best prime & zoom lenses for 5D MK II

[JDMvW]

<p>Don't worry about the <em>build quality</em> of the EF 50mm f/1.8. All indications are that, despite its looks, it is one of the more reliable of the Canon lenses in use, especially considering the number of them that are out there. If function matters more to you than looks, you'll be happy until it breaks which will be a very long time, and then you can buy another one for less than the cost of repair of any other lens. ;) Heck, you could buy a new one every year and still come out ahead considering what everything else costs.<br>

The manual-focus ring (so called) and the bokeh are more serious criticisms, and as I said, it doesn't do so well on the 35mm-sized sensor as it does on the smaller ones (see Photozone.de's review of it on the 5D cameras).</p>

<p>I should also have mentioned the EF 35mm f/2. It's a very nice lens for a lot less money than its undoubtedly finer f/1.4 sister.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

There is very little you cannot do with a different "trinity" of lenses - with the whole batch costing about the amount of one

of the L lenses: 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8. They are excellent performers and smaller and lighter to boot.

 

The Canon L primes are fine lenses, and they can be the right choice in a few limited situations. However, the biggest,

baddest, most expensive lens with a red ring is not always the best choice.

 

Dan

[faysal]

<p>Let me say that I have never had a issue with the sharpness of the 1.8, its just that the thing feels flimsy even though it works just fine and my copy has lasted me the last 4 years well.But again, the bokeh is not to my liking, on my crop as well. I'm starting to incorporate more people into my photography now, so bokeh has become more important.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>The 24-105 f/4 IS L and 70-200 f/4 IS L are very sharp and very useful lenses, and IS extends their functionality considerably. The 70-200 also works well with Canon's 1.4x teleconverter. I would recommend both of lenses if you can tolerate the following important caveats.</p>

<p>(1) f/4 isn't super fast. If you need to shoot sports or weddings in dark churches it might not be fast enough.</p>

<p>(2) Both lenses introduce a LOT of distortion into the image. Luckily, PS CS5 and Lightroom 3 have presets to correct this, but be prepared to correct this distortion in post-processing for most of your images.</p>

<p>As for primes, the 24 mm f/3.5 TS-E II L is a world class lens if tilt/shift fits into your style of shooting. It's very solidly built, flexible in the configurations that it offers, and it's optically stunning.</p>

 

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Dan, since when did the 70-200/4 IS L exhibit any distortion worth worrying about? I agree that the 24-105 fares somewhat less well in this regard, but really only because of its barrel distortion at the wide end.</p>

[faysal]

<p>I agree that f/4 is not very fast. In fact it is too slow sometimes, however the IS bit helps a lot with handholding at least.<br>

I dont recall the 70-200 having significant distortion either.</p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p>Dan South said, "Both lenses introduce a LOT of distortion..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Say what? I went through some photos taken with my copy of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. I don't see the "LOT of distortion".</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Given his reference to the TS-E 24mm, I have a suspicion that Dan may be doing architectural work. Almost every zoom has significant distortion when you are shooting all right angles and straight lines at wide focal lengths.<br /> The distortion there is pretty easy to fix. even for the 24-105; and it is rarely noticeable in non architectural shots so that it is not really a matter of correcting every shot, at least for most of us.</p>

[sang_lee2]

<p>Natural light shooting means faster lenses especially when you lack those natural lights.</p>

<p>I would definitely consider 35L, but not 50L. With all the focus shifting issue that 50L has, I'd rather go for 35L or sigma 50 f/1.4(IF you can find a good copy, QC has been an issue for Siggy lenses).</p>

<p>As someone has mentioned, 35L, 85L, 135L would be really good choice for primes on 5dm2.</p>

<p>Just my 2cents... =)</p>

[markonestudios]

I would say the 50 f/1.4 would be a very good starting point. I would also be very slow to knock the 50 f/1.8, being a long-time user of one. I didn't buy it for the build quality, but then again mine has dropped on concrete and on tarmac (both times with me in flight ;-)) with no ill effect. I don't like the manual focus ring and the lack of FTM focusing, but optically it is a very good lens, all things considered. The bokeh could be better; the pentagonal OOF highlights aren't to everyone's liking. For portraits and low light work on both my 400D (XTi) and my 5D2, I have found it truly invaluable... http://www.photo.net/photo/11387790

<p>I have read very good things about the 85 f/1.8 and the 100 f/2; I was almost settled on buying the latter but after some more careful research and sage advice, my next prime will be the 135 f/2L.

