5D MKii lens

[CJRodgers]

Hello!

This is my first post. If it has already been done, sorry and please send a link to the relevant information i need!! thanks!

Ok so i am saving for a 5dMkii which ill get in a couple of months (unless mkiii is on the horizon). I think i will have about £1500 (UK) to spend on lenses. Im hoping this will get a couple of lens is. So the question is what would people here suggest? Only canon L lens? Are there any good second manufacturers thats make good lens for this. I have read the 24-70mm is good? What would compliment this.

Also what are people thoughts on second hand lens? Any good retailers that supply them? Is ebay an option?

Im looking to do low light event photography mainly of bands, and also i am wanting to do photo shoots of bands (mainly outdoors). I am also wanting to do videos of bands. So which lens would start me off on this budget. Im hoping for at least two but i know the good ones are very expensive.


Thanks!!

Craig

 

[hallor]

Hi there

i've got 5d II with this 24-70.....and i think this lens suc%#^. It looks pr0 but optical..... i think you should buy a 35 1.4 superb quality.


if u think about low-light photography 2.8 gonna be too dark. I am trying sell this lens and replace it (24 1.4 or 35 1.4)

 

[CJRodgers]

I have read some people saying the 24mm 1.4 is a bit soft. Perhaps they have been confused between the mki and mkii versions of this lens? Do you know if there are big differences between the two? The only evidence i have seen was a short film called undercity which i thought was excellent.

Thanks for the advice!

 

[studio1972]

Not sure what Hallor has against the 24-70. I find it to be a great combo with the 5DII, even in low light. Would definitely recommend it as a standard zoom for this camera. The second lens I would recommend is a 135mm f/2 which is a great low light option. I would also get a tripod so you can use longer shutter speeds if required. If you are doing video you will need a video tripod as well, and sound recording equipment as well of course. You may also want to look into getting something like an HMC151 as a proper video camera if you are shooting live events, the 5D is not very well suited for that as the record time is limited and the ergonomics are tricky.

BTW, eBay is definitely an option, I got my 135mm f/2 from there and it was excellent and cost around half of a new one.

 

[CJRodgers]

Hey, thanks for the reply.

Dont think ill be shooting live event videos just yet. I want to do stills photos at events. I want to do video shoots of bands to promote there singles or get them onto t.v(lots of amature looking band videos seem to be getting onto sky channels atm in the UK). That way i can plan everything thoroughly and get the right shots.

Also want to do short films as i have a writer who is very creative. All going to be one step at a time as obviously £1500 is not much money for good lenses. if i can make some money id get a dedicated video camera to record live events as i think two or more cameras make a more interesting live video anyway (video from one view could get boring)

Thanks again!

 

[NormanBates]

a dslr is a more-than-capable video camera, you just have to avoid its flaws (mainly moire and aliasing)
apart from that, the image is much better than anything you can get out of a small-sensor video camera

second note: the lenses you want for video can be different than the ones for stills, mainly because of focusing
for video, you usually want to focus manually (and on most current dslrs, it's actually the only option), so you can use very nice and relatively cheap vintage glass, which also has the advantage of manual iris ring (meaning you'll be able to use them with future non-canon cameras) and a long-throw focus ring (which makes focusing manually much easier)

for around $900, I got the following lenses from ebay, and the corresponding adapters:
* leitz elmarit-r 35mm f/2.8
* carl zeiss jena pancolar M42 50mm f/1.8
* leitz elmarit-r 90mm f/2.8
* carl zeiss jena sonnar M42 135mm f/4

they are all cream-of-the crop, and are in reasonably good shape, but, as all the lenses I've bought on ebay, have some minor flaws (mainly dust inside) that don't seem to significantly affect picture quality; a better place to buy these lenses could be leicahsop.com

I wouldn't want to use these lenses for stills, as in that case the advantage of autofocus is absolutely decisive

 

[hallor]

here you got excellent review of 24 1.4

Switching the image display between the 24 1.4 I and II show a dramatic difference in clarity.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24mm-f-1.4-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

yup Norman, zeiss lenses got rly nice optical quality

 

[kubelik]

I think its also important to know what length you're going to be shooting from. there seems to be an assumption that you're shooting all wide angle but whether you're shooting stills or video you may find there's times you want to isolate a subject or times you can't get close enough. don't neglect to consider the 85 f/1.2 or 135 f/2

 

[CJRodgers]

I do want one fast wide, but other than that i want something else to compliment it. So im open to suggestions as to what would make a good all-round lens. Zoom or prime? Canon make or not, just something good, preferably not too expensive (i.e no tilt shift lens! lol)

Has anyone any experience with carl zeiss ze lens for movies?

