My startup Video Lens

boo said:
I'm looking to get the:

Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 VC
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-17-50m...2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1254170651&sr=8-2

Tokina 11-16mm 2.8
http://www.amazon.com/Tokina-AT-X11...2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1254170715&sr=8-2

and somewhere later down the line one of the 70-200mm IS or nonIS? f/2.8 or f/4?

is this a good range to get started? thanks.
Click to expand...

i don't know how the IS of Tamron works, i suggest you to go for the canon 17 55 f2.8 IS (3 stops), that is a great lens, with a very good stabilization.

the ultra wide is a good lens, but consider 17 is a very good wide angle and i don't know if you really need something shorter.
 
This link will save you some money.

http://www.adorama.com/TN1116EOS.html?searchinfo=tokina

The Tokina lens is the one I'm looking to add to my collection. It gets outstanding reviews. I'm currently using a manual Nikon 55mm F2.8 micro and a manual 28mm F2.8 macro M42 lens all with EOS adapters. These cheap and solid older lenses work perfectly for video and have a great all metal, solid & smooth focusing feel. It's easy to get great prime lenses at 50mm and 28mm or to just go for a 35mm. But the biggest weakness of a cropped-sensor (7D, etc.) is on the wide end. So I think the Tokina is an absolute must have and the only APS-C lens I plan to buy right now. That way down the road if I do ever go to FF I don't have to sell all of my lenses. The only reason I'd recommend buying a lens designed to only work on APS-C sensors is because really wide and full frame is crazy expensive glass.

So my kit will be complete with the Tokina 11-16, the manual 28mm & the manual 55mm
 
I totally agree with Nathan Troutman. I'm planning on getting a Canon 7D along with a Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 (dirt cheap here in Japan), a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM and a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM. This way I'll have a great range to cover on a fast glass (2.8) all around. Later on I might get some primes but time will tell.
 
nathan, animaitor etc,
i'm interested in the 7D but like many others, confused by lens choice. i'm on a very low budget (at least for the next 6-9 months or so!) and i'm looking at getting 2 or 3 lenses to cover my needs which are video. i'm not too bothered about AF but i'm not sure if i need to be bothered by IS!
i was thinking that a canon EF 50mm f 1.8 might be a good cheap low light choice.
as you can see i'm thinking cheap. All the other lenses people mention seem very expensive, Canon zooms etc

then i saw nathan mention :

"I'm currently using a manual Nikon 55mm F2.8 micro and a manual 28mm F2.8 macro M42 lens all with EOS adapters. These cheap and solid older lenses work perfectly for video and have a great all metal, solid & smooth focusing feel. It's easy to get great prime lenses at 50mm and 28mm or to just go for a 35mm."

What lenses are you actually referring to?
i had a quick check on ebay and M42 lenses are really cheap (10-20€!!!). Are they any good? Which brands are worth getting and which are to be avoided?
Likewise the"Nikon 55mm F2.8 micro". What type of nikon is that? Can i buy any old Nikon?
Are there any brands/ranges of primes that you suggest picking up or avoiding?

the BIG question is; can i get away with spending little on lenses ( old 35mm SLR primes) and cheap lenses like the canon 50mm 1.8 and still make worthwhile videos? (not talking about talent!)
Thanks for any help you can offer me.
 
thpriest said:
nathan, animaitor etc,
i'm interested in the 7D but like many others, confused by lens choice. i'm on a very low budget (at least for the next 6-9 months or so!) and i'm looking at getting 2 or 3 lenses to cover my needs which are video. i'm not too bothered about AF but i'm not sure if i need to be bothered by IS!
i was thinking that a canon EF 50mm f 1.8 might be a good cheap low light choice.
as you can see i'm thinking cheap. All the other lenses people mention seem very expensive, Canon zooms etc

then i saw nathan mention :

"I'm currently using a manual Nikon 55mm F2.8 micro and a manual 28mm F2.8 macro M42 lens all with EOS adapters. These cheap and solid older lenses work perfectly for video and have a great all metal, solid & smooth focusing feel. It's easy to get great prime lenses at 50mm and 28mm or to just go for a 35mm."

What lenses are you actually referring to?
i had a quick check on ebay and M42 lenses are really cheap (10-20€!!!). Are they any good? Which brands are worth getting and which are to be avoided?
Likewise the"Nikon 55mm F2.8 micro". What type of nikon is that? Can i buy any old Nikon?
Are there any brands/ranges of primes that you suggest picking up or avoiding?

the BIG question is; can i get away with spending little on lenses ( old 35mm SLR primes) and cheap lenses like the canon 50mm 1.8 and still make worthwhile videos? (not talking about talent!)
Thanks for any help you can offer me.
Click to expand...

