Can I keep using my 18-135mm for video?

M

Moath

Member
Currently I own two lenses, 18-135 and a 50mm. The canon 50mm 1.8 has a terrible focus ring, and the 18-135 has a focus issue that was supposed to be fixed but i'm not sure it was.

I work in TV and I occasionally use the 7D, whenever I have an indoor shoot, the setup will be fully lit, so shooting in low light condition isn't a mega deal for me.

Now i'm thinking if i should just keep using the 18-135 for everything i do, at this point I can't really afford getting all sorts of primes and ranges, but i'm feeling guilty because everyone seems to be frowning upon the 18-135, I often hear bigger ranges = less quality

I'm thinking of getting a sigma 17-50mm ( this won't get distorted on the 7D right? ), but I got so used to having the kit lens with a wider range to doincoverg pretty much everything, especially since i have a documentary coming up that will probably be mostly shot outdoors,

either that or i fix and stick to my 18-135

This is a sample of something shot entirely on the 18-135mm
 
If you're happy with the quality you get from the 18-135, why would you think of changing? Who cares what other folks think, it's your wallet at stake, and if you like what you're getting, stick with it.

I had the 18-135 on my 7D, and while it isn't the best lens in the world, the wonderful thing with the 7D is -- it doesn't have to be! The 7D doesn't have the resolution to take advantage of super-sharp optics anyway, and in fact the more hyper-sharp the lens is, the more flaws it will show in the 7D's image. Normally you'll hear people saying "glass is everything" -- well, only if the rest of the camera is up to the task.

For shooting stills, no, the 18-135 isn't a great lens. You can do better. But for video, the camera can't take advantage of that additional sharpness that would be offered by better lenses anyway, so why stress about it?

Here's the bottom line: only upgrade equipment when your current equipment doesn't do the job you need done*. Don't go spending money (especially in this economy!) because of peer pressure or whatever. Use what you've got until you run into its limitations, and when it no longer does what you need, that's the time to upgrade.

*okay, another time to upgrade is when the new capabilities of the new equipment would offer up new possibilities to you. But really, if you need those possibilities, then isn't it the same thing? Buy it when you need it. If you don't need it, don't buy it. Unless you're a hobbyist and you have to have the newest toys, of course, but that's different.
 
To add to what Barry says, if you have a project with some budget which might merit the use of a specialty lens or a prime lens, just rent it! Here in Paris, for example, I can get a Canon 50mm f1.2L, which is a $1500 lens, for $75 for a weekend rental. If you can fit it into a project budget, then you can try all kinds of lenses, and when things pick up, buy a few of the ones you liked the most.
 
One thing I'd do is buy a cheap little Nikon adapter and rent a Nikon prime and see if it makes a difference for you. There's not really any Canon lens that seems to beat any other quality wise ( all Canon lenses are basically used for other things like being primes for low light or having constant apertures like the L lenses). But when it comes to Nikon lenses, I've seen comparison tests that have blown me away for video mode, and resolution chart tests that stun me. I wouldn't rule it out. Also, some lenses do have some pretty bad color aberration issues, that'd be a bit of concern for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top