The best EF lenses for 5D Mk. II?

Don Miller · December 6th, 2008, 01:08 PM

Whatever lens you buy, the camera will probably shoot the lens wide open in lower light. It set my 85L at 1.2 ISO 400. At ten feet dof is an inch or two. I've figured out how to work around this, but I only have coarse control over aperture. A lens like th 17-40 f4 is a good choice. It's probably sharp enough wide open, and slow enough at f4.

I don't know if I posted this here, but with EF lenses the camera wants to set shutter at 1/focal length.

Josh Brusin · December 6th, 2008, 02:53 PM

my intent is to use the nikon/canon adapter with the following Nikon mount lenses use them on my mini35 already.(would use the 24/35/55/85/105 most often:

Budget solution is the f1.8 lenses ebay has some GREAT Nikon Kogaku lenses on the cheap the 85 1.8 is nice as is the 50's...

24mm f2
28mm f1.9 vivitar
35mm f1.4
55mm f1.2
85mm f1.4
105mm f1.8
135mm f1.8 sigma
180mm f2.8
300mm f2.8 (and a truck to move it around)

I'm excited to look at the Contax and Leica lenses as with any photo lens the wide open aperture usually leads to some softness. The Contax lenses are supposed to be really sharp.

Mike Thomann · December 6th, 2008, 04:39 PM

Does anyone have any experience with how the cam handles shutter speed in movie mode? I'm really disappointed that this can't be set by the user. Much of the daytime footage I've seen seems to have been at 1/30 because there's so much motion blur. I really do not like motion blur unless it's for a particular effect, but surely not all of the time. I'd like to at least be able to at lock the shutter at 1/60 or faster for daytime.

Don Miller · December 6th, 2008, 04:56 PM

If you using a zoom put the zoom at 60mm to get 1/60 and press AE lock. Then change to whatever FL you want. All this must be done with video running. You can't do the setting and then start video.

John Vincent · December 11th, 2008, 04:22 PM

If I want to use the Mark II for shooting video?

I don't know squat about still cameras or their lens. Thanks for any advice on this.

john

Evan Donn · December 11th, 2008, 04:38 PM

I got the lens kit... the lens is great for shooting stills, but might not be the best for video because there's no manual aperture ring. Most people seem to be going the route of older nikon lenses with an adapter for video use.

Jon Fairhurst · December 11th, 2008, 04:49 PM

I agree with Evan. Nikon prime lenses are good (and cheap!) for shooting video.

I will also buy one Canon zoom with IS (image stabilization) for ease of use when shooting stills.

Don Miller · December 11th, 2008, 04:51 PM

Probably not.
You'll need to decide between Canon and other glass.

Henry Cho · December 11th, 2008, 05:02 PM

this entire piece was shot solely with the kit lens:
5DMKII video of youth boxer on Vimeo

the lens has the range for a good all-purpose lens. not bad for an additional 900 bucks. however, if budget allows, there are faster, optically better zooms out there. it'll cost a small fortune, but i like the 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 IS kit as far as zooms go.

Don Miller · December 11th, 2008, 05:21 PM

Nice video;
Let's not call it a "kit lens". It's one of two best normal range L zooms from Canon. I have the lens used in the clip: 24-105 f4 L IS
But one can see the problem with f4. DOF control. Some of those shots would have looked better at 2.8.
The other premium normal zoom - 24-70 2.8 L is a stop faster.
No IS and shorter reach.

Henry Cho · December 11th, 2008, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Miller

Let's not call it a "kit lens".

fair enough, in case anyone confuses it for the ef-s 18-55. the lens in the kit then ;). it does seem to be a fine lens.

on a side note, does anyone have any experience with the older 28-70 f2.8L? it can be had used for a few hundred bucks cheaper than a used 24-70. i have the 16-35 f2.8L, so i don't think i'm going to miss the extra 4mm, if all else is relatively equal.

Jon Fairhurst · December 11th, 2008, 05:44 PM

Nice job, Henry. Well done on all levels!

