Hey guys. I plan on purchasing a 5D Mark III soon, but there are a couple problems. One: I don't own any lenses (compatible with full-frame). Two: I'm on a budget (So can't get things like 70-200 2.8) What would you recommend. So far, I've been considering the 24-70mm 2.8 (instead of kit lens), 50mm 1.8, and 85mm 1.8. What should I add/change/remove and why? These lenses will mainly be used for video but will be taking a few stills with it. Thanks!
Best Lenses for Video for Canon 5D Mark III?
- Thread starter filmrebel
- Start date
- Status
for video....if you're on a budget, I don't think you should be looking at the best lenses from Canon. You could wait for the new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 IS, should be released very soon ($900-1000?), seems like a good all around lens.
I think the lack of image stabilization in fast top Canon lenses makes them too expensive for videographers. If you're going to spend a lot in a lens for video, it should have IS.
I'd get something similar to this set, there are other options but most have slower apertures.
Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 IS
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
Canon 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4
I think this should cover most of your shots, maybe get a telephoto later.
I think the lack of image stabilization in fast top Canon lenses makes them too expensive for videographers. If you're going to spend a lot in a lens for video, it should have IS.
I'd get something similar to this set, there are other options but most have slower apertures.
Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 IS
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
Canon 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4
I think this should cover most of your shots, maybe get a telephoto later.
Upvote
0
remember, to achieve the similar FOV in Super 35mm format, crop factor should be considered.
eg. in S35mm digital cinema cameras like FS100, Red or Arri Alexa, the FOV of 35mm is approximately equivalent to 50mm on a full frame, 50mm eqv. 85mm etc. Full frame offers a wider FOV.
eg. in S35mm digital cinema cameras like FS100, Red or Arri Alexa, the FOV of 35mm is approximately equivalent to 50mm on a full frame, 50mm eqv. 85mm etc. Full frame offers a wider FOV.
Upvote
0
Zeiss ZE, I've been testing them over the last few months and I am about to sell off all my L lenses and replace them with their Zeiss counterparts. I'll probably keep my 14L II, but if the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 comes out next month I'll probably get rid of it as well. The focus ring/throw is infinitely better than trying to pull focus with Canon glass. It's incredibly sharp glass edge to edge and wide open, color rendition is beautiful, flare is incredibly well-controlled.
You could start with the 35mm f/2, it's a useful focal length and a nice example of what Zeiss lenses can do. The 50mm f/1.4 is $725 and also a great lens, but I prefer the 50mm f/2 Makro.
I've been shooting DSLR video for over 2 years now and have shot 70 bands in the last 7 months alone, so I've had quite a bit of experience dealing with L glass for video. As much as I love my L glass the Zeiss stuff is just superior for video, no contest for me. I never use AF so no sense in paying for it when the money could be going towards optical quality.
You could start with the 35mm f/2, it's a useful focal length and a nice example of what Zeiss lenses can do. The 50mm f/1.4 is $725 and also a great lens, but I prefer the 50mm f/2 Makro.
I've been shooting DSLR video for over 2 years now and have shot 70 bands in the last 7 months alone, so I've had quite a bit of experience dealing with L glass for video. As much as I love my L glass the Zeiss stuff is just superior for video, no contest for me. I never use AF so no sense in paying for it when the money could be going towards optical quality.
Upvote
0
fernando said:for video....if you're on a budget, I don't think you should be looking at the best lenses from Canon. You could wait for the new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 IS, should be released very soon ($900-1000?), seems like a good all around lens.
I think the lack of image stabilization in fast top Canon lenses makes them too expensive for videographers. If you're going to spend a lot in a lens for video, it should have IS.
I'd get something similar to this set, there are other options but most have slower apertures.
Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 IS
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
Canon 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4
I think this should cover most of your shots, maybe get a telephoto later.
The tokina doesn't function well on full frame, I'd stay away from it.
Upvote
0
J
Jedifarce
Guest
filmrebel said:
2.8's are nice but theres certainly nothing wrong with using an f/4 lens. You'll find it's extremely difficult to maintain focus with a 2.8 unless you lower the f/stop. Also the shallow depth of field is something that's overused, you can easily achieve shallow depth of field with a full frame sensor even with an f/4 lens. Just remember to get an L and/or IS.
Upvote
0
Axilrod said:fernando said:for video....if you're on a budget, I don't think you should be looking at the best lenses from Canon. You could wait for the new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 IS, should be released very soon ($900-1000?), seems like a good all around lens.
I think the lack of image stabilization in fast top Canon lenses makes them too expensive for videographers. If you're going to spend a lot in a lens for video, it should have IS.
I'd get something similar to this set, there are other options but most have slower apertures.
Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 IS
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
Canon 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4
I think this should cover most of your shots, maybe get a telephoto later.
The tokina doesn't function well on full frame, I'd stay away from it.
Valid point, I forgot it was for the 5D. Forgot about the different sensor sizes, I have a 60D. Anyway, he could get a better equivalent for the 5D, the other 2 should work.
Upvote
0
fernando said:for video....if you're on a budget, I don't think you should be looking at the best lenses from Canon. You could wait for the new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 IS, should be released very soon ($900-1000?), seems like a good all around lens.
