# Primes to go with a 5D Mark II -- does anyone not use a L prime?



## stevevihon (Nov 29, 2011)

Moving over to Canon from Nikon and looking to purchase a 5D Mark II. Being new to Canon, I am starting from scratch and would like some advice from those who own the camera and pair it with prime lenses. I have read that full frame sensors are less "forgiving" with lenses and that they should be paired with the top of the line glass (i.e. "L" lenses).

Curious for those that own this camera and have prime lenses -- are all the prime lenses that you pair with the camera "L" lenses? If not, what non "L" primes have you found have been a good match?

Photo subjects are a non-cooperative four year old daughter and cityscapes (I live in Chicago, so lots of good architecture to photograph here along with the lakefront).


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 29, 2011)

the 3 primes i have at the moment are the 
50 f1.4 (non L)
100 f2.8L Macro
300 f4L

they are all great, however the 50f1.4 isn't of the same calibre that the nikon 50f1.4G is which i sold when i sold all my nikon gear and moved over to canon. i also hear good things about the 85f1.8 non L which is priced well and i guess similar build to the 50. You dont have to have L glass but they do feel much more solid and heavy
so thats one up side is the non L lenses are lighter and easier to carry around


----------



## Leopard Lupus (Nov 29, 2011)

Both the Canon 85mm f/1.8 and the Canon 50mm f/1.4 are incredible non L lenses for their price. I have used both on the 5D mk ll and for anyone looking to buy the L versions of this lens, i would suggest trying their less expensive brothers first.
Happy shooting!


----------



## K3ntFIN (Nov 29, 2011)

I only have the 50 f/1.4 prime lens, but I do love it, it produces stunning image quality for 1/4th of the price of the f/1.2L version.


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 29, 2011)

If/when I ever go FF, I can guess right now that my Samyang 35/1.4 is going to be glued onto it most of the time.

(although, it does have a red ring, just not in the same place as the L lenses).


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Nov 29, 2011)

Non L canon primes to photograph daughter: 50/1.4, 85/1.8, or 100/2.0 or 2.8 macro

Instead of a prime wide angle, I'd push for the 17-40/f4 for your architecture shots with a 85/1.8 or 100/2.0 or 2.8 macro (non-L) to complement.


----------



## branden (Nov 29, 2011)

For shooting landscapes, any prime lens will perform excellently on the 5Dm2, L or no-L.

For shooting everything else, there's basically three groupings:

1) The cheapies, being the 135/2.8, the 50/1.8, the 35/2, the 28/2.8 and the 24/2.8. These are great, but have loud autofocuses and aren't comparatively fast. They are tiny and inexpensive, though, and (so long as you're not too concerned about bokeh) all have totally powerful optics, easily outperforming any zoom.

2) The mid-range, being the 100/2, the 85/1.8, the 50/1.4, the 28/1.8, and the 20/2.8. These autofocus silently, quickly, and in general have nicer build qualities, but on the flip side they halate wide open and are known for chromatic aberrations. However, shooting to avoid those situations, they take stunning photos.

3) The high range, being any L prime. These all provide knock-your-socks-off performance wide open, and as such are the best things out there for photographing anything involving people. Their only issue is that stopping them down beyond f/4-ish (depending on which lens) actually hurts image quality, so as a solution, don't stop them down 

Hopefully this helps! I've actually used about 80% of Canon's primes, so these observations are based mostly on my own experiences.


----------



## Blaze (Nov 29, 2011)

For the daughter, the 85mm f/1.8 would be a goon non-L choice. Relatively cheap, good IQ, and fast AF. The 50mm f/1.4 is pretty popular, but I'm not terribly impressed with my copy (too soft wide open and inaccurate AF).

For architecture, I would think you would want a shorter focal length. Since super wide aperture isn't usually as important here, a zoom such as the 17-40 f/4 the poster "Canon 14-24" mentioned might be a good choice.


