Building kit around 5D Mark II...

[gstevens]

Hey all,

Looking for a few suggestions - figured this would be the right place...

I'm an aspiring cinematographer who has decided to switch from my XH-A1 to a 5D Mark II (I saw on the forum that there is an expected price-drop on the 5D come early March - awesome). I'll most likely be purchasing the 5D Kit that includes a Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM AF Lens. However, I'm looking to have more than just one lens in my kit.

I have an extra $1500-$2k to spend and am looking to add at least 2 to 3 more lenses -- My question for you guys; Which lenses would you recommend for video on the 5D?


Thanks in advance guys!

 

[Frank209]

Will be coming back to this today, just need to go to the Office where my setup is. Will post some photo's and so on and so forth.

 

[vuilang]

for video. either 24 1.4L II or 24 2.8IS plust other lenses for close-up

and you'll also need equips to support its manual focus:
1) good monitor (marshall lcd= can run up $1000+) or lcd mag view finder such as Zarcuto (~$300) or cinevate Cyclop (~$490) (other cheap ebay-like product can be use as well but........)
2) follow focus system (they also have wireless too but cost like a mil$ ).. NOTE: bed&bath beyond have jar opener rubber-ring is magic
3) what the point of good video but poor audio (5dII only have mono audio) = rode stereo mic and/or shogun ($300/each)
4) add rod system and or matte box will also help alot..... but not a must (thus i havent look into this area much)
5) like to make cinematic footage? steadicam (Pilot or merlin) and/or slider (diy is possible) is a way to go

Well that's what i can think of for now.

 

[Frank209]

Allrighty, at the studio (had some stuff to do so I'm late doing this.)

First of all, we have multiple 5d2's and 7d's. the difference with this workwise (at least for us) is that we use different lenses.

In our 7d kit's we use mainly the 16-35 F2.8 L USM, a 50MM F1.2L USM and the 70-200 2.8 L USM for documentary.

Our 5D's Have the 16-35 2.8L, the main used lens for documentary is the 24-70 2.8 L USM, and a 70-200 F2.8 L USM.

For commercials we mainly use prime glass, all of them are Zeiss. we have a kit of 6 lenses and these are them
Zeiss 3.5/18mm, Zeiss 2.0/25mm, Zeiss 1.4/35mm, Zeiss 1.4/50mm, Zeiss 1.4/85mm

On the 7d we use mostly the 35 & 50, on the 5D we use mostly the 50 & 85

Next to that we have rig setups made by Vocas (Dutch Company). They are a bit expensive, but as pointed out somewhere on this forum, have a professional quality for a reasonable price.

Next to that we have some other camera's here that we use different glass from (P.E. Zeiss CP.2 lenses, but that's a bit high priced probably.)

Well now, long story short, If you want primes, get the 50 & 85 from Zeiss first. If you want to have one lens only (and it's a treat, trust me) get the 24-70 2.8 from Canon.

Probably the thing after, get a mattebox, it's essential for ND, Grad ND and promist filters (we use Tiffen)
And buy a good LCD screen, it's easyer to see and you will love some menu options from Marshall (p.e. false colour and so on and so forth)

What are you planning to do with it? that's actually the first question.

Cheers,

Frank

 

[Frank209]

Oh, and forgot, we use a sound guy so we don't use microphones. Just a wireless receiver from the soundguy who sends his audio as guidetrack. But indeed, a good mic is about 300. There's a new RODES coming out soon. that looks like a good one to me.

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

that 24-105 is a good all around lens. You might want to think about some longer lenses(200mm L), if you are dead set on going with the kit lens.

Otherwise I might forget about the kit lens and go with the primes. Canon 35mmLI, 50mm LII, and 85mmLII. Although all three might break your budget, so i'd sub in a 35mm f2 for the L series since resolving power is probably more important in the closeups.

Check this site out.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff

 

[vuilang]

For commercials we mainly use prime glass, all of them are Zeiss. we have a kit of 6 lenses and these are them
Zeiss 3.5/18mm, Zeiss 2.0/25mm, Zeiss 1.4/35mm, Zeiss 1.4/50mm, Zeiss 1.4/85mm

Wow.. Frank..
Did you just shoot for "ACT of Valor"? cuz those are the glass they used... i bet those are Way Overkill for what Gsteven is seeeking for advices.