That stock lens ain't bad!

Henry Cho · December 11th, 2008, 05:53 PM

jon, yeah i'd be pretty proud if it were my video :). just a link as i think it showcases the lens pretty well.

Don Miller · December 11th, 2008, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henry Cho

on a side note, does anyone have any experience with the older 28-70 f2.8L?

It's almost as good as the 24-70. Very similar. The switch was about 2004.
The older version of the 70-200 2.8 is the 80-200.
But the IS version of the 70-200 is the most popular.

There is also a less expensive third party 24-70 that is suppose to be just as sharp as the Canon. Don't remember who makes it, but it would be in fredmiranda.com lens reviews.

I forgot the biggest problem with f4. Indoors without lights f4+ will often push the camera to ISO3200. ISO 3200 downsized to 720p is OK, but pretty noisy at full 1080p. I think one reason we did see Reverie at full 1080p was some of the clips were at 3200 ISO.

Chris Hurd · December 11th, 2008, 05:59 PM

I have removed a post out of public view from this thread which said the kit lens was "rubbish... plastic and cheap" because that comment is just so completely wrong. The kit lens that's packaged with the Canon EOS 5D Mk. II is the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS lens, which is actually a very nice lens (from Canon's high-quality "L" series), and in my opinion it's the best zoom lens for the kit.

Some folks might argue that the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L is a better lens, and having used one of those just last week, I can fully understand a preference for that particular lens. However it is not image stabilized, while the kit lens is; the kit lens also has a longer telephoto reach. As clean as the 5D Mk. II is at higher ISO levels, I don't consider the difference in the lens speed (f/4 vs. f/2.8) to be any kind of deal breaker. For what it's worth, if it were purchased separately, the kit lens is worth just about as much as the 24-70; there's only about $100 price difference between them (the EF 24-105 f/4 L IS retails for appx. $1300 while the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L retails for appx. $1400). The 5D Mk. II kit is actually a pretty good deal because you're getting that lens for about $300 less than it would cost separately.

I agree with the concept behind the Nikon adapters, to allow for Nikon glass with manual aperture rings, but in my opinion there's quite a bit that you can do with the kit lens. Of all the "L" series lenses, it really is the most versatile, and is the one zoom lens with stabilization that can serve as a multi-purpose lens for just about anything. For someone who doesn't already own any L-series glass, the kit with lens is an excellent choice.

December 11th, 2008, 04:22 PM	#65
John Vincent Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,065	Should I buy the lens package.... If I want to use the Mark II for shooting video? I don't know squat about still cameras or their lens. Thanks for any advice on this. john

December 11th, 2008, 04:38 PM	#66
Evan Donn Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 795	I got the lens kit... the lens is great for shooting stills, but might not be the best for video because there's no manual aperture ring. Most people seem to be going the route of older nikon lenses with an adapter for video use. __________________ My latest short documentary: "Four Pauls: Bring the Hat Back!"

December 11th, 2008, 04:49 PM	#67
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	I agree with Evan. Nikon prime lenses are good (and cheap!) for shooting video. I will also buy one Canon zoom with IS (image stabilization) for ease of use when shooting stills. __________________ Jon Fairhurst

December 11th, 2008, 05:44 PM	#72
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	Nice job, Henry. Well done on all levels! That stock lens ain't bad! __________________ Jon Fairhurst

