Some timeline stills from tonight's shoot

I'm a wedding videographer primarily. I've done a few commercials and corporate pieces- but the bulk of my work is live events (ie weddings). I recently began production on my first music video. I figured it would be the perfect time to jump in with the 5DmkII and get my feet wet. We finished up the first scene tonight and have 4-5 others scheduled.

These were shot with a 50 1.2L and 135 2.0L. Some people complain about the 50 1.2 being a finicky lens- I found it wonderful to work with! Maybe the issues are more prominent on the super-high res photo side.



Got done shooting the first scene for a music video I'm producing. We have about 4-5 more scenes to shoot but I'm pleased with the results of the first.

Here are some untouched stills directly off the FCP timeline (only down-sized 50%):

[Matthew Roddy]

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

I'm thinking about a tank, motorcyle, or biplane. Out of those, which do you feel is superior? It depends! If you want to fly, a tank wont be much help. If you want to withstand hits from explosive ordinace, the motorcycle is not going to achieve that. If you want the thrill of high speeds on the open road, a tank is not the optimum choice.

Get the biplane. Fly fast and low and avoid mean people who would try to blow you up.
...Sorry...

However, if I understand the question, it was which was superior GLASS. Glen well knows the benefits of different sized lenses, I think. Though his question does lead one to believe he's asking about the sizes, so I don't know. If I could only own one lens, it would likely be my 85mm. But I'm happy I have a few to choose from.

As to the glass, I can only offer a few links:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech.htm#cameras
Lens Evaluations
Find these links and more in this thread:
Redrock Micro: create the cinema experience :: View topic - Resources for 35mm lens information, FAQs, and reviews

Hope that sort of helps.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

Yes, I'm 100% certain. I appreciate it a lot for videos with the 24mm f/1.4 II.

That's sweet. Fast glass + falloff correction = mucho goodness!

BTW, my current plan is to get fast(ish), mid-level Canon glass to own, and to rent the expensive L glass on demand. I'll be using skill(?) and/or Mylar to set the aperture.

I've got the 50mm f/1.4 and plan to get the 100 f/2 soon. I'll rent the 85 f/1.2 as needed. Similarly, I'll buy the 28 f/1.8 and rent the 24 f/1.4 L II. I also plan to buy the 200 f/2.8L, since it's the most affordable L glass. The 200 f/2.0 is out of my reach...

We've got Nikon lenses to cover 24mm to 200mm, but it's not as fast as the lenses above. The more I shoot, the more I appreciate the need for fast, flat glass.

To help fund this, I'm selling my photo 70-300 IS zoom:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/private-c...-5-6-lens.html

[Daniel Browning]

Originally Posted by Matthew Roddy

Get the biplane. Fly fast and low and avoid mean people who would try to blow you up.

Good one! :)

Originally Posted by Matthew Roddy

However, if I understand the question, it was which was superior GLASS.

I'm trying to help illustrate the fundamental flaw in the question itself, to point out what I see as its lack of purpose and utility.

What has better gas mileage, a space shuttle or a bicycle? The answer is bicycle, but does that really help the person who asked the question? If a 35mm has worse flatness of field than 135mm f/2, does that mean the 135mm is superior? No, they are just too different to compare. A 35mm can never be used the same way as 135mm, just like a bicycle cannot go to space, and the space shuttle cannot be used on dirt trails. First you have to decide what you want to do; only then can the question be asked of which is the best way to do it. To ask in the opposite order does not lead to useful information.

It doesn't matter how the lenses differ in aberrations, MTF, falloff, field curvature, distortion, etc., because they can never be used in the same way. I could see the sense in comparing lenses with smaller differences, like 85-vs-100 or 30-vs-35, because the difference in AOV/perspective is small enough that they can be used for roughly the same purpose.

[Ray Bell]

Originally Posted by Glen Elliott

I rented the lenses for this shoot however I'm thinking about investing in either a 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, or 135 2. Out of those which do you feel is the superior glass?

Here's a site that might help you out... but each of those lens' your asking about are included in the list of the Canon Magic lens list.... :-)

Photography Equipment Reviews

your just missing a few... the 100mm macro is not an L designated lens but should
be included in your list... works great as a macro lens and many claim it to be one
of the best portrait lenses in the Canon line... a very sharp lens

Canon | 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Autofocus Lens | 4657A006 | B&H

We can tell you liked the 50 1.2... the 85 1.2 is the same lens, just a little more reach...
both are fantastic lenses for low light super shallow DOF. As you know both are like holding
a glass grenade :-)

The only other lens that would beat out the 50 or 85 is the 200 1.8, which has been replaced by the 200 2.0... either the 1.8 or 2.0 will spoil you forever though, so don't go there unless you can handle what some folks call " Canon L Fever " , your pocket book will thank you... and they are not the glass grenade, they are the glass football :-)

One more site for you....

