best prime & zoom lenses for 5D MK II

[ncarnick]

<p>I have the old 85 f1.2L. It is easily my favorite lens. Bokeh is amazing. (for reference I have the 17-40, 24-105f4IS, 50f1.4, 85 f1.2, 100 macro, 70-200f4IS, 1.4x and 2x)<br>

I don't know why I haven't sold the 100macro. It is fine but never makes its way into my pack (will carry tubes at times).<br>

The only lenses I have disliked from Canon are the 28-135 (but honestly it was fine for its price and early entry into IS...not throwing stones at it but the sharpness was not up to what I was willing to spend for) and the 100-400 (my copy was great from 100-200, okay from 200-320, and sucked from 320 to 400. It also sucked in dust (dust trombone design) and needed to be cleaned twice at pricey Canon rates.).<br>

The 24-105 is a great video lens and travel snap shot lens.<br>

The 70 - 200 f4 IS is a great lens. It may not have the bokeh you are looking for but the IS helps in low light and it is pretty compact/low weight for travel.<br>

I like my 17-40 more than most do but still think I would be best served using a Nikon 14-24 (amazing lens) with an adapter and getting the Canon 35 1.4. This is why I buy lottery tickets.<br>

I see a lot of comments on the Canon 50 1.2 vs 1.4 vs 2.0. I like my 1.4 but it is soft fully open (no shock). After that it is pretty good. I've noticed there are no mentions of this but Sigma makes a much newer 50 f 1.4 that a few friends have and like. I'm not a Sigma fan in general (and have heard some really bad stuff from rental companies regarding the ability of the telephotos to survive routine shipping) but the Sigma 50 is apparently pretty good. There is a silly review here if bored:<br>

<a href="

Circling back to the 85 1.2L (older version). Amazing bokeh. Focusing is not bad if you were already close to where you wanted to be but it is worthless as an action sports lens and honestly can be best described as a perfect head shot lens or for odd uses that you dream up. It is a really weird lens as I can easily argue for owning both the 85 1.8 (possibly best lens canon makes for the money) and the 1.2.<br>

The 85 1.2 is very heavy and has a rear element that begs to be ruined (though I know of no person who has damaged theirs...probably because it is too obvious a problem and the lens doesn't make for packing into areas where safe lens changes are unlikely).<br>

In any event, nothing but praise for my 85, 70-200f4 IS, and 24-105. However, I think the 85 and 35 (I don't own) are the obvious suggestions for a Leica guy. The 50 question might is worth opening up to Zeiss and Sigma. </p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>We are "defensive about our 70-200's" because we shoot the lens a lot, find it to be excellent and reliable, and <strong>find your comment to be bizarre</strong>. I own a set of lenses and among them the 70-200 is the zoom least in need of correction in post - in fact, I can't think of the last time I had to apply post-processing "distortion" correction to an image from this lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So as not to highjack this gentleman's discussion, I have posted before and after examples in a separate thread. I invite anyone who is interested to review the examples and draw their own conclusions. </p>

<p>With regard to "bizarre comments," I'm inclined to take the high road and let the images illustrate what they may. The distortion is obvious to my eyes.</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>This is really hard to read because man shooting is just not about how expensivce your lens is. The Only reason you spend $1500+ for a prime lens in the F1.2 range is Speed. I have both a 50 1.2 and a 50 1.8 and at F1.8 I can not tell them apart at all. I compare my 85 1.2L to my Tamron and my Sigma and people are much more likely to like the pictue i took and can't tell without looking at Metadata which lens I used. <br>

Of course shooting my 50 and 85 1.2 wide open gives a distinct look none of the other lenses can match. But I paid $1800 bucks for these lens so I can shoot weddings in dim church with no flash. On my 5D mark II image quality wise even my cheapest lens look great.</p>

[sanj_maghera]

<p>Hi Tim,<br>

I have a 5d mark ii, and I'm very happy with it. I can recommend it for:<br /> - - portrait<br /> - - macro<br /> - - landscape<br /> - - low light (manual focus)<br /> - - parties/weddings (manual focus)<br>

(not sure about quick candids/serrendipity though that may just be a missing skillset for me)<br>

You'll note that I've put a couple of the items above as manual focus...I noticed that one of the reasons you'd like to move from your leica kit is to be able to auto focus spontaneously...while i love me camera, and think the image quality is amazing...i'm not entirely convinced by its ability to consistently nail the focus each time...i've had to adjust my technique, and often take a number of snaps engaging only the centre-point autofocus, each time i click the shutter.<br>

Before moving to the 5d mark ii, I briefly owned a Nikon d300, a panasonic GH1 and an olympus e410...all with very good/pro lenses. from this experience I would say that while 5d by far had the nicest image quality & low light image quality, I'd suggest the olympus and nikon had were better able to nail the focus. The nikon in particular had the uncanny ability to always get peoples eyes in focus (i think there's some work they've done behind the scenes to recognise faces better than their competitors)...with the 5d in a busy situation i find myself taking a shot, checking the screen and then re-taking the shot. Bit annoying.<br>

