# Building kit around 5D Mark II...



## gstevens (Feb 28, 2012)

Hey all,

Looking for a few suggestions - figured this would be the right place...

I'm an aspiring cinematographer who has decided to switch from my XH-A1 to a 5D Mark II (I saw on the forum that there is an expected price-drop on the 5D come early March - awesome). I'll most likely be purchasing the 5D Kit that includes a Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM AF Lens. However, I'm looking to have more than just one lens in my kit.

I have an extra $1500-$2k to spend and am looking to add at least 2 to 3 more lenses -- My question for you guys; Which lenses would you recommend for video on the 5D?


Thanks in advance guys!


----------



## Frank209 (Feb 28, 2012)

Will be coming back to this today, just need to go to the Office where my setup is. Will post some photo's and so on and so forth.


----------



## vuilang (Feb 28, 2012)

for video. either 24 1.4L II or 24 2.8IS plust other lenses for close-up

and you'll also need equips to support its manual focus:
1) good monitor (marshall lcd= can run up $1000+) or lcd mag view finder such as Zarcuto (~$300) or cinevate Cyclop (~$490) (other cheap ebay-like product can be use as well but........)
2) follow focus system (they also have wireless too but cost like a mil$ ).. NOTE: bed&bath beyond have jar opener rubber-ring is magic
3) what the point of good video but poor audio (5dII only have mono audio) = rode stereo mic and/or shogun ($300/each)
4) add rod system and or matte box will also help alot..... but not a must (thus i havent look into this area much)
5) like to make cinematic footage? steadicam (Pilot or merlin) and/or slider (diy is possible) is a way to go

Well that's what i can think of for now.


----------



## Frank209 (Feb 28, 2012)

Allrighty, at the studio (had some stuff to do so I'm late doing this.) 

First of all, we have multiple 5d2's and 7d's. the difference with this workwise (at least for us) is that we use different lenses. 

In our 7d kit's we use mainly the 16-35 F2.8 L USM, a 50MM F1.2L USM and the 70-200 2.8 L USM for documentary. 

Our 5D's Have the 16-35 2.8L, the main used lens for documentary is the 24-70 2.8 L USM, and a 70-200 F2.8 L USM.

For commercials we mainly use prime glass, all of them are Zeiss. we have a kit of 6 lenses and these are them
Zeiss 3.5/18mm, Zeiss 2.0/25mm, Zeiss 1.4/35mm, Zeiss 1.4/50mm, Zeiss 1.4/85mm	

On the 7d we use mostly the 35 & 50, on the 5D we use mostly the 50 & 85

Next to that we have rig setups made by Vocas (Dutch Company). They are a bit expensive, but as pointed out somewhere on this forum, have a professional quality for a reasonable price. 

Next to that we have some other camera's here that we use different glass from (P.E. Zeiss CP.2 lenses, but that's a bit high priced probably.)

Well now, long story short, If you want primes, get the 50 & 85 from Zeiss first. If you want to have one lens only (and it's a treat, trust me) get the 24-70 2.8 from Canon. 

Probably the thing after, get a mattebox, it's essential for ND, Grad ND and promist filters (we use Tiffen) 
And buy a good LCD screen, it's easyer to see and you will love some menu options from Marshall (p.e. false colour and so on and so forth) 

What are you planning to do with it? that's actually the first question. 

Cheers, 

Frank


----------



## Frank209 (Feb 28, 2012)

Oh, and forgot, we use a sound guy so we don't use microphones. Just a wireless receiver from the soundguy who sends his audio as guidetrack. But indeed, a good mic is about 300. There's a new RODES coming out soon. that looks like a good one to me.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Feb 28, 2012)

that 24-105 is a good all around lens. You might want to think about some longer lenses(200mm L), if you are dead set on going with the kit lens. 

Otherwise I might forget about the kit lens and go with the primes. Canon 35mmLI, 50mm LII, and 85mmLII. Although all three might break your budget, so i'd sub in a 35mm f2 for the L series since resolving power is probably more important in the closeups. 

Check this site out. 

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff


----------



## vuilang (Feb 28, 2012)

Frank209 said:


> For commercials we mainly use prime glass, all of them are Zeiss. we have a kit of 6 lenses and these are them
> Zeiss 3.5/18mm, Zeiss 2.0/25mm, Zeiss 1.4/35mm, Zeiss 1.4/50mm, Zeiss 1.4/85mm



Wow.. Frank..
Did you just shoot for "ACT of Valor"? cuz those are the glass they used... i bet those are Way Overkill for what Gsteven is seeeking for advices.

