Edge sharpness, and overall optics in the Canon. I struggled with the decision as well, but after getting the 35mm, I was very happy with the results.
Getting a Mark III - Can I get some Lens Opinions
- Thread starter Alexander1310
- Start date
Edge sharpness, and overall optics in the Canon. I struggled with the decision as well, but after getting the 35mm, I was very happy with the results.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
I haven't played with the 35L, but every test I've seen says the samyang and sigma lenses are sharper...
Here's one that takes copy variation into account too:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/11/sigma-35mm-f1-4-arrives-announces-new-world-order
Here's one that takes copy variation into account too:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/11/sigma-35mm-f1-4-arrives-announces-new-world-order
Samuel H
Major Contributor
The Samyang is pretty close to the Canon L, so much so that the winner depends on the copies you compare and how you test them. For example:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/657-samyang35f14eosff?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/516-canon35f14ff?start=1
(not saying that's the difference anybody would find: they either use a methodology that favors the samyang, or got a very bad copy of the canon)
Edit: look at this one (samyang first, test comes from here http://www.onerivermedia.com/blog/?p=774 ):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/onerivermedia/8167562192/sizes/o/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/onerivermedia/8167531817/sizes/o/in/photostream/
The samyang is sharper in the top left corner, the canon is sharper on the other three corners. The samyang is sharper in the center-left, the canon is sharper in the center-right. That's how close they are. Except the samyang costs a third of the price of the Canon.
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/657-samyang35f14eosff?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/516-canon35f14ff?start=1
(not saying that's the difference anybody would find: they either use a methodology that favors the samyang, or got a very bad copy of the canon)
Edit: look at this one (samyang first, test comes from here http://www.onerivermedia.com/blog/?p=774 ):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/onerivermedia/8167562192/sizes/o/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/onerivermedia/8167531817/sizes/o/in/photostream/
The samyang is sharper in the top left corner, the canon is sharper on the other three corners. The samyang is sharper in the center-left, the canon is sharper in the center-right. That's how close they are. Except the samyang costs a third of the price of the Canon.
Last edited:
There is also a good deal more CA on the Samyang than the Canon though.
Personally, I would favor the Sigma for sharpness, however that is not the whole story.
The bokeh is kind of "nervous" on the Sigma as a result as well.
Cookes are not the sharpest lenses out there as an example, but the bokeh is very beautiful.
I think people are too stuck on sharpness. Takes a lot more than that when shooting moving images.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a sharpness nut, I'm a bokeh nut! It's just that the 35L doesn't make any sense to me since the Samyang and Sigma came out. Too expensive for what it is.
Steve Kahn
Well-known member
My browser renders errors on this page Samuel. Which lens is the Samyang 35mm?
Steve Kahn
Well-known member
Just got the 35mm T1.5. The build quality seems excellent! Can't wait to try it out!
henryqiu
Well-known member
For shooting video with a Canon DSLR, 24-70 f2.8 is not a better lens than 24-105 possibly except on certain unlikely occasions. Technically, nearly everything that can be done with 24-70 f2.8 can also be done with 24-105, either in the same or slightly different way, albeit f2.8 may make a tiny bit different (not necessarily more pleasing) look than f4. With 5D3, only if 1/50 f2.8 ISO 6400 does not give you enough exposure, will 24-70 f2.8 start to be a somewhat technically better lens (for producing relatively less amount of visible noise). If shallow DOF with f2.8 is all that you want from a f2.8 lens as opposed to a f4 lens, know this: 105mm @f4 can produce shallower (and very likely more pleasing) DOF beyond the capability of 24-70 f2.8 at any of the latter's possible settings.
But for the price of one 24-70 f2.8 Mark II, you can buy up to more than three 24-105, so buying a 24-70 f2.8 (especially its pricey mark II version) for shooting video is a huge waste of money (well, you may or may not care at all, but that won't change the fact).
