I saw an experienced politician deal with an inflammatory analogy recently. His reply was something like, "That doesn't mean anything. Your analogy doesn't make any sense." :)

BTW, I could see comparing an EF-S zoom to Budweiser, but an L lens? Certainly not.

But I always hear that Budweiser is the King of Beers -- you mean that's not the case...? (I thought being a King must be a Luxury thing, just like the "L" in Canon's lenses...)

-- peer

for the benefit of the lesser experienced readers i will attempt to explain. without a doubt the other lenses mentioned will be beneficial over the Canon L glass. however, to what extent? that is, if they were markedly better for double the cost, for some where budget isn't issue, then so be it. however, for those who are trying to outfit themselves with a decent and really lets face it much better than decent outfit as has been outlined by the initiator of this thread and his expectations therein, the L glass Canon is great. more than great really.

however, if one wanted to go all the way to the highest end glass and has the budget for it, then why suffice with digital at all. why not go film even super 35 for the film work then its 100% arriflex and arri primes then one has the premium set up. however, for this photographer with limited budget who is selling off his business and re-outfitting himself with something that will give him some photo wedding and commercial work and the ability to go out and just maybe make yet a third award winning movie with his less than half dozen lenses and maybe two primes in the lot, he will be totally satisfied that he doesn't have the premium or the top of the line or of the industry, but really really excellent equipment for a moderate price that fits his less than 10,000 total investment for a 5dm2, T2i, 5 lenses, full rail red rock micro matte box rig, and some filters (already have them) for a great photographer set up with excellent film/video shoots for his movie work.

yes there is a path that is far better but at a cost and overshot for the work titled herein. so in closing, it is this writers perspective that one should always review what they really intend to do and how much they have to do it with and then make the most reasonable move toward accomplishing that goal. one might find themselves less than what the industry says is "great" but then "blair witch" was produced for less then 20K with low end equipment by comparison to the biggie producers but it certainly did ok financially and the look was atrocious compared to a harrison ford movie. but then again, the composition with decent gear is what it is all about. given one has excellent gear like mentioned herein, with the right composition they can end up with an image that many will say, "wow, had to hasselblad and arri to get that look." :-) happy shooting all. i love my canon gear and have yet to miss my nikon's.

I own a 200/2.8L II and also use ZE 21/2.8, 35/2 and 85/1.4 lenses. IMHO, the 200L is as crisp as can be. The picture quality is every bit the equal of the Zeiss lenses - even for photos, let alone video.

The big difference is focusing. AF is a great asset for long lenses. And I love the ZE 21mm for photos, since focusing with a wide is so easy.

Not long ago, I shot a small event with a 24-105/4 IS. The photos turned out very good with a really high hit rate. I then tried the 85/1.4 for some portraits of children with a slightly narrower DOF. I got more failure than success. It was daylight, so IS was not a factor. It was just bloody hard to nail the focus up close with an 85mm lens for photo-quality sharpness without AF. I ended up using a loupe and x10 mag, since I only have the stock viewfinder screen, and the results were still so-so.

I would have been better off using the 200L at a bit more distance. I would have been able to blur the background, deliver stunning quality, and gotten a higher hit rate.

For video, I certainly prefer the Zeiss focus ring, but for photos, there are times when manual focus works well, and times when it doesn't. Glass quality doesn't matter when you don't get the shot.

Good comment there. Whatever gets the shot.

To my eye both the L and the Zeiss lenses seem equally sharp and both provide a nice look to the images. I prefer the Zeiss because they seem to have better build quality, especially when it comes to the focusing rings. I think the L 85 f1.2 is a superb lens and looks great, but I really do not like that electronic focus ring that has almost no feel to it. It feels like if you breath on it, it will shift. That's an exaggeraton, of course, but it has even less "touch" than the lens on my XH A1. If I get an 85, I'd get the Zeiss equivalent. My Canon 70-200 L f4 has a much better feel than the 85, but still not as solid as the Zeiss lenses I've used. The only Zeiss I have at the moment is the 50 f1.4. It feels as solid as my old all metal pre-AI Nikkor 35 and has an even better focus throw. For still photography, I'd go with the Canon lenses, I'm sure. But for video, I prefer the Zeiss and old Nikkors.

All this is not to say the L lenses aren't good--they are. I just prefer the Zeiss build. Some people are saying the Zeiss are sharper for going to the big screen, but I really can't tell any difference in that area. Both look great.

