Recommended Lenses for Canon 5D Mk2

[Charles Papert]

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

Very disappointing reply from Rodger about wanting to hear from a professional. This camera has actually been championed by the non professional shooter film maker. I found this same attitude from pro shooters at a recent meet up. These are the guys that have been shooting TV video for 30 years. They are the guys that are saying you can't take this camera off a tripod in the first place, or you can't record a bit of sound to the camera in a one man shoot situation. They are surprised when you pull out your camera and a Nikon lens is mounted on it, loaded with Magic Lantern, and say, something like, " How did you do that, (add a stammer and stutter) Well, I want to be able to have IS and have good sound." They have all these "can'ts" and "don'ts" that have been legislated by some or because they heard someone else say it about this particular camera, and as pros they have accepted a line, without actually going it and trying it themselves. Peter, with this camera, you are a pro....

"Professional" means someone who makes a living at a stated activity. "Amateur" means they don't. Let's not make any generalizations about people's attitudes or abilities or knowledge based on that. Owning this or any other piece of gear does not make you a pro--it makes you an equipment owner.

Can we agree that the best people to give advice on this issue are those who simply know what they are talking about? (I for instance had the one experience I noted above; these Canon IS lenses are relatively new to me, and I wouldn't be able to compare the varying IS effects of the different generations of those lenses--it's quite possible that someone who is an avid hobbyist could teach me about that)!

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Rodger Smith

i guess i thought the canon 50mm f1.4 was good glass. i couldn't find a canon 50mm L lens at b&h. maybe among the 100 or so i roused through there was one. will try again.

This is the one that you missed. It is a fabulous, sharp lens, can be used to film by candlelight & is probably my favourite of all the lenses that I own http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/457680-USA/Canon_1257B002AA_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_2L.htmlHere is a good review of this lens
Canon 50mm f/1.2

[Kris Koster]

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

Very disappointing reply from Rodger about wanting to hear from a professional. This camera has actually been championed by the non professional shooter film maker. I found this same attitude from pro shooters at a recent meet up.

Chris - I may be wrong, but in fairness to Rodger, I think he believed Pete to be the pro he wanted to hear from when he wrote that line. At least, that's how I interpreted it.

Lost in translation, perhaps? I can see how you thought he might have meant it differently! Ambiguity of the line could be read both ways!

DYLAN - That 55 1.2, is that a Micro? I have the 2.8 and find it fast and sharp enough for me... How do you find it?

[Josh Dahlberg]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

Yeah, I've got a couple of Nikkor primes... :)
24 f2.0
24 2.8
28 2.8
35 2.0
50 1.4
55 1.2
85 1.8
85 2.0
105 2.5
135 2.8
180 2.8

HI Dylan, I had a similar set of Nikkors (my range was 20mm through 135mm) until recently.

I see missing from your list are the 50 1.8 and 55 2.8 - two of my favourites. I had two copies of the 50 1.4 and the 1.8 beat them in sharpness and contrast (easily) at every aperture from 1.8 up. I'd read this but could hardly believe the slower, cheaper lens was superior until I tested it for myself. The 55 2.8 macro is delicious, you outa get yourself one...

2) I say "had a similar set" because I've begun selling it off after trying out a couple of Contax Zeiss with C/Y - EOS adaptors. Until I tried them myself, I had a feeling the mystic surrounding Zeiss was perhaps derived from snobbery... boy I was wrong. They really do have a special quality. I haven't touched my Nikkors since getting a Zeiss 50 & 85... now I want more! I'm going the Contax route because I can't afford the ZE option at present...

The two Nikkors I'm planning to keep are the 55 macro and the 105 2.5

So I just put this out there to tempt you, now that you have your prime set complete :-)

Josh

[Dylan Couper]

Replies to:

Josh - I'll probably try a few Zeiss at some point. I've gone specifically with Nikon because I want to avoid having a different "look" whether color tone/sharpness by interchanging lens brands, as I usually shoot 3-4 cameras and need them to intercut... and of course the cost effectiveness. When I get some, they'll probably be personal use only... well... at least to start.

You bring up a good point though, that most people assume the fastest lenses are the best, and it's simply not true. THere's some great 2.8 lenses for sure. Plus, who ever shoots the fast lenses wide open? The 55 1.2 doesn't get sharp until 1.8 (of course, the 1.4 doesn't get really sharp till 2-2.8)

Peer: Yes, I'll give props to anyone who buys Zeiss! I own 2-4 copies of many of the lenses in my list though, so it's not cost effective for me to buy 4 Zeiss 50 1.4's, 4 Zeiss 30 f.2's etc...

Kris - I give props to Ken Rockwell KenRockwell.com for most of the Nikon lens buying choices I've made

Perrone - Thanks! Yeah, that's the beauty of Nikon lenses... with only 3 exceptions, every lens in my list can be found for $100-$300 It's easy to put together a good range for $1000.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Rodger Smith

i guess i thought the canon 50mm f1.4 was good glass. i couldn't find a canon 50mm L lens at b&h. maybe among the 100 or so i roused through there was one. will try again.

I am not on the Canon glass bandwagon, and never will be again. Too many other people out there do it better. At least for primes. If you want electronic zoom lenses, Canon is the place to go. For anything else, I'll pass.