OK, let me try and help. First I don't have the 7D but I'm using a T1i which also shoots video and has the same APS-C sized sensor as the 7D. A lot of people will have their own opinions about this. Not considering stills where an auto lens actually matters - for video older manual lenses are great. You're not going to be using AF with video no matter what lens you put on. The only thing you give up is Image Stabilization. IS is very useful but it isn't an absolute necessity depending on what you're trying to shoot and learning to be more steady (shoot on a tripod, put the camera on a shoulder support, use the strap around your neck and pull the camera in front of you to provide tension and more stability, etc.)

However, despite all the recomendations if price is the biggest issue manual lenses are some of the cheapest and best lenses you can buy and almost dictate that you go this route. Naturally you think older must be crappier but this isn't usually the case. First, you're buying primes not zooms. Second, older lenses have an incredible feel that only the best newer zooms and primes can replicate. My Nikon 55mm feels as solid and focuses as smoothly as a Canon L and optically it is nearly perfect with razor sharpness. I paid $100 (which was a silly deal). A Canon F2.8 zoom is $1000 and up. The only $100 buys you in AF are compromised plastic crap zooms. F3.5 at the widest and a tiny little focus ring that feels like you'll break it if you use it. So, the long and short is in no way are you sacrificing your image if you go older manual. In fact your usually sacrificing your image to buy newer and cheap. The exception being the AF 50mm F1.8 you mentioned but more on that below.

Now onto the choices. Nikon AI or AIS lenses are a big favorite of mine (watch out for Nikon F mount or AI'd lenses. These lenses are REALLY old. Some are just fine but researching which are still good is harder because of the age. The Nikon AI and AIS versions are easier to research and find what's good).

For Nikon: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html

For Canon: http://www.photozone.de/active/surv...' or brand='Tokina AF' or brand='Vivitar AF'"

Nikon has an excellent history of quality manual lenses and many are optically as good or better than even the best Nikon or Canon zooms. The 55mm Nikon I have is crazy sharp even wide open at F2.8. Anytime Nikon says Micro that really means the lens is a Macro. Nikon's micro (macro) lenses tend to be razor sharp and can focus nearly right up to the lens, a necessity for macro work. But the price has gone up over the years with Nikon AI and AIS lenses as we video guys have been snatching them up for our 35mm film adapters. I turned to M42 lenses as the bargain basement choice. Both Nikon and M42 screwmount lenses can be adapted to Canon EOS with a ten dollar adapter. These adapters work great and are cheap.

http://shop.ebay.com/kawaphoto/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_from=&_ipg=

Unfortunately about a million different companies made M42 lenses. Most of which no longer exist. It's a little more of a guessing game. The 28mm I bought I knew nothing about except that it was F2.8 and the lens was made in Japan (usually a good sign of quality). But because we're using APS-C sensors we're not using the entire image circle of a FF lens. If a lens gets soft it's usually in the corners so lenses designed for full frame film tend to do well on APS-C cameras because they're weaknesses are more hidden. The Pentax Takumars lenses are highly regarded for M42 but they command a higher price. Many of the other brands I'm sure do well too again especially considering you're not going to be using these Full Frame lenses full frame. What you always get with older lenses is metal construction, real focus rings & a very solid feel. The feel is the big thing for me. It's just world's better with an all metal lens than plastic zooms and their gritty focus rings - especially in video mode where you're doing ALL the focusing.

Finally the Canon 50mm 1.8 you mentioned is very well regarded. Optically it's great and the price is very cheap. And so is the construction. It's all plastic and the focus ring certainly doesn't have that smooth buttery feel. But flip over to shooting stills and you'll nail focus on still shots a lot more with the Canon 50mm than any manual lens.

My 2 lenses cost me $150 including the 2 adapters I had to buy to adapt the Nikon and M42 lenses so I could use them on my T1i You're not going to buy anything that's as solidly built and feels as smooth to focus for $150 that is newer and AF period. Where you need a newer lens is on your wide end and that's why I think the Tokina 11-16 is perfect. The APS-C sensor makes getting a wide shot more difficult because 28mm is not really all that wide. Buying a manual 20mm lens that's fast (F2.8) is not cheap for FF. So buying a newer lenses designed specifically for APS-C is worth it on the wide end. Below 28mm and the lenses get real expensive manual, AF, old or new.
 
nathan,
thanks for your detailed reply. it's exactly what i needed to know!
i've been looking at the GH1 and the 7D for video work and my on of my fears with the 7D was the cost of lenses. everyone seemed to be going on about expensive 400-1000€ lenses. scary for me! if the 7D can offer a better image and low light performance than the GH1 and use cheap(er) lenses then i'll probably go for the 7D.
thanks again for your opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top