Yes, I was told 1/30th to 1/125th

Dan

What do you think of these good combinations...

$2800 for 24mm to 200mm, and not too slow:

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM for $1400
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM for $1400

----------------------------------------------

All the way to 300mm with just one lens:

EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS USM for $2600 (but somewhat slow, and variable aperture)

----------------------------------------------

This will get you out to 400mm for $2950 (but somewhat slow, and variable aperture):

EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS USM for $1250
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM for $1700

----------------------------------------------

Here's the slow, low budget, affordable non-L path to 500mm for $1380:

EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM for $480
Tamron 200-500mm f/5.6-6.3 for $900

----------------------------------------------

Whatever your max telephoto is, double it:

EF 2x II Converter for $340 (incompatible w/ EF 100-400 though)

Personally, I'm going to go with the 70-200 f/2.8L for a fast lens with good reach and then get the Canon 2x II Extender for about $300 when I need more reach and can sacrifice the light.

Tyler,
Are you going to shoot stills as well or just video? there are many more cost effective solutions in manual focus. Also if you want AF but don't need it quick there are Sigmas and Tamrons in the 70-200 range.

If you are staying with Canon glass do you really need the zoom? if not I can really recommend the 135mm f2L either with or without 1.4 and 2x convertors? you could add an 85mm f1.8 as well. These give you a great light/bokeh advantage over a 70-200 f2.8L which was never my favorite lens. The newer 70-200 f2.8IS is better but both are prone to problem with sharpness over time in my experience (I've had two of each and they never fully worked to my satisfaction)

Dan

I didn't see anything in there for low light. I like to have a wide angle fast aperture for hand held low light work. Adding the 35mm f/2.0 is not expensive, but the 24mm f/1.4 will give the deepest DOF possible for an f/1.4 focal ratio (and I have a hunch that I will need the wiggle room).

I'm thinking about carrying just the 24mm f/1.4 and 70-200 f/4 L IS.

I'm actually a still photographer first... which I'm sure is why I'm so excited about this camera. My current still equipment is nothing amazing though. My full list of lenses I plan on investing in with the purchase of the 5D Mark II is as follows:

Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens - $1190.00
Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Autofocus Lens - $319.95
Canon Telephoto EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Autofocus Lens - $355.00
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Autofocus Lens - $1574.00

I'm picking up the 24-70 primarily for video purposes. I have a feeling there will be times I'm in low light and would rather bump the ISO up some and stay at f/2.8 than having the camera forcing me to use f/1.4 or f/1.8. Just another type of workaround for not having manual control in video.

I was going with the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS primarily for concert photos as I tend to shoot a lot of them. I liked the speed and the image stabilization along with variable zoom settings. I've never used it though, so tell me if it's too bad!

Daniel, this is a great combination and one I've used myself in the past. The 24mm f1.4L is great and I'm sure the new mkII version will be even better

Tyler, if you get a 'good' 70-200 f2.8L IS then it will be fine. Problem I found was that mine got worse with age to the point where I replaced it with a new one, which in turn got softer again. I made several trips to Canon to get them fixed and never really cured it. Other photographers swear by the lens so I guess it is just pot luck. I ended up with a two lens combo of 135mm f2L and a 70-200mm f4L IS instead of the 70-200 f2.8L IS, before changing to Nikon last year. Also forget the 50mm f1.4, never liked it (had 2), it was soft wide open and had barrel distortion. The 50mm f1.8 is as good for less, otherwise look at the 50mm f1.2L or maybe the new Zeiss ZE 50mm f1.4 manual eos lens.

Personally I would probably build a small collection of manual lenses and adapters for video use which can be very inexpensive. Some Nikon or Contax primes are very cheap now and as good as anything else out there. You could have a whole setup for the price of just the Canon 24-70 f2.8L lens. Then just get the stills lenses you want separately.

Also, depending on your shooting style I would go for a 17-40 or 16-35mm f2.8L II wide zoom , a 50mm instead of a 24-70 for stills work. You probably won't miss the gap between 35mm and 50mm, or the gap between 50mm and 70mm.

