Need help picking lens for 5d Mark II!

I have decided to purchase a 5d Mark II (thanks to some advice from this forum). Now I need to pick a lens.

I want a lens that will give me really good bokeh. I loved the bokeh in the movie Silent House, but they used a $3,000 lens. My price range is under $1,000. Is there a lens at that price range that will give the same bokeh in the film Silent House?

I would prefer to have a lens that has an adjustable zoom. I plan on doing a lot of close, macro shots, but will probably end up getting a macro extension tube, so the lens itself doesn't need to shoot macro on its own.
 
There isn't any one magic lens. If you are going with a zoom lens, get the best quality, fastest, constant aperture lens that you can afford.

Alternately, you could scour ebay to build a collection of used primes at a good price.
 
I can't give any advice about video shooting since I'm not a video shooter (not yet, anyway). I also haven't seen Silent House. And I know next to nothing about zooms. But here I go opening my mouth anyway. :weird:

I recently got the Canon 85mm f/1.8 EF USM. I love it. But that's doing still photography. Turns out I just love the 85mm focal length generally. Look that lens up and read reviews on it, if you please. It seems to get plenty of praise for being able to produce nice bokeh. If I had a 5DII and was going to shoot video with it, I can't believe I wouldn't want to shoot it with the 85mm when appropriate.

And since you also want to shoot macro and if you might consider a prime lens, consider looking up Canon's 100mm f/2.8 USM macro lens. I've read good things about that one too...for still photography anyway.

Both B&H and Adorama are currently asking 419 for the 85mm and 599 for the 100 macro. But...for all I know an experienced video shooter would tell us that those lenses are no good for video shooting, if that happens to be the case.

But yeah, you should probably get your advice from actual video shooters, not me. Good luck. =)
 
Rokinon. For like $1130 you can get a 14mm 2.8, 35mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4. Beautiful glass, lots of bang for the buck, no auto features. It's all manual (so is video mode) so you're saving money by only paying for glass, no servos or anything.

Considering you're full frame, you'd be ok without the 14mm (still, a great lens) and could grab the 85 and 35 for $779.... OR a 24mm 1.4 (brand new) and a 85 for $1078.

PS: Samyang and Bower are the same lens as Rokinon, just branded differently. So if you find a focal length you like do different searches for each to see what's cheapest where.
 
Pardon the newbie question. I just want to clarify somethin. Is it true that the lower the f stop number (and larger the aperture), the more dynamic the bokeh will be?

Also, I suppose I don't need a zoom lens.

Thanks for the suggestions, I am going to check them out.
 
I'm not sure if "dynamic" is the word for it, but bokeh exists because of shallow depth of field. To achieve that, you use long lenses (85mm is great) and fast lenses (low aperture, under f/2 is great).


If you want crazy bokeh, check out lensbaby. You can get their creative aperture kits for their lenses with prebuilt shapes and some blank plates you can build so your bokeh is then shaped like a star, heart, spiral, etc...
 
Just found out that in Silent House they used a Zeiss Compact Prime Lenses, which is way out of my budget. Are there any similar lens that are more affordable? I just really liked the shallow depth of field bokeh effect it gave in that film.
 
Any fast lens, and/or telephoto lens will give your shallow DOF and bokeh. It's physics, happens across all lenses, not a unique thing.

They will have different types of bokeh, it all depends on the shape of the aperture. A really nice, 12 blade aperture will give you round bokeh, a 6 blade will give you a hexagon, etc...

Also, for $1000 you can rent Zeiss CP2s for a certain amount of days/weeks.

Remember, you'll need highlights for bokeh. If it's shallow enough where you can't see the background, try christmas lights. Headlights, lamps, and other small source lights are all good.
 
On Borrow lenses you can get a single Zeiss CP2 for 4 weeks for $550, or 6 of them for a week for $1110, plus shipping (probably $20-60 depending how many they are, the package the heck out of them haha).
 
PS: Samyang and Bower are the same lens as Rokinon, just branded differently. So if you find a focal length you like do different searches for each to see what's cheapest where.

After MORE research because I just 5 minutes ago order the 14mm, turns out that Bell + Howell and Pro-Optic are also the same lens/different brand in the Rokinon/Samyang/Bower family. The 14mm I just bought was $344 from Adorama as a Pro-Optic where the Rokinon one is $399. It's crazy, different ink, someone else gets the overhead, but it's the same lens from the same factory.
 
Alrighty, I have decided on getting a macro lens since that is what I will need for my next project.

Question, I currently have a Nikon D90 with the Zoom-Nikkor Zoom lens - 18 mm - 105 mm - F/3.5-5.6 kit lens. I am looking at Canon's macro lenses (for when I get my 5d mark ii), and all but one are at or below 100mm. Does this mean that my Nikon kit lens will get closer shots than say the Canon EF 100 f/2.8? What factors into how close or magnified of an image a lens is capable of producing?

Here is the list of Canon macro lenses I am looking at:

http://www.canonrumors.com/lenses/price-watch-macro-lenses/
 
The longer the focal length (50mm, 100mm) the more "magnified" the image.

All macro means is that it can focus really, really close to the glass. While your Nikon can go to 105, it's minimum focus distance is probably between 10 inches and 3ft. Macro can get you way closer for shooting small things.
 
If you are still thinking about a zoom lens, the two to look at in my opinion are the 24-105mm f4 IS or the 24-70mm f/2.8. Both cover the most common range of focal lengths you'd likely be shooting at. Both are great lenses, each has tradeoffs in respect to the other that will determine which is more appropriate for your needs:

- the 24-70 is noticeably sharper than the 24-105
- the 24-70 is at least a full stop faster (2.8 vs. 4) - real world I think it's more than a stop faster
- the 24-105 gives you a 30% longer zoom range
- the 24-105 has image stabilization which makes a noticeable difference in handheld footage
- the 24-105 is ~$200 cheaper than the 24-70
- both are popular and have been available for several years, so you may be able to find a good deal used.
 
If you are still thinking about a zoom lens, the two to look at in my opinion are the 24-105mm f4 IS or the 24-70mm f/2.8. Both cover the most common range of focal lengths you'd likely be shooting at. Both are great lenses, each has tradeoffs in respect to the other that will determine which is more appropriate for your needs:

- the 24-70 is noticeably sharper than the 24-105
- the 24-70 is at least a full stop faster (2.8 vs. 4) - real world I think it's more than a stop faster
- the 24-105 gives you a 30% longer zoom range
- the 24-105 has image stabilization which makes a noticeable difference in handheld footage
- the 24-105 is ~$200 cheaper than the 24-70
- both are popular and have been available for several years, so you may be able to find a good deal used.

I just saw your post. Do you think these lens would compliment the Canon Macro Photo MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Manual Focus Lens well as a "normal" lens?
 
ItDonnedOnMe, would these two zoom lenses be good for achieving a really dynamic shallow depth of field? If not, what are the best "normal" Canon lenses for shallow depth of field?
 
Back
Top