Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Set of 6 Canon EF lenses. Which ones?

A

Andy Kolb

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Location
Germany
I'm finally getting lenses for my upcoming big project.
Shot at 5K on Epic.

What I definitely need are the following zooms:

16-35 2.8 L II
24-70 2.8 L II
70-200 2.8 L II (+ Extender)

In addition I want some fast primes to shoot interiors:

24 1.4 L II
35 1.4 L
50 1.2 L
85 1.2 L II
100 2.8 L Macro

BUT I have to drop two primes because of weight and cost.

Which ones would you drop?
Does it make sense to have a 24 and a 35?
And I feel like the 100 Macro is unnecessary since I got the 70-200 and the Extender.
 
Last edited:
Hey Andy, That's going to be a nice set of Canon glass you are getting. Personally if I had a choice the only two lenses I would drop on that list is the 24-70 and the 35mm... That's just my opinion.
Since you said you need to drop two primes my choice would be the 35mm and unfortunately the 100mm. You might regret not getting the 100mm it's such an amazing lens! and whatever you do, do not lose the 24mm.. it's an awesome lens!!
 
Thanks John.

Like I said the zooms are a must in many of my situations.

Since I won't do that much macro, I will drop the 100mm.
 
Drop the 85. Keep the 100. Close focus on the 85 is 1 meter which makes the 100 a much more versatile lens. The 35 is excellent but you would have a lot of options with the 24, 50 and 100. With the zooms you have I would just get the 35 and 100. Save some bucks.
 
If you can, replace the 24mm L with the ~$500 28mm F1.8 USM & Replace the 85mm L with the ~$400 85mm 1.8 USM. Or, if you can go 'budget' on one but still have to drop one then drop the 28mm. Wide shots tend to be higher F stops and bacause of the non-linear nature of lens angles you will find that the 16-35 will become a wide angle workhorse, even if you have the 28mm or 24mm...

I own both of these USM lenses and have used them for years on a Red One. They both work very well and are light and compact. The 85mm is so good it is almost foolish to spend the additional $1600 to get the L. The mid range 35mm and 50mm have cinema usage issues, so you have to use the "L"s in those sizes.

Bob
 
Keep the 24-70 II, its the sharpest lens in the set. I dont think the 50 1.2 performs very well wide open , so it's no good for low light, the zoom covers you there. the best lens of the set for shooting wide open in low light is the 35 1.4 but it's no master prime. the 24 1.4 is ok but you'll get a lot of highlight blooming with it (you'll get some with the 35 too) the macro is very sharp but if you're not shooting bugs it's a bit of a specialty lens. drop the 100 and 50, my 2 cents.

PS the best lens for wide shots is the 17 TS. but it's pricey ($2500) and doesn't take screw on front filters so you'll need a matt box, but it's really sharp and the TS is often useful.
 
John Galeano said:
Hey Andy, That's going to be a nice set of Canon glass you are getting. Personally if I had a choice the only two lenses I would drop on that list is the 24-70 and the 35mm... That's just my opinion.
Since you said you need to drop two primes my choice would be the 35mm and unfortunately the 100mm. You might regret not getting the 100mm it's such an amazing lens! and whatever you do, do not lose the 24mm.. it's an awesome lens!!
Click to expand...

I have to disagree, the new 24-70L II is the best lens Canon has made in years, it's certainly the best lens on the list. the old 24-70 sucked.
 
There are a lot of reasons to dump the 85 1.2 and a lot of reasons to keep the 100 macro. Just because it can focus close does not mean you have to shoot close, but you do have that option. It also has IS. You definately don't need all those lenses though. I often shoot with just a fast 35 and am happy to do so.
 
Love the 24mm 1.4L, strongly recommend keeping that one.

Make sure your purchasing arrangements allow you to test each sample and swap out any poor performers without hassle. In particular the new 24-70 II zoom has seen wide quality variations, so much so that Canon abruptly slowed shipments recently, presumably to rework their manufacturing techniques or change QC protocols to improve the percentage. Whatever the case, people who got good ones rave about the 24-70 L II.

While the zoom might make it redundant, the 35mm prime lens can be a real narrative workhorse for interiors where greater DOF control can be a meaningful asset.

I think I'd drop the 50 and the 85 as the 35 can stand in fairly well for the 50 in most circumstances and, as noted by others, the 100 can fill the 85's role reasonably well and the macro capability is a nice addition to the toolkit.

Cheers - #19
 
just did a quick canon test today, check it out...
from my experience: the 100 is one of the best canon lenses....if it HAS to be a 85, get the 1.8...a better lens all around....unless you like simply soft lenses (which is what 1.2 is and it does not really get a lot better...slowest AF of any canon lens)...same goes for the 50 1.2....save your cash....
i would really recommend looking at the rokinons for the primes.....MUCH cheaper, tack sharp (even wide open), a LOT less CA....and cine versions....of course they are all manual focus...
i have heard very good things about the new canon 24-70.....the old one was not so good....there is a new tamron 24-70 2.8 which is getting VERY good reviews, only issue seems to be slower AF with canon bodies, optically at least even....it is cheaper (around 1200$?) and has VC! (first 24-70!)
70-200 is excellent....
16-35 2.8 is.....ok.....almost unuseable at 2.8 does not get MUCH better but all in all a decend performer in that range (they all more or less suck, except for the nikon 14-24)....canon 17-40 f4 is optically at least as good, unlike the 16-35 you can use it wide open, it is half the price.....
 
