Lens Combo for 5D

[Mitchell Yazdani]

Hi Guys,
What do you think about the following lens combination, for 5D to shoot for wedding VIDEO and some general photography?

50mm F1.4
80mm F1.8 or 100mm F.2
24-70 F2
24-105 F4

I only want to buy one or two lenses so as cost is important for me, so what do you recommend, or do you recommend any better combination?

Regards
Mitchell

[Richard Gooderick]

I don't do weddings but I find the 24 - 105 a very useful lens.

You will need a faster lens too for lower light conditions. Whether you go for the 50 or the 85 would depend on your shooting style ie how close in you get to the subject.

I think I would go for the 50 in order to have the fastest lens.

[Erik Andersen]

I don't think you can limit yourself to two lenses. You should have fast primes at wide, standard and telephoto and a fast (2.8) zoom such as the 70-200. So maybe this is a good list:

24 1.4
50 1.2
135 2.0
70-200 2.8

[Bill Binder]

Personally, f4 just doesn't work for me for any sort of event work, and I say that regardless of the IS. IS might make it more hand hold-able, but when you're subjects are doing the moving I'll take f2.8 or faster without IS any day... But then again I'm primarily a stills guy, not video, so not sure how this might work for you (that said, I find IS absolutely horrid for video).

[Jim Giberti]

First I can't imagine why someone would find IS horrible for Video - it's invaluable if you're running without stabilization. I've shot tons of backcountry, sports and commercial footage with nothing but the 24 to 105 (the focal range that's always been considered ideal for a cine -zoom). No offense but this isn't a stills forum and f/4 with IS is far better than a 2.8 without when it comes to shooting motion footage. With the littlest of technique you can get great floating pan and jib shots using the LCD and very solid steady shots with a Zacuto or Hoodman. For most outdoor work it's more than fast enough.

As far as an affordable, all around kit my 5DII case has the 24-105 IS, 28mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, and 80mm 1.8.

You could shoot a film with the three primes and a light tripod and the 80mm 1.8 is every bit the lens that the 80mm 1.4 is (I've got both) for a fraction of the cost and weight.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Jim Giberti

I can't imagine why someone would find IS horrible for Video

Well, we're speaking within the context of the Canon D-SLR, not a traditional video camera. The reason why IS isn't practical in this particular application is due to the fact that the noise coming from the IS motor will ruin your audio track if you're taking sound from the camera.

The camera is indeed the single worst place to take audio, but that doesn't stop many people from doing it anyway. And while you may not be able to hear the IS motor with your own ears during recording, the fact is it really is amplified in the camera and is immediately apparent on playback. This is the primary reason why IS should be avoided when shooting video from a D-SLR... unless you're recording double-system sound, but not enough people are doing that.

[Daniel Browning]

Originally Posted by Mitchell Yazdani

Hi Guys,
What do you think about the following lens combination, for 5D to shoot for wedding VIDEO and some general photography?

It depends on how good you are at hand-holding and whether you will be taking on camera sound (OCS) or not. We did a mix of wide-angle and normal lenses with OCS, short teles on shoulder mounts with OCS, and long tele with I.S. (no OCS).

My favorite wedding video lenses on the 5D2 are:

24mm f/1.4 II
35mm f/1.4
50mm f/1.2
85mm f/1.2 II
135mm f/2

They all have pretty good focus rings, nice bokeh, and little aberration. Unfortunately, many of their cheap counterparts do not:

24mm f/2.8
35mm f/2
50mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.8

Sometimes you can find good alternatives with nice focus rings and bokeh, like:

Sigma 24mm f/1.8
Sigma 50mm f/1.4

But you will have to go outside the name brand.

[Mitchell Yazdani]

Thank you for the great info, I don't have money to buy all these nice lenses, so I have to start with one first and then I add to my collection in the future.
24mm f/1.4 II
35mm f/1.4
50mm f/1.2
85mm f/1.2 II
135mm f/2

Therefore for the start I was going to will start with a 24-105 F4 as my first lens, then I will buy other one. Any better suggestion for hte first lens, and second lens please?

