lens for video? as crucial as for stills?

[gene_can_sing]

For shooting video on the 7D, does a high quality, more expensive lens make a huge difference versus something like the Kit lens? I can see how it would be a huge difference for stills with the high megapixels that come on many cameras now, but the 7D videos at 2k, so would some thing like the "L" series make a huge difference?

Thanks for any info.

[Vascilli]

At a resolution of 2MP I doubt it really matters that much. All I'd worry about are the actual specifications, namely the aperture. (I suppose other bonuses like non-rotating front elements and large focus rings are important too)

[Cassius]

I don't think it makes a huge difference in still, either.

[John Froton]

My instinct would be to say that for providing available resolution for video, a cheaper lens would do. However, a faster more expensive lens will give you the ability to shoot higher quality/less noise in lower light. For this reason, it is worth it to get the faster lenses.

You can always compensate with ND filters and such in bright lighting but the lens aperture can make or break your performance in low lighting.

[Oedipax]

Good glass matters. Even at video res. It's one reason people were so astonished by 35mm adapters hooked up to SD DVX's (apart from the more obvious characteristics).

[atomick]

It absolutely makes a huge difference. You need just to look beyond just resolving power. Cheaper lenses, for example, can have bad chromatic aberration, purple fringing on highlights, and certainly marked, still-visible-at-2K edge softness. Barrel distortion is bad in cheap wide angles (although the 7D's crop may toss out the worst bits). Cheaper lenses also have different bokeh quality, which matters a lot if you're doing a lot of shallow DOF work. Build quality impacts not just dust and moisture resistance but also how solid the zoom and focus rings feel and operate. And, finally, there's the lens speed, which is a primary cost driver. You could go froma wide f/4 to f/2.8 or even f/1.2 for potentially less money than to buy another whole stop of light in your lighting kit (I did say potentially, as there are a lot of variables here), although the inverse is generally true at telephoto focal lengths.

There's really no point of diminishing returns with expensive lenses, in my opinion, although there are huge values to look for out there (eg, Canon's Nifty Fifty, the 85mm 1.4, the 70-200mm f/4). When you get into the REALLY pricy glass, you have to ask what else you can do in order to achieve the look you're trying to achieve. You absolutely do get what you pay for, but you can also get great images from relatively inexpensive glass if you know what you're getting/paying for.

[stephenmick]

+1 for Atomick

And keep in mind that good glass seems to hold its value much better than cheaper, lower-end stuff. I've bought and sold high-end lenses quite a bit in the past, and they always ended up selling for around 85-90% of what I paid for them new.

One more thing…

If you're looking at different lens options, it might make sense to look into used first-generation (Mark I) "L" lenses, or similar glass. Often, still shooters want the latest and greatest, and will take even the slightest improvement in CA or edge softness as a reason to sell and trade up. But these lenses should be spot-on for 7D work, and for a lot less than a new "Mark II" lens would cost.

--SM

[mhood]

Do any of you really think you can tell the difference between 7D footage shot with a $400 Tamron 17-50 at 2.8 and footage shot with the Canon EF-S 17-55 at 2.8 for twice the price? I mean REALLY!!! (SNL) :-)

[LorenS]

Do any of you really think you can tell the difference between 7D footage shot with a $400 Tamron 17-50 at 2.8 and footage shot with the Canon EF-S 17-55 at 2.8 for twice the price?

I don't think that's the question here - those are both GREAT lenses - one just happens to offer better build quality & IS for twice the price. I'd go with the tamron myself and save some $. I think the question here is in how can we take advantage of the lower resolution of video to maximize our lens options? I've been doing a lot of reading trying to figure out how to get the most bangs for my bucks and some of what I've discovered is below.

Where definitely not to skimp:
(1) Don't forget you're shooting video! Audio / lighting equipment is probably more important than lenses here so make sure you're covered.
(2) The 28-135mm kit lens is garbage - sharpness is awful at 8-10 megapixels more or less 18, zoom range is awkward on aps-c, etc. - don't plan on using it for photo or video work.
(3) The 50mm f/1.8 has low saturation / contrast wide open - get a canon f/1.4 or ideally the sigma f/1.4 (best sharpness/contrast wide open) if you're looking for extreme DoF.

Possible money savers:
(1) Don't buy any glass over $500 until you KNOW that you need it. No sense in having a pricey lens you never use taking up space in your bag.
(2) The canon 18-55mm IS kit zoom is plenty sharp making it a cheap sub for a pricier f/2.8 if you don't need the DoF / low-light potential. Distortion is high at 18mm though.
(3) The canon 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS complements the 18-55mm well and is also plenty sharp.
(4) The canon 17-85mm IS f/4-5.6 offers a fantastic range and stays sharp for not much $ - this offers wide shot, medium shot, and close-up all in one ~$400 lens. Again, distortion is really high at full wide of 17mm.

[killacam]

video camera lenses can actually cost a lot more than still camera lenses, like around $20,000 for a single lens. philip bloom actually mounted zeiss ultra primes on a gh1 with a pl mount and I do think there was a noticeable difference:

4714724

[morgan_moore]

Do any of you really think you can tell the difference between 7D footage shot with a $400 Tamron 17-50 at 2.8 and footage shot with the Canon EF-S 17-55 at 2.8 for twice the price? I mean REALLY!!! (SNL) :-)

that may not be a good comparison but distortion and wides is a killer

most zooms are sh1t, even my nikkor 20-35 which is moustach central

Try a prime nikkor 28 3.5 PC lens for example and it will be better than any zoom apart from possibly the 14-24 nikkor

Or a few hasselblad lenses

also consider that distortion is sorted in software nowadays for stills so good straight lines have fallen off the lens designers Radar in exchange for decent coverage on small sensors

in terms of LPI resolution IMO it is a non issue

S