Web and Bluray.
And a few screenings in the cinema. (Don't know if this will be 4K)
 
Sorry but this is just nonsense. Lenses that were created to give great images at 20+ megapixel still cameras suck on 9 Megapixel Scarlet?!!!!
Sorry guys but bashing these lenses doesn't make much sense...
And yes I have projected hundreds (thousands?) of lenses in all the years I've been doing this...
 
Mark Andersen said:
Keep the 24-70 II, its the sharpest lens in the set.
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe that a zoom can outperform a bag of primes, but that's just me. That 100 Macro in particular is supposed to be insane. I can't see that zoom being AS sharp. A zoom by design is a compromise. I've always assumed that we should consider ourselves LUCKY if a zoom APPROACHES primes in performance (ie, if we get a variable prime). But, all things being equal, a zoom OUTPERFORMING a PRIME? That would be so rare as to be an anomaly.

Stopped down at F4 I'm sure any of those primes CRUSH that zoom, no matter how good it is. Most of those primes are 1.4 or 1.2's, so by F4 they will be APPROACHING their PEAK sharpness where the Zoom will only just be warming up.

Again - I haven't used this 24-70 II. I'm just going by lens design basic math here. But hey...who knows...maybe this 24-70 is a total beast!
 
Andy Kolb said:
I'm finally getting lenses for my upcoming big project.
...
In addition I want some fast primes to shoot interiors:

24 1.4 L II
35 1.4 L
50 1.2 L
85 1.2 L II
100 2.8 L Macro

BUT I have to drop two primes because of weight and cost.
Which ones would you drop?
Does it make sense to have a 24 and a 35?
Click to expand...
I have the "35 1.4 L", it's a goto interior lens, especially when I need to use "found" lighting due to it's 1.4 rating. Also if shooting in normal rooms (i.e. not studio sets), it's hard to sometimes get the angles for the 50mm. While on sets, I've noticed a bunch of DP's going with the 35 or 40mm in small interiors were normally the "books" says go with a 50 for medium shots. So my opinion is what ever you do, don't drop the 35.
 
Guys (don't mean to hijack, but related question), is there anything comparable to the 24-70II that has stabilization? I'm also looking for a great quality Canon lens for our soon-to-arrive Scarlet. It sounds like the 24-70II is the best walk around type lens, but I would love the OS since we'll be using this handheld a lot.

Thanks!

Kevin
 
Kevin Wild said:
Guys (don't mean to hijack, but related question), is there anything comparable to the 24-70II that has stabilization? I'm also looking for a great quality Canon lens for our soon-to-arrive Scarlet. It sounds like the 24-70II is the best walk around type lens, but I would love the OS since we'll be using this handheld a lot.

Thanks!

Kevin
Click to expand...
the new tamron 24-70 is the first with VR....great reviews....24 is a little tight on the scarlet at 4k....
 
PatrickFaith said:
I have the "35 1.4 L", it's a goto interior lens, especially when I need to use "found" lighting due to it's 1.4 rating. Also if shooting in normal rooms (i.e. not studio sets), it's hard to sometimes get the angles for the 50mm. While on sets, I've noticed a bunch of DP's going with the 35 or 40mm in small interiors were normally the "books" says go with a 50 for medium shots. So my opinion is what ever you do, don't drop the 35.
Click to expand...

I'd agree. I find the 35 1.4 to be arguably one of the most versatile lenses in the arsenal. A 24mm calls attention to itself, it's quite wide. But the 35mm is a the perfect shallow "two-shot" lens, ideal for interiors and natural lighting. It gives you the feel a 50 but with more room to play with, and also isn't so distorted as to be the 24/25 family of lenses. It's a great, intimate 2-shot medium lens. I'm quite fond of mine....(as you can tell).
 
Thanks so much guys.

So the 24 and the 35 have to stay.
I don't really know what makes sense as a third lense but what do you think about that:
(the cheaper 85 for some situations with available light)

24 1.4 L
35 1.4 L
85 1.8
100 2.8 L

OpiTek, I know there are way better lenses.
Due to the budget I have to go with Canon.
And I'm travelling the world on my own with that kit so there is no other option.
 
For important jobs rental good lenses PL 1.2 or 1.3

For my little productions use:
zoom when there are only 2 ( me an sound man) version docu.
Canon 16-35II
Canon 24-70II
Canon 70-200 f2.8 no is
Canon 100-400

Primes for other little works
Samyang 24-35-84 1.4 (I think beautiful to up f2, razor up 2.8)
Zeiss Planar T* 50 1.4 C/Y
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top