@NormanBates: Thanks for that list really helpful! Any in particular you recommend from your experience? Got any examples?

 

[CJRodgers]

Also does anyone have experience with the 24-105mm f4 L IS USM lens?

Thanks,

Craig

 

[Flake]

Here's my take, and it's different to the others!

The 5D MkII is available bundled with the 24 - 105mm f/4 IS L for around £600, £200 less than you would pay if you bought them both seperately. This leaves you a whopping £900, so get a 50mm f1.8 if light levels are really low (£85), then there's enough left in the budget for the superb 70 - 200mm f/4 IS L (£837).

I realise that these are not the fastest lenses available, but the jump to f/2.8 will cost you dear 24 -70mm add £325, 70 - 200mm f/2.8 IS L add £863 (ouch). Here lies the dilema that only you can answer, f/2.8 gives another stop, but loses depth of field as a consequence, have you enough headroom to compensate with one more stop of Iso? Then there's the weight, the f/4 at 760g weighs half as much as the f/2.8, it might not seem a lot but holding it aloft at a concert you will notice! Of course if you drop the aperture to f/4 or below the advantage of the f/2.8 is lost.

The IS system on both lenses will buy you around 4 stops, I've had sharp shots at 1/6th sec out of the 24 - 105mm, but this will not stop motion, you really will need the speed of the 50mm for that.

With the three lenses I've suggested for you, you have a great foundation for the photography you want to do, and they are within your budget without compromising the quality of one for the sake of another your results should be consistent regardless of the lens you use.

 

[NormanBates]

@NormanBates: Thanks for that list really helpful! Any in particular you recommend from your experience? Got any examples?

resolution tests on my one dollar resolution chart (on a 1.6x crop camera, I'm afraid):
http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/lenstestsa.html
(mind you: resolution is not all you care about: the canon 50mm f/1.8 is sharp as hell, but the images are too harsh, I don't like it at all, while the czj pancolar 50mm f/1.8 is just a bit sharper but delivers much, much, much nicer images)
(you'll see not all lenses are born equal: the carl zeiss jena flektogon 35mm is absolutely awful, while the very closely related pancolar 50mm is splendid)
(note the different tints from different lens; this may or may not be a problem for you)

this video was shot with a pancolar 50mm f/1.8 on a 550D; I was using an ND filter, which at 50mm softens the lens a bit, but I still think it looks great; that lens runs for under $100 on ebay
http://vimeo.com/16358850

apart from the pancolar, all the others are great too, but I think the leitz ones are better than the zeiss (sharper, and more modern)... and also more expensive (the leitz ones run me between 2x and 4x more cash than the czj... and still the most expensive one was $400)

***********

on a different note...

If you really care about low light, consider the panasonic GH2
it has relatively clean ISO 3200 (against 1250 on a 5Dmk2), and a 1.9x crop sensor, which is good for low light because on full frame your depth of field may be too shallow at f/1.4
you can get the GH2 and a voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 for less than the cost of a 5Dmk2, and your get 9x more light sensitivity at the same depth of field:
* 2.5x because of the higher ISO (3200/1250)
* 3.6x because of the smaller sensor (1.9^2)

the key to the second part (the 3.6x) is the following:
in terms of field of view and depth of field, you’d get an equivalent image with:
* a 5D with a 50mm set at f/1.8
* a 550D with a 30mm set at f/1.1
* a GH2 with a 25mm set at f/0.95

so compared with the 5D the GH2 gets 2.5 times more light because of higher clean iso, and 3.6x more light because you can set a bigger aperture and your DoF doesn’t get too shallow, hence 9x

the biggest problem with the GH2 is that there's not much fast glass apart from this voigtlander and other similar lenses, all around 20-25mm; you can use an adaptor and put basically anything on this m43 camera, but remember that if you want shallow depth of field then here "fast" means "really fast", f/2.8 is not nearly enough in most cases

at a minimum, consider the GH2 as a second, video-oriented camera: it doesn't have all the moire/aliasing issues of the canons

 

[neuroanatomist]

Also does anyone have experience with the 24-105mm f4 L IS USM lens?

The 24-105mm f/4L IS is a great lens on FF. With f/4, it's really too slow for capturing movement indoors, but then for that application you often need a fast prime since f/2.8 is not very fast, either. For static subjects, the IS is great.

