The best EF lenses for 5D Mk. II?

[Matthew Roddy]

Originally Posted by Mathieu Kassovitz

It can work with an adapter. Only the lens does not cover the full frame sensor. You need to crop. Your footage will be lower than 1080p. You can blowup though.

Wow... This is the first I heard that using a Nikon will not give you true 1920x1080 results.

[Even Solberg]

The "holy trinity" of Canon EF lenses are the 35/1.4L, 85/1.2L II and 135/2L. These are sharp as tacks, and they have great color saturation and contrast. Additionally, all the white L primes are great. Personally, I think the EF 200/2.8L II is a hidden gem at the price. You can never go very wrong with L primes, mind. :)

Non-L glass that might be worth looking into are the EF 100/2.8 macro and the TS-E lenses. The TS-E 90/2.8 in particular is very sharp. I'd love to see someone shoot video through this with minimum DoF.

As for zooms, the 24-70/2.8L and 70-200/2.8L IS are great. The 24-105/4L is not bad either.

[Mathieu Kassovitz]

Originally Posted by Matthew Roddy

Wow... This is the first I heard that using a Nikon will not give you true 1920x1080 results.

You're misunderstanding the issue. I'm sorry but I have not much time for these web discussions. :) Are we talking about the same?

Tokina | 50-135mm f/2.8 AT-X 535 PRO DX Autofocus | ATXAF535DXC

Take a read: Not compatible with 35mm or "full-frame" digital SLR cameras.

Is it clear now?

[Henry Cho]

matthew, to explain further, certain lines of lenses, nikon's dx lenses and canon's ef-s lineup, are designed for aps-c sensors, which are smaller, in varying degrees between cameras, than full-frame 35mm film. the 5d is a full-frame 35mm dslr. if you threw a dx or ef-s lens on the 5d, the image circle coming in from the lens wouldn't be large enough to cover the entire sensor of the 5d, leaving you with unacceptable vignetting. this has nothing to do with resolution of output. sorry about the duplicate posts below...

[Matthew Roddy]

Mathieu & Henry,
Thank you SO much for letting me know I was about to make a big mistake!!!

I'm happy to have not put myself through the nonsense of buying that lens, shooting something with it, finding out it was a mess and then having to return the lens and probably loosing some potentially important shots.
I'm bumming, though, because I was really looking forward to the good lens with f2.8 for a darned good price.

I'm happy I posted my Tokina question here and doubly happy that you guys set me strait.

I'm also happy that my "old school" Nikon lenses will work with the appropriate adapter.

Thanks again!

[John Vincent]

Thanks to all who replied to my question.... Although I must admit I'm going to have to read this thread quite a few times to understand it all!

And not to sound totally stupid, but I assumed that no lens came with the Mark II at all, unless you bought the "lens kit." Is that correct?

john

[Matthew Roddy]

In my continuing quest for a quality lens that I can afford, I came across some good reviews on this:
Tamron SP AF 70-200mm Di LD (IF) Macro Lens Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

canon lens zoom 2.8 | B&H Photo Video

I might pick it up tomorrow so I have a lens for my new baby!

I've also heard their 28-75 f2.8 is good.

Does anybody have any warnings or advice for me?

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by John Vincent

...I assumed that no lens came with the Mark II at all, unless you bought the "lens kit." Is that correct?

That's correct. Canon offers the EOS 5D Mk. II in two configurations:

-- as a body only (without lens).

-- as a kit, including the body and the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS lens.

[John Vincent]

Thanks Chris.

john

[Daniel Corcoran]

Hi there,

Just bought the 5d mkii, and I have been reading through this forum with great interest. I bought the camera to broaden my skill base and dabble in stills whilst still having the capability in shooting video. I have a few questions on lenses before I buy my first one.

Im looking to buy a zoom lens for walk around stills and then rent/ buy primes over time for the video usage. First and foremost is the zoom lens,

If I go with the Nikon 20-200mm VR I presume I loose the VR/IS bonus, alternatively if with the Canon 20-200 I have no aperture control if I use it for video. Any experience with either or??

the 24-70mm both Nikon and Canon are my other alternatives no IS on the canon though. Am I right in saying that you loose the Nikon VR when using an adapter? also does this affect AF functions too??

Im basically looking for a good quality zoom lens for stills but can be used for video when required, any good recommendations??

How much picture quality do you loose when using other 3rd party Sigma/ Tamron
etc is it worth buying Canon/ Nikon for that extra quality and to maximize the mkii potential?