Lenses
 

Well, since I don't do much interviews, I mainly have a set of primes and 1 zoom for my fiction work. They are

14 2.8L - Fantastic wide angle with low distortion. This lens gives you a perspective no other lens can give in full frame. There's a Sigma 12-20 zoom (something like that). Tried it, but has distortion at the wide end.

24 1.4- This is the lens I'm using the most. Excelent color, extremely good for low light. Excelent for medium close ups and for some close ups. Gives them a diferent look from the standard 50mm look.

50 1.4- Its the lens I use most for portraits. I love natural light and this lens is a most for low light situations.

135 2.0- the sharpest lens I have. Its true, the word of mouth is this is one of the sharpest lenses Canon does, and it really is the sharpest from my set. Excelent for small telephoto shots. Gives a ver, very good bokeh, but "demands" a tripod due to its lack of IS.

16-35mm zoom- Wide shots and Low DOF shots are what I require from my DSLR's, and this Zoom, while 2.8. provides a very good "wide" coverage for those situations were I just can't switch lenses. However, I feel the need for a 70-200 2.8L IS. Its great for events, like motorsports.

Lenses I used and found very useful for motorsport coverage

Motorsport shooting is something I do once a year professionaly, and I've found this set of lenses to be very useful

70-200 2.8 IS- Very, very good lens. Never tried the II, but the I one was excelent and versatile for Paddock and pit-lane coverage. Still a bit short for on the track

28-300L IS - This is an underrated lens, and was an excellent all round lens for on track coverage. The push zoom takes a while to get used to, but its very sharp and has an unbeatable range.

Lens I would love to try out on the track: 300 2.8L prime, 400 2.8L Prime.

Notice: from 200mmm above, the rolling shutter effects gets close to being uncontrolable. Still shots, no panning or very very slow panning only!

Hello guys I would like to have ur thoughts about this lences...


Canon 16-35mm 2.8

Sigma 24-70 mm 2.8

Canon 15mm 2.8 fisheye

I need to shoot a music videoclip and the only lence i Have now is the canon 50mm 1.8 ( I have also nikkor 14-24,24-70 and 70-200 but the nikon to canon adapter that I bought from BH will not come till end of August and I can't w8 till then and I dont know if that adapter will work anyway)

The Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 is a very nice and useful lens, (next to my 70-200 f/2.8, I use this lens the most).

I had a Sigma 15mm f/2.8 that was VERY nice (and is more affordable than the Canon), and it's built like a tank.

The Sigma 24-70 I don't know at all.

-- peer

thank u for ur quick reply Peer,

I just found out that there are

2 series of CANON 16-35 the Li and the Lii , the li is half price of the lii

does the lii worth the extra cost?

The new version has less barrel distortion, less flare, more contrast/sharpness (especially in the corners), and slightly better bokeh. If the budget can handle it, I would say it's worth it.

thank u Daniel

i foun the L version at 570 euro and the lii version at 1200 euro, double price..... My budget can hold the difference ....

With a 5d there is a big difference in the look of a shot at f4 vs f2. Also the wider apertures glass usually comes with better coatings etc. Add that zooms just don't offer the same sharpness in my experience and that explains my case of heavy and expensive prime lenses. Zooms and fast changes are not what i need, super shallow depth of field interviews and arty B roll is all i want.

Thus an 85mm 1.4 - super sharp and beautiful soft out of focus areas. The autofocus is worthless though but in good light with a stable subject its all good. Many people swear by the 100 macro instead of the 85mm. Also have a 50mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 24 1.4. Add extension tubes and you have macro. All amazing lenses!

PS - in my opinion any discussion about sharper non-Canon glass is way to far up the diminishing returns curve to waste time with.

Happy shooting :)

Another thing to consider is color balance of each manufacturer and lens.

I stick with Canon glass because even though you can get slight variations in color from each Canon lens, if you go from a Canon to a Sigma, for example, the difference is huge- this means more work in post-production and a hassle.

Or maybe non-canon glass will suit some people better -- i.e., less work and no hassle. Although I got my share of L lenses that I'm very happy with, I yet prefer shooting with (when possible) some old Carl Zeiss, Isco, or even a 15mm Sigma. Hence, what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander.