I think the lack of image stabilization in fast top Canon lenses makes them too expensive for videographers. If you're going to spend a lot in a lens for video, it should have IS.
I'd get something similar to this set, there are other options but most have slower apertures.
Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 IS
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
Canon 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4
I think this should cover most of your shots, maybe get a telephoto later.
I'll second that.
The 24-70L is great for video - sharp with excellent color/bokeh (use cinestyle to reduce the deep contrast), but if you're going to be walking/shooting, you will want IS.
The Tamron might not look as nice, plus IS degrades image quality, so I'd wait for reviews, but it might be just what you need.
The 50 1.8 is a must.
Upvote
0
K
kkoster
Guest
When I started out using the Canon DSLR for video, I purchased a set of old manual Nikon primes. You can pick them up for a song on eBay and using an adapter to mount them to the Canon body is no problem. They are superb glass and the other advantage is that they give you a unique image compared to the standard Canon glass that everyone else is using on their cameras.
My favourites were the Nikon 50mm f1.2 that I used mainly for poor light scenes and pack shots (has an incredible bokeh). I also loved the 80mm f1.4 for portrait shots. I liked the 55mm macro for intricate work and some pack shots. I used the old Sigma 14mm for my ultra wides, but I had to crop the image as it doesn't quite extend to FF.
As time moved on and I could afford more expensive lenses, I eventually ditched my Nikon primes for Canon primes. My favourite lens to this day is the 14mm f2.8L USM II. But for the price of that single lens, you can get an entire set of older manual primes to suit your needs.
My favourites were the Nikon 50mm f1.2 that I used mainly for poor light scenes and pack shots (has an incredible bokeh). I also loved the 80mm f1.4 for portrait shots. I liked the 55mm macro for intricate work and some pack shots. I used the old Sigma 14mm for my ultra wides, but I had to crop the image as it doesn't quite extend to FF.
As time moved on and I could afford more expensive lenses, I eventually ditched my Nikon primes for Canon primes. My favourite lens to this day is the 14mm f2.8L USM II. But for the price of that single lens, you can get an entire set of older manual primes to suit your needs.
Upvote
0
What kinds of video do you want to produce?
The normal "cinema" kit is 18,25,35,50,85mm with longer (100mm+) and wider (<16mm) optional. For videography as long as 300mm equivalent is not rare... This is in super35 (APS-C) terms, so 28-135mm would be the "normal" range for full frame digital.
You can do 24-70mm and get a really nice portion of that range (and shallow focus equivalent to about f1.8 or f2 on super35) and add a longer prime or 70-200mm if you want....personally I am a wide angle enthusiast so 24-70mm would be my "one lens" of choice. Decent bokeh, not so sharp, but great for video. But the 24-105mm f4 can still get shallow focus and it has IS. Not a bad choice at all, but there's more distortion and worse bokeh.
The above post is right on, though, MF nikons are great for the money and the long focus throw and hard infinity stops are excellent. The 14mm f2.8 II is also a totally fantastic UWA with minimal distortion, phenomenal for stylized video but hard to use well because it imparts such a distinct style. The new Rokinon cinema lenses (and Rokinon lenses in general) are pretty great for the money so consider picking up a 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm kit composed of their three primes and a 50mm of your choice for a super fast "modern" kit.
As for shooting stops, don't fall into the shallow focus trap. f4 to f5.6 when there's light looks great.
IS is controversial. 5D III has significantly reduced skew. IS is less important on a heavier rig with better camera support and if you have steady hands you might not need it. If you do lots of vfx and have shaky hands better get it.
50mm f1.8 is great if you can pull focus on it and don't mind five-bladed aperture. Not my favorite but amazing for the price. As a part of a "serious" kit it might get some frowns.
The normal "cinema" kit is 18,25,35,50,85mm with longer (100mm+) and wider (<16mm) optional. For videography as long as 300mm equivalent is not rare... This is in super35 (APS-C) terms, so 28-135mm would be the "normal" range for full frame digital.
You can do 24-70mm and get a really nice portion of that range (and shallow focus equivalent to about f1.8 or f2 on super35) and add a longer prime or 70-200mm if you want....personally I am a wide angle enthusiast so 24-70mm would be my "one lens" of choice. Decent bokeh, not so sharp, but great for video. But the 24-105mm f4 can still get shallow focus and it has IS. Not a bad choice at all, but there's more distortion and worse bokeh.
The above post is right on, though, MF nikons are great for the money and the long focus throw and hard infinity stops are excellent. The 14mm f2.8 II is also a totally fantastic UWA with minimal distortion, phenomenal for stylized video but hard to use well because it imparts such a distinct style. The new Rokinon cinema lenses (and Rokinon lenses in general) are pretty great for the money so consider picking up a 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm kit composed of their three primes and a 50mm of your choice for a super fast "modern" kit.
As for shooting stops, don't fall into the shallow focus trap. f4 to f5.6 when there's light looks great.
IS is controversial. 5D III has significantly reduced skew. IS is less important on a heavier rig with better camera support and if you have steady hands you might not need it. If you do lots of vfx and have shaky hands better get it.
50mm f1.8 is great if you can pull focus on it and don't mind five-bladed aperture. Not my favorite but amazing for the price. As a part of a "serious" kit it might get some frowns.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
