Zooms vs Fixed Lens

[Bryan_Lawler]

My question is since I have no lens what is the best option and is it better to stick with a fix lens versus using zoom lens? Here is what I see my options are:

1. Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS = $1,030.00

2. Tokina AF 16-55mm f/2.8 = $600.00 (instead of the Canon 17-55mm) & maybe
Tokina AF 11-16mm f/2.8 = $600.00

3. Canon EF 20mm f/1.8 = $500.00
Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 = $500.00 or EF 28mm f/2.8 = $270.00
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 = $400.00 or EF 50mm f/2.5 = $290.00
or EF 50mm f/1.8 = $110.00

Of course each option gets more expensive. Are there any others I need to be looking at or is the best place to start? Since, I don't have any where is the best place to start and add from?

Thanks,

Bryan

[Jester2138]

In general I prefer primes since they're usually faster, smaller, sharper, and distortion-free.

[mhood]

But no IS. Does anyone go handheld with their 50mm prime? Secrets?

[Andrew Brinkhaus]

I'd consider the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 macro. It's a really sharp, lightweight and fast zoom. The macro feature is really, really convenient as well. something like a 7" minimum focus or something near there. I can nearly touch things against the lens hood and still focus up. $450.

[Bryan_Lawler]

Jester2138 - I think we all would love to go with primes lens. But, I know that I don't have that type of money to get a set of prime lens.

Thanks, Andrew. The Sigma was on my radar but wasn't sure about the lens.

So, there is no real issue with using a zoom lens over a fixed lens with the 7D? That makes it easier. Buy one lens that works for all you "normal" shot situations.

Thanks.

[Kholi]

I think I can get ahold of the Sigma 18-50 that Andrew is talkin' about. If I can, I'll shoot some footage with it and post.

[ryansheffer]

Have spent the last day with the Tamron 17-50 2.8

Love it. So light to hold. Super sharp. Breaths, but only slightly. Hard stops at infinity and macro which is much better for use with a follow focus. Got it off Amazon for $450.

[mhood]

Tamron 17-50 2.8

That's the one that's gathering dust on my shelf w8ing for Amazon to get around to shipping my 7D. Even before I've used it, I wish I had w8ed on the IS version that's coming in mid October. How does it do handheld?

[sunburst]

I think I can get ahold of the Sigma 18-50 that Andrew is talkin' about. If I can, I'll shoot some footage with it and post.


yes please! And that's without IS correct?



Have spent the last day with the Tamron 17-50 2.8

Love it. So light to hold. Super sharp. Breaths, but only slightly. Hard stops at infinity and macro which is much better for use with a follow focus. Got it off Amazon for $450.

without IS correct?

I thought IS was the cats meow for these zoom lenses.

I note theres a cheaper new sigma now with IS, but restricted 2.8

see my thread here:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=185201

[dvollrath]

I note theres a cheaper new sigma now with IS, but restricted 2.8


That Sigma is not restricted to 2.8. When they just give one f-stop number, that means that the widest possible aperture throughout the zoom is f2.8. You can still stop it down to f22 or so. If it were to say f2.8-5.6, that would mean that the widest aperture changes depending on the focal length, which isn't as desirable.

[sunburst]

That Sigma is not restricted to 2.8. When they just give one f-stop number, that means that the widest possible aperture throughout the zoom is f2.8. You can still stop it down to f22 or so. If it were to say f2.8-5.6, that would mean that the widest aperture changes depending on the focal length, which isn't as desirable.

thanks. yeah i worded that improperly.

doesnt it mean only the WIDE end 18 is 2.8 ?


im just wondering if that NEW Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8-4.5 SLD Aspherical DC Optical Stabilized (OS) Lens?

lens is worth it; cheaper, 2.8 at wide, with
IS / OS.

[dvollrath]

doesnt it mean only the WIDE end 18 is 2.8 ?


im just wondering if that NEW Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8-4.5 SLD Aspherical DC Optical Stabilized (OS) Lens?

lens is worth it; cheaper, 2.8 at wide, with
IS / OS.


Yes, only the wide end of the new Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8-4.5 is going to have a maximum aperture of 2.8.

It seems like a decent lens if all you really care about is video. I'm sure it's better quality than the kit lens, but I personally wouldn't want a lens slower than 2.8 for the most part. I'm also not really sold on the OS/IS thing for the SLR lenses. I don't think it's the same thing as the OS on my HVX, and having used canon's IS lenses before, it seems that the movement might be a little more distracting for video use in some instances. If anyone can shed light on how effective IS/OS for DSLR lenses is, I'd really appreciate it.

[sunburst]

If anyone can shed light on how effective IS/OS for DSLR lenses is, I'd really appreciate it.

Ditto. I'm not sure anyone here knows. Cause most these pros are using
primes.

I've been researching the SUPER zooms: canon 18-200 etc.
and IS is about a requirement on the newer ones.

why? Handheld, shooting stills, gaining about 3-4 stops! goodbye blur. It would seem to transfer to handheld video no? I have no idea.

But for example ryansheffer says he loves his Tamron 17-50 2.8 . the NEW version coming out WILL have IS, Of course adds $ 300 to price.

so the trend is to add these to ALL the new zoom glass it seems.

[ryansheffer]

IS is great but I find that I only need it past about 65mm. I can handhold my tamron at 50mm without issue. Also-the motors are noisy and I turn them off anyway unless absolutely necessary. On long lenses IS will save your life.

[Bryan_Lawler]

That's the one that's gathering dust on my shelf w8ing for Amazon to get around to shipping my 7D. Even before I've used it, I wish I had w8ed on the IS version that's coming in mid October. How does it do handheld?

mhood,

The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is sitting on your shelf, what lens are you using?

Thanks.

[Alvise Tedesco]

Have spent the last day with the Tamron 17-50 2.8

Love it. So light to hold. Super sharp. Breaths, but only slightly. Hard stops at infinity and macro which is much better for use with a follow focus. Got it off Amazon for $450.

I'm wondering how precise focusing you get with such a short throw on the focus ring (say shooting a moving actor 10 feet away at 32f2.8).
Comparing this to an equivalent 50f4 my 5D (nikkor 50 1.4 ai) makes me feel I'm using a cinema lens..
Have yet to try cinema sized 7D sensor, but seems to me a big drawback for almost all general purpose zooms AND mid-wide to normal primes. Am I wrong?



.

[trez]

In general I prefer primes since they're usually faster, smaller, sharper, and distortion-free.

me too. also - they focus closer.
zooms are good because you can zoom ;)
I like long zooms. Reframing with the long lens usually means walking... walking... walking (unless you have nice collection of long primes, but then - who's gonna carry them?)

[dvollrath]

I've been researching the SUPER zooms: canon 18-200 etc.
and IS is about a requirement on the newer ones.

I would definitely avoid one of those zooms like the plague. Maybe a zoom like that might be decent for video use on the 7d, but I'd still like to be able to use at least half of the megapixel's for shooting stills on this camera. The sharpness just isn't there.

[sunburst]

I would definitely avoid one of those zooms like the plague. Maybe a zoom like that might be decent for video use on the 7d, but I'd still like to be able to use at least half of the megapixel's for shooting stills on this camera. The sharpness just isn't there.

i KNOW! for pixel peeping it's a drag.

But, I'm reading about people Dumping their 18 -50 / 50-200 BETTER lens
sets for these. for stills!

Why? they get hooked on the ONE solution.

[sunburst]

might be decent for video use on the 7d, .

okay im confused. Does the 1920x1080 cut out JUST THE MIDDLE portion
of the lens? Anyone have a diagram?

In that case one would EXAMINE glass for CENTER sharpness / distortion only then, right?

Edge distorion wouldn't even matter much for video right?

[dvollrath]

i KNOW! for pixel peeping it's a drag.

But, I'm reading about people Dumping their 18 -50 / 50-200 BETTER lens
sets for these. for stills!

Why? they get hooked on the ONE solution.

Yeah this is totally a personal decision based on what you're using the camera for. I've just had some bad experiences with these. I once borrowed a friends D90 with the nikon 18-200 and had a terrible experience with it. Some focal lengths would simply result in out of focus images, no matter what I did. Although I'm sure if you test out several lenses, you can find one with a large zoom range that fits your needs.


okay im confused. Does the 1920x1080 cut out JUST THE MIDDLE portion
of the lens? Anyone have a diagram?

In that case one would EXAMINE glass for CENTER sharpness / distortion only then, right?

Edge distorion wouldn't even matter much for video right?

No. 1920x1080 is scaled down. Some of the frame is cropped to make it 16:9, but only on the top and bottom. That's why some people have been complaining about aliasing because the camera scales down from a larger resolution to make it 1920x1080.

[Bryan_Lawler]

Ok, a follow up question... Little confused on the 1.6x and Canon lenses. Does the Canon lenses have to be multiple by 1.6 too or just lenses that are not designed for APS-C? Thanks.

[morgan_moore]

Alll lenses EFS or FF have the same focal length for a number

just if you use a FF camera you get to see more

----

The OP topic was primes or zooms

I own a pile of prime lenses yet have just ordered two zooms

16-55
70-200

Why when I have a 14 2.8, 50 1.2 and other dream boys?

Simple its for simplicity

Unless you are working in a strict cinema environment filming 3 mins per day changing lenses is a hassle

Especially if you are going to have a FF, maybe Matte Box and some ND filters

You just end up with too much junk to concentrate on

And those wide 1.4 apertures - forget pulling focus with them

so you are going to be shooting stopped down anyway

My take on actually using the camera in a real environment

Im actually tempted by a second one - so no lenses ever come off

S

[dadoboy]

DSLR zooms are super light compared to available cine zooms, and the latest Canon and Nikon fixed aperture zooms are really good.
It makes total sense for a single crew/small crew shooter to use zooms.
Only real negative is the focus throw is ridiculously short, but the same shortcoming applies to modern AF primes, so its tough either way unless you're using old Nikon primes or Zeiss ZF and lose the zoom advantages.



Unless you are working in a strict cinema environment filming 3 mins per day changing lenses is a hassle


S