-- peer

Great lens, love it. If you don't need the stop, the 17-40L f4 is about $800 cheaper and sharper at the wide end.

There are several versions on this. Suffers from the Sigma "get a good copy" issue. There are lots of soft ones out there (again, depending on which version you get). I think Ken Rockwell did a good review on it.

Never used it.


Thats a shame, it's some great glass. I'd rather pay for overnight shipping and get these lenses working than spend a penny on anything else.

For me it's the Zeiss ZE's--I have a set of 6 from 21 to 100 macro (I decided to forego the 18 for various reasons). With my setup I'm able to offer my focus pullers exactly the same accuracy as if they were working with cine lenses (i.e. Master/Ultra primes, S4's etc), which is a big deal because of the critical focus required with these cameras. I've successfully intercut with the Canon zooms, but I'm hoping to find a manual alternative soon.

I completely agree with David -- the 70-200 f/2.8 is my most versatile lens. The only issues I have with it -- its weight & size, and that it has no focus pull-stops (for the follow focus). Still yet, I almost always carry it with me, no matter what shoot it's for.

Apparently the 70-200 is also often used for weddings:
YouTube - Wedding Photographer Falls Into Water Fountain
Poor guy.

-- peer

OK here's my lens selection delima's so far:

CANON 16-35mm f2.8 L USM - i picked up this lens for great width close in, i like the look and feel of the lens but it does NOT have IS and even though it works great i see slight edge blurs when using it for weddings. :-(

CANON 24-70mm f2.8 L USM - i picked this up for all around use and even though i like the look and feel of the lens with flash because it does not have IS i see some edge blur making it difficult to chose for weddings. :-(

im loving the camera and the absolutely awesome shots when the picture is in focus and clean, but im really disappointed that these two above quality lenses do not have an IS version and there is none made by canon. im thinking that a higher f stop with IS would be better or just like a lower f stop if it has IS when using flash.

thoughts ???

Do you really need the f/2.8 of the 24-70mm? The 24-105mm f/4 does have IS, sounds like the IS may be more important to you? It was for me--I currently use the 24-105 f/4L IS USM, ands the 70-200mm F/2.8 IS USM. Not a bad all-around combo.
SW

I have the 24-70 f2.8. At times in low light, I do feel the need for f2.8. Also, an IS would be really welcome. Before using this lens, I never thought that I will require an IS. I was clicking and filming a tigress with both the 24-105 f4 L as well as the 24-70 f2.8. I felt the need for IS in the 24-70.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

don't know if "i need" other than i wanted for video work and was hoping that they lens would cross to wedding work. however, unless i can really hold the camera steady, im not sure i have a win win situation and it's a lot of money to have laying around for use only part of the time. :-(

To me, it's the opposite. I recently wrote the following on the 7D forum:
Well, I now tend to believe that the usefulness of the IS might be an urban legend -- at least I'm definitely sure that it's not "absolutely essential for video work." This I found out in a flukeish way after shooting an interview series, when halfway into it realized that I had forgotten to engage the IS (again using the 70-200L handheld). I was about to kick myself, embarrassed of my negligence, (I even contemplated to re-shoot the interviews that were now IS-less). However, when I got to the editing phase, I could not see any difference between the non-IS footage and the one shot with IS activated. (And yes, the IS in that lens works, or at least I can hear the motor).

-- peer

Peer, whether you need IS or not really depends on what you shoot. Considering the range of production out there, it isn't fair either way to say that you need IS or don't need IS (as we've discussed in the 7D forum already :) But I guarantee you, it isn't a myth.

A 200mm on a tripod shooting an interview? You'll never need IS.
That same 200mm, still on a tripod, shooting motorsports in 30mph winds? IS makes a difference (this was me, two weekends ago).

I've also shot out of a helicopter with the 24-105L IS with IS off and on. One was clean, the other was not in any way usable.

this is what i am saying. ive just put over 3,000 in lenses and shot my first wedding "temp" shoot (it was a video project and just took my 5dm2 and the two lenses) and did the job like it was real. the edges of the moving subjects are not crisp or clean and you can tell its from movement. feet are blurry and fingers look almost ghosted. it will NOT be sellable material in the end. my nikon d90 with a 100 dollar lens with stabilzation would sell better. and i had taken these pics with the 7d, i have a feeling i would be in court. thankfully im not there yet as i still have two weeks before my first production wedding shoot but as of this moment i'm in a rush to find an answer. ive contacted b&h and provided all the support info i can and hopefully will have some kind of solution by tomorrow because short of that, they close for about 5 days over a holiday and that will have me "at the wall" :-(

you should notice a big difference just looking in the viewfinder (easy to see with 5x or 10x magnification).. if you cant see any difference it is most likely broken, the IS components are quite fragile

Not fair..?! So it's not "fair" that I couldn't see any difference in my footage using IS vs non-IS...? Jeez.

