Lenses

Y

yellowcake

Active member
Im about to purchase a 7d. I have never owned any prime lenses before, and im looking at starting off small. I only have a budget for one lens right now. Im looking at either a 24mm, 50mm, 85mm. The f/ is at most 2, and thats on the 85. i think its like 1.2 or 1.8 on the 24 and 50. So the question is out of these lenes which one is a must have?
 
Go for the Sigma 30mm F1.4 lens. I own this and just it on my 7D for almost everything. It has a FoV that to me is most pleasing, considered similar to the FoV of the human eye (based on the sensor size of the 7D).

I use it more than my 50mm as well.

I've been waiting for the 85mm Sigma F1.4, but they haven't released it yet. So, instead, I am using the Bower 85mm F1.4 and it isn't bad.
 
It's a funny thing...

I avoid this focal length intentionally. To me, the purpose of cinema is to remove us from our common perspectives. Thus I try to use lenses that intentionally do NOT mimic the view of the human eye. I want that illusion that things are somehow "not real". If I was making documentaries, then yes, I'd want the movie to have the perception that people were watching things as they might actually unfold in front of them, but for narrative films, it's the last thing I want.
 
PerroneFord said:
It's a funny thing...

I avoid this focal length intentionally. To me, the purpose of cinema is to remove us from our common perspectives. Thus I try to use lenses that intentionally do NOT mimic the view of the human eye. I want that illusion that things are somehow "not real". If I was making documentaries, then yes, I'd want the movie to have the perception that people were watching things as they might actually unfold in front of them, but for narrative films, it's the last thing I want.
Click to expand...

All things being subjective of course, what I did is watch a lot of movies and pay attention to a lot of the dialog scenes. I took that information and started working with my lenses to see what came out in that ballpark and I found the 30mm on the 7D did the best. We certainly do A LOT of shots that are not realistic as well, but it tends to be what the mood is doing for. For instance, a private conversation being listened too, we generally do > 150mm from a distance. A really intimate dialog, 50mm or 85mm and completely blow out the background DoF wise.

But then again, we do A LOT of action scenes as well. 30mm does great for these. Anytime you start moving below 30mm on the 7D you start to get perspective distortion, and if you are moving the camera around a bit, or have some close action, it can really be distracting, to me. Going above 30mm and for certain tight scenes, we end up loosing flexibility in the space we are working. That's why it seemed to be a great fit for generally everything.

But like I said, it's all subjective. I'll be honest, will this focal length is closest to the human eye, I still think it looks NOTHING like what I see :)
 
I own a 50mm prime with the 7D, and I have to admit that if it's your ONLY prime lens, it's not too great. With the 7D it's a zoom lens, at about 80mm, which is not convenient. Not only is it too close much of the time, but also it's very difficult to hand hold it, with jello a lot of the time. Wider lenses are easier to hand hold. Manual focus is less finicky, as well.

In addition to the Sigma, there is the Canon 28mm f1.8, at about the same price. It's one stop slower, but Canon has much better quality control than Sigma, where there is always a danger of getting a bad copy (see - "google") Also, you can search for a 35mm f1.4 Nikon lens, any manual iris lens including non-AI f-mount will work great with an adapter like the Fotodiox eos-Nikon adapter. An older, non-AI lens may not be multicoated, thus flares will be more of a problem. But those old Nikon lenses are fun, have great optics and really hold their value.

Also, the older manual focus lenses tend to have a longer focus throw, making them easier to get and stay in focus, plus they work better with focus assists.

If you have a kit lens, keep it! It might save you from time to time, and it's better for recreational photography.
 
building a pack of 35mm, 50mm and 90mm vintage leitz elmarit-R f/2.8 lenses, plus the leica-R to EOS adapters, should cost you less than $1K, which is in your ballpark if I understand correctly that you're considering the 50mm 1.2 as an option

it's top-quality glass, just make sure your lenses are in good condition (not always the case on ebay, better look at places like leicashop); you get many bases covered, with the plus of the old-style long-throw focus ring; the only drawback is that f/2.8 is just about fast enough (but don't get carried over by the DoF craze either: f/1.2 means a big pain in the ass when pulling focus)

I went that route, and I'm absolutely happy with my lenses
 
I'm gonna get a canon 35mm f/2 when my 60d comes at christmas :) I read somewhere that, because of the crop sensor the lens are enlarged in the final product. 35mm becomes 50mm or something like that. I'm just talking shite really. I saw some footage of the 35mm and it was gorgeous though :) I've got a load of old pentax lenses that i've just ordered an adapter for too. So I'll be able to use em on my 60d! :D
 
thanks for the comments. im looking at the Canon EF 50MM f/1.8. ill be getting more soon. Just have to sell my hvx200a first. so if anyone knows someone looking for a hvx i got one for sale.
 
PerroneFord said:
It's a funny thing...