----------



## J. McCabe (Nov 29, 2011)

stevevihon said:


> Moving over to Canon from Nikon and looking to purchase a 5D Mark II. Being new to Canon, I am starting from scratch and would like some advice from those who own the camera and pair it with prime lenses. I have read that full frame sensors are less "forgiving" with lenses and that they should be paired with the top of the line glass (i.e. "L" lenses).
> 
> Curious for those that own this camera and have prime lenses -- are all the prime lenses that you pair with the camera "L" lenses? If not, what non "L" primes have you found have been a good match?
> 
> Photo subjects are a non-cooperative four year old daughter and cityscapes (I live in Chicago, so lots of good architecture to photograph here along with the lakefront).



I have a 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, and 85mm f/1.8 and use them on a 5Dmk2, and I'm satisfied with the results, esp the 50mm f/1.4

The 35mm f/2's bokeh looks bad when there are lines in the background, as can be seen in the lens' review at photozone. It does not have USM, so focusing is a bit noisey but quick enough for me.

The 85mm f/1.8 is an excellent lens, with a small issue of purple fringing, as can be seen in the lens' review at photozone.

In neither case do I feel the need to fork the extra cash to upgrade to an L lens, which aren't perfect either.


----------



## Flake (Nov 29, 2011)

I can't agree that the primes "easily outperforming any zoom." The 70 - 200mm f/2.8 IS II will outperform all the primes quoted. Prime lenses are not some kind of panacea to higher quality, and many of the non L lenses were designed an age ago and are not good performers. Having said that most of my primes are non L including the 85mm f/1.8, I've had the 50mm f/1.4 which is good, the 100mm macro, now replaced with the L version, TBH it's difficult to tell much difference between them.

My advice would by to treat a prime lens for what it is - lighter, often faster, and most times cheaper than a zoom, they are not any better than todays zoom lenses when stopped down. Buy with caution, some lenses are better than others, it's a bit of a minefield so check on sites like Photozone.de when considering a new purchase to avoid the lemons.


----------



## NormanBates (Nov 29, 2011)

for architecture:

* the canon 24mm f/2.8 non-L is great: not as great as its L counterpart, but pretty close, for 1/4 the price
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=246&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=480&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5

* it's still not out yet, but I'd bet the Samyang 24mm f/1.4 is even better (based on the fact that the 35mm 1.4 is A LOT sharper than its 4-times-as-expensive canon L counterpart); only manual focus, though
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=771&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## alipaulphotography (Nov 29, 2011)

Canon 28mm f/1.8
Canon 35mm f/2.0
Canon 50mm f/1.4
Canon 85mm f/1.8
Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro or f/2.0

Sigma 50mm f/1.4
Sigma 85mm f/1.4

All great non-L prime lenses. I don't pay attention as to whether my lens has a red ring or not. Great images can come out of any lens.


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 29, 2011)

stevevihon said:


> . I have read that full frame sensors are less "forgiving" with lenses and that they should be paired with the top of the line glass (i.e. "L" lenses).



well i did not notice that in prints to be honest... but what i notice is bad composition, lack of inspiration. 

btw: i sell a lot gear to pro photographer who work for magazines.
and i can tell you they donÂ´t care about stopping down to f16 or f22.

the advice to not go smaller then f4 is complete nonsense.
repeated again and again by amateurs who do pixelpeeping on testcharts rather then making pictures. 

if you need f16 or f22 then use it.
thatÂ´s what everyone who makes money with photography will tell you.

diffraction limit of a lens... well let me tell you it will NOT RUIN a great picture!
in fact you will hardly notice it in print.
thatÂ´s why famous photography icons donÂ´t care about diffraction limits.

itÂ´s like the audio "gold ears" who claim they can hear a difference between a 1000$ audio cable and a decent audio cable for 30$. but as test have shown (in studio environment, done by the german ct magazine), even the best are unable to hear a difference between a good MP3 with 192 kbit and the original CD.
leave alone the difference a 1000$ audio cable makes. 8)

there is always a gap between what you can measure and what you will notice.
you can measure diffraction limits.... you can measure a drop in sound quality going from CD to MP3 192 kbit.... no question.
but as tests on humans have shown it doensÂ´t matter in reallity .. because a human will not notice it.


