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 :)

Which Canon L lens?

Lewis-M Soucy

Lewis-M Soucy

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
1,412
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
58
Location
Paris
Website
www.lewis.pro
I'm just about to receive my Canon TI Mount, and I'm shopping around for a nice Canon Lens.

What would be a good starter lens? Something versatile, something I can shoot narrative, with nice DOF, without changing lens all the time. I usually do everything with my 2 Red zooms (18-50mm & 50-150mm)... I wouldn't mind something fast as well...

I guess something close to 20-150mm would make my day, right?

Thanks
 
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
 
Last edited:
James McLellan said:
What about the 17-55 2.8? It's not L but it has IS and a faster aperture than the 24-105. Not sure if it works with the Canon Ti mount though and it may not cover 5k throughout. I've been wondering about this lens a bit but never had one in my hands to check it out.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425812-USA/Canon_1242B002_EF_S_17_55mm_f_2_8_IS.html
Click to expand...

Many folks like it and claim it has sharpness and build quality to rival L lenses. I don't have a first hand opinion.

There is no reason why it shouldn't work on the Red EOS mount. I'm pretty sure it does.

I believe it is APS-C size so 5k coverage is questionable. Evin?
 
the 17-55 will vignette on some 5K formats, like FF and 2:1, on 5K it vignettes a little bit, but usable. I think the 24-70 would be nice to start with, but a new one is coming out soon.
 
The coming 24-70mm update is worth waiting for if a single lens is critical. Otherwise a set of fast L primes is the ticket
 
Lewis-M Soucy said:
I'm just about to receive my Canon TI Mount, and I'm shopping around for a nice Canon Lens.

What would be a good starter lens? Something versatile, something I can shoot narrative, with nice DOF, without changing lens all the time. I usually do everything with my 2 Red zooms (18-50mm & 50-150mm)... I wouldn't mind something fast as well...

I guess something close to 20-150mm would make my day, right?

Thanks
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
Their Bokeh is even better than Canon, I'd say. Definitely for the 85mm 1.4 (yes, the Canon 85mm 1.2 is sharper @ 1.4, but that's the trade-off I suppose).
 
Josh Beadle said:
The coming 24-70mm update is worth waiting for if a single lens is critical. Otherwise a set of fast L primes is the ticket
Click to expand...

I´m also waiting for the 24-70 update. Meanwhile I´m using the 16-35mm 2,8 (newest version) and the 70-200 2,8 II for narrative work. And I like them.
 
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?

Sorry for de-railing the thread a bit,

Kegan
 
Last edited:
I second the 17-55 F2.8 IS. I've used it extensively, and the optical quality is rivals L lenses. The focus ring isn't bad either.
Does work on the Epic, and will cover 5K (as far as I know)
 
Go for Samyang (akaRokinon).
 
I own the Tokina 11-16 2.8 and swear by it. Bought the 24-105 F4 IS and its a good all rounder but don't expect anything special in bokeh and sharpness. The 70-200 2.8 IS II is incredibly sharp and produces great results. The IS is a very, very big plus. Anything over 100mm requires IS for handled- even 85 is pushing the limit.

I would suggest a fast prime for those low light jobs. I have the Canon 24 1.4 and the 50 1.4 for that. But I wouldn't discard other brands, like samyang. Haven't tried them but feedback as you can se is good so its worth a try!

Also heard very very good things about the 100 IS Macro- should take a look at that one!
 
Kegan Sant said:
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?

Sorry for de-railing the thread a bit,

Kegan
Click to expand...

From what I know, they just made it lighter... Didn't sound to me like any incentive to wait...
 
If Canon does for the 24-70 II what they did for the 70-200 II . . . it is worth the wait. I would not put the 24-105mm on a RED. There is a quality mis-match and at F4 you are already out of the low light game. RED needs light - lots of it. At F4 vs F1.4 you need 16X the light for a given exposure. Stick with the Canon F2 or better primes and you can't miss. The 100 macro is an exceptional lens - even wide open.

Rent and test over a weekend before you buy anything over $1500:
http://www.borrowlenses.com/category/canon
 
Canon lenses aren't great as "fast" lenses. Personally I like the 17-40 it's the sharpest of the wide zooms but it's only f4. So what. I won't shoot it wide open anyway, it only really gets sharp at F8. Most of the so called fast Canon lenses don't look all that sharp wide open, and with the funky focus rings they are already hard to keep in focus so why shoot at 1.4 and make it even harder? The only lens amoung them that seems to look OK at 1.4 is the 35mm. Even the 50mm lenses bloom and get mushy wide open. The exception to this is the long lenses, which are generally 2.8 or greater. The good tele photos look good wide open. My personal list of the lenses that I feel comfortable using are, 17-40, 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 85 1.8, 100 macro, 70-200, all the long L lenses and the TS lenses. And again most of these I shoot at 5.6 or 8 with exception of the longer lenses I'll shoot around 4. I know that the look is "better" with the shallow DOF of wide aperatures but I like things in focus too, and with wider lenses I just say, " hey let's go for a deep DOF".
 
The 17-40 has the advantage of being an internal focus lens and having 77mm internal front threads (which when used in conjunction with a screw in (whatever) filter bumps it up to 80mm for both clamp on mattebox compatibility or a 80mm step down ring for a bellows. It also rotates in the correct “cine” direction. Great lens for under $1000.

428203_383898084956986_100000103924091_1601834_1034424774_n.jpg
 
So today I got myself the 24-70mm which seemed like a no brainer mandatory must have. So far it looks good, I figured out how to tweak the aperture, manual focus is good...

Now I gotta figure out how to work the Epic focus wonderland... That's not as easy as I thought...

70-200mm will be my next purchase...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top