Regards
Mitchell

[Richard Gooderick]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

The reason why IS isn't practical in this particular application is due to the fact that the noise coming from the IS motor will ruin your audio track if you're taking sound from the camera..

I mount a Rode Stereomic on the camera. It works well for ambient sound. The audio gain will pick up the IS if there is no other sound source but generally the level of the ambient sound will drown out the IS.
Rycote does a windbreak that cuts out most windnoise. I bought it for a Zoom H4. I sold the H4 but kept the windbreak and it fits the Rode very well.
IS and ambient sound are possible using this system.
Of course, it wouldn't do for capturing any critical sound. You need double track/separate sound for that.

[Bill Binder]

Originally Posted by Jim Giberti

First I can't imagine why someone would find IS horrible for Video - it's invaluable if you're running without stabilization. I've shot tons of backcountry, sports and commercial footage with nothing but the 24 to 105 (the focal range that's always been considered ideal for a cine -zoom). No offense but this isn't a stills forum and f/4 with IS is far better than a 2.8 without when it comes to shooting motion footage. With the littlest of technique you can get great floating pan and jib shots using the LCD and very solid steady shots with a Zacuto or Hoodman. For most outdoor work it's more than fast enough.

As far as an affordable, all around kit my 5DII case has the 24-105 IS, 28mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, and 80mm 1.8.

You could shoot a film with the three primes and a light tripod and the 80mm 1.8 is every bit the lens that the 80mm 1.4 is (I've got both) for a fraction of the cost and weight.

Forget audio, on board audio is a joke from the get-go (sans wired mic that is, but even then, I personally prefer double-system BY A LONG SHOT for the music events I deal with), so that's a no-brainer...

So, does no one else feel the same way I do about IS? I'm not really talking about Mode 2 IS which some lenses have, but good old Mode 1 or standard IS. Do you guys really feel that leaving IS on helps with tracking shots, panning shots, steady cam shots, jib/crane shots? I honestly feel like it causes more problems than it's worth, but my experience is more on the hand held front, where I feel that barring a completely static shot, IS just wreaks havok during any significant movement. But what do I know, "I'm just a stills guy?" Has anyone actually done any controlled testing with and without IS for some of these situations?

[Jim Giberti]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Well, we're speaking within the context of the Canon D-SLR, not a traditional video camera. The reason why IS isn't practical in this particular application is due to the fact that the noise coming from the IS motor will ruin your audio track if you're taking sound from the camera.

The camera is indeed the single worst place to take audio, but that doesn't stop many people from doing it anyway. And while you may not be able to hear the IS motor with your own ears during recording, the fact is it really is amplified in the camera and is immediately apparent on playback. This is the primary reason why IS should be avoided when shooting video from a D-SLR... unless you're recording double-system sound, but not enough people are doing that.

I didn't see any mention of audio but of course recording direct to the 5D with out ML and with image stabilization would be dumb. I was just responding to what he wrote to clarify that filming handheld with an f4 with IS is definitely better, not worse than a 2.8 without IS.

[Jim Giberti]

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

It depends on how good you are at hand-holding and whether you will be taking on camera sound (OCS) or not. We did a mix of wide-angle and normal lenses with OCS, short teles on shoulder mounts with OCS, and long tele with I.S. (no OCS).

My favorite wedding video lenses on the 5D2 are:

24mm f/1.4 II
35mm f/1.4
50mm f/1.2
85mm f/1.2 II
135mm f/2

They all have pretty good focus rings, nice bokeh, and little aberration. Unfortunately, many of their cheap counterparts do not:

24mm f/2.8
35mm f/2
50mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.8

Sometimes you can find good alternatives with nice focus rings and bokeh, like:

Sigma 24mm f/1.8
Sigma 50mm f/1.4

But you will have to go outside the name brand.

