The. Lens. Thread.

J

Jackson Miller

Well-known member
Hokay guys. I just wanted to start this thread to get some nice, budget lens recommendations for myself, but also as a place that anyone can ask questions related to lenses if they wish. It's weird that this forum isn't split into 4 parts like the Gh-1 forum is... Is that because there is a separate 5d forum?


Anyways, I would like to hear some lens recommendations. I am on a seriously low budget right now. So basically, I need what I can get by with for the time being, and maybe a little more. There are lots and lots of super high quality bargain lenses that I am hearing about on other forums, but from what I can tell, most do not have auto-focus with the 5d. Auto-focus is preferred because I do some photography as well. So, I know the Tamron zooms do, but I am mainly talking about primes, and tamron does not seem to make any or many primes.


So, are there any great, 1.2-1.8 primes that also have compatible auto-focus?


I am planning on getting the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8,
and probably some cheaper manual primes,

And then I need one or two auto primes. To be honest I don't know what lengths to get. But 24 or 28 and 50mm and 85mm seem to be kinda standard... I don't know.

Any info appreciated. Sorry for asking so many questions between this and my other threads.
 
don't be sorry

Personally I stay away from zooms and AF lenses. for the money you can get much better quality primes with well dampened focus rings and they don't breathe. Having said that for the cost of a bunch of primes you could buy 1 good quality zoom.

I have a few Nikon ai primes and have recently started buying some russian primes. If you want cheap good quality glass the pentax M42 mount smc super takumars are very good. Ther 50mm f/1.4 is a good example. mflenses.com is a good lens resource. The old pentax lenses are a lot cheaper than the nikons. I've gone for the russian lenses because they are cheap and have really nice bokeh. Most of them are copies of zeiss lenses but I've looked at many photo's and I like the look of the russian glass more, it's slightly lo-fi which should help control the overly sharp picture of the MKII. I haven't had a chance to shoot anything with them yet as I'm waiting for an M42 to EOS adapter to arrive. Quality control is an issue with russian glass so there are some duds out there.

As far as which focal lengths it's hard to say depending on what you're shooting and personal shooting style. I have a bunch of lenses I bought for the D90 from 18mm to 135mm. Now that I'm shooting full frame I think I need a 180mm too. Just starting out you could probably get by with a wide a normal and a tele. I can't really suggest particular focal lengths because I'm only just starting to get used to shooting full frame.
 
squig said:
don't be sorry

If you want cheap good quality glass the pentax M42 mount smc super takumars are very good. Ther 50mm f/1.4 is a good example. mflenses.com is a good lens resource.
Click to expand...
I bought this lens a couple of years ago on Ebay for about $65.00. I have yet to use it but have been reading of its praises.
 
mcgeedigital said:
If you want to save some cash, forget "auto" anything and get some nice 1.4 Nikon primes on ebay.
Click to expand...

The nikon ai or ais f/1.8 is a lot cheaper than the f/1.4 and plenty fast for the MKII. shooting at f/1.4 on the MKII will be a focusing nightmare, it was hard enough on the D90 with a 1.5x crop. I saw a shootout between the 1.8 and 1.4 and I liked the look of the 1.8 more. If you really want f/1.4 the pentax smc super takumar is probably just as good as the nikon for a lot less money.
 
Ian-T said:
I bought this lens a couple of years ago on Ebay for about $65.00. I have yet to use it but have been reading of its praises.
Click to expand...

I bought a minolta 1.4 rokkor MC mint for $60 thinking I was going to get a GH1. It has the nicest bokeh I've seen from any of the japanese lenses but the damn thing won't work on an EOS mount. I don't really like the bokeh of the nikon 1.4 and I've shot with a few of them. The pentax has a better bokeh but the russian 50s are even better still. some of the russian lenses even have smooth rotating aperture rings like cine lenses.
Most cine lenses appear to have nice creamy bokeh so I've been searching for 35mm lenses that have the same kind of bokeh. That ralph lauren clip is a good example of not filmic bokeh.
 
