IS or Prime lenses?

W

Wendt

Active member
I am planning on getting the 7D while I am waiting for Canon to come out with the real camera. However, I am still planning on keeping my Canon A-1. I have done corporate style work up till this point, but I now want to branch out into some projects that have more of a "filmic" look and feel. I know that there are many things that help make something look "filmic", but I am concerned with making the right lens investment. I have done some research but I still have some questions:

If I use a tripod, Jib, dolly, or flyer for 80% of the shots do I still need to be concerned about getting lenses with image stabilization (IS)? In other words which is more important--IS or faster primes? I have made two lists for either point of view. Let me know what you think? Is it overkill or not enough?

I was also wondering if someone could explain in general terms when and why they would use each lens that is listed in a specific situation or list some other lens that they would rather use that I do not have listed.

Tokina 11-16 2.8 $699
Canon 24 1.4L $1699
Sigma 50 1.4 $499
Canon 85 1.8 $409
Canon 135 2L $1037

I am also considering this lens to replace the 24L or just add it to the list if it is needed:

Sigma 30 1.4 $499

Specialty lens:

Canon 100 2.8L IS Macro $1035 or $575 for non IS

If image stabilization is important I am thinking about these instead:

Tokina 11-16 2.8 $699 NO IS
Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC $649
Canon 70-200 2.8L IS $1799

I also have a question about the VC lens. Do the VC lenses work while taking video or just stills?


Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Wendt said:
I am planning on getting the 7D while I am waiting for Canon to come out with the real camera. However, I am still planning on keeping my Canon A-1. I have done corporate style work up till this point, but I now want to branch out into some projects that have more of a "filmic" look and feel. I know that there are many things that help make something look "filmic", but I am concerned with making the right lens investment. I have done some research but I still have some questions:

If I use a tripod, Jib, dolly, or flyer for 80% of the shots do I still need to be concerned about getting lenses with image stabilization (IS)? In other words which is more important--IS or faster primes? I have made two lists for either point of view. Let me know what you think? Is it overkill or not enough?

I was also wondering if someone could explain in general terms when and why they would use each lens that is listed in a specific situation or list some other lens that they would rather use that I do not have listed.

Tokina 11-16 2.8 $699
Canon 24 1.4L $1699
Sigma 50 1.4 $499
Canon 85 1.8 $409
Canon 135 2L $1037

I am also considering this lens to replace the 24L or just add it to the list if it is needed:

Sigma 30 1.4 $499

Specialty lens:

Canon 100 2.8L IS Macro $1035 or $575 for non IS

If image stabilization is important I am thinking about these instead:

Tokina 11-16 2.8 $699 NO IS
Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC $649
Canon 70-200 2.8L IS $1799

I also have a question about the VC lens. Do the VC lenses work while taking video or just stills?


Thank you.
Click to expand...
I would definetly say fast primes are more useful than image stabilization unless you're always shooting in a studio or outside and never want to shoot wider than a 4 or 5.6. Shooting at a 5.6 you'll probably need about as much light as a bare lens HVX200. That's a lot of light compared to what these DSLRs are capable of.

Also, if you get the old manual focus primes it will make your focus puller much more happy since they usually have a longer barrel throw.
 
I shoot handheld a lot with my Canon EF-S 15-85mm and the built-in IS definitely comes in handy. I also own a Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 that I use as a special purpose lens when I need it, but if I try and handhold the camera with the 50mm it is noticebly more shaky when compared to the 15-85mm. A wider prime lens would help like the 24mm f/1.4, but it is not going to be as smooth handheld without the IS. I also didn't feel like spending the major cash on the 24mm f/1.4. So I just use my tripod and back off a bit when I have the 50mm on. If you know that you are going to be shooting from a tripod most of the time, then you can really save yourself some major cash on non-IS lenses, like the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 which is more than $500 cheaper than it's IS counterpart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top