Hope that helps.

Dan

I wouldn't actually buy any lenses until the aperture control issue is sorted out.
The 2x extender is a pretty big compromise in quality and is used by most photogs only with the best big, fast primes. Unless the 2x is absolutely necessary the 1.4x is a better choice. For reach on a budget I really like the 100-400. The downside it that it is a slow variable aperture lens.
The 24-70 is a very good choice for speed and quality as the core zoom lens
Someone doing slower, planned type of shooting on a budget may want to buy a collection of non-L primes. A lot of the low dof demo footage was shot around f2. The fasterst zoom is 2.8.
with both 2.8 and f4 70-200 there a choice about Image Stabilization. As IS was not designed for video, we still need to see how well it works. It seems to me that IS designed for still cameras does not have smooth transitions as video IS.

Is there a consensus that non-L glass will be suitable for HD 1080p video?

I have to agree that IS on these lenses probably won't lend themselves very well to the video mode.

And pardon my ignorance and laziness... what's the amount of light lost in the 2x and 1.4x extenders?

If non L glass is suitable for 12 megapixel full frame sensors then yes, it will be enough for 1080p. The issues are more about how each lens copes with flare, barrel distortion, colour rendition etc... some non-L lenses are great, others are not. The L designation itself only means that aspherical elements are used in its design, sometimes they are not necessary for optimum sharpness. As an example the 100mm f2.8 USM macro is not an L lens but is far, far sharper than the 70-200 f2.8L IS or even the 85mm f1.2L II. The 85mm f1.8 and 100mm f2 will probably out resolve the 70-200 f2.8L IS as well. In the older non-USM lens range the 24mm f2.8 is great, the 35mm f2 OK and the 28mm f2.8 pretty average. Some L zooms are pretty average too, especially the 28-300 and 35-350. I have used all these lenses pretty much day in day out so have a pretty good idea. Before I changed to Nikon I wrote an old blog post here http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...n_the_bag.html

The 1.4x has a one stop light loss, the 2x has 2 stops.

Dan

Thanks Dan; I sure appreciate your feedback. Those are the two particular zooms that I felt would be best suited for adapting to video use because of their high zoom ratios (almost 11x and 10x respectively... put a geared ring around the zoom ring and fabricate or adapt a controller). If they're only just average, then perhaps they'll still do a decent job with HD in this camera.

A new interesting prime that is designed to be sharp wide open(except the corners) is the Sigma 50mm 1.4. It's expensive for a Sigma at $500ish, but still half the price of the Canon 50 1.2L, and sharper below f2. I haven't used this lens yet and I don't know about the more subjective areas such a bokeh.

The reality check at 50mm is that all 50mm primes get sharp by f2. Will you really be shooting video at 50mm much below f2? Who's pulling focus?


Zooms I've shot wide open without too much hesitation:

Nikon 14-24 2.8 with Canon adapter (parafocal?)
Canon 24-70 L 2.8 (a prime is better)
Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS
Canon 70-200L f4
Canon 70-200L f4 IS
Canon 100-400L IS (slow and not as good as the above group from 100-200mm, not parafocal?)

If the above group gives too much dof, is too slow, or sharpness is critically important by f2:

The "I need sharp at F2" group:

Below 50mm:
-The Canon L primes
-Possibly the less expensive Canon 35 f2
-Some third party primes for Contax (Zeiss), Leica (few and $$$), and Zuiko (few are better than Canon). I don't have faster than 2.8 in contax, group, so my experience at f2 is limited.

50mm: Canon 1.2 and 1.4, Sigma 1.4, various contax adapted to Canon.

85mm: Canon 1.2, Canon 1.8 (borderline at f2), contax 85 1.4, the new Zeiss 85 1.4

100mm: Canon f2 macro (borderline at f2), certainly other macros

135mm: canon f2

200mm: Canon f2 IS

Nothing longer I'm aware of that has f2.

