5D lenses..? The Ultimate kit...

MyFilmPro

MyFilmPro

Active member
Hey all,

So I see over on the 7D thread that they have a pretty good list of lenses, but some are not full frame lenses, so I thought I would ask for advice here...

I'm leaning towards having a fast f2.8 or faster "kit" lens (something say in the 28-85 mm range) for all purpose shooting and run and gun stuff.

And then a couple of primes? Or should I got with something like the Tokina 11-16mm?

Also, is it worth having a 35mm, 50mm, 85mm primes at 1.4 if you have the f2.8 lens that goes through the range?

I see that in my area a 1.8 is going on sale... what are your thoughts on 1.4 vs 1.8?

My primary use is film and I'm starting from scratch with canon stuff. I know the basics, but I'm looking for your opinions from experience in the field. I will be doing low light shooting, and I'm looking at around $1000 to start with for lenses (I know this isn't much, but I want to have the overall plan in place before I start buying).

Thanks.
 
The Tokina is a great lens but on the 5D (and as far as I know) 16mm will be the only place you don't get vignetting, if that! I've been looking at the 5D seriously (from a GH-1) for a little while and will have to change all the glass I have. I only speak from research I've done.
Cheers,
Sam
 
The Zeiss primes are top flight, but there are many great lenses out there in the photo world which are much cheaper and cross over quite well. Check out the posts in the Lens section of Cinema5D.com. Beware of LBS though! (Lens Buying Syndrome) it's a sickness!
 
MyFilmPro said:
Also, is it worth having a 35mm, 50mm, 85mm primes at 1.4 if you have the f2.8 lens that goes through the range?
Click to expand...


The difference between f/1.4 and f/2.8 is massive in lowlight situations.

The Samyang 85mm f/1.4 is very cheap, is really good even fully open and is better built than any Nikon or Canon lens I own.
 
Coming from a still use perspective, f1.4 can be kind of a trap. All that light gathering can be seductive until you see just how paper thin the DOF is at this aperature. (Applies more to the longer focal lengths to some extent)

I have looked at primes a lot but find for shooting people, unless you are in horrible lighting conditions, you want more to be in focus than just their eyelash! For me, f2.8 is about as thin as I want/need to go for use on the 5D.

These huge aperatures have the benefit of autofocus and only one frame on the still side. Any movement on your in the breeze with focus & video.

Just some things to think about.
 
Somewhere around f2.8 is about where the widest aperture is going to be in the cinema world for pulling focus. However, as that corresponds to a sensor size somewhere around a 7D, this means according to Shane Hurlbut that the larger 5D sensor should be between f4 - f5.6 for reasonable focus pulls. So most of what we think of as narrow depth of field for the cinema is actually much deeper than we suspect. At these f-stops and with HD, this means that actually many, if not most lenses will perform quite well. So maybe you don't need to go out and spend $1500 on that Zeiss super prime that you want so badly...
 
The 24-105 zoom that you can get with the cam will keep you busy for months. Even though it's f/4, it has IS. And it's within your budget. Some consider this a desert island lens.

If you really need 2.8, the 24-70 is an exquisite zoom. It's heavy and it's big but it's on my 7d 75% of the time (I like reach). This will run you slightly over budget.

Oh, and 20% of the time? The Tokina 11-16mm. But, as mentioned, it's a bit limited on ff.
 
yoclay said:
Somewhere around f2.8 is about where the widest aperture is going to be in the cinema world for pulling focus. However, as that corresponds to a sensor size somewhere around a 7D, this means according to Shane Hurlbut that the larger 5D sensor should be between f4 - f5.6 for reasonable focus pulls. So most of what we think of as narrow depth of field for the cinema is actually much deeper than we suspect. At these f-stops and with HD, this means that actually many, if not most lenses will perform quite well. So maybe you don't need to go out and spend $1500 on that Zeiss super prime that you want so badly...
Click to expand...

This is great information for everybody to read regarding these vDSLRs.

The main thing prime lenses can offer over zooms would be maybe a bit more detail, often less geometric distortion and a much smoother background blur/bokeh.
 
Yes you will very rarely ever shoot at f1.4...but that said, in my experience a f1.4 prime is usually sharper/less distortion/etc. at f2.8 than a f2.8 prime.
 
This is a good thread and I hope more people will keep chiming in. Here's my situation, I'm about to drop some $$$ on a 5D Mark II and in the research phase on lenses.

I'm weighing the options of zooms versus primes. I have about $10k budgeted for the camera and lenses, so I can afford a set of L series primes probably. But if I'm mostly shooting video, I'm not sure if I would be better served with a pair of zooms, like the 16-35 F2.8 and 24-70 F2.8 lenses, or even the 24-105 F4 IS.

My other thought was to buy primes, I was thinking of getting the 35mm F1.4, the 50mm F1.2, the 85mm F1.2 and the 135mm F2.0. The nice thing about these is that they all share the same filter size in 72mm. Maybe the 35mm and 50mm are too close together, and I'd get the 24mm and 50, but I was thinking, a 24, 50, 85 and 135 should give me lots of freedom, and also be quite nice for photo work, which I also intend to do.

Would love to hear opinions. Is the quality of the L lenses lost on video work? Would I be much smarted to buy the 50mm F1.4 for video, would I even be able to tell much of a difference in video work? I do wonder if the video will be more forgiving and if buying L series lenses is just overkill since I'd rarely open the lenses up all the way in video, right, wanting to target more like F4 or F5.6?

