In my opinion it would be criminal to put anything less than L-series glass on
a 5D Mk. II, which pushes that figure into the $800 to $1000 range for starters.

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L -- $700

EF 70-200mm f/4.0L -- $1400

EF 28-70mm f/2.8L -- $1400

Just say no to cheap glass on a full-frame D-SLR.

I agree that you gotta have L glass with zooms. From what I've seen there is a pretty big quality difference. Plus non L zooms are typically pretty slow. However, I don't think you need L glass for an amazing picture when it comes to prime lenses. The 50mm f/1.4 has been tested to be sharper than the 50mm f/1.2L at apertures above f/2.8.

That might be good enough for you, but I insist on *real* glass:

Carl Zeiss 150mm f/1.2, $25,000
Swayze 3000 mm f/4 Newt, $30,000
Fisher Price 60mm f/11, $1.99

On a more serious note, my favorite lens ever is the EF 24mm f/1.4 L; no other AF lens is wider at f/1.4, and the perspective and DOF control makes very interesting images, I think.

If you think that's something, then get a load of this: the lowly 50mm f/1.8, at $80, is sharper than the f/1.2 in the corners at *all* apertures from f/1.8. And it's sharper 1/3rd from the center at f/2.8 and narrower. It's equally sharp in the center at f/2.8 and narrower. (I can link images if anyone would like them.)

But there's much more to "an amazing picture" than just resolution. Light gathering ability, DOF control, focus mechanics, bokeh, flare, and other considerations must be weighed. I compromised on the f/1.4 because of the price, but I would have preferred the f/1.2 for the other reasons, despite its lower resolution and abberations.

You could add "actually exists" to the 5D2 column. For me, that's a major feature on a camera.

I wouldn't think that 35mm still camera lenses would be good enough for 5K on a 2/3 sensor. Especially 35mm zoom.

I don't need images, because I have that lens. :) It takes great pictures, even if it does focus slow and feels more like a toy than my kids Fisher Price camera!

5K on 2/3" is only 3.2 micron pixels, that's almost the exact same as what people are using right now with the XL-H1, which has 3.3 micron pixels (it would be 2.5 microns if it had a true 1920 instead of 1440), and they seem to be getting usable results with 35mm lenses.

In any case, the MTF at the Nyquist frequency is only important if your output can show it, but I think many Scarlet users will have 1080p as the max output, and the MTF there will be much better looking.

The macro lenses such as 100mm f/2.8 would be excellent telephoto lenses lenses on Scarlet 2/3", except that their focus mechanics for normal-distance subjects leaves something to be desired. I think there are some other good options.

Nifty Fifty, Fantastic Plastic, The Great One-Eight. :)