Canon Glass Questions
 

I am going to purchase a Canon 5D MKIII today. I had a 5D MKII and 7D for projects in the past and both were great at making money for the business. Looked into the Nikon D600 and D800 but have decided on Canon.

My question is about a few lens I have not used and how current owners like the glass. First off I shoot 90-95% RAW stills. For video I use my video gear. But I shoot stills while on the same jobs and make it all work. Some of the stills are put in videos by client request.

I like and need wide glass. So my choice is the following:

Canon 14mm f/2.8L (interior shots and effect landscapes)

Canon 8-15mm fisheye f/4L (at times for effects)

When I need to go longer:
EF 70-200 f/2.8L

Not sure which of the following three I would like but at this time only one makes it in the kit for the next three jobs. Then I could add another.
EF 17-40 f/4L
or
EF 16-35 f/2.8L (had this in the past and really like it but don't know if it is that much better then the 17-40?)

EF 24-70 f/2.8/L (no IS is a problem for me but I know it is sharp. What is a better option in the same range?)

Re: Canon Glass Questions
 

I shoot a good deal of stills as well as video with the 5D mk3.
I have the 16-35 and 24-70 as well as a 24-105.

The 24-105 is a good lens that has IS but is an f4. For outdoors its perfect but indoors I prefer the 24-70 at 2.8 if needed. The IS is really nice to have on the video side of things however.

the 16-35 is not quite as sharp but does have a much wider view. I used it alongside the 24-70 for all my storm chasing and lightning pics, each on a 5D mk3. As long as it's around f8 up to f16 it's just fine. You then have to take advantage of the mk3's low noise high ISO capability which equalizes things a bit.

I have not used the 17-40 but have heard good things about it as well. It is limited by the f4 and no IS.

I saw a side by side of the 24-70 and the mkII. The only real difference is the edge sharpness which to some will be important. To me it's not worth the extra $1K!

I am looking forward to Zeiss releasing their 15mm f2.8 in a week or so which should reign as king of all wide lenses. Unfortunately it's pricey, no auto focus and no IS! For what I do with landscapes it will be worth it!

Re: Canon Glass Questions
 

HI Robert,

Thanks for the input very much appreciated.

I did not have the 24-105 on my list and should look into that option. Would be interesting with the better low light on the MKIII to see if this would work inside?

Have you tried the Canon 14mm f/2.8L?

Re: Canon Glass Questions
 

Have not tried the 14mm 2.8. Read very good things about it but then the Zeiss 15mm 2.8 was announced. It's just in a different league...and unfortunately double the price! Seems they've solved the weird distortion that is present in their 18mm and 21mm.

I want to start my Zeiss collection with that and the 35mm which is supposed to be another monster lens.

And then there's my other friend the 400mm f2.8L USMII. I may pick one up as I do a lot of aviation and wildlife work. The 70-200 with doubler just isn't enough!

I have a gig coming up that may justify this insane amount of dough for glass but none will be had til November. I figure it's investing in the career so it'll be worth it in the long run! Once you buy good glass, you don't have to do it again!

Re: Canon Glass Questions
 

I've used most of the Canon glass at one time or another. I have to say that my favourite Canon lens of all time is the 14mm 2.8 mark II - It's just incredible. Make sure you get the mark II if you buy 2nd hand, it's far superior to the mark I.

I don't know why you would consider the fish-eye for video. It's a gimmick and won't be a lot of use to you. If you're going to select new glass, go for lenses that will afford you plenty of use first before you buy that stuff.

The 14mm is amazing and I use it in all kinds of scenarios. I find it most useful to be really close to an object with it, but compose the shot such that the object is shown in relation to its surroundings. It gives a very unique perspective when used like this. Try not to use the lens as a practical method to 'get everything into the shot' (such as a landscape) otherwise it looks boring and I don't believe ultra-wides should be used typically in that fashion anyway. (Although the exception is real-estate photography to help make the rooms look bigger!)

I have the Zeiss 35mm Distagon *T f2.0 and it is also one of my favourite lenses and always in my kit bag. The 1.4 version is a lot more expensive and not worth it in my opinion. The f2 works just as perfect for videography use.

The other prime I have is the 50mm 1.2L which I use predominantly and never fails to give me superb shots.

For telephoto, I use the 70-200 IS USM II f2.8 L - I can't justify buying the 80mm prime for that reason. If I need to go longer, which is rare, I use the x2 extender mark III.

I also have the 17-40 f4 L you mentioned, but it doesn't get a lot of use these days.
I have a couple of manual Nikon lenses too for macro work.




.