IQ is very good and the zoom range is excellent - it makes a great walkaround lens. There is a fair bit of barrel distortion at the wide end - pretty noticeable depending on your subject. I use DxO for post processing, and the software corrects the distortion very well (better than Canon's corrections in DPP).

 

[Admin US West]

Also does anyone have experience with the 24-105mm f4 L IS USM lens?

The 24-105mm f/4L IS is a great lens on FF. With f/4, it's really too slow for capturing movement indoors, but then for that application you often need a fast prime since f/2.8 is not very fast, either. For static subjects, the IS is great.

IQ is very good and the zoom range is excellent - it makes a great walkaround lens. There is a fair bit of barrel distortion at the wide end - pretty noticeable depending on your subject. I use DxO for post processing, and the software corrects the distortion very well (better than Canon's corrections in DPP).

+1

 

[CJRodgers]

@NormanBates

Thanks again for the reply. The GH2 with the voigtlander 0.95 was actually set in my mind as a definate choice until it came out. I have read many times that its quality is better than the 5d Mk2 and there is no aliasing moire or rolling shutter. The only thing putting me off is that i havent seen any inspirational videos. Phillip Blooms video of his mum cooking is pretty awesome, but i have seen countless shortfilms and clips on the 5dmk2 that just ooze cinematography and that creamy filmic look which is what im after. I have not seen anything like that from the GH2 which i dont know if its because its too new to find it yet, or if its just because its not a canon or FF.

As im spending so much as(ill have about £4K for camera lenses flash and tripod etc) i want to try and think about the future aswell. So if i can get good enough id like to try wedding or pro portraits in a couple of years. (im young and willing so have plenty of time to learn). From what ive read micro 4/3 wouldnt be the way to go with this sort of thing? Thats why im set on learning a FF system and mastering it. When my band had pro photoes taken he had a 5dmk2 and the pictures were incredible with the wide lens he used.

If you can give me some encourangment the GH2 could be a good system to use you would be saving me alot of money!! Im just worried about spending money on the voigtlander which is a native m43 lens, then feeling i need FF and not being able to use that lens.

Please let me know your thoughts and if you have seen any cool filmic videos of the gh2 which ooze the way the 5dmkii does so well despite its flaws.

Thanks again

Craig

 

[NormanBates]

I think the GH2 is a perfectly capable tool, and the lack of videos is just because the camera is so young and difficult to get (no stock anywhere), but I haven't tried one (and it's not my hands you want on that camera anyway), so I can't tell for sure

the biggest advantages are:
* great in low light
* nearly no aliasing/moire (and this is a big, big plus)

and my main issues with it would be:
* I'm not sure it records at high-enough bitrate at all frame rates
* some people complain that the "panasonic look" is not as nice as the "canon look" or the "nikon look"
* and, even more, some people complain that it is difficult to get rid of the "panasonic look" in post
(I haven't used these cameras, so I just don't know exactly what they're talking about)

plus, what everybody complains about with the GH2 is the lack of nice glass, apart from the voigtlander 25mm (which, I forgot to say, is a manual lens, so no autofocus there, not nice for stills)

but the thing is: if you need low light, it's a killer combination, way better than anything else in the market, except for the super-high-end 1Dmk4 and D3s

I've tried to film inside a church with no additional lighting using my 550D and 50mm f/1.8, and there was no way I could get away with that, there was not enough light, period; an f/1.4 and/or a 5Dmk2 would have brought some improvements, but probably not enough; a GH2+f/0.95 would get around that

and still my plan is to wait for the 5Dmk3 (or mk4, if the 3 still has aliasing/moire), and complement my current lens set with a elmarit-r 180mm f/2.8 (once my 135mm becomes a real 135mm) and a 24-70 f/2.8L, for wide angle and stills (for "creamy" and "filmic" look, you usually want primes, but even if I don't take many stills, it would be nice to have at least one lens with autofocus; for film, I'd mostly use it at 24mm, where you usually have a pretty deep field anyway)

on the 24-105 vs 24-70 issue... as demonstrated by the fact that I only own primes (and the 550D kit lens), I'd get a sharper and faster lens against a more versatile one, any day of the week; and it seems that would be the 24-70 (although the 24-105 catches up at on the longer end):
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=101&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
(apart from the autofocus, the reason for getting a 24-70 L instead of a wide angle prime is that I haven't found any nice&cheap(ish) vintage wide angle lenses; both leitz and czj are a bit lacking here)

initially my other options were the 17-40L (cheap, but too soft) and the 16-35L (faster, but just as soft)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=101&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=412&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=101&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=100&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

as of today, with these cameras riddled with image quality issues (moire and aliasing just drive me nuts), I'm pretty happy with my 550D with magic lantern, plus $900 on vintage primes, plus $2500 on accesories that will live on to my next camera (tripod, slider, followfocus, ND filters, sound, lights... this bit ramps up real quickly!)