Any advice much appreciated,
Daniel

[Jon Fairhurst]

Daniel,

I'd recommend a Canon lens, since you'll be using it with stills. Having image stabilization (IS) is nice, as you can shoot in lower light. I've heard it said that IS doesn't guarantee that you can get a good shot at 1/20, but if you take multiple shots, it guarantees that some of them will be good. That would be a couple stops better than you can get with a non-IS lens, so it's cost effective.

Regarding the range, it depends on what you shoot. I got a longer lens, since my wife tends to shoot closeups. If you shoot in tight spaces or like landscapes, get something wider.

For video primes, you can get starter lenses cheap. My son got a 200m f/4 Nikon for $35. I got a 24mm Vivitar (Nikon mount) for $20. 28mm f/2.8 Nikons are cheap, as are 50mm f/1.8 lenses.

Personally, I find that the downside of inexpensive lenses isn't sharpness, it's light fall off. You need to stop down the aperture a bit, if you want even light in the corners.

And remember, you can un-twist your Canon zoom, if you want to control aperture for video.

The combination of a photo lens that you can untwist, and a few cheap primes to cover the rest of the range is the perfect way to start. That lets you learn your preferences, so you will know exactly what lenses to buy or rent in the future.

Regarding off brands, I have an old Sigma 28-70mm EF zoom that I used with an old Canon Rebel film camera. The aperture opens to f/2.8, which sounds good on paper, but gives terrible light fall off. I get the feeling that Sigma's marketing plan is to offer large apertures at low prices, but the performance at these apertures is sub-par, so beware.

Note that you can correct for light fall off in post, but your dynamic range will vary across the screen, since the processing is done in the 8-bit domain. Some fall off can actually look artistic, but don't take it too far.

[Taroen Pasman]

Originally Posted by Daniel Corcoran

...
Just bought the 5d mkii, and I have been reading through this forum with great interest. I bought the camera to broaden my skill base and dabble in stills whilst still having the capability in shooting video. I have a few questions on lenses before I buy my first one...

I find it remarkable that you've bought a top of the line prosumer camera body and then start to wonder what kind of lenses would be good. The 5D MKII is by no means a cheap body for the average amateur. I assume you're a non-professional (like myself) by the nature of your question. The lens has a far greater impact on IQ than the body. (besides availabe/created light and talent of course)

Having said that...it would help if you would state what kind of walk-around photography you're into and what kind of budget you're on. I assume you have some money to spend considering the pricetage of the 5D II body. Of course you can screw a 50mm 1.8 on the body and produce excellent results, the combination will look (and feel) unbalanced however. It's like building a Ferrari with a diesel in it.

Originally Posted by Daniel Corcoran

...
Im looking to buy a zoom lens for walk around stills and then rent/ buy primes over time for the video usage. First and foremost is the zoom lens,

If I go with the Nikon 20-200mm VR I presume I loose the VR/IS bonus, alternatively if with the Canon 20-200 I have no aperture control if I use it for video. Any experience with either or??

the 24-70mm both Nikon and Canon are my other alternatives no IS on the canon though. Am I right in saying that you loose the Nikon VR when using an adapter? also does this affect AF functions too??

Im basically looking for a good quality zoom lens for stills but can be used for video when required, any good recommendations??

The best walkaround lens from Canon is the 24-105 kit lens IMO. I've owned the lens on my 20D and 40D but never fell in love with it. I traded it for the Canon 35mm 1.4L and never looked back. The colour, contrast and sharpness of the 35mm is really something else.
Back then I didn't need the IS really (long end I use the 70-200mm 2.8 IS, short end IS is less usefull). At this point I could use the IS for video work although I heard the IS is picked up by the internal mic and a tripod is really the best solution anyway. Let's hope canon will deliver a 24-70 IS F2.8L :)

The 24-105 produces excellent IQ (check out Canon Digital SLR Camera & Lens Reviews or fredmiranda.com) It has a very good zoom range for stills and video work and isn't too light/heavy. It's a perfect lens but somehow not for me.
If you need extra shallow DOF go for the 24-70 F2.8. With the high-iso/noise capabilities of the 5D the extra stop of light isn't too big an issue. Same argument for the lack of IS really, for stills: just dial the ISO up. Unless you're printing A3 and up it's hard to tell the ISO setting from the picture. Of course IS won't help you to freeze motion, so if you shoot sports or other moving objects the IS will be useless.
Both lenses have been compared extensively (google it). Ultimately you'll need to rent/borrow both lenses for a longer period if you can't /won't afford both.
For video the IS can be very handy if you do not want/can carry a tripod along. That's the sole reason why I'm contemplatinng over the 24-105 again but it's really too expensive for my not-too-frequent noob-homevideo making.

