Recommended Lenses for Canon 5D Mk2

Sergio Perez · August 7th, 2010, 10:23 AM

Well, since I don't do much interviews, I mainly have a set of primes and 1 zoom for my fiction work. They are

14 2.8L - Fantastic wide angle with low distortion. This lens gives you a perspective no other lens can give in full frame. There's a Sigma 12-20 zoom (something like that). Tried it, but has distortion at the wide end.

24 1.4- This is the lens I'm using the most. Excelent color, extremely good for low light. Excelent for medium close ups and for some close ups. Gives them a diferent look from the standard 50mm look.

50 1.4- Its the lens I use most for portraits. I love natural light and this lens is a most for low light situations.

135 2.0- the sharpest lens I have. Its true, the word of mouth is this is one of the sharpest lenses Canon does, and it really is the sharpest from my set. Excelent for small telephoto shots. Gives a ver, very good bokeh, but "demands" a tripod due to its lack of IS.

16-35mm zoom- Wide shots and Low DOF shots are what I require from my DSLR's, and this Zoom, while 2.8. provides a very good "wide" coverage for those situations were I just can't switch lenses. However, I feel the need for a 70-200 2.8L IS. Its great for events, like motorsports.

Lenses I used and found very useful for motorsport coverage

Motorsport shooting is something I do once a year professionaly, and I've found this set of lenses to be very useful

70-200 2.8 IS- Very, very good lens. Never tried the II, but the I one was excelent and versatile for Paddock and pit-lane coverage. Still a bit short for on the track

28-300L IS - This is an underrated lens, and was an excellent all round lens for on track coverage. The push zoom takes a while to get used to, but its very sharp and has an unbeatable range.

Lens I would love to try out on the track: 300 2.8L prime, 400 2.8L Prime.

Notice: from 200mmm above, the rolling shutter effects gets close to being uncontrolable. Still shots, no panning or very very slow panning only!

Anthony Mozora · August 9th, 2010, 11:58 PM

Hello guys I would like to have ur thoughts about this lences...

Canon 16-35mm 2.8

Sigma 24-70 mm 2.8

Canon 15mm 2.8 fisheye

I need to shoot a music videoclip and the only lence i Have now is the canon 50mm 1.8 ( I have also nikkor 14-24,24-70 and 70-200 but the nikon to canon adapter that I bought from BH will not come till end of August and I can't w8 till then and I dont know if that adapter will work anyway)

Peer Landa · August 10th, 2010, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Mozora

Hello guys I would like to have ur thoughts about this lences...
Canon 16-35mm 2.8
Sigma 24-70 mm 2.8
Canon 15mm 2.8 fisheye

The Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 is a very nice and useful lens, (next to my 70-200 f/2.8, I use this lens the most).

I had a Sigma 15mm f/2.8 that was VERY nice (and is more affordable than the Canon), and it's built like a tank.

The Sigma 24-70 I don't know at all.

-- peer

Anthony Mozora · August 10th, 2010, 12:44 AM

thank u for ur quick reply Peer,

I just found out that there are

2 series of CANON 16-35 the Li and the Lii , the li is half price of the lii

does the lii worth the extra cost?

Daniel Browning · August 10th, 2010, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Mozora

...[is] the lii worth the extra cost?

The new version has less barrel distortion, less flare, more contrast/sharpness (especially in the corners), and slightly better bokeh. If the budget can handle it, I would say it's worth it.

Anthony Mozora · August 10th, 2010, 12:15 PM

thank u Daniel

i foun the L version at 570 euro and the lii version at 1200 euro, double price..... My budget can hold the difference ....

Greg Kiger · August 11th, 2010, 09:14 PM

With a 5d there is a big difference in the look of a shot at f4 vs f2. Also the wider apertures glass usually comes with better coatings etc. Add that zooms just don't offer the same sharpness in my experience and that explains my case of heavy and expensive prime lenses. Zooms and fast changes are not what i need, super shallow depth of field interviews and arty B roll is all i want.

Thus an 85mm 1.4 - super sharp and beautiful soft out of focus areas. The autofocus is worthless though but in good light with a stable subject its all good. Many people swear by the 100 macro instead of the 85mm. Also have a 50mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 24 1.4. Add extension tubes and you have macro. All amazing lenses!

PS - in my opinion any discussion about sharper non-Canon glass is way to far up the diminishing returns curve to waste time with.

Happy shooting :)

Sergio Perez · August 17th, 2010, 10:56 PM

Another thing to consider is color balance of each manufacturer and lens.

I stick with Canon glass because even though you can get slight variations in color from each Canon lens, if you go from a Canon to a Sigma, for example, the difference is huge- this means more work in post-production and a hassle.

Peer Landa · August 18th, 2010, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sergio Perez

I stick with Canon glass because even though you can get slight variations in color from each Canon lens, if you go from a Canon to a Sigma, for example, the difference is huge- this means more work in post-production and a hassle.

Or maybe non-canon glass will suit some people better -- i.e., less work and no hassle. Although I got my share of L lenses that I'm very happy with, I yet prefer shooting with (when possible) some old Carl Zeiss, Isco, or even a 15mm Sigma. Hence, what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander.