If I were you, I'd definitely get:
24-105 L IS
70-200 L IS (its f2.8 version is always preferred)
As for your 3rd and possibly 4th lens, get a lens that best compliments the above lenses and that also best fits your shooting style. For example, if you need wider coverage, 17-40 (on your lens list) is a fine alternative to the more expensive 16-35 lens. If you need better low-light shots, get either a 50/85 f1.2 or a 35/50/85 f1.4 lens (or two of them). If you shoot macro, get a 100mm f2.8 macro (its IS version is always preferred), or simply swap 24-105 out for a 24-70 L f4 IS. If you shoot sports and need a supertele, 100-400 (not on your list) is about your best 3rd or 4th lens on relatively tight budget.
But for the price of one 24-70 f2.8 Mark II, you can buy up to more than three 24-105, so buying a 24-70 f2.8 (especially its pricey mark II version) for shooting video is a huge waste of money (well, you may or may not care at all, but that won't change the fact).
If I were you, I'd definitely get:
24-105 L IS
70-200 L IS (its f2.8 version is always preferred)
As for your 3rd and possibly 4th lens, get a lens that best compliments the above lenses and that also best fits your shooting style. For example, if you need wider coverage, 17-40 (on your lens list) is a fine alternative to the more expensive 16-35 lens. If you need better low-light shots, get either a 50/85 f1.2 or a 35/50/85 f1.4 lens (or two of them). If you shoot macro, get a 100mm f2.8 macro (its IS version is always preferred), or simply swap 24-105 out for a 24-70 L f4 IS. If you shoot sports and need a supertele, 100-400 (not on your list) is about your best 3rd or 4th lens on relatively tight budget.
I own a 50 1.4, the 24-105 F4 and 70-200 IS F4, shared between a 6D and a Mark3, and I find myself capable of achieving almost any shot I could need. If you're shooting mainly video, don't hesitate to look at the Rokinon line.
My advice (as mentioned earlier), is to start out with a few zooms with a good focal range and then move into the more expensive primes once you see yourself using certain focal lengths.
My advice (as mentioned earlier), is to start out with a few zooms with a good focal range and then move into the more expensive primes once you see yourself using certain focal lengths.
A couple of people have mentioned the Canon 70-200...either f/2.8 or f/4 IS. I started with the f/4, then went to the f/2.8 II, then back to the f/4. The reason? Weight. Unless you really plan on shooting in low-light conditions, the f/4 is a much lighter lens and it's easier to pack/carry around. Bokeh is really close.
AJ
AJ
cookinghusband
Well-known member
Since you are doing video my recommendations are as below
must buy
- EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
- EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM (kit lens)
- EF 17-40mm f/4L USM or EF 16-35mm f2.8/L USM(if you can afford)
may buy if you have spare money
- EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM ( very good lens but too expensive, 24-105 will be adequate for most case)
- EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM (good full range lens if you shooting mode need a wide range, is more similiar to the range of a Camcorder http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-300mm-f-3.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)
- 1.4X extender or 2x extender may help when you need the extra zoom. is cheaper option instead of buying big zoom
Prime lens?
You probably do not need. If you really want to play with them, please consider Cinema grade manual focus Lens from other brand like Samyang( a full set of 4 lens will cost you less than any 2.8L len ) or expensive carl zesis if you have the money. Unlike the camcorder u are used to, auto focus on these DSLR is near useless , auto(semi-auto) tracking focus is near impossible. So when you can use prime lens you can use manual focus as well.
If you have the money to spare go for a 5" or 7" external monitor. since the LCD display is fixed on the DLSR external Mon helps
Last edited:
Alexander1310
Member
Thanks a bunch for all the advice. I'm getting ready to pull the trigger and still haven't finalized my list, but after much of the feedback, I'll be looking at Sigma as well. So I may have a Sigma/Canon quiver.
cookinghusband
Well-known member
Sigma perform quite well on the 'wide' Lens range though durability is questionable ( I have broken 3nos of 24mmf1.8 in the last 15 years you do not need a heavy hit to break them, but still even with my forth one add together is still cheaper than the Canon 28mmf1.4), for tele Canon will be the best choice for PQ and durability.
If short on funding buy the 70-200 and 24-105 in your first go, the remainder you can add them when you need them for the job.