But what you need, Dylan, is to read my post more thoroughly before replying. To help you out, I'll quote myself: "I had forgotten to engage the IS, again using the 70-200L handheld." I.e., no mention of a tripod, but handheld handheld handheld. Okay?!

-- peer

peer, r u saying in movie mode the 5dm2 will auto focus? continuously or when you hit the af button only? also, what about ability to manually control ISO during the shoot. is this capacity there?

This doesn't sound like it has anything to do with IS or lenses at all - blurring on the edge of moving subjects is due to low shutter speed, blurring of the entire frame is due to camera movement and can be improved with IS. What shutter speed did you shoot the wedding at?

Maybe I'm not quite getting the intent of some of the recent posts, but it seems as though there may be some misunderstanding of what the IS function does for you. It stabilizes camera shake and so allows you to use a slower shutter speed when photographing subjects. That helps tremendously to get a sharp image when something is static within the frame (no hand shakies), but if you're slowing the shutter speed to get the shot, it can hurt you when there is relative motion in the frame.

If you don't want motion blur, keep the shutter speed at least as fast as the length of the lens in mm, eg 1/200th for a 200mm lens. Any slower and something that's in motion relative to the framed image will be blurry even if you're using IS. With IS, you might shoot a very crisp image of a person at 1/80th and 200mm when they are standing still (and you otherwise might not have had enough light to get the shot), but when they go to scratch their nose, all the IS in the world won't prevent their arm being a blur.

EDIT: Looks like Evan said the same thing at the same time, but much more succinctly.

Pete's right, but you generally have different considerations for video - high shutter speeds tend to eliminate too much motion blur and create a stutter-y look in video. This is often used for a specific effect (opening scene of Saving Private Ryan, fight scenes in Gladiator, etc) but unless you know you want that effect you won't want to crank the shutter speed up. "Standard" shutter speeds will be 1/48 for 24p and 1/60 for 30p - lower than that and you'll get excessive blurring on movement (I suspect this is Rodger's issue), higher than that and you get the stutter effect from too little motion blur.

IS for video use is about making the shot look more stable, not about reducing blurriness. An important consideration for this is the type of IS a lens has - some have a 'panning' mode that only stabilizes vertical movement (i.e. 70-200 f/2.8 IS) , while others have only a single mode (i.e. 24-105mm f/4 IS). With the single IS lenses the IS can introduce it's own problems. If you pan or have a moving background in the shot the lens will try to stabilize this, hit the end of it's range of stabilization, then snap back to the middle of the stabilization range. This introduces a jerky, mechanical look to the motion of the shot - I've had it happen both on handheld shots where I was moving the camera and on shots from a moving vehicle where the subject and camera were still but the background was moving rapidly. It's a bit of a catch-22 with these lenses though - without IS a shot from a moving car would likely have too much vibration to be useable, with it you may get the IS artifacts.

standard setting for flash, 1/60th

Again Peer, maybe do a quick check to see if your lens' IS is functioning ok. What most experience is a world of difference with handheld / shoulder mounted shots taken with or without IS. I currently have a 17-55 in for repair (expensive repair!) as the IS stopped working, quite a common complaint apparently.

Hate to throw myself into this slightly contentious discussion, but shooting tight closeups as a B camera on a 2nd gen. 70-200, I found that I got better results with the IS engaged. I was doing one of those slow drifting-around type of closeups where the camera is constantly in motion.

Even though I was using a top-notch head, I found just enough of my "humanity" showing up in the shot (heartbeat, hand jitter on the panhandle etc) that I had to work really hard to avoid this. During a card change I flipped on the stabilizer and everything got REALLY easy. I never felt like the IS was fighting me or overshooting.

If you can't tell a difference between IS an no IS at 200mm handheld, one of three things is possible:
1) your IS was off or broken both times
2) your IS was ON both times
3) you have the arms of Hercules himself, rock solid like chiseled marble.

