MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Lenses for 5d mark II  (Read 29672 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

CofkoCof

« on: December 02, 2008, 17:22 »
0
There's quite a few people buying the 5d mark II for stock work so I'm interested in what lenses are you going to be using on it? It's a 21mp beast so only the top glass will be good enough (I know that pixel density isn't as high as on 50d for example, but still). I've seen a lot of samples with the 24-105 L f4 kit lens and they don't convince me. CA and distortions are awfull on some pics, but that can be fixed (still a PITA to do it on every shot) however poor sharpness can't. There are probably only a few zooms out there that will be able to make full use of the body: 70-200 f4 IS (probably the sharpest zoom in the canon lineup), 28-70 2.8 (discontinued, tests and many users confirm it's better than 24-70 2.8) and on the wide angle the nikon 14-24 with an adapter. That leaves us with primes. Probably most of the L ones will be up to the task (if you get a good copy that is).

So what are you gonna use with the new 5d II? Any suggestions from 1ds mark III users?
« Last Edit: December 02, 2008, 17:24 by CofkoCof »


« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2008, 17:32 »
0
I use a 1Ds II. Generally speaking, 24-70mm & 70-200mm f/2.8 IS are my workhorses. Dunno where you got the info that the (older) 28-70mm and (cheaper) 70-200mm f/4 IS are superior, but whatever - I've never been let down with my stuff.

I'm getting the impression you're very concerned with specs and measurement, which I don't think is a good place to be: it's the image that matters, not the stuff you used to make it. To each his/her own.

« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2008, 17:42 »
0
deleted

CofkoCof

« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2008, 17:52 »
0
I use a 1Ds II. Generally speaking, 24-70mm & 70-200mm f/2.8 IS are my workhorses. Dunno where you got the info that the (older) 28-70mm and (cheaper) 70-200mm f/4 IS are superior, but whatever - I've never been let down with my stuff.

For 28-70: a friend of mine has it and reports it to be sharper (had both, sold the 24-70), yuri arcurs also recommended it in his newest blog post, there are also various test and topics around where you can see the comparison.
For 70-200: I borrowed the 2.8 and 4 versions (along with 40d) from a friend of mine and saw it on my own eyes. Again look at the tests that compare the two. I didn't say it's superior, I said it's sharper (also has a newer version of IS). It really depends on what you need.
You can click on the links in the OP to see just one of those tests and here's a link for a quick comparisson (just select 70-200 f2.8 IS on the left and 70-200 f4 US on the right and then play with aperture, focal length,...).

I'm getting the impression you're very concerned with specs and measurement, which I don't think is a good place to be: it's the image that matters, not the stuff you used to make it. To each his/her own.

Yeah, that's why I shooting with a pentax.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2008, 18:26 by CofkoCof »

« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2008, 18:36 »
0
I really expected such a thread. Good question, for the maximum performance 5d mk II users need to forget the cheap lenses.

Here is my lineup of lenses I will use on my 5d mk II:
50mm f1,4 and 100mm f2,8mm macro. These two lenses I consider far enough to shoot sill life stock. I saw many tests and I compared these lenses with others and the result is that the 100mm macro is among the best Canon glasses, without any significant distortions. The 50mm it's not so good even at 2,8 but from 4up it's perfect, especially considering the usable high iso with the new 5d mk II.

For people/action there is the 17-40 f4. I don't see the reason to pay double for the 16-35 while the image quality is almost the same. Also, at wide angle the bokeh changes from 2,8 to 4 are very small so f4 is far good. It's definitely not Nikkor 14-24 but some more post-processing in raw and PS helps.
Also the most important is the 24-70 f2,8. Yes, if somebody can purchase a good 28-70 f2,8 lens, it's better but it's discontinued. For people and indoor shoots I see that the 24-70 it's a must.

For nature/landscape shoots the 17-40 f4 and the 70-200 f4L IS is perfect. I don't prefer the 70-200 f2,8 version since it's image quality is lower than the f4 IS.