----------



## elflord (Nov 29, 2011)

stevevihon said:


> Moving over to Canon from Nikon and looking to purchase a 5D Mark II. Being new to Canon, I am starting from scratch and would like some advice from those who own the camera and pair it with prime lenses. I have read that full frame sensors are less "forgiving" with lenses and that they should be paired with the top of the line glass (i.e. "L" lenses).



Covering a wider fov is a challenging engineering task (especially at faster f-stops), so a lens that easily covers a crop may not do as well on full frame -- for the same focal length, the fov is wider on a full frame. This is mostly an issue towards the wide end though, not the tele end (85mm does not have a wide fov on a crop or a full frame). 



> Curious for those that own this camera and have prime lenses -- are all the prime lenses that you pair with the camera "L" lenses? If not, what non "L" primes have you found have been a good match?
> 
> Photo subjects are a non-cooperative four year old daughter and cityscapes (I live in Chicago, so lots of good architecture to photograph here along with the lakefront).



I have the 50mm f/1.4 and the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 (the latter is priced similarly to cheaper L lenses) and would recommend these for the daughter. Canon's 85mm f/1.8 is a highly regarded cheaper alternative. I have the 35mm f/2 which is an excellent performer (see the photozone.de review) 

For the 50mm f/1.4, you won't gain much in performance from stepping up (you will gain half a stop of course). The Sigma 85mm is very close to Canon's L lens in performance (see the comparison test on thedigitalpicture.com). The Canon 85mm f/1.8 is also solid as long as you don't pixel peep and compare with the Sigma or Canon's L lens. The 35mm f/1.4L is a stop faster than its non-L sibling. It's also somewhat larger (the 35mm f/2 is tiny), has a more modern autofocus system and aperture (the 35mm f/2 has only 5 aperture blades which makes the bokeh look bad in contrived situations, see photozone's review). But in terms of numbers, the 35mm f/2 holds its own (again, see photozone) 

Some wide angle non-L lenses that have recently been reviewed very favourably are Samyang's lenses (14mm, 35mm and 85mm). These are also sold under the brands Bower and Rokinon. They are manual only, so for taking a picture of a 4 year old the 35mm and 85mm are probably out. However, the 14mm is a standout as a budget wide angle prime. See reviews on lenstip and photozone.de


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Nov 29, 2011)

If I had a FF camera - which I don't, I will once they release the 5DmkII  the firt lens I'd buy would either be the 85L or the 135L - probably the 85L just over the 135L. A nice wide angle zoom would be great for your landscape shoot. SOmething like in the 10-24 range I reckon


----------



## willrobb (Nov 29, 2011)

branden said:


> For shooting landscapes, any prime lens will perform excellently on the 5Dm2, L or no-L.
> 
> For shooting everything else, there's basically three groupings:
> 
> ...



Brilliant advice here from branden, it's always good to listen to someone who has used the lens and knows the pro's and the cons of each lens.

A lot of people are talking about the 50mm F1.4 prime with great reason, for the price and the quality of images you get it really is a lens anyone should have in their kit bag. Great for portraits and not half bad for landscapes either.

Someone mentioned the 17-40mm F4L for landscapes, it is an L lens, but pretty damn cheap these days and brilliant for landscapes. Anytime I travel I always have it packed, nice and light for an L lens as well.


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 29, 2011)

> A lot of people are talking about the 50mm F1.4 prime with great reason, for the price and the quality of images you get it really is a lens anyone should have in their kit bag. Great for portraits and not half bad for landscapes either.



and from my own experience i guess it must be the lens with the highest RTM rate for canon.

the EF 50mm f1.4 is the lens i have the most reclamations for (defect AF).
and i donÂ´t mean back/frontfocus issues.... i mean that the AF is not working at all.

other then that itÂ´s a great lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 29, 2011)

stevevihon said:


> Photo subjects are a non-cooperative four year old daughter and cityscapes (I live in Chicago, so lots of good architecture...