BTW. the thing about zeiss is: Manual Focus = Can't go to wedding/event photography

 

[RedEye]

@ frank. Thanks for the info. I'm curious, why do people tend toward the Zeiss lenses, primes specifically, when shooting video? Does this do with the manual focus? Are they significantly better than L primes?

 

[vuilang]

@ frank. Thanks for the info. I'm curious, why do people tend toward the Zeiss lenses, primes specifically, when shooting video? Does this do with the manual focus? Are they significantly better than L primes?

i think zeiss give better color, sharper corner... n smoother focus?

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

@ frank. Thanks for the info. I'm curious, why do people tend toward the Zeiss lenses, primes specifically, when shooting video? Does this do with the manual focus? Are they significantly better than L primes?

i think zeiss give better color, sharper corner... n smoother focus?

They are definitely not sharper, but they are significantly less expensive.

Zeis 50mm f/1.4 goes for about $750
Canon 50mm f/1.2 L goes for about $1400

Check out the review site I posted above. It's detailed in the breakdown.

 

[noisejammer]

Like Frank, I would seriously consider Zeiss glass for video - there's not a whole lot of reason going for a comparatively slow autofocus lens when the camera doesn't really offer AF during recording. An extra stop and DoF control with the fast glass can be really valuable.

Focal lengths - well depends on what you're shooting but the 1.4/85 and 1.4/50 should be no-brainers. In spite of their reputation, both are sharp (but both have considerable focus shift, so be wary of this if you're stopping down in a shot.) You might also consider the 2/28 or 2/35 for wider perspectives - these are a whole lot less expensive than the more exotic 25/2 or 35/1.4.

On a tight budget, I'd go 2/35, 1.4/50 and 1.4/85 ... total is $ 3125 less the price of the 24-105 and you're close to where you wanted to be in terms of expenditure. It turns out that these are the least expensive of the Zeiss offerings. If it's still out of reach, you could look for the used Contax equivalents (which were made by Zeiss.) Typically these cost about 1/2 to 2/3 of the ZE models at retail. Most have very similar optical designs to the current Zeiss offerings.

You _will_ need something like a Zacuto Z-Finder. Although it's way less expensive, I strenuously do not recommend the Hoodman.

Finally - you can most certainly use manual focus lenses at functions... how do you think it was done before the AF era?

Edit - in response to the questions on ZE vs L glass. I find the ZE glass offers considerably better micro-contrast. The colour is consistent between lenses and they are designed to be manually focused. To compare with L glass - I've replaced almost all my short Canon L primes with ZE lenses - the only one I regret parting with is the 100/2.8L IS Macro. The only one I've kept is the TS-E 17.

 

[Axilrod]

Hey all,

Looking for a few suggestions - figured this would be the right place...

I'm an aspiring cinematographer who has decided to switch from my XH-A1 to a 5D Mark II (I saw on the forum that there is an expected price-drop on the 5D come early March - awesome). I'll most likely be purchasing the 5D Kit that includes a Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM AF Lens. However, I'm looking to have more than just one lens in my kit.

I have an extra $1500-$2k to spend and am looking to add at least 2 to 3 more lenses -- My question for you guys; Which lenses would you recommend for video on the 5D?


Thanks in advance guys!

I was in the same position as you a few years ago. I'd say to buy the body buy itself and get some primes. I would definitely recommend the Zeiss 50 1.4, all the Zeiss lenses perform much better when shooting video. And then check out maybe the Canon 85mm 1.8 and possibly one of the new Canon wide primes (24mm and 28mm). That would cover your needs for quite a while.

If you aren't familiar with the lenses, maybe rent some from lens rentals.com, and if you buy any of them the $ you spent on rental goes towards the final price of the lens.

 

[mindspin]

You might want to also consider renting some lenses depending on what you're trying to achieve with your shots.

I was in a similar situation a couple years back and rented lenses from lensrental.com for quite some time before I made a purchase. In the end, I walked into each lens purchase with a strong sense of what glass could do for my shots.

 

[Axilrod]

Wow.. Frank..
Did you just shoot for "ACT of Valor"? cuz those are the glass they used... i bet those are Way Overkill for what Gsteven is seeeking for advices.