So, 50mm f1,4, 100mm f2,8 macro, 17-40 f4, 24-70 f2,8, 70-200 f4 IS.

Of course other glasses like Sigma 8mm fisheye, Canon 14/15mm, Canon 85mm, Canon 135mm, Canon 180mm macro are welcome but without these you can live. For those who have enough budget, there is no question about what can be used, just buy the most expensive lenses... ;D

I'm based on my own tests but anybody can have a look and COMPARE test results at
www.photozone.de
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/ here please look at the ISO 12233 Crops and compare! This is the most important thing.
Many other review sites do judge the lenses subjectively and provide totally unusable, good looking low-res samples. Don't look at these, they provide no information about sharpness, contrast, color reproduction and distortions!
« Last Edit: December 02, 2008, 18:39 by icefront »

michealo

« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2008, 18:38 »
0
24-70mm & 70-200mm f/2.8 IS

bought on Leaf's recommendation!

« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2008, 20:23 »
0
here is my  current lens list ,which does almost all I need(except for macro but may be some kenko macro adapters would do the job)
nifty fifty+17-40 F4 L+70-200 F4 IS L 
I am dying to buy a 85mm f1.2 L but I have to wait for at it least a year as it is very expensive and I will have a big hole in my wallet after buying the new 5d m2 :(  I'd also like to buy a 24-70 L f2.8 too.

« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2008, 20:53 »
0
I had read so many good reviews about the 70-200 f4L IS that I was thinking of asking Santa to bring me one, but after I saw its price in B&H I can only imagine how expensive it must be here...  I don't know if I have been such a good girl to merit one!   ;D

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #8 on: December 03, 2008, 01:26 »
0
24-70mm & 70-200mm f/2.8 IS

bought on Leaf's recommendation!

ahhh good choice :) .. i still think the 70-200 is my favorite lens of all.

i am using the same 24-70, 70-200 2.8 and the 16-35

my newest lens was the 180 f/3.5 (on sharpley's advice :)) - which i have been very happy with and glad I went with the 180mm instead of the 100mm.  The extra working length has come in handy a number of times, and hand holding IS possible with good sunlight and pushing the ISO a little.

my 'to buy list'  which will take a few years to get through...
85mm f/1.2
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
a tilt shift lens
15mm 2.8 fisheye
65mm 2.8 macro


« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 03:48 by leaf »

« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2008, 02:06 »
0
I used to have a 16-35mm, which I rarely used once I switched to a FF body. I sold it and bought a 15mm fisheye, which I use often. You might consider doing the same, leaf.

« Reply #10 on: December 03, 2008, 02:14 »
0
i still use the 16-35 for the odd landscape or sky shot.  I bought it initially for interior architecture (real estate market photography).  So I won't be selling it but it is probably the least used lens.

The 15mm is on the wish list but i think mostly for fun... what do you use yours for?

« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2008, 02:34 »
0
I used the 16-35 for interiors as well. It was quite good for that, but when I decided not to do that anymore I found the lens to not have enough zoom for general purpose use.

I like using the fisheye in two ways:
* Landscapes, where I want to get as much as possible into the shot
* Environmental Portraits, when I want to be close to the subject and still have him/her/it immersed in surroundings.

Shooting people can be bit finicky, as the lens has a very small 'sweet spot' where people aren't comically deformed. The lens really excels in being able to get very, very close to your subject while still including background.

