Canon Lens Set

[Julio Quintana]

Stephen, if I lose the 16-35mm, what do you recommend to replace it in the 18-21mm range?

[Tom Lowe]

Forget the 70-200 and just pick up the 135mm f2 and the 200mm f2.8. Why go zooms when you can go primes?

But be careful with the 135mm. I had to search a long time to get one where the image didn't shift left to right as I racked focus back and forth. But let me tell you, it is one unbelievable lens. The 200 is also gorgeous.

Oh, and take the advice: The 100mm macro L-Series is a GORGEOUS lens. Just wish it was twice the price and twice the speed.

Finally, dump the 16-35mm. You won't use it very much between the Tokina and the 24 (both of which are terrific, terrific lenses).

Stephen

I have to disagree. The new 70-200mm 2.8 II is the sharpest lens in my bag. The sharpest, most awesome still lens I've ever used. This thing is stunning. IMHO, no Epic with EF mount will be complete without the 70-200 2.8 II. Ask Jarred how well it works on an Epic. The 16-35 II is my most used lens. It's an absolute workhorse, and very sharp. I never leave home without it.

Julio, I would also like to suggest that you take a look at the EF 14mm 2.8 prime. Probably half the major landscape shots on my most recent reel Rapture were shot on the 14. It's stunning. The difference between 16 and 14 might not seem like much, until the camera starts moving. Then you notice a beautiful warping around the edges. It helps to "sell" your moves. I love it.

One thing that is important to consider is that many of the people coming from a cinema-heavy background will tell you to always choose a prime over a zoom. In cinema, this is true. But in the stills world, it is not always true. For example, the Nikon 14-24 will smoke ANY prime in any focal length from 14 to 24. It will in fact beat the Canon 14 prime overall, I have been told. The Canon 70-200 and the Nikon 70-200 are examples of super high quality glass in a zoom body.

Leaving aside the speed of the lenses, I would love to see comparison of the Canon 85mm 1.2 and the Canon 70-200 2.8 II. I bet the 70-200 will smoke it. And keep in mind that the 85 1.2 is possibly Canon's finest fast lens. I tested the 85 1.2 against a Panavision Primo and the Canon smoked it.

Of course, all of this advice is coming from a guy who shoots much more outdoor/nature stuff than cinema, so take this with a grain of salt.

I should add that I do not have experience with the 11-16, so I can't say anything about it.

[KETCH ROSSi]

Well said Tom,

also not to forget a very important aspect of this renewed lens, the IS, which works on Epic!!

An the new 4 Stops will give a very good assistance when shooting hand held.

I have owned every 70-200 since the original, and this new version is siply the best by far of all 70-200, and not only in the Canon line up.

[Tom Lowe]

Well said Tom,

also not to forget a very important aspect of this renewed lens, the IS, which works on Epic!!

An the new 4 Stops will give a very good assistance when shooting hand held.

I have owned every 70-200 since the original, and this new version is siply the best by far of all 70-200, and not only in the Canon line up.

I mean, seriously, I don't know if I just happen to have a really good copy of this 70-200 or what, but this lens blows away anything else in my Canon bag. The first time I put it on my 5D2 and hit the x10 digital zoom focus-check button, my jaw hit the floor. None of my other lenses are even close. Laforet had the same reaction.

[Stephen Pruitt]

Tom. . .

I will bet you that the 85mm f1.2 will win any head-to-head image competition with the 70-200mm set at 85mm. The bokeh on the zooms is quite inferior compared to that of the great L-series primes. And with respect to sharpness, the 70-200mm does not compare to the 135mm f2, which is probably the sharpest lens Canon has ever made. That thing is a razor, and it has bokeh to die for, as well.

To me, the main things I look for in a lens are speed and bokeh. The 16-35 (2.8) is slow as molasses compared to the 24mm (1.4). I just sold mine since I never used it except for exterior steadycam work, and I just had to sell my Actioncam to raise money to finish our current feature. I do not miss the focal lengths between 16 and 24 for my own features, but I suppose I wouldn't mind a great Canon L-series 20mm prime at 1.4. In general, I'll use the 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm lenses for at least 90% (frankly, probably closer to 95%) of the shots in our features. I do not like a wide lens except for special effects shots.

