# Which pair of lenses to get?



## BokChoiTV (Feb 10, 2013)

So I sold my 7D not too long ago for some financial reasons (long story) and turns out that I actually didn't need to sell it. Ended up having a big budget pool and now I want to reinvest in a camera and lenses.
Background:
I'm going to shoot mainly video. Will do pictures, but my focus is videos, videos, videos!
I'm planning on getting the 6D.
I'm going to buy 2 lenses (most likely used, due to the price and availability.)

So, here's my conundrum.
I'm for sure getting the 70-200mm IS (Mk I) which is estimated around 1300$ used, correct? (Please correct me if I'm wrong, more info would be great!)

Now it comes down to this.
Since I'm going to do video, I'm thinking of either the 24-105 f/4 IS or the 24-70mm f/2.8 Mk I (Average priced around 1,300$ used(?)).

Which lens between those two should I get?
The 24-105 f/4 is almost half the price of the 24-70, offering a wide angle and IS, which would be great for my hand-held situations.
The 24-70 f/2.8, however, is faster and sharper(?) from what I hear.
If I'm going to have a 6D, is the 24-70 really worth having over the 24-105 because it's faster?
ISO performance of the 6D seems pretty great.

I'm a noob, so please be kind in your words ;_; Correct any mistakes I make, but don't flame me.


----------



## wayno (Feb 10, 2013)

This question was all over the net a couple of years ago... I would suggest the 24-105 4 although its a dull sort of lens to me - but very practical. Then save for the stellar 24-70 ii.


----------



## LandonFoster1 (Feb 10, 2013)

If your main focus is video the 6D may not be the best camera to invest in. It has very bad problems with moire to the point where it could change your mind about that body.


----------



## BokChoiTV (Feb 10, 2013)

Oh really? How bad?
I just finished watching a movie on NetFlex "Indie Movie" for those who want to check it out.
It was shot entirely on two 5D Mk IIs and made with FCPX and Denoising software. I didn't see moire and such in that. Is it due to the Mk II being better in terms of moire problems?


----------



## FatDaddyJones (Feb 10, 2013)

You might consider the t4i with the two STM lenses (18-135mm and 40mm STM), since they have video autofocus. The new touchscreen touch-to-focus function is pretty awesome for shooting video.


----------



## sanfranchristo (Feb 10, 2013)

Based on the lenses you are considering, I'd suggest getting a used 24-105 and 70-200 f4 IS, which are both plentiful. The price difference between those and the other options you are considering looks to be about enough for you to get a 5Diii instead of a 6D or 5Dii. If you're serious about video, I'd go that route - from what I understand you'll appreciate the video features of the 5Diii over the other two (I haven't used the 6D but have read about and seen the moire issues), and won't miss anything with those lenses (very minor difference in sharpness with the 24-105 is not a big deal with video and the 70-200 f4 is better than the original f2 IMO).


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Feb 10, 2013)

I'd say go with the 24-105 if video is what you want.

And the second lens probably a nice prime.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 10, 2013)

BokChoiTV said:


> Oh really? How bad?
> I just finished watching a movie on NetFlex "Indie Movie" for those who want to check it out.
> It was shot entirely on two 5D Mk IIs and made with FCPX and Denoising software. I didn't see moire and such in that. Is it due to the Mk II being better in terms of moire problems?


Get a 5D MK II for video if you can't afford a 5D MK III. You don't want the Moire of a 6D. Google it, people are complaining all over, there is even a special filter to help reduce it, but why buy into a problem?


----------



## bigdogmn73 (Feb 11, 2013)

If you go with "THE MAN" Vincent Laforet who started the 5d Mark ii video fun he would say go with the 5d Mark II or III and get a 24-70 2.8. He says if if your into video the 24-70 and 70-200 are the first two lens to buy. Personally I'm thinking about doing the same thing as you, but I don't do as much video so I'll get the 6D with 24-105 and then a fast prime like a Sigma 35 1.4, Canon 50 1.2 or 85 1.2 if I have enough cash. Check out Vincent Laforet blog/The Gear Page....he talks about all his comments about lens. Great Stuff!


----------



## skitron (Feb 11, 2013)

BokChoiTV said:


> Is it due to the Mk II being better in terms of moire problems?



The 5D2 is well known for it's moire issue, the 6D is somewhat worse. You can buy a filter to fix it for about $300. However, moire is dependent on what it is you are shooting, and if your content is such that it isn't going to provoke moire to an objectionable degree then 6D isn't so bad imo. 