Here are a few of examples:

   

The biggest problem I had with the lens was the lens cap, which is metallic and slides over the top of the (very small) built-in hood. It came off very easily and there was always a danger that it might do so in my bag and scratch the lens. I used to keep it wrapped up in a plastic grocery bag until I hit upon the idea of lining the lens cap with just the right amount of masking tape so that it fit more snuggly on the lens. Remember this tip if/when you buy the lens!
« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 02:47 by sharply_done »

CofkoCof

« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2008, 09:42 »
0
85mm f/1.2
Was playing around with the 85 1.2 on 40d the other day. DOF is so shallow, you don't know wheather to look at the sharp parts of the picture or the wonderfull bokeh. Was hard to get the focus just right wide open (probably my fault, I'm not used to 1.2 :D). Can't imagine that one on 5d wide open, if you focused on eyelashes the eye would probably be OOF :D

« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2008, 16:37 »
0
DOF should be the same in both cameras.  ;)

« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2008, 16:50 »
0
Was playing around with the 85 1.2 on 40d the other day. DOF is so shallow, you don't know wheather to look at the sharp parts of the picture or the wonderfull bokeh. Was hard to get the focus just right wide open (probably my fault, I'm not used to 1.2 :D). Can't imagine that one on 5d wide open, if you focused on eyelashes the eye would probably be OOF :D

I've shot with this lens, too. Although using it wide open is attractive, it isn't always the best thing to do - even at a focus distance of 15ft you'll only have 8 in of in-focus room to play with. A better tactic is to stop it down to twice (to f/2.5), where you'll double the in-focus room and have something approaching maximum sharpness.

AVAVA

« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2008, 16:52 »
0
Hi All,

 We stopped using our lenses under 5.6 for Micro because of all the rejections of " focus not in correct place ". I switched up from my 70-200 f2.8 to the 70-200 f4 just because it was sharper on my 1 DS Mark3 and lighter in the hands after a long day. I would be leary of shooting too shallow a depth of field especially for the more critical review agencies, I know it cost me at first. Just my personal experience and how I dealt with it. I have a 300mm 2.8 that when I shoot Micro with it it's F5.6 and above. That is a lot of wasted glass to carry around, but I still love it. Also lenses are usually their sharpest at around two stops from wide open. Above that and bellow and you start getting softer images.

Best,
AVAVA

j2k

« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2008, 17:13 »
0
So far it looks that I'll be using my regular stock lenses - 70-200f4is, sigma 50f2.8 macro and sigma 105f2.8macro

The 24-105 zoom is nice for all around stuff, but corners suffer too much (at least on my copy) - on the other hand it is nice and sharp in the middle and I can crop the heck out of the photo with 21mp and still end up with XL size image :)


CofkoCof

« Reply #17 on: December 03, 2008, 19:37 »
0
I've shot with this lens, too. Although using it wide open is attractive, it isn't always the best thing to do - even at a focus distance of 15ft you'll only have 8 in of in-focus room to play with. A better tactic is to stop it down to twice (to f/2.5), where you'll double the in-focus room and have something approaching maximum sharpness.
Yeah I know, was just playing around with it at some event. Could stop shooting with a flash if I set the apperture to 1.2 :D It was especially attractive since it was my first time with a 1.2 lens :D I think the results are quite sharp even wide open.

The 50mm it's not so good even at 2,8 but from 4up it's perfect, especially considering the usable high iso with the new 5d mk II.
I heard only good words for sigma 50mm 1.4. Did you try that one?
« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 19:39 by CofkoCof »

« Reply #18 on: December 03, 2008, 20:38 »
0
Zeiss ZE 50mm 1.4  - i'm waiting for that :)

Can't wait, actually.  Yes its manual, but it should top any of Canon's 50mm glass, which may sound ridiculous, but its probably true.  Just waiting on reviews

msv

« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2008, 05:57 »
0
Hi, I'll be going for 5DMKII next year, but I'd like to replace first the horrible EF-S 17-85 IS on my Rebel XTi... I'd like to get a handy walkaround lens good enough to be used later on the 5D (primarily with travel photography in mind).
I was thinking to follow Leaf's advice and get a EF 24-70 2.8... any other ideas?
Thanks
Mario

« Reply #20 on: December 04, 2008, 06:11 »
0
One of my favourite lenses is the 135L. I rented it a few times. This lens is amazing and sharp at 2.0. To go save I mostly shoot 2.2, 2.5 with it. I believe it is one of the lenses with the best image quality you can get from canon. I would prefer that over any 70-200 although it means the inconvenience of no zoom. It is also a bargain for the quality you get.
The 24-70 2.8 from canon is a nice lens. Although it is quite a bit heavy, as a walkarround lens.

msv

« Reply #21 on: December 04, 2008, 07:00 »
0
The 24-70 2.8 from canon is a nice lens. Although it is quite a bit heavy, as a walkarround lens.

