best prime & zoom lenses for 5D MK II

<p>Hi Forum,<br>

I'm selling my Leica M8 and lenses in order to fund purchasing a more versatile auto-focus SLR. The 5D Mk II is my current favourite for a body but I'm a bit confused as to which lenses to get for it. I wanted a 50mm prime as my main lens and wide to short telephoto zoom to keep in my camera ba for occasional use. I take photos with natural light and like the smooth bokeh that my Leica lenses have for close-ups and potraits.<br>

What are people's recommendations for the two types of lens I mention? I really want to get the best pictures possible from my 5D Mk II. Is it really worth spending money on the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM or would I be better with the standard 1.8 or 1.4 for a prime lens? I'm not that bothered about having the extra stops wider than the f2- f-2.8 that I'm use to with my Leica lenses, it's mainly image quality that bothers me.</p>

<p>Thanks, Tim</p>

<p>Tim, you can compare Canon lenses at the-digital-picture.com. Here for example are the 50 1.2 and 1.4 side by side - <strong><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0">link</a></strong>. Wide open here and therefore soft, but you can change the aperture. etc. He's got a lot of reviews and test shots. It's a valuable resource, and testing methodology is <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx">stringent</a>. For your wide to short there's the 24-70 2.8, which is an old favorite. I'll let others build on this though.</p>

<p>Are you sure you want to do this? I am trying to go the opposite way and switch to M9 from my 5DII. If it wasn't for the video of 5DII I'd switch already. It's the only thing that keeps me with 5DII. As for your question I'd recommend getting Zeiss ZE 50mm f/2 Makro Planar and not one of the Canon primes. The IQ of Zeiss is the same (or maybe even exceeds) as Canon 50mm f/1.2 plus you get macro if you ever need it. And it definitely beats Canon 1.4 and 1.8 by far. As for the zoom I'd recommend Canon 24-70mm f/2.8. Or you could also get Zeiss ZE 21mm Distagon and Canon 85mm f/1.2 II instead of the zoom. The quality of both 21mm Distagon and Canon 85mm f/1.2 II is unmatched. You will surely miss the Leica sizes when you switch LOL</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The IQ of Zeiss is the same (or maybe even exceeds) as Canon 50mm f/1.2 plus you get macro if you ever need it. And it definitely beats Canon 1.4 and 1.8 by far.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As far as the Zeiss definitely 'beating the 1.4 by far,' <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx">rigorous</a> and controlled <strong><a href="http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=709&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=0">testing</a></strong> suggests the Canon 1.4 has marginally higher IQ than the equivalent Zeiss 1.4 across the board from 1.4 to 2.8, with a substantial edge in corner sharpness. No test for the Zeiss f2.</p>

<p>Brett, I think it is pretty clear that I was referring to a totally different lens, first of all. And second why don't you read what actual users of Zeiss 50mm 1.4 say <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/860134">here</a>. I've owned Canon 50mm f/1.4 and then bought Zeiss f/1.4 and eventually f/2 MP and Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 beats Canon 50mm f/1.4 in every aspect.</p>

If you generally won't need apertures larger than f/2 there is little reason to get the f/1.2 50mm lens - the f/1.4 non-L will

be a fine performer. A good all-around zoom could be the 24-105mm f/4.

 

Regarding the Leica/Zeiss vs. Canon IQ debate, in the real world there are more significant differences that come as a result of choosing between these systems, and either can produce truly first rate image quality.

<blockquote>

<p>why don't you read what actual users of Zeiss 50mm 1.4 say.... and Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 beats Canon 50mm f/1.4 in every aspect</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not what the testing shows. I will go with rigorous, controlled testing over anecdotal feedback from people with a personal investment in the lens any day.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That's not what the testing shows. I will go with rigorous, controlled testing over anecdotal feedback from people with a personal investment in the lens any day</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LOL. Ignorance is bliss</p>

<p>Tim, whatever the virtues of the Zeiss lenses or not, this debate between Ilya and many non-Zeiss users has been going on for some time now, and you should not let it distract you nor hijack the thread.</p>

<p>To actually answer your question, sort of, there are lots of choices, depending on what kind of shooting you do or want to do.</p>

<p>It's fairly obvious that you probably don't do a lot of wildlife photography with an M8. For things like ordinary shooting of the sort that a rangefinder would do, the best single choice (IMHO) is the lens that Canon often offers as a sort of "kit" lens on the 5D series-- the EF 24-105mm f/4 IS L. Many of us consider it to be one of the finest all-round lenses ever made. It is the "walk-about" lens par excellence. If you buy it with the body, there are nice discounts.</p>

