Canon 5D Mark II Lenses (I know...)

<p>Hey guys,</p>

<p>I finally saved up enough to move on to the 5D Mark II. I already have a 24-105 L Series from my old 5D, and I also have some spare cash to play around with from selling the old body. I mainly shoot fashion and fine art portraiture, and I'm looking to get some advice as to what lenses to look into. The 24-105 covers most uses for me, and I'm quite happy with it. Please also keep in mind that I do want to get into videography as well, mainly to shoot people.</p>

<p>I am considering getting the 50mm 1.4 and I'm also looking at the Sigma 24-70 2.8 (but is there any point in looking at that when I have the 24-105?). I know I definitely want a fixed lens that will get me beautiful bokeh and very shallow depth of field, but I certainly can't afford the f1.2 .I've got roughly $900-1000 to play around with.</p>

<p>Suggestions?</p>

<p>The EF 85 1.8 USM is really kickass for the bread: nice bokeh, rippin' fast AF, decent build and pretty dad burn sharp. I wasn't too happy with my EF 50 1.4 USM: really poor AF in low light, terrible IQ wide open, heavy barreling at 2 meters and not too flattering for portraits unless you do full body or torsos.</p>

<p>Puppy says wise words.</p>

<p>However...</p>

<p>I'd like to suggest the 100/2.8L IS Macro. Great bokeh, fast AF and macro 1:1 to boot.</p>

<p>(Note on EF 50/1.4: my copy has good image quality but I really don't like the build quality.)</p>

<p>There is also the EF 100mm f/2 USM and longer telephoto primes which give you beautiful bokeh. A lot depends on your desired working distance. Compared to the f/1.4 the 50mm f/1.2 with its slightly larger aperture will not really make a difference in rendering of out-of-focus areas, but the longer focal length of a telephoto lens will certainly do.</p>

<p>However, for normal portraiture I use the <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=783085"><strong>EF 50mm</strong></a> f/1.4 USM the most (both on APS-C and full-frame). It's small, lightweight and I have taken tens of thousands of pictures with it, so I don't really notice its drawbacks anymore as I intuitively work around them.</p>

<p>The 50/1.4 has excellent image quality and the build is solid. I would go for that (in fact, I did)...</p>

"I mainly shoot fashion and fine art portraiture..."

<p>Based on what you'd been shooting already, what focal lengths did you use most? What sort of lighting do you work under (controlled/natural)? What do you feel is lacking in the 24-105L? If you're shooting at f/8-f/11 most of the time in a studio, then I'd question your need for a fast prime.

<p>But if, as you've implied, you're looking to shoot for shallow DOF portraiture/fashion, then there are quite a number of great lenses as have been suggested. 50 f/1.4, 50 f/2.5 macro, 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2 (very similar to 85 1.8), 100 f/2.8 macro and of course the 135 f/2L. After much research and some sage advice on this forum, I chose the 135L to add my arsenal. I haven't yet done a fashion shoot since I got my 5D2, so when I do I'll see what length I use most. I'd suggest you shoot some typical gigs first and figure out what focal lengths suit you best before you drop a grand.

<p>Why you don't try EF 135f2L, that's good for portrait. I've got 85f1.5 but love to get this 135f2.</p>

<p>Whatever lens you get, if you have an extra $100 left over my suggestion would be to buy the nifty fifty... 50mm f1.8. Build quality is crap, but image quality great. You can't go wrong for the price. Every Canon photographer should have one.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I know I definitely want a fixed lens that will get me beautiful bokeh and very shallow depth of field, but I certainly can't afford the f1.2</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In the test images I have seen of the Canon 50mm 1.4 the out of focus areas typiclly have hard edges when the aperture is wide open. The Sigma 50mm F1.4 doesn't have the hard edges and the bokeh is very smooth. For a 50mm used with the aperture wide open the Sigma 50mm F1.4 is probably the better choice overall without the cost associated with the Canon 1.2. <a href="http://www.dpreview.com">www.dpreview.com</a> has good reviews for the Canon 50mm F1.8 and F1.4 and the Sigma 50mm 1.4. I have had no problems with my Sigma 50mm F1.4.</p>

<p>I don't have the Sigma 24-70 but I don't se any significant advantages with it over the 24-105mm. Yes it is one stop faster but the Canon 24-105 has IS so much of the aperture difference would not be significant.</p>

