Good Video Lens for T2i?

Ok, now just two more questions!
-Could you explain to me the benefits of getting a ND Filter?
-Unrelated question: How can an ISO be fast? Just saw that term on the ND Filter Page. I thought it was only for adjusting light.
 
I own a reflector and a 36 led Sima Video Light with 45mins Battery.
I also own several clamp lights.
I have only ever used this for Greenscreen Chroma Key, but not night video.
 
Neutral density filters simply block out light. They are an absolute neccessity to keep shutter speed down to 1/60th and f-stop lower for shorter depth of field in brighter daylight conditions.

The video posted using the 50mm f1.8 is a classic example of the need for ND filters. In that video all the shots were done in bright sunlight and I'd guess the f-stop required there was at least f16 to f22 with that lens to get proper exposure. As you can see there is no distinction to the depth of field. Everything is in focus.

An ND-4 would easily bring that down F4 - f5.6 and only keep the subject crisp. This keeps the viewers attention on the subject you want. To get to f2.8 you'd need two ND-4's or an ND-8. To get to F1.8 you'd need three ND-4's or an ND-12, maybe even an ND-16.

"How can an ISO be fast?" That is an incorrect use of the term IMHO. It probably means a higher ISO for lower light, just like you'd like a faster lens (lower f-stop) for lower light. Higher ISO's just add more gain to the light available for each pixel. The term "faster lens" is most easily understood from sports photography where a lower f-stop allows more light for a faster shutter speed to stop action better. If I'm not mistaken that is where the term "faster" comes from.

Cheers,
Pete
 
Ok, let me get this strait:

Aperture/F-Stop: Controlled by holding down the button near the lcd screen while turning the wheel. Determines how much light/sharpness is being let in the lens and therefore what we are focusing on.
ISO: Controlled by pressing the ISO button and sliding the wheel. Another feature to control the light being let in the lens. Below 1600 looks best, Above causes distortion.
Shutter Speed: That little number in the corner that changes instantly when I turn the wheel. It does not have a "1" in front of it. I don't like to play with it and I usually keep it at 60, and I believe it controls how fast the sensor is viewing the video.

Neutral Density Filters: ​Allow you to not have to mess with your shutter speed to increase darkness under bright conditions. Also adds contrast.

Am I understanding all this?
I am new to DSLR video, previous owner of a HV30.
 
No, no, and no. You need to understand exactly what each of these things do, and why you would want to change them:

Aperture has to do with the opening of the lens. Inside the lens you will find a series of aperture blades (the iris). The higher the number, the more these blades close down and the less light is being let in through the lens. The lower the number, the more open the blades are and the more light is being let in. This is easy to see if you take a manual lens and look through it while rotating the aperture rung. The iris of the lens works very much like the iris in your eye.

The camera doesn't "let sharpness in." Sharpness can be a product of the glass used in the lens, or the rendering of the image sensor. What you're trying to describe, though, is depth of field (DOF). The higher the aperture, the less light is being let in through the lens and the more will be in focus both in front of and behind the focal point. The lower the aperture, the more light is being let in and the less will be in focus in front of and behind the focal point. The latter is called "shallow" DOF. So if you want the background to be more in focus, you'll want to use a higher aperture. If you want to blur everything in the background, you'll want a lower aperture. So, f/22 will have very deep focus whereas f/1.4 will be as shallow as Paris Hilton. in fact, shooting at f/1.4 you will find is not very versatile: you can have a person's nose in focus and the eyes will be out of focus.

Sharpness can also be affected by aperture. Most lenses are at their sharpest a couple of stops below their widest aperture and a couple of stops above their smallest aperture. At either end of the scale, you'll see a softer frame. For many lenses, the optimal aperture for sharpest image is between f/4 and f/8.

Aperture does not determine "what we are focusing on." That's what the focus ring is for. Again, it only dictates how much is in focus around the focal point.

Shutter Speed has to do with how long the image is exposed. Remember, we're really dealing with a series of still images here. They just play fast enough in series to give everything motion. With traditional film cameras, there's an actual shutter that opens and closes (in motion picture film, the shutter is a rotating disc). The shutter speed represents a fraction of a second, so a shutter speed of 60 is 1/60 of a second of exposure. A shutter speed of 100 is 1/100 of a second. Digital cameras don't have a traditional shutter, though... it's all processed from a digital imaging chip.