BTW. the thing about zeiss is: Manual Focus = Can't go to wedding/event photography

He clearly stated he was coming from the video world, there is no reason to try wedding photography just because you have a body that's capable of doing so. My biggest regret about getting into DSLR video is buying all the L glass listed in my sig. I want to switch to all Zeiss glass but can't bring myself to get rid of the Canon stuff, even though I rarely use the AF. If he's shooting video he'll never use AF, so instead of paying for the AF of the canon lenses, pay for the optics of the Zeiss glass.

 

[Axilrod]

They are definitely not sharper, but they are significantly less expensive.

I don't know about that, I used the 50 1.4 and didn't see much of a difference between it and my 50L. The 50mm f/2 Makro is definitely sharper than my 50L, the 21mm 2.8 is the sharpest wide lens I've ever seen, it's destroying my 16-35. They may be close in the center, but in terms of edge sharpness, Zeiss is the best.

They definitely have their own look, very contrasty, but I like the look they produce very much. The focus rings are smooth as butter, which is a nice change from the hairline focus marks you end up with shooting video with L glass.

 

[Axilrod]

Edit - in response to the questions on ZE vs L glass. I find the ZE glass offers considerably better micro-contrast. The colour is consistent between lenses and they are designed to be manually focused. To compare with L glass - I've replaced almost all my short Canon L primes with ZE lenses - the only one I regret parting with is the 100/2.8L IS Macro. The only one I've kept is the TS-E 17.

I regret selling my 100L as well, but have you used the Zeiss 100mm? That's probably one of the sickest lenses I've ever used, only ZE lens with master prime optics. That and the 21 2.8 are next on my list.

 

[Frank209]

The reason we use Zeiss glass is for one reason only; They all look alike.

Canon optics are technically perfect, and the "High end" in DSLR. the problem with this (in my opinion) is that there is no consistency in the glass like Zeiss. I can see with all the Zeiss lenses that it is, in fact, a Zeiss. With canon way less. They are the technically great but have no ehm, how do i say this, personality... there Zeiss looks like a model-family, Canon looks like a bunch of international-MIT-students. All great in what they do, but not one looks alike.

So if I am at a shoot i want all the shots to match. That's the reason for Zeiss.

Yes, Zeiss is manual focus, but currently we are at the "video-region" of the CR-Forum so MF will do just perfect. I never used AF, but then again, I allmost never take photo's.
Speaking of MF, The zeiss are more exact with manual focus, The 16-35 has a focus-pull of 0.45cm (or less) from 1 meter to infinity there where zeiss gives me a lot of centimeters for exact focus. Another reason for Zeiss when shooting film.

the prices in differ with canon indeed, but not like HurtinMinorKey pointed out, the differ between a 50 1.4 and a 1.2 is not an honest comparisation. the Canon 50 1.4 is 325 euro's. if i put the Zeiss against my girlfriend's canon 1.4 there is no way you can't see difference in the Bokeh.

GET THE mfn Zeiss allready

 

[Axilrod]

@ frank. Thanks for the info. I'm curious, why do people tend toward the Zeiss lenses, primes specifically, when shooting video? Does this do with the manual focus? Are they significantly better than L primes?

Well Zeiss doesn't make ZE zooms, so primes are the only choice. They have a much smoother focus ring that doesn't keep spinning, meaning you can only turn it to a certain point in either direction. With Canon lenses, if you spin past infinity your focus marks are now useless. Also at large apertures you can throw someone out of focus even if you move the ring a fraction of an inch. People buy them for video because they are made for it, and Zeiss provides most of the super expensive primes (like Ultra Primes and Master Primes, which are $20k+ per lens) that are used on PL-mount Cinema cameras. They definitely have a lot of credibility within the industry.

I wouldn't say they are significantly better, but in some cases they are. It varies lens to lens, I definitely can't say that all of one brands are better than all of another. Either way, they are worth trying out if you shoot video.

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

They are definitely not sharper, but they are significantly less expensive.

I don't know about that, I used the 50 1.4 and didn't see much of a difference between it and my 50L. The 50mm f/2 Makro is definitely sharper than my 50L.

I will concede this point.

 

[Frank209]

Oh! and one thingy to think about, get the Zeiss with Nikon-mount (they have manual aperture selection) and (if you have some money left) go to an old-school camera fixer (the ones that know analog hasselblads and so on and so forth) and let them get the "Click" out of the aperture ring!! The best thing we've done with 2 of them! (the others we have are canon mounts... )