<p>If wildlife photography, on the other hand, is one of your reasons for changing, then there is an older, but still "goodie" lens -- the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS L. This one really has the reach for the little birdies or whatever is on the other end. There are some faster, but shorter, 70-200mm zooms, but if you consider those I think most people find the IS to be worth every penny, well, dollar.<br /> For an ultrawide (on the 5D) something like the EF16-35mm f/2.8 IS L is superb, slightly slower versions are also great, but a little less costly--but, hey, after Leica it may all seem cheap. :) IS in not available and not so important on wides anyhow.</p>

<p>For primes, a surprising choice is the "plastic fantastic", the less than US$100 EF 50mm f/1.8. It is cheap and has excellent optical qualities, although it's not quite as great on the 35mm sensor bodies as it is on the APS-C cameras. The EF 50mm f/1.4 is much beloved, has lovely "pop" and bokeh. The EF 50mm f/1.2 is less like the talking dog than most of its breed (with a talking dog, you don't ask how <em><strong>well</strong></em> it talks). The EF 85mm f/1.2 is really amazing, and the EF 85mm f/1.8 is another bargain.</p>

<p>Also, another reason for using the Canon EOS line is that, if you do like any old classics and don't mind focusing manually and stopping down to meter and shoot, simple and usually inexpensive adapters will allow an incredible range of lenses to work on the cameras (see <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html">Bob Atkins' discussion</a>). Canon is as close to a "universal recipient" as anything not 4/3rds.</p>

<p>I'd also add that there are lots of excellent lens choices from other manufacturers, some of them even from Zeiss-in-exile.</p><div></div>

<p>No need to be rude Ilya. I'm trying to offer reliable feedback to address the posters question about which lenses will offer the best image quality. Please read about the <strong><a href="http://the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx">testing </a></strong>and then show me any Leica user, yourself included, who has subjected the two lenses you're talking about to anything near the same level of scrutiny. Science, testing, and analysis is the opposite of ignorance, and calling people ignorant on PN is never called for.</p>

<p>Cool rig JDM.</p>

<p>How about build quality? The 1.2 is softest of the 3 Canon 50's, very expensive, the main plus from my perspective is that it is L quality. I really wish an L quality 1.4 (or 1.8, the sharpest of the 3) was available.</p>

<p>I second a lot of what has already been said. The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L is a brilliant standard zoom, but you might find it a bit short for head and shoulder portraits. Many people speak highly of Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 (if 2.8 isn't important.) The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 is very popular with those that don't need f/1.2 or L-quality construction and stopped down image quality is similar to the f/1.2. The Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 is probably my favorite lens at the moment. Razor sharp and woderful bokeh. I can't comment on the quality of the Zeiss lenses other than to point out that you would be upgrading to an auto-focus body but wouldn't have auto-focus with these adapted lenses. Something to consider if you actually want auto-focus. Best of luck with the switch.</p>

<p>Truthfully, the 50mm f/1.4 does seem a little more fragile than some other lenses Canon makes.<br /> As I hinted, the most common reason to buy the f/1.2 is to get the f/1.2 aperture. That given, the optical sharpness of the lens is remarkable for f/1.2 lenses as a class. If you don't need* the f/1.2, well, then it doesn't make a lot of sense to get this one.</p>

<p>I personally use my old Nikkor-S 55mm f/1.2 on my Canons for low light. When you're shooting wide open, stopping down is obviously not a problem. I also use my Reflex-Nikkor 500mm f/8 a lot (with a monopod) and since it only has the one f/stop, the only problem is focusing the razor-thin DOF. Just set the camera to Av or M and you're all set with any of these lenses (also including my PC Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 shift lens - it's completely manual no matter what you use it on).</p>

<p>_______<br>

*well maybe nobody these days <em>needs</em> an f/1.2 lens, but you can <em>want</em> one pretty bad.</p>

<p>The two lenses whose photos have impressed me the most on a 5D MK II are the 135mm f2 and the 35mm 1.4. </p>

<p>Tim, I'm going to underscore some of the recommendations already given, plus offer a few of my own. The 5DII and 1V are the EOS bodies I use.</p>

<p>The oft-maligned EF 50/1.4 is a superb lens. It's not super sharp wide open, but becomes so once stopped down a bit. Personally, I have no need for the 50/1.2 L, which is reputed to be demonstrably less sharp than the 50/1.4. When I want to use an ultra-fast standard lens, I use my FD 50/1.2 L or 55/1.2 SSC Aspherical, both of which are very sharp from wide open on.</p>

<p>Other primes I would recommend are the EF 35/1.4 L, 85/1.2 L, 100/2, 135/2 L, 200/2.8 L, and 300/4 L.</p>