Ug. Clearly I need to learn more. I've seen some amazing work on relatively cheap or 'kit' lenses. But I do intend to shoot some video in quite low natural lightning situations, so maybe the really wide primes are the way to go, focusing difficulty aside.

Would love any thoughts.

Tim
 
Tim, explain what type of situations you will be shooting in. This will determine if you might need a zoom or not.

Primes are the best image, but can be restrictive.

For example: If you are shooting an interview on sticks, a prime would be very limiting for framing.
 
Primaural, I've actually been looking around, trying also to decide what lenses to buy. I can't really talk about tomika or zeiss (I've just been studying the option for a couple of weeks) but as far as L series go, I can tell you this: the canon L series is about as good as you can go, but you don't just pay the extra stops, you pay the quality of the glass and the resilience of the body. It's designed for photography, and the extra quality, in most cases, is gained in fields that only a photographer will notice (resistence to extreme conditions, quality of the material, optical aberrations reduced - in terms of photo, not film, a lense can give more quality in still image but actually be damaging in film -, and, of course, F stops - the great advantage for film)

Yeah, it's better, but the 50 mm 1.4 is exceptional, and the 1.2 L isn't worth the extra money, unless you're shooting in extreme conditions and you need that extra quality in resistence (the material is remarkably stronger)

The 24-70 F/ 2.8 is a different story. It's worth every penny. A monster, it mixes quality and reach, the only lens, along with the 50 mm 1.4, that I've decided on buying so far. In terms of range and quality, the only one that reaches that level is the 70-200 F/2.8 (but, again, such an option is much more suited for photography)

Furthermore, even if I know my way around canon, I would like some input on prime lenses from other brands (nikon, leica, zeiss, tomika), because in my country, such lenses (and the use of adaptors) are not commum practice. We mostly use (I actually study film and photography) canon lenses, a lot of primes, from 16-100 range - never adaptors.
 
For what it's worth, I never shoot anything under f4...so that kit lens that comes with the 5d is great. And the IS included makes it a must have.

The 24-70 2.8 is great but at the moment doesnt have IS, a shorter zoom range and is more expensive. I'm sure it's sharper/technically better and would be the one to get if I was doing more stills.
 
Thanks for all this information. Here's a bit about what I intend to do, maybe this will help.

This summer I'll be going to Stockholm to spend the summer, working with some friends to make a film, really just for fun. I envision it being very much a 'handheld' and existing light kinda thing, run and gun, and although the sun will provide long days, would love to be able to shoot in existing light, even at night. I probably wont' have the luxury of a follow focus, or much of a crew, etc, so I'm really looking for something I can wield myself.

I will probably get one of the Zacuto type supports, but hope to keep the rig fairly portable. I'll run sound into the camera probably with the Sennheiser MKE800, and also run a second sound rig double system. Sound is my profession, so I'm not worried about that part of it.

So I'm thinking to start, maybe I should go with the 24-70 or the 24-100. Here's one question:

Does the IS make much of a difference when shooting video? Does it affect the footage at all, I've seen some IS systems before that weren't really very nice to look at, OK for still images, but on video work, you can 'see' them working.

If F4 with the Canon 5D's large sensor will be enough to shoot in low light, it might be the way to go.

From my older photography days, I do really prefer primes. I sort of like the limitations of them, forcing you to move around, instead of just zooming in and out, and I think I could live with that limitation. I also would love to have those wide primes for photography as well, which is why I'm wondering about their use in video. I guess I can easily stop them down to F4 or F5.6 and then have the ability to open them wide if I need to, or if I want to explore playing with those aperatures.

The 24-100 is only about $800 when purchased with the 5D body, maybe it will make sense to buy that first, learn the camera, and see what I think. I can then always start buying primes.

Or maybe get the F1.4 or F1.8 50mm to test it out, and rent a F1.2 to do a comparison, I can always sell the other lenses on eBay.

Ug.

But I'm constantly amazed by what this camera seems to be able to capture, and really looking forward to playing with it.

Now if only we'd get a 5D that could do 60fps at 1080. Man. A boy can dream.
 
The 24-105 is IMO a must have for RnG work

I like..
Its zoom range
F4 is enough for the 5d in normal light

I dont like
Its a bit wobbly zoomed - will jitter on a steadicam
Its pretty distorted at 24mm barrel distorion

This is my set up in order of use..
24-105
50 1.4 (nikon AF)
70-200 (f4 to save cash - id prefer the 2.8)
28 3.5 nikkor PC manual focus
14 2.8 nikkor

Beyond this Id like a nice 20mm

I certainly think tele primes are not worth it and f1.4 or f1.2 are not needed - I have the 1.4 50 because the canon 50 1.8 is poorly constructed

S
 
yoclay said:
Somewhere around f2.8 is about where the widest aperture is going to be in the cinema world for pulling focus. However, as that corresponds to a sensor size somewhere around a 7D, this means according to Shane Hurlbut that the larger 5D sensor should be between f4 - f5.6 for reasonable focus pulls. So most of what we think of as narrow depth of field for the cinema is actually much deeper than we suspect.
Click to expand...
I don't know if you remember this, but I was saying that months ago. I'm glad that someone finally set you straight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top