In low light i have started to manual focus while looking at a zoomed in version of the scene using live view...it works, but its definitely not for spontaneous shots.<br>

It seems that if you want good focus and full frame, you'd be better of choosing a canon 1d mark iv...if that's to pricy, and you don't mind not having movie mode, the Nikon d700 will give you full frame, low noise, and brilliant focus ability (i'm pretty agnostic about brand).<br>

If you're not hung up about full frame, but just like the canon's handle, but can't afford a 1d, then i'd suggest the canon 7d...its low noise performance is possibly better than the leica m8, but not as good as the 5d mark ii or d700.... it has just about the best autofocus setup of any canon camera (other than the 1d mark 4) and is marginally cheaper than the 5d mark ii...it also has nice build quality if you're out doing candids in the rain.<br>

While I'm very happy with my 5d mark ii for the pics i take...I must say that i've occassionally been envious of pros using nikon d700 at big weddings/parties when relying on autofocus to get quick candids in low light...a few shop people suggested I go for the nikon rather than the 5d mark ii but being a geek i wanted the new kid on the block and ability to shoot movies...(which i've done a few times for the odd thing here or there, but interestingly enough i've never really done anything with them afterwards!). Having said that, when I do nail the shot, I sit back with a cup of tea and marvel at it...really lovely pics come out of the 5d mark ii (its just that most of the time I manual focus...okay for me, but thought i'd mention it as you're trying to move away from this)<br>

My recommendation for Tim, if its about magical image quality, go for the 5d mark ii and a 35L or 85L lens...really lovely combination. If autofocus in spontaneous moments is important to you check out the Nikon d700 (i'm pretty agnostic when it comes to brand, this one's full frame - same sort of price as 5d mark ii, maybe a hair cheaper), or Canon 7d (APS-C/Cropped sensor - just a bit more "noisy" in low light...iso 1600 on this one has the same noise as iso 6400 on 5d mark ii or d700) or the Canon 1d mark iv (pricy).<br>

If you have loads of money and big strong arms...just get the Canon 1d mk 4...you've got everything...great focusing, great image quality, great build quality...and the 35L & 85L. I'm already jealous.<br>

Personally I still think there's still something a bit "magical" about a shot taken using a full frame canon sensor...but then that could be that my eyes need upgrading.<br>

As for the lenses themselves, for canon 5d mark ii I'd recommend the following, in order of my personal preference:<br>

35mm f1.4 L (really lovely lens, nice bokeh! again its quite pricey, again if i could afford it i'd get one. My personal favorite)<br>

85mm f1.2 L (expensive, but i think this lens is absolutely fab...i really wish i could afford one!...if you can, you won't be disappointed)<br>

135 L (nice image quality...i just found this focal length a bit too long/restrictive)<br>

Cheaper, but nice...<br>

85mm f1.8 (great lens actually, its got USM focusing, nice bokeh too my eyes and its on my shopping list)<br>

50mm f1.8 (image quality is way above price point, its cheap because everything apart from the lens is plastic...but if your worried about breaking it you could by two spare ones and still have some change left over instead of getting the 50m f1.4). Bokeh is a little nicer with the f1.4 and focusing is quieter thanks to USM, but I had a hard time enjoying using this lens...not sure why but it just didn't work for me. Even though there are 4 different 50mm in canons' lineup i still haven't found the one for me,</p>

<p>Above is for tim...below is to complete the picture for people who like zooms<br>

70-200 f2.8 L (fantastically sharp lens, i just find it too big and bulky to carry around). Get the IS version if you can afford it. There is also a 70-200 f4 if you don't need f2.8, its very good<br>

24-70 f2.8L (great walk around lens, although a wee bit heavy for long trekking. with the resolution of the 5d mark ii you can crop in and still get great results)<br>

16-35 f2.8 L mk ii (brilliant wide angle if you want great quality, expensive)<br>

17-40 f4 (brilliant wide angle if you don't need f2.8, its a bit cheaper)<br>

I also have a couple of lenses that most wouldn't consider, but i think if they're used correctly they deliver a great image, and are available cheap on the used market, so if you don't like them you can use them as a paperweight! (personally though, i think they're great)<br>

Sigma EX 15-30mm (discontinued lens, amazingly wide, good image quality if stopped down to f8, if you need to use indoors though, its a bit soft when wide open...for landscapes and building its great)<br>

Tamron 28-75mm Di f2.8 (i personally think this is every bit as good as canons 24-70, its much cheaper/smaller/lighter easier to take on a day out with great image quality. The only cons against it are the fact it doesn't go as wide as the canon 24-70 (depends on what you shoot, you may find the canon more versitile), the build quality (the canon feels more solid if you tend to bang your lenses around/use in wet weather), the lack of USM (canon usm lenses are super quick and quiet to focus, the tamron is more noisy and marginally slower but i've found it locks on to things pretty good)<br>