I'd recommend the 85mm f/1.8 for the 'non-cooperative four year old daughter' - I had one of those (the 85/1.8, that is) and I've got one of those (the non-cooperative four year old daughter, that is). I swapped the 85/1.8 for the 85mm f/1.2L II, and although that's a great lens, the slow AF makes it a challenge with a child who won't hold still. The 85/1.8 focus much faster.

Many of the responses are suggestions for landscapes, but...the OP mentiones cityscapes specifically. The prime lenses of choice for shooting architecture are the TS-E lenses (PC-E in Nikonland). The shift feature enables you correct for the perspective distortion you'd normally get by pointing the camera up at a tall building. The tilt feature is also great for landscapes, as you have complete control over depth of field.

Here are a couple of samples with the 5DII and TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II:




EOS 5D Mark II, TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, 1/60 s, f/11, ISO 100, +10 shift




EOS 5D Mark II, TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, 1/2 s, f/8, ISO 100, +12 shift


----------



## Caps18 (Nov 29, 2011)

scottsdaleriots said:


> If I had a FF camera - which I don't, I will once they release the 5DmkII  the firt lens I'd buy would either be the 85L or the 135L - probably the 85L just over the 135L. A nice wide angle zoom would be great for your landscape shoot. SOmething like in the 10-24 range I reckon



It's the 16-35mm range on the 5DM2... anything less than 14mm will have black corners and will be a fisheye.

I have the 85mm f/1.8, and it is just fine for daytime portraits. For indoor shots of moving people, a flash would help or a higher ISO.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 29, 2011)

Caps18 said:


> It's the 16-35mm range on the 5DM2... *anything less than 14mm will have black corners and will be a fisheye*.



Shhhh...don't tell Sigma that, because they they'll have trouble selling their 12-24mm lens, which is, "Designed for use with full frame digital cameras." It's rectilinear and while the 3-stops of vignetting at 12mm on FF is certainly noticeable, I wouldn't call that 'black corners' as it's less than the vignetting on Canon's 24mm f/1.4 II). If you meant, "_anything less than 14mm from Canon...,_" ok then.


----------



## stevevihon (Nov 29, 2011)

Thank you every so far for your advice. I am not adverse to buying a L lens, but was curious on whether it is a must or nice to have. Special thanks to Branden for the concise round up and to Nueroanatomist for the tilt-shift redo. 

The reason I sold my D300 and lens was that I found there to be a lot of noise at ISOs above 640 and that my 17-55 2.8 had trouble focusing in dimly lit settings (a circus I attended with my wife and daughter where I tried to get a shot of them enjoying the show that turned about grainy and out of focus). So, my thought was to move up to the 5D Mark II (I am aware people feel there are the focusing issues since it kept the 5D's AF and did not move up to something like the 7D has). Will full frame be the miracle worker I am looking for in low light? Not sure, hopefully it will be improved so I will not continue to have my "on-going camera purchase regret" I have had when I bought a Contax NX, Contax G2, Leica M7 and Nikon D300 (yeah, I got some issues with this...)

Back to the lenses -- I am willing to step up to L lenses (I think the 17-40 suggestion by Canon 14-24 is a great suggestion since most architecture does not move unless there is an earthquake), but am trying to be smart about how I build up my system since I want to break my habit of buying, regretting, selling and buying again.


----------



## danski0224 (Nov 29, 2011)

I really like the 16-35mm f2.8L II.

I rented the 35mm f1.4L and it is much more useful in low light compared to f2.8.

A 50mm 1.4 is on the way.

Don't know what'll be next. I'd really like one of those 400 f2.8 II's, but no winning lottery tickets here.