BTW. the thing about zeiss is: Manual Focus = Can't go to wedding/event photography


----------



## RedEye (Feb 28, 2012)

@ frank. Thanks for the info. I'm curious, why do people tend toward the Zeiss lenses, primes specifically, when shooting video? Does this do with the manual focus? Are they significantly better than L primes?


----------



## vuilang (Feb 28, 2012)

RedEye said:


> @ frank. Thanks for the info. I'm curious, why do people tend toward the Zeiss lenses, primes specifically, when shooting video? Does this do with the manual focus? Are they significantly better than L primes?



i think zeiss give better color, sharper corner... n smoother focus?


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Feb 28, 2012)

vuilang said:


> RedEye said:
> 
> 
> > @ frank. Thanks for the info. I'm curious, why do people tend toward the Zeiss lenses, primes specifically, when shooting video? Does this do with the manual focus? Are they significantly better than L primes?
> ...



They are definitely not sharper, but they are significantly less expensive. 

Zeis 50mm f/1.4 goes for about $750
Canon 50mm f/1.2 L goes for about $1400

Check out the review site I posted above. It's detailed in the breakdown.


----------



## noisejammer (Feb 28, 2012)

Like Frank, I would seriously consider Zeiss glass for video - there's not a whole lot of reason going for a comparatively slow autofocus lens when the camera doesn't really offer AF during recording. An extra stop and DoF control with the fast glass can be really valuable.

Focal lengths - well depends on what you're shooting but the 1.4/85 and 1.4/50 should be no-brainers. In spite of their reputation, both are sharp (but both have considerable focus shift, so be wary of this if you're stopping down in a shot.) You might also consider the 2/28 or 2/35 for wider perspectives - these are a whole lot less expensive than the more exotic 25/2 or 35/1.4. 

On a tight budget, I'd go 2/35, 1.4/50 and 1.4/85 ... total is $ 3125 less the price of the 24-105 and you're close to where you wanted to be in terms of expenditure. It turns out that these are the least expensive of the Zeiss offerings. If it's still out of reach, you could look for the used Contax equivalents (which were made by Zeiss.) Typically these cost about 1/2 to 2/3 of the ZE models at retail. Most have very similar optical designs to the current Zeiss offerings.

You _will_ need something like a Zacuto Z-Finder. Although it's way less expensive, I strenuously do not recommend the Hoodman.

Finally - you can most certainly use manual focus lenses at functions... how do you think it was done before the AF era?

Edit - in response to the questions on ZE vs L glass. I find the ZE glass offers considerably better micro-contrast. The colour is consistent between lenses and they are designed to be manually focused. To compare with L glass - I've replaced almost all my short Canon L primes with ZE lenses - the only one I regret parting with is the 100/2.8L IS Macro. The only one I've kept is the TS-E 17.


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 28, 2012)

gstevens said:


> Hey all,
> 
> Looking for a few suggestions - figured this would be the right place...
> 
> ...



I was in the same position as you a few years ago. I'd say to buy the body buy itself and get some primes. I would definitely recommend the Zeiss 50 1.4, all the Zeiss lenses perform much better when shooting video. And then check out maybe the Canon 85mm 1.8 and possibly one of the new Canon wide primes (24mm and 28mm). That would cover your needs for quite a while. 

If you aren't familiar with the lenses, maybe rent some from lens rentals.com, and if you buy any of them the $ you spent on rental goes towards the final price of the lens.


----------



## mindspin (Feb 28, 2012)

You might want to also consider renting some lenses depending on what you're trying to achieve with your shots. 

I was in a similar situation a couple years back and rented lenses from lensrental.com for quite some time before I made a purchase. In the end, I walked into each lens purchase with a strong sense of what glass could do for my shots.


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 28, 2012)

vuilang said:


> Wow.. Frank..
> Did you just shoot for "ACT of Valor"? cuz those are the glass they used... i bet those are Way Overkill for what Gsteven is seeeking for advices.
> 
> BTW. the thing about zeiss is: Manual Focus = Can't go to wedding/event photography



He clearly stated he was coming from the video world, there is no reason to try wedding photography just because you have a body that's capable of doing so. My biggest regret about getting into DSLR video is buying all the L glass listed in my sig. I want to switch to all Zeiss glass but can't bring myself to get rid of the Canon stuff, even though I rarely use the AF. If he's shooting video he'll never use AF, so instead of paying for the AF of the canon lenses, pay for the optics of the Zeiss glass.


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 28, 2012)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> They are definitely not sharper, but they are significantly less expensive.