[igord]

<p>50f/1.8 (I) with metal mount is a very good lens<br>

http://www.camerauser.gofreeserve.com/html/ef50_1_8.html</p>

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

<p>FWIW, there's a good comparison review of the 50/1.8 vs. the 50/1.4 somewhere here on photo.net. I prefer a 35 or 40mm length as my standard lens, and use the Voigtlander 40/2.0 manual focus pancake lens. Razor sharp out to the corners at f/5.6, and quite easy to focus with AF confirmation. I like the Canon 50/1.4 for its sharpness and bokeh, and the only alternative that seems (to me) to make sense would be the Sigma 50/1.4, whose performance at f/1.4 is marginally better than the Canon. But the Sigma is a monster clunker of a lens, and the Canon 50/1.4 is better once you stop down to f/2.8. The Canon has decent bokeh, not something I'd expect from a macro lens, so that makes the Zeiss 50/2.0 macro less than interesting. The Zeiss 100/2.0 macro is supposed to be amazing. Other than the 21/2.8 and the 100/2.0 macro, I don't see any game changing lenses in the Zeiss line. I'll probably get the 35/2.0 to compare to the 40/2.0. I'm a bit put off by the price of the Canon 35/1.4 (I'm not convinced f/1.4 makes sense in a 24mm or 35mm lens, so paying for it grates), so the f/2.0 design and thus less unreasonable price of the 35/2.0 Zeiss make it attractive. But the MTF charts show it to be a somewhat lesser lens than the 21/2.8.</p>

<p>As someone who owns 17 or so lenses that cover the 20mm focal length on the 5D2 (everything except the 16-35/2.8 lenses), I can report that the Zeiss 21/2.8 is the only one that can produce sharp, reasonably CA-free corners on the 5D2, and at f/11 no less. Every other lens is still getting sharper in the corners as you go to f/16, where diffraction is snipping at the rest of your image. It's a wonderful lens. I haven't noticed the fearfull moustache distortion yet, but rumor has it that Lightroom 3 (perhaps with a 3rd party plugin) can fix it. I'm not convinced any of the other Zeiss lenses bring enough to the table to bother with.</p>

<p>Since the question here is Canon 5D2 vs. Leica M9, though, what's the verdict going to be? The Canon 17 TSE and 24 TSE II are amazing lenses that do things not available in the Leica world. Similarly for the 70-200/4.0 IS. I'd guess that Leica has the edge in the 50 mm focal length, Doh! I'd think that the Zeiss 21/2.8, Canon 24/1.4, and 35/1.4 hold their own against the similar Leica lenses, but that the 85/1.2 is in a class of its own.</p>

<p> </p>

[g dan mitchell]

"Both lenses introduce a LOT of distortion into the image."

 

There is some truth to this regarding the 24-105, where you'll see some barrel distortion AT 24mm and a bit more

vignetting AT 24mm than with, say, the 24-70. However, this is really only an issue in a few cases, It is easily corrected in

post if necessary, and is often worth it for the additional zoom range and inclusion of IS. There are trade-offs with any lens

choice and the 24-70 has it's downsides in other areas. By the way, the 24-105 is a very sharp lens - the 24-70 doesn't

really have an overall edge in that regard.

 

I'm perplexed to think that your statement might have also been meant to apply to the 70-200mm f/4 lens. That lens most

emphatically does NOT "introduce a LOT of distortion into the image." The 70-200 lenses as a breed are very low

distortion lenses that all produce excellent image quality.

 

Perhaps you were referring to the 17-40? It does produce the distortions typical of a zoom with this focal length range, but

nothing unusual. It would not likely be my first choice for hand held wide open low light shooting nor for use on a

cropped sensor body where there is a better EFS alternative. But for stopped down small aperture work on full frame it

is a fine performer.

 

Dan

[Brad_]

>>> 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?

 

For the best pictures possible, your eye, ability to translate/frame what's before you, and post-processing skills will

drive the impact of your photos FAR more than small differences in lenses.

 

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.

[g dan mitchell]

"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. :-)

 

Dan

[dan_south]

Mark, regarding distortion in the 70-200 f/4 IS L, since the day It was designed, I suppose. Import an image into Lightroom 3 and apply the profile. The difference will be pronounced.

[dan_south]

Wow, you fellas are defensive about your 70-200's! You can test it yourself. Shoot a brick wall with your sensor precisely

parallel to the wall. Apply the built in profile in CS5 or LR3 and watch the difference. It's obvious. Lots of pin cushion

distortion before correction.

 

Not a bad lens. In fact it's very nice and sharp and portable. LR3 corrects it nicely.

