# 24-70/70-200 (2.8 II) or Canon Primes?



## filmrebel (Mar 24, 2012)

Hi. What lenses would be wise for a beginning filmmaker/photographer? (I use stills and video equally). The 24-70 and 70-200 would be great for the range and the 2.8 aperture is useful. However, primes are sharper and have lower apertures. The primes I'm considering are the 24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2, 85mm 1.2, 100mm 2.8, and 135mm 2.0. Yes, the primes added up are more expensive, but they are an investment. Is 2.8 useful enough for low light? The zooms seem more versatile and covers a very good range. Also, I'm planning on getting a 5D, so it seems good for full-frame. So what would you guys do, invest in primes or zooms first? Thank you!


----------



## SebSic (Mar 24, 2012)

My choice is 24 105 and 70 200 f/4 and faster primes ...
but my choice was 85 1.8 not 85L as 1.2 whas to difficult to use and too expensive in comparison with 1.8


----------



## Seamus (Mar 24, 2012)

I would go with the zooms first, then use the exif data to determine which focal lengths I shoot most. That would tell me which primes to concider. Scrappydog makes a good point, I too have never regretted buying fast glass, but I have occasionally regretted buying slow. You can always stop down a lens...Good luck and have fun!


----------



## keithfullermusic (Mar 24, 2012)

I'm not a video guy, but wouldn't anything above 1.8 rarely be used. There is like zero DoF any larger than that, especially if you are close to your subject. That means that they would never be able to move while filming I would imagine.


----------



## infared (Mar 24, 2012)

No matter how sharp the II zooms are...they are not going to replace ANYTHING f/1.2. 
I already have the 70-200 II and just sold my 24-105mm on ebay to make way (and money!) for the 24-70mm II...but if I want bokeh... these are not going to compete with my 50mm Sigma f/1.4 and my Canon 85mm f/1.2...no way..
If the 24-70mm II is as sharp as my 70-200mm II (which will be a good thing!)....then the bokeh is rather harsh compared to other choices. But the II zoom are keepers...and can really round out a quiver.
Now I just need a caddy to carry all of this stuff around for when I need it!!!!!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 24, 2012)

With Zooms, focus breathing tends to be worse than with many primes. This means you may see a zooming effect as you focus. Its probably not a huge issue, but at close distances, it is noticable. 

Secondly, consumer zooms are not parfocal, which means the focus will change as you zoom. You do not notice this when taking stills, because the autofocus takes care of it. However, with no autofocus, it will be apparent. As long as you dont zoom in and out a large amount while taking a video, it might not be noticible.

Thirdly, using a zoom frequently in a video makes it look amateurish, but, thats only my opinion.


----------



## elflord (Mar 24, 2012)

filmrebel said:


> Hi. What lenses would be wise for a beginning filmmaker/photographer? (I use stills and video equally). The 24-70 and 70-200 would be great for the range and the 2.8 aperture is useful. However, primes are sharper and have lower apertures. The primes I'm considering are the 24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2, 85mm 1.2, 100mm 2.8, and 135mm 2.0. Yes, the primes added up are more expensive, but they are an investment. Is 2.8 useful enough for low light? The zooms seem more versatile and covers a very good range. Also, I'm planning on getting a 5D, so it seems good for full-frame. So what would you guys do, invest in primes or zooms first? Thank you!



I would start with a small inexpensive lineup so you can find your style. I'd suggest one prime and one zoom to start with, for example the 24-105mm IS and either the 50mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4 or an 85mm lens (Sigma 85mm f/1.4, Canon 85mm f/1.8 , Canon 85mm f/1.2 or Zeiss 85mm f/1.4) 

For video, you might find IS very useful. That's a nod to the 24-105IS and the 100mm macro. 

Extremely shallow depth of field is of limited use in video, so having a lens faster than f/2.8 might not buy you as much in video as with stills. It's much easier to get focus right with one shot autofocus than it is manually focusing continuously. 

Since you'll be manually focusing a lot, you could also look at manual focus primes (Zeiss)


----------



## EvilTed (Mar 24, 2012)

Both 

I bought the kit lens 24-105 F/4 with the 5d MK3, sold all my Nikon stuff and bought a 70-200 F/2.8 II and covered the wide end with a 16-35 F/2.8 II.

I already dislike the 24-105 on the 5D MK3 as a walk around lens.
1) It's not as sharp as the 50 F/1.4 G I had on my D7000 
2) It's very heavy and more so, front heavy on the puny sized 5D MK3. It's a real pain to use, so I feel a grip with a couple of batteries would be required to get a better balance.

For primes, I'm going to get either a 35 F/1.2 or a 50 F/1.2 as a walk around lens, sell the 24-105 and upgrade to the 24-70 F/2.8 
I'll probably also get a 50 F/1.8 'cause it's like $100!

ET


----------



## CanineCandidsByL (Mar 24, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Thirdly, using a zoom frequently in a video makes it look amateurish, but, thats only my opinion.



Is it? How about a sports video with people running towards/away from you? Hopefully you will agree that there are places where zooming will occur frequently, is expected, and is necessary.


----------



## bornshooter (Mar 24, 2012)

70-200 f2.8 mk2  



shannon by abledestroyer, on Flickr


----------