I don't know about that, I used the 50 1.4 and didn't see much of a difference between it and my 50L. The 50mm f/2 Makro is definitely sharper than my 50L, the 21mm 2.8 is the sharpest wide lens I've ever seen, it's destroying my 16-35. They may be close in the center, but in terms of edge sharpness, Zeiss is the best. 

They definitely have their own look, very contrasty, but I like the look they produce very much. The focus rings are smooth as butter, which is a nice change from the hairline focus marks you end up with shooting video with L glass.


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 28, 2012)

noisejammer said:


> Edit - in response to the questions on ZE vs L glass. I find the ZE glass offers considerably better micro-contrast. The colour is consistent between lenses and they are designed to be manually focused. To compare with L glass - I've replaced almost all my short Canon L primes with ZE lenses - the only one I regret parting with is the 100/2.8L IS Macro. The only one I've kept is the TS-E 17.



I regret selling my 100L as well, but have you used the Zeiss 100mm? That's probably one of the sickest lenses I've ever used, only ZE lens with master prime optics. That and the 21 2.8 are next on my list.


----------



## Frank209 (Feb 28, 2012)

The reason we use Zeiss glass is for one reason only; They all look alike. 

Canon optics are technically perfect, and the "High end" in DSLR. the problem with this (in my opinion) is that there is no consistency in the glass like Zeiss. I can see with all the Zeiss lenses that it is, in fact, a Zeiss. With canon way less. They are the technically great but have no ehm, how do i say this, personality...  there Zeiss looks like a model-family, Canon looks like a bunch of international-MIT-students. All great in what they do, but not one looks alike.

So if I am at a shoot i want all the shots to match. That's the reason for Zeiss. 

Yes, Zeiss is manual focus, but currently we are at the "video-region" of the CR-Forum so MF will do just perfect. I never used AF, but then again, I allmost never take photo's.
Speaking of MF, The zeiss are more exact with manual focus, The 16-35 has a focus-pull of 0.45cm (or less) from 1 meter to infinity there where zeiss gives me a lot of centimeters for exact focus. Another reason for Zeiss when shooting film. 

the prices in differ with canon indeed, but not like HurtinMinorKey pointed out, the differ between a 50 1.4 and a 1.2 is not an honest comparisation. the Canon 50 1.4 is 325 euro's. if i put the Zeiss against my girlfriend's canon 1.4 there is no way you can't see difference in the Bokeh. 

GET THE mfn Zeiss allready


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 28, 2012)

RedEye said:


> @ frank. Thanks for the info. I'm curious, why do people tend toward the Zeiss lenses, primes specifically, when shooting video? Does this do with the manual focus? Are they significantly better than L primes?



Well Zeiss doesn't make ZE zooms, so primes are the only choice. They have a much smoother focus ring that doesn't keep spinning, meaning you can only turn it to a certain point in either direction. With Canon lenses, if you spin past infinity your focus marks are now useless. Also at large apertures you can throw someone out of focus even if you move the ring a fraction of an inch. People buy them for video because they are made for it, and Zeiss provides most of the super expensive primes (like Ultra Primes and Master Primes, which are $20k+ per lens) that are used on PL-mount Cinema cameras. They definitely have a lot of credibility within the industry. 

I wouldn't say they are significantly better, but in some cases they are. It varies lens to lens, I definitely can't say that all of one brands are better than all of another. Either way, they are worth trying out if you shoot video.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Feb 28, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> HurtinMinorKey said:
> 
> 
> > They are definitely not sharper, but they are significantly less expensive.
> ...



I will concede this point.


----------



## Frank209 (Feb 28, 2012)

Oh! and one thingy to think about, get the Zeiss with Nikon-mount (they have manual aperture selection) and (if you have some money left) go to an old-school camera fixer (the ones that know analog hasselblads and so on and so forth) and let them get the "Click" out of the aperture ring!! The best thing we've done with 2 of them! (the others we have are canon mounts... )


----------



## gstevens (Mar 1, 2012)

Wow, thanks for all the replies guys. Appreciate it.

So, from what I've seen Zeiss seems to be the fan favorite here. As far as lens type/focal lengths; If you had three to choose from to carry in your kit - which would you carry and why? Which do you find best for wide shots, closeups, etc... I'm very curious as to which lenses I MUST have and those I can add later.

Vuilang, and everyone else, beyond body/lenses these are the other items I intend to order: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=wishListDetail.jsp&A=wishlistDetail&Q=&li=46A71EA9F5 (Anyone use any of these products before, suggestions?)

Thanks again guys.