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Dan, we are "defensive about our 70-200's" because we shoot the lens a lot, find it to be excellent and reliable, and find your comment to be bizarre. 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>

<p>Whatever "distortion" you are seeing is most certainly not "obvious."</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Since I shoot neither architecture nor, more specifically, brick walls with my 70-200/$ IS L, I guess I'll never experience the problem to which Dan alludes. And I guess G Dan and the others won't, either.</p>

<p>All I know is that it's a stellar lens, and my current favourite walkabout.</p>

[justin_stott]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I upgraded from a crop sensor Canon to the 5dMkII about 6 months ago, and also went from the 50 f/1.8 to the 50 f/1.4, both lenses are great, the price on the 1.8 can't be beat for the IQ, however, the USM focusing on the 1.4 makes it a little quicker to focus, even in low light situations IMO. The build quality does feel a little more solid than the f/1.8 even though I've never had a problem with it and it's still in my bag(just in case). With the 1.4 and ISO 1600 I usually have no problems shooting even in ambient light in a nightclub or bar.</p>

<p>For wide to short telephoto I went with the 24-70 f/2.8L and am constantly amazed at the sharpness of this lens. I would love for it to have IS, but it is heavy enough to add some stability just because of it's weight. </p>

<p>I also added the 70-200 f/2.8L IS to extend the range of the set of fairly bright lenses, but you didn't ask about that one, and it is a little bit of a beast to carry around, especially if you are used to Leica gear. (Not to mention 2.8 is REALLY shallow DOF at 200mm unless you are 100 feet from what you're shooting!)</p>

<p>Adding a 12mm extension tube and a 1.4x teleconverter will cover almost any situation imaginable, (for me anyway) without losing too much quality.</p>

<p>YMMV, but Good Luck, and Happy Shooting!</p>

[apostolos_tournas]

<p>Tim,<br>

After you finally pick up your lenses of choice, I wonder if you could kindly come back and post your personal experience on switching from Leica to Canon glass.<br>

But please, no MTF and line pair per millimeter comparisons, just your thoughts on " flare resistance & consistent colour balance between different focal lengths, on smooth and pleasing bokeh, on low vignetting when wide open, on low distortion for rectilinear ultra-wides, on solid <em>metal</em> construction, which retains its aperture & focus ring firmness after decades of use," to quote Andrew Nemeth.<br>

With all due respect, I am serious. Not too often do we come across outfit transitions of such a direction.</p>

<h2></h2>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>My fsv lenses for the 5DM2 are 24L, 35L, 85L, 135L, 70-200/2.8IS, 24-70L and 45TS.</p>

[tim_cokayne]

<p>Thanks for all the responses.<br>

Just to clear things up, I'm not interested in macro, long or medium telephoto lenses. I want a prime lens and a wide to short telephoto zoom. I don't shoot nature, sports or airshows. The two lenses have to be auto-focus, I have no interest in manual focus. I already have two of the world's best manual focus cameras and I'm looking to make the switch to auto-focus.<br>

Apostolos- No problem. Will let you know how I get on. Blur quality is pretty important to me as my 3 Leica Summicrons have 10 blade apetures and I like a blurred background in portaits. I think the L series glass, though expensive would be the route to take as I've had 5 blade FD lenses on my Canon A1, XTi and also a Fuji MF rangefinder; the harsh bokeh though tree branches and backlit complex objects was always distracting. The Summicrons I own ( A 50 and 90 mm, I sold my 35 a few month back) are fantastically made lenses, especially the series 2 50mm. They aren't flawless though- the 35 felt pretty plasticy and the aperture rings do wear out after time especially on the series 4. I borrowed another 35 for a wedding recently and the ring had almost worn out so aperture would change evertime I focused.<br>

Leicas, although nice things, have a lot of hype surrounding them. I think I'd rather have the flexibilty of an auto-focus SLR and be able to take pictures of details, objects closer than 0.75 of a meter away and have them centre frame and in focus. Rangefinders aren't very good for that sort of thing.<br>

Leica lenses flare the same as any other and I always use mine with hoods. It's hard to spot if the lens is flaring or not as the rangefinder doesnt really give an accurate portrayal of whats going into the lens. The rangefinder window is usually covered in my greasy finger marks anyway.</p>

<p> </p>

[faysal]

<p>If you care more about the image than the build quality, want smooth bokeh, and want AF, then the Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM seems like it will be adequate for your needs at a fraction of the cost of the 50mm f/1.2 L series.<br>

(before that message gets attacked, please note that I suggested the 1.4 over the 1.8 because of bokeh, canon over everything but sigma because of af, canon over sigma because of poor quality control on that lens, and the 1.4 over the 1.2 because of the minute marginal benefit given the cost).<br>

If you are willing to spend the money on the 85mmL, awesome lens I wish I could one day own, otherwise the 85mm seems to be a good performer with good smooth bokeh and a short telephoto range as you suggested you wanted.<br>

As for the 35L, you're still going to have the distortion of a wide lens (although LR/PS will autocorrect that for you)<br>

As for the zooms, after reading this, I wouldn't know which to go with the 24-70 or the -105 if I were in your shoes!</p>

 

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Faysal has well covered the relative merits of the 50mm's. However, since it's now clear that bokeh is your thing, I'd definitely recommend the 85/1.2 L for your prime and the 24-70/2.8 L for your standard zoom.</p>