Lens Suggestion Help. at DVinfo.net

Denny Kyser · May 6th, 2010, 07:16 PM

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.

Robert Turchick · May 6th, 2010, 07:23 PM

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!

Mohammed Zaheer · May 6th, 2010, 07:58 PM

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

Robert Turchick · May 6th, 2010, 08:51 PM

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

Denny Kyser · May 6th, 2010, 11:17 PM

Thanks, will probably give the 50 1.2 a try.

Ben Denham · May 7th, 2010, 01:38 AM

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

Erik Andersen · May 7th, 2010, 02:57 AM

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.

Mark Lyon · May 7th, 2010, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Turchick

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

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

Robert Turchick · May 7th, 2010, 03:22 PM

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

Mike Watson · May 7th, 2010, 04:01 PM

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.

Michael Ojjeh · May 7th, 2010, 06:23 PM

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.

Ben Denham · May 7th, 2010, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik Andersen

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.

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?

May 6th, 2010, 07:16 PM	#1
Denny Kyser Major Player Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Warren, Pa Posts: 785	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. __________________ 2 Canon XF305's Kyser Photography www.kyserphoto.com

May 6th, 2010, 07:23 PM	#2
Robert Turchick Trustee Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Mesa, AZ Posts: 1,389	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! __________________ The older I get, the better I was!

May 6th, 2010, 07:58 PM	#3
Mohammed Zaheer New Boot Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 18	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

May 6th, 2010, 08:51 PM	#4
Robert Turchick Trustee Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Mesa, AZ Posts: 1,389	Tokina won't work on the 5D...it's only for cropped sensor. The 16-35 he has is actually nicer. __________________ The older I get, the better I was!

May 6th, 2010, 11:17 PM	#5
Denny Kyser Major Player Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Warren, Pa Posts: 785	Thanks, will probably give the 50 1.2 a try. __________________ 2 Canon XF305's Kyser Photography www.kyserphoto.com

May 7th, 2010, 01:38 AM	#6
Ben Denham Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: NSW Australia Posts: 149	I'm curious about the 100mm L macro for video. Does anyone have much experience with it? Is the hybrid IS useful?

May 7th, 2010, 02:57 AM	#7
Erik Andersen Major Player Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Vancouver Canada Posts: 218	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. __________________ Canon 5D Mark II \|\| L-Series Lenses \|\| Steadicam Pilot \|\| Final Cut Studio www.lovestorymedia.com

May 7th, 2010, 03:22 PM	#9
Robert Turchick Trustee Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Mesa, AZ Posts: 1,389	try the 16-35 from Canon. Unreal lens. Expensive though. There's also a 14mm f2.8 but it's REALLY expensive! __________________ The older I get, the better I was!

May 7th, 2010, 04:01 PM	#10
Mike Watson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 1,082	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.

May 7th, 2010, 06:23 PM	#11
Michael Ojjeh Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 338	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. __________________ Dragonfly Production http://www.dragonflyproduction.net/ http://www.vimeo.com/user432181