Canon Glass Questions

[Paul Cronin]

I am going to purchase a Canon 5D MKIII today. I had a 5D MKII and 7D for projects in the past and both were great at making money for the business. Looked into the Nikon D600 and D800 but have decided on Canon.

My question is about a few lens I have not used and how current owners like the glass. First off I shoot 90-95% RAW stills. For video I use my video gear. But I shoot stills while on the same jobs and make it all work. Some of the stills are put in videos by client request.

I like and need wide glass. So my choice is the following:

Canon 14mm f/2.8L (interior shots and effect landscapes)

Canon 8-15mm fisheye f/4L (at times for effects)

When I need to go longer:
EF 70-200 f/2.8L

Not sure which of the following three I would like but at this time only one makes it in the kit for the next three jobs. Then I could add another.
EF 17-40 f/4L
or
EF 16-35 f/2.8L (had this in the past and really like it but don't know if it is that much better then the 17-40?)

EF 24-70 f/2.8/L (no IS is a problem for me but I know it is sharp. What is a better option in the same range?)

[Robert Turchick]

I shoot a good deal of stills as well as video with the 5D mk3.
I have the 16-35 and 24-70 as well as a 24-105.

The 24-105 is a good lens that has IS but is an f4. For outdoors its perfect but indoors I prefer the 24-70 at 2.8 if needed. The IS is really nice to have on the video side of things however.

the 16-35 is not quite as sharp but does have a much wider view. I used it alongside the 24-70 for all my storm chasing and lightning pics, each on a 5D mk3. As long as it's around f8 up to f16 it's just fine. You then have to take advantage of the mk3's low noise high ISO capability which equalizes things a bit.

I have not used the 17-40 but have heard good things about it as well. It is limited by the f4 and no IS.

I saw a side by side of the 24-70 and the mkII. The only real difference is the edge sharpness which to some will be important. To me it's not worth the extra $1K!

I am looking forward to Zeiss releasing their 15mm f2.8 in a week or so which should reign as king of all wide lenses. Unfortunately it's pricey, no auto focus and no IS! For what I do with landscapes it will be worth it!

[Paul Cronin]

HI Robert,

Thanks for the input very much appreciated.

I did not have the 24-105 on my list and should look into that option. Would be interesting with the better low light on the MKIII to see if this would work inside?

Have you tried the Canon 14mm f/2.8L?

[Robert Turchick]

Have not tried the 14mm 2.8. Read very good things about it but then the Zeiss 15mm 2.8 was announced. It's just in a different league...and unfortunately double the price! Seems they've solved the weird distortion that is present in their 18mm and 21mm.

I want to start my Zeiss collection with that and the 35mm which is supposed to be another monster lens.

And then there's my other friend the 400mm f2.8L USMII. I may pick one up as I do a lot of aviation and wildlife work. The 70-200 with doubler just isn't enough!

I have a gig coming up that may justify this insane amount of dough for glass but none will be had til November. I figure it's investing in the career so it'll be worth it in the long run! Once you buy good glass, you don't have to do it again!

[Kris Koster]

I've used most of the Canon glass at one time or another. I have to say that my favourite Canon lens of all time is the 14mm 2.8 mark II - It's just incredible. Make sure you get the mark II if you buy 2nd hand, it's far superior to the mark I.

I don't know why you would consider the fish-eye for video. It's a gimmick and won't be a lot of use to you. If you're going to select new glass, go for lenses that will afford you plenty of use first before you buy that stuff.

The 14mm is amazing and I use it in all kinds of scenarios. I find it most useful to be really close to an object with it, but compose the shot such that the object is shown in relation to its surroundings. It gives a very unique perspective when used like this. Try not to use the lens as a practical method to 'get everything into the shot' (such as a landscape) otherwise it looks boring and I don't believe ultra-wides should be used typically in that fashion anyway. (Although the exception is real-estate photography to help make the rooms look bigger!)

I have the Zeiss 35mm Distagon *T f2.0 and it is also one of my favourite lenses and always in my kit bag. The 1.4 version is a lot more expensive and not worth it in my opinion. The f2 works just as perfect for videography use.

The other prime I have is the 50mm 1.2L which I use predominantly and never fails to give me superb shots.

For telephoto, I use the 70-200 IS USM II f2.8 L - I can't justify buying the 80mm prime for that reason. If I need to go longer, which is rare, I use the x2 extender mark III.

I also have the 17-40 f4 L you mentioned, but it doesn't get a lot of use these days.
I have a couple of manual Nikon lenses too for macro work.




.