The problem with using f2 or faster classic primes, like that were made for contax by Zeiss, is the price. When this "alt" lens thing started this glass were often great deals. Now the fast and good old lenses are expensive. Part of the market has collectors which pushes the price beyond what is logical as an image making device.

Zeiss is starting to make Canon mount, but don't assume these lenses are better than their Canon or Nikon equivalent.

These are lenses I've used. I'm sure we can add to this list. Some older Nikons work well on Canon too. But all the different series of Nikon lenses confuses me, so I don't really follow these lenses. But if you have Nikon lenses with aperture control it may be worth checking out compatibility with Canon.

It's funny how all this works. It really must vary from lens copy to lens copy because I have this lens, and while it isn't bad, I've never been overly impressed with it.

One of the reasons I thought I could get away using a cheap lens on the 5D2 is because I figured that what makes a lens expensive is not necessarily the optics but the electronics & motors inside. Since for video we really don't care how fast the lens can AF, how noisy the motors are, or how fast it can adjust the aperture.

I was under the impression that a good cheaper zoom lens would be visually indistinguishable from an L series for example. Especially if we are lowering the resolution down to 1080 and compressing the image. But if the lens is poor the end image will only be worse.

Originally I was planning to use the Sigma | 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro DF Autofocus Lens | 548101 and just deal with its limitations. A mattebox should be enough to negate the flare problem I had read about in reviews.


I have been somewhat discouraged by recent posts though, and I am now leaning to the 24-70 f/2.8L. I figure that if I invest the money in a 5D2 I should get a lens that will make the most of the camera.

Anybody have any experience with the Sigma zoom?

This seems like a nice lens too: Tamron | 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di Autofocus Lens for Can | AF09C700 - $349.95

Please correct me if I'm wrong but after going over some data and reading reviews, the 28-70 f/2.8L series is only about 5% - 10% better. $761.00 more expensive, is it worth it?

Chris I think those lenses are going to be OK, just not as good as the 16-35mm f2.8L, 24-70 f2.8L and 70-200 f2.8L. It is not just about sharpness but also contrast, flare handling and look. I also don't like the way both lenses telescope out when zoomed making a mattebox and rails practically impossible to use (this is another reason I dislike the 24-70 f2.8 too).

As you are realising the lens is probably the most important part of the equation. Generally lenses are more expensive because of the better glass as well mechanics of it. That said there are exceptions if you choose wisely. A cheap 50mm f1.8 will beat pretty much any Canon zoom for look and sharpness at most apertures. Don't get hung up on the sharpness and downsampling issue though, there are many other ways to judge a lens and its suitability for video.

I think this lens suffers from sample variation. It was not the sharpest wide open but I liked the way it rendered the whole image, it is a matter of taste.


I had a Tamron 28-75XR DI for a short while, it was a quite sharp lens. People report that it too suffers in quality from sample to sample, so test the one you are going to buy on the camera first. For video use its focus ring may be a bit too rough too, it has no damping to speak of. Personally I liked its weight but rejected it due to slow focus (not an issue for you) and lower build quality than the Canon 24-70 f2.8. I also did not like its bokeh but that is personal taste. Whether it is worth the extra $761 is up to you, but generally in lenses it is that last little extra bit of performance that costs the big bucks.

The other issue everyone should be aware of is the differing colour representations of the different brands. This is not too much of a problem with stills, but with video it will be more obvious if you change lenses a lot. Bokeh is equally important to me, the way a background is rendered is as important to me as maximum aperture. It will ultimately be easier to find a common look if you stay within one brand of lens, however there are of course exceptions that prove the rule.

Dan

This is true but there are still bargains to be had, and even at inflated prices some of the fast primes are still cheaper than EF or Zeiss ZF or ZE equivalents. Then there are the f2.8 lenses which can be especially good value and usable wide open with no problem.

