Thoughts on my first real shoot with the 5DIII

[Axilrod]

congrats on your 5d3, I like mine too.  question though, why do you like the zeiss lenses so much? i ask because when i read the lens review sites, they rank the zeiss lenses as equal to or less than canon or nikon glass.

also, where did the canon 135 go?  why wouldn't you keep using it on the new set up?  some would say it's the best lens you own.

don't take my questions the wrong way, i'm just trying to learn more and you obviously have significant experience/knowledge, so i'm pick'n your brain a bit, that's all...

Well since I was shooting with Zeiss glass for the first time I didn't want to throw Canon lenses into the mix.  The Zeiss lenses have their own look and throwing one Canon lens into the mix would have required more color correction.

Aside from trying to stick to the same brand, we were in a pretty tight space and the the 85 made a lot more sense for the situation (the 135 would have been too long).  But there were plenty of cases when I was using all Canon glass that I used the 85 over the 135 and was never disappointed with the resuts, they are pretty equal in terms of sharpness.  I love the 135, it's an awesome lens and one of the few I plan on keeping after I switch over to Zeiss.  The Zeiss lenses are awesome and I wrote my reasons in the last paragraph of the first post. 

[Axilrod]

Thanks for the reply!!

Yeah, I was looking at that Zeiss 50mm. That does look to be the first one that is 'relatively' priced.

I'll likely bag that one after I pay off the initial purchase.  I found my old Nikon FA film camera from years back. It has what is now a cheap, but I read decent 50mm lens on it. I figure with an adapter, I can use that for video on initial purchase....till I can afford the Zeiss.

Just curious...why do you say the 85mm is limiting?  Can you expand on your thoughts on the 85mm?

Thank you,

cayenne

I would say that 85mm is limiting if it was the only lens that you had, since it is fairly tight and considered more of a portrait focal length.  It's still a great, awesome lens, I would just always get a 50mm first since you can do so much more with it.  With the 85mm you would find yourself having to back up pretty far from the subject to get certain framing, but with the 50 not so much.  Either one is great, but if I had to get one before the other it would be the 50mm, that's just a "standard" focal length.  Not quite wide but not quite telephoto, just right.

[Axilrod]

compared to true 1080p footage. you got some reading to do:
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7631/panasonic-gh2-vs-5d-mark-iii

the mkIII is very soft even among other DSLRs. removing the OLP helps a little but still trails in detail and definitively doesn't deliver anywhere close to the quality of true 1080p. Sorry but for 3500 dollars, it should do better.

I've read every single article on EOSHD, I've used the FS100, C300, played with the Scarlett, and sure the 5DIII may not resolve true 1080p but I still think the footage looks great.  Yes it could look better, but I wouldn't call it "poor" ever.  This is an example of what I would consider "poor quality":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yUi1SVPHwQ
	Small | Large

So sorry, I just can't put the 5DIII in the poor quality category, sure maybe "fair," "decent," or "not quite 1080p" category would be appropriate, but "poor?"  Come on.  5DIII is better than 5DII, which would make the 5DII terribly poor, but if that was the case then no one would have ever noticed it and the DSLR revolution never would have happen, but as I remember that's not quite how things went down. 

And no one that watches the stuff I do is counting lines of resolution, they all think it looks amazing.  You have to remember your audience usually isn't a bunch of pixel-peepers, and 99% of the time they just can't tell the difference.  I still think it's a great camera for $3500, and the stills features more than make up for it's shortcomings on the video side. 

I have to ask, what exactly are you shooting that the 5DIII would ruin the quality of the content/story?  The 5DII has been used on House, 24, commercials, award-winning movies, etc.  James Cameron used it for personal projects, yet somehow it's not good enough for you?  Content is king, and if a couple hundred lines of resolution are enough to ruin your project you probably have no business shooting video in the first place.  At this stage it doesn't matter, you should be able to make an awesome movie with a 5DII or 5DIII, but I guess it's easier to tell yourself "if only I had an Alexa, then I could make the greatest movie ever!"