Re: Canon Glass Questions
 

Rob, I love the idea of the 15mm Zeiss, but at three grand, that's a stretch.

Still . . . Good glass lasts pretty much forever. Unfortunately, so does bad glass.

Re: Canon Glass Questions
 

Thanks Robert appreciate the input. From my research Zeiss on Canon are a great match. Maybe I should get the Canon 14mm and then a couple of Zeiss primes to span to the 70-200?

I bet the 400 is a nice lens but it is very rare for me to have to go that long. But after saying that if I had it I would use it. For now it is only the glass that makes money right off the bat.

Kris that is great to hear and I will make sure it is the version II, USA. For me it would be for stills, video with the 5D MKIII would be about 5% if that. When I shoot boat interiors it would be perfect and other tight spots where I need coverage. Could be used at sunrise or sunset if the colors cover the whole sky like they did here last night. On the water sailing through sunset and no camera, what I crime. But the internal hard drive has it in storage.

Kris what do you use between the 14 and 35mm?

I think the 70-200 2.8 II is a must for me. Robert mentioned the 24-105 but there seems to be too much overlap with the 70-200 so one has to give. And I might just get three primes to span the 14-70 range.

You guys have been very helpful, keep it coming.

Re: Canon Glass Questions
 

I have the 8-15 fisheye and think it is a great lens. But it is a fisheye so if you want a rectilinear view, wouldn't be the best lens for the purpose and for that a trusted friend who has used the 14mm Canon says I need to give that a try. I have not yet shot with a 14, but he raves on it. Not cheap, but we usually get what we pay for.

Re: Canon Glass Questions
 

Thanks Peter I think the 14mm is a go and the fisheye is on hold since it would not make money right off. It would more be for effect and that does not always work for the client.

As for price still glass does not seem that expensive after owning a bunch of 2/3" HD broadcast glass, yikes. Trying to sell a 1/2" HD one now and that will cover a few primes.

I like you signature

Re: Canon Glass Questions
 

If you have the money for the Canon 14mm then it is a beautiful lens on the other hand if you want an affordable 14mm then the Rokinon/Samyang/Bower manual F/2.8 is a decent lens. Probably not as sharp as the Canon & it is manual only (although AF is moot as everything is in focus on a 14mm lens:-) but a helluva lot cheaper. I also own the Canon 16-35mm F/2.8L II & TBH it's nearly as wide as the 14mm but more useful as you can use it as a normal 24-28-35mm wide angle as well.

Re: Canon Glass Questions
 

Nigel you make a great point about the 16-35 and Rokinon 14mm. I am tight for a couple of weeks with funds as we all are. But need wide for next week. Ah the fun we have being gear geeks and making sure we invest properly.

Nigel I like your site.

Re: Canon Glass Questions
 

Thanks for the kind words. I am the gear geek which frees my wife to be the creative one:-)

Re: Canon Glass Questions
 

Quick update:

Purchased 5D MKIII and Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 II USM lens today. Will start adding glass over the next few weeks. I do have a 24-105 I can borrow from a buddy in the next week. But the first job this is needed for interiors for the 14mm will be great.

I have four Sandisk Extreme UDMA 60MB/s 32GB cards. These should be fine with on the MKIII correct?

After all of this research it looks like I am going to move from Sony video to the Canon C300. Once I sell my Fujinon HSs broadcast lens and EX3 kit. With a building supply of EF glass and the stunning footage I keep seeing from the C300 it just makes sense. Also the IS on the camera with the right lens will greatly improve some of my shoulder work.

Thanks again guys.

Paul Cronin
Where Video Meets Boats
Have Fun Every Day!

Re: Canon Glass Questions
 

I see you've bought the Canon 14. Expensive as it is, you won't be disappointed with it. Should you ever feel the need to sell, they retain their value anyway.

Between 14 and 35 is a bit of a no-man's land for me, remember I said I had the 17-40 f4? Although it is L glass and so pro-grade, I don't rate it highly for its image, I find it rather standard.

I do have a manual Nikon prime 24, but I don't use it a lot. Someone else might have a suggestion for a prime between 14 and 35 that produces a sexy image for the 5D3, but I haven't discovered it yet.

Happy shooting with your new gear!

Re: Canon Glass Questions
 

Of all my Canon glass the 17-40 f/4 is the worst performer; just not sharp enough for the MKIII. I haven't used the 16-35 f/2.8, but lens reviewers usually rate it a little higher than the 17-40.

Re: Canon Glass Questions
 

Kris I think the 14mm will be worth every penny for my work. Will see Monday when the gear arrives and start shooting. Quick learning cure since the first shoot with the camera is Wed evening. Excited to try the 14mm and MKIII low light together.