[Tom Gresham]

Rob, I love the idea of the 15mm Zeiss, but at three grand, that's a stretch.

Still . . . Good glass lasts pretty much forever. Unfortunately, so does bad glass.

[Paul Cronin]

Thanks Robert appreciate the input. From my research Zeiss on Canon are a great match. Maybe I should get the Canon 14mm and then a couple of Zeiss primes to span to the 70-200?

I bet the 400 is a nice lens but it is very rare for me to have to go that long. But after saying that if I had it I would use it. For now it is only the glass that makes money right off the bat.

Kris that is great to hear and I will make sure it is the version II, USA. For me it would be for stills, video with the 5D MKIII would be about 5% if that. When I shoot boat interiors it would be perfect and other tight spots where I need coverage. Could be used at sunrise or sunset if the colors cover the whole sky like they did here last night. On the water sailing through sunset and no camera, what I crime. But the internal hard drive has it in storage.

Kris what do you use between the 14 and 35mm?

I think the 70-200 2.8 II is a must for me. Robert mentioned the 24-105 but there seems to be too much overlap with the 70-200 so one has to give. And I might just get three primes to span the 14-70 range.

You guys have been very helpful, keep it coming.

[Pete Bauer]

I have the 8-15 fisheye and think it is a great lens. But it is a fisheye so if you want a rectilinear view, wouldn't be the best lens for the purpose and for that a trusted friend who has used the 14mm Canon says I need to give that a try. I have not yet shot with a 14, but he raves on it. Not cheap, but we usually get what we pay for.

[Paul Cronin]

Thanks Peter I think the 14mm is a go and the fisheye is on hold since it would not make money right off. It would more be for effect and that does not always work for the client.

As for price still glass does not seem that expensive after owning a bunch of 2/3" HD broadcast glass, yikes. Trying to sell a 1/2" HD one now and that will cover a few primes.

I like you signature

[Nigel Barker]

If you have the money for the Canon 14mm then it is a beautiful lens on the other hand if you want an affordable 14mm then the Rokinon/Samyang/Bower manual F/2.8 is a decent lens. Probably not as sharp as the Canon & it is manual only (although AF is moot as everything is in focus on a 14mm lens:-) but a helluva lot cheaper. I also own the Canon 16-35mm F/2.8L II & TBH it's nearly as wide as the 14mm but more useful as you can use it as a normal 24-28-35mm wide angle as well.

[Paul Cronin]

Nigel you make a great point about the 16-35 and Rokinon 14mm. I am tight for a couple of weeks with funds as we all are. But need wide for next week. Ah the fun we have being gear geeks and making sure we invest properly.

Nigel I like your site.

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Paul Cronin

Nigel you make a great point about the 16-35 and Rokinon 14mm. I am tight for a couple of weeks with funds as we all are. But need wide for next week. Ah the fun we have being gear geeks and making sure we invest properly.

Nigel I like your site.

Thanks for the kind words. I am the gear geek which frees my wife to be the creative one:-)

[Paul Cronin]

Quick update:

Purchased 5D MKIII and Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 II USM lens today. Will start adding glass over the next few weeks. I do have a 24-105 I can borrow from a buddy in the next week. But the first job this is needed for interiors for the 14mm will be great.

I have four Sandisk Extreme UDMA 60MB/s 32GB cards. These should be fine with on the MKIII correct?

After all of this research it looks like I am going to move from Sony video to the Canon C300. Once I sell my Fujinon HSs broadcast lens and EX3 kit. With a building supply of EF glass and the stunning footage I keep seeing from the C300 it just makes sense. Also the IS on the camera with the right lens will greatly improve some of my shoulder work.

Thanks again guys.

Paul Cronin
Where Video Meets Boats
Have Fun Every Day!

[Kris Koster]

Originally Posted by Paul Cronin

Kris what do you use between the 14 and 35mm?

I see you've bought the Canon 14. Expensive as it is, you won't be disappointed with it. Should you ever feel the need to sell, they retain their value anyway.

Between 14 and 35 is a bit of a no-man's land for me, remember I said I had the 17-40 f4? Although it is L glass and so pro-grade, I don't rate it highly for its image, I find it rather standard.

I do have a manual Nikon prime 24, but I don't use it a lot. Someone else might have a suggestion for a prime between 14 and 35 that produces a sexy image for the 5D3, but I haven't discovered it yet.

Happy shooting with your new gear!

[Charles W. Hull]

Of all my Canon glass the 17-40 f/4 is the worst performer; just not sharp enough for the MKIII. I haven't used the 16-35 f/2.8, but lens reviewers usually rate it a little higher than the 17-40.