<p>Instead of the 24-70 you might wnat to get the Sigma 50 1.4 and invest the remiander in a flash shuch as the 430EX. The 50mm will give you the narrowest DOF with very good bokeh while the flash would help with lighting.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I know I definitely want a fixed lens that will get me beautiful bokeh and very shallow depth of field, but I certainly can't afford the f1.2</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In the test images I have seen of the Canon 50mm 1.4 the out of focus areas typiclly have hard edges when the aperture is wide open. The Sigma 50mm F1.4 doesn't have the hard edges and the bokeh is very smooth. For a 50mm used with the aperture wide open the Sigma 50mm F1.4 is probably the better choice overall without the cost associated with the Canon 1.2. <a href="http://www.dpreview.com">www.dpreview.com</a> has good reviews for the Canon 50mm F1.8 and F1.4 and the Sigma 50mm 1.4. I have had no problems with my Sigma 50mm F1.4.</p>

<p>I don't have the Sigma 24-70 but I don't se any significant advantages with it over the 24-105mm. Yes it is one stop faster but the Canon 24-105 has IS so much of the aperture difference would not be significant.</p>

<p>Instead of the 24-70 you might wnat to get the Sigma 50 1.4 and invest the remiander in a flash shuch as the 430EX. The 50mm will give you the narrowest DOF with very good bokeh while the flash would help with lighting.</p>

<p>Hmmm....I must have missed something. This was shot with a Canon EF 50mm/1.4, 1/80 sec. @ f/5.0, ISO 200. Can someone point out the hard edges in the bokeh? ;-)</p><div></div>

<p>Same here, William. Then again, I don't spend my time staring at test images or -- god forbid! -- MTF charts.<br>

<a href="../photo/10883133"> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10883133-lg.jpg" alt="" hspace="5" vspace="10" /></a> <br /><strong> EOS 5D, EF 50mm f/1.4 USM @ f/2.2 </strong></p>

<p><em>"You can't go wrong for the price. Every Canon photographer should have one."</em></p>

<p>If you gave me one I'd never use it... not ever. Do not see the point of that lens. If you already have nice lenses why curse someone with this 50 1.8?</p>

<p>For portraits the 85 F1.8 is a pretty good lens - better than the 50 F1.4 on the 5DII. I find my 50 F1.4 works better on the 7D than the 5DII as I find it a bit wide for portrait use. My 50 F1.4 is rather soft wide open and really needs to be used at F2 or higher. With the 50mm FL this increases the DOF. I would second Matthijs on the 100 f2.8 L IS - this is a great lens and very sharp - even wide open. Indeed some people may find it too sharp as it shows up any skin flaws or lines. I do not have the EF 135 F2 but the older FD 135 FD is a great portrait lens on full frame and only slightly worse than the FD 85 F1.2 (both the EF versions of these lenses are very similar optically).</p>

<p>The 50/1.4 has excellent image quality and the build is solid</p>

<p>I wouldn't go that far, and yes, I have one. Also, I think Puppy's going a little too in the other direction. I'd say the 50mm f1.4 is decent image quality for a prime, a step up in build comparing to the 1.8, but still so-so.</p>

<p>Hi<br />I use the 24-105mm with my 5D MK2 for most of my studio work and location fashion work and find this to be a very useful lens.<br />If you're looking to shoot video with the 5D MK2 (I shoot the occasional video interview and some video of interiors for architects etc) I'd be a bit reluctant to try shooting at very wide apertures. I know this is the latest trend with guys shooting the 85mm 1.2 wide open to create these arty video's but the 5D MK2 is very tricky to focus in video mode as you can only use the LCD screen which isn't big enough if you're working with a tight DOF. I use my 5dMK2 on a tripod and pre focus when filming an interview so it's not an issue but if you're shooting people moving around I think you'd need as much DOF as possible.<br />I would stick with the 24-105mm and hold off on a new lens until you've worked with the kit for a while.<br />As for the Sigma - I had one a few years ago before I bought the 24-105mm and the Canon lens was way sharper so I sold the Sigma on. I wouldn't use anything other than a Canon lens on a 5DMK2 (unless you go over to the Ziess lenses).<br>

All the pics on my studio site were taken with the 5dMK2 and 24-105mm lens <a href="http://www.redshift-studio.co.uk">www.redshift-studio.co.uk</a><br>

<br />Best regards<br />David</p>

<p>35mm f1.4<br>

135mm f2</p>