If you like macro, i can recommend the ef 100mm f2.8 macro, although if i were doing it again i'd get the new L version with IS build in.<br>

Hope that helps<br>

Sanj</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>>>> 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?</p>

<p>My $0.02 on this.</p>

<p>50/1.8 and 50/2.5 macro are all about what's in focus (sharpness)<br>

50/1.2 is all about what's not in focus (incredible bokeh)<br>

50/1.4 is a nice compromise between these two.</p>

<p>Also, be sure to check out Sigma 50/1.4. Have fun.</p>

[alan_bessler]

<p>My two recomendations are the Canon 17-40 f4 and the 100 2.8 macro it is also very usuable as a portrait lens.</p>

[HK71]

<p>Tim I use both Canon EOS and Leica system. I use Canon EOS 1Ds and Leica M6 TTL.The best zoom lens to go for Canon EOS 5D MarkII is 24-70 F/2,8L. But for ultrawide range -as a previous Nikon system user- even Nikon's ultrawide lenses are far much better, especially if you consider it with Leica summicron or summilux wides.<br>

For your 5D MarkII If I were you, I would consider Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2,8 Pro FX-which will be on the shelves by autumn. Or you can think about Zeiss Distagon T* 18mm f/3,5 ZE. It is a perfect ultrawide companion for Pros.<img src="http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/News/Tokina-AT-X-16-28mm-f-2.8-PRO-FX-Lens.jpg" alt="Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 PRO FX Lens" /><br>

<img src="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/largeimages/655185.jpg" border="0" alt="Zeiss Distagon T* 18mm f/3.5 ZE Wide Angle Lens Canon EF Mounts" vspace="0" /><br>

Goodluck with your choice.<br>

H A K A N<br>

</p>

 

[ray .]

Auto focus can be very efficient, but ultimately, what makes the shot or not is how good you are at using your tools. Pre-focus is

instantaneous, and you can do that with a Leica. Nothing wrong with choosing a DSLR, but you're still

going to have to master whatever you use, no matter what.

[alexander_c1]

<p>Tim,</p>

<p>I had the 50MM 1.8 and later shelled out the cash for the 1.2 and TO ME the difference is night and day. Much nicer bokeh and much sharper image. If I had to do this again I would do it without even thinking about it twice. If you have the money...go for it!<br>

I also use the kit lens (24-105 4L) quite extensively. This lens gets a lot of use from me as it is my main one. The 50mm I pop on when I am doing portraits or I am in a low light situation.</p>

<p>Hope my comment was of some help to you.</p>

[tim_cokayne]

<p>To be honest, I'm going with the Nikon D700 and a 50mm f1.4 AF-D rather than a Canon 5D MKII now. I'm The effectiveness of Nikon's auto-focus and a cheap 9 bladed aparture 1.4 lens was the deal breaker, as was better build quality and a wider choice of lenses.<br>

Thanks for all the help guys.</p>

[ncarnick]

<p>@Dan,<br>

The distortion on the 70-200 f4L IS does not seem to be much of an issue to me.<br>

<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-200mm-f4-is.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-200mm-f4-is.htm</a> covers it in depth and his samples are in-line with what others report. <br>

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a> says more of the same. <br>

<a href="http://www.photocrati.com/canon-70-200mm-f4l-is-usm-ef-review-round-up/">http://www.photocrati.com/canon-70-200mm-f4l-is-usm-ef-review-round-up/</a> has a summary of other reviews. None of which found more than slight distortion on the wide side of things.</p>

[ncarnick]

<p>@Tim, though it is horrifically expensive, the 17mm TS is interesting to look at. Give up on a protective filter (I don't know for that matter if you can put any form of polarizing filter on it either but on the ultra wide world that would make for odd skies uneven in any event).<br>

A friend told me you can put the 1.4TC on it and have nearly a 24mm but I have not used it yet to confirm. <br>

In any event, the 17 and other Canon TS lenses offer you something that might not be available to Leica M users (sorry if wrong on that assumption, don't know the system well but did not see any M offerings of TS lenses from either Leica or Schneider, Voitlander, Zeiss.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Norman, Tim's gone over to the <em>Dark Side</em>. :)</p>

[Brad_]

>>> "That said, I'd start with the very inexpensive 50mm f/1.8 and after 6 months of using that with your

5DII, you'll be better informed on what *you* need for *your* style of shooting."

 

>>>>> +1 The best advice in the entire thread. :-)

 

Thanx Dan, but as you can see it turned out to be kind of a whoooosh... Never understood about asking others what lens they should get, what subject matter they should shoot, or (going back a few years) what film emulsion to bring if one were visiting (say) Germany.