The higher (faster) the shutter speed, the less light is exposed to the film or sensor and the more motion is stopped. If you're shooting water sports, like wake boarding, and you want to see the individual droplets of water in the spray, use a high shutter speed. Same goes for seeing particles of dirt/debris in explosions. This is how "Saving Private Ryan" achieved its look.

The lower (slower) the shutter speed, the more light is exposed to the film or sensor and the more motion is blurred (since it's a longer moment in time that's captured in a single frame).

Keeping your shutter speed at 1/60 is a safe bet. Lots of folks swear by 1/50 when shooting 24p because it is closer to the traditional 180º shutter of motion picture film. Without getting too far into this right now, essentially a 180º shutter is twice the frame rate. So, when shooting 24p, the shutter would be 1/48. Your DSLR doesn't have a 1/48 option, so 1/50 is the closest option. However, the visual difference between 1/50 and 1/60 is negligible, and under certain artificial lighting conditions (especially florescent and HMI) anything other than 1/60 can have artifacts. The electrical system in the US is a 60Hz system and the 1/60 shutter matches that, alleviating the related pulses in the lights.

ISO is a term held over from film. Different film emulsions have different speeds, or, sensitivities to light. The lower the ISO, the slower (less sensitive to light) it is. The higher the speed, the faster (more sensitive) to light. Slower speeds, like 60 and 100 and 200, are great for portraiture and landscapes... things that need finer detail and finer grain. These film speeds also need much more light, and are used when there's plenty of sunlight or studio lighting. 400 was always the general-purpose film speed. Great for the hobbyist, it could function both outdoors in natural light and indoors with a flash. Fast speed have much more grain and less detail. Sports photographers loved 1600 (and occasionally 3200), because they could use super-fast shutter speeds to freeze motion of athletes mid-stride in situations where they had no control over the amount of light available.

In digital photography, "ISO" is really just a holdover term that is synonymous with gain. That is, amplification of the signal after it hits the sensor. And just like film emulsions, the more gain is added the more grain you'll see... except that "grain" in digital imaging isn't really grain but noise. Film grain can be pleasing. Noise, not so much.

For what it's worth, your HV30 used these same principles (though it had a gain setting instead of ISO).

The general rule is, the more light the better. These settings are all a balancing act which you must perform in order to get the best image possible. So, going on the idea that we'll keep the shutter at 1/60, let's look at everything else:

How much depth of field do you want? Shallow DOF has its place, but folks get addicted to it when they first have the ability to achieve it and tend to shoot everything shallow. Learn to recognize when it's warranted, and strive for deeper focus the other 80% of the time. So if you want to shoot at 1/60 and f/5.6, and the image is too bright, you can do one of two things: decrease light or decrease the ISO. If you're already at ISO 100 and it's still too bright, you need to decrease the light. The most effective way to do this is by adding ND filters.

If you want to shoot 1/60 at f/5.6 and the image is too dark, you can do one of two things: bump up the ISO, or add light. Bumping up the ISO adds grain. It won't be so bad at ISO 200 or 400, and you may be okay with what you see at 800, but I wouldn't shoot at 1600 unless I absolutely had to. Even then, I'd be looking at other solutions. So, since increasing the ISO isn't the best decision, adding light is the alternative. Rather, it should be the first step and not the backup plan.

And Neutral Density, by the way, is simply for decreasing the overall amount of light entering the camera. It's called "neutral" because it doesn't (theoretically) change the color at all. Cheap ND filters will have color shifts, so don't waste your time or sacrifice your pictures just to try and save a few bucks. You'll see ND filters typically rated as 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, 1.2, and so on. The higher the number, the more dense the filter and the more light is blocked. Those decrease the exposure by 1 stop, 2 stops, 3 stops, and 4 stops respectively.
 
Last edited:
askclifford said:
I want to see cinema quality HD video at night, or at least as close to it as possible.
Click to expand...

This isn't just a matter of "get this lens" and see results.

Remember that motion pictures produced for night scenes aren't actually dark when they're shot. Scenes are either shot "day for night" and/or, more commonly, with lots of artificial light on set/location. The image is then graded in post-production in order to make it look like night.

And further, on "cinema quality video", you might want to read this:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?220043-Being-Cinematic
 
go to ebay, search for different brand m-42 mount, and you will find lots of old glass that can produce stunning results. I have some vintage lenses that I use over my newer ones. You will need an adapter from m-42, to eos. Cost about thirty bucks. You should be able to find a decent 50-55mm f, 1.7, 1.8. for under 100.00 bucks.

