Re: couple of questions about Mk.III Lens
 

i have the excellent 24-105, but recently used the 35 2.0 to film a Kung Fu class. I had it set up on a 5D mkii, Cavision rig with FF and a monopod screwed into the bottom, a smallHD DP6, a Singh Ray variable ND, a Rode video mic pro and a Zoom H4.
I really enjoyed this set up!!!! the 35 2.0 is nice and light. the 24-105 with all the other gear would have been really taxing, and i doubt the zoom would have been used that much anyway. the 2.0 allowed me to get really creative with DOF (deep and shallow) and i am really happy with the images i captured. the monopod was a great addition! i could brace it on my belt or leg with the rig on my shoulder, and it was rock solid. the shoulder unit alone is so front heavy that it can be really tiring, but with the monopod, i could shoot for hours. and i could lift the camera high above my head, gripping the monopod or bracing it on my chest. i think i have found my perfect run and gun set up. it was very stable, versatile and easy to get really creative!
anyway, long story short, i found the cheap 35 2.0 lens great to shoot with, and did not miss zoom at all. i would highly recommend it in addition to the 24-105. that is, if you can't afford the 1.4...

Re: couple of questions about Mk.III Lens
 

I don't see any need for IS function in wide lenses, so much prefer the 16-35mm L or 17-35mm L f/2.8 lenses for ultra-wide settings, and the 24-70 f/2.8 L for most normal wide work (the latter is a fantastic lens to work with and in my opinion it is a far better lens than the 24-105mm).
The IS can be of benefit at the 105mm end, but if you are going to use that medium telephoto lens setting a lot in your filming, I think the 100mm L Macro Is is a far better option and also has a better image stabilizer.

Re: couple of questions about Mk.III Lens
 

Do I recall correctly that a "II" version of the 35 f/1.4L is in the works?

Re: couple of questions about Mk.III Lens
 

EF 35 f/1.4L II
Canon filed a patent back in 2011, so yes, it will eventually be produced, but not for a while yet I think.

Canon filed patent for EF 35 f/1.4L II

Patent Publication No. US 7,944,625
Published 2011.5.17
Filled 2009.8.5

Specifications

Focal Distance: 34.59
Fno: 1.45
Half angle of view: 32.02
Image Height: 21.64
Lens Length (mm): 126.93
Back Focus (mm): 37.98

Here are the actual inner glass elements of the lens in the patent:

Re: couple of questions about Mk.III Lens
 

Currently, the exchange rate is poor for buying Japanese products. (They're either priced high or the margins are really thin for the manufacturer.) Lately, that means that new Canon models (Extenders III, 5D3, 24-70L, 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8 IS) are priced much higher than the previous models. The trend is making the "wait for the new model" thing less appealing.

The 35L currently goes for $1,380 - $1,500, new. I'd guess that the new model (when/if introduced) would go for closer to $2K. That makes a used 35L I look pretty appealing.

Re: couple of questions about Mk.III Lens
 

Well I bought the camera with the kit lens and I like it. The only thing is that I can hear the autofocus when I am using the internal mic. I got also a Zacuto viewfinder and ND fader from LCW. Getting used to the menu is proving difficult, but I will get there! Trying to find a workflow that will allow me to use ISO, aperture fast. And you can use autofocus while filming!! I thought you couldn't do that.

Re: couple of questions about Mk.III Lens
 

Were you shooting with a flash?

Re: couple of questions about Mk.III Lens
 

Maurice, I don't do photography at all, but the DJ kept turning off my lighting so I had an issue with light and it soaked it right up. Now, I've had some experience since then where 8000 at f/4 didn't cut it, but it is truly remarkable.
Bill

Re: couple of questions about Mk.III Lens
 

Here's what I am using on the 5D MIII for video:

-Kit lens, 24-105mm L IS
-Rokinon 35mm 1.4 manual lens

I am liking the 24-105, and the IS is needed for handheld, but not a miracle worker. It helps, but my handheld shots still look handheld. Just smooths the bumps some. I find that I am really wanting something longer and tighter... the 70-200 would probably be that lens. Maybe later I can afford it. For 90% of the shots, I have a variable ND filter attached to do quick iris changes. It also allows for more wide open f4 work but I am finding that I hunt for focus and the LCD is not sharp enough to critically judge focus while recording.

If anything, I am struggling with focus on the 5D with the EF lenses. In practical terms, that means I am closing the iris to maximize depth of field. I am finding that run and gun work is requiring f8 and higher so that I can have some latitude with focus.

Now, my Rokinon 35mm f1.4 lens. It is awesome. $400 bucks I think I paid. So worth it. It is manual, which I prefer over the EOS lens for video. I did a shoot last night in almost pitch black, could barely see with my eyes and punched the ISO all the way up on the 5DMIII. I was able to get a shot with that lens that no other video camera that I use (EX3, HDX900, etc.) could match. Yes, there was noise but it was so much more usable than a standard videocamera gained up to, say, 30db. Awesome. Dialed back the ISO to around 8000-10000 and had very acceptable video noise. The depth of field at 1.4 is so incredibly tight, that it makes life very difficult to focus properly. Especially in the dark, you really spend most of your time judging focus in the little LCD. But, it is awesome, too.

I really want a zoom lens that mirrors a broadcast lens spec, like the new Canon and Fujinon PL mounts. However, $40k is not an option for me. Will make do with EF lenses for now.

If I were to buy another lens, I would probably try the 70-200 f2.8. Maybe experiment with some wider lens options like a 16mm.

Re: couple of questions about Mk.III Lens
 

The range would be great on the 70-200 mm f/2.8 but, I think that you might come out better using a fixed lens for video. I'm new to Canon but, if you can find a 200 mm f/2.8, that would probably give even better footage.

Re: couple of questions about Mk.III Lens
 

I owned the 200/2.8L II and have the 70-200/2.8L IS II at work. I use both on a tripod. Both lenses are awesome optically.

The advantages of the 200/2.8L II are low cost, small size, low weight, and stealth. But without IS, you need a REALLY good tripod setup. Any little wiggle is seen in the image. Of course, you could stabilize in post.

I'd rather have the 135/2L as it's faster, less sensitive to vibration, and is a more useful focal length for me.

The advantages of the 70-200/2.8L IS II is that it has a zoom range, the optics are as good as the 200/2.8L prime, and the IS removes micro-vibrations wonderfully. It makes the camerawork invisible. The downsides are that it's expensive, large, heavy, and flashy. I wouldn't want to shoot long takes handheld with it. Give me a monopod at the least.

My personal lens in this range is the 100/2.8L IS Macro. Unlike the 24-105, it provides f/2.8 speed. It has hybrid IS, which works great. It's a comfortable size, weight, and color. It's relatively affordable. Not to mention that you'll never run into a minimum focus distance limitation with it!.

But if you have the cash, will use a tripod/monopod, and don't mind the size/weight/flashiness, the 70-200L IS II is a fantastic lens. If it were smaller, lighter, and black, it would be ideal. :)

Re: couple of questions about Mk.III Lens
 

I use the 24-70 f2.8L quite a bit--that's a nice versatile lens. Also the 70-200 f2.8 and 135 f2 are real beauties.