I avoid this focal length intentionally. To me, the purpose of cinema is to remove us from our common perspectives. Thus I try to use lenses that intentionally do NOT mimic the view of the human eye. I want that illusion that things are somehow "not real". If I was making documentaries, then yes, I'd want the movie to have the perception that people were watching things as they might actually unfold in front of them, but for narrative films, it's the last thing I want.
Click to expand...

It's about style and how it fits within the context of your story. If you decide that the documentary look fits with your story, then that is an artistic choice. I always think about looks and choices of lenses for each film, because they are all different.
 
I have pretty much all the focal lengths in primes and several zooms. I tend to use the 50mm a LOT more than the 30mm. I guess it depends on your style of shooting. I tend to shoot more close ups than wides. I've been using the 100mm L Macro for lots of shots and that lens is awesome.

The 30mm, I use primarily more for wider, establishing type shots, then switch to the longer focal lengths for the more intimate shots.

I would say have a zoom that does 30mm and the Canon 50mm f1.4 (or the 50mm f1.8 if you're on a budget) is a good balance if you only have 2 lenses. The fast 1.4f is really nice verses the slower zoom f-stop ranges.
 
SuperEgo Saxton said:
I'm gonna get a canon 35mm f/2 when my 60d comes at christmas :) I read somewhere that, because of the crop sensor the lens are enlarged in the final product. 35mm becomes 50mm or something like that. I'm just talking s**te really. I saw some footage of the 35mm and it was gorgeous though :) I've got a load of old pentax lenses that i've just ordered an adapter for too. So I'll be able to use em on my 60d! :D
Click to expand...


http://vimeo.com/14832168
 
Here are some still smaples with Leica glass compared to Canon L series lenses (not a scientific test really). These tests are done with stills on a 5Dii. All images have the vintage Leica glass on the left.

Here is a 100% crop from the Elmarit R 135 vs the Canon 135 F2L
2b99168a.jpg

Here is 100% crop from the Elmarit R 90 vs the Canon 25-105 F4L IS at 86mm
0c397abd.jpg



OK, here is a comparo between the Elmarit R 28 (with Leica Polarizer) and the Canon 24-105 F4L IS @28mm. I have the Elmarit at higher ISO to compensate for the polarizer (vs the 24-105). Both shots at F8 @1/60th It would be easier to compare if the exposure matched better I suppose. Test Images were taken with a 5Dii and crops are taken with the snipping tool as I viewed them in lightroom. Anyway, they seemed pretty darn close to each other in sharpness as far as I can tell.
Full Shots:
2jpg.jpg

1:1 Crop:
1jpg.jpg

Elmarit R:
IMG_3067.jpg

24-105 F4L IS:
IMG_3068.jpg
 
ROCKMORE said:
Great lens. Sharp light weight and cheap. I use it all the time on paying projects. Cheap construction but delivers the image.
Click to expand...

Although I would be VERY careful of over exposed areas wide open with the Canon 50mm F.18, as you get some bad chromatic abboration. We switched to the Sigma 50mm F1.4 because it handled blown out areas MUCH better in this regard.
 
grimepoch said:
Although I would be VERY careful of over exposed areas wide open with the Canon 50mm F.18, as you get some bad chromatic abboration. We switched to the Sigma 50mm F1.4 because it handled blown out areas MUCH better in this regard.
Click to expand...


I have really only used it in low light situations where the light source is soft and even. But you are right. Yesterday I was shooting in a hotel ball room. It was quite dark but there were vertical light panels on the back walls. When my subject was in front of one the CA around them was very pronounces.
There are much better 50mm lenses for sure. I only recommend it because for a lot of budget driven shooters here that can get good results most of the time for under a hundred bucks. The Sigma 50mm 1.4 is $499, and the Canon 50mm 1.4. Is $339 it that much better?
Be great to see some side by side tests with the Canon 50mm 1.8 Canon 50mm 1.4 and the Sigma 50mm 1.4 if you've seen any post out there.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately we had a tight schedule on the last shoot and I ended up in the hospital for a week with cellulitus (staph infection in the leg, under the skin) that kept me from my gear. We were shooting with the Canon 50mm F1.8 and we were getting some REALLY strong CA on some areas where we were okay with it blowing out some. Unfortunately, it was a scene with a pretty wide dynamic range and we wanted the areas blowing out to blow out due to how dust was also glinting through the light (was a cool shot). After we looked at the footage, we felt the CA was just really bad compared to any of our other lenses. So, I contacted Sigma about borrowing a 50mm F1.4 (and 85mm F1.4 but it was not available yet) and we tried it out on the next shots. The difference was pretty extreme on CA. Given I am a huge fan of the 30mm F1.4, I felt the 50mm was a much closer matched lens. It's really well built.

Granted, if you are on a super budget, you cannot beat the 50mm Canon and Nikon's that are cheap, but for me, it was more than i could live with.
 
IMO 35mm lens is good ,my favourite focal lenght on APS-C sensor.50mm is too zoomed in and too shaky if not stabilized properly.28mm looks weird on close ups with long nose and tiny ears.
 
Another vote for the Sigma 30 1.4 and also must mention Canon 28 1.8. There's another thread going on with the same discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top