Lenses I use most atm: 35mm 1.4, 85mm 1.2 II, 17-40 4.0 and the 70-200mm.
I find that the canon primes often give that 'extra' look with color, bokeh and contrast. It's hard to explain but that's the reason I use them most often.
For general walk-around photography they're (almost) useless if you need close-up's of people or buildings. The 35mm is too wide for close-ups and the 85mm looks intimidating to most ppl because of the large glass surface.
For my personal use the 35mm suffices. If I expect longer shots I take the 70-200mm along. I find the 85mm harder to compose for walk-around use, so it's rarly on my body when I walk around.

Originally Posted by Daniel Corcoran

...
How much picture quality do you loose when using other 3rd party Sigma/ Tamron
etc is it worth buying Canon/ Nikon for that extra quality and to maximize the mkii potential?

The IQ of 3d party can be pretty good and sometimes better. They're are many pixel-peeping sites who compare lenses extensively. (Welcome to Photozone! )
Personally I think the Canon 5D MKII with a Tamron is a weird combination but my girlfriend has accused me frequently of being a 'brand-snob' :)

For video a lot of 5D users buy Nikon lenses. After investing over 5.000€ in Canon glass I simply refuse to buy Nikon glass just to control aperture. Maybe not the most rational approach but I've known to be stubborn.
ATM I just shoot video to play with. I can work around the aperture control pretty quickly so it's not really necessary for my current use. If I shoot more video and Canon won't deal wiuth the problem by firmware I might buy Nikon glass but for now I just work-around with the issues.

The (cheap) 17-40mm is good for video when I don't want to fuss about focus. Of course you'll end up with 'ordinary' camcorder results but that's no problem for me in those situations. For shallow DOF and/or low-light I use the (not so cheap) 35mm or 85mm.
Depending on your still-requirements and budget you could opt for the 35mm 1.4L for both, it won't dissapoint you. The canon 50mm 1.8 has terrible manual focus (non hsm) so I'd go for the 50mm 1.4. For sole video use go for Nikon.

Summarized: I would go for the 24-105 IS 4.0L. Rent later the 35mm 1.4L and/or buy Nikon primes if you plan to shoot a lot of video and see for yourself what works and what not.

[Daniel Corcoran]

Originally Posted by Taroen Pasman

I find it remarkable that you've bought a top of the line prosumer camera body and then start to wonder what kind of lenses would be good. The 5D MKII is by no means a cheap body for the average amateur. I assume you're a non-professional (like myself) by the nature of your question. The lens has a far greater impact on IQ than the body. (besides availabe/created light and talent of course)

I am working as a full time professional cameraman, I own an EX1 and the reason for the 5d2 purchase was to supplement the EX1 like many here seem to be doing plus it was financed through the sale my Z1. You are right in saying that I am a relative amateur in terms of stills photography but along with my years working in TV I hope to expand my skills base and use the 5d2 along with the ex1 in a professional environment. I'm getting the best of both worlds. I would like to stress I am not a complete novice who has money to burn on the best equipment, this choice was purely made on a professional basis.

Thank you for your advice, from my own research I think I'll be buying the 24-70mm as my walkabout lens. What I am looking for is versatility and a good travel lens, all aspects of photography interest me but to begin with I'm looking for a good zoom to give me the versatility I'm also considering the 35-70mm Contax for the manual control. As I stated like most, good fast primes is what I'm after but like many again I will have to wait a while to save. I'd like to think Canon will give us the firmware soon and we'll have the choice to buy Canon primes for video would be nice to use on a letus/ EX1.

Regards,
Daniel

[Taroen Pasman]

That explains a lot :)

You really can't go wrong with the 24-70. It's one of the most popular zooms of the canon line-up and holds it value very well (like most L glass).
If the lens doesn't suit you, trading/reselling it for a good price shouldn't be a problem unless Canon decides to market an IS version :)

I'm way out of my league with professional/prosumer video work but you can always go with cheap Nikon primes and fit those to your letus adapter as well?

[Dan Chung]

The 24-70mm f2.8L is not a bad lens but a little heavy for a walk around. The construction is quite plastic and does not wear too well with serious use however in EF there is no better alternative at f2.8. I have one and quite like it but can see the advantage in the 24-105 at times. Personally I've shifted to using a wide zoom and a tele zoom with a 50mm in between a lot of the time. If you want to stay Canon then the 17-40 f4L and the 70-200 f4L are a great combination for not too much money.

Dan