zooms introduced from 1990 onwards as well as the EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM and the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, are not parfocal.

Bob, you list the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM as being parfocal, but the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM is not in your list. Can I assume it is as well?

[James Miller]

I am using this lens a lot at the moment.

EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

I only used to use it for commercial property internals photography and it stayed in the bag the rest of the time.

But I really like the lens now and being wide and front focusing it works well hand held.

James