[Rodger Smith]

Originally Posted by Kris Koster

Chris - I may be wrong, but in fairness to Rodger, I think he believed Pete to be the pro he wanted to hear from when he wrote that line. At least, that's how I interpreted it. . . .

You're completely right Kris. I just wasn't clear in my reference. Sorry.

I just want to hear which lenses I should go with and how to get the most and best from them. Until I purchased the 5DM2 in June and the 7D in August I was 100% Nikon and had been for more years than most of the ppl in here are old and the switch over to Canon has been a welcomed move since I love the XHA1s and how wonderful the lens on it is, and want to get that same kind of PLUS look out of my 5DM2 and 7D as best as I can and as quickly as I can.

See, Ive been working profusely to get up to speed as quick as possible since I am a full time photographer and videographer and intentionally created an opening in July and August and half of September to sell all my nikon and buy all the Canon so I can learn, get experienced and up to speed by the first real pro shoot with this new gear next weekend. I'm right now very nervous. I don't feel "up" on the 580EX II and only about 60 to 80% on the 5DM2. So, this week will be my last chance to get on course.

So all the pro help I can get or amateurs who use their cameras lots is very welcomed to this newbie to Canon photography even though I have a lot of experience in photography.

Hope that helps to clarify some ?? :-) And again, sorry about the confusion.

[Kris Koster]

Although I've never been a photographer, for as long as I can remember I've always been snubbed by Nikon users for owning a Canon! :-) I've worked alongside many a Nikon photographer who have poked fun or instigated a jibe remark against Canon.

Perhaps traditionally, Nikon has always been perceived as the go to camera for professional newspaper photographers. At least that was my perception growing up, I don't know how true to life that perception is.

I'm not certain such a bias exists in the videography world. Can't speak for everyone, but I think most videophiles couldn't give a sweet jesus what brand name we use as long as the VT looks hot on the box. If there was a Nikon 5D mark II or a Nikon 7D, you can bet your life I would have bought into Nikon bodies instead.

The fact I use a Canon body with Nikkor lenses means I at least prefer the glass they make!

Perhaps the best advice is to go with what you know. You say you've been 100% Nikon, there's no need to sell all your lenses. For video work, they look awesome on a 5D or 7D (can't speak for photography usage). Nikon make great glass and it can be bought cheaply for the most part, especially manual primes.

But it all boils down to how you work. I own one Canon lens, the 17-40/f4 and I do use it a lot, mostly for amateur photography and some timelapse work. For everything else, I use the Nikkor/Zeiss primes. I set everything manual anyway and never use autofocus, so that solution works for me.

Why not have a play for a while with different combos and see what works best for you?

But if I could afford cine lenses, I'd be buying those!

[Josh Dahlberg]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

Josh - I'll probably try a few Zeiss at some point. I've gone specifically with Nikon because I want to avoid having a different "look" whether color tone/sharpness by interchanging lens brands, as I usually shoot 3-4 cameras and need them to intercut... and of course the cost effectiveness. When I get some, they'll probably be personal use only... well... at least to start.

You're absolutely right, it's best to stick to one family. On reflection I realise it is for stills (for which I use the 5D more often than video) that the Zeiss imprint is really starting to grow on me - it has a slighted affected, dreamy look - and actually for video work I probably prefer the Nikon look.

I had a set of Canon primes - not L primes but the next tier down - 28 1.8, 50 1.4, 100 2 etc - and spent a day testing them against the old AIS Nikkors. Not only are the Nikkors mechanically / ergonomically superior for video work, but they at least matched the Canon primes optically, and in most cases beat them - and of course they were smaller and cheaper. After which, I sold all my Canon primes.

The two Canon lenses I do keep (and for corporate work I use for 90% of shots) are the 24-70 L and 70-200 L IS II - the later is a fantastic lens... so versatile.

I really would add a macro (55 2.8 or 3.5) to your set. The sharpest lens I have, and very cheap.

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

(of course, the 1.4 doesn't get really sharp till 2-2.8)

Once more, in terms of CA, sharpness, contrast, my 50 1.8 easily beat both copies of the 50 1.4 at f2 and F2.8... I ended up selling the 1.4s

[Rodger Smith]

Originally Posted by Kris Koster

. . . Perhaps the best advice is to go with what you know. You say you've been 100% Nikon, there's no need to sell all your lenses. For video work, they look awesome on a 5D or 7D (can't speak for photography usage). Nikon make great glass and it can be bought cheaply for the most part, especially manual primes....

so what there's some mount that goes on the nikon lens that makes it work on a canon? and will the auto focus and all the other bells and whistles work just fine?

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Rodger Smith

so what there's some mount that goes on the nikon lens that makes it work on a canon? and will the auto focus and all the other bells and whistles work just fine?

No, you lose all the bells & whistles & must adjust focus & exposure manually. The adaptors are simple & cheap & work well Nikon Lens adapter to Canon 40D 50D 450D 500D XS 5D II - eBay (item 260512755636 end time Sep-21-10 03:46:49 PDT)

[Rodger Smith]

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

No, you lose all the bells & whistles & must adjust focus & exposure manually. The adaptors are simple & cheap & work well ...

i'll prob stick with my canon glass since i get the option for auto everything when needed which weddings they work the best except for special shots