The nifty fifty everyone talks about is utter garbage. It does have good optics. But the housing is an embarrassment to photographic lenses. Canon should be humiliated to even put out such a piece of plastic junk. It's noisy, slow, A pickle jar lid is smoother to turn than the focus ring on that lens. One drop from anything over 8 inches and it will break apart never to be used again for anything other than an ashtray.

The only way to buy that lens is with a service agreement that covers a replacement. If you can get that for an extra twenty bucks then maybe. But other wise that lens will not last like a normal lens should. Go with vintage or older.
 
Clifford:

Jambredz and Deltoidjohn have given you some of the best advice that fits your budget. If you have any degree of flexibility and adaptability you will be able to "adapt" to the Canon EF 50mm f1.8 lens in spite of what others have labelled as shortcomings. The video shot with it featuring the closeups of women with very shallow depth of field should give you some idea of what can be done with it in the hands of one who knows what he is doing.

Your greatest NEED at this point is some knowledge of basic photography, for this I suggest you get your hands on a simple beginner's book and do some research on the web. Here is a starting point:

http://www.digital-cameras-help.com/basic-photography-tips.html

And another:

http://photography.about.com/od/takingpictures/u/BasicsPath.htm

Just about everything linked above will apply to video. Photography is photography be it still or motion picture.

You don't have to "memorize" everything but do understand and become familiar with lens aperture, what it does for both controlling amount of light and controlling zone of acceptable sharpness; become familiar with shutter speeds and what they do to both control duration of exposure as well as affect motion. Understand ISO and that it controls the sensitivity of the camera sensor (on film it is a "speed" or sensitivity rating for that film).

You can see examples and illustrations on the sites linked above. I suggest you concentrate on the basics of exposure and settings first before going on to other things.

I just turned 73, for most of my life I've been "behind the lens" in some way or another with 23 years of working as a professional photographer. I've taught photography in a classroom environment, within the scope of my own studio business (trained my own staff), and within the scope of my employment (new military photographers were handed off to me for initial "on-the-job" training) as a civilian staff photographer at an air force training base.

So my advice comes from teaching experience.

Don't get ahead of yourself, what I've pointed you to should take just a few days at most using your camera as reference.

In addition to the lens your next purchase should be some kind of an LCD viewfinder loupe, avoid ebay and go with something affordable on amazon. The "adhesive frame" ideas work OK on the T2i but will NOT be suitable for the T3i or 60D.

good luck
 
maranfilms said:
go to ebay, search for different brand m-42 mount, and you will find lots of old glass that can produce stunning results. I have some vintage lenses that I use over my newer ones. You will need an adapter from m-42, to eos. Cost about thirty bucks. You should be able to find a decent 50-55mm f, 1.7, 1.8. for under 100.00 bucks.

The nifty fifty everyone talks about is utter garbage. It does have good optics. But the housing is an embarrassment to photographic lenses. Canon should be humiliated to even put out such a piece of plastic junk. It's noisy, slow, A pickle jar lid is smoother to turn than the focus ring on that lens. One drop from anything over 8 inches and it will break apart never to be used again for anything other than an ashtray.

The only way to buy that lens is with a service agreement that covers a replacement. If you can get that for an extra twenty bucks then maybe. But other wise that lens will not last like a normal lens should. Go with vintage or older.
Click to expand...

Yay, another nifty fifty hater. I was cheering you on as I read that.

I did some a/b testing with a Canon 50mm f/1.8 and a couple of Takumar normal primes a couple of years ago (50mm f/1.4, 55mm f/1.8). The colours with the Canon were flat, and the overall look was washed out and lifeless compared to the Takumars. Go vintage for videography with primes!
 
jamesd256 said:
Yay, another nifty fifty hater. I was cheering you on as I read that.
Click to expand...

When it comes to tendering advice to young folks like Clifford there's little or no place for "haters". That always results in very subjective advice that may not serve well.

jamesd256 said:
I did some a/b testing with a Canon 50mm f/1.8 and a couple of Takumar normal primes a couple of years ago (50mm f/1.4, 55mm f/1.8). The colours with the Canon were flat, and the overall look was washed out and lifeless compared to the Takumars. Go vintage for videography with primes!
Click to expand...

The questions Clifford is asking should tell you he does not have the experience background to be trying to adapt and use vintage primes to the T2i. His real need in an inexpensive low light lens right now is something that will also work with the system features of the EOS line until he learns some basic photography. Not putting him down in any way but that's just the way it is.

