Canon NEW 60D? and Low light Lenses

M

Marinebuff

Member
First question,
Im looking to go the DSLR route for video because Im doing music videos so I dont care about audio. I was about to get the T2i but then Canon released its D60 yesterday and from what I can tell the swivel screen is really the only upgrade. And I dont see that being worth an extra $400 over the T2i. Anyone know what DSLR thats out or ABOUT to be that focuses on video a little more?

Second question. What is a good low light zoom lens for Canon?

Thanks guys.
 
What is "low light"?

I see people say that all the time, and I still have ZERO idea what that means. How do you quantify it? Is it light you can't read in? Light an older person can't see it? Is it 10 foot candles? What is it?

Because until you can tell somewhat what the light levels are, there is absolutely NO WAY to recommend a lens to shoot in it.

You aren't going to buy a zoom lens faster than F2.8. But depending on the light levels, you may really NEED something at F1.8. But we won't know that without knowing the light levels. And then you be out $800-$1500 for a lens that won't work.
 
I've noticed that "low light" tends to be a code for "I don't want to bother with proper lighting."

Not saying that's what this particular OP means but 9 out of 10 times it is.
 
I quantify low light by the sheer logical reasoning of, not having enough light for the aimed exposure you are going for. A camera with good low light capabilities are cameras that can give you something closer or even proper exposure with little to no degradation in visual quality, such as noise, which is produced in direct correlation with digital sensors not interpreting the shadow areas properly when trying to absorb as much ambient light as possible. So it's subjective that there is no number for it, but the term is there for, when I don't have it, this can help me get it kind of deal.

From having no money for generator and lights, and allowing you to get that great shot that you needed or wanted, or the sun setting before you have all your coverage done, and you can boost your ISO to match your previous shots at the same aperture.

It's just a shame that these great advances are being so abused and people ARE finding excuses not to control the light they have and produce a picture that helps drive the story.
 
If my normal camera is good in light down to 50FC, then does a 25FC camera become a "low light" camera? If my normal camera is good down to 15FC is it a good low light camera?

That's like going to an actor and telling them to act "better". Better than WHAT? How? With no baseline, we're all just "shooting in the dark".
 
PerroneFord said:
we're all just "shooting in the dark".
Click to expand...

Teehee.



Waiting on footage to transcode, so

@OP

There are a lot of options for lenses for your T2i:

Canon EF(-S) L lenses - pricey but magnificent. Something like the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM would be an exceptional "low light zoom" lens to have in your arsenal, although I do not have experience with it (it almost costs as much as my damn camera), so I cannot speak for its sharpness's tendency to cause aliasing. Regardless, that is one of the premiere lenses of the Canon EF world because of its range utility and incredible fixed speed. The Canon EF 28-80mm f/2.8-4 L USM would cover a decent zoom range and is fast in the wides, as well.

Canon EF(-S) Lenses - price can range from cheap (so subjective...) to about as much as high-end L lenses. E.g. Canon EF 70-200mm f4.0L IS USM, which is the kid brother of the 2.8 from above. For wides, the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS and Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM would cover a good range but take an obvious hit in speed. By sifting your lens pool with the criteria "zoom" and "fast" you almost immediately cut your options down threefold.

Vintage Lenses - Nikon F mount, Canon FD mount, Pentax K mount, C/Y mount, M42 mount...and I'm leaving some out. The lenses that use these mount are "vintage" because the mounts are discontinued (for the most part). The Canon FD mount was abandoned in the late '80s, IIRC, because Canon took their cameras into the EF direction in order to implement their new auto-focus designs. Brand names can be Nikon/Nikkor, Canon, Sigma, Vivitar, Contax-Yashica, Albanar, Tamron...just to name a few. I would volunteer you read this thread for some clarification on mount types: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html.

These are the "hidden gem" lenses and can be had for next to nothing from sellers on eBay, Craigslist.com, Amazon, and more. I would advise you do some searching on these websites, and check out places like B&H and Adorama for their used lenses, too, click on a lens that suits your needs, and then Google it to find consumer reviews of these lenses.

You were asking for a fast zoom to begin with; I will happily stand by my Vivitar Series 1 FD 28-90mm 1:2.8-3.5 (with the Bower FD-EOS adapter) any day! It is fast, a great zoom, has amazing build quality, the bokeh is bubbly and sensational, and the picture is brilliant.


Most of this information has been pulled in some manner from the thread I linked you before: http://dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=201716. If you have the money, I would suggest perusing it thoroughly, doing the research on the lenses listed, and -definitely- try to get your hands on a target lens to test its feel, build, and image before you pull any triggers. I recommend your local camera shop, as in hardcore cameras, not Best Buy.
 
Last edited:
Good grief, he's asking about his options for a fast zoom lens, is that really so hard to interpret? I didn't anything in his original message for which he particularly deserved harsh criticism or judgment of his filmmaking skills.

Sigma, Tamron, and Canon all have 17-50 or 18-50 F2.8 zooms -- any of those should be reasonable.
 
Fast lenses won't save your image if you don't light it well, that should be obvious and I don't think the OP should have been hit with that kind of criticism. I don't get the impression that the OP didn't intend to light. Not only that, but you need lots of different kinds of shots on a music video so a fast lens will offer lots of creative options for shallow dof work.

I think if it's possible, get the fastest lens you can afford for the focal lengths you think you will use, you can always stop down, but if you have a slow lens, you can't do the reverse. Fast lenses give you more creative options and can save you in certain situations, faster lenses also tend to be pro-grade so they'll be built better too and with you for the long haul. Hollywood productions have serious lighting and yet folks will pay out the nose for super-speed lenses - it doesn't mean you don't light, it just gives you more compositional options. If you don't light well your image will be seriously ugly, no matter what the lens.

re: low-light, I think "low light" is really a term carried over from photography (even though it of course applies to cinematography), where as a photojournalist you don't always (if ever) get to light your subjects and so the fastest lenses you can afford can make the difference between a great shot and a blown one. I'd say low-light for still photography is any instance in which you need an f/2.8 or faster lens in order to get a shutter speed fast enough to deliver a reasonably sharp image without overwhelming motion blur. Most photojournalists I know have lens kits composed of 90% f/2.8 or faster lenses, with maybe only one slow wide zoom (like the 17-40 f/4 L).

I have a super-fast lens kit even though most of the time (on the feature I'm in production on) I shoot at f/4-f/8, you want to have that breathing room so you can handle changes in light and/or for artistic purposes. I only use my lenses wide open maybe 5-10% of the time, but it will give you a lot of peace of mind to know that you have that speed and that even if lots of things go wrong, you can still deliver a shot - the one time a fast lens saves you will make that lens pay for itself. I would just never do a shoot without several super-fast lenses on hand - peace of mind is worth a lot (sanity and money) when you're in the field/on set.

I'm not sure what your price range is but I think you'd be well served to get one of these wide-mid f/2.8 zooms and then something like the Canon 85mm f/1.8 for close ups (or the Samyang 85mm f/1.4 in eos mount - it's manual focus only but if you're doing video primarily that should be fine if not preferable, plus it's 2/3 stop faster and delivers a great looking image.

When you can, find a 70-200 f/2.8 L Zoom.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top