-- peer

Dylan Couper · August 24th, 2010, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Mozora

Hello guys I would like to have ur thoughts about this lences...

Canon 16-35mm 2.8

Great lens, love it. If you don't need the stop, the 17-40L f4 is about $800 cheaper and sharper at the wide end.

Quote:

Sigma 24-70 mm 2.8

There are several versions on this. Suffers from the Sigma "get a good copy" issue. There are lots of soft ones out there (again, depending on which version you get). I think Ken Rockwell did a good review on it.

Quote:

Canon 15mm 2.8 fisheye

Never used it.

Quote:

I need to shoot a music videoclip and the only lence i Have now is the canon 50mm 1.8 ( I have also nikkor 14-24,24-70 and 70-200 but the nikon to canon adapter that I bought from BH will not come till end of August and I can't w8 till then and I dont know if that adapter will work anyway)

Thats a shame, it's some great glass. I'd rather pay for overnight shipping and get these lenses working than spend a penny on anything else.

Charles Papert · August 24th, 2010, 12:47 PM

For me it's the Zeiss ZE's--I have a set of 6 from 21 to 100 macro (I decided to forego the 18 for various reasons). With my setup I'm able to offer my focus pullers exactly the same accuracy as if they were working with cine lenses (i.e. Master/Ultra primes, S4's etc), which is a big deal because of the critical focus required with these cameras. I've successfully intercut with the Canon zooms, but I'm hoping to find a manual alternative soon.

Peer Landa · September 6th, 2010, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodger Smith

Ok I'm a newbie to the 5D Mk2 and not that familiar with the Canon lenses [...] I do weddings and a little corporate work and will be using this camera for all my movie making.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Chilson

[...] if you can afford the 70-200 why bother? 70-200 is so good I know some people who never remove it from the body of their camera.

I completely agree with David -- the 70-200 f/2.8 is my most versatile lens. The only issues I have with it -- its weight & size, and that it has no focus pull-stops (for the follow focus). Still yet, I almost always carry it with me, no matter what shoot it's for.

Apparently the 70-200 is also often used for weddings:
YouTube - Wedding Photographer Falls Into Water Fountain
Poor guy.

-- peer

Rodger Smith · September 6th, 2010, 08:49 PM

OK here's my lens selection delima's so far:

CANON 16-35mm f2.8 L USM - i picked up this lens for great width close in, i like the look and feel of the lens but it does NOT have IS and even though it works great i see slight edge blurs when using it for weddings. :-(

CANON 24-70mm f2.8 L USM - i picked this up for all around use and even though i like the look and feel of the lens with flash because it does not have IS i see some edge blur making it difficult to chose for weddings. :-(

im loving the camera and the absolutely awesome shots when the picture is in focus and clean, but im really disappointed that these two above quality lenses do not have an IS version and there is none made by canon. im thinking that a higher f stop with IS would be better or just like a lower f stop if it has IS when using flash.

thoughts ???

Steve Wolla · September 7th, 2010, 12:53 AM

Do you really need the f/2.8 of the 24-70mm? The 24-105mm f/4 does have IS, sounds like the IS may be more important to you? It was for me--I currently use the 24-105 f/4L IS USM, ands the 70-200mm F/2.8 IS USM. Not a bad all-around combo.
SW

Sabyasachi Patra · September 7th, 2010, 01:11 AM

I have the 24-70 f2.8. At times in low light, I do feel the need for f2.8. Also, an IS would be really welcome. Before using this lens, I never thought that I will require an IS. I was clicking and filming a tigress with both the 24-105 f4 L as well as the 24-70 f2.8. I felt the need for IS in the 24-70.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

August 7th, 2010, 10:23 AM	#46
Sergio Perez Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Macau Posts: 331	Lenses Well, since I don't do much interviews, I mainly have a set of primes and 1 zoom for my fiction work. They are 14 2.8L - Fantastic wide angle with low distortion. This lens gives you a perspective no other lens can give in full frame. There's a Sigma 12-20 zoom (something like that). Tried it, but has distortion at the wide end. 24 1.4- This is the lens I'm using the most. Excelent color, extremely good for low light. Excelent for medium close ups and for some close ups. Gives them a diferent look from the standard 50mm look. 50 1.4- Its the lens I use most for portraits. I love natural light and this lens is a most for low light situations. 135 2.0- the sharpest lens I have. Its true, the word of mouth is this is one of the sharpest lenses Canon does, and it really is the sharpest from my set. Excelent for small telephoto shots. Gives a ver, very good bokeh, but "demands" a tripod due to its lack of IS. 16-35mm zoom- Wide shots and Low DOF shots are what I require from my DSLR's, and this Zoom, while 2.8. provides a very good "wide" coverage for those situations were I just can't switch lenses. However, I feel the need for a 70-200 2.8L IS. Its great for events, like motorsports. Lenses I used and found very useful for motorsport coverage Motorsport shooting is something I do once a year professionaly, and I've found this set of lenses to be very useful 70-200 2.8 IS- Very, very good lens. Never tried the II, but the I one was excelent and versatile for Paddock and pit-lane coverage. Still a bit short for on the track 28-300L IS - This is an underrated lens, and was an excellent all round lens for on track coverage. The push zoom takes a while to get used to, but its very sharp and has an unbeatable range. Lens I would love to try out on the track: 300 2.8L prime, 400 2.8L Prime. Notice: from 200mmm above, the rolling shutter effects gets close to being uncontrolable. Still shots, no panning or very very slow panning only! __________________ If you don't believe in your film, no one else will.