I've honestly never heard anyone whose use the 85mm 1.8 call it a cheap counterpart. In reality it's actually quite well built, a bit sharper than the 1.4 and has good manual focusing considering it costs a fraction of the 1.4. The original poster didn't seem like a candidate for $1200 -1800 primes, and the next level 28mm 50mm and 85mm are great lenses for most purposes a lot cheaper, smaller and lighter so they have their upsides too.. Again I've got L versions of the 50 and 85 and use the lighter ones a lot.

[Jim Giberti]

Originally Posted by Bill Binder

Forget audio, on board audio is a joke from the get-go (sans wired mic that is, but even then, I personally prefer double-system BY A LONG SHOT for the music events I deal with), so that's a no-brainer...

So, does no one else feel the same way I do about IS? I'm not really talking about Mode 2 IS which some lenses have, but good old Mode 1 or standard IS. Do you guys really feel that leaving IS on helps with tracking shots, panning shots, steady cam shots, jib/crane shots? I honestly feel like it causes more problems than it's worth, but my experience is more on the hand held front, where I feel that barring a completely static shot, IS just wreaks havok during any significant movement. But what do I know, "I'm just a stills guy?" Has anyone actually done any controlled testing with and without IS for some of these situations?

I've done extensive testing and there's no comparison. We do a lot of work in places that don't practically allow for stabilization at times and have hours of footage that looks as good as of it were on a small jib - you could never do that with a prime without IS. THe real trick, even with relatively fixed shots is to always have a little lateral or vertical movement ...it keeps the IS very smooth and the shots look remarkable.

[Olof Ekbergh]

I would buy the 70-200 f2.8 IS as a second if you can afford it. Very versatile and fantastic for portraits and intimate work. And it compliments the 24-105 very well, faster and longer.

I don't do weddings. But I do a fair amount of portraits.

And yes I shoot a lot of video. The 5D is my C-cam, EX3 is A and B. But I love to shoot the 5D with 70-200, and I use the 24-105 a lot for video too.

For most of my video I try to shoot at around f5.6 for most lenses. And for shallow focus 2.8 works really well with the 70-200.

[Daniel Browning]

Originally Posted by Jim Giberti

I've honestly never heard anyone whose use the 85mm 1.8 call it a cheap counterpart.

I didn't mean "cheap" as a derogatory term; I should have said "inexpensive".

I have used the 85mm f/1.8, and I should not have listed it with the others (24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4) because it has far better build, focus, and bokeh. In some ways it is in even superior to the 85mm f/1.2 (mechanically linked focus, AF speed).

Originally Posted by Jim Giberti

In reality it's actually quite well built, a bit sharper than the 1.4 and has good manual focusing considering it costs a fraction of the 1.4.

Actually, the 85mm f/1.8 is slightly softer than the 50mm f/1.4 but this is more than made up by having less halation and flare, which gives it superior pictures in every case except low contrast. It's also the same price as the 1.4.

If you meant the 50mm f/1.2, then yes, the 85mm f/1.8 is sharper at a fraction of the cost, but that's because of intentionally undercorrected spherical aberration in the 50mm f/1.2, which gives it the unique bokeh at the cost of resolution and focus shift.

Originally Posted by Jim Giberti

The original poster didn't seem like a candidate for $1200 -1800 primes, and the next level 28mm 50mm and 85mm are great lenses for most purposes a lot cheaper, smaller and lighter so they have their upsides too.. Again I've got L versions of the 50 and 85 and use the lighter ones a lot.

Agreed. For stills shooting on a budget, I think Canon's non-L primes are the best choice out there: providing excellent autofocus speed and sharpness. But for video, if you can't afford L, then I think one should very carefully consider the many non-Canon alternatives. The Sigma lenses I mentioned are one example. They run circles around Canon for only slightly more money. I even think that some older manual lenses on an adapter can be a superior choice when it comes to manual focus rings. Almost anything is better than the rings that come with the 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.4.