Because *I* can tell the difference between IS on and off handheld, and its a big difference. With IS off, tripod mounted, I can tell when my hand touches the tripod handle. So if you can hand hold it and not tell between on and off, then it has to be one of the above 3.


And what you need Peer... is to be A TOUCH LESS RUDE please..

Read my post one more time.
I wasn't saying you shot on a tripod... I was pointing out that SOMEONE WHO IS NOT YOU should not need IS if they are shooting interviews on a tripod at 200mm.

My point, one more time, is that some shooters will never need IS, whereas some will live and die by it, and that what's good for Peer Landa is not necessarily good for every other shooter out there. IS is not a myth as you believe... IS has saved my ass and made my shot on numerous occasions. And I'm not the only one, as you can read by other's posts as well.

Again, I'll rehash my previous post, hopefully a bit less rude this time: I would appreciate if you, Dylan, would try to read my posts more thoroughly before replying, (as my mom always told me, being perceptive is the key to success):

Please tell me, where have I said "at 200mm"...?

-- peer

Let's all play nice, kids.

As the consummate Hollywood professional and the heck of a nice guy that he is, I normally take Charles' observations about camera matters as authoritative. However, since FedEx should be delivering me my own 70-200L IS II USM tomorrow, I'll check out IS vs non-IS. I'll share my experience here and give you all the final word (as long as it agrees with what Charles said...)
;-)

Rodger, is there any way you can post a short clip of your video so we can see the specific problems that are troubling you?

I would love to hear the results of this from a pro.

OK, what I zoomed in and saw in the camera is NOT what I seen in Mac Previewer. The images are way better than the screen on the Canon camera revealed. The blur I thought I was looking at, simply was not there.

Secondly, I also need to learn more about the camera and lens scenario. B&H responded the specific lenes may have to be back focused and if that is the case they recommend I contact Canon and send both the camera(s) (5dm2 & 7d) to Canon and let them do it. Anyone know how to check this issue? A link perhaps?

Lastly, I could sell every picture that I did not delete in the camera while shooting (yeah I critique my work while shooting) and the pics reveal i need a lot of education on the 580EX2 flash and how to set the camera's light reading areas properly to get the right exposures. most of my pictures are center lighted and the edges around the subjects basically dark (underexposed) im sure this is based on the camera's "weighted" setting but therein i haven't studied this system by comparison to my former 100% nikon flashes and cameras thinking. i hope i get there quick. two weeks is my biggest shoot of 2010 and id prefer not to rent nikon gear when i have all this canon.

BTW, I love the 16-35mm f2.8 II USM for closes and wide and the 24-70mm f2.8 USM for all around plus on the 7d for now I have mounted the 24-105 f4.0 IS USM for my assistants shooting since she is a former Nikonianon (sp) also.

So some eduction and maybe I might turn this out after all. ALSO BTW, I had purchased a 50mm f1.4 USM for about 400 and when it arrived it rattled. The second time I used it, two parts fell out of the back and after reassembling it, the lens was no longer useful. I do hope that Canon products are much more reliable than that and that I only got a one in a million defective one? B&H of course gave me 100% refund including shipping, but if Canon primes are this weak like that one, will I even want one. Let alone if I have an expensive L glass zoom, why would I want a prime otherwise unless for the f1.8 ??

Even at the 70mm side of the 70-200 you should be able to tell the difference between IS on and off in the viewfinder/LCD. If you can't see it, it may not be working.

That would be Charles and Dylan, not me. At this juncture, my videography and photography are merely expensive hobbies.

Very disappointing reply from Rodger about wanting to hear from a professional. This camera has actually been championed by the non professional shooter film maker. I found this same attitude from pro shooters at a recent meet up. These are the guys that have been shooting TV video for 30 years. They are the guys that are saying you can't take this camera off a tripod in the first place, or you can't record a bit of sound to the camera in a one man shoot situation. They are surprised when you pull out your camera and a Nikon lens is mounted on it, loaded with Magic Lantern, and say, something like, " How did you do that, (add a stammer and stutter) Well, I want to be able to have IS and have good sound." They have all these "can'ts" and "don'ts" that have been legislated by some or because they heard someone else say it about this particular camera, and as pros they have accepted a line, without actually going it and trying it themselves. Peter, with this camera, you are a pro....