Which Canon L lens?

[Terry VerHaar]

The 24-70 and 70-200 are my workhorse lenses. Both 2.8 and both pretty damned good.

In terms of primes, I use Samyang these days. I put them side by side with my canon glass, and other than a few small things, it is hard, really hard to tell the diff. In fact, other pro shooters i have shown these too can't tell the difference either. Good contrast, great sharpness, amazing focus action. They are great little dittys, even though I feel slighly weird about putting $500 glass on a $35,000 camera

When I search on these lenses I come up with an 85mm Rokinon (made by Samyang, I believe) for $299. Is that the same lens line?? $300?? Wow!

EDIT: Oops - that's a manual lens. I'll keep looking. (cont'd) - Does look like only manual on the 85 - which is OK. Is this the bargain it seems? Also, looks like the 35mm AF at $500 is what you are referring to?

 

[jan meric]

If you need one lens and can make due with f4 the 24-105L is a fine choice. If you really want f2.5 you'll have to accept lens changes I'm afraid. A good 24-70 will do most of the work, and 70-200 for tele CUs. If you need wider you can do worse than the 16-35, but it is not parfocal according to Evin's SALT tests.

Edit: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...-Flare-and-Part-5-Impressions)&highlight=SALT
Oops, typeo... Meant 2.8

would you say 16-35mm canon f2.8 ii usm not a good lens for scarlet? Just a question to understand your experiment.

 

[Uli Plank]

Well, not being parfocal means it doesn't hold focus while zooming. If zooming while shooting is not important to you, you can still use it as a 'variable prime'…

 

[Scott Crawley]

Well, not being parfocal means it doesn't hold focus while zooming. If zooming while shooting is not important to you, you can still use it as a 'variable prime'…

would you say 16-35mm canon f2.8 ii usm not a good lens for scarlet? Just a question to understand your experiment.

What Uli said.

So long as you understand that focus at 16 does not equal focus at 35, and don't need to zoom while you roll it is fine. I prefer not to zoom and so far find the in camera focusing aids to be adequate, so I expect the 16-35 will be fine for my Scarlet. I say expect because I have only put it on briefly.

 

[Frazier Nivens]

Well, not being parfocal means it doesn't hold focus while zooming. If zooming while shooting is not important to you, you can still use it as a 'variable prime'…

My Canon 16-35mm holds focus during zoom, shot it Friday nt. held focus just fine. Mmmmm...

 

[Lewis-M Soucy]

Who know the focal conversion on Epic? Is there a chart? For example, what is the equivalent of a 24mm on Epic?

 

[Elizabeth Lowrey]

I'm curious about what the reasoning is behind waiting for the upcoming 24-70mm. From what I recall, there's no added IS - so what exactly is it? I'm looking purely from a photography standpoint as we have RPPs for our EPIC. I have a chance to grab a current model 24-70mm for around $800 in immaculate condition. Would I be best to hold off?

This thread is the first I've heard of a pending update (if anyone knows when that's expected, I'd much appreciate the info). But the 24-70 is the only Canon lens I owned until a couple of days ago when the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, Canon 16-35 f/2.8, and everyone's favorite Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II USM arrived. Haven't even taken the Tokina and the large Canon out of the box and made one test shot (my first on my new Epic!) yesterday with the 16-35. So I don't have any experience yet comparing the lenses. I have used the 24-70 for about three years on my 5D Mark II.

I recently had a conversation with someone who said he didn't like the 24-70, said he didn't find it sharp, and some other complaints. I have had no such experience, but then I've not had anything supposedly better to compare to. We'll see once I pop on the 24-70 if there's a noticeable difference. What I did whole-heartedly agree with this fellow about was that the telescoping zoom aspect of the 24-70 is a drag. Not only does it make using a matte box more of a hassle, the telescoping position is not 100% stable and is likely to creep on you when the camera is held at a sharp angle. Plus it allows ingress of dust into that part of the housing that interfaces the two tubes of the lens. So if the update makes this lens a constant length, internal focusing AND internal zooming lens like the 16-35 and 24-70, it will be a worthwhile upgrade for me at some point. If the optics are improved to boot, then it would be something I'd probably grab right away.

 

[Lewis-M Soucy]

So if the update makes this lens a constant length, internal focusing AND internal zooming lens like the 16-35 and 24-70, it will be a worthwhile upgrade for me at some point. If the optics are improved to boot, then it would be something I'd probably grab right away.

Agreed! After one day of toying around with it, the telescoping zoom is the only downside I can think of...

 

[Uli Plank]

You can expect much higher variation in samples with such lenses than with cine primes. After all, these are mass produced items.

YMMV