<p>As for zooms, you can't go wrong with the trio of f/4's: 17-40 L, 24-105 IS L, and 70-200 IS L. As others have said, the 24-105 is a near-perfect walkabout lens, but lately I have been using my 70-200 more in that regard. I personally would not consider getting a longer zoom without IS.</p>

<p>The 24-70/2.8 L is also an excellent zoom, with less distortion and better bokeh than the 24-105. But since their resolution and contrast are very similar, I would opt for the slower zoom for its lighter weight and greater compactness, larger focal length range, and image stabilization. I have both, and tend to use the 24-70 for indoor portraiture and the 24-105 outdoors.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>LOL. Ignorance is bliss</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>And, quite often, when a poster can do no better than to insult those with a different point of view, said poster is demonstrating this very principle.</p>

<p>Based on extensive experience with the EF 50mm f/1.4, I second Mark's comments above. His "trio of zooms" list is also a good starting point for quite a few users. I rely on this core set of lenses (plus a few others) for much of my landscape work.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>If you want a good all walk around zoom canon gives you two choices the 24-105L F4IS and 24-70L F2.8. Canon does sell other zooms but they don't have the build quality of the two L lenses. As to a 50mm a lot has been mentioned about canon 50mms and Ziess 50mm. However in my opinion the Sigma 50 1.4 is a better choice for an auto focus lens than the canon 1.8 and 1.4 (both of which are very old designs optically. The sigma is also a lot cheaper than the canon 1/2. </p>

<p>If you want a good all walk around zoom canon gives you two choices the 24-105L F4IS and 24-70L F2.8. Canon does sell other zooms but they don't have the build quality of the two L lenses. As to a 50mm a lot has been mentioned about canon 50mms and Ziess 50mm. However in my opinion the Sigma 50 1.4 is a better choice for an auto focus lens than the canon 1.8 and 1.4 (both of which are very old designs optically. The sigma is also a lot cheaper than the canon 1/2. </p>

<p>Thanks for your replies everyone. The EF 24-100mm f/2.8L and the f/1.8 50mm sound like the lenses for me.<br>

I'm getting an auto-focus slr as I find manual focusing 50mm lenses with their shallower depth of field a chore and my photographs, particularly shots of people, are looking stale unspontaneous. I hate that awkward pause whilst I manually focus a lens in a candid situation and my eyesight isn't the greatest. My Leicas (M6 & M8) are great with the 2/35 as you dont have to be so precise.<br>

I've had experience with manual focus glass on a Canon- I had a Summicron 35 R mounted on an XTi via an adaptor and a Katzeye focusing screen. I didn't really get on that well with as not being able to focus stopped down to anything smaller than 5.6 was restricting. Canon viewfinders are also a bit dark to be manually focusing in subdued light.<br>

Though I love the idea of using old glass on DSLRs though and I'm tempted by Nikon's compatibility with it's older manual focus lenses but the higher resolution and 1080p capabilites are what's making me think of going back to Canon at the moment. I have a medium format Fuji rangefinder that I like using from time to time but I'm thinking the high resoulution 5D MkII would make that redundant. I hate having too much photographic clutter, one of the reasons I like Leicas. I thought the reasonable size of the 5D Mk 2 with a 50mm would be unobtrusive enough.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Steven, the EF 50/1.4 has a very old optical design, indeed - it was introduced with the F-1 in 1971. But there's a good reason Canon hasn't updated it, namely, that it's a <em>very good optical design</em>, indeed.</p>

<p>As the old adage goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."</p>

<p>Tim, do you mean the EF 24-70/2.8 L or the 24-105/4 L? There is no 24-100/2.8 L.</p>

<p>By the way, the 50/1.8 is so cheaply built that you may change your mind when you handle one. The EF 50/1.4 is better, but I really wish it were as well made as the FD 50/1.4, given that they share the same superb optics.</p>

<p>Consider Canon's <em>Holy Trinity</em> of <strong>primes</strong>:</p>

<ul>

<li>EF 35mm f/1.4L USM</li>

<li>EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM</li>

<li>EF 135mm f/2L USM</li>

</ul>

<p>I like my 50 1.8, but honestly, the plastic toy quality of it, and its cheap focusing ring at the end of the lens is what is making me go 1.4 now. (I don't bother using af on the 50mm as much now, mainly because it is very loud and slow to focus - i may be getting spoiled by usm though)<br>

Also, the bokeh can be horrible on it, mainly because it has a 5 blade aperture, giving you those annoying pentagonal out of focus highlights.</p>

<p>I favor my 85 1.2 L as prime. </p>