Lens Suggestion Help.
 

I shoot mainly weddings but want some help on selecting another lens. I have shot very little video with DSLR's that will change a lot this summer.

My gear now.
Sony EX1r, Canon 5d II, and ID mark IV and 1ds III for stills.
lenses. 24-105 L, 16-35 L, 100 IS L macro, 70-200 IS 2.8 II.

The 24-105 will usually be on the 1Ds Mark III shooting stills and looking to add another lens, would you get the 50 1.2L, 85 1.2 or 135 2.0. I will add that the new 70-200 2.8 IS is amazingly sharp, so unless you think I need the speed of the 85 or 135 leaning towards the 50 1.2

I shoot mainly photography, but this lens will be used a lot for video too.

Thanks for any help.

Even though I use it on a crop-sensor cam, there's something very special about the 50mm. I have the 1.4 and it's stunning. My buddy who shoots with a 5D also has the 50 1.4 and says the same thing. If you have the dough for the 1.2....go for it and be careful, your other lenses will get jealous!

I think what you have is great to start
 

also look into the Tokina 11-16 2.8 for wide shots, definatly thumbs up on the 50 1.2 beside 85 1.2 and really I think you have the rest on track.. if anything more I like the 35 1.4..

M. T. Zaheer

Tokina won't work on the 5D...it's only for cropped sensor. The 16-35 he has is actually nicer.

Thanks, will probably give the 50 1.2 a try.

I'm curious about the 100mm L macro for video. Does anyone have much experience with it? Is the hybrid IS useful?

Ben, the IS is useful but honestly at that focal length and at macro distances you're much better off on sticks. Never was it more apparent that the IS in these lenses is designed for stills.

The drawback of the 100mm macro is that while you adjust or rack focus, the exposure changes drastically as the lens breathes. It's awful. Apparently cine lenses such as Zeiss do not do this.

However, aside from the above it is a beautiful amazing lens. Just like with any other piece of gear, be sure to know the limitations.

I've been using my Tokina 11-16 on my 5DMkII quite a bit. It works fine at 15mm and up, vignettes pretty strongly from 14mm and wider. So it's really acting like a wide-angle prime for me. Haven't found a better solution at that focal length to replace it yet. Any ideas?

--Mark

try the 16-35 from Canon. Unreal lens. Expensive though. There's also a 14mm f2.8 but it's REALLY expensive!

1) The difference between the 50mm 1.4 and the 50/1.2 is minor at best, and the cost is huge. The same is true for the 85/1.8 and the 85/1.2, only the cost is huge-er. For those with unlimited budgets, I'd go for the 1.2 of both, any day. But OP sounds like he's on a budget... save yourself $2k and buy the cheaper ones.

2) For super wide (but prime), Sigma has a 20/1.8 that I've been very impressed with.

I have the 50mm 1.4, it is a must-have lens in your bag, for photography it is a great lens whether you use it inside or outside especially when you have the aperture open all the way at 1.4, but focus at that setting has to be precise and no movement toward the subject at all that's why when you do video at 1.4 the subject has to be fixed with no movement whatsoever or otherwise you're out of focus,
so fast lenses are great for video but very tough to focus when the aperture is open.

Yes I thought this might be the case. Hand-holding a 100mm lens is a bit of stretch. I would love a macro for stills and was wondering whether the IS on the L was worth the extra dollars from a video point of view. What about on a monopod?

For super close-up stills work IS seem to be of limited value. I was reading somewhere that with regards to stills, (and despite Canon's claims), you can only really get 1 stop of stabilisation at 1 to 1 distances.

Are the focus/exposure issues across the focal range or just at the macro end?