Argh! 950g? Well I think I can stand that for less hassle when correcting pictures!
I've got no primes, I was thinking about trying the cheap EF 50 1.8 II.
I've read enthusiastic opinions about it. Is its image quality superior compared to the 24-70 at 50mm?
In short: should I spare my money and spend it on the bigger one?

« Reply #22 on: December 04, 2008, 07:28 »
0
I have the Canon 5D with 24-70mm f2.8 L lens and 100mm f2.8 macro lens. The 24-70mm is very sharp and a great lens as walk around, it is heavy but I cope okay with it as most of my work is on a tripod. It will get heavy if you're walking around a lot with it and particularly if you're carrying other accessories along with your camera and lens e.g. tripod, camera bag etc. It doesn't have image stabilisation, something to keep in mind if you want that, I don't need it so no loss to me. I do some table top photos with it mostly at the 70mm end and it can suffer from mild CA at 70mm but nothing too noticeable which cannot be corrected. I submit to Alamy so if this was a problem I'm sure I would have had rejections by now and to date I've had none. On the full frame 5D I would say (although I don't have experience of using this lens) that the 50mm might be too wide for most closeup table top and head and shoulders portrait photos. I nearly always use the 24-70mm at 70mm for this kind of work. It is a great lens for landscapes and I also do some home interior photos with it at the wide angle. The 100mm macro lens is perfect on the 5D for tabletop and closeup work/macro work. Also the 100mm lens is a great portrait lens, especially on the full frame 5D. The other lens that will compliment this camera well is the 70-200mm lens which is on my wish list for when I can next afford a camera equipment purchase.

« Reply #23 on: December 04, 2008, 07:42 »
0
The 24-70 2.8 from canon is a nice lens. Although it is quite a bit heavy, as a walkarround lens.

Argh! 950g? Well I think I can stand that for less hassle when correcting pictures!
I've got no primes, I was thinking about trying the cheap EF 50 1.8 II.
I've read enthusiastic opinions about it. Is its image quality superior compared to the 24-70 at 50mm?
In short: should I spare my money and spend it on the bigger one?

If you have equipment like the 5d, I would not buy a cheap lens for it as the 50 1.8 II. Since I bought the 24-70 2.8 my 50 1.8II is gaining dust.
The 1.8 is pretty sharp 2.8 upwards, maybe better than the 24-70, but there is not much difference.
The problem with this cheap lens is not that the image quality can be great, the problem is to focus it well that it will be great. Sometimes it is spot on, but very often it is not, in this regard the 24-70 is much much better.
I have a much higher keeper rate then from the 50mm. There must be a reason the 24-70 is 10X more expensive :-)

If you come from the these tamron super zooms 28-300 as I did the 50mm 1.8 is amazing in the beginning, but it does not stand a chance against the 24-70.

If you want a good 50mm go for the new sigma 1.4, I have heard that it is better than the canon equivalent.

msv

« Reply #24 on: December 04, 2008, 08:38 »
0
Thanks a lot FreezingPics and Sophia, it seems that going for the 24-70 is a wise choice.
Now I'm tempted to give a call to a friend in NY coming home in Europe for holidays :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3949 Views
Last post February 16, 2012, 12:10
by aeonf
3 Replies
3179 Views
Last post September 05, 2012, 11:25
by stockastic
62 Replies
16634 Views
Last post July 25, 2014, 04:27
by mojaric
9 Replies
6292 Views
Last post January 22, 2014, 16:41
by MarcvsTvllivs
15 Replies
6143 Views
Last post December 08, 2016, 15:42
by increasingdifficulty

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors