Originally Posted by taxgenius
I have tried backing up so that it all fits in the frame, however, the results aren't great. As an aside, I was told by a photographer that a macro lens can sometimes alter the color.
Well, basically every lens has some characteristics in how it renders the colors, contrast and so on but I wouldn't say it really has a big impact related to what you do with white balance and the effect of the camera settings (e.g. Picture Styles with Canon cameras)
Originally Posted by il ciclista
Okay here's my dilemma: When I get the MKII in a few weeks I have a grand to spend on lens, tripod, etc..I want a tripod. Now for lens would you get a Sigma 50mm 1.4, or Canon 85mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8? I've seen the IQ of the 1.8 is just as good as the 1.4 (Canon) so I figured having two lenses that are both good in quality (the 85 being superior to the 50) versus just one good lens.
Tripod I went with Feisol, they are reasonably good quality for the price, couldn't bring myself to buy Gitzo even though they're even better. But that eats up already nearly half of your budget.
For the lens it's hard to say. I heard good stuff about the Sigma if it focuses correctly on your camera. It's closer to the EF 50L than the EF 50 1.4 in quality so if you can get a good copy (i.e. buy where you can return it as often as needed to get a good one or test in shop) that would be my choice.
The Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM is good quality for the price. It has good image quality (except for heavy chromatic aberration), is sharp, super fast and accurate auto focus, doesn't change size during focusing. For me the problem was that it is a length I just don't like, it was always too wide or too long for my style of shooting. I heard the 100 f/2 is slightly better in picture quality.
The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 is a quite sharp lens. That said, quality of the build is on the same level like a yoghurt cup. The mount is made of plastic. No focus distance window. While the lens is sharp, bokeh is quite bad as soon as you stop down due to the fact that it has very few aperture blades and those aren't rounded. Auto focus drive sounds like it's powered by a small swarm of bees. You really get good picture quality for the price but the lens is no fun to use, I opted for the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 which I was able to get quite cheap used in new condition.
Jacobs tip with the 35L is also quite good, it's a great lens on the 5D Mk II. I bought it last weekend after testing around in that focal length (16-35 f/2.8, 17-40 f/4, 28 f/1.8, 35 f/2). It's really the best option Canon offers here but you also pay for that. The only minus the lens has is that it isn't weather sealed but so what, the 5D Mk II isn't either.
I'd say it really comes down to what focal length you shoot the most. If you like to shoot at 50mm then 85mm will feel off. Do you want to only use primes or also zooms? I have the 25-105mm f/4 L IS USM and that is solid for the money even though I prefer primes. Personally I'd get a "walk around" prime first so I'd say your options are 35L (expensive), 35 f/2 (loud auto focus), 50 f/1.8 II (loud auto focus), 50 f/1.4 (halation wide open), 50L (expensive) or Sigma 50 (auto focus lottery if it doesn't fit).
My choice for lenses would currently be 35L, 100L/135L, 24-105L ... if you like tele, add 70-200 4L or 70-200 4L IS
85L and 70-200 2.8L IS are great lenses but I couldn't see myself lugging around so much weight (same with a 1-series body).
If I may ask: what is your reason to go for the 5D Mk II instead of a 7D?
Originally Posted by Krp480
Nonononono! I just realized what everyone's taking from it! I actually didn't even know it. I just didn't like how the hand wasn't in focus lol. I mean if the hand were in focus I would have liked to see that more so. Maybe it would be more interesting for me, idk.
In that case I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, somehow I understood it clearly in that direction.