If I had to pick cheaper favorites they would include the Manual Nikkor 16mm f2.8, 24mm f2 or f2.8, 28mm f2 or f2.8, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.4 or 1.8, 55mm f2.8 Micro, 85mm f2, 135mm f2.8, 180mm f2.8, 200mm f2 or f4, 300mm f2.8 and 500mm f4P. Also the AF 20-35mm f2.8 and older 2 touch 80-200 f2.8 zooms are great on a budget. All can be bought for far less than their EF equivalents.

If you want some nice examples of what can be done there are plenty around. Here is one WTSell: Lens - Nikon Lens Sales (Letting go of many fantastic manual nikon lens) - ClubSNAP Photography Forums (although his lens prices seem very high)

In the UK the best two sources for used Nikon on cheap I have found to be Jacobs pro lounge in London's New Oxford street Jacobs Digital Photography & Video and Aperture photographic Aperture Photographic Tel. 020 7242 8681. In the USA try here http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/Produ...BCL=&GBC=&GCC=

Dan

Actually you may want to consider the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM over the f/2.8L. The f/4L is the next generation lens with improved fluorite lenses etc and the next generation four-stop reduction IS system rather than the three-stop reduction IS system of the f/2.8L. That pretty much makes up for the difference in lens speed for hand-held use. In extensive lab tests the f/4L is placed over the top among all other Canon zoom lenses and also among a boat load of primes as well. It's also less expensive, smaller, and half the weight. I've read many user reports that the 2.8L is so front heavy that people have difficulty holding it steady and they were more than thrilled when switching to the newer f/4L. If you don't plan on buying a ton of these expensive lenses, you may want to really look into this lens before making your decision.

I'm also considering the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM for a single run-and-gun lens, although it too only has the three-stop reduction IS system and it's only about 85-90% as good overall as the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM in lab tests. Any thoughts as to whether that difference could even be noticed at 1920x1080 as opposed to high-res photography?

Bob, you list the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM as being parfocal, but the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM is not in your list. Can I assume it is as well?

I am using this lens a lot at the moment.

EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

I only used to use it for commercial property internals photography and it stayed in the bag the rest of the time.

But I really like the lens now and being wide and front focusing it works well hand held.

James

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Nice job, Henry. Well done on all levels!

That stock lens ain't bad!

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

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.

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.

Don, would that be the Sigma DG Series 24-70mm f/2.8 EX? It's less than half the price of the Canon:

http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/le...64&navigator=2

thanks for the info don.

regarding the third party 24-70s, i think both tamron and sigma both make well-reviewed zooms that fall into that range.

chris makes a good point about the IS on the 24-105. i wouldn't think it'd be that important on a lens in the 24-70 range for stills, but for video, especially from a cmos sensor camera, the feature can't be easily overlooked.

Well, my point about the kit lens having IS is that it's most useful for stills. I realize that John's original question was regarding video, but this camera is first and foremost a still photography camera, and unless you already have the lenses, then you're going to need at least one good, versatile still photography lens... and that's what the kit lens is, because of its zoom range and IS.

Just for video, IS isn't really needed, because you *really need a tripod* or some form of solid stabilization if you plan on shooting video with this thing. IS on the lens isn't going to cut it. Neither will a monopod.

And ... gotta stress here that anybody who buys it just for video is probably going to be disappointed. It's not a video camera. It's a still photo camera with a video mode. The kit lens is excellent for still photos, and fully usable for video as well.

Definitely, and that's why I ordered it. For stills it's great, although as mentioned f4 can quickly push you into high ISO shooting in available light, especially shooting moving subjects like kids where you need a faster shutter speed. The IS seems to work well for video, and the zoom range is great - far more useable than the range most video cameras use. I just wish I could control the aperture without having to resort to things like unlocking the lens from the body, so that's why I'm looking into the nikon options.

I was seriously considering the Tokina 50-135 f2.8. I got one for my Nikon D200 a while back and have been happy with it.
Does anyone have any experience with that lens (or know the reviews) for Canon? IS isn't paramount for me, to be honest. Unless I'm just having fun, I'm typically a sticks shooter. And I WOULD like the benefit of the extra stop, if at all possible...