I would recommend renting a lens for a few days to try it out, unless you can score a good deal on a used one. Some say that renting is wasted money- money that could go towards the purchase of a lens, but at the 4 figure mark for a new one, I disagree.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 29, 2011)

stevevihon said:


> Back to the lenses -- I am willing to step up to L lenses (I think the 17-40 suggestion by Canon 14-24 is a great suggestion since most architecture does not move unless there is an earthquake)



It's true that most architecture does not move  but most architecture _does_ have straight lines. Straight lines and the 'massive barrel distortion' (photozone.de) of the 17-40mm lens don't always play well together. With the 17-40mm on FF, you're better off shooting at 24mm or narrower, or if you must shoot wider, try to keep straight lines away from the edges of the frame and to frame your intended subjects loosely so the area cropped away by post-processing distortion correction doesn't cut off something important.


----------



## FOB2009 (Nov 29, 2011)

Don't forget Zeiss. I have the 100/2.0 and 21/2.8. The newer 35/1.4 and 25/2.0 look incredible. See diglloyd.com for reviews.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 30, 2011)

I have both L and non L lenses to use with my 5D MK II. A 15mm fisheye, a Tokina 17mm f/3.5, 50mm f/1.4, and a 85mm f/1.8.

The camera will work great with non L primes. It does not have the high photosite density of a 7D, so its less demanding of lens resolution. 

However, I also use some "L" primes and they are a step up. 35mm L, 100mm L, 135mm L, 300mm f/4 L. 

I feel comfortable with the images from all of them, the 50mm f/1.4 is the weakest, but still very good.


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 30, 2011)

Weird timing for this thread, I was out and about the other day, and I saw a guy with a 1D (or 1Ds, didn't get a close enough look but it def wasn't a 5D+grip, and had no flash). With a niftyfifty attached. He took a few shots, then dove into his bag to change lenses, I though he'd be going for the L-prime after doing a test or something with the cheap lens. But then he put on a 35/2, seems he just wanted wider...


----------



## elflord (Nov 30, 2011)

stevevihon said:


> Will full frame be the miracle worker I am looking for in low light?



Maybe not a "miracle", but you will have no trouble shooting at and beyond ISO 640, and it will autofocus all through its range if you use the center point, plus you will get an extra stop using a fast prime instead of an f/2.8 zoom. 

In auto ISO, the 5D Mk II will go up to ISO3200, and it will autofocus quite easily there. Obviously it's not as good as ISO 100 but it is certainly usable.


----------



## pelebel (Nov 30, 2011)

Personally I'm a pixel peeper and I would not go for a non-L lens on my 5DmkII. But that's me. You may find that some are great for you!


----------



## te4o (Dec 1, 2011)

FOB2009 said:


> Don't forget Zeiss. I have the 100/2.0 and 21/2.8. The newer 35/1.4 and 25/2.0 look incredible. See diglloyd.com for reviews.



+1
You avoid the AF issues and get an eternal built. No electronics to get in the way. And with the mega-ultra-low-light-high-iso-low-MP-high-IQ-canon-future dawning no one needs IS any more. And no zooms either... ???


----------



## Picsfor (Dec 1, 2011)

I also use 2 primes with my 5D2 that are non L

one of the old plastic fantastic - 50mm f1.8 MkII
the other is the 100mm f2.8macro.

I have found the odd occasion when i can find the lens being 'out resolved' by the sensor, but in 3 years, i'm talking just a few times - and i really was pushing it to do things it wasn't really designed for.

As for the 50mm - can't fault it. I take it out 50mm days, just camera, lens and nothing else to see what i come back with. Natural light can be so much fun...


----------



## funkboy (Dec 1, 2011)

A few other suggestions in the "don't forget" department (OK, it's well-known here that I'm a VoigtlÃ¤nder fanboy):

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff

Check out the "third party" lenses from VoigtlÃ¤nder and Samyang. Very nice alternatives to Zeiss for a lot less cash.


----------

