Need help picking lens for 7D.
- Thread starter rundavids
- Start date
ydgmdlu
Veteran
I'd recommend old manual Nikon lenses. The non-AI ones are the best deals. The most common focal lengths can be found for less than $100. You'll want a set of the following: 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and 100mm (or 105mm).
Don't worry too much about sharpness; Barry's latest test shows that a softer lens is actually better for video on DSLRs because it reduces aliasing. And don't worry too much about the speed; the vast majority of movies are shot between f/2.8 and f/5.6 (and a cinematographer usually chooses one f-stop for a whole scene or even an entire project). But do be aware of the coatings, which aren't fancy, since the lenses are several decades old. So you'll want to use a mattebox or lens shade and filters to control flaring.
If you think that one zoom lens will take care of most of your needs, then go with a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8.
Don't worry too much about sharpness; Barry's latest test shows that a softer lens is actually better for video on DSLRs because it reduces aliasing. And don't worry too much about the speed; the vast majority of movies are shot between f/2.8 and f/5.6 (and a cinematographer usually chooses one f-stop for a whole scene or even an entire project). But do be aware of the coatings, which aren't fancy, since the lenses are several decades old. So you'll want to use a mattebox or lens shade and filters to control flaring.
If you think that one zoom lens will take care of most of your needs, then go with a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8.
alpi69
Veteran
Whoa. Don´t worry about speed and sharpness? Why do you shoot with the 7D then? If you want soft pcitures get a DVX100 and blow it up to 1080.
A sharp 1.4 lens will create far superior images even when stopped down to f4. Look around the web and watch 7D films. All really good films are filmed with at least 2.8 and mostly faster glass.
A lens I can recommend is the Samyang 85mm/1.4. Manual and cheap even new (Euro 200) and great sharpness and bokeh.
Watch it here:
http://staging.vimeo.com/6882279
then the 17-50/2.8 from Tamron is a good advice.
breadmansshoes
New member
I have the 7d with a 10-22mm, 17-85mm, 100-400mm (already had these lenses for my 30d) and I have just got a fixed 50mm 1.4. The 50mm is a fantastic lens for the price (approx. £240 UK) with great low light capabilities. So if I was looking for my first lens for the 7d to shoot movies I would go with the 50mm.
breadmansshoes
New member
Not expensive compared to the L series lenses from Canon. I think the 50mm 1.4 is great value for what you are getting especially when you compare it to the 50mm 1.2. I only have the lenses I listed in my post so can only comment on them and I would go for the 50mm if I was choosing my first lens to shoot a film.
Get something as wide as possible if you want to shoot handheld. Look at Primes, they give you good glass quality for less money.
in order of PRICE (since this is the only variable you gave us) these are the ones I have my eyes on. (I own 3 of them)
the $99 50mm 1.8
the $300 35mm 2
the $350 85mm 1.8
the $400 50mm 1.4
the $500 28mm 1.8
in order of PRICE (since this is the only variable you gave us) these are the ones I have my eyes on. (I own 3 of them)
the $99 50mm 1.8
the $300 35mm 2
the $350 85mm 1.8
the $400 50mm 1.4
the $500 28mm 1.8
ydgmdlu
Veteran
Did you not read Barry's post, which I linked in my post? Do you not understand why people are slightly de-focusing their lenses and buying the rather expensive Caprock filter, which reduces sharpness?
Also, will the DVX100 give you shallow, cinema-style DOF and interchangeable lenses?
Professional 35mm productions rarely shoot with apertures wider than f/2.8. Just flip through any trade publication, such as American Cinematographer. What do you mean by "all really good films"?
Last edited:
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Another vote for older Nikon primes:
Alan Certeza
Active member
I was thinking about switching over to Nikon lens but until the money flows I love shooting with my Canon EF 50mm 1.8 picked it up for $60.
alpi69
Veteran
I meant all good 7D-films on vimeo. Vincent Laforet uses the best glass out there (Canon 1.2 and 1.4), others use 1.4 lenses. It doesn´t matter if it is a Canon L or a Nikon non-AF prime....they need to be fast or the image will be soft to me.
ydgmdlu
Veteran
You know, the camera actually only resolves less than 700 lines. So technically speaking, it's far less sharp than an EX1 or HMC40. Any additional sharpness is actually illusory, just perceived sharpness due to aliasing. If you want to increase perceived sharpness, just apply sharpening in post.
So please tell me, if the camera in video mode resolves less than 700 lines, then why feed it way, way more information than it needs? As Barry said, it's just wasted on aliasing.
Barry_Green said:
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
In general I have always clung to the notion that the best glass is always, always the best way to go. Always.
But that last test surprised me. With so much of the "perceived sharpness" of the DSLR image being false detail, that kind of stands conventional logic on its head.
I'm not necessarily advocating that someone purposely use softer lenses in general, but I am saying that if someone's budget-stretched, why on earth should they spend $500 on one lens, when they could get a whole set of "slightly softer" lenses for that money, and the DSLR can't really take advantage of that additional sharpness anyway.
Again, for further clarification -- if you're using the camera for stills, get the best lenses you possibly can. As still cameras, these SLRs can take advantage of the better glass to produce better images. But if you're talking strictly for video acquisition, any decent modern SLR lens is going to have way more resolving power than the SLR's video mode has, and that extra sharpness of the better lens is not going to give you more actual resolved detail, it's just going to make the aliasing false detail stand out more. Which may be an effect you like, that's up to you. But you'd probably encounter less troublesome shots with the slightly softer lens, because that aliased detail would be defocused.
But that last test surprised me. With so much of the "perceived sharpness" of the DSLR image being false detail, that kind of stands conventional logic on its head.
I'm not necessarily advocating that someone purposely use softer lenses in general, but I am saying that if someone's budget-stretched, why on earth should they spend $500 on one lens, when they could get a whole set of "slightly softer" lenses for that money, and the DSLR can't really take advantage of that additional sharpness anyway.
Again, for further clarification -- if you're using the camera for stills, get the best lenses you possibly can. As still cameras, these SLRs can take advantage of the better glass to produce better images. But if you're talking strictly for video acquisition, any decent modern SLR lens is going to have way more resolving power than the SLR's video mode has, and that extra sharpness of the better lens is not going to give you more actual resolved detail, it's just going to make the aliasing false detail stand out more. Which may be an effect you like, that's up to you. But you'd probably encounter less troublesome shots with the slightly softer lens, because that aliased detail would be defocused.
stoiqa
Well-known member
50mm 1.4 gets my vote as well. Also if you shoot manual , watch out your ISO and +3...-3exposure (see my test here http://www.vimeo.com/7730047)
If you are only going to get one lens don't get a 50mm with a 7D. Instead get a distortion-free 28mm with close focus if there are any for decent prices. There is that 30mm Sigma ($390 from Abe's) if it does in fact focus as well as people say it does.
A 21mm and a 35mm might be the best bet if you can get two.
A 21mm and a 35mm might be the best bet if you can get two.