Canon 17-55mm v. Canon 20mm, Canon 35mm, and Canon 50mm

J

JakeBarish

New member
I'm new to the forum and you probably get these either or questions constantly, but bear with me. I just purchased a Canon 7D, and have been reading the Bob Atkins website. I'm a filmmaker so I want the "filmic" look, and I favor wider lens'. Here are my two options (I can only spend ~1000 dollars on lenses):

OPTION A ($1050):

Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (Rating of 9.5 from Bob Atkins)

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000EW8074/ref=pd_cp_p_1



OPTION B ($1,140)

Canon 20mm f/2.8 Ring USM (Rating of 4.43 out of 5 from Photography Review)

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-20mm-Wi...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1275712399&sr=1-1

Canon 35mm f/2 (Rating of 9.0 from Bob Atkins and it's an AFD)

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-35mm-Wi...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1275712097&sr=1-1

Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM (Rating of 9.1 from Bob Atkins and it's a Micro)

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Standar...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1275712062&sr=1-3


At the moment, I'm leaning towards Option A because it's a ring USM, the rating is 9.5, and the zoom is convenient. Any second opinions?
 
I would go with option A since you can get wider and it will be an easier all in one workflow. You could also go for the tamron 18-50 VC for around $600 then add one prime such as the canon 50 1.4
 
Option A, as well.

Not only the convenience of zoom, but you have IS which pretty much allows you to handhold the camera bare, ie without the need for a rig or shoulder support. The ultimate in portability.
 
I disagree with both posters above me.

If you are a filmmaker then 100% you should be using primes, which will give you better image quality and their locked focal points. Also many many people go handheld with lenses that do not have IS ( myself included ) as long as you tuck it right you will be fine.

Now if you need wide then NO ONE can argue the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 which is probably one of the better lenses ever made. That lens alone would run you $600.


So I would suggest a Tokina 11-16 , Canon 50mm 1.8 ( $100 ) , and the Sigma 30mm 1.4 ($400)


For a Grand total of $1100


Personally though you would still need some more lenses to cover everything, especially on the long side.
 
Technically, prime lenses are better than zoom lenses for filmmaking. This is going to be a tough choice. I'm really trying to purchase only Canon lenses, is this silly? I heard that the Tokina is seldom used while shooting films (obviously depends on the film), how often do you use yours, and can you link me to a good example in a short?
 
Option B

But you could mix it up a bit. Some lenses in my package are very close to Cieloent's list:


Tokina 12-24, f4... A very nice lens. Slower than the 11-16 but I'm shooting narrative with full lighting so I don't miss the extra stop. You need this or at least comparable focal length/field of view for interiors with the crop factor.

Canon 50 Compact macro, f2.5...Sharp lens with macro


Sigma 30, f1.4...Love it, fast and sharp. Close to 50mm in 1.6 crop
 
JakeBarish said:
Technically, prime lenses are better than zoom lenses for filmmaking. This is going to be a tough choice. I'm really trying to purchase only Canon lenses, is this silly? I heard that the Tokina is seldom used while shooting films (obviously depends on the film), how often do you use yours, and can you link me to a good example in a short?
Click to expand...

The typical 35mm prime set covers 18,25,35,50, & 85. The most used range is 18-50. That will cover almost everything. I have the tokina 11-16 and it is a fun lens for special shots, but it is not needed until you have the basic focal lengths covered. The advice to go with option a is the most practical. You are not going to notice any difference in sharpness on primes vs zoom when recording video as that format doesn't resolve anywhere near the sharpness of the primes. The main difference on the primes vs zoom when it comes to video is the speed of prime lenses. The thing is shooting at f1.4 or even f2 is typically not needed unless you really want super shallow dof. At 2.8 you are going to get much more natural looking shots (dof will still be plenty shallow).
 
I own the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS and I'd go with:

Documentary work: Option A

Narrative filmmaking: Option C - Canon 35 2.0 & Canon 85 1.8 = $700
 
Option B, but I wouldn't pick those lenses. I'd probably pick a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for my medium lens and a Canon 50mm f/1.4 for my longer lens. As for wide I'm not really sure, but you could get the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 for the same price as the Canon 20mm f/2.8. The only negative with the Tamron is that the focus ring is a bit short, but I've never had any actual problems with that on any jobs. The other two lenses I mentioned are both excellent optically and physically and are often recommended on these forums.

You also may want to consider adding a 85mm f/1.8 into your list.

There really isn't much point in sticking to just Canon lenses. Third-party lenses can be just as good and, in some cases, superior. Especially when price comes into the question.
 
Keep in mind that in general Canon makes three lines of lenses. The interesting thing is that the glass is often the same, but different coating are used to change the amount of light, CA, etc. Then the lens bodies are stronger on the more expensive lenses.

If you're going around the world and likely to encounter bad lighting the L lenses make sense.

OTOH, taking your time and making a movie, you'll protect your lenses and can add lighting.