FM Reviews - Canon prime lenses

With the lenses that you rented your experiencing the best of what the 5DMKII can do...

When you put the super fast lenses on the camera you get a couple things...
The camera turns on the more sensitive focus sensors, because the faster lenses allow more light into the camera so it can use the more sensitive sensors

The camera knows what lens is on the camera and allows you to fine tune the front/back focus points.. with a fast lens wide open you dont have much DOF to play with, so the fine tuneing can be important for proper focus.

And the camera adjusts for vignetting on each lens....

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Ray Bell

your just missing a few... the 100mm micro is not an L designated lens but should
be included in your list... works great as a macro lens and many claim it to be one
of the best portrait lenses in the Canon line... a very sharp lens

Canon | 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Autofocus Lens | 4657A006 | B&H

I'll second that! I just bought my wife this lens for her birthday. I have seen it described as the most fun per dollar of any Canon lens & you can see what they mean Alice Barker's Photo- powered by SmugMug

[Jon Fairhurst]

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

I'm trying to help illustrate the fundamental flaw in the question itself, to point out what I see as its lack of purpose and utility.

On the other hand... the question can relate to which lens to buy first, and which one to own vs. rent. If one of the lenses has poor glass, you probably wouldn't want to buy it - it would be better to wait for a superior II version before buying in that range.

All said, the 85mm is at the top of my list. It's narrow enough that it provides pleasing faces. It's wide enough that you can back up and get two people's upper bodies side by side when shooting in a home. It's good for over the shoulder shots as well. With another $350 you can get a new 50mm f/1.4 for the wider, normal interior shot. It's a nice bread and butter solution, when filming people - as done in the screen grabs.

If you want head shots, the 135 is the way to go. In fact, it can do the 85mm job if you can back up far enough. We did a film recently where we jumped from 50mm covering two people at a distance to head shots, and it was too jarring a leap, IMHO.

Wide lenses work for people when you put an object in the immediate foreground and give the faces some distance. They're also nice for establishing shots. Long lenses (200+) can be used on people when you're outdoors and can really back up. They're great for making people or objects in the background unnaturally large compared to the subject.

Of course, if you shoot wildlife, bugs, or the pyramids, YMMV. But for people in narrative work, the 85mm is right in the sweet spot - especially, if you can only back the camera up so far.

And fortunately, the 85mm f/1.2 is a really sweet lens.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Regarding the 100mm f/2.8 Macro, it really doesn't substitute for a fast prime, but would definitely be lots of fun per dollar.

I've got my hands on a Nikon 105mm f/2.8 Micro AF (which has an focus ring, unlike the newest version.) While I'm torn between Canon and Nikon because of the lack of aperture control, for a macro, I lean toward the Nikon. Why? Because with macro shots, you can really take your time to get them right. If I have to snap a few photos to nail the focus and exposure, it's simply not a problem. I'll take the aperture ring over the auto focus, metering and IS, thank you.

That's not the case for fast primes, aside from maybe the wides. If you want a photo of kids, cats, dogs, wildlife, etc., you really want to be able to grab the camera, turn it on, put it in auto and shoot the moment. Sure, I want an aperture ring for video, but I hate losing the photo functions - except for with the Macro. Macros compress space - but expand time.

[Glen Elliott]

Thank you all for the input it's been very educational and much appreciated!

PS Here's a shot of my Cinevate Pegasus on the shoot...

[Elizabeth Lowrey]

Gorgeous frame grabs, Glen. Very nice work.

[Matthew Roddy]

Cool shot, Glen. Nice "little story" in that one shot.

What's the slider you're using?

[Glen Elliott]

Originally Posted by Matthew Roddy

Cool shot, Glen. Nice "little story" in that one shot.

What's the slider you're using?

Hey Matthew, it's a Cinevate Pegasus Heavy Lifter.

[Matthew Roddy]

Thanks! Looks great!
I just ordered the slider from GlideTrack.
www.glidetrack.com
It's a slider - not a "tracking device" but I'm hoping it will be quiet enough for my work.

Keep up the great work!