August 11th, 2010, 09:14 PM	#52
Greg Kiger Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 134	With a 5d there is a big difference in the look of a shot at f4 vs f2. Also the wider apertures glass usually comes with better coatings etc. Add that zooms just don't offer the same sharpness in my experience and that explains my case of heavy and expensive prime lenses. Zooms and fast changes are not what i need, super shallow depth of field interviews and arty B roll is all i want. Thus an 85mm 1.4 - super sharp and beautiful soft out of focus areas. The autofocus is worthless though but in good light with a stable subject its all good. Many people swear by the 100 macro instead of the 85mm. Also have a 50mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 24 1.4. Add extension tubes and you have macro. All amazing lenses! PS - in my opinion any discussion about sharper non-Canon glass is way to far up the diminishing returns curve to waste time with. Happy shooting :) __________________ Greg Kiger St Louis Mo www.GreenBridgeFilms.com Sony EX1 / Canon 5Dm2 / Cool Lights / DP1x / Marshall / Oktava / Sanken / Kessler

August 17th, 2010, 10:56 PM	#53
Sergio Perez Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Macau Posts: 331	Another thing to consider is color balance of each manufacturer and lens. I stick with Canon glass because even though you can get slight variations in color from each Canon lens, if you go from a Canon to a Sigma, for example, the difference is huge- this means more work in post-production and a hassle. __________________ If you don't believe in your film, no one else will.

August 24th, 2010, 12:47 PM	#56
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	For me it's the Zeiss ZE's--I have a set of 6 from 21 to 100 macro (I decided to forego the 18 for various reasons). With my setup I'm able to offer my focus pullers exactly the same accuracy as if they were working with cine lenses (i.e. Master/Ultra primes, S4's etc), which is a big deal because of the critical focus required with these cameras. I've successfully intercut with the Canon zooms, but I'm hoping to find a manual alternative soon. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

September 6th, 2010, 08:49 PM	#58
Rodger Smith Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Portsmouth, OH Posts: 118	OK here's my lens selection delima's so far: CANON 16-35mm f2.8 L USM - i picked up this lens for great width close in, i like the look and feel of the lens but it does NOT have IS and even though it works great i see slight edge blurs when using it for weddings. :-( CANON 24-70mm f2.8 L USM - i picked this up for all around use and even though i like the look and feel of the lens with flash because it does not have IS i see some edge blur making it difficult to chose for weddings. :-( im loving the camera and the absolutely awesome shots when the picture is in focus and clean, but im really disappointed that these two above quality lenses do not have an IS version and there is none made by canon. im thinking that a higher f stop with IS would be better or just like a lower f stop if it has IS when using flash. thoughts ??? __________________ "Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do."

August 9th, 2010, 11:58 PM	#47
Anthony Mozora Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Cyprus Posts: 152	Hello guys I would like to have ur thoughts about this lences... Canon 16-35mm 2.8 Sigma 24-70 mm 2.8 Canon 15mm 2.8 fisheye I need to shoot a music videoclip and the only lence i Have now is the canon 50mm 1.8 ( I have also nikkor 14-24,24-70 and 70-200 but the nikon to canon adapter that I bought from BH will not come till end of August and I can't w8 till then and I dont know if that adapter will work anyway)

August 10th, 2010, 12:44 AM	#49
Anthony Mozora Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Cyprus Posts: 152	thank u for ur quick reply Peer, I just found out that there are 2 series of CANON 16-35 the Li and the Lii , the li is half price of the lii does the lii worth the extra cost?

August 10th, 2010, 12:15 PM	#51
Anthony Mozora Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Cyprus Posts: 152	thank u Daniel i foun the L version at 570 euro and the lii version at 1200 euro, double price..... My budget can hold the difference ....

September 7th, 2010, 12:53 AM	#59
Steve Wolla Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 477	Do you really need the f/2.8 of the 24-70mm? The 24-105mm f/4 does have IS, sounds like the IS may be more important to you? It was for me--I currently use the 24-105 f/4L IS USM, ands the 70-200mm F/2.8 IS USM. Not a bad all-around combo. SW

September 7th, 2010, 01:11 AM	#60
Sabyasachi Patra Major Player Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: New Delhi, India Posts: 507	I have the 24-70 f2.8. At times in low light, I do feel the need for f2.8. Also, an IS would be really welcome. Before using this lens, I never thought that I will require an IS. I was clicking and filming a tigress with both the 24-105 f4 L as well as the 24-70 f2.8. I felt the need for IS in the 24-70. Cheers, Sabyasachi __________________ Wild Tiger Productions http://www.indiawilds.com/about.htm