My own set is as follows:

Tokina 11-16 (2.8) (used only for special effects or car interiors)
Canon 24mm L II (1.4) (used maybe 5% of the time)
Canon 35mm L (1.4) (used maybe 30% of the time)
Canon 50mm L (1.2) (used probably 35% of the time)
Canon 85mm L II (1.2) (used probably 25% of the time)
Canon 100mm macro L (2.8) (used only for special effects macro work)
Canon 135mm L (2) (used only when the 85mm won't get us close enough)
Canon 200mm L II (2.8) (used only on the very rare super long shots we do)

Tossing out the 100mm macro (used only for special macro work), each of these lenses is almost exactly a factor of 1.5X from the next widest lens. I find that moves between these lenses cut very well.

Now, I'll admit that I'm giving up the obvious speed of shooting of a zoom for speed of glass and better bokeh, but we use a very distinctive, very slow style of filmmaking where the preference is on using as much available/practical light as possible. We'll typically shoot our features over periods of between 4 and 6 months each, so saving time is not a real consideration for us, and this clearly has an impact upon the lenses we keep in the case.

In addition, I find any lens slower than f2 almost totally unusable for interiors at night. Indeed, in most of our interior shooting (day or night), we are wide-open even at f1.4. An f2.8 lens is just pretty much unusable for us except for daytime exteriors or for specially lit shots. Finally, it should be noted, we ONLY use these lenses on our M-X RED. We don't even own a Canon stills camera. If we were using a Canon stills camera like a 5/7D, we might feel very differently about the zooms.

Of course, your mileage may vary, as Tom's clearly does.

Stephen

[Jarred Land]

Great post Stephen. Agree 100% with the 85L comment.. Thats my favorite lens even though i must say the new 70-200mm is a lens that probably sits on my camera more than any other... the old version was great, but that new zoom is incredible.

[Tom Lowe]

Stephen, I understand your points. Like I said, my style of projects and shooting are a lot different from most of the cinema shooters here. I can understand why you like those faster primes. Julio and I just worked on a project, however, that was nearly 100% wide-angle, deep focus. So we all come from different points of view.

Just curious if you've had a chance to play with the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II?

In terms of bokeh, don't count out the newer zooms. This was taken with a new Nikon 70-200 (not by me):

[paul engstrom]

The 85 is ridiculously good lens...and I want the 70-200. They're both awesome. What's wrong with having both of them?

Julio -- thanks for the news re: the new 12mm Master Prime -- hadn't realized they had done that -- the size in the picture pretty much makes the point though: even bigger than a regular Master Prime :).

the 17-55 is a very, very good lens with Image Stabilization and exceptional, L level optics. You could shoot an entire film on that lens. I prefer it to the 16-35 and 24-70 combination, which are also excellent lenses. That would be the other option I would consider vs the 16-35.

[Justin McAleece]

Forget the 70-200 and just pick up the 135mm f2 and the 200mm f2.8. Why go zooms when you can go primes?

But be careful with the 135mm. I had to search a long time to get one where the image didn't shift left to right as I racked focus back and forth. But let me tell you, it is one unbelievable lens. The 200 is also gorgeous.

Oh, and take the advice: The 100mm macro L-Series is a GORGEOUS lens. Just wish it was twice the price and twice the speed.

Finally, dump the 16-35mm. You won't use it very much between the Tokina and the 24 (both of which are terrific, terrific lenses).

Stephen

Have you ever used the newest gen IS on the 70-200 Stephen? It's crazy good and you'll find so many situations that it will help you out that I would never want to be without it.

[Vincent Thomas]

Anyone else could comment about the new Nikon 14-24? Any great adaptater with aperture ring to use on canon system? How is focus ring?

I'm close to replace my old 70-200 for the new one but so great this lens could be, most of the scene i shoot are below that range so a 80 or 85 1.4 maybe better?
If only a stabilized 24-70L II could came out...