35mm for my 5d mark ii

<p>Hey guys first post on photo.net</p>

<p>anyways im looking for a 35mm prime for my 5d mark ii. I am looking around $500 or less range. Main uses would be a walk around lens that is fairly sharp. I mainly shoot video with the camera and occasional photographs. MF is fine and ideally looking for something that has a larger focusing ring for video purposes. I currently have a nikon 50mm f1.2 ais and i love it. I would get the 35mm nikon ais but seems to be lacking optically compared to the 50 1.2 and newer primes.</p>

For street shooting with my 5DII, I regularly use and can highly recommend the Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZE. But

it's MF and costs around $1K. The focus ring is large and the feel is superb.

<p>Nikon 35mm f1.4 is sellling on eBay for about $500+ last time I looked, much more if it's in mint condition, but then you will have to purchase an adapter. Personally, if I was going for a manual lens to go with the 5D Mark II, I would probably go for a Zeiss series lens, but since your budget only allows for max-$500 you might try looking at the Canon 35mm non-USM AF f2, which sells for about $300+. Some people swear by this lens, but optically and build quality wise you might be better off with the Nikon.</p>

<p>The EF 35mm f/2 is a great lens and should be within your price range. It goes on eBay for from $200 to $350.</p>

 

<p>is there any older zeiss 35mm weird mount that can be adapted for my use i know the current one is amazing and would love to be able to afford that but again i don't mind throwing on an adapter to convert. the canon 35mm f2 is the one that seems to be the best in my price range but im going to wait after photokina in hopes of an update. Would it be worth saving up for the zeiss and waiting than going for the 35mm from canon?</p>

<p>Is there a reason that you seem to be largely opposed to Canon's 35mm f/2? It has withstood the test of time as a good lens; it's only downside is a lack of USM. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is within your price range as well; have you given it consideration? JR</p>

<p>You can buy the Canon 35 F2.0 new for like $260. However, I have a beast of a time focusing with my 50 1.8 when shooting video that wide open. If people move forward or back just a little they will be out of focus. Also 35MM is not always wide enough for video since you can't shoot video in portrait possition. I would strongly recommend my favorite lens for video and go with the Canon 17-40 F4L. The focus ring is silky smooth with no noise or clunks and has full time manual focus over ride which many primes don't have. On my 5D2 I find I shoot video closer to 17MM than 40MM. The price of the 17-40 is around $650 so a little out of your budget but I believe you will get way more use from that than the prime. I have both the 85 1.2L and the sharp 50 1.8 but very seldom ever use them as my Tamron 28-75 and Canon 17-40 do the job perfectly.</p>

<p>I've owned an EF 35 2.0 since the early 90s are it has never failed me. Unlike my 50 1.8 it is decent wide open and excellent at F2.8. Although AF isn't great in terms of speed I found it more reliable at snagging focus than both my 50 1.8 and 50 1.4 USM. The MF ring is loose as a damn goose...</p>

<p>If you want a nice MF ring you'll have to shop around for a beater EF 35 1.4L. You might find a scraped up sampe for 5 bills.</p>

<p>It's true that you can be lucky on eBay, but actually new (not "like new") EF 35mm f/2 lenses sell now at B&H for $329, and sometimes for more on eBay (my prices above were based on recent eBay completed listings) by people who haven't done their homework.</p>

<p>I too, don't understand the reluctance to consider this lens - the manual focus on it is not as smooth as some, but I wouldn't think it would be that bad.</p>

<p>I am definitely not disregarding this lens at all. I just dont want to put in the money for this one when waiting and spending it on a zeiss or l lens later on would be better worth the money. Another thing is i am located in canada and the cheapest price new here is $400. As a response to M P and the 17-40 f4 i tend to shoot my 50 at f1.2 - 2.8 a lot of the time. When shooting object i stop down to f1.2-2 and shoot people at f1.8-2.8 so the extra stops are necessary. If i decide on the canon 35mm f2 and they dont release an update i will definitely be looking used. I guess my original point to the post was other than the canon brand was there any other lenses to look at.</p>

Canon's EF 35mm f/2 is a fine little lens and an excellent optical performer.

<p>Regarding the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 recommended above, it's a fine lens but doesn't have a full-frame image circle, so won't really work for a 5D mk II.</p>

<p>Any Zeiss and Pentax M42 mount lens is readily adaptable to EOS bodies, Joshua. There are a lot of very nice Zeiss Jena lenses around that can be had quite cheaply. I can't specifically recommend a 35mm, though, since mine are 50mm, 135mm, and 180mm.</p>

<p>Canon 35mm f/2 is a great performer if you are mainly using it for stills. I used to have it but sold it after trying Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZE. It is way better than Canon, especially for video applications. Mint copies on eBay sell for about $800. Since you mainly shoot videos I suggest you get Zeiss.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"...Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZE. It is way better than Canon, especially for video applications."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm a still-only guy, so could you help me understand what makes the Zeiss better for video applications? Thanks.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I would opt for a Contax (Zeiss) 35/1.4 Distagon MF. Supreme optical quality. Sublime bokeh. You can find a Contax to Canon EF adapter on eBay.</p>

<p>If this lens is too spendy, Contax also made a 35/2.8 MF that is probably just as good optically, but 4 stops slower. (Did I count right?) This lens should be found easily within your price range. KEH.com usually has many of these primes in stock. Their rating system is conservative and their service is top notch. I just checked (Sept. 21) and they had no 35mm, but plenty of 28/2.8 and 25/2.8 in stock for less than $400.</p>

<p>Cool i will definitely check out KEH. Question though does it matter which Contax Series i buy or will only one of them adapt to EOS? And Dan you want to get lens that are very smooth in focus as you will be tracking focus while shooting. Also you want lens that breath the least. (Lenses change focal length depending on focus even if it is a prime so when tracking focus your lens zooms in and out). Zeiss makes EOS mount video primes but they cost more than the camera so most people go with photo lenses.</p>

<p>f/1.4->2.0->2.8 = 2 stops.<br>

Pretty sure the video shooter's concern here is for manual focus feel including the size of the focusing ring which tends to be on the slim side on AF lenses. Also probably wants a longish focus throw for easier fine tuning and making smoother focus changes manually while shooting video.<br>

I would think that optical quality to the umpteenth-degree might be a smaller concern when shooting video which is inherently lower resolution than stills but apparently the OP has concerns here...though the request for 'fairly sharp' seems at odds with concerns of the 35mm nikkor ai-s 'seems to be lacking optically'</p>

 

<p>I use my Nikkor 35mm f2 AIS with an adapter occasionally. A nice lens with a good manual focus action. Much cheaper than any of the f1.4s and better bokeh than the Canon f2 version (which I also own and use) which has a 5 blade aperture. I think I paid about $300 for it. Stop down metering though.</p>

<p>G-Dan Mitchell looks like your question was never really answered. I shoot both stills and video with my 5D Mark II and i think the quality or lack of quality in a lens is much more obvious when shooting stills than shooting video. I have found lighting and focusing to be much more important with video. To get much better focusing I use an external monitor but don't really refocus while shooting. To keep from refocusing I have to use a smaller aperture and have never had good results shooting video wider than f4 unless it is a very controlled shoot. <br>

I think this Zeiss VS Canon thing is equivalent to Macs are way better than PC's, both get the job done in the end, but some are die hard mac others are die hard PC. Are the pictures from Lightroom or Photoshop really better on a Mac than a PC if both have calibrated monitors?</p>

<p>The (Cosina) Voigtlander 40/2.0 is another option here. I like mine, and find it marginally better than the Canon 35/2.0. My Canon 35/2.0 is dreamy at f/2.0 whereas the Voightlander isn't bad at all (in the center). But other than that (and the Canon's still mushy corners at f/5.6 vs. the Voightlander's sharp f/5.6 corners) the differences are pretty small.</p>

 

<p>Oops. The Voigtlander's focusing ring is probably too small for you (although it does have a nice long throw). But the (Cosina) Zeiss lens focusing rings are an amazing joy to use. Save your pennies for a couple of months and get the Zeiss 35/2.0.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"G-Dan Mitchell looks like your question was never really answered. I shoot both stills and video with my 5D Mark II and i think the quality or lack of quality in a lens is much more obvious when shooting stills than shooting video. I have found lighting and focusing to be much more important with video. To get much better focusing I use an external monitor but don't really refocus while shooting. To keep from refocusing I have to use a smaller aperture and have never had good results shooting video wider than f4 unless it is a very controlled shoot. </em><br /><em>I think this Zeiss VS Canon thing is equivalent to Macs are way better than <a href="00XKVn?start=10" target="_blank">PC</a>'s, both get the job done in the end, but some are die hard mac others are die hard PC. Are the pictures from Lightroom or Photoshop really better on a Mac than a PC if both have calibrated monitors."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for taking a shot at responding to my question. It is a real question since I don't know all of the stuff that might be at play for video. </p>

<p>But I'm still not clear about what specific aspects of the EF 35mm f/2 would make it less suitable for <em>video on a DSLR</em> as compared to the non-Canon lenses that were mentioned. It is merely the larger focusing ring that one other writer mentioned? It can't be resolution since still images provide a much greater challenge than video.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Another possibility, works just fine on a "fool-frame" is the PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8. It's a shift lens but has easy pre-set aperture and focus. It's a nice lens and has shaped many of my camera purchases going back to 1971. I still use it for architectural shots.</p>