Does the lens actually matter?

L

leaftors

Well-known member
I'm trying to decide whether to get the sigma 70-200 tamron 70-200 or canon 70-200 all f/2.8

I'm mainly using it for video and couldn't care less about the photo capabilities.

My friend was saying how Video is only 2 MP for the most part @ 1920x1080 so you wont really tell the difference. Whereas in photography its like 21mp @ 5000x8000 res
 
So if you were only using the lens for video which lens would you get? And what differences can you spot besides colour which can be fixed in post?
 
I'm no expert but - Resolution and contrast, flaring. You will see the resolution difference despite the math. That's why peopl are shooting 7D's with very expensive Zeiss PL cine lenses. It won't be as big diff as on a still and so you have to make your own compromises. No easy answer, but there is definitely a difference between cheap and expensive glass.
 
We're not there yet....but the time will come when you will ask if the ~CAMERA~ matters. :) NLE wars used to be pretty aggressive....now....it's like, who cares...they all do the same thing....and pretty much, barring some basic elements....they do it just as well. The time comes that cameras will be the same. :)
 
Last edited:
ok cool. So for anyone that's used the sigma or tamron before should I worry about which one I get? There's a tamron going for $500.
 
if all you are using it for is video and you can't afford (or don't need or want) an IS lens, get the Tamron. As sharp, or sharper than the Canon IS version. The AF isn't as good, but for video, who cares?
 
JPM Photography said:
if all you are using it for is video and you can't afford (or don't need or want) an IS lens, get the Tamron. As sharp, or sharper than the Canon IS version. The AF isn't as good, but for video, who cares?
Click to expand...

cool thanks i guess ill go with the tamron then. i've seen tests and the tamron is apparently sharper than the canon 70-200L
 
I've bought a Tamron, good build but quality really sucks for a lens. I would not recommend it. Money wasted.

Highly recommend Canon 28mm 1.8 if you're strapped for cash. Good normal focal length lens. Lens matters. Throw the best glass you can afford. For IS zoom Canon 17-55 IS 2.8 constant aperture. For telephoto try 80-200mm f2.8L with IS. Wide Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. For great looking lens try 24mm f1.4L or 35mm f1.4L Or try Zeiss.
 
Lens absolutely matters, but the question is, do you need the best, or good enough. For most of us, shooting on SLRs, we need good enough. In my mind, good enough translates to the best you can get within your budget.
 
draven4 said:
I've bought a Tamron, good build but quality really sucks for a lens. I would not recommend it. Money wasted.

Highly recommend Canon 28mm 1.8 if you're strapped for cash. Good normal focal length lens. Lens matters. Throw the best glass you can afford. For IS zoom Canon 17-55 IS 2.8 constant aperture. For telephoto try 80-200mm f2.8L with IS. Wide Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. For great looking lens try 24mm f1.4L or 35mm f1.4L Or try Zeiss.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with the tamron? I've seen test shots and the tamron is better than the sigma and is on par with the canon in terms of sharpness and contrast. It's also got a 9 blade aperture which I believe is more than the sigma and canon.

johnnyevil said:
Lens absolutely matters, but the question is, do you need the best, or good enough. For most of us, shooting on SLRs, we need good enough. In my mind, good enough translates to the best you can get within your budget.
Click to expand...

Ok then Ill ask another question. For those that have used the following lenses, would you get the tamron 70-200 or sigma 70-200.
 
leaftors said:
What's wrong with the tamron? I've seen test shots and the tamron is better than the sigma and is on par with the canon in terms of sharpness and contrast. It's also got a 9 blade aperture which I believe is more than the sigma and canon.



Ok then Ill ask another question. For those that have used the following lenses, would you get the tamron 70-200 or sigma 70-200.
Click to expand...

Why do you need such a long lens? On top of that you better have some form of stabilization for them.
 
leaftors said:
What's wrong with the tamron? I've seen test shots and the tamron is better than the sigma and is on par with the canon in terms of sharpness and contrast. It's also got a 9 blade aperture which I believe is more than the sigma and canon.



Ok then Ill ask another question. For those that have used the following lenses, would you get the tamron 70-200 or sigma 70-200.
Click to expand...

I have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and it is very sharp. I tested the copy of the lens at the dealer put a deposit on it and ran the files on my computer before buying the lens. It's a great lens.
The 70-200 Tamron I have seen tests where the left and right side frame have had focus consistency problems.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-70-200mm-f-2.8-Di-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

Sigma lenses seem to have some of the same issues so you should test each lens on it's own merits and not generalize.
 
Now, I have no experience trying it in the real world, but from tests I've seen online, they show absolutely no difference between the sharpest of Nikon's cheap lenses ($400 at most) and some of Canon's L glass or Zeiss's average glass ($4,000 at most.) Some tests even show that Nikon glass beats some Zeisses by both sharpness and distortion levels. Canon's 18-200mm IS and the Canon 15-85mm IS are all insanely sharp lenses for $500 and $700 respectively, if you're looking for Canon zooms.
 
The optical designs of modern lenses are typically very good, but there can be wide variability in performance and mechanical build quality between examples of the same lens. Manufacturing tolerances for cheap lenses are not very tight, so you might get an excellent one or a not so good one in some cases.
 
life4eva said:
Why do you need such a long lens? On top of that you better have some form of stabilization for them.
Click to expand...

The 70-200 is a great range for video. It allows you to get closeups without...well...being close up. I've used it several times.

If you aren't using a tripod, than an IS lens will be what you want to go with for video (although a shoulder support would also work). The amount of shaking you will get will make anything at the 200mm range almost unusable without IS if you are handholding the lens.

I have rented the canon lens several times, and it is fantastic. It is also crazy expensive, but should hold it's value fairly well if you keep it in great condition.
 
johnnyevil said:
Lens absolutely matters, but the question is, do you need the best, or good enough. For most of us, shooting on SLRs, we need good enough. In my mind, good enough translates to the best you can get within your budget.
Click to expand...

I think the thing that most people here don't seem to realize is that ANY of the modern DSLR lenses will look better than anything you could make on a consumer level video camera 5 years ago. If you plan your shots right, no one is going to care which lens you used, because pretty much all of them will work just fine. You could give a T2i to Quentin Tarantino with the kit lens, and he could film an amazing looking film. We really are at the point where the equipment is no longer holding anyone back (at least in terms of lenses, I think we all know that there are still some definite issues when using DSLR's to film).

Will a $2000 lens beat out a $500 lens? Probably. Will you be able to tell the difference in footage comped together into a film? Maybe. Will the audience notice or care about the possible slight difference in quality? No, they just want to see a well compsed shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top