----------



## vuilang (Mar 1, 2012)

gstevens said:


> Wow, thanks for all the replies guys. Appreciate it.
> 
> So, from what I've seen Zeiss seems to be the fan favorite here. As far as lens type/focal lengths; If you had three to choose from to carry in your kit - which would you carry and why? Which do you find best for wide shots, closeups, etc... I'm very curious as to which lenses I MUST have and those I can add later.
> 
> ...


Have you look at Satchtler Ace? ($535 tripod & head) i'm very tempt cuz of its reputation and reviews. btw. I used the manfrotto 546b.. It's a pain-in-da-A$$ to set-up and feel very heavy too (but it was combined with heavier 504hd head thus i returned).


----------



## NormanBates (Mar 1, 2012)

manfrotto fluid heads are not real fluid heads
if you're spending heavy on a tripod, either go for the sachtler ace, or, if that feels too expensive get a fancier/e-image video tripod (I have the 7060 and I think it's great)
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?266905-500-Tripod-suggestions-for-60d

about lenses: for video, you don't need (or want) autofocus, so consider some samyang primes:
* the 85mm f/1.4 is a non-brainer: really, really cheap, and much closer to the canon-L or the zeiss than to the cheap canon non-L (specifically: the samyang has great bokeh, which is what you want on a portrait lens)
* the 35mm f/1.4 is great for full frame: impressive lens, even sharper than its canon-L and zeiss counterparts (it's not so great for APS-C, because bokeh is not nice, but for a 35mm on full frame that's not so important)

the 24mm is more expensive, and I'm still not sure how good it is; and they don't have a 50mm; for those focal lengths, consider the canon non-L zooms: the 24mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.4 are very nice lenses (unlike the non-L 28mm and 35mm, for example, which are too soft for my taste)

much more here:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/equipment/us_lensc.html#samyang

also, you'll need a lot more stuff: a loupe, microphone and recorder, lights, reflectors, etc
http://www.similaar.com/foto/equipment/us_video.html

and ND filters:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/equipment/us_acc.html#filter


finally, about the wish list you posted:
H4n: I have it; great; never used the remote
glidetrack: I have the DIY igus version; great
followfocus: I wouldn't get one of those friction ones; I have the dfocus
marshall monitor: never used one, but they say they're great; not always convenient, and for color rendition the LCD in the camera is more accurate, so you'll still need a loupe, I think
tripod: as stated above, I went e-images 7060, and I think it's better than that
pico dolly: never used one, but it seems somewhat useful (maybe not so much if you're already getting the glidetrack)
backpack: that's the one I have; great; I made some DIY foam job, which makes it even better
rode ntg2: a couple of years ago, there were some reports of issues when paired with the H4n; research that before you buy; I have the rode videomic, and I wouldn't buy it again if I was buying a mic today (it's not XLR); I haven't used it, but filmriot recommended a cheap shotgun mic recently: http://www.similaar.com/foto/equipment/us_video.html#audio


----------



## gstevens (Mar 6, 2012)

Any suggestions on a stabilizer system (preferably with a follow focus attached)?


----------



## Frank209 (Mar 6, 2012)

you meen stabilizing as in shouldermount, or as in glidecam?

Shouldermount a.s.o.a.s.f.: Vocas.com
glidecam.com


----------



## Axilrod (Mar 6, 2012)

gstevens said:


> Wow, thanks for all the replies guys. Appreciate it.
> 
> So, from what I've seen Zeiss seems to be the fan favorite here. As far as lens type/focal lengths; If you had three to choose from to carry in your kit - which would you carry and why? Which do you find best for wide shots, closeups, etc... I'm very curious as to which lenses I MUST have and those I can add later.
> 
> ...



It depends on how much money you want to spend, but I'd say to start with either:
•18mm f/3.5 or 21mm f/2.8 for the wide end
•35mm f/2 or 50mm (f/1.4 or f/2, in this case the f/2 is more expensive)
•85mm f/1.4

If you don't want to shoot ultra wide at all you could get away with the 35, 50, and 85, but that 21 2.8 is an awesome lens and so is the 18mm. For the 50mm the 1.4 is only $725, the f/2 Makro is $1200 I think, but it's incredibly sharp and has macro capability (min. focus distance is 10"). The 85mm is an excellent portrait range and produces a stunning bokeh. The 100mm Makro is the only ZE lens they have any longer than that, and while it is amazing it's almost $2k. 

You could create some truly sick images with those and keep yourself busy for quite a while. I wouldn't buy any more new lenses than that at 1 time, 3 is already pushing it. You want to spend time learning each lens and figuring out it's quirks, sweet spots, etc.


----------