Colors on the EF 50mm f1.8 are NOT flat, they tend to be accurate with good contrast. Mine is an early version with metal barrel and the focus ring in the "proper" place (I've had it since the early '80s when the first EOS 650 film camera came out on the market) but the current versions are the same identical lens formula and produce images with the same characteristics as mine.

I've also worked with the Takumars in the 1960's when they were not so "vintage", and they were fine lenses (still are) but video tests I've seen on vimeo show some color shifts from what modern quality lenses exhibit. Several Takumars tended to have a slight golden "personality" to them, which may be due to changes in the glass, changes in the coating, or even aging of the cement holding lens elements together. The "vintage" lenses may also exhibit more "flare" at the wider apertures than modern lenses.

For awhile I had a Nikkor AI-S "vintage" 50mm f1.8 and did some demo's of using it and the Canon EF 50mm f1.8 to achieve some degree of manual control over aperture with the Canon T1i (full auto only, no manual mode whatsoever in video mode). I used the same model in the same location under identical lighting conditions. The Nikkor had more noticeable "flare" and chromatic abberation at f1.8 but stopped down to f5.6 color rendition was very similar.
 
Last edited:
Wow, a slap down from the Great Bruce Foreman, I am honoured.

Bruce Foreman said:
When it comes to tendering advice to young folks like Clifford there's little or no place for "haters". That always results in very subjective advice that may not serve well.
Click to expand...

I had hoped that the remark would be taken with the humour intended. We're talking about a lens Bruce, not a person. All advice is subjective, in my subjective opinion. I think my advice does serve well personally.

Bruce Foreman said:
The questions Clifford is asking should tell you he does not have the experience background to be trying to adapt and use vintage primes to the T2i. His real need in an inexpensive low light lens right now is something that will also work with the system features of the EOS line until he learns some basic photography. Not putting him down in any way but that's just the way it is.
Click to expand...

Well that's up to the OP isn't it? I think you ARE (I shout in monochrome. :) ) putting him down a little. Just because he's having a little trouble sorting out the parameters involved, doesn't mean he's not capable. In time, his honesty will help him, and maybe when he gets it all down pat, he'll be the next great thing. I personally think it's a help to have manual controls on the lens. You can look through the lens, see the aperture change when you turn the aperture ring, and learn from it.

Plus, I think you may have mis-read his post. Let's see what the OP had to say about it:

askclifford said:
I am ok with used equipment, as long as its convenient to purchase.
I think you can use a Nikon lens with a Canon as long as you have an adapter, and I am ok with stuff like that too.

Have any suggestions?
Click to expand...

I think it's clear that it is you who has misread the spirit of the OP's question. He is clearly willing to explore other suggestions. I stand by my suggestion, as it was invited by the OP, not by you. I stand by my statement that the Canon 50mm f/1.8 is a poor choice. Why can't we all express our own opinions without dismissing those of others?

I believe buying an adapter and some cheap primes from ebay is a cheap and fun way to get better value for your money. Any one who can read a forum, buy from ebay, and screw a lid on a jam jar can do it. When I was a beginner, and asked similar questions, some kind soul pointed out that many people sing the praises of vintage manual primes for video work. I took note, and did not find it difficult to do a little reading. I have since had great success with my lens collection in terms of meeting my own needs.

Bruce Foreman said:
Colors on the EF 50mm f1.8 are NOT flat, they tend to be accurate with good contrast. Mine is an early version with metal barrel and the focus ring in the "proper" place (I've had it since the early '80s when the first EOS 650 film camera came out on the market) but the current versions are the same identical lens formula and produce images with the same characteristics as mine.
Click to expand...

Not flat to YOUR eyes, and, not flat in comparison to what? Have you reviewed images side by side between the EF 50mm and a Takumar SMC 50mm f/1.4? As I said, this is what I did, and I saw a distinct difference in colour rendering, which to my eyes was more true to life, and more saturated on the Takumar. It seems I am not the only one with this opinion, for what it's worth:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=10565823&postcount=6

See the parent thread, containing many other good vintage recommendations:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=904540

Bruce Foreman said:
I've also worked with the Takumars in the 1960's when they were not so "vintage", and they were fine lenses (still are) but video tests I've seen on vimeo show some color shifts from what modern quality lenses exhibit. Several Takumars tended to have a slight golden "personality" to them, which may be due to changes in the glass, changes in the coating, or even aging of the cement holding lens elements together.
Click to expand...