The plus side of 6D is its very good at high ISO and also does all I frame. So in those respects a definite step forward from 5D2 video imo.

Lens wise, I'd say it will depend alot on the kind of light you're planning for and if you're planning to use a steady-cam, tripod or do much handheld.


----------



## Halfrack (Feb 11, 2013)

Stop reinventing the wheel. The 5d mk2 is a known quantity, and a used body is cheaper than a 6d.

Read these:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/02/photo-lenses-for-video
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/photo-lenses-for-video-there-is-no-free-lunch


----------



## jhpeterson (Feb 11, 2013)

I, too, would recommend the 5D2 over the 6d, not only for its video quality, but also for its build. And, in a couple years, should you ever wish to trade up, it likely will be worth more.
As for choosing the 24-70/2.8 (original version) or the 24-105/4 IS, it's your call. I've had them both, and, in terms of IQ, my copy of the 24-105 is at least the equal of the 24-70 it replaced. The IS has come in handy far more times than I imagined.
But, I would caution you to stay away from the 70-200/2.8 IS unless you want to spend way more for the Mark II. (It's really worth the difference!) I've had almost all the iterations of this zoom range, including the now classic 80-200/2.8 "magic drainpipe" (over a decade I owned three of them), and you'd be far better served by the non-IS lens or the 70-200/4 IS.


----------



## preppyak (Feb 11, 2013)

Another advantage of the 5dII over the 6D is that it has Magic Lantern right now, which is something you'd likely install on Day 1 if you are doing video work.

You don't mention what you are shooting videos of; that's critical to giving any advice on lenses. If it turns out you are shooting events or weddings, that's very different than shooting outdoors or sports. 

A 24-105 won't cut it indoors, whereas it'd be great outdoors. Personally, I'd consider going the Rokinon/Samyang route if you are mainly focused on video. You can get their 14mm, 24mm, 35mm, and 85mm lenses for the price of the new 24-70 f/2.8 and still have some money left over for camera support.

But knowing what you'll be shooting is key to know.


----------



## BokChoiTV (Feb 11, 2013)

Hey guys! Thanks for all the feedback.
So I went out and got the 5D MKIII.
Problem now is that I'm going to be lensless for the next two weeks, lol. (Though I might get a cheap nifty fifty for the time being).
As for what videos I shoot, I do mainly still video shots on a tripod/monopod. I plan to use a slider bar thing eventually and do some soft-stepping handheld shots, nothing too crazy. (By that I mean doing shots where I walk around a subject as opposed to spending hundreds on a slider, lol)
Someone said that I should get the 70-200mm NON IS as opposed to the IS. The Non IS is on average 1000$ on eBay as the IS version is around 1350$.
I'm probably going to invest straight into the 70-200mm and skip the 24-105mm for now.
I like to have a good amount of DoF, mainly to do those shoulder/head shots, almost like an interview type of thing. Would the F/4 suffice?
I haven't even opened my MkIII box yet! HAHA, I don't want to torture myself by turning it on and seeing how awesome it is .


----------



## BokChoiTV (Feb 11, 2013)

Omfg, now you got me thinking of the 70-200mm f/4 IS or 70-200mm f/2.8 IS.


----------



## jhpeterson (Feb 11, 2013)

BokChoiTV said:


> Omfg, now you got me thinking of the 70-200mm f/4 IS or 70-200mm f/2.8 IS.


Guess you have to ask yourself, what light levels you'll be working in, at what focal lengths and distances and how much depth of field you'll field.
I'd give the nod to the f/2.8 (though not the original IS version), not only for the brighter image in the viewfinder, but also (much like your eyes) because of better AF response.


----------



## BokChoiTV (Feb 11, 2013)

jhpeterson said:


> BokChoiTV said:
> 
> 
> > Omfg, now you got me thinking of the 70-200mm f/4 IS or 70-200mm f/2.8 IS.
> ...



Again, I'm going to use it mainly for video, so the AF response isn't going to be too much of a deal for me.
So my question now is:
Is it more logical for me to go with the 70-200mm f/4 IS + 50mm 1.4 
Or just go with the 70-200mm F/2.8 IS (Mk I) and no prime (since I won't have the budget for it).


----------



## florianbieler.de (Feb 12, 2013)

For 24-70 I recommend the Tamron with 2.8 and VC. Telephoto wise, well no one can decide that for you. The 70-200 4L IS is dead sharp, 2.8L II IS is even sharper. Also, double the cost.


----------

