A list of my lenses. Any thoughts?

[Kyaxia]

I'm far from an expert on cameras and lenses, but I've bought myself a 600D (T3i) and I've also bought several lens from auctions. I'm learning a a lot about them as I practice, but I'd be curious what you guys with more experience think about any of these lens (good or bad) or if you had any advice in general.

I'm not a stills photographer. More a filmmaker who wants to make short films and music videos, etc.

I don't have much money but I picked up most of the following very cheap. Some are similar to others (but because they are so cheap I decided to get them anyway, and I can easily sell them on later if I don't end up getting much use out of them).

I'm always looking for wider lenses, but the widest I've found so far which I love is my:

Sigma super-wide 24mm f2.8

I also just picked up a:

Pentax-M 28mm f3.5

I have several 50mm lenses:

Minolta MD Rokkor 50mm f1.4

Yashica 50mm f1.7

Pentax-A 50mm f1.7

Cosina Cosinon-S 50mm f1.7

Pentacon Prakticar 50mm f1.8

Pentacon Prakticar 50mm f2.4

I also have a:

Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f2.8

and a:

Kenlock 200mm f3.5

As a filmmaker, zoom lenses aren't much use to me as I really want Prime lenses, but I do have:

Minolta MD Zoom Rokkor 24-50mm f4

Pentacon Prakticar 35-70mm f3.5-4.5

Nikon Nikkor 35-135mm f3.5-4.5

I'm not sure I really need to keep all of these, but I haven't had a chance to try every one of them yet. Like I said, I'd prefer to get some wider lens, but I don't see them very often at auctions so they are hard to come by.

If any one had any thoughts or opinions on these, or any general advice, I'd love to hear it.

Thanks.

 

[deltoidjohn]

As a filmmaker, zoom lenses aren'y much use to me

Yes they are. Most likely you've just read or been told that "real film-makers only use prime lenses", so think you need to do the same.

This mindset is rubbish, and there's no point eschewing zoom lenses simply because of what you've read on some random interned blogs and forums. A decent zoom lens, such as the Tamron 17-50 (sometimes under $200 used), will do the job of about half the lenses on your list (and do it better in many cases, seeing as this is a modern lens). It will also get you the wider lens you want. 24mm is not particularly wide on an APS-C camera, and that Sigma only gives a Super-Wide perspective when used on a full frame camera.

You don't need a zoom so that you can zoom during a shot. You need it because it is much easier to work with. Consider it an adjustable prime lens, if that makes you feel better about it, but if you want to actually shoot practically on low-budget projects, a wide-to-mid zoom will be your bread and butter.

 

[Kyaxia]

Maybe I misspoke when I said they're not much use to me. It's not that I don't like these zooms, or that I'm just blindly following some other filmmaker's advice without knowing any real experience of it myself.

It is true that so far the zooms I own have not been much use to me, mainly because of their speed. Light is always a concern and these are too slow.

When I only had 50mm lens, I was frustrated because, when I was shooting in average size rooms, I could never get far enough away from my subjects. My 24mm has freed me up a lot, and is by far my favorite lens, but I would still love a few wider ones.

Obviously though, if I ever found a cheap Tamron 17-50mm, I would snap it up in a heartbeat.

However, even $200 is far out of my price range right now.

Most of my lens were bought as a group for about £10. Absolute bargains. I'm very lucky I found them.

 

[homestar_kevin]

It will be very difficult to get a cheaper lens wider than 24mm.

You might be able to snag a 20mm or 18mm on the cheap end, but there isn't much out there in the way of cheap old superwides like that.

I think you'd be better off selling some of your lenses for profit and putting that towards a modern zoom in the super wide end.

The 1st generation tokina 11-16 2.8 has gotten a lot cheaper than when I bought it.


If I were you I'd sell the minolta stuff and save a little money and go for something even wider than what you currently have.

 

[Jordan_S]

To save money, you can check KEH, which sometimes sells "ugly" lenses that are cosmetically-challenged but have glass and mechanics that are fine. +1 for the (non-vc) Tamron. I also like Canon's 17-40 f4 which replaced my Tamron when I went to a full frame.

 

[deltoidjohn]

If even $200 is beyond your budget, my advice would be to put all those lenses on eBay except for the 135mm 2.8 and one of the 50mm 1.7's, and put any money from the sales towards a decent 2nd hand wide zoom.

You won't find any bargain vintage lenses much wider than your 24mm, because vintage lenses were designed for full frame lenses. APS-C lenses didn't become common until relatively recently (ie digital era) so vintage wide angle lenses simply do not exist for them. Your only other super-cheap choices would be a used Canon kit lens (18mm f/3.5 on the wide end) or to keep an eye out for any defective lenses which are being sold as-is for things like malfunctioning AF (some cheaper Canon lenses are notorious for this).

 

[charliemcdanger]

I second the opinions above on the Tokina 11-16 and Tamron 17-50. The Tamron 28-75 2.8 is also a versatile beauty and decently fast.

The only thing I'd say as far as zooms and filmmaking is to make sure the lens has the same available aperture throughout the zoom range--which these three all do. If there's a reason that kit lenses usually suck for filmmaking, this is probably it.

 

[OldCorpse]

Well, there is the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 but it is also $800 new, although you can probably get a really nice one for less, used. It is wider than the lenses you have - much, much wider, seeing as 24mm is the widest lens you have; for narrative filmmaking I personally have found more use for wide lenses than longer lenses, because you are shooting indoors a lot, and longer lenses are harder to use in smaller spaces with less light and more depth of field focus. You are sadly lacking in wide lenses. Next, the Sigma is very fast at 1.8, and keeps the aperture through the entire range of 18-35 - golden. All that in one lens, so you don't have to keep swapping. Modern zooms are not like the old ones, and rival good primes, but so much more convenient. Personally, I'd swap all of your lenses for this one Sigma 18-35 zoom, and use that as a foundation, and then add lenses to round up my collection with well chosen longer lenses. Nothing wrong with primes, but unless you are likely to use a particular length as a workhorse for a significant percentage of time, it's just more convenient, and cheaper in the long run to use a good quality zoom; of course, if you do find yourself favoring a given FOV, then by all means, pick a good prime in that exact spot, but do that in addition to your zoom foundation, not a substitution.

Bottom line, I'd reconsider dragging along 20 lenses on a shoot, when you can bring along the zoom and maybe 2 more. FWIW, you have a lot of duplication in your lens ranges, and unless you are looking for some very specific image quality (such as old lenses can give you), what you really need is a zoom foundation - one lens that can do a very good job of covering a range - and then a selective buy of specific primes that you do over time as your needs grow more sophisticated. But the zoom is the workhorse in this scenario. My 2 cents. YMMV.