[Axilrod]

Though, I'm not the original poster, I agree with him completely.

The Zeiss lenses are corner to corner sharp on full frame cameras. But for video, it is their focusing ring that truly shines. I was extremely loyal to Canon lenses but thankfully rented the Zeiss 21mm to shoot a film. After using the Zeiss, I loved it so much that I sold the incredible Canon TS-E 90mm to buy a Zeiss 35mm f2.

I did reshoots for the movie on the 35mm Zeiss and everyone has noticed that the footage is even better than the 21mm.

I still use Canon L lenses for photography when I'm not locked down on a tripod, as the manual focus of the Zeiss pretty much negates its sharpness for walkaround photography. But for video, I'm grabbing my Zeiss 35 or renting another Zeiss.

Ahhh that 21mm is the one I truly loved, such an amazing wide-angle lens.  I've heard great things about the 35 f/2, it's an excellent lens especially considering the price and just as sharp as the 35L.  The ZE 35 1.4 was not so impressive, showed a good bit of CA wide open and I didn't think the IQ was much better than the f/2.  But yes they are just the best for video without a doubt.  A lot of people don't realize that the CP.2's are just ZE's in a different housing. 

Have you used the ZE 100mm Makro yet?  Ridiculously amazing, that's the sharpest of all of them.  It's the only ZE lens with master prime optics (which are $22,000-$25,000/lens).  Try it out, it's absolutely stunning.

[Northstar]

Though, I'm not the original poster, I agree with him completely.

The Zeiss lenses are corner to corner sharp on full frame cameras. But for video, it is their focusing ring that truly shines. I was extremely loyal to Canon lenses but thankfully rented the Zeiss 21mm to shoot a film. After using the Zeiss, I loved it so much that I sold the incredible Canon TS-E 90mm to buy a Zeiss 35mm f2.

I did reshoots for the movie on the 35mm Zeiss and everyone has noticed that the footage is even better than the 21mm.

I still use Canon L lenses for photography when I'm not locked down on a tripod, as the manual focus of the Zeiss pretty much negates its sharpness for walkaround photography. But for video, I'm grabbing my Zeiss 35 or renting another Zeiss.

Ahhh that 21mm is the one I truly loved, such an amazing wide-angle lens.  I've heard great things about the 35 f/2, it's an excellent lens especially considering the price and just as sharp as the 35L.  The ZE 35 1.4 was not so impressive, showed a good bit of CA wide open and I didn't think the IQ was much better than the f/2.  But yes they are just the best for video without a doubt.  A lot of people don't realize that the CP.2's are just ZE's in a different housing. 

Have you used the 100mm Makro yet?  Ridiculously amazing, that's the sharpest of all of them.  It's the only ZE lens with master prime optics (which are $22,000-$25,000/lens).  Try it out, it's absolutely stunning.

Axil....I've been looking at that 100 macro...are you referring to the L version or are you referring to the less expensive version?   or both?

[Axilrod]

Axil....I've been looking at that 100 macro...are you referring to the L version or are you referring to the less expensive version?   or both?

Hey I was talking about the Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro, although the Canon 100L Macro is an excellent lens and probably the only lens I regret selling.  The Zeiss 100mm is absolutely stunning, some of the highest resolving power out there and  creates almost a 3D like effect the way it separates the subject from the background. 

It's a tough choice, the Canon has AF, IS, and 1:1 magnification and costs 1/2 the price of the Zeiss, which has no AF or IS, and 1:2 magnification.  But I think that has a lot to say about the optics of the Zeiss 100, the thing is just insane. 
If you can't bring yourself to pay that kind of $ for that focal length, you will absolutely be happy with the Canon 100L.  It works great as a portrait lens as well as for Macro stuff and is the only Canon lens with the hybrid IS and it works beautifully, very fun lens.