 

[transpo1]

This is the best overall video comparison between the 5DmII and GH2- for low light ability, the 5D still appears to beat out the GH2, but they are pretty close:

http://www.vimeo.com/17765301

 

[CJRodgers]

I think ill wait until summer when i can comfortably afford either and make a descion then. Hopefully some cool videos from the GH2 may inspire me by then. More likely though ill see something new on the horizon and be tempted to wait lol. If 5dmkiii may come this year hopefully that would solve all my needs.

At luminous landscape. com they are writing a book called cinematography for photographers. They are using the GH2 as their camera of choice, so the book will be very interesting and hopefully inspiring. Although i asked the main guy if he thought the gh2 would be good in any situation with the right lens and he said
......................
'The GH2 is absolutely not a universal camera. It is a terrific compromise camera though.

I can think of any number of cameras that have advantages over it in almost every area, but none that handle just about every aspect of features and IQ in as well rounded a way.

That's why, if I were heading out for a two hour shooting walk (which I am just about to do) it would be (and is) my go-to camera.

Michael'

............................
This made me start feeling i should look at full frame and the amount of amazing stuff filmed on the 5dmkii overwhelmed me! Loads of cool stuff on phillip blooms website(although he is very talented which is probably half the reason why its all amazing)

I just want to spend my money wisely lol, ive never spent this much on anything. Why cant it be easy eh!!

 

[logaandm]

Add my 2 cents...

I like low light photography and I do alot of if, although not often at events. The amount of light plays a large role. For example, a well light street f4 is OK, for a dark club only f1.2 will do and you still need to be lucky.

28-70f2.8L is reported to be a better lens than the 24-70. I recently bought a copy at half the price of a new 24-70L and used it at a night event. I was impressed. I refuse to buy a new 24-70, I've been waiting for the update for 3 years. I also have the Tamron 28-75mm If you get a good copy it is very sharp at 28mm and OK at 75mm. The corners are a little rough and don't compare to the Canon L's, however.

The 135f2 is a very nice lens and may be what you need for a longer focal length. I have used this lens on a 50D for indoor sports. The 135f2 on the 7D would be a killer combination. Another lens that is reported to be good is the 85mm f1.8. I have one but I don't use if for low light but it is nice for portraits.

Depending on the amount of light, I find the 24-105f4 to work quite well. It is not the sharpest nor does it have the nicest bokeh, but it has a very useful focal length range and the 5DII at 3200 iso produces perfectly suitable photographs.

Those were the cheap options.

The 50mm f1.2 is my favorite for really low light. Combined with the 5DII it will see beyond what normal people see at night. The 35mm f1.4 is also a great night lens but only if you can get close to your subject. I don't own the 85mm 1.2 but it is suppose to be the ultimate.

The 70-200 f2.8 is also a great lens. The IS allows slow shutter speeds hand held and it is sharp wide open. Again, I recently used it at a night event. A very nice lens.

It has been my experience that for night event photography the prinicple thing is to keep the shutter speed 1/50 second or faster. Don't worry about the ISO. People blur because of motion is sometimes nice, but usually you want the eyes of the subject sharp. Shoot RAW. Use Lightroom. In post don't worry about the shadows, just make them dark. It's more dramatic anyway.

A useful trick is to underexpose 1-2 stops. The photos often look more natural, you won't blow out lights and you will gain some shutter speed. I usually have my 5DII set to auto ISO, center focus, f2 of f2.8 (unless it is really dark) and 1 stop under-exposure.

My experience for video is: don't use the 5DII unless you get set up properly with some fast manual focus lenses, and assitant, a steady cam and a vido tripod. Or buy the new Canon or the Panasonic TM700. Way easier.

If you insist on doing video on the 5DII stick to wide angle so DOF issues aren't as bad the 16-35f2.8 is a nice lens that is tolerent of video.

Just my opinion, you should look for a used 28-70. Give it a shot and then think about primes or saving up for the 70-200f2.8