Do not get a non EOS manual lens. Many of Nikon AF 50 primes pales in comparison to Canon's. Dealing with adapters and loosing auto focus and distance data is not worth the effort whatsoever, especially you said that you want to get into photography as well.

$80 will get you a brand new Canon EF 50mm/1.8 - Very good quality optically.. 50mm/1.4 is the next setup up with better focus motor, built, and obviously larger aperture.

A bit more money will get you the Canon EF 28/1.8, which is a poor man's 24mm L f/1.4.. The 28mm is not as sharp as the 24mm especially in the corners, but for HD video, you can hardly tell the difference..

I own the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. It is an excellent lens optically but the zoom mechanism is not the best. On the version I have, the lens will zoom out when you tilt the camera down 90 deg, the force of gravity is enough to pull the lens out. My friend has a newer version and his doesn't exhibit this behavior. The focus ring on the Tamron is butter smooth and light, much more so than any of my Canon lenses, which makes video work much easier... The Tamron is an excellent alternative to Canon's 24-70 L lens. Do note that both the 50 and the Tamron I mentioned do not have full time manual focus, meaning you have to flick a switch to go from AF to MF.. the 28/1.8 has the USM focus motor which allows manual focusing even in AF mode.

Below shot by a combination of 50mm 1.4 and 24mm 1.4

img5086exported.jpg


img5139exported.jpg


img5170exported.jpg


img5207exported.jpg


img5217exported.jpg


img5399exported.jpg


img5367exported.jpg


img5464exported.jpg


img5356exported.jpg


img5296exported.jpg


img5184exported.jpg


img5183exported.jpg
 
Last edited:
Tossing my vote in for the Tamron 28-300/3.4~6.5 VC EOS mount. Covers Full Frame, has Image Stabilization and is a pretty decent zoom for the price. You can also add a telephoto extender to it and get incredible range for daylight work.

I found one but I think it might have gotten away from me. Hoping that it's still available to use for two MKii jobs coming this weekend and next monday.

Fingers crossed!
 
Squig, you can use the minolta lens as a "macro" lens on the canon eos mount. You just need an adapter which costs under $20. They can't focus infinity but can be used for macro. Is $20 more worth it... ah, maybe not. You can always just sell it again.

To the OP: You can get Canon eos lenses, but as pitiful as Nikon lenses are for cinema use, they are still better than Canon EOS AF lenses with their very limited travel distance or chintzy mechanics.

Some people on other threads have suggested Nikon E Series lenses for the budget minded, but the three Series E lenses I've owned: 28mm, 35mm, and 100mm have been pieces of crap with awful focus mechanics and feel. I felt really dishonest selling them but at least I sold em dirt cheap. The only decent E lens I owned was the lowly 50mm F1.8 E which is good and a true bargain, and I've had 2 of them so it seems consistent. You can buy them for like $50 or less.

I would go with Nikon AI or AIS like everyone else does, its a compromise with the adapter and all, but it's the best compromise. They aren't necessarily cheap though, if you're on a budget.

squig said:
I bought a minolta 1.4 rokkor MC mint for $60 thinking I was going to get a GH1. It has the nicest bokeh I've seen from any of the japanese lenses but the damn thing won't work on an EOS mount. I don't really like the bokeh of the nikon 1.4 and I've shot with a few of them. The pentax has a better bokeh but the russian 50s are even better still. some of the russian lenses even have smooth rotating aperture rings like cine lenses.
Most cine lenses appear to have nice creamy bokeh so I've been searching for 35mm lenses that have the same kind of bokeh. That ralph lauren clip is a good example of not filmic bokeh.
Click to expand...
 
I have bought an adapter with glass for the minolta. I'm told it will degrade the image quality but I want to see for myself. A bit of degradation could be good for effect. the macro option could work I need a good macro lens. Either way I'll hold onto it because I'm still interested in picking up a 4/3 camera when panasonic get it right.

yeah the nikon E's are pretty average. I'm waiting on an adapter that should fit well and I'm yet to mod the 2 that don't.
 
Yeah, you can always pop the glass out and use it as a Macro if you dont like. I have the Minolta 50mm F1.4 in PF/MD and MC variations and I luv 'em. Silky smooth. Also try out Minolta 135mm F2.8's you can pick em up for under $50 US, crazy prices. They are excellent sharp.
 
dadoboy said:
Yeah, you can always pop the glass out and use it as a Macro if you dont like. I have the Minolta 50mm F1.4 in PF/MD and MC variations and I luv 'em. Silky smooth. Also try out Minolta 135mm F2.8's you can pick em up for under $50 US, crazy prices. They are excellent sharp.
Click to expand...

Ahh cool didn't think of that.

Yeah I spent a lot of time peeping on flickr, mflenses etc and the minolta's looked really good, not quite as nice as the 58 f/1.2 but not $500 either. I've read some guys have modified the rear mounts of their 58 rokkors to fit the MKII so that could be an option. I've got a russian jupiter 8 50/2 coming so that might do me for a 50, I don't really see the need for a 1.4 on the MKII and all my other lenses are around f/2. I just picked up a russian tair 11 135 f/2.8 it has 20 blades! the bokeh is amazing. There's the pentacon 135 f/2.8 it's known as the "bokeh monster".
 
The Russian Jupter 50mm's are nice. Different look than the Japanese lenses. And the one I had with my Zorki camera had this crazy 9 leaf aperture blades for perfect circular bokeh.
Man I'm glad I'm anonymous on this board, don't want to reveal myself as such a lens geek.
 
Yeah most of the russian lenses have a real cine look about them and the no click aperture is nice. I can't wait to try them, the jupiter 9 85/2 and tair 11 are sitting here with me drooling over the blades waiting for an adapter.

I forgot to mention the beauty of buying nikon or M42 mount lenses is they can be adapted to fit just about any DSLR. If you buy EOS mount lenses and nikon bring out a better DSLR you're gonna have to sell your glass too.

You have to be a lens geek if you wanna be a half decent cinematographer, it's all about the glass.
 
dadoboy said:
To the OP: You can get Canon eos lenses, but as pitiful as Nikon lenses are for cinema use, they are still better than Canon EOS AF lenses with their very limited travel distance or chintzy mechanics.

Some people on other threads have suggested Nikon E Series lenses for the budget minded, but the three Series E lenses I've owned: 28mm, 35mm, and 100mm have been pieces of crap with awful focus mechanics and feel. I felt really dishonest selling them but at least I sold em dirt cheap. The only decent E lens I owned was the lowly 50mm F1.8 E which is good and a true bargain, and I've had 2 of them so it seems consistent. You can buy them for like $50 or less.

I would go with Nikon AI or AIS like everyone else does, its a compromise with the adapter and all, but it's the best compromise. They aren't necessarily cheap though, if you're on a budget.
Click to expand...


Wait, so if I use the proper adapters I can have AF with nikon lenses? Is this true with any nikon lens?

And on a side note, are you saying Canon lenses suck? I was under the impression that the expensive ones were awesome but overpriced.


booggerg2 said:
Do not get a non EOS manual lens. Many of Nikon AF 50 primes pales in comparison to Canon's. Dealing with adapters and loosing auto focus and distance data is not worth the effort whatsoever, especially you said that you want to get into photography as well.

$80 will get you a brand new Canon EF 50mm/1.8 - Very good quality optically.. 50mm/1.4 is the next setup up with better focus motor, built, and obviously larger aperture.

A bit more money will get you the Canon EF 28/1.8, which is a poor man's 24mm L f/1.4.. The 28mm is not as sharp as the 24mm especially in the corners, but for HD video, you can hardly tell the difference..

I own the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. It is an excellent lens optically but the zoom mechanism is not the best. On the version I have, the lens will zoom out when you tilt the camera down 90 deg, the force of gravity is enough to pull the lens out. My friend has a newer version and his doesn't exhibit this behavior. The focus ring on the Tamron is butter smooth and light, much more so than any of my Canon lenses, which makes video work much easier... The Tamron is an excellent alternative to Canon's 24-70 L lens. Do note that both the 50 and the Tamron I mentioned do not have full time manual focus, meaning you have to flick a switch to go from AF to MF.. the 28/1.8 has the USM focus motor which allows manual focusing even in AF mode.
Click to expand...

Nice shots man. Thanks for the info. I saw the canon 50mm f/1.8, but after reading reviews, I heard that the bokeh is very rough and that lights form pentagon-ish instead of blooming into softer more circular shapes when they are out of focus. So I don't think I will be getting one, but I am not sure. Also, squig mentioned that he didn't like the bokeh on the Ralph Lauren Commercial, and I believe that was shot on Canon primes. Kinda weird, because they didn't look very film like, at least in that situation. Another thing though, is that the 50mm f/1.8 is literally the only one of those I would be able to afford as after that, they all shoot up to 400 Bucks. Even the 28mm f/1.8.

I have a question about the tamron though. I heard that the focus ring on it only spins a small amount. As in, every tiny movement changes the focus in a very large way. Is this true? And does the smoothness make up for it in your opinion? Thanks.


Kholi said:
Tossing my vote in for the Tamron 28-300/3.4~6.5 VC EOS mount. Covers Full Frame, has Image Stabilization and is a pretty decent zoom for the price. You can also add a telephoto extender to it and get incredible range for daylight work.

I found one but I think it might have gotten away from me. Hoping that it's still available to use for two MKii jobs coming this weekend and next monday.

Fingers crossed!
Click to expand...

Interesting... have you ever tried this lens? I hear that usually lenses with that much range suck because it is hard to maintain a quality image across the whole thing for the manufacturers. What's your opinion on this? Since I am pretty much set on that 28-75mm, I think it would be better for me to just get another tamron that is slower and cheaper to use for the more telephoto shots. Only problem is, all of those seem to suck based on reviews.


@SQUIG - Thanks for all of the info on the manual lenses. I'm still thinking about all you said and I'll have q's eventually but I wanted to thank you for the input too.
 
You can't use AF with the Nikon lenses on a Canon EOS.
I was just saying if you intend to use the Canon EOS like you would a cinema camera, meaning with accurate focus pulls, marks for actors, etc. you would be wise to use an all manual lens like the Nikon AI/AIS series which in the still world, have peerless mechanics in my opinion except for the Zeiss ZF line.

I'm not saying at all that Canon glass is bad, I'm sure optically many are excellent, it's just that Canon AF lenses are not designed for dramatic narrative filmmaking. If you just intend to shoot documenentaries or street footage I'm sure they would be superior choices because you can control them far better than Nikons with adapters. But if you intend to make short films or features with them, you would be making it harder on yourself. Excuse the confusion.
 
I vote for the 24-105 'kit lens'

value when bought iwth the body

a usable range of speed and lenght

IS is good for handholding

Focus is OK for pulling

Not changing too often is a godsend

and if you can focus wider than f4 on a moving target you are genius

and any 50 1.8 for the look

S
 
Entity said:
@SQUIG - Thanks for all of the info on the manual lenses. I'm still thinking about all you said and I'll have q's eventually but I wanted to thank you for the input too.
Click to expand...

np. I've seen some shots taken with canon lenses that did have nice bokeh but I'm not sure which one's in particular. But I thought the bokeh from the canon lens used in the ralph lauren clip was particularly ugly especially considering they were trying to achieve a dreamy OOF look. To get that kind of look right you need a creamy bokeh not a distracting one.

There are some bokeh threads on mflenses and flickr that you can have a look at. You can also select the image tab when you do a google search that will bring up pics on a particular lens.

It's a no go for the jupiter 8 on the MKII. It's only focusing up close, ok for macro type shots. I think it would work ok with the right adapter on the GH1. I think I'll keep it I see a 4/3 camera coming sometime in the future and it looks like a really nice lens for $50 new.
 
I'll have a look at m42s. Not used them sice I sold my Zenit E, too many decades ago!
At the moment I'm investing in S/H Leica R glass, pricey, a bit but not so bad as Leica M, which won't fit anyway.
Dave
 
Hey guys what about Canon FD lens primes? Better for GH1 or just as good on the 5D? Just curious..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top