December 11th, 2008, 05:59 PM	#75
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	I have removed a post out of public view from this thread which said the kit lens was "rubbish... plastic and cheap" because that comment is just so completely wrong. The kit lens that's packaged with the Canon EOS 5D Mk. II is the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS lens, which is actually a very nice lens (from Canon's high-quality "L" series), and in my opinion it's the best zoom lens for the kit. Some folks might argue that the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L is a better lens, and having used one of those just last week, I can fully understand a preference for that particular lens. However it is not image stabilized, while the kit lens is; the kit lens also has a longer telephoto reach. As clean as the 5D Mk. II is at higher ISO levels, I don't consider the difference in the lens speed (f/4 vs. f/2.8) to be any kind of deal breaker. For what it's worth, if it were purchased separately, the kit lens is worth just about as much as the 24-70; there's only about $100 price difference between them (the EF 24-105 f/4 L IS retails for appx. $1300 while the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L retails for appx. $1400). The 5D Mk. II kit is actually a pretty good deal because you're getting that lens for about $300 less than it would cost separately. I agree with the concept behind the Nikon adapters, to allow for Nikon glass with manual aperture rings, but in my opinion there's quite a bit that you can do with the kit lens. Of all the "L" series lenses, it really is the most versatile, and is the one zoom lens with stabilization that can serve as a multi-purpose lens for just about anything. For someone who doesn't already own any L-series glass, the kit with lens is an excellent choice. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

December 6th, 2008, 01:08 PM	#61
Don Miller Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Chicago Posts: 706	Whatever lens you buy, the camera will probably shoot the lens wide open in lower light. It set my 85L at 1.2 ISO 400. At ten feet dof is an inch or two. I've figured out how to work around this, but I only have coarse control over aperture. A lens like th 17-40 f4 is a good choice. It's probably sharp enough wide open, and slow enough at f4. I don't know if I posted this here, but with EF lenses the camera wants to set shutter at 1/focal length.

December 6th, 2008, 02:53 PM	#62
Josh Brusin Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 439	my intent is to use the nikon/canon adapter with the following Nikon mount lenses use them on my mini35 already.(would use the 24/35/55/85/105 most often: Budget solution is the f1.8 lenses ebay has some GREAT Nikon Kogaku lenses on the cheap the 85 1.8 is nice as is the 50's... 24mm f2 28mm f1.9 vivitar 35mm f1.4 55mm f1.2 85mm f1.4 105mm f1.8 135mm f1.8 sigma 180mm f2.8 300mm f2.8 (and a truck to move it around) I'm excited to look at the Contax and Leica lenses as with any photo lens the wide open aperture usually leads to some softness. The Contax lenses are supposed to be really sharp.

December 6th, 2008, 04:39 PM	#63
Mike Thomann Regular Crew Join Date: May 2007 Location: Amherst, NY Posts: 100	Does anyone have any experience with how the cam handles shutter speed in movie mode? I'm really disappointed that this can't be set by the user. Much of the daytime footage I've seen seems to have been at 1/30 because there's so much motion blur. I really do not like motion blur unless it's for a particular effect, but surely not all of the time. I'd like to at least be able to at lock the shutter at 1/60 or faster for daytime.

December 6th, 2008, 04:56 PM	#64
Don Miller Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Chicago Posts: 706	If you using a zoom put the zoom at 60mm to get 1/60 and press AE lock. Then change to whatever FL you want. All this must be done with video running. You can't do the setting and then start video.

December 11th, 2008, 04:51 PM	#68
Don Miller Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Chicago Posts: 706	Probably not. You'll need to decide between Canon and other glass.

December 11th, 2008, 05:02 PM	#69
Henry Cho Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: NYC Posts: 516	this entire piece was shot solely with the kit lens: 5DMKII video of youth boxer on Vimeo the lens has the range for a good all-purpose lens. not bad for an additional 900 bucks. however, if budget allows, there are faster, optically better zooms out there. it'll cost a small fortune, but i like the 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 IS kit as far as zooms go.

December 11th, 2008, 05:21 PM	#70
Don Miller Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Chicago Posts: 706	Nice video; Let's not call it a "kit lens". It's one of two best normal range L zooms from Canon. I have the lens used in the clip: 24-105 f4 L IS But one can see the problem with f4. DOF control. Some of those shots would have looked better at 2.8. The other premium normal zoom - 24-70 2.8 L is a stop faster. No IS and shorter reach.

December 11th, 2008, 05:53 PM	#73
Henry Cho Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: NYC Posts: 516	jon, yeah i'd be pretty proud if it were my video :). just a link as i think it showcases the lens pretty well.