Also, for movie making you'll need a good selection of primes. Note that some of these lenses are the cheap plastic bodies with slow auto focus. Guess what, you're not going to use auto focus making a movie the way you would snap a photo. The cheapie line of lenses can produce surprisingly good images, as anyone that uses the 50mm f1.8 can tell you. Just don't drop them on concrete.


Therefore, I might suggest:

20mm f2.8 $340
24mm f2.8 $ 95
35mm f2.0 $330
50mm f1.8 $ 95
85mm f1.8 $250

Total is: $1,110 if you buy a couple used you could get them cheaper, but I'm not sure used on the cheapest is worth while.
 
If you're in low light a lot and/or want DOF with the smaller 7D sensor, you might find yourself yearning for at least one lens with a speed of f1.4.
 
Duke M. said:
If you're going around the world and likely to encounter bad lighting the L lenses make sense.

OTOH, taking your time and making a movie, you'll protect your lenses and can add lighting.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. The L lenses are expensive because of build and optical quality first, not because of fast apertures.

Duke M. said:
Therefore, I might suggest:

20mm f2.8 $340
24mm f2.8 $ 95
35mm f2.0 $330
50mm f1.8 $ 95
85mm f1.8 $250

Total is: $1,110 if you buy a couple used you could get them cheaper, but I'm not sure used on the cheapest is worth while.
Click to expand...

Are you sure those prices are correct? I know that the 24mm is about $350 on Amazon.

[disclaimer = everyone has different preferences on lenses and these are merely mine]

I wouldn't get the Canon 20mm f/2.8 plus the Canon 24mm f/2.8 when there are good zooms that cover that range and aperture for almost half the price of those two together. A zoom will be more convenient as well.

Rather than the Canon 35mm f/2.0, I'd recommend the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. $100 more expensive but you get another 1.5 stops of light and depth of field. It's a very nice lens.

I also would not recommend the Canon 50mm f/1.8 unless you plan on replacing it within a year. A friend of mine has it and it's very cheaply built and the tiny focus ring is difficult to use for video. Much more worthwhile, IMHO, to just pay another $200 and get the MUCH better 50mm f/1.4 that Canon has.

It seems a bit odd to fork over $600+ for f/2.8 primes in the wide-end and then skimp on the (in my opinion) much more important 50mm.
 
Go to your local camera store and check out lenses, 1000 is a good amount to start with. Check out where you like to live (shoot) I know a photographer who's 55 and has only owned one lens for the past 25 years (a nikon 50mm, not the be all end all but he loves it) and rents all the rest as needed for projects. Look at it this way, your style is something only you can find. There are great russian lenses to be had at a fraction of the price of canon and nikon also the older Zeiss medium format lenses look pretty good for video as well. It's all about YOUR eye and what YOU like. For me my three lens choices didn't included a 50mm, I't just not where I like to shoot. I love 85mm, and I'm a sucker for wide... Which brings me full circle, go to your local camera shop and find out what works for YOU.:thumbsup:
 
Jester2138 said:
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. The L lenses are expensive because of build and optical quality first, not because of fast apertures.
Click to expand...

The best L lenses are also faster. For instance in 50mm there is f1.8 in plastic, f1.4 in metal and plastic, and f1.2 L. Each category is about 3x the cost of the one before it. (There are slower L lenses to save money.)

In this table the L lenses are highlighted in green on the right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_lens_mount#Prime

Are you sure those prices are correct? I know that the 24mm is about $350 on Amazon.
Click to expand...
I looked all of them up before posting. Remember I'm pointing out the plastic version to save costs. There are three different 24mm lenses.

I think I pointed out that you need to protect the plastic lenses, and this keeps in within his stated budget. I myself also use the 50mm f1.4, but the f1.8 does produce excellent pictures when I used ot have one.
 
Last edited:
The only reason I'm gonna say option A is because you put the 20mm 2.8 on there. In my opinion every prime should be faster than my fastest zoom, over wise why not just use the zoom? If they had to be canon mount non L and I could only own 3 I'd go 28/1.8 50/1.4 and 85/1.8, but you said you prefer to shoot wide so I'd get those and a 11-16 and call it a day.
 
Duke M. said:
I looked all of them up before posting. Remember I'm pointing out the plastic version to save costs. There are three different 24mm lenses.

I think I pointed out that you need to protect the plastic lenses, and this keeps in within his stated budget.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you're not thinking of the FD 24mm 2.8? I couldn't find any other Canon 24mm lens in that price range. The FD wouldn't work on an EOS camera like the 7D without using an adapter with a glass element or a glassless mechanical adapter which makes you lose infinity focus.

If you're thinking of some other lens would you mind linking it? Maybe the Sigma 24mm 2.8?
 
Last edited:
Duke M. said:
Therefore, I might suggest:

20mm f2.8 $340
24mm f2.8 $ 95
35mm f2.0 $330
50mm f1.8 $ 95
85mm f1.8 $250
Click to expand...

This line up makes sense if you are making a well planned film.
I'm not sure about those prices though.
Nikon AIS manual lenses may suit your project on a budget as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top