Recommended Lenses for Canon 5D Mk2

[Rodger Smith]

Regarding that 27,000 dollar lens . . . that is definitely out of my price range let alone my production style. most of my shoot subjects will be in the 5 to 20 feet away range with the odd scenario of 50 to 150 feet. so i don't need to shoot a fly from a block away (or more) but will look into that tube idea.

UPDATE: I did pick up the 50mm f1.4 and mid week getting the 16-35 f2.8L is usm glass. and will prob hold for the 70-200 f2.8 till the end of the month when ive sold off the rest of the nikon gear.

[Peer Landa]

Originally Posted by Rodger Smith

Regarding that 27,000 dollar lens . . . that is definitely out of my price range let alone my production style.

Well, no one here was actually seriously suggesting this lens -- it was just a silly thing I started off from Nigel Barker accidentally putting one zero too many in "I have the 500mm F1.2L which is a fantastic lens but much more expensive."

Originally Posted by Rodger Smith

UPDATE: I did pick up the 50mm f1.4 and mid week getting the 16-35 f2.8L is usm glass. and will prob hold for the 70-200 f2.8 till the end of the month

This is almost exactly the series of lenses I run -- i.e., I think this setup will cover you perfectly.

-- peer

[Daniel Browning]

Originally Posted by Peer Landa

Well, the closest might be the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 that can be had for a whooping $29k at B&H:

Another kinda-close lens would be the CZ Master Prime 150mm f/1.2.

[Rodger Smith]

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

Another kinda-close lens would be the CZ Master Prime 150mm f/1.2.

is this a canon lens? i will only buy canon lenses.

[Daniel Browning]

Originally Posted by Rodger Smith

is this a canon lens? i will only buy canon lenses.

No, it's Carl Zeiss (well, technically it's ARRI in this case).

[Peer Landa]

Originally Posted by Rodger Smith

i will only buy canon lenses.

I bacon powder -- is this some kind of contract you have with Canon or is it just a brand loyalty thingee..? It surely can't be due to quality reasons since there are a slew of better lenses out there.

-- peer

[Rodger Smith]

Originally Posted by Peer Landa

I bacon powder -- is this some kind of contract you have with Canon or is it just a brand loyalty thingee..? It surely can't be due to quality reasons since there are a slew of better lenses out there.

-- peer

ive been in the video business pumping out over 150 videos a year for nearly 7 years now while shooting stills on nikon only cameras and lenses (the latter for over 5 decades) and in 2008 i came across the canon xha1 that seemed like a really cheap camera body to me but was a way i could get into HD without the expensive P2 card system like our Panny's had.

well, the image was astonishing. i mean it was so film looking that i had to shoot gads of footage and gained all kinds of "presets" knowledge on the camera and therein i studied the camera and found that the secret to its' amazing image was in: 1) the high density population imager; 2) its digic analog to digital processing; and, 3) its high end HD lens.

it was the latter that woke me up after 5 decades of photography but only a year and a half as digital. glass, imager, and hopefully a good body (just for security and reliability) therein, i recalled years of experience in photo clubs and how many pointed to the canon lenses.

so, i decided i wanted "full frame" and "canon lenses" which would give me a great glass, great imager, and a decently reliable body. again, the 5d mk2 like the xha1 and now the xha1s doen't have the most pro feel body but has an image with the L glass that is amazing and i like it tremendously. therein, i will be canon only. after all, they make one of the best lenses on the market, they made the camera, thus their lens should work exactly like the camera wants it to. i like single source responsibility and simple. those are winning combinations to me. maybe even synergy.

[Peer Landa]

Originally Posted by Rodger Smith

therein, i will be canon only. after all, they make one of the best lenses on the market, they made the camera, thus their lens should work exactly like the camera wants it to.

"Their lens should work exactly like the camera wants it to" -- hey, I've been shooting with Canon glass since 1973, so yes, I'm truly a Canon die hard, but I'm sorry, to me your statement sounds like you've never heard of Lomo, Leica, Zeiss, Arri, etc.

-- peer

[Rodger Smith]

Originally Posted by Peer Landa

"Their lens should work exactly like the camera wants it to" -- hey, I've been shooting with Canon glass since 1973, so yes, I'm truly a Canon die hard, but I'm sorry, to me your statement sounds like you've never heard of Lomo, Leica, Zeiss, Arri, etc.

-- peer

i have used leica, zeiss, and arri, and none of them provided me with anything that i haven't gotten from the high quality L glass from canon. sorry. but its a thing. plus the zeiss have a stiff focus ring (at least on the two i used) which won't work well with my rubber to ring follow focus. also, and although listed last not necessarily the least important, is budget. im trying to keep my budget reasonable AND value applicable rather than extravagant which is why im still out on the "back up" camera . . where in, i think that the canon L will give me absolute excellent images for a reasonable value while the others you mentioned above, will charge an arm and a leg for slightly better images (in my opinion) for weddings, commercial, film shoots, and documentaries wherein at least 70% of my camera work will be stills and 30% video.

on the "back up" camera, the jury is still out wherein im tossed between the 7d and the T2i. i believe the latter will be suffice for a back up since i will not be doing a lot of work demand where i can just reschedule till my 5dm2 is back were it out for some reason except of course for weddings . . where i believe that the T2i will suffice for the 2nd camera and the "back up" without breaking the bank AND for great B camera on my film shoots. however, at this very moment im leaning toward keeping my d90 until my last major weddings are over in september then decided. who knows?

[Peer Landa]

Originally Posted by Rodger Smith

i have used leica, zeiss, and arri, and none of them provided me with anything that i haven't gotten from the high quality L glass from canon. sorry. but its a thing.

Yea, it must be a "thing". To me, though, comparing (and even preferring) Canon L glass to Arri, Lomo, and Zeiss, is like going for a 2007 Corvette instead of a 1987 Ferrari F40, or to compare a Bud Light to an Orval Trappist. Yes, most people prefer Budweiser, and yes, we all are different -- and I accept that.

-- peer

[Jon Fairhurst]

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.

[Peer Landa]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

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

[Rodger Smith]

Originally Posted by Peer Landa

....To me, though, comparing (and even preferring) Canon L glass to Arri, Lomo, and Zeiss, is like ....-- 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.

[Jon Fairhurst]

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.

[Bill Pryor]

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.