I have seen no such general colour cast imparted by Takumar lenses. I own 8 of them, and use them regularly alongside a range of modern lenses.

Shall we deal with the specific issues? There are a limited number (50mm S-M-C f/1.4, 50mm Super Takumar and a couple of 35mm's) which have a elements containing thorium oxide. The thorium's decay over time causes a yellow tint to the cement (not the glass), that does colour the image, and also loses you up to a stop of light. This can be easily cleared in about 3 hours with a £7 UV bulb from eBay.

Note, I am not recommending this procedure to the OP. There are plenty of other m42 lenses, or other adaptable formats out there, and the internet is overflowing with accounts of successes with vintage primes.

Interestingly, thorium oxide similar in structure to calcium fluoride, used by many Canon L lenses in the form of flourite. They have the same properties of high refractivity and low dispersion, keeping CA to a minimum. The Takumar SMC f/1.4 50mm has practically NO CA, even wide open.

There are many Takumar lenses which do not have thorium, but which have a yellow reflection from the coating on the front element. This has no effect on colour balance whatsoever.

Yes, colour and contrast on practically all L series Canon's blow away all but a small few vintage lenses, but were not talking about that bracket here, are we?

Bruce Foreman said:
The "vintage" lenses may also exhibit more "flare" at the wider apertures than modern lenses.
Click to expand...

This is a valid generalisation, but is it really useful? It's not always true for one, and two, a lens hood can negate many cases of flare, and three, some of the flare patterns are desireable to some (anamorphic, anyone?), and are unique to lenses designed by hand rather than by computer.

Bruce Foreman said:
For awhile I had a Nikkor AI-S "vintage" 50mm f1.8 and did some demo's of using it and the Canon EF 50mm f1.8 to achieve some degree of manual control over aperture with the Canon T1i (full auto only, no manual mode whatsoever in video mode). I used the same model in the same location under identical lighting conditions. The Nikkor had more noticeable "flare" and chromatic abberation at f1.8 but stopped down to f5.6 color rendition was very similar.
Click to expand...

Great, but this doesn't really prove anything, as it's one lens of hundreds out there. I believe that by common consensus, it is not in the league of the Takumar 50mm f/1.4 S-M-C, so it has no bearing on my comments. You have experimented by comparing a manual lens and the EF 50mm, and reached your conclusions based on your own subjective values. Why can't the OP do some exploration and reach his own conclusions?

And finally, what about handling? robustness? focus action? longevity? There is more to this than the points you have covered, as mentioned by the poster I was responding to.
 
Let's get back to talking about the video lens, and not about each other.

There is no room at dvxuser for personal comments.

First and last warning. Discuss the subject matter, not each other.
 
David Saraceno said:
Let's get back to talking about the video lens, and not about each other.

There is no room at dvxuser for personal comments.

First and last warning. Discuss the subject matter, not each other.
Click to expand...

Would you mind explaining how anything said by Bruce or myself was personal?

I know there have been some childish and controversial comments in this forum in the past, but in my humble opinion, your response is a heavy handed one. If you read my history of posts or for that matter Bruce's, you would have to admit our sole motivation is to share our knowledge.

Is adult debate with the mildest humour really off limits here?
 
henryqiu said:
What kind of video do you want to see?

I don't own Canon 50 f/1.4. Comparing Canon 50 f1.8 with Canon 50 f1.2 seems to be unfair, as one is over 10x more expensive than the other. Even so, the image quality differences between the 2 lenses seem to be much less obvious in video than in still photography - even if you do find a "big" difference (excluding the obvious max aperture difference), in real world it probably does not really matter. I don't know about other people on this, but to me, to my naked eyes, I can't distinguish 50 f1.8 and 50 f1.2 based solely on video footage, except by the unique shallow depth of field from f1.2, which is very noticeable on close up shots. For stills, the imperfect (or say, less beautiful) bokeh from 50 f1.8, if exists, serves as a good hint. But in video that seems to be less obvious too. In terms of sharpness and price, 50 f1.2 can't beat 50 f1.8 at all, as Canon 50 f1.8 is one of the sharpest SLR lenses ever made (see: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/EF50mm-f-1-8-II).

If you do a Google search for "50mm f1.8 video vimeo" you'll see a ton of HD videos shot with 50 f1.8. They reveal the image quality of 50 f1.8 as a video lens, if you watch them on a big HD monitor or HD TV.

(Canon 50 f1.8 has 2 versions. Some prefer v1, but I think v2 is a bit better overall.)

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
It's good.thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top