Thanks Charles, After everything I have heard the 17-40 is off my list. Will consider the 16-35.

Re: Canon Glass Questions
 

I've got the ZE 21/2.8 here at work for video. Ironically, I find it great for photos and not so useful for video. At home, I have the 16-35L II, which I find much more useful as a "problem solver" lens. Back the camera up in a small space, and you can zoom to frame as desired. Problem solved.

I find that at 18mm and wider, one is clearly into "effects" territory. Lenses in that range make a nice, consistent statement.

At 24mm, things are wide and slightly distorted, but with care, 24mm is a nice standard wide. 28mm is even easier to use as a standard wide, given less edge distortion. 35mm is my go-to normal view - it's like a 50 but with more "attitude".

Between 18mm and 24mm, however, things get dangerous. It's a fine view for a reality show or on a small "sports" set, but for narrative cinematography, this range requires a skilled hand. If you push the lens into the scene at an off angle, the perspective effects are excellent (as the "effects" view). If you use it statically for an establishing shot, it can work well too (as a "normal" view). The problem is when trying to use the lens normally, say on a head-high tripod. At one moment, the view might look "normal", but as soon as you pan or people walk into the scene from the side, the distortion is apparent. This inconsistent statement, along with other technical challenges, make this a "hero or goat" lens for narrative.

Starting with the 14L, I'd probably choose the 24L next. You can still push it close at an angle for perspective shots, but you can use it normally too. I'd skip the 21 as the 14 provides the effects thing. Again, the advantage of the zoom is that you can frame to taste in tight quarters. But I get the feeling that you are shooting wide by choice, not because you shoot in elevators, phone booths, and subcompact cars.

In addition to the 24mm, a 35mm would be my choice, but that's me. I recently shot about 4 hours of material with nothing but the ZE 35/2. I have the 35L at home, which I prefer for shooting a combination of photos and video. I also prefer it for its extra stop as I often shoot in natural light. Oh, and the 35L supports peripheral illumination correction, which really rocks. Regarding the ZE 35/2, I prefer it's feel, compact size, and hard stops. I like the images I get from both. Getting the right shot matters much more to me than that last 2 percent of technical quality. I don't like bad lenses but with a very good lens in hand, I could care less if another is slightly better. I'm more critical about my framing, positioning, focus, light, exposure, performance, etc than about the pixels.

Re: Canon Glass Questions
 

Thanks Jon,

Great info and a post I have read a few times to get all the detail. I like the jump to 24mm makes perfect sense and then 35 and 50.

I do shoot wide by choice. Choice being I have to shoot boat interiors as part of my gigs and they are tight spaces, and coverage is important. But also quality is important at full frame.

Video is not my gig with the 5D MKIII but that could change since I just ordered a Canon C300 today. And the MKIII will be my backup till the C100 comes out.

Off to go do some testing with the MKIII and 14mm.

Re: Canon Glass Questions
 

With only one day of shooting stills for my learning curve I am very impressed with the EF14mm and the MKIII. stunning stills. Better get back to is since I will be shooting stills with it tomorrow on a job. The shots make me smile and that is always a good thing.

.

Re: Canon Glass Questions
 

One thing I've learned about ultrawides, is that, unless pushed close to an object of interest, it's really important to stop down. Even with the 21mm on full frame, I risk having the ground at the feet of the camera too soft when the aperture is open. It's really unattractive. With the object of interest and the background in focus, when the ground is out of focus, it looks like a technical fault or a smear on the lens. From that standpoint, an f/4 zoom makes sense. The exception is when you push a wide lens close to an object for forced perspective. That allows a crisp object and soft background, which is a more attractive use of shallow DOF.

On one trip, I angled the lens up at some buildings early in the morning and got one of my favorite shots. Later, I used the 21/2.8 for a large group shot, but it was a bit of a fail since the people on the edges of the frame became very fat. I should have backed up and cropped to a 24 or 28mm view to keep everybody looking their best. So even with stills, this can be a hero or goat lens. Yeah, 21mm is not for the faint of heart!

Your 14mm lens, on the other hand, should have enough perspective distortion (as compared to barrel or pincushion distortion) across the frame that it's less likely to send mixed messages - especially for stills. That said, stopping it down enough to keep floors and ceilings sharp will be even more important than with the 21.

One thing for sure, ultra-wides are fun!

Re: Canon Glass Questions
 

Great input Jon,

I will work on stopping down and keeping an eye on the whole frame and try and not get fooled.