Top 3 must have lens for your 5DM2? Including third party lens(Nikon, Olympus Etc..)

24-105 IS - half of everything I shoot is done with this lens. The IS is the key, calm and steady footage that makes a huge difference for handheld work.

A good 50/1.4 is solid. A good 85/1.4 is also great for interviews, portrait perspective. I personally love a 28mm perspective on full frame, so my used Zeiss 28/2.8 is quite lovely.

Tons of cheap Canon FD glass on ebay and adapters for EOS use.

But I'll stress that shooting a 50 or 85 at 1.4 is not always sensible or realistic. Getting top quality footage is more important than the super shallow look. Sharp content is needed and following focus is also needed.
 
photonashville said:
24-105 IS - half of everything I shoot is done with this lens. The IS is the key, calm and steady footage that makes a huge difference for handheld work.

A good 50/1.4 is solid. A good 85/1.4 is also great for interviews, portrait perspective. I personally love a 28mm perspective on full frame, so my used Zeiss 28/2.8 is quite lovely.

Tons of cheap Canon FD glass on ebay and adapters for EOS use.

But I'll stress that shooting a 50 or 85 at 1.4 is not always sensible or realistic. Getting top quality footage is more important than the super shallow look. Sharp content is needed and following focus is also needed.
Click to expand...

24-105 IS lens pretty good.
How bought for super lowlight situations?
 
Everything is covered with two lenses; don't really *need* any others:
* 24-70/2.8
* 70-200/2.8 IS (either version is fine and the older one is about a grand less than the newer one)

Third would be the 100/2.8 Macro IS (unbelievable lens!)

It's really hard to leave out the 50 1.4 but I don't reach for it nearly as much as the 24-70.
 
It all depends on what you shoot ;)

Basic (slow) kit that is sharp is the 24-70L and 70-200 f2.8L IS II. Swap the 24-70 for a 24-105L is you feel f4 is enough.

For low light, this is not a 'one lens' solution, so I am afraid a three lens setup never does it for me.

• Low light and ultra wide - 14L is still f2.8, but so is everything else this wide. Great hyper focal distances though.

• Low light wide - 24L (f1.4)

• Low light wide - 35L (f1.4) - or look at the Sigma 30mm.

• Low light 'normal' 50L (f1.2), 50 f1.4 or check the Sigma 50 f1.4. The 50/1.8 if you have no money - but it's not as good.

• A little longer - 85L (f1.2)

• Longer - 135L (f2)

• Telephoto? 200L f2 !

So, when people say 'What lens for low light?' the first thing I ask is 'what do you want to shoot?
 
I also use the 24-105mm for almost everything I shoot (mostly event coverage type videos). For low light I have a 50 1.4 and Olympus 21mm 2.0. I really like my 200mm 2.8 but it's not practical for a lot of video stuff.
 
16-35 f2.8 v2
70-200 IS f2.8 v2
50 f1.4

I'd add a 4th lens, probably a 80mm or 100mm as the 70-200mm is really heavy.
 
for people on a tight budget who don't need autofocus for anything:

Leitz Elmarit-R 35mm f/2.8 (vintage, $400)
Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm f/1.8 (vintage, $100)
Leitz Elmarit-R 90mm f/2.8 (vintage, $200)
 
24-105mm f/4
35mm f/1.4
16-35mm f/2.8 II or 70-200mm f/4

The 24-105 f/4 is a must have all round lens, at least until an IS version of the 24-70 f/2.8 comes out. After that, you need a fast prime for low light. I like the 35mm f/1.4 over the 50mm because low light situations tend to be indoors and 50mm can make things too tight. The 28mm f/1.8 is a good budget alternative. After that, it depends on what you shoot. The 16-35mm f/2.8 can add some dynamism to hand held scenes. But if you need more reach, then you've got to get a 70-200 first. I like the f/4, and not just because it's cheaper. The f/2.8 is really big and really heavy, which makes it hard to juggle lenses on the fly.

I'd recommend renting whatever interests you so you can see for yourself. BorrowLenses.com ships anywhere and has good rates.
 
I get by with the 24-70 F2.8L, 70-200 F2.8L, and the 135 F2L. It's hard to stomach the cost but it is absolutely worth it to buy L glass. The two zooms are basically mandatory (I prefer the 24-70 F2.8L over the 24-105 F4 because of the increased low light capabilities, but I do stills and video so I prefer low light to IS for my all around lenses. If you're just doing video the IS might be a better deal) but I think its kinda up to you on your fast prime. I like the 135 F2 because its a great portrait lens and its incredibly sharp, but its not great for indoors and obviously hand held.

Buy the two zooms and figure out third option based on your style.
 
Stephen Mick said:
My three…

16-35 f2.8L II
24-105 f4L IS
70-200 f2.8L IS II


(At least until the 24-70 f2.8L IS comes out. :D)
Click to expand...

Completely agree...while I DO own the 24-70 as well as the 24-105 (I bought the kit 5d2/24-105 package), I prefer the IS of the 24-105 for video specifically, while for my still shooting, I never am without my 24-70. I think, sometimes we need to keep in mind...this is motion we're trying to capture....regardless of having such sweet light gathering capability with the full frame sensor combined with "Fast Glass"....video capture still benefits from appropriate lighting, which is a skill and an art...and a gifted craft in and of itself:) With proper lighting (and it doesn't even have to be significant BECAUSE of the added abilities of the larger sensor), the 24-105 is absolutely, HANDS down, the ONLY lens I would never get rid of (I've got 11 L lenses, as both my wife and I shoot stills and motion), including the next "Must have Zoom"....the new 70-200v2 IS. I bought it when it released and am still awed by it's performance, regardless of whether I'm shooting motion or stills. It's just AWESOME! I owned the V1 IS for almost 10 years (also, when it dropped back in 2001). The difference, for me, is night and day. The IS has (on paper) been bettered by a full stop...where I'm finding, with my less than stable hands....it's more like a stop and a half or a full TWO stops! It's heavy, it's conspicuous, and it's not for everyone...but with some stabilization...either body, mono/tripod, et al. It's the perfect all around lens for me when shooting medium telephoto. On the wide angle side, I shoot with a 17-40 (I just sold my V1 16-35, as I've found for MOST of my wide shooting, I'm also utilizing light...whether outdoors or inside for parties, etc). I have found the 17-40 to be a bit cleaner of a lens (not even sure what that means)...my focus seems easier to attain, footage seems sharper, and I really like the colors in comparison. I've never used the 16-35v2 for motion, so it may be a different story...but I'm really digging my new 17-40.

That said...i NEVER shoot motion without my 3 mandatory primes...my 35L (1/4), my Sigma 50 (1.4), and my 85L2 (1.2)....as I never know IF I'll be able to address lighting the way I need, especially for our wedding and event shoots. It's nice to have a set of fast glass. I also carry the V2 of the 200L/2.8 (generally easy to find between 6 and 700 bucks and it's an AWESOME piece of kit for that price).

For a typical shoot...if it had to be THREE...and no more; I would choose the 24-105, 70-200v2, and my Sig 50. I find the sharpness and all of the qualities I need from my 24-105 to be awesome at 24 and 35mm...again, assuming I'm using decent and capable lighting, or I'm blessed to be shooting outside! The (hopefully) coming 24-70 with IS would be excellent at 2.8...to grab an entire stop from the 24-105, and to add an extra FOUR stops with IS....we could be shooting some pretty decent hand held footage at 24, 35, 50, and 70mm! That would be cool! I could then get away with just two...the V2s of the 24-70 and 70-200. However, with primes...it's a much easier proposal to be slugging your gear around all day...but there is no Image Stabilization...so you are dependent on fast shutter speeds with limited DOF to nail focus. While I'm a fan of some limited DOF shots...I think it's been way overblown and used in these last couple of years. Just my Humble Opinion!

J

Localfilms said:
24-105mm f/4
35mm f/1.4
16-35mm f/2.8 II or 70-200mm f/4

The 24-105 f/4 is a must have all round lens, at least until an IS version of the 24-70 f/2.8 comes out. After that, you need a fast prime for low light. I like the 35mm f/1.4 over the 50mm because low light situations tend to be indoors and 50mm can make things too tight. The 28mm f/1.8 is a good budget alternative. After that, it depends on what you shoot. The 16-35mm f/2.8 can add some dynamism to hand held scenes. But if you need more reach, then you've got to get a 70-200 first. I like the f/4, and not just because it's cheaper. The f/2.8 is really big and really heavy, which makes it hard to juggle lenses on the fly.

I'd recommend renting whatever interests you so you can see for yourself. BorrowLenses.com ships anywhere and has good rates.
Click to expand...
 
Appreciate reading your in-depth comments Docrock! Interesting that you like the Sig50. I know its a great lens including the Sig30/1.4. But no 50/1.2 instead? I think the IS is critical for video. For stills, what is your wide angle prime of choice? Or would you still go with the 16-35L? Also, do you like the new 100/2.8L Macro?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top