Recommended Lenses for Canon 5D Mk2

Bill Pryor · July 28th, 2010, 10:44 AM

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.

Rodger Smith · July 28th, 2010, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor

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" :-)

Justin Benn · July 29th, 2010, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor

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.

Tony Davies-Patrick · July 29th, 2010, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

...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. :)

Harry Simpson · July 29th, 2010, 02:34 PM

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!!

Anthony Mozora · July 30th, 2010, 11:17 PM

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!!! :)

Jon Fairhurst · July 31st, 2010, 12:20 AM

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.

Rodger Smith · July 31st, 2010, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

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.

Peer Landa · July 31st, 2010, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodger Smith

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

Let me Google that for you: Let me google that for you

-- peer

Rodger Smith · July 31st, 2010, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peer Landa

Let me Google that for you: Let me google that for you -- peer

never mind. sorry i asked.

Jon Fairhurst · July 31st, 2010, 11:40 PM

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

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.

Sabyasachi Patra · August 1st, 2010, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Davies-Patrick

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

Peer Landa · August 1st, 2010, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabyasachi Patra

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:

Rodger Smith · August 1st, 2010, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peer Landa

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. :-)

Peer Landa · August 2nd, 2010, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peer Landa

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodger Smith

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

July 29th, 2010, 02:34 PM	#20
Harry Simpson Major Player Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Nashville, TN. Posts: 581	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!! __________________ Nashville TN using Canon 5D MK3, Canon 550D, RODE SVM mic, 70-200 f2.8L II IS, 24-105 f4L IS, 50 and 85 f/1.8, Vegas Pro 11, Zoom H4n, Blackbird, Lilliput Monitor, Lightroom

July 30th, 2010, 11:17 PM	#21
Anthony Mozora Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Cyprus Posts: 152	just bought MARK II!!!! 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!!! :)

July 31st, 2010, 12:20 AM	#22
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	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. __________________ Jon Fairhurst

July 31st, 2010, 11:40 PM	#26
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	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 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. __________________ Jon